New cycling infrastructure planned around Leopardstown

OssianSmyth

Dun Laoghaire county council has planned a redesign of traffic routes in the area between the Sandyford industrial estate and the South County Business Park.

The planned cycle routes are mapped here:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8471,en.pdf


The major roundabout beneath the Luas bridge will become a signalised crossroads.
The new junction is here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/files/Leopardstown_Link_Road/Drawing_2_12.pdf

There is to be a new road running to the South of and parallel with Leopardstown Road West, cutting across the entrance to the racecourse. This will lead to a new M50 bridge arriving at Murphystown Road.

Cycle lanes are planned along the route, including the bridge. I have found the roundabout hazardous in the past so a crossroads may be an improvement. Also I am glad to see a new M50 cycle crossing.

The first bad things I notice are that they are planning to design the lanes so that they yield priority to minor side roads. (See attached photomontage of lane passing the small Marketing Institute of Ireland lot) Also note that the lanes are covered in red surface treatment except where it conflicts with the cross roads, whereas the opposite approach would work better.

It's €50 to make a submission
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8499,en.html

So if anyone has something to say perhaps we could make a joint submission.

smacl

Looking at the linked plan, it seems like the junction designed to replace the roundabout requires cyclists to wait for two sets of lights to make a right turn!!! Tell me I'm missing something obvious, please.

Doctor Bob

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The first bad things I notice are that they are planning to design the lanes so that they yield priority to minor side roads. (See attached photomontage of lane passing the small Marketing Institute of Ireland lot) Also note that the lanes are covered in red surface treatment except where it conflicts with the cross roads, whereas the opposite approach would work better.

I suspect that's just bad graphics rather than a design feature. It might be the case that off-road tracks become on-road lanes as they pass the side roads/driveways.

Your second point is spot on- the new approach to red surfacing is to use it at likely conflict points only, and not to use it along straight links with no junctions/conflicts.

smacl wrote: »

Looking at the linked plan, it seems like the junction designed to replace the roundabout requires cyclists to wait for two sets of lights to make a right turn!!! Tell me I'm missing something obvious, please.

Worst case scenario would be two sets of red. If your approach has a green, then it's only one red.

Where box turns are incorporated into junctions, the design principle requires that the lights sequence is as short as possible, to minimise the delay you've highlighted. Whether that's achieved here remains to be seen. For all it's greenwashing, Sandyford is still a car dominated environment, quite inimical to cycling, and I don't see that underlying philosophy changing overnight.

Of course, by the time this is built (if it ever is) the 'mandatory use' provision will be no more, so all the vehicular cycling heroes will be free to take as many chances as they like by crossing two/three lanes of fast moving traffic in order to turn right. The middle of the road commuters like me will probably stick with the lanes and just be glad that it's no longer one of the most difficult roundabouts in the Dublin area for cycling.

(Bear in mind that the box turns allow cyclists to make turns that are precluded for cars in this design. If you look closely, neither the east nor the west approach allows right turning for general traffic.)

OssianSmyth

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I suspect that's just bad graphics rather than a design feature. It might be the case that off-road tracks become on-road lanes as they pass the side roads/driveways.

This seems to be the recommended approach in the national cycle manual, sadly.

The budget for this project (nearly 6m) was approved by the council for the 2012-2015 capital envelope.
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,7786,en.pdf

I wonder if that Dutch floating bike roundabout would work here (probably not without lowering the road, given the Luas bridge).

Cookie_Monster

smacl wrote: »

Looking at the linked plan, it seems like the junction designed to replace the roundabout requires cyclists to wait for two sets of lights to make a right turn!!! Tell me I'm missing something obvious, please.

what a mess, why would anyone every use those cycle lanes rather than simply sticking to a normal road lane?

Doctor Bob

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what a mess, why would anyone every use those cycle lanes rather than simply sticking to a normal road lane?

Because they might want to turn right. I covered this already:

Doctor Bob wrote: »

(Bear in mind that the box turns allow cyclists to make turns that are precluded for cars in this design. If you look closely, neither the east nor the west approach allows right turning for general traffic.)

Or is your aversion to cycle infrastructure such that you would forgo your desire line on point of principle?

***

OssianSmyth wrote: »

This seems to be the recommended approach in the national cycle manual, sadly.

I'd be curious to know more about your reservations. The same detail is present in a few locations on the recent Braemor Road scheme and looked to work quite well in that layout. Is it the frequency of driveways on this route and the possible 'rollercoaster' quality of the track/lane that's the cause of concern?

smacl

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Of course, by the time this is built (if it ever is) the 'mandatory use' provision will be no more, so all the vehicular cycling heroes will be free to take as many chances as they like by crossing two/three lanes of fast moving traffic in order to turn right.

Probably not a good thing, as confusion will be added by different cyclists doing different things at the junction to end up at the same destination. I'd doubt many motorists would be aware of the non-mandatory nature of the cycling provision at the junction, which would make it considerably more dangerous to those choosing not to use it.

The middle of the road commuters like me will probably stick with the lanes and just be glad that it's no longer one of the most difficult roundabouts in the Dublin area for cycling.

Given the above, I'd do the same myself unless traffic was very light; an added minute for a safe route being a better option than an unnecessary risk. That said, I'd probably find an alternative route to avoid the faffing about with this type of junction in the first place, even if it added to my journey. It raises the question that if cycling infrastructure is designed in such a way as to impede the cyclist, is it going to be avoided by many cyclists?

Cookie_Monster

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Because they might want to turn right. I covered this already:

so use the road lane and only have to deal with one set of lights rather than two. It's yet another example of infrastructure purposely designed to inconvenience cyclists

Or is your aversion to cycle infrastructure such that you would forgo your desire line on point of principle?

my desire line?

OssianSmyth

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'd be curious to know more about your reservations. The same detail is present in a few locations on the recent Braemor Road scheme and looked to work quite well in that layout. Is it the frequency of driveways on this route and the possible 'rollercoaster' quality of the track/lane that's the cause of concern?

Safety at junctions is far more of a concern than the rollercoaster ride comfort issue.

The design should warn pedestrians, cyclists and drivers of the appropriate behaviour to avoid a collision. If the design invites both cars and bikes to assume that the other traffic should yield to them, then collisions will occur. The junction road colour and the drop in height of cycle track from +50mm to road level at the junction both indicate that the car has priority - while the opposite is the case. Pedestrians and cyclists need visual cues that they are crossing a junction, and drivers need cues that they should yield.

I would suggest that the footpath and cycle track are maintained at a continuous level while crossing a side street. I would suggest that the surface treatment and colour at the intersection of footpath, cycle track and side road are set to contrast with the both the asphalt road surface and the footpath and cycle track regular surfaces.

I suggest that the driver at the side road sees a yield sign and an on-road yield symbol and a change in level and road colour and pattern indicating a crossing of pedestrians and cyclists that has priority.

Doctor Bob

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so use the road lane and only have to deal with one set of lights rather than two. It's yet another example of infrastructure purposely designed to inconvenience cyclists

You would appear to be missing the point, made previously, that turning right from the general traffic lane is not permitted in this junction if you're approaching from either the east or the west. Care to revise your position? Or are you advocating making illegal right turns now?

This junction allows cyclists to turn right legally while precluding cars from doing it. How is that 'another example of infrastructure purposely designed to inconvenience cyclists'?

monument

Last night I had a detailed look at the Leopardstown Link Road drawing: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/statusofmajorroadschemes/leopardstownlinkroad/

From the drawings, the good news is that it looks like the photomontage is misleading and the cycle tracks and lanes keep the right of way at junctions. But as pointed out by Ossian, it's not clear if they stay at the segragated level and if not why not.

The bad news is there's a long list of flaws and bad practices - from minor to large and everything inbetween.

For example: Unneeded shared use near and at crossing is a big one, another is segregated lanes ending/starting far further from junctions than they should, and the use of dashed lines where they should be solid in those locations, and other things like no cycling treatment but increased lanes entering housing estates and business parks. It's also questionable why there's a lack of box turns at some of tge newly created junctions. Even the safety audit included in the files shows that the box turns are confusing and do not match what is shown in the national cycle manual. 

The extra crossing over the M50 is for all traffic and part of it only has a cycle track in one direction - if there's no room left now, there won't be room in the future given the banked nature of the approach to the new bridge. 

With this project (the Leopardstown Link Road) and the Burton Hall Road Extension project, the overall aim is to increase car capacity, cyclists benefit but are very secondly and the details of drawings show this. My main point is that It's disappointing that there's so much wrong cycling wise, I had expected better from DLR.

There should have been a really high qualty, dedicated, near uninterrupted route built with the Luas line between the Sandyford and over the M50?-- after not getting any route at all along the tramway, these new proposals are a bit of a smack in the face to cycling provisions in the area.

awec

I like the sound of this. Anyone who cycles in that area at rush hour knows that that leopardstown roundabout under the Luas bridge is an absolute nightmare, even if you are in a car.

I work in the area, so this is very welcome. If the routes in the OP are correct then my commute has just got a lot easier!

What does confuse me though, the plan for the new junction has 4 exits but the current roundabout has 5. What's happening to the business park exit?

monument

There's a network of new roads and junctions.

buffalo

OssianSmyth wrote: »

It's €50 to make a submission
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8499,en.html

Is that normal? €50 seems steep to submit a point of note. What's it cover? The costs of reading your submission?

monument

buffalo wrote: »

Is that normal? €50 seems steep to submit a point of note. What's it cover? The costs of reading your submission?

It is for a project with An Bord Pleanala.

Bunnyhopper

Doctor Bob wrote: »

You would appear to be missing the point, made previously, that turning right from the general traffic lane is not permitted in this junction if you're approaching from either the east or the west. Care to revise your position? Or are you advocating making illegal right turns now?

This junction allows cyclists to turn right legally while precluding cars from doing it. How is that 'another example of infrastructure purposely designed to inconvenience cyclists'?

I get the point that the current design doesn't permit those right turns from the general traffic lane and that bikes can turn right if they follow the red paint. What if they just left the red paint out and put up signs reading "No right turn except cycles"?

That way no one would have to make (or advocate) illegal turns, but the inconvenience of being forced to make a box turn would be eliminated while there'd be nothing to stop cyclists making box turns if they prefer.

rp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what a mess, why would anyone every use those cycle lanes rather than simply sticking to a normal road lane?

Should make it easier to get up the inside of left-turning trucks, tho.

smacl

rp wrote: »

Should make it easier to get up the inside of left-turning trucks, tho.

At a guess, they'll throw in extra bicycle only traffic lights that are red for bikes when other traffic is given the chance to turn left, as they've recently done on the Grange road outside Marlay park and Churchtown road, providing yet another disincentive for many cyclists to use these cycle lanes.

The design goal seems to be that bikes should never share a lane with other traffic, in that they either have their own full time exclusive space (the bike lane), and that shared space at a junction is exclusive to one form of transport at any given time. Free flow for cyclists doesn't appear to be a primary design objective, probably as much due to budgetary constraints as anything else.

monument

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I get the point that the current design doesn't permit those right turns from the general traffic lane and that bikes can turn right if they follow the red paint. What if they just left the red paint out and put up signs reading "No right turn except cycles"?

That way no one would have to make (or advocate) illegal turns, but the inconvenience of being forced to make a box turn would be eliminated while there'd be nothing to stop cyclists making box turns if they prefer.

What's the major inconvenience of making a box turn?

In the cases where cyclists are the only ones allowed to make the turn via box turns, you think it's a good idea to have cyclists crossing four lanes of traffic mostly going straight on east-west?

There's a ton of flaws with the project including a lot of stuff which does not comply with the National Cycle Manual, but I really can't see the problem with box turns and more so where cyclists are the only ones allowed to make the turn.

Cookie_Monster

Doctor Bob wrote: »

You would appear to be missing the point, made previously, that turning right from the general traffic lane is not permitted in this junction if you're approaching from either the east or the west. Care to revise your position? Or are you advocating making illegal right turns now?

This junction allows cyclists to turn right legally while precluding cars from doing it. How is that 'another example of infrastructure purposely designed to inconvenience cyclists'?

what about the north south axis then? i'll concede that it's possibly better on the east west axis, but you don't need a lane to make that manoeuvre anyway.

And how is that supposed to work for traffic in general travelling from the estate turning right up to the m50 was a heavily used route, and it's just being removed. genius

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what about the north south axis then? i'll concede that it's possibly better on the east west axis, but you don't need a lane to make that manoeuvre anyway.

A lot of people would be happy having a box turn rather than crossing 4-6 lanes -- I know I would. For anybody else who wants to, what's stopping them from crossing the lanes just as motor traffic will?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And how is that supposed to work for traffic in general travelling from the estate turning right up to the m50 was a heavily used route, and it's just being removed. genius

Yeah, removing that traffic and putting it onto another junction was a good idea alright!

Bunnyhopper

monument wrote: »

What's the major inconvenience of making a box turn?

In the cases where cyclists are the only ones allowed to make the turn via box turns, you think it's a good idea to have cyclists crossing four lanes of traffic mostly going straight on east-west?

There's a ton of flaws with the project including a lot of stuff which does not comply with the National Cycle Manual, but I really can't see the problem with box turns and more so where cyclists are the only ones allowed to make the turn.

I wouldn't (and didn't) say major inconvenience, but it is not what I'd consider the most direct or convenient route for a junction of that sort. I crossed seven lanes to turn off Dorset Street yesterday. It was fine, and box turning never even entered my head. By using the word "inconvenience" I was picking up on the exchange between Doctor Bob and Cookie_Monster (part of which I quoted).

I do think it's a perfectly good idea to give cyclists the option of using this junction in the same manner as many cyclists use many similar junctions all over the city numerous times every day. If other cyclists want to make box turns at those sorts of junctions then they can, whether the Council has painted lines for it or not. I don't have a problem with box turns and have occasionally used them, I just don't want to be forced to make them when it doesn't really seem necessary. Councils can allow cyclists-only turns without requiring box turns if they want to. This design doesn't want to, so to me it's designed to eliminate what I'd see as the most convenient route at a junction like this - which is similar to the point Cookie_Monster was making when s/he mentioned inconvenience.

I'm not very familiar with this junction - I think I've been through it only a few times - so I'm actually curious about what makes it so different from other multi-lane junctions around the city where this sort of mandatory turning isn't required. Is it down to speed, volume of traffic, or what?

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Yeah, removing that traffic and putting it onto another junction was a good idea alright!

so where is it going, meandering back up through the ind est?
http://goo.gl/maps/JAEg8
that's the alternative, isn't it? Hardly an improvement

A lot of people would be happy having a box turn rather than crossing 4-6 lanes -- I know I would.

I fail to see any issue with it, and if you are uncomfortable doing something simple like that you probably shouldn't even be on the road tbh. The most you'll have to cross is three coming from the south of the pic to turning right again after the junction. I am going to assume they'll run north and south as separate light sequences give the road markings and turnings built into it so there'll not be traffic against you while crossing the other lanes.

bunnyhopper wrote:

I just don't want to be forced to make them when it doesn't really seem necessary

but you will be because the lanes are there and use still is mandatory.

kenmc

Doctor Bob wrote: »

You would appear to be missing the point, made previously, that turning right from the general traffic lane is not permitted in this junction if you're approaching from either the east or the west.

I'm extremely confused as to how traffic coming from the Sandyford Industrial Estate is supposed to be able to get to Ballyogan or similar, likewise how someone coming from the gym in westwood can get to their house on Brewery Road....

The whole thing seems extremely hairbrained to be honest, full of half-thought out dreams - wouldn't be surprised if it was some architect students final transition year project. I used work in the South County Business Park. Never had a problem with that roundabout either coming from or going to work. Sure most of the time the traffic was at a standstill anyway.

monument

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I wouldn't (and didn't) say major inconvenience, but it is not what I'd consider the most direct or convenient route for a junction of that sort. I crossed seven lanes to turn off Dorset Street yesterday. It was fine, and box turning never even entered my head. By using the word "inconvenience" I was picking up on the exchange between Doctor Bob and Cookie_Monster (part of which I quoted).

I do think it's a perfectly good idea to give cyclists the option of using this junction in the same manner as many cyclists use many similar junctions all over the city numerous times every day. If other cyclists want to make box turns at those sorts of junctions then they can, whether the Council has painted lines for it or not. I don't have a problem with box turns and have occasionally used them, I just don't want to be forced to make them when it doesn't really seem necessary. Councils can allow cyclists-only turns without requiring box turns if they want to. This design doesn't want to, so to me it's designed to eliminate what I'd see as the most convenient route at a junction like this - which is similar to the point Cookie_Monster was making when s/he mentioned inconvenience.

Fair enough with the words or terms use, it's not that important...

Direct cyclist only turns are fine on some roads, they would be a great idea in the city centre in a lot of places, but there's too many factors against doing it at the junction in question.

The design of this junction does not lend it self to such turns for the same reason the design does not want any traffic crossing the four lanes of traffic, which mostly will be going straight and none of it crossing the other lanes.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so where is it going, meandering back up through the ind est?
http://goo.gl/maps/JAEg8
that's the alternative, isn't it? Hardly an improvement

No... http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8286,en.html

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I fail to see any issue with it, and if you are uncomfortable doing something simple like that you probably shouldn't even be on the road tbh.

Views like that do more harm to promoting cycling that anything any council has ever done.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but you will be because the lanes are there and use still is mandatory.

The box junctions won't be lanes - they'll be as described in the national cycle manual. Or the designers will be ignoring their safety audit and the cycle manual....

monument

kenmc wrote: »

I'm extremely confused as to how traffic coming from the Sandyford Industrial Estate is supposed to be able to get to Ballyogan or similar, likewise how someone coming from the gym in westwood can get to their house on Brewery Road....

The whole thing seems extremely hairbrained to be honest, full of half-thought out dreams - wouldn't be surprised if it was some architect students final transition year project. I used work in the South County Business Park. Never had a problem with that roundabout either coming from or going to work. Sure most of the time the traffic was at a standstill anyway.

Phase one of the Leopardstown Link Road project: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/files/Leopardstown_Link_Road/Drawing_2_03.pdf

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

No... http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8286,en.html

how is that an improvement? Instead of one functioning roundabout, you'll now have 3 sets of signaled junctions very close to each other on Leapardstown Rd and two on Burton Hall road. Can see traffic quickly clogging it all up unless lights are timed very very well.

Edit: 4 sets looking at monuments link above

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how is that an improvement? Instead of one functioning roundabout, you'll now have 3 sets of signaled junctions very close to each other on Leapardstown Rd and two on Burton Hall road. Can see traffic quickly clogging it all up unless lights are timed very very well.

No offence to your feelings about it, there's a large traffic capacity increase even just after phase one. The project is centred around this traffic capacity increase -- any cycling and walking provisions are secondary to that goal.

There's pages of reading on how the new set-up works better for traffic here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/statusofmajorroadschemes/leopardstownlinkroad/

You might be too focused on the volumes of traffic currently conflicting and congesting at the roundabout - the important thing about this design is that it pushes traffic away from one central congested point (which the roundabout currently is). Loads of traffic flows which currently meet at the roundabout are separated in this plan. That's how it works. You're looking at the current bits of roads and thinking there's not enough room for cars to stack there but this design actually adds loads of stacking room, but its spread out.

OssianSmyth

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so where is it going, meandering back up through the ind est?
http://goo.gl/maps/JAEg8
that's the alternative, isn't it? Hardly an improvement.

This route is more direct for traffic exiting the ind est wishing to go northbound on the M50...
http://goo.gl/maps/Ie6jz

As monument says, the scheme appears to be primarily designed to increase car traffic capacity through the area.

nomdeboardie

Thanks for the heads-up on this, OP.
Can't say I'm clear about the details of the plans for the 'cycling infrastructure' and their full implications, but whatever happens at least I've already told the planners what I hate about the current situation along the full length of Leopardstown Road.

awec

Has anyone seen the new cycle path in the industrial estate alongside Sandyford Luas tracks? When you get close to where the luas goes onto the flyover the track literally just stops dead.

It's one of those off-road ones and it just stops dead with a metal fence right in front of you. WTF are cyclists meant to do there?

Edit: I know this is a relatively old topic but as this discussed the proposed changes and now some of the changes are complete I thought it made sense to continue.