Introduction of two way system on Blackthorn Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate

AltAccount

I love this talk. It should be compulsory viewing for anyone operating from a policy or manual.

http://gelconference.com/videos/2006/seth_godin/

monument

Rory1 wrote: »

Is it policy to take a system that is working perfectly well

For whom?

Rory1 wrote: »

and is now very dangerous.

Err... what?

Rory1 wrote: »

It is the sort of daft thought process that has got this country in the mess that we are in.

Foolish things like encouraging people to live so far away from where they work -- and all the baggage which comes with that -- is more closely linked to "the mess that we are in".

Following policy was not really a problem. A lack of policy was and ignoring half decent policy also was.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I agree completely with Rory1. Any money spent on "improvement:rolleyes:" works which result in delays is a huge waste. The National Cycle Manual might work in Sim City where large vehicles magically negotiate tight corners and the like. Almost all diagrams of urban road systems in the National Cycle Manual seem to recommend 90 degree turns. This is all very well if the only motorists on the road are cars which aren't very long at all. Conversely, trucks and buses can be up to 17 meters in length where these 90 degree turns will become problematic. Essentially, the front of such vehicles will have to swing to the other side of the road to avoid mounting the kerb with their hind axle. This is dangerous because the front of these vehicles will be in the path of oncoming traffic while making the turn.

While I do see some posters here trying to dissociate household tax and motor tax with infrastructural works, the fact still remains that general tax is used to fund such works. Unfortunately, the local administrative authority are wasting tax payers money on conforming to policies that seem to deliberately inconvenience motorists (and not just those who own cars). Going by many other posts in this thread, it seems to have had a negative impact on those using the 114 bus. As a person who makes their way around mainly by foot, I didn't see anything wrong with the way the junction was. For anyone who did, I would like to know their reasoning.

More nonsensical ranting about cycling.

As before: The main reason was already explained in a post about a month ago and you seemed to accept this in you reply dated and time: 05/12/2012 22:56.

Have you forgotten again? How much does your rage for cycling blind you?

monument

AltAccount wrote: »

I love this talk. It should be compulsory viewing for anyone operating from a policy or manual.

http://gelconference.com/videos/2006/seth_godin/

"Broken on purpose"

“It’s easy for us to project our bias – I think it’s broken, therefore it’s broken – on everything, when in fact sometimes the best thing to do is break it for the people you don’t care about and just make it work for the people that you do.”

I would not apply that directly and so bluntly to the current topic, but it has some resonance.

Rory1

monument wrote: »

For whom?




Err... what?




Foolish things like encouraging people to live so far away from where they work -- and all the baggage which comes with that -- is more closely linked to "the mess that we are in".

Following policy was not really a problem. A lack of policy was and ignoring half decent policy also was.





More nonsensical ranting about cycling.

As before: The main reason was already explained in a post about a month ago and you seemed to accept this in you reply dated and time: 05/12/2012 22:56.

Have you forgotten again? How much does your rage for cycling blind you?

I dont see how new two way system is any improvement for cyclists.

What is dangerous:
A bus that cant make a left turn without crossing well over on to the other lane is a problem for start.
Whenever you have built up traffic like this, there is alway a risk of increased accidents, cars cant see when coming out of estate roads, increased risk that pedestrian will be hit crossing the road
The fact that there is not adequate space for buses and taxies outside Microsoft is a major risk for all road users.

by the way, I'm not anti cyclist in any way, in the past I regularly cycled to work. It does not suit me now though, not convenient for transporting baby to creche.

I just think there was other things they could have done to make the area safer for all road users. There is loads of space on the road in question, no reason why we all cant get along

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

More nonsensical ranting about cycling.

So, it is nonsensical to:

• Have roads which enable trucks and buses to keep to their side of the road when performing left and right turns?
• Minimise journey lengths for peak hour commuters?
• Have decent clearance for vehicles which the rules of the road recommend?

monument wrote: »

As before: The main reason was already explained in a post about a month ago and you seemed to accept this in you reply dated and time: 05/12/2012 22:56.

I only accepted a few of your points. Conversely, I don't accept altering the flow of a previously smooth flowing system. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

monument wrote: »

Have you forgotten again? How much does your rage for cycling blind you?

I don't hate cycling nor have a rage for it. Nevertheless, I do hate the approach our government are taking to encourage it.

monument

Rory1 wrote: »

I dont see how new two way system is any improvement for cyclists.

I never said it was. And have already said that you could allow cyclists to go two-ways without changing all of the traffic.

Rory1 wrote: »

What is dangerous:
A bus that cant make a left turn without crossing well over on to the other lane is a problem for start.
Whenever you have built up traffic like this, there is alway a risk of increased accidents, cars cant see when coming out of estate roads, increased risk that pedestrian will be hit crossing the road
The fact that there is not adequate space for buses and taxies outside Microsoft is a major risk for all road users.

You'll have to forgive me if but I'm going to take your idea of danger with a pinch of salt given that "built up traffic" (I'm guessing you mean heavy traffic?) is generally safer than fast moving traffic, and a lack of parking isn't really much of a safety issue.

Rory1 wrote: »

by the way, I'm not anti cyclist in any way, in the past I regularly cycled to work. It does not suit me now though, not convenient for transporting baby to creche.

You need one of these.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

As your man says in the video linked to above:

“It’s easy for us to project our bias – I think it’s broken, therefore it’s broken – on everything,"

AltAccount

I took away from that - "even if it's designed with the best will in the world, even if it's according to the specs and the manual, if I/you/we experience it as broken, then it is broken."

Brodick

It is so frustrating to sit for 20 minutes outside Microsoft in the lane going towards the luas when there is no traffic coming the other way.

Reminds me of how they used to tell us the tollboths on the Westlink weren't the cause of the massive delays on the M50.

Who do they think they are kidding? Surely the Planners must see how broken the new layout is.

Now it needs to be fixed - it didn't before.

Rory1

monument wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me if but I'm going to take your idea of danger with a pinch of salt given that "built up traffic" (I'm guessing you mean heavy traffic?) is generally safer than fast moving traffic, and a lack of parking isn't really much of a safety issue.
.

Buses cannot turn the corner without crossing onto the lane of oncoming traffic, do you really not think that is dangerous?

Also, when bus pulls up outside microsoft, all traffic behind has to cross over to other side of lane to overtake, I think this is dangerous for such a busy road.

Fast moving traffic is dangerous and I agree with council that it was a problem but I dont think what they have done is best fix. Heavy traffic has its own dangers though, try coming out of e.g. Burton Hall avenue and you need to get in to left lane, can be very difficult to see. This is just one example, I also think pedestrians can be at risk trying to cross roads in heavy traffic.

monument

Rory1 wrote: »

Buses cannot turn the corner without crossing onto the lane of oncoming traffic, do you really not think that is dangerous?

Also, when bus pulls up outside microsoft, all traffic behind has to cross over to other side of lane to overtake, I think this is dangerous for such a busy road.

Fast moving traffic is dangerous and I agree with council that it was a problem but I dont think what they have done is best fix. Heavy traffic has its own dangers though, try coming out of e.g. Burton Hall avenue and you need to get in to left lane, can be very difficult to see. This is just one example, I also think pedestrians can be at risk trying to cross roads in heavy traffic.

Based on what you are saying it's hard to tell what is dangerous or not, as heavy traffic isn't a huge source of danger, having to overtake well or poorly parked cars and buses is normal all around Dublin on busy roads -- so I'm not dismissing what you're saying, but I will take you sense of danger with a pinch of salt.

And I'm also not saying they've come up with the best solution or balance -- they seem to be still working on that.

If nothing new was ever tried because of the risks of getting it wrong we'd be in a very backward world.

RainyDay

Brodick wrote: »

It is so frustrating to sit for 20 minutes outside Microsoft in the lane going towards the luas when there is no traffic coming the other way.

Reminds me of how they used to tell us the tollboths on the Westlink weren't the cause of the massive delays on the M50.

Who do they think they are kidding? Surely the Planners must see how broken the new layout is.

Now it needs to be fixed - it didn't before.

Why not film it? Set up a little camera and put 10-15 minutes of footage up on Youtube - might go viral.

_Kaiser_

monument wrote: »

If nothing new was ever tried because of the risks of getting it wrong we'd be in a very backward world.

Agree in principle, but the problem is these mistakes aren't free. How much did the original works cost? How much are the new ones costing - as we speak I can see a mini-digger, dump truck and at least 2 other fellas standing around over there. What are they being paid?

The new 2-lane layout isn't working, and the traffic using that lane isn't enough to justify the disruption and cost involved.

And like it or not, the majority of traffic in this estate are cars and pedestrians, not cyclists. There's no justification for putting this latter group ahead of the needs of the rest - especially when there's ample physical room to facilitate seperated/off-road cycle lanes (which would simultaneously improve safety if that's the big concern) all around the streets involved

Irish and Proud

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Agree in principle, but the problem is these mistakes aren't free. How much did the original works cost? How much are the new ones costing - as we speak I can see a mini-digger, dump truck and at least 2 other fellas standing around over there. What are they being paid?

The new 2-lane layout isn't working, and the traffic using that lane isn't enough to justify the disruption and cost involved.

And like it or not, the majority of traffic in this estate are cars and pedestrians, not cyclists. There's no justification for putting this latter group ahead of the needs of the rest - especially when there's ample physical room to facilitate seperated/off-road cycle lanes (which would simultaneously improve safety if that's the big concern) all around the streets involved

...and mistakes that appear to be connected with the National Cycle Manual - much of what seemingly bears little relevance to Dutch Cycling Practice - the Dutch are the Kings of cycling in Europe, hence, these mistakes appear inexcusable - there's already been two (possibly three) significant climbdowns in relation the cycle manual...

1) It now appears that the radius of junction corners have been increased from 6m to 10/12m - there's a reference to this >>here<< (PDF File) on the subject of Killiney Towers RaB while a new junction in Balbriggan has corner radii of 10m and 12m. Indeed, the new junction at Sandyford appears to have a corner radius much larger than 6m.

2) The Killiney Towers Roundabout is to be redesigned - see >>here<<... It will now be anti-cyclist unfortunately IMO - I would just love to tear up the National Cycle Manual and bring in Dutch engineers. The segregated on-roundabout cycletrack appears finished in Ireland - however, when one looks at segrated cycle tracks on roundabouts in Holland, why didn't the National Transport Authority use those specs??? The difference between the Dutch model and the design used for the Killiney Towers RaB were obvious to me - upon exiting, Dutch motorists have the benenfit of having the cycle track perpendicular to them upon yielding thereby allowing far better sightlines - this is because a wide grass verge is used to segregate the cycletrack in Holland. Also, neither the motorists nor cyclists appear to have sharp corners to negotiate.

3) Now it appears that the left lanes (where provided that is) are being lengthened. However, it's not a win for motorists if the junction in Balbriggan is anything to go by - instead of streaming cyclists, left turning traffic will now have to cross the cycle track at the end of the left lane albeit longer - back to square one it seems, except that the left turning motorists have their own lane to suffer in a bid not to be cyclist killing machines (having to watch out for cyclists merging blindside). Again, the Dutch have a solution, and I posted a solution (a while back) that involves phasing cyclists into the traffic sequence - and without the need for an extra phase in the overall signal operation - in fact, I found a way in which all motor traffic, cyclists and pedestrians could be accommodated in a 4 phase 4 arm junction.

I could actually provide a few outline designs for urban road junctions myself - I'm not a qualified engineer, but I do have a good department upstairs!!!

monument

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And like it or not, the majority of traffic in this estate are cars and pedestrians, not cyclists. There's no justification for putting this latter group ahead of the needs of the rest - especially when there's ample physical room to facilitate seperated/off-road cycle lanes (which would simultaneously improve safety if that's the big concern) all around the streets involved

Like it or not there's local and national policy to prioritise cycling and increase the amount of people cycling.

But as I've already said countless of times: what was done for cyclists here could have been done with fewer changes.

The project is as much if not more about traffic flows in the estate and improving pedestrian movements.

OssianSmyth

The next instalment from Dun Laoghaire County Council...

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,9071,en.html

(They aim to put in a modified design within 10 days)

PaulieC

They came under a serious amount of pressure from SBDA to reverse the changes. DLRCC basically admitted to SBDA that the work was done last year due to them having the money to do it, rather than because they had a full plan or good solid numbers and models giving them direction.

Farcical

Larbre34

cambo_gueno wrote: »

They came under a serious amount of pressure from SBDA to reverse the changes. DLRCC basically admitted to SBDA that the work was done last year due to them having the money to do it, rather than because they had a full plan or good solid numbers and models giving them direction.

Farcical

It isn't nor was it ever the Council's money, it's the Skunk Works that is the NTA, experimenting on the unsuspecting motorists of the nation with their new and inventive (makey-uppy) traffic systems.

They need the local Councils acting on their behalf for statutory reasons, however if the DL Council didnt spend that money on Blackthorn, they wouldnt have it to spend elsewhere as they pleased.

Rory1

monument wrote: »

Based on what you are saying it's hard to tell what is dangerous or not, as heavy traffic isn't a huge source of danger, having to overtake well or poorly parked cars and buses is normal all around Dublin on busy roads -- so I'm not dismissing what you're saying, but I will take you sense of danger with a pinch of salt.

And I'm also not saying they've come up with the best solution or balance -- they seem to be still working on that.

If nothing new was ever tried because of the risks of getting it wrong we'd be in a very backward world.

You are missing the point. New ideas are good but they should be subject to proper evaluation before implementation. I really dont understand how anyone could have thought current situation would be an improvement for anyone.

Yes agree there are loads of places around dublin where driver has to dangerously overtake. However, given that we didnt have problem in past and also the fact that there is loads of room even with two way system to have plenty of space for buses or taxis to pull in or in case of this evening An Post van collecting from Microsoft, do you not think agree that we should not have this danger?

Congested traffic increases risks of accident, I have given a good example above.

Rory1

cambo_gueno wrote: »

DLRCC basically admitted to SBDA that the work was done last year due to them having the money to do it, rather than because they had a full plan or good solid numbers and models giving them direction.

Farcical

I would believe that. Crazy but not surprising. Idiots.

monument

Rory1 wrote: »

Yes agree there are loads of places around dublin where driver has to dangerously overtake. However, given that we didnt have problem in past and also the fact that there is loads of room even with two way system to have plenty of space for buses or taxis to pull in or in case of this evening An Post van collecting from Microsoft, do you not think agree that we should not have this danger?

No, sorry, that's not what I'm saying: I'm saying there's loads of places and loads of times that drivers and cyclists have to cross over to the other side of the road pass out stopped or poorly parked cars etc. This does not even come close to being always "dangerously overtaking".

Poor parking and/or a lack of parking and loading bays should be sorted if these are problems -- with enforcement or provision or a mix of both. But I don't buy that it's a huge danger. It's more so an inconvenience.

Rory1 wrote: »

Congested traffic increases risks of accident, I have given a good example above.

"It follows that if traffic flows on peri-urban and urban roads are higher in congested than in uncongested conditions, the accident rates per vehicle-km on these roads are lower in congested than uncongested conditions."

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202152240/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/congestionandaccidentriskno.pdf

In short: Congestion = less collisions.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

In short: Congestion = less collisions.

Having thought about it, that very is true in a Newtonian sort of way. Analogous to particles in a fixed system, in motion they are more likely to collide. However, unlike particles, people (and more specifically, the relevant authorities) need to remove the crap particles (disobedient drivers etc.) from the road. As numerous RSA adverts say, all it can take is a slight lapse in concentration (lack of effective observation) to cause a collision.

Irish and Proud

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Having thought about it, that very is true in a Newtonian sort of way. Analogous to particles in a fixed system, in motion they are more likely to collide. However, unlike particles, people (and more specifically, the relevant authorities) need to remove the crap particles (disobedient drivers etc.) from the road. As numerous RSA adverts say, all it can take is a slight lapse in concentration (lack of effective observation) to cause a collision.

+1

Well that's exactly the way I see it - cut down bad drivers, not road space. Having driven for 2 years, a motorist side swiping a cyclist at higher speed lacks any excuse as far as I'm concerned - that driver should be off the road - simple as. Passing a cyclist where there's ample room for a car and bicycle abreast is so simple - in my mind, all you have to do before crossing the cycle lane is the check your left mirror - once the cyclist that you've passed in visible in the mirror, then it should be safe to cross over. Hypothetically, with very long filter lanes and cycle streaming, there should in my mind be less accidents involving cars and cyclists as the chances of having to cross a blindside cycle lane from a stationary position (which I think is very dangerous if the cycle track happens to be busy) is very much reduced. Of course, with the abundant lunatic drivers (if one would even call them drivers) that's probably not the case.

However, integrated phasing at signal junctions is best. I think the Dutch have mastered this - where are those Dutch engineers???

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,9071,en.html

24/01/2013






Measures are being undertaken immediately to improve traffic flows around Blackthorn Road and Blackthorn Avenue in the Sandyford Business District where motorists have experienced considerable delays during evening rush hours following the introduction of the new two way arrangement in the area.


The change was part of a necessary wider series of measures introduced to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists and to increase general accessibility for drivers into and around the Sandyford Business District. In general the community in Sandyford has welcomed the measures, including new traffic lights together with pedestrian crossings. However traffic delays have caused serious concern.

The modifications form part of the Council’s Development Plan 2010-2016 and the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan 2011-2016. These are designed to promote business development and overall amenity for all road users throughout the area. The one way system was designed as a temporary measure pending the construction of the M50 to cater for the huge traffic flows and volumes during its construction.


In a statement, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council said it is acutely aware that local traffic delays have been experienced by motorists since the introduction of a two-way system for traffic on Blackthorn Road as it approaches Blackthorn Avenue.


A spokesman of the Council said, “Regrettably the new two-way system on Blackthorn Road has caused significant delays and unintended frustration for drivers using this route in the evenings at peak travel time. People have been finding it very difficult to exit some of the business car parks or to make reasonable progress on the road due to peak rush hour congestion. This is an unacceptable situation for everyone concerned including the County Council.”


Following a comprehensive review, including engagement with the Sandyford Business District Association (SBDA), measures are being undertaken immediately by the County Council in an initiative to reduce evening travel times.

• The build out and pedestrian crossing at the junction of Blackthorn Roadand Blackthorn Avenue will be pulled back and this junction widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic.

• While Blackthorn Road will remain two-way, a second lane will be introduced on the approach to Blackthorn Avenue to increase traffic flows. The Road will then have three lanes in total (allowing for 2 lanes exiting Blackthorn Road and 1 lane entering).

• The lane adjustments will be achieved mainly through the alteration of road markings (also involving the removal of current cycle track markings). New off road cycle tracks will be delivered soon.

• These measures will take a maximum of ten days (weather permitting) to be completed. They are being implemented as a priority and works have already commenced.

• The County Council will continue to monitor traffic flows in the area following the introduction of these measures.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is dedicated to ongoing improvements in infrastructure and amenities throughout the Sandyford Business District to ensure its continuing development as a high quality business and residential area. The County Council expressed appreciation to all businesses and residents for their patience in relation to the roads issue. The situation is expected to improve as the new measures take effect.

homer911

So instead of left turning cars being stuck behind one lane of right turning cars, they will be stuck behind two lanes of right turning cars!

Yes, I can really see that working!

The blackthorn avenue junction with St Raphaela's road is starved of traffic currently because of this stupid blackthorn road/avenue junction

_Kaiser_

The biggest problem here regardless of the numbers of lanes is the fact that they installed traffic lights on a previously more-or-less free flowing interchange - but yes, adding an (in my opinion unnecessary) 2 way system has now negated any possibility to reverse this - I'd love to see stats on how many cars are using this lane as it always seems empty to me whenever I look out the window.

All that was really need was proper speed ramps (not the suspension-destroying mountains that are installed in a lot of places) to calm things down a bit and separating the lanes a bit further back to prevent the last minute diving across that was going on.

Adding extra lanes won't change a thing - except as above, probably just make it worse again because most cars on this road are turning right anyway and holding them up is what's causing the issues.

Surely they will make it right hand lane for going right towards leapardstown and left lane dedicated to turning towards stillorgan.

homer911

cisk wrote: »

Surely they will make it right hand lane for going right towards leapardstown and left lane dedicated to turning towards stillorgan.

No, see the pdf on the screen linked to by the recent poster..

homer911

homer911 wrote: »

No, see the pdf on the screen linked to by the recent poster..

WTF! Idiots, do they have any common sense at all, the difference will be negligible.

RosieJoe

Came in this morning to see the new lane layout, had a read here and I cannot believe the 2 lanes are for turning right! Of course what happens this morning, right lane is backed up and left lane is empty as, like me, the presumed the left lane was for left turn only!

How anyone is going to easily get out of where Snap and AIB are is beyond me as they have to battle to get across. And if you are going from AIB and want to turn left then you are rightly fecked.