Knocklyon / Orlagh Roundabout Redesign, South Dublin

gaz d

Anyone living out this way going through this roundabout on a daily basis to access Junction 12 on the M50?

Its gone crazy since they made it tighter/narrower for the Tallaght - Dundrum cycle lane.

Tailbacks at off peak times and manic at rush hour.

Chris_5339762

I can see why they did it, but they should have added bus priority and to me, the main issue is that the new roundabout and the entrances are now ridiculously tight.

gaz d

Yes, I wonder what the minimum width of a road lane is? Its pushing the tolerances I would imagine. All entrances to the Roundabout used to be 2 car widths/lanes and now back to one, with a big grass verge going in place, seems mad.

There is a petition in for a redesign gathering momentum I read online.

HiGlo

Yes ,I was just reading on the Knocklyon Network Facebook page that the Orlagh residents association attended a meeting about it. Apparently the petition has over 4,000 signatures. Facebook Post

It's crazy carry on. They've been working on it for about 8 months or so now! And it's ridiculous! Way too tight and awkward angles. I hope they have to backtrack on it. It's a joke.

seamus

There's so much complaining about this, it's ridiculous.
All of the entrances used to be two car widths, but the roads were not. So the actual throughput of the roundabout was still only one car at a time. There was no point where you were able to get two cars through the roundabout at a time. Two cars could wait side-by-side, but they couldn't go around at the same time. So the effect on throughput is minimal. The redesign also makes it easier to predict other traffic's movements, which should improve throughput.

The traffic here has always been bad. The selective memories of people claiming the roundabout has made it worse, baffles me. Traffic coming from Scholarstown towards the M50 was always a sh1tshow, especially when the schools went back.

SDCC have continually said that they analysed the traffic flow beforehand and have been continuing to analyse it, and people's complaints don't match up with the facts.

So in the absence of anyone else having hard data to contradict SDCC's, rather than just anecdotes, it has to be assumed that the "problems" here are optics and noise, not reality.

Last week there were people complaining that a truck got stuck on a kerb. Apparently this is SDCC's fault, not the truck driver who couldn't drive his truck. :rolleyes:

salmocab

seamus wrote: »

There's so much complaining about this, it's ridiculous.
All of the entrances used to be two car widths, but the roads were not. So the actual throughput of the roundabout was still only one car at a time. There was no point where you were able to get two cars through the roundabout at a time. Two cars could wait side-by-side, but they couldn't go around at the same time. So the effect on throughput is minimal. The redesign also makes it easier to predict other traffic's movements, which should improve throughput.

The traffic here has always been bad. The selective memories of people claiming the roundabout has made it worse, baffles me. Traffic coming from Scholarstown towards the M50 was always a sh1tshow, especially when the schools went back.

SDCC have continually said that they analysed the traffic flow beforehand and have been continuing to analyse it, and people's complaints don't match up with the facts.

So in the absence of anyone else having hard data to contradict SDCC's, rather than just anecdotes, it has to be assumed that the "problems" here are optics and noise, not reality.

Last week there were people complaining that a truck got stuck on a kerb. Apparently this is SDCC's fault, not the truck driver who couldn't drive his truck. :rolleyes:

I’ve actually thought this, it looks awkward but I think it moves okay and one car on at a time will I think move things along as your only watching what’s on the roundabout and don’t need to worry about the car beside you.

steamsey

It's an absolute disaster. I cycle through it twice a day and drive through it at weekends. They have been at it since about July and the fact that they are till working on such a small area / project is not a positive sign. This must have cost a lot.

It has and will make traffic in the area worse. There are tailbacks at the weekends, people are clipping the roundabout with their rear wheels, the pedestrian crossings are not marked yet so there are kids wandering across the road between cars. The tarmac section on the left as you go down towards Super Valu is a mess of people, buggies and kids on bikes & scooters and you cannot cycle on it so have to cycle on the road instead. Then when you get to the traffic lights in front of Super Valu, cars queing to go left block the road and if you want to go right, you have to overtake onto the other side of the road.

An absolute joke. They've made it worse.

Rant over.

seamus

This is a good example actually of how perception so often taints your view of good -v- bad.

people are clipping the roundabout with their rear wheels

You can get busses through the roundabout. If people are clipping it, it's because they're crap drivers.

the pedestrian crossings are not marked yet so there are kids wandering across the road between cars.

The pedestrian crossings haven't moved, and are still signalled and marked

The tarmac section on the left as you go down towards Super Valu is a mess of people, buggies and kids on bikes & scooters and you cannot cycle on it so have to cycle on the road instead.

Previously, that section wasn't even there and you had to cycle on the road anyway. Cycle track design is a problem, but certainly the improved road definition is of more assistance to cyclists on the road than previously.

Then when you get to the traffic lights in front of Super Valu, cars queing to go left block the road and if you want to go right, you have to overtake onto the other side of the road.

Right. Except that both lanes are now considerably longer than they were before, so more cars get through. Previously if you wanted to go right, you were usually stuck behind 20 cars all turning left and you wouldn't make the lights by the time they went red. As someone who virtually always takes a right at that junction, it's waaay better than it used to be.

Chris_5339762

Part of the problem I think is that because the roundabout is smaller, cars are dallying at the roundabout for a fraction of a second longer as they are less sure where the car currently on the roundabout is going, and whether they have to wait.

Thats reducing throughput. Their traffic modelling is flawed, delays are definitely worse than they were before this was done.

(I'm thinking cars only now, not pedestrians or cyclists whose experiences may have improved massively)

steamsey

So suddenly, loads of craps drivers have started using the roundabout? OR seeing as the roundabout has changed, maybe the problem rests there....

The pedestrian crossing on the first left as you approach the roundabout (the one leading to Super Valu) is not marked on the road. Kids wander across the road in all directions. You've confused yourself there. Signalling was not brought up before you mentioned it.

The tarmac section was a path and a grass margin with trees. Missed a great opportunity to get the kids cycling to school off the road and onto a cycle path - instead its a wide tarmac path that pedestrians and kids on scooters use. Total missed opportunity.

he traffic is far worse. The lanes are not considerably longer than they were, maybe they are slightly longer but considerably is not right. As someone who also takes that right turn x2 a day, it's much worse than it was.

The point is this - the whole thing must have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions and they are still not finished. It has not been worth it and I cannot see how the final touches will suddenly make it worthwhile.

markpb

steamsey wrote: »

The point is this - the whole thing must have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions and they are still not finished. It has not been worth it and I cannot see how the final touches will suddenly make it worthwhile.

Maybe it will make it worthwhile for the people on road who aren't in car?

Chris_5339762

Possibly for cyclists, when complete, and possibly for pedestrians, of which there are not a huge amount there apart from those going to the bus stops. But it is not worthwhile for people in buses, and that is a missed opportunity with the 175 now running along here. Because of the increased congestion, and the lack of any form of bus priority, their service has deteriorated.

seamus

steamsey wrote: »

So suddenly, loads of craps drivers have started using the roundabout? OR seeing as the roundabout has changed, maybe the problem rests there....

If people are clipping the roundabout, they're going too fast. That's the problem. They were crap drivers before, but the layout let them away with it. Now they want to drive through it at the same speed they did before, and they're getting into trouble. That's the driver's fault, 100%.

One of the main purposes of this redesign is to slow everything down. This is a busy roundabout in a heavily residential area, outside a school. Throughput will actually increase, but the speed of traffic going into and on the roundabout will drop. That's a good thing. That's the point. Too many people are complaining that the roundabout is making them go slower.

The pedestrian crossing on the first left as you approach the roundabout (the one leading to Super Valu) is not marked on the road. Kids wander across the road in all directions. You've confused yourself there. Signalling was not brought up before you mentioned it.

Signalling is part of the "marking". You can't miss two bloody big traffic lights. Any road, the lights haven't been moved, and any lack of markings is temporary.

The tarmac section was a path and a grass margin with trees. Missed a great opportunity to get the kids cycling to school off the road and onto a cycle path - instead its a wide tarmac path that pedestrians and kids on scooters use. Total missed opportunity.

Kids on bikes will use it too. It also looks like it still needs to be painted. I do agree though that it could have been designed better; grade-separating the cycle lane would have been preferable. This is a persistent issue across the country.

he traffic is far worse. The lanes are not considerably longer than they were, maybe they are slightly longer but considerably is not right. As someone who also takes that right turn x2 a day, it's much worse than it was.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your anecdotal evidence that it's gotten worse is just as valid as my evidence that it's gotten better.

The point is this - the whole thing must have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions and they are still not finished. It has not been worth it and I cannot see how the final touches will suddenly make it worthwhile.

How you can say it hasn't been worth it, if it's not finished? Maybe let them finish it first? Gather some data? Roadworks cause congestion; gawkers and tentative drivers. Give it six months and then decide if it's been worth it.

HonalD

@seamus - Your last point is exactly right. It's not even constructed yet and people are rushing to definite conclusions.

Another point, did it go through public consultation, was there submissions and what did the report say?

Kamili

markpb wrote: »

Maybe it will make it worthwhile for the people on road who aren't in car?

What about those in a truck or larger van? How are they meant to get around it? Considering its right off the M50 and near a large supervalu - how are they meant to get their deliveries in?

What about emergency services - fire trucks and what not? How the hell are they meant to get around it?

Personally for me this has added about 10 - 15 minutes extra onto my commute to work in the mornings. Its very badly designed and very badly laid out.

Why did they put those new traffic islands in? they are in my opinion a dangerous obstruction.

salmocab

After reading about how tight the roundabout was here I took notice of it this morning, if you can’t get around it without hitting the roundabout it’s probably best you give back your license.

McGrath5

I've noticed an extreme amount of moaning going on over this roundabout, though in fairness that wouldn't be unusual considering nearly everyone objects to everything in Knocklyon.

The traffic is piss poor in the area, but it always was long before this project commenced and will continue to be for a long time to come since people insist on using their car even if often it is far quicker to walk.

punisher5112

It's seems to be the done thingnow where roads are narrowed, tighter bends and corners.

Pedestrian lights placed just off the roundabout so it then gets blocked.

Ramps everywhere including bus routes which is ridiculously stupid.

These roundabouts with raised curbing where the bus or larger vehicle has to mount which believe me is extremely uncomfortable and especially for the driver have to pass over numerous times a day.

I actually can't understand why we can't have a simple design and layout and run with it.

Some are great but what I see is any news designed ones are shockingly bad.

HonalD

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's seems to be the done thingnow where roads are narrowed, tighter bends and corners.

I actually can't understand why we can't have a simple design and layout and run with it.

It is simple - it slows down motorized vehicles at the junction. Reducing the hazard for vulnerable road users.

Take a look at the DMURS document - Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets for information.

markpb

Kamili wrote: »

What about those in a truck or larger van? How are they meant to get around it? Considering its right off the M50 and near a large supervalu - how are they meant to get their deliveries in?

What about emergency services - fire trucks and what not? How the hell are they meant to get around it?

Personally for me this has added about 10 - 15 minutes extra onto my commute to work in the mornings. Its very badly designed and very badly laid out.

Why did they put those new traffic islands in? they are in my opinion a dangerous obstruction.

I can honestly say I'm not a HGV driver (maybe you are?) so I don't know how they manage but I'd wager the professionals who designed it didn't forget about the existence (or width) of HGVs so they can probably manage, albeit a little more slowly than before.

That's the whole point of protects like this - to slow drivers down so they're more aware of vulnerable road users. It's not done to penalise drivers, just to make them share the road in a safer way.

It's too early to judge the actual impact of the new design on your commute, you are being inconvenienced by the roadworks. Give it a few weeks after the work has finished and traffic had adjusted and then see what the impact is.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ramps everywhere including bus routes which is ridiculously stupid.

These roundabouts with raised curbing where the bus or larger vehicle has to mount which believe me is extremely uncomfortable and especially for the driver have to pass over numerous times a day.

I actually can't understand why we can't have a simple design and layout and run with it.

You're right that it's daft that bus routes have ramps and narrow roundabouts on them but sadly you are being penalised by the other drivers who also use the road. In my experience, DB drivers are excellent - courteous, safe and aware - but others on the road are not and are both a disincentive and a danger to vulnerable road users so changes like this are inflicted on everyone to make it safer for everyone.

Markx

markpb wrote: »

That's the whole point of protects like this - to slow drivers down so they're more aware of vulnerable road users. It's not done to penalise drivers, just to make them share the road in a safer way.

From the signage at the roundabout I got the impression the point of this particular project was to facilitate the Tallaght to Ballyboden cycling corridor.

It has never seemed like a particularly dangerous roundabout to me. Does anybody know if there have there been a lot of accidents there? My feeling is that people are extra cautious around there due to the volume of school children.

McGrath5

I see an angry mob is been organized via Facebook for a "protest" on Saturday, this will cause the traffic to slow down even further leading to even more congestion.

Kamili

Markx wrote: »

From the signage at the roundabout I got the impression the point of this particular project was to facilitate the Tallaght to Ballyboden cycling corridor.

It has never seemed like a particularly dangerous roundabout to me. Does anybody know if there have there been a lot of accidents there? My feeling is that people are extra cautious around there due to the volume of school children.

yet the cyclists are being told to use the road, which has by all measures been made worse.

I wouldn't cycle round that when there is a bus or truck trying to traverse it. The bus has to mount the kerb 4 times to get around it, by god help any cyclist at that stage!

Qrt

Kamili wrote: »

yet the cyclists are being told to use the road

are they? I was under the impression the crossings are shared areas. As an aside, I cycled through this style of roundabout on Main Road Tallaght and it was an utter dream, it seemed to completely change the attitude of any people driving, I was waiting for the cars to clear, but both stopped to let me cross! I mean, they're legally obliged to do so with zebra crossings, but we all know that's not to be taken for granted...

Kamili

Yep according to the council the cycle lanes are reserved for kids traveling to school.

Cushie Butterfield

seamus

They're shared cycle paths, not cycle lanes. So they're not designed for higher-speed commuter traffic and not meant to form part of the main cycling infrastructure.

It amused me that during the protest, the traffic wasn't bad enough so the protesters had someone stand at every set of pedestrian lights and continually activate them to artificially cause congestion.

The traffic patterns emerging on this roundabout have made it completely obvious what has happened here.

All of the congestion is occurring coming from the Ballyboden direction. This is a result of the next phases of Scholarstown Wood and White Pines becoming occupied over the summer and those residents attempting to make their way onto the M50.

The redesign of the roundabout is merely serendipitous. If the roundabout was the issue, then traffic would be a problem in all directions. It's not, it's only become a problem E-W on the Scholarstown road - i.e. coming from Scholarstown Wood. Traffic coming from Knocklyon and Orlagh still flows as freely as it did before.

Traffic coming off the M50 has always been bad and hasn't gotten worse as a result of this redesign.

So poor planning is certainly to blame here - but it's the planning that allowed Scholarstown wood to be built without provision for improvements.

Qrt

Kamili wrote: »

Yep according to the council the cycle lanes are reserved for kids traveling to school.

I’m 99% sure that has no legal footing.

youcancallmeal

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Part of the problem I think is that because the roundabout is smaller, cars are dallying at the roundabout for a fraction of a second longer as they are less sure where the car currently on the roundabout is going, and whether they have to wait.

Thats reducing throughput. Their traffic modelling is flawed, delays are definitely worse than they were before this was done.

(I'm thinking cars only now, not pedestrians or cyclists whose experiences may have improved massively)

This is one of the main factors I believe. With the smaller tighter layout I find it hard to see the indicator for a car that is already on the roundabout so I end up waiting that little bit longer to be sure if they are exiting or not. With even moderate traffic then it can back up very easily

HiGlo

seamus wrote: »

Traffic coming off the M50 has always been bad and hasn't gotten worse as a result of this redesign.

I think you're probably right in what you're saying, however I don't agree with this bit at all. I come off the M50 southbound every day around 6-7pmish.... There is definite worsening of the traffic heading to Knocklyon. There are evenings where it's bumper to bumper right back up the exit lane on M50. It used to always be that the stopped traffic was in the lane to turn to Ballycullen and the traffic to Knocklyon always flowed easily enough.

There's a definite change now.
As you say though, this could equally be to do with the increase in traffic heading toward Scholarstown Wood etc...

I've also encountered the traffic heading from Ballycullen to Knocklyon on Saturday afternoons and there's definitely more congestion on approach to the roundabout - having said that, it's not causing significant delays, it's just a bit slower to get through.

lucernarian

seamus wrote: »

They're shared cycle paths, not cycle lanes. So they're not designed for higher-speed commuter traffic and not meant to form part of the main cycling infrastructure.

It amused me that during the protest, the traffic wasn't bad enough so the protesters had someone stand at every set of pedestrian lights and continually activate them to artificially cause congestion.

The traffic patterns emerging on this roundabout have made it completely obvious what has happened here.

All of the congestion is occurring coming from the Ballyboden direction. This is a result of the next phases of Scholarstown Wood and White Pines becoming occupied over the summer and those residents attempting to make their way onto the M50.

The redesign of the roundabout is merely serendipitous. If the roundabout was the issue, then traffic would be a problem in all directions. It's not, it's only become a problem E-W on the Scholarstown road - i.e. coming from Scholarstown Wood. Traffic coming from Knocklyon and Orlagh still flows as freely as it did before.

Traffic coming off the M50 has always been bad and hasn't gotten worse as a result of this redesign.

So poor planning is certainly to blame here - but it's the planning that allowed Scholarstown wood to be built without provision for improvements.

The burden of proof aspect doesn't go one way here. Before the design has finished and without some measurements (instead of mere modelling), you might need evidence to conclude that it's "not worsened" either. It's just supposition to claim otherwise. It's not great to democratise the truth but I wouldn't dismiss several anecdotes if they only don't agree with my own presumptions.

Regarding "something not forming part of the main cycle infrastructure" - something designated as a shared cycle path still makes it the same as every other cycle path in the country with all relevant rules of the road that apply to cycling.

seamus

lucernarian wrote: »

The burden of proof aspect doesn't go one way here. Before the design has finished and without some measurements (instead of mere modelling), you might need evidence to conclude that it's "not worsened" either. It's just supposition to claim otherwise. It's not great to democratise the truth but I wouldn't dismiss several anecdotes if they only don't agree with my own presumptions.

Sure. So we can agree that my anecdotes are worth as much as anyone else's.

And the only actual data comes from SDCC. But of course the people who aren't happy reject this data because it disagrees with their presumptions.

Regarding "something not forming part of the main cycle infrastructure" - something designated as a shared cycle path still makes it the same as every other cycle path in the country with all relevant rules of the road that apply to cycling.

This is where it gets dicey.
A shared cycle track by implication has a greater burden of care on cyclists using it, to be aware that pedestrians are permitted to be present and to temper their speed accordingly.
There is no legal obligation on a cyclist to use it.

It is therefore implicit that if a cyclist wishes to travel at higher speeds unimpeded, they should use the road. They cannot travel at higher speeds and use the shared cycle track. They are mutually exclusive goals.

As a cyclist, I would rather that shared tracks like this are used exclusively in off-road scenarios, and that tracks should be grade-separated where they follow the road. SDCC made a mistake here by not carving out the cycle lane completely separated from both the road and the path by kerbs and/or grass.

But at the same time, being a local to the area and appalled at the volume of parents driving their children to school, I support any measure that seeks to reduce car usage and reduce the speed of traffic. And in that regard, a shared lane is more appealing to parents who worry about their children cycling.

lucernarian

seamus wrote: »

Sure. So we can agree that my anecdotes are worth as much as anyone else's.

And the only actual data comes from SDCC. But of course the people who aren't happy reject this data because it disagrees with their presumptions.

This is where it gets dicey.
A shared cycle track by implication has a greater burden of care on cyclists using it, to be aware that pedestrians are permitted to be present and to temper their speed accordingly.
There is no legal obligation on a cyclist to use it.

It is therefore implicit that if a cyclist wishes to travel at higher speeds unimpeded, they should use the road. They cannot travel at higher speeds and use the shared cycle track. They are mutually exclusive goals.

As a cyclist, I would rather that shared tracks like this are used exclusively in off-road scenarios, and that tracks should be grade-separated where they follow the road. SDCC made a mistake here by not carving out the cycle lane completely separated from both the road and the path by kerbs and/or grass.

But at the same time, being a local to the area and appalled at the volume of parents driving their children to school, I support any measure that seeks to reduce car usage and reduce the speed of traffic. And in that regard, a shared lane is more appealing to parents who worry about their children cycling.

That's all ok by me, different perspectives and all that. My main contention is if you have any evidence to suggest these measures have had a positive impact? I'm not looking for evidence behind "tighter curves > slower moving traffic at junctions > safer vulnerable road users". Impact on traffic throughput needs to be empirically measured, the speculation is mostly pointless. Though I'm sceptical these people are out on a Saturday protesting these delays for no reason (even if premature).

seamus

seamus wrote: »

There's so much complaining about this, it's ridiculous.
All of the entrances used to be two car widths, but the roads were not. So the actual throughput of the roundabout was still only one car at a time.
There was no point where you were able to get two cars through the roundabout at a time. Two cars could wait side-by-side, but they couldn't go around at the same time. So the effect on throughput is minimal. The redesign also makes it easier to predict other traffic's movements, which should improve throughput.

Revisionist nonsense. The roundabout operated similarly to the likes of Templeville and Wellington, two cars could fit but you had to be wary that the car beside you didn't take a central line.

If turning left to Superquinn coming from the m50, you would easily fit around the roundabout beside someone heading to Orlagh or to Scholarstown Road. The opposite was true, if heading to Superquinn from Scholarstown Road, you could fit beside someone heading to the M50.

Even if you didn't fit beside them (due to the line they took), you could still take a staggered approach to the roundabout that let more vehicles pass through than just filing through one by one.

A huge amount of roundabouts in Dublin are like this, so it's laughable that you're trying to argue the contrary.

Even the SDCC drone videos shows two cars entering the roundabout simultaneously from the Knocklyon and Scholarstown sides.

If you love 'evidence' and 'facts', why are you clearly ignoring both when claiming something that is patently untrue?

The traffic here has always been bad. The selective memories of people claiming the roundabout has made it worse, baffles me. Traffic coming from Scholarstown towards the M50 was always a sh1tshow, especially when the schools went back.

Selective memories? I judge traffic based on what time the Scholarstown Road becomes a logjam. It's gotten significantly earlier.

SDCC have continually said that they analysed the traffic flow beforehand and have been continuing to analyse it, and people's complaints don't match up with the facts.

SDCC regularly make incompetent decisions when it comes to anything to do with road traffic/road design/infrastructure or hell, in general. Their 'traffic flow analysis' was 40 minutes over one day during the summer.

Last week there were people complaining that a truck got stuck on a kerb. Apparently this is SDCC's fault, not the truck driver who couldn't drive his truck. :rolleyes:

Turning a roundabout exit on an m50 access road into a literal chicane is SDCC's fault.

seamus wrote: »

This is a good example actually of how perception so often taints your view of good -v- bad.

You can get busses through the roundabout. If people are clipping it, it's because they're crap drivers.

Not expecting a roundabout on an m50 access road to be full of chicanes doesn't make you a crap driver, just an inattentive one unaware of how incompetent SDCC are.

Right. Except that both lanes are now considerably longer than they were before, so more cars get through. Previously if you wanted to go right, you were usually stuck behind 20 cars all turning left and you wouldn't make the lights by the time they went red. As someone who virtually always takes a right at that junction, it's waaay better than it used to be.

More revisionist nonsense.


16m with a less frequent filter light


45m with a near constant filter light

seamus wrote: »

It amused me that during the protest, the traffic wasn't bad enough so the protesters had someone stand at every set of pedestrian lights and continually activate them to artificially cause congestion.

I protested the lack of a promised St Colmcilles Secondary School when I was a child. We activated pedestrian lights constantly and crossed them because that was the only legal way to protest on the road. We couldn't block it, we couldn't stand on it, but we could activate the lights and cross as often as possible.

I thought you 'loved facts' rather than spinning nonsense to suit biases?

The traffic patterns emerging on this roundabout have made it completely obvious what has happened here.

All of the congestion is occurring coming from the Ballyboden direction. This is a result of the next phases of Scholarstown Wood and White Pines becoming occupied over the summer and those residents attempting to make their way onto the M50.

Bull****. Scholarstown Road is now often blocked only to Orlagh Roundabout, with all other roads leading from the roundabout clear. If it was 'additional traffic', it wouldn't be just scholarstown road > Orlagh Roundabout that was now a near-constant issue.

Previously, Scholarstown Road only backed up badly if any of the roads leading from Orlagh Roundabout were full. Now Scholarstown Road can back up even if all roads are empty.

That means it can't be 'added capacity' from the 50 or 60 new homes since the Summer (which in and of itself is a laughable suggestion to make).

The redesign of the roundabout is merely serendipitous. If the roundabout was the issue, then traffic would be a problem in all directions. It's not, it's only become a problem E-W on the Scholarstown road - i.e. coming from Scholarstown Wood. Traffic coming from Knocklyon and Orlagh still flows as freely as it did before.

You clearly don't understand road design if you think any of that is logical. Traffic from Scholarstown Road to Orlagh Roundabout must always give way to traffic coming from Knocklyon. In the mornings, traffic flows are primarily to and not from the M50. As such, traffic from Knocklyon gets precedence over traffic from Scholarstown.

Ah lad. You can have an opinion on the roundabout without spinning obvious untruths and being blatantly hypocritical.

"My position and opinion is the factual one but I'm going to post loads of biased nonsense"

From the first 90 seconds of the first SDCC traffic analysis video posted:

So the actual throughput of the roundabout was still only one car at a time.
There was no point where you were able to get two cars through the roundabout at a time. Two cars could wait side-by-side, but they couldn't go around at the same time.

This is someone who loves facts and evidence. You can clearly see two cars waiting leads to two cars entering.

Will I go through the other 5 videos SDCC posted and snip the screenshots from that too?

For anyone curious about cost:

Doyler99

1.2m for that absolute joke of an unneeded roundabout change....gotta love SDCC

steamsey

Holy **** - that's a lot of money.

It's a disaster.

The shared lane is functioning as a 100% pedestrian and kids scooters etc lane. Cyclists have to go on the road unless you want to slow to 4kmh. What a wasted opportunity.

monument

Kamili wrote: »

Yep according to the council the cycle lanes are reserved for kids traveling to school.

Where exactly have South Dublin County Council said that?

steamsey wrote: »

Holy **** - that's a lot of money.

It's a disaster.

The shared lane is functioning as a 100% pedestrian and kids scooters etc lane. Cyclists have to go on the road unless you want to slow to 4kmh. What a wasted opportunity.

What exactly should they have done? Because most people making the noise about this are annoyed because cars are affected -- better cycling along the route would have required more, not less, pain for motorists.

punisher5112

It's a mess.

monument

monument wrote: »

What exactly should they have done? Because most people making the noise about this are annoyed because cars are affected -- better cycling along the route would have required more, not less, pain for motorists.

The Orlagh Roundabout to Knocklyon Road section isn't inconveniencing cars beyond it taking longer to take a left turn onto the Knocklyon Road. It's not a huge deal and I understand why filter lanes with traffic islands are undesirable for pedestrian crossings.

The problem is, many submissions were made about the width of the shared cycle/footpath being grossly inadequate during the planning stage and at all times SDCC responded with variations of "it'll be absolutely fine, however if cyclists wish to do so they may also use the road".

It clearly wasn't fine, it clearly isn't fine, and it's another example of SDCC's incompetence.

Here;

SDCC Response to question on width:
NTA National Cycle Manual (NCM) States: Shared facilities next to vehicular traffic should have a minimum combined width of 3.0m. SDCC notes the minimum width of the shared facilities on the scheme is 3.3m

What does the NCM actually say?

Shared facilities are disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists and result in reduced Quality of Service for both modes. With the exception of purpose-designed shared streets, shared facilities should be avoided in urban areas as far as possible.
Where shared facilities cannot be avoided, there are a number of considerations as follows that will help both cyclists and pedestrians to be aware of the other’s presence.
• Pedestrian should always have priority, reinforced by signage
• Cyclists should consider themselves as ‘cycling on the footpath’
• Segregate pedestrians and cyclists vertically and/or horizontally
• Delineation markings should not be used as they give cyclists an incorrect sense of a dedicated cycle space
• Sufficient width of footpath and cycle track will help both modes to travel
in comfort
• Sufficient width to facilitate evasive action and/or avoidance of potential conflict
• Shared facilities next to vehicular traffic should have a minimum combined
width 3.0m
• Cycling alignment and speed reduction measures should be considered
Shared facilities might be appropriate at locations where footpaths are wide and the volume of pedestrians and cyclists is low, e.g. in low-density towns and cities, and suburban or recreational areas. They may also be necessary at particular infrastructure features (bridges) as described below in Section 1.9.4

The kicker? The 3m width refers to 3m per direction. So for two way traffic, it should be 6m.

In response to another submission on width;

15. The majority of the scheme will have a 4m wide shared surface which is a sufficient wide for such a facility. There is a 3.3m pinch near Cedarwood House but due to road width restrictions a wider shared surface is not possible. With all shared faculties both pedestrians and cyclist must proceed with caution.

I really have no issue with vehicles having to slow down to progress through the roundabout, or vehicular traffic being inconvenienced for the greater good. The problem is they made such an utter mess of this design and wasted a god awful amount of money doing so to deliver: one extra signalled pedestrian crossing, improved lighting and a wider path for schoolkids on one section. Where's the greater good?

It's no improvement for cyclists, and looking at the RSA map of road incidents, there's never been a recorded pedestrian/cyclist incident at the roundabout (as per: http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/ )

Also, apparently even SDCC are now (sort of) acknowledging that the delays are down to the congestion resulting from the roundabout upgrade.


I went to get on the M50 at 7:40 pm Friday before last (I might only drive once a week, I really do cycle everywhere). Traffic was backed up from Orlagh Roundabout to Ballyboden Way. It was quicker to access the M50 via Spawell despite being over 3x the distance and involving 5x the junctions.

That's relatively normal now, and it's not uncommon to see other drivers turning back and doing the same.

Chris_5339762

Rush hour delays aside, the delays here now are at daft times of the day or night... backed up onto the M50 on a Saturday afternoon, or backed up to the previous roundabout at 830pm on a weeknight. A far better job could have been done for pedestrians and cyclists without hamstringing the roundabout to such an extent as they did. I understand ped/cyclist priority is all the rage now thesedays but the level of disruption this is causing for car/bus traffic is far higher than it really should be I think.

The NRA shouldn't have signed off on it. Access roads to the M50 are a special case when it comes to vehicle vs other priority.

I can't remember where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe the NRA has a responsibility over access routes to Motorways as well as the Motorways & N Roads themselves.

The Knocklyon/Firhouse m50 flyover and link roads have been a succession of stupid design decisions over the years (whether for pedestrians, vehicles or cyclists), it's just unfortunate for nothing to have been learned.

As an aside, with the current traffic levels, if money was being spent on the roundabout it should have been spent turning it into either a signal controlled roundabout or preferably, a signal controlled junction with proper pedestrian and cyclist facilities.

Roundabouts are not suitable for high traffic scenarios.

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

The NRA shouldn't have signed off on it. Access roads to the M50 are a special case when it comes to vehicle vs other priority.

There's no NRA any more. They merged with the RPA and are now Transport Infrastructure Ireland and they were deeply involved in the initial design of the roundabout. Access roads to the M50 are absolutely no different to any other road in the country. There's an argument that access roads from the M50 should be treated differently to avoid congestion from them leading back to the M50 and blocking the motorway mainline but a) that happens on the motorway and several motorway exits anyway and b) there might be more congestion than before but I haven't seen any sign of it blocking the mainline yet.

In the past we prioritised the speed that vehicles could move at over the safety of all other roads users. Now our councils and state agencies are slowly beginning to change that and people are unhappy with the change to the status quo. People are complaining that there's no need to slow down vehicles so much or that the M50 is a magical creature which should never be allowed suffer congestion or that the footpaths or cycle lanes aren't sufficiently used but those arguments are all missing the point. Those arguments are doomed to failure.

.......

Its really a mess and SDCC dont want to back down on it because it has cost a HUGE amount of money.

Theyve made several aspects of the entire redesign MORE dangerous for drivers and no amount of "Well people should learn to drive, the old layout is more forgiving" is going to change that. Leaving Beverly now and turning right requires you to swing slightly onto the other side of the road, if you are a car, if youre a van you will swing a LOT onto the other side of the road.

The enormous footpath at Beverly is supposed to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians, while the road has been narrowed to much as to be dangerous to cyclists - so now the cyclists can mow down the pedestrians instead.

Exiting the M50 at Firhouse southbound has also been affected.

Absolutely bizarre state of affairs - difficult to understand how anyone could defend it.

markpb

markpb wrote: »

There's no NRA any more. They merged with the RPA and are now Transport Infrastructure Ireland and they were deeply involved in the initial design of the roundabout.

]Access roads to the M50 are absolutely no different to any other road in the country. There's an argument that access roads from the M50 should be treated differently to avoid congestion from them leading back to the M50 and blocking the motorway mainline but a) that happens on the motorway and several motorway exits anyway and b) there might be more congestion than before but I haven't seen any sign of it blocking the mainline yet.

Yes, thank you. I still occasionally call it the NRA out of habit when I'm not paying attention.

Do you have a source for TIIs 'deep involvement' in the initial design of the roundabout?

SDCC's own publications says the NTA were involved in the design, they don't mention TII once. In any publication that I can find.

Also, we shouldn't treat individual roads differently, depending on usage, traffic, and critical nature? Well, that's an interesting argument. It makes sense though, an L road in the Wicklow Mountains should be treated exactly the same as the access road to the busiest motorway in the country!

In the past we prioritised the speed that vehicles could move at over the safety of all other roads users.

How is that relevant? Average speed on Scholarstown Road is well below walking speed for 90-120 minutes each and every weekday morning now. How slow do you think they should be travelling?

I see you also ignored the link I posted that shows no accidents of any kind recorded at the Orlagh Roundabout for as long as the RSA has published information.

Now our councils and state agencies are slowly beginning to change that and people are unhappy with the change to the status quo.

Source please. We've already had enough people waffling in this thread without you wading in throwing fantastical strawmans left right and centre.

People are complaining that there's no need to slow down vehicles so much

People are complaining that congestion has gotten markedly worse for little to no apparent gain for anyone. Can you provide a single quote of someone complaining that they can't get through the roundabout at 50km/h anymore? Or is this another strawman?

or that the M50 is a magical creature which should never be allowed suffer congestion

Oh look, another strawman!

or that the footpaths or cycle lanes aren't sufficiently used

No-one has argued that. Why are you creating yet another strawman?

but those arguments are all missing the point. Those arguments are doomed to failure.

Rational arguments based on real-world evidence are missing the point and doomed to failure? Good luck with that point of view.

Do you work for the SDCC? You should, you'd fit right in!



Here's another wonderful quote from SDCC from last December:

When contacted by The Echo, a spokesperson for South Dublin County Council said: “Roads Design and Construction acknowledge that there have been delays at the roundabout, which has caused public disquiet.

“We feel the reason for the delays are that there have been very poor weather conditions recently, which slows traffic considerably, and an additional amount of delay is caused by drivers slowing down to view the roadworks.”

For anyone curious what the Chief Executive of SDCC had to say at today's Area Meeting;

The surveys and drone footage taken after the works were completed and after the SDCC Traffic section made some amendments to the pedestrian signals, indicate that the roundabout with the enhanced cyclist and pedestrian measures is operating well and that the adjustments have been beneficial to road users, while maintaining the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

The Orlagh Roundabout to Knocklyon Road section isn't inconveniencing cars beyond it taking longer to take a left turn onto the Knocklyon Road. It's not a huge deal and I understand why filter lanes with traffic islands are undesirable for pedestrian crossings.

The problem is, many submissions were made about the width of the shared cycle/footpath being grossly inadequate during the planning stage and at all times SDCC responded with variations of "it'll be absolutely fine, however if cyclists wish to do so they may also use the road".

It clearly wasn't fine, it clearly isn't fine, and it's another example of SDCC's incompetence.

Here;


What does the NCM actually say?



The kicker? The 3m width refers to 3m per direction. So for two way traffic, it should be 6m.

In response to another submission on width;


I really have no issue with vehicles having to slow down to progress through the roundabout, or vehicular traffic being inconvenienced for the greater good. The problem is they made such an utter mess of this design and wasted a god awful amount of money doing so to deliver: one extra signalled pedestrian crossing, improved lighting and a wider path for schoolkids on one section. Where's the greater good?

It's no improvement for cyclists, and looking at the RSA map of road incidents, there's never been a recorded pedestrian/cyclist incident at the roundabout (as per: http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/ )

None if that answers the question I was asking another poster.

The 3 metres is 3 metres in total. Not 6 metres. If you had 6 metres of space to spare, they would have put in cycle paths segregated from the footpaths.

And the RSA map is hopelessly out of date and not a reflection on where walking and cycle routes — your thinking there is very old style, ie someone needs to be killed before anything is changed.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone curious what the Chief Executive of SDCC had to say at today's Area Meeting;

It’s clunky but try reading the full sentence

“Traffic section made some amendments to the pedestrian signals, indicate that the roundabout with the enhanced cyclist and pedestrian measures is operating well and that the adjustments have been beneficial to road users, while maintaining the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.”

When he says “the adjustments have been beneficial to road users“ he’s talking about the amendments to the pedestrian signals.

monument

monument wrote: »

None if that answers the question I was asking another poster.

Fair enough;

"What exactly should they have done?"

1) Done proper traffic surveys pre-design

2) Evaluated potential designs for vehicular, cyclist & pedestrian throughput while maintaining safety standards

3) Researched different junction types and for what levels of AADT they are suitable for

4) Actually read the National Cycle Manual that they referred to

5) Followed the recommendations of the National Cycle Manual that they referred to

6) Responded to people's submissions with accurate and considered replies

7) Not tried to mislead the public in claiming that the shared space would be useful & adequate for cyclists

8) Considered whether the resources presumably earmarked for pedestrian safety and cycling facilities would be better used in another project

And I'm sure more, but that's off the top of my head.

I should also note that your point is an false dichotomy. There's no obvious need for better cycling facilities in the area to cause more pain for motorists. Nothing about improving pedestrian/cyclist crossing facilities at the Orlagh roundabout required increased vehicular congestion.

The 3 metres is 3 metres in total. Not 6 metres. If you had 6 metres of space to spare, they would have put in cycle paths segregated from the footpaths.

The 3 metres is 3 metres in total? Yes, 3 metres is 3 metres in total. No, shared space of 3metres does not refer to bi-directional shared space.

As for the hopelessly out of date statistics, it's rather laughable that you decry 10 years of statistics as being useless without bringing a shred of evidence of your own to the table.

"Your evidence isn't good enough, but I don't have any evidence! I'm also going to strawman your argument"

Did you even click the link? It records all collisions reported to the Gardai with minor being classified as "Where there are no deaths or serious injuries. The definition of a “minor injury” is an injury of a minor character such as a sprain or bruise."

Really monument, did you have to join in on strawmans and posting obviously false information?

When he says “the adjustments have been beneficial to road users“ he’s talking about the amendments to the pedestrian signals.

You're really reaching here.


The question was: ""That this Area Committee asks the Chief Executive to comment and report on the attached footage taken at the Orlagh Roundabout on 12th February last, at same time, 8.40am, as the original drone footage, when the undemocratic decision was taken to reduce the roundabout from two lanes to one and give an outline of when the two lanes will be reinstated.""

The answer:
"Drone footage taken in advance of the works indicated that despite two lanes being available for use at Scholarstown Road East, the outer lane was rarely used and when it was, it caused confusion and erratic behaviour. This is not shown on the footage of 12th February 2019.

The surveys and drone footage taken after the works were completed and after the SDCC Traffic section made some amendments to the pedestrian signals

<comma>

indicate that the roundabout with the enhanced cyclist and pedestrian measures is operating well and that the adjustments have been beneficial to road users

<comma>

while maintaining the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists."

No, it doesn't mean what you're claiming, that goes against basic grammatical rules.

The adjustments refer to the redesign, SDCC has been at pains to talk about the confusion two lanes caused and the ensuing risk of sideswiping in several documents (and indeed, this reply) as well as claiming that a lower effective speed would make it easier for residents from Orlagh to join the roundabout.


You can believe that the Roundabout change isn't a big deal (or that the benefits are worth it) without being bloody foolish about it.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough;

"What exactly should they have done?"

1) Done proper traffic surveys pre-design

2) Evaluated potential designs for vehicular, cyclist & pedestrian throughput while maintaining safety standards

3) Researched different junction types and for what levels of AADT they are suitable for

4) Actually read the National Cycle Manual that they referred to

5) Followed the recommendations of the National Cycle Manual that they referred to

6) Responded to people's submissions with accurate and considered replies

7) Not tried to mislead the public in claiming that the shared space would be useful & adequate for cyclists

8) Considered whether the resources presumably earmarked for pedestrian safety and cycling facilities would be better used in another project

And I'm sure more, but that's off the top of my head.

I should also note that your point is an false dichotomy. There's no obvious need for better cycling facilities in the area to cause more pain for motorists. Nothing about improving pedestrian/cyclist crossing facilities at the Orlagh roundabout required increased vehicular congestion.


The 3 metres is 3 metres in total? Yes, 3 metres is 3 metres in total. No, shared space of 3metres does not refer to bi-directional shared space.

As for the hopelessly out of date statistics, it's rather laughable that you decry 10 years of statistics as being useless without bringing a shred of evidence of your own to the table.

"Your evidence isn't good enough, but I don't have any evidence! I'm also going to strawman your argument"

Did you even click the link? It records all collisions reported to the Gardai with minor being classified as "Where there are no deaths or serious injuries. The definition of a “minor injury” is an injury of a minor character such as a sprain or bruise."

Really monument, did you have to join in on strawmans and posting obviously false information?


You're really reaching here.


The question was: ""That this Area Committee asks the Chief Executive to comment and report on the attached footage taken at the Orlagh Roundabout on 12th February last, at same time, 8.40am, as the original drone footage, when the undemocratic decision was taken to reduce the roundabout from two lanes to one and give an outline of when the two lanes will be reinstated.""

The answer:
"Drone footage taken in advance of the works indicated that despite two lanes being available for use at Scholarstown Road East, the outer lane was rarely used and when it was, it caused confusion and erratic behaviour. This is not shown on the footage of 12th February 2019.

The surveys and drone footage taken after the works were completed and after the SDCC Traffic section made some amendments to the pedestrian signals

<comma>

indicate that the roundabout with the enhanced cyclist and pedestrian measures is operating well and that the adjustments have been beneficial to road users

<comma>

while maintaining the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists."

No, it doesn't mean what you're claiming, that goes against basic grammatical rules.

The adjustments refer to the redesign, SDCC has been at pains to talk about the confusion two lanes caused and the ensuing risk of sideswiping in several documents (and indeed, this reply) as well as claiming that a lower effective speed would make it easier for residents from Orlagh to join the roundabout.


You can believe that the Roundabout change isn't a big deal (or that the benefits are worth it) without being bloody foolish about it.

You’re doing what many people do when issues like this come up — as homme attacks, muck flinging, reading manuals etc in a different way than intend etc

Yes, shared space of 3 metres does refer to bi-directional shared path. If you had 6 metres to use on one side of the road, you could easily have segregation between walking and cycling.

Re: “Considered whether the resources presumably earmarked for pedestrian safety and cycling facilities would be better used in another project” — that’s classic not in my back yard stuff. The council officials are mandated to compleat cycle routes, not leave gaps in the network.

I’ve already said that the solution chosen is not ideal for cycling but more ideal solutions for cycling would have had greater impact on motorists — and the impact on motorists is the main thing you and others are jumping up and down about.

As for there being “There's no obvious need for better cycling facilities in the area to cause more pain for motorists” — really, how would you link between the roundabout and the shopping centre without using a shared path? That’s the basic question I was asking the other poster before you decided to answer the question I asked him or her, not you.

Re “Nothing about improving pedestrian/cyclist crossing facilities at the Orlagh roundabout required increased vehicular congestion” — the problem with this is that it’s highly unlike that the roundabout design also has caused all the extra congestion. There’s been extra housing in the area and extra commuter traffic towards the city. Extra congestion in the last year is not confined to this route. I agree with you that there should have been more compensation data tracked on traffic patterns before and after, but I also think that would back me up on there being more cars now than a year ago.

Slowing cars down is a basic safety measure and more people using crossings will mean that the crossings will be red for motorists for longer across the day.

Re the email from the council official which said: “The surveys and drone footage taken after the works were completed and after the SDCC Traffic section made some amendments to the pedestrian signals, indicate that the roundabout with the enhanced cyclist and pedestrian measures is operating well and that the adjustments have been beneficial to road users, while maintaining the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists”...

It’s one sentence and should be read as one sentence — sorry, but it’s actually very funny that you think on one hand that the council officials are breaking rules and not following manuals but then straight away you think they are going to never break grammatical rules in what is at best a semi-formal email. People like engineers often write in clunky sentence and you’re nitpicking.

As for you claiming that I “can believe that the roundabout change isn't a big deal (or that the benefits are worth it) without being bloody foolish about it” — what you are doing is avoiding is elephant in the room: it’s a growing city and growing part of the city, for it to be successful, continue to grown, be sustainable and be healthier, fewer people need to drive.

The RSA map is highly incomplete data — I know this from the point of view of tracking such things over years. The RSA and HSE have said the same as what I’m saying. The HSE researchers have released detailed analysis on road traffic injuries not showing up in RSA data. You’re accusing others of not doing research yet you are accusing me of being wrong with little knowledge of the area. Furthermore, there’s loads of academic evidence to show that people are so afraid of current conditions that they don’t walk or cycle. And the Gardai put far worse injuries than “sprains or bruises” as minor. Grand if you think you know better than someone who has been researching this for years — we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I’m not going around in circles.