New Master Plan for Cherrywood

To begin with, this post is more or less the exact same as the comment that I posted in Ossian Smyth's page here in relation to the Cherrywood Roundabout.

Anyway, I think Figure 1 is probably the best fit for Cherrywood. There is ample space on the approach to the roundabout from each arm whereby there could be a dip on the edges for pedestrians and cyclists and a ramp for the main carriageway.

Figure 1:



As it stands, most of the entrances and exits to the roundabout have a whopping three lanes and even a fourth slip lane which is gross over-provision for cars. This excessive space could easily be utilised for the installation of a two-way cycle track the entire way around and a pedestrian walkway.

The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) frequently uses the phrase ‘desired lines’. If this were to become a double-decker roundabout as per Figure 1, an additional x-shaped diagonal crossing could pass beneath the carriageway. This would accommodate a 2 way cycle track and pedestrian walkway to save time in crossing the entire circumference. This should help meet the requirements of the ‘desired lines’.

The eye of the roundabout where this x-shaped crossing would be could include kiosks, benches, water features and other amenities for casual cyclists and pedestrians alike. The kiosks 
would be there in part to ward off any anti-social behaviour which traditionally materialised in less exposed underpasses.

For motorists, the above would mean a roundabout with a constant 2 lanes on approach, exiting and on the actual roundabout itself.

The official proposal of a signalised crossing to replace the roundabout is extremely hazardous and inconvenient for cyclists and pedestrians. It’s somewhat akin to the situation at Westmoreland Street where one has to battle their way across a whopping five lanes of traffic in parts.

For cyclists who don’t want to be side-swiped, this means dismounting from their bike and negotiating their way across a minimum of three traffic islands (if they intend on crossing only one of the 4 roads).

Conversely, Figure 2 would be a massive sacrifice for motorists as it would likely result in horrendous tailbacks propagating all the way to the M50.

Figure 2:



In short, too much provision for the car at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians leaves them marginalised and makes for soulless infrastructure. Too little provision for motorists in favor of cyclists and pedestrians would, in this case cause massive tailbacks possibly, stretching back to the M50. In conclusion, a perfect balance needs to be achieved where ALL road users are happy and I strongly believe that Figure 1 is it.

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

This is the developer's redesigned central junction in Cherrywood:


If you were on foot, you would have to wait at six sets of traffic lights to get from one corner of this junction to the opposite corner. The clear message is that you'd be a fool not to drive every time for every trip.

There is still a lot that is wrong with this proposed junction. To begin with, the top left-hand corner shows a potential collision point between buses and cyclists. At this point, lanes go from 2 up to 3 with the third one being for buses on the outside of a straight-ahead cycle lane. This means the potential for 3 parallel vehicle movements turning left. The corner on the bottom-right seems to be a better solution but, not perfect either as cars will still be turning left on the outside of a cyclists path. On the other hand, the junction on the bottom-left is sharper than 90 degrees unlike the other arms which are much smoother.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency or uniform shape for each arm of the junction. From the image which is superimposed onto a diagram of the existing roundabout, it is clear that there is a huge amount of space remaining that they could work with to better effect. For example and as per Ossian's comment about negotiating six sets of traffic lights to get from one corner to the other, the developers could still fit a diagonal underpass to accommodate these desired lines. Unlike *those from the past, an underpass would have to be wheelchair and bike friendly and easy to navigate by the elderly. Furthermore, it would have to be open enough so that it doesn't become a hide out for anti-socialites. Like the kiosk connecting platform 1-5 with 6 and 7 in Connolly Station, a similar one could be installed in the underpass to add a formal purpose to it.

*Before they were filled in, the underpasses at Blackrock were horrible and completely unusable to those with mild-severe mobility impairments.

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely thrilled with the idea of the proposed residents, parks, shopping center, cinema, bowling alley, offices and schools. However, Hines need to go back and improve this very crucial junction as there are collision points all over it.