How to use the new Kirwan junction

Citations needed.

Yes, I used the data against the linked paper to undercut Perfect Contrast's assertion, his assertion. That's not an assertion: it's attacking his assertion. If you cannot understand the difference between those disparate acts, you cannot continue in this discussion.

Your repeating of the same erroneous statement isn't going to magically correct it. Your ignorant and naïve appraisal of traffic dynamics was refuted and so, you must respond or concede the point, not parrot the appraisal. As I've already said, and you ignored acknowledging or refuting it so I'll repeat, unless the duration of navigating through that particular section is more than an hour (at rush hour PM, and it would never be, because it is throttled by several signalized intersections from Headford Road), the data on the volume of vehicles per hour will be more or less equal to demand for that particular section. Again, if you cannot understand this, then you have no right to participate in this discussion.

Your analogy doesn't fit, because all those customers have no impediment before queueing for the till; the analogy would only be correct if for each product a customer wanted, a staff member had to retrieve it from the storehouse for the customer, and after going through the till and before leaving, a staff member has to check the items in their grocery bags against their receipt. Wouldn't it be stupid to state that the tills cannot handle the capacity because the time between a customer entering and leaving the supermarket is too long ignoring the other impediments? And wouldn't it be stupid to state that the tills cannot handle the capacity because of the volume of customers and entering and leaving the supermarket even though the volume does not meet the criteria in two research papers for another till?

Look, I only want you to answer one question, which you conveniently ignored in your previous post, do you really think that there was more than 8,784 vehicles per hour hitting that roundabout?

OK, I'll concede that was harsh, but you're not participating in the discussion anyway, and arguing in bad faith?

You won't answer a simple question. You won't respond to any of rebuttals of your argument or concede your mistakes/errors. You won't argue or concede that unless it takes an hour through that particular section the data on the volume of vehicles per hour will be more or less equal to demand (it's simple math), or concede that the demand from other signalized intersections and sections of the road has zero relevance to the capacity of a roundabout section to handle its volume of traffic, not the overall traffic in the city (simple common sense).

Just answer the simple question, do you think that there was more than 8,784 vehicles per hour hitting that roundabout? So, what was the demand for that roundabout per hour? 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, or all 36,000 vehicles that daily travelled through those roads into the city in 2019?

If decisions in the city council to demolish a roundabout and build an intersection was based on an isolated incident of someone incorrectly crossing the street, there is no hope for Galwegians. I can put up a drone over any roundabout and stage any activity I want. Or I can record for 5 days and cherry pick whatever behavior I want.

Question, who is showing the city council decision makers drone videos from the current layout, where cars at speed, misjudge the lanes and end up driving into pedestrian waiting areas, cars are parked in the middle of the junction as they have entered it without hope of getting out in time for the lights to change, blocking the traffic and causing even further frustration? Or people now knowing how to proceed through counter-intuitive lanes wanting to change the lane last minute, but others not buying it and not letting them in.

For the pedestrians or cyclists to cross the roundabout was easy as piece of cake. On the Menlo side it was safe with a strip of pavement dividing the lanes, on the other side there was a light controlled traffic. If anything to improve pedestrians experience, these lights should be regulated, so one does not need to wait 3 minutes for the green light to show up. There was no need to make any green light synchronizations there, as this pedestrian crossing was isolated and did not influence any other traffic. It should be green for the pedestrians within 10 seconds 'on demand'. Nobody would then be 'dangerously crossing at the roundabout'. When the construction works have commenced, miraculously these lights were immediately setup as mentioned by me to be green within 10 seconds to ease life of the construction workers. No comment..

This might have been intentional? Direct traffic to the main arteries rather than people skipping down through Liosban and Sandy Road?

He claims I'm not being "civil", but in the preceding, he pejoratively classifies my citing the most recent peer-reviewed paper on the efficiency of roundabouts versus signalized intersections as a "rant", and still has yet to concede fabricating an assertion and attributing it to me. The engineer hoist with his own petard.

Again, you fail to grasp your own argument and how flawed it is (seemingly DaCor, too), and I hope that a self-proclaimed (!) domain expert with real-world experience and a solid grounding of common sense would revisit this. Your claiming that the peak volume per hour does not represent the peak demand. If 25 minutes was the peak delay at 6:36PM, then the 7-8PM data point would become the peak volume per hour and would more or less represent peak demand; the demand has to dissipate somewhere. Therefore, unless the duration of navigating through that particular section is more than an hour which length of time cannot encapsulate the delay, the data on the volume of vehicles per hour will be more or less equal to demand for that particular section.

You won't engage or answer the question, because the logical conclusion proceeding it defeats any argument for removing the roundabout based upon increasing the efficiency of junction. Even if there was over 8,000 vehicles, the cited paper states that roundabouts are 1/3 faster than the most efficient signalized intersections and twice as fast as the most inefficient one.

Correct, and as DaCor stated, roundabouts are anti-pedestrian: their efficiency for vehicles derives from not stopping. I think that it is the only valid reason for changing the junction, but in order to placate others i.e. those using vehicles, they had to peddle that this change would reduce traffic delays. It definitely won't, and will probably as a result of changing to a less efficient signalized intersection and a result of induced demand (wait till the council wraps their heads around that particular concept!), increase the traffic delays.