New traffic calming at junction King's Inns Street with Bolton Street

monument · 31-01-2012 6:12pm #1

Seems very usable by cars and vans and better for cyclists than many other types of traffic calming which causes a 'pinch point' between cars and cyclists:

More photos here on flickr.

Lapin · 31-01-2012 6:19pm

It looks hideous.

galwaycyclist · 31-01-2012 6:24pm

Ok knee jerk reaction is this looks like a typical "false one way street" installation that has been used at the wrong end of a one-way street.

The usual intent of such treatments would be to allow cyclist permeability past some traffic control focused mainly on motor traffic - so a banned left turn or a one-way/no-entry restriction that really only needs to apply to cars.

So with regret, it looks to have been put in backwards, the cyclist bypass should be on the left to allow contraflow cyclists to exit onto the crossing arm while preventing cars from trying the same thing. A similar treatment might be expected at the other end of the street (actually more important there).

galwaycyclist · 31-01-2012 6:31pm

And if that is a secondary school on the corner, are we to understand that kids from the school don't already cycle contraflow up the street? Such as to get to the cycle lane we can see crossing the mouth of the junction?

If that is the case, then this treatment places turning cars in direct conflict with the cyclists turning out - or else - requires the cyclists to cycle on the wrong side of the road.

What is the opposite of a "gold star"?

monument · 31-01-2012 6:35pm

Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

But the reasoning for it is as an entry treatment to the 30km/h and to improve the pedestrian environment. The junction used to be very wide (street view).

With a lack of progress on contra-flow (or changing roads back to two-way!), it's an improvement for pedestrians and slowing the speeds of cars.

Jehuty42 · 31-01-2012 6:39pm

I'm not sure what advantage this offers over a normal junction to anybody, it just seems to be creating clutter.

monument · 31-01-2012 6:50pm

Jehuty42 wrote: »

I'm not sure what advantage this offers over a normal junction to anybody, it just seems to be creating clutter.

It's main aims seems to be very clear that this is an entry point to the 30km/h zone and to give pedestrians walking along Bolton Street a better and safer crossing (the crossing is at the level of the footpaths, the space people have to walk across which is shared with traffic is narrowed, and traffic is slowed down).

galwaycyclist · 31-01-2012 6:51pm

monument wrote: »

Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

But the reasoning for it is as an entry treatment to the 30km/h and to improve the pedestrian environment. The junction used to be very wide (street view).

With a lack of progress on contra-flow (or changing roads back to two-way!), it's an improvement for pedestrians and slowing the speeds of cars.

OK but if this is a 30km/h zone then it should be two-way for cyclists without needing any segregation. In fact in France it would probably be automatically two-way for cyclists.

Also if the intent is to slow speeds and reduce through traffic why are any turning lanes needed at the other end?

Tails142 · 31-01-2012 7:00pm

I was turning right off bolton street the first time I came upon this monstrosity and nearly ended up driving through the cycle lane part before I realised what it was.

the junction was too wide when trying to cross as a pedestrian but not sure it required the separate 'lane' for cyclists

could be worse I suppose, it seems to have more road markings now compared to when I first encountered it

monument · 31-01-2012 7:02pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK but if this is a 30km/h zone then it should be two-way for cyclists without needing any segregation. In fact in France it would probably be automatically two-way for cyclists.

Also if the intent is to slow speeds and reduce through traffic why are any turning lanes needed at the other end?

That's why I agree with you -- there should be contra-flow.

And you're right, they could even keep the parking and something like this could easily work, or something without the lanes or just a contra-flow lane (there's not one single option):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KsLsdJw9Os

I'm not defending it, but I'd hazard a guess that the problem is the system is still obsessed with motor traffic flows, at lower or higher speeds, and this is made worse by all the car parks in the area.

Jehuty42 · 31-01-2012 7:03pm

Tails142 wrote: »

I was turning right off bolton street the first time I came upon this monstrosity and nearly ended up driving through the cycle lane part before I realised what it was.

I agree, it looks visually very confusing and it's possible drivers will not fully understand what is expected of them here.

galwaycyclist · 31-01-2012 7:10pm

monument wrote: »

Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

Also even if there is an issue with providing contraflow access at the other end - they could still have made it contraflow for cycle traffic originating within the street. Such as the school?

This would still have satisfied the requirement of providing an entry treatment and reducing exposure for crossing pedestrians.

AlekSmart · 31-01-2012 10:49pm

The other negative aspect of this twittery related to the ending of any prospect of routing a Bus Service along Kings Inn St.

Currently Bolton St,King St and Smithfield itself are in a Bermuda Triangle when it comes to Bus Services....

With the pre-existing narrowing along Capel St and the seeming unwillingness of DCC the QBN office and Dublin Bus themselves to actually do a small census to reveal the dense population who continue to be ignored with regard to a public transport service.

There are a shed-full of options and opportunities for New Termini and new routings to deliver some service to this forgotten part of Dublin City......:eek:

Cookie_Monster · 31-01-2012 10:59pm

how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?

monument · 31-01-2012 11:49pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

The other negative aspect of this twittery related to the ending of any prospect of routing a Bus Service along Kings Inn St....

Luas BXD planned for the next street over has already done that.

But also you can't stop all installations of traffic calming (or traffic or cycle lanes, parking, Dublin Bike stands, etc etc) on any street just because a bus route could one undefined day use the street.

Jehuty42 wrote: »

I agree, it looks visually very confusing and it's possible drivers will not fully understand what is expected of them here.

It's fairly simple:

On the road: An arrow painted for cars to enter, and bicycle for where bicycles enter.

On the yellow signs: Bicycle for bicycle bicycles go, and arrows for everything else.

Tails142 wrote: »

the junction was too wide when trying to cross as a pedestrian but not sure it required the separate 'lane' for cyclists

It's to avoid the increased level of conflict between cyclists and motorists caused by a pinch point.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?

Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

PseudoFamous · 01-02-2012 12:01am

monument wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?

Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

Yes. Cars are brought in to DIT Bolton Street through the King Inn entrance for study by mechanical engineering students, usually on the back of a truck. There are no possible alternative entrances, as the mech workshop is on the ground floor through the Kings Inn entrance.
Other hefty things I've seen brought in through that entrance include a large batch of sheet metal, and a multiple pallets of paper, neither of which have alternate ways, due to the stairs at the Bolton Street entrance.

Aard · 01-02-2012 12:36am

Hmm... I attend DIT Bolton St so I'll check this out tomorrow. I'd heard about it but haven't actually seen it myself. Off the top of my head, King's Inn St isn't really used by cyclists. There's a Dublin Bikes stand at Capel/Bolton so the contraflow lane there is used more than Kings Inn. I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

Walking up and down here every day, I can't say I've noticed a need for traffic calming. Somebody obviously thought there was a need for it, though; a less ugly and cluttersome way of doing it would have been to put a contraflow bike-lane inside the parked cars, and reduce the width of the driveable area.

I'll reserve judgment on it until tomorrow. Oh, and well done Dublin City Council for removing a grand total of THREE car-spaces in the name of traffic calming.

AlekSmart · 01-02-2012 7:43am

monument wrote: »

Luas BXD planned for the next street over has already done that.

The word "Planned" is highly relevant here I suspect.

But also you can't stop all installations of traffic calming (or traffic or cycle lanes, parking, Dublin Bike stands, etc etc) on any street just because a bus route could one undefined day use the street.

Not for a second suggesting it should,however there is an issue with one of the few densely populated residential areas of the City Centre having NO Bus Service whilst the likes of Merrion Square has several Termini

It's fairly simple:

On the road: An arrow painted for cars to enter, and bicycle for where bicycles enter.

Quite a substantial pothole left there too I note...."Pour encourager les autres" perhaps ?

On the yellow signs: Bicycle for bicycle bicycles go, and arrows for everything else.

I wonder how long the Yellow Signs will remain erect..?

It's to avoid the increased level of conflict between cyclists and motorists caused by a pinch point.

Having walked,driven....and cycled (:eek:) past and along the street over the past 40 years I'll accept that conflict statement,with the caveat that I've never actually witnessed an example of it

Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

If it got there,a truck brought it...;)

AlekSmart · 01-02-2012 7:48am

Aard wrote: »

Hmm... I attend DIT Bolton St so I'll check this out tomorrow. I'd heard about it but haven't actually seen it myself. Off the top of my head, King's Inn St isn't really used by cyclists. There's a Dublin Bikes stand at Capel/Bolton so the contraflow lane there is used more than Kings Inn. I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

Walking up and down here every day, I can't say I've noticed a need for traffic calming. Somebody obviously thought there was a need for it, though; a less ugly and cluttersome way of doing it would have been to put a contraflow bike-lane inside the parked cars, and reduce the width of the driveable area.

I'll reserve judgment on it until tomorrow. Oh, and well done Dublin City Council for removing a grand total of THREE car-spaces in the name of traffic calming.

Valid points Aard.

I would'nt worry about those three lost spaces,I should imagine there's replacements already marked out...perhaps in the Kings Inn's (

)

On the broader topic of the Car Parking issue,perhaps an improved Bus Service along or to Bolton St/King St might have provided some small incentive for a few of the Car Drivers to try an alternative,even occasionally ?

It all just smacks of lost opportunity to me !

markpb · 01-02-2012 10:04am

Aard wrote: »

I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

One improved street is not going to attract cyclists but as part of a policy of generally making roads safer for cycling, it's fine. We can't complain that there are no facilities and then attack each one when it's built because it's not enough.

Aard · 01-02-2012 10:25am

True, Mark. I'm sure this is just a pilot of sorts, and they wanted to use it on a street that wasn't particularly important to the flow of cars and bikes alike.

galwaycyclist · 01-02-2012 10:59am

markpb wrote: »

One improved street is not going to attract cyclists but as part of a policy of generally making roads safer for cycling, it's fine. We can't complain that there are no facilities and then attack each one when it's built because it's not enough.

Sorry but I disagree. Among the cycle campaigning community the complaint is not so much about "lack" of facilities but that what is being put in actually makes things worse. The "complaint" quite often is "please stop building facilities when you quite clearly have no idea what you are doing".

In this case, from what I can see, this "facility" may make things worse for some cyclists.

Edit: Also in this case it is not like we are talking about some unknown "rocket science" I can pull out a suggested design for such an entry treatment dating back to at least 1996 - thats just from memory.

BostonB · 01-02-2012 11:36am

Is there a history of accidents here or something?

markpb · 01-02-2012 12:01pm

BostonB wrote: »

Is there a history of accidents here or something?

There's a similar installation at the junction of Dorset St & Frederick St North so it looks (to me) like they're narrowing the entrances to the 30kph cordon so make it more obvious that you're entering that area.

monument · 01-02-2012 12:21pm

BostonB wrote: »

Is there a history of accidents here or something?

Why does there have to be a history of accidents for traffic calming?

BostonB · 01-02-2012 1:16pm

monument wrote: »

Why does there have to be a history of accidents for traffic calming?

Because they've a habit of spending thousands of tax payers money on things that achieve absolutely nothing.

monument · 01-02-2012 1:40pm

BostonB wrote: »

Because they've a habit of spending thousands of tax payers money on things that achieve absolutely nothing.

In this case, this seems to achieve what it set out:

Provide a vastly improved crossing experiences for pedestrians -- especially children or those with children, with prams, older people and those with disabilities
Slow traffic coming into the 30km/h / near the crossing / at the school
Make it clear that you are entering the 30km/h zone
And it has done this with a bypass for cyclists to avoid any extra conflicts

BostonB · 01-02-2012 1:49pm

Do they have any metrics of before and after to know they've achieved this.

Aard · 01-02-2012 7:08pm

Right. I took a look today. No cyclists whatsoever used it, while in the time I was there about 15 cars used it. Most cars got the gist of things, but a few nearly drove down the cycle lane and only realised at the last second that they were making a mistake. One car blocked southbound traffic on Bolton St for about ten seconds while he negotiated the junction. I also noticed that the drivers sped up on the other side of the "traffic calming" entry. I'd imagine they were frustrated with the slowness of the junction that they felt like 'making up time' on the other side. IMO this defeats the purpose of things a bit.

Certainly, it's now easier for pedestrians to cross the road here. That's a plus. I have no idea about cyclists, but I'd imagine that not many would use King's Inn St as it doesn't exactly go anywhere. Capel St is still more useful (saw a few people cycling down there today).

And let's face it, it's not exactly pretty. The gaudy neon-yellow signs are a bit much.

On the whole I'm a bit whatever about it. It's definitely a plus for pedestrians, I'll give it that. I don't think it will slow drivers down, except at the junction (which in fairness is probably the most important place to slow them down). But it's possible to slow drivers using other methods, like reducing the curve radius, or even just putting in the ramp by itself. More expensive ways would include narrowing the street and broadening the footpath, or removing a few parking spaces here and there and putting in some trees in their place.

Carawaystick · 01-02-2012 8:29pm

The placing of a speed ramp for cyclists seems bizarre and dangerous, as the actual camber will change for a cyclist taking the corner; plus the bike parking right beside the bike lane will result in bikes encroaching on the lane

monument · 02-02-2012 1:22am

Carawaystick wrote: »

The placing of a speed ramp for cyclists seems bizarre and dangerous, as the actual camber will change for a cyclist taking the corner; plus the bike parking right beside the bike lane will result in bikes encroaching on the lane

I don't think there is any problem for cyclists using it.

It's not really a speed ramp, even if it shares some of the effects of speed bumps -- it's a pedestrian table which makes cars and cyclists come to the pedestrian level rather than the usually way of bring pedestrians up and down.

And it seems unlikely that bikes on the racks would encroach on the lane unless they were horrendously parked and the lane is wide compared to the average cycle lane.

Aard wrote: »

Right. I took a look today. No cyclists whatsoever used it, while in the time I was there about 15 cars used it. Most cars got the gist of things, but a few nearly drove down the cycle lane and only realised at the last second that they were making a mistake. One car blocked southbound traffic on Bolton St for about ten seconds while he negotiated the junction. I also noticed that the drivers sped up on the other side of the "traffic calming" entry. I'd imagine they were frustrated with the slowness of the junction that they felt like 'making up time' on the other side. IMO this defeats the purpose of things a bit.

It's fairly effective still with reducing speed given it slows traffic down on [a] the junction and the 'main' road.

Aard wrote: »

Certainly, it's now easier for pedestrians to cross the road here. That's a plus. I have no idea about cyclists, but I'd imagine that not many would use King's Inn St as it doesn't exactly go anywhere. Capel St is still more useful (saw a few people cycling down there today).

Ultimately it is mainly for pedestrians -- cyclists are just a consideration, which is unusual.

Aard wrote: »

...But it's possible to slow drivers using other methods, like reducing the curve radius, or even just putting in the ramp by itself. More expensive ways would include narrowing the street and broadening the footpath, or removing a few parking spaces here and there and putting in some trees in their place.

What is in place now uses a mix of those in a key position and without costing what redoing the whole street would.

BostonB · 02-02-2012 2:01am

Any time I've used that junction its mainly only cars using it. Maybe theres a lot of pedestrian traffic at certain times of the day but I've never seen it.

monument · 02-02-2012 2:47am

BostonB wrote: »

Any time I've used that junction its mainly only cars using it. Maybe theres a lot of pedestrian traffic at certain times of the day but I've never seen it.

What are you trying to say here? And before you do say anything remember:

It's beside a school (as well as part of a third level college).
It's an entry treatment for a 30km/h zone.
It's in one the most densely populated areas in the county.
Within the city centre / within the canals (as defined by an NTA breakdown of census data), where 50% of residents walk or cycle to work (more walk).
It borders on the electoral divisions Rotunda A, where 49.73% of residents just walk, and Inns Quay C, where 47.57% of residents do the same. The other surrounding electoral divisions are in the range of 40% to 50% of residents who walk.

To be honest, I should have stopped typing at the first point there.

BostonB · 02-02-2012 4:22am

Seems to there no metrics on what its achieved. But much like carpet bombing, it must be hitting something.

You see a lot of these kinda things all over, usually on quiet streets, often cycling "themed". Most of the time I'd seriously question if there was any need for them. I wonder what collectively they cost though. Its a bit like the bus lane in my area, they widened the road through the estate, put in oodles of lights, and road markings, moved pavements, kerbs, etc at it for months. I assume at great expense. Cycle thingies (on one side of the road only). Only to bottle neck it making it merge to one lane (for buses and cars) in two locations where previously it was two. TBH if they used all this money to get one garda to enforce the existing laws at a different problem junction every day, it would have more effect.

30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it. If there was a coherent plan maybe. But I so far I've seen no sign of that.

Vic_08 · 02-02-2012 3:54pm

monument wrote: »

Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

Just look at the ridiculous concrete islands that have popped up on North Frederick St. This road is supposedly Bus/Cycle/Taxi only southbound, has relatively low traffic levels and is the main bus artery from the north of the city. It is now an extremely tight turn in a regular bus from Dorset St and the likes of Aircoach with longer coaches now need to swing well across into the northbound lane to get the correct angle to align the coach with the new islands and even then only have milimetres to spare.

Northbound now it is impossible to get a large vehicle past the islands if there is a car LEGALLY parked in the last space. It is only a matter of time before somebody misjudges the angles and hits either another vehicle, part of the street furniture or a parked car. And of course when that happens it will be entirely the drivers' fault and not that of the cretins who waste public money installing pointless street constructions turning an already difficult city to manouvere through into an obstacle course.

markpb · 02-02-2012 5:41pm

BostonB wrote: »

30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it.

Perhaps they're trying to enforce it through physical means instead of legal ones? In the same way that narrowing a road or making it appear narrower can encourage road users to slow down.

BostonB · 02-02-2012 6:25pm

Maybe they missed this in the news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094939/Britains-longest-clutter-free-street-unveiled-make-things-SAFER.html

monument · 03-02-2012 1:25am

If there are problems they should be sorted, but the council can never win if people complain that they put in the 30km/h zone without any street changes and people also complain when they put in some street changes...

BostonB wrote: »

Seems to there no metrics on what its achieved. But much like carpet bombing, it must be hitting something....

30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it. If there was a coherent plan maybe. But I so far I've seen no sign of that.

It seems there are no metrics and there's no coherent plan, or is it that you're just guessing that there's none?

This isn't cycling "themed" -- cyclists were just included. It is very much so pedestrian focused. It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc).

BostonB wrote: »

You see a lot of these kinda things all over, usually on quiet streets, often cycling "themed". Most of the time I'd seriously question if there was any need for them. I wonder what collectively they cost though. Its a bit like the bus lane in my area, they widened the road through the estate, put in oodles of lights, and road markings, moved pavements, kerbs, etc at it for months. I assume at great expense. Cycle thingies (on one side of the road only). Only to bottle neck it making it merge to one lane (for buses and cars) in two locations where previously it was two. TBH if they used all this money to get one garda to enforce the existing laws at a different problem junction every day, it would have more effect.

Bar trying to apply sweeping generalisations across what different councils do, I'm not sure you have a solid point here. And how much would your one garda cost and how well could he or she be spread around Dublin in the one day?

BostonB wrote: »

Maybe they missed this in the news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094939/Britains-longest-clutter-free-street-unveiled-make-things-SAFER.html

One min you do not support 30km/h, but the next you want 30km/h? :pac:

Also: Do you want all streets in the 30km/h zone to be done like the Exhibition Road project? And you mention the cost of the Dublin traffic calming, but you see the £28m price tag on the London project as ok? And do you know that Exhibition Road has traffic calming at entry points, or at least most entry points? And the whole road is traffic calming really!

Vic_08 wrote: »

Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

You give out that traffic calming slows things down but you try to claim that its "pointless" -- you might find that that's a contradiction. You may disagree with traffic calming, but it is far from pointless and your post claims that it fulfills one of its main aims (ie slow traffic).

The example of traffic calming pictured in the opening post has been in place for more than a few weeks now, it seems refuse collection trucks are somehow managing. As for fire tenders -- it does not seem like they would have any problems getting pass.

Vic_08 wrote: »

Just look at the ridiculous concrete islands that have popped up on North Frederick St. This road is supposedly Bus/Cycle/Taxi only southbound, has relatively low traffic levels and is the main bus artery from the north of the city. It is now an extremely tight turn in a regular bus from Dorset St and the likes of Aircoach with longer coaches now need to swing well across into the northbound lane to get the correct angle to align the coach with the new islands and even then only have milimetres to spare.

Northbound now it is impossible to get a large vehicle past the islands if there is a car LEGALLY parked in the last space. It is only a matter of time before somebody misjudges the angles and hits either another vehicle, part of the street furniture or a parked car. And of course when that happens it will be entirely the drivers' fault and not that of the cretins who waste public money installing pointless street constructions turning an already difficult city to manouvere through into an obstacle course.

Again: You're contradicting your self! Something can't fulfill a primary aim of slowing traffic and also be pointless!

North Frederick St has high levels of traffic with buses and taxis alone, but fair enough if there are major flaws they should be fixed.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 1:55am

monument wrote: »

....It seems there are no metrics and there's no coherent plan, or is it that you're just guessing that there's none?

monument wrote: »

This isn't cycling "themed" -- cyclists were just included. It is very much so pedestrian focused. It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc).

If theres a point (or plan) in having a 30 zone thats not enforced I fail to see it. Or if there's a measurable problem that these "treatments" resolve I've yet to hear what it is.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 1:55am

monument wrote: »

Bar trying to apply sweeping generalisations across what different councils do, I'm not sure you have a solid point here. And how much would your one garda cost and how well could he or she be spread around Dublin in the one day?

I assume their regular salary. They don't need to be everywhere in one day. Most traffic goes through choke points. People who disregard the traffic laws are habitual. As such pick a choke point twice a month and theres a good chance you'll catch the same drivers repeatedly. Its like fish in a barrel tbh. They get used to one spot simply move to the next choke point on the route.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 1:56am

monument wrote: »

One min you do not support 30km/h, but the next you want 30km/h? :pac:

I would like to know if all this money is achieving anything. its that simple.

monument wrote: »

Also: Do you want all streets in the 30km/h zone to be done like the Exhibition Road project? And you mention the cost of the Dublin traffic calming, but you see the £28m price tag on the London project as ok? And do you know that Exhibition Road has traffic calming at entry points, or at least most entry points? And the whole road is traffic calming really!

My point is these "treatments" seems to very dated idea's. Considering how long ideas like woonerven have been around. I get the feeling a lot of money is going to be thrown away to learn lessons already learnt, elsewhere and without any metrics on if they achieve anything relative to the money spent on them.

In D.15 huge sums have been spent on unusable cycle lanes, and treatments. I dread to think at what cost.

Carawaystick · 03-02-2012 11:08am

If it looks like a speed ramp and acts like a speed ramp then it is a speed ramp. To have it on the turn for cyclists is more dangerous than the two options of no ramp or to extend the raised portion well beyond the turn.

The bike racks are very close to the junction, so a cyclist will not have much time to react if someone wheels a bike from the rack towards the cycle lane. If the racks were sited further from the lane or further from the junction, there would be less risk of a collision

monument · 03-02-2012 11:33am

BostonB wrote: »

If theres a point (or plan) in having a 30 zone thats not enforced I fail to see it. Or if there's a measurable problem that these "treatments" resolve I've yet to hear what it is.

The point would be that it is enforced by a mix of traffic measures like these, and police enforcement, including speed camera enforcement (which does happen in the zone).

And here you are in one sentence saying there's no point to the 30km/h zone because it is not enforced and in the next sentence saying that the traffic treatments are not solving any measurable problem! Surely part of the measurable problem they are solving is the lack of enforcement of the 30km/h zone?

BostonB wrote: »

I assume their regular salary. They don't need to be everywhere in one day. Most traffic goes through choke points. People who disregard the traffic laws are habitual. As such pick a choke point twice a month and theres a good chance you'll catch the same drivers repeatedly. Its like fish in a barrel tbh. They get used to one spot simply move to the next choke point on the route.

Your point was that the money spent on traffic calming would be better spent on policing -- so how far do you think the once-off spend on traffic calming at King's Inn Street would go if it was spent instead on policing? The traffic calming should last tens of years with the exception of the car ramp which will have min extra maintenance costs.

BostonB wrote: »

I would like to know if all this money is achieving anything. its that simple.

Yes, it is clear slowing down traffic at key points and the one at King's Inns Street is giving pedestrians a far easier, safer and nicer way of crossing the road.

BostonB wrote: »

My point is these "treatments" seems to very dated idea's. Considering how long ideas like woonerven have been around. I get the feeling a lot of money is going to be thrown away to learn lessons already learnt, elsewhere and without any metrics on if they achieve anything relative to the money spent on them.

In D.15 huge sums have been spent on unusable cycle lanes, and treatments. I dread to think at what cost.

Agreed with the poor standard of cycling lanes, but these treatments, as you call them, all use the basics of traffic calming -- like pedestrian tables, raised table junctions, chicanes and pinch point. These are tried and tested methods.

I could cost millions to redo streets as woonerven / shared use / pedestrian priority and and bring the the woonerven principles to streets with as much parking as King's Inn Street is problematic and usually never done. Shared use works best with streets which have little or no parking.

Carawaystick wrote: »

If it looks like a speed ramp and acts like a speed ramp then it is a speed ramp. To have it on the turn for cyclists is more dangerous than the two options of no ramp or to extend the raised portion well beyond the turn.

The bike racks are very close to the junction, so a cyclist will not have much time to react if someone wheels a bike from the rack towards the cycle lane. If the racks were sited further from the lane or further from the junction, there would be less risk of a collision

The risks in both cases seem small to tiny -- the photographs may not show it but from the rack to the kerb is over the distance of a wheel. I'll take a pick if I'm not in a hurry next time I'm passing and have a bike or there's a bike parked there.... if I have the time I'll even test it out from a few directions!

It might be semantics -- but it is not just a speed bump it's a pedestrian table or even a speed table. Tables don't slow traffic as much as speed bumps -- the chicane and narrower are likely to be doing that more here.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 11:36am

monument wrote: »

... It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc)....

All said and done if it makes the roads nicer to use for all, I can't really complain about it. I just see so many of these improvements that don't make sense.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 11:57am

monument wrote: »

The point would be that it is enforced by a mix of traffic measures like these, and police enforcement, including speed camera enforcement (which does happen in the zone).

And here you are in one sentence saying there's no point to the 30km/h zone because it is not enforced and in the next sentence saying that the traffic treatments are not solving any measurable problem! Surely part of the measurable problem they are solving is the lack of enforcement of the 30km/h zone?

Your point was that the money spent on traffic calming would be better spent on policing -- so how far do you think the once-off spend on traffic calming at King's Inn Street would go if it was spent instead on policing? The traffic calming should last tens of years with the exception of the car ramp which will have min extra maintenance costs.

Yes, it is clear slowing down traffic at key points and the one at King's Inns Street is giving pedestrians a far easier, safer and nicer way of crossing the road.

....

I go through the zone many times a day, 5 days a week and speed enforcement is so little its none existent. I doubt I've seen more then 2 or 3 checks in a year. Every year for as long as I've been doing it. Which is most of my working life. Its not even the speeding. It people just ignoring all laws. Everywhere, constantly. I would be very surprised if other people experience is that all the rules, laws, signals and signs are enforced.

Let be specific here. This feature, is to control speeding on this road, and make it easier to cross the road. I find that hard to believe either is a problem on this road, or even more specifically this junction. So its solving a problem on this road that I don't think exists. On this road. I don't use it a lot but I use it enough as a driver and as pedestrian, so say it seems unlikely to me.

The second issue the wider zone. I don't really know what you point is. But perhaps you'er suggesting this will raise awareness and thus change driver behaviour over the zone. I'm very sceptical of that. But I am saying random enforcement over the whole zone in problem area's would be far more efficient to archive that aim.

monument · 03-02-2012 12:22pm

BostonB wrote: »

I go through the zone many times a day, 5 days a week and speed enforcement is so little its none existent. I doubt I've seen more then 2 or 3 checks in a year. Every year for as long as I've been doing it. Which is most of my working life. Its not even the speeding. It people just ignoring all laws. Everywhere, constantly. I would be very surprised if other people experience is that all the rules, laws, signals and signs are enforced.

Let be specific here. This feature, is to control speeding on this road, and make it easier to cross the road. I find that hard to believe either is a problem on this road, or even more specifically this junction. So its solving a problem on this road that I don't think exists. On this road. I don't use it a lot but I use it enough as a driver and as pedestrian, so say it seems unlikely to me.

The second issue the wider zone. I don't really know what you point is. But perhaps you'er suggesting this will raise awareness and thus change driver behaviour over the zone. I'm very sceptical of that. But I am saying random enforcement over the whole zone in problem area's would be far more efficient to archive that aim.

Could there be more enforcement? Yes. Did I say all laws are enforced? No.

Random speed checks are done -- I know of a case where at least one person has lost their licence for passing one speed van in the zone a few times on the one Saturday. But dual random and fixed enforcement is important, and traffic calming is fixed, passive enforcement which is well documented to work. With this specific treatment: It clearly works at slowing cars down and making it easier for pedestrians to seamlessly cross the road.

Changing the layout of roads is also apart of it. One of the largest criticism of the 30km/h limit was that they were putting in a lower limit without changing the road and that the zone was not clearly marked, now they are changing at least some key parts of some of the road and making the zone entry points as clear as a bright day. It's a good start.

On this specific treatment: Put its this way, I find it very hard to believe that your actually believe that reducing the distance pedestrians have to cross by half and slowing cars down does not make it easier and safer for pedestrians. It's about giving a bit of priority back to pedestrians.

It's worth repeating:

It's beside a school (as well as part of a third level college).
It's an entry treatment for a 30km/h zone.
It's in one the most densely populated areas in the county.
Within the city centre / within the canals (as defined by an NTA breakdown of census data), where 50% of residents walk or cycle to work (more walk).
It borders on the electoral divisions Rotunda A, where 49.73% of residents just walk, and Inns Quay C, where 47.57% of residents do the same. The other surrounding electoral divisions are in the range of 40% to 50% of residents who walk.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 1:02pm

You're still not saying there IS a problem at this junction. Just that there maybe all things considered. I'm just saying in my anecdotal experience (flawed as that is) I've never had a problem there. Its either empty or so busy traffic is reduced to a crawl.

Or that making drivers aware of the zone will reduce speeds. (Considering the media coverage of it previously.)

galwaycyclist · 03-02-2012 2:26pm

Vic_08 wrote: »

Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

I disagree, the flagrant and unsupportable use of excessively large corner radii is one of the more embarrassing aspects of Irish roads engineering practice.

If you design for the convenience of large vehicles, you are also designing for inappropriate turning speeds by most other vehicles (including cyclists

)

The curious Irish practice of using excessive visibility envelopes also has the same effect - encouraging drivers to try and keep moving rather than stopping to assess the traffic conditions, or yield to crossing pedestrians, first.

The end result is an inherently more hostile roads environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. These engineering problems are then compounded by the apparent absence of an effective national police service - as already averted to by BostonB.

monument · 03-02-2012 4:26pm

BostonB wrote: »

You're still not saying there IS a problem at this junction. Just that there maybe all things considered. I'm just saying in my anecdotal experience (flawed as that is) I've never had a problem there. Its either empty or so busy traffic is reduced to a crawl.

Not sure what you mean by a 'problem'.

With your example in London of Exhibition Road, I'm sure many people would say the same thing: "There was no problem to start with." Same with Henry Street, Grafton Street, and O'Connell Street before those streets were updated, and the many streets around King's Inns Street which had older treatments -- some of people would have said that there was no problem and that the traffic calming was 'pointless'

BostonB wrote: »

Or that making drivers aware of the zone will reduce speeds. (Considering the media coverage of it previously.)

The media coverage was all over the place -- there were people highly confused because of it. For example, may commenting on radio stations and on boards too understood wrongly the the full length of the quays were included!

BostonB · 03-02-2012 4:37pm

I don't there's any value in a comparison of any sort to be made between the 3 busiest shopping streets in the country vs this street.

monument · 03-02-2012 5:01pm

BostonB wrote: »

I don't there's any value in a comparison of any sort to be made between the 3 busiest shopping streets in the country vs this street.

The value isn't in comparing the streets, it's in comparing the type of claim you are making that 'there is no problem' and claims by others that these other projects were not needed and the idea that there was no problem before they were built.

It's more about address a balance than it is about fixing any one problem.

The fact you're trying to lower the value of King's Inns Street is fine because pedestrians walking along Bolton Street are the real winners here.

New traffic calming at junction King's Inns Street with Bolton Street

Comments