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

BostonB · 03-02-2012 5:18pm

Could you be more vague. They are the winner of what exactly. Address the balance of what.

monument · 03-02-2012 5:48pm

BostonB wrote: »

Could you be more vague. They are the winner of what exactly. Address the balance of what.

The balance of who gets priority and space in the built environment.

And pedestrians 'win':

A flat surface without dips across the junction which is at the same level of the footpaths at both ends -- which is good and great for prams, older people, wheelchair users and other disabled people.
About a 50% reduction in the crossing distance which is shared with other traffic
Traffic slowed down at the junction and a bit also along Bolton Street.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 5:55pm

Will they be doing that at every similar junction in the 30 zone.

monument · 03-02-2012 6:00pm

BostonB wrote: »

Will they be doing that at every similar junction in the 30 zone.

Why don't you ask the council?

But it's worth noting that there is already some type of calming and/or traffic lights at many of the junctions when entering the zone.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 6:30pm

From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

Another is why some roundabouts have cycle lanes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or on one side of a roundabout but not the other.

Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.

BostonB · 03-02-2012 6:43pm

Sweet bike racks though. Like to have them at work.

galwaycyclist · 03-02-2012 6:49pm

BostonB wrote: »

From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

Another is why some roundabouts have cycle lanes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or on one side of a roundabout but not the other.

Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.

Yes there is a crying need for some form of oversight body on these matters. Unfortunately at the moment there is a "you scratch my back and we'll scratch yours" relationship between the Department of Transport and the local authority roads engineers.

It is difficult to know how to address this since they are both part of the problem along with the NTA who produce the guidance that allows all kinds of things to happen.

This is a wider problem than road design and goes back to an "output based model" of civil service career advancement rather than an "outcome based" model. The people who implement these schemes get promoted for spending budgets within budgetary cycles. The idea of any cost-benefit analysis is alien to the system - indeed it fundamentally threatens it.

monument · 03-02-2012 7:00pm

BostonB wrote: »

From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

They might end up like me going around in circles making some of the same points over and over.

BostonB wrote: »

For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

Another is why some roundabouts have cycle anes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or n one side of a roundabout but not the other.

I agree that councils can do things which seem strange and sometimes which are strange.

Sometimes I think they need to work directly with the public more -- not just via councillors, but directly with the public in more public ways. It would not be without problems, it might be worth spending a little more of their limited time engaging with people directly and it could end up saving time (not having to answering questions, explaining things and making things clearer so there's less chances of things blowing up in their face -- 30km/h, bus gate)

BostonB wrote: »

Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

To be blunt: Because of your views on the main subject at hand, and even if I know nothing about this example but can't really trust you here (on things like negligible pedestrian traffic).

BostonB wrote: »

Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.

The other side is mainly only dead end, isn't an entry to the 30km/h zone, isn't at a school, and you can't do everything at once.

Also as a wider point -- on strategy -- the city council is looking theirs for the "public realm" -- http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/Documents/Draft_PRS_291111_web.pdf

CIE · 03-02-2012 10:18pm

Lapin wrote: »

It looks hideous.

Indeed it is.

Why do they call it "traffic-calming" when it's traffic-creating rather? Every new bottleneck costs Dublin millions and perhaps billions of euros per day by backing up the traffic further into the Wicklow Mountains or other hinterlands and creating more and more delays getting to/from work (for commuters) and to/from the shops (for those retail businesses that are still in the city)...as well as increasing vehicle emissions for those concerned with such things (NOx, sulphur compounds and carbon monoxide being the most serious). And as for public transport, there's no hurry to convert bus operations to trolleybus or even street-bound tram, so no reduction in fossil fuel consumption on that end either; and no proper metro to be built that may have a chance of bypassing the street and motorway backups. It'll end up wrecking Dublin's economy further than it's been wrecked.

BostonB · 04-02-2012 3:56am

I asked a simple question are their any metrics for the placement of these things. The answer seems to be no. It done on best guess. Personally thats too woolly for the money being spent.

Then there that PR wet dream of a document like that. Which is very short on data, and long on blather. There seems to be a disconnect between the aspirational objectives, and the execution of them.

Classic example is the dire cycle lane infrastructure which seems to have no input from anyone with any experience of cycling requirements or common sense for that matter. Or how awkward it can be to cycle the main routes through and around the city. With bus only and tram only lanes forcing circular routes on cyclists.

AlekSmart · 04-02-2012 12:24pm

BostonB wrote: »

I asked a simple question are their any metrics for the placement of these things. The answer seems to be no. It done on best guess. Personally thats too woolly for the money being spent.

Then there that PR wet dream of a document like that. Which is very short on data, and long on blather. There seems to be a disconnect between the aspirational objectives, and the execution of them.

Classic example is the dire cycle lane infrastructure which seems to have no input from anyone with any experience of cycling requirements or common sense for that matter. Or how awkward it can be to cycle the main routes through and around the city. With bus only and tram only lanes forcing circular routes on cyclists.

+1 BostonB.

As a Bus Driver all,not some,but ALL of my business is with the kerb,yet virtually the entirety of Dublin's cycling provision entails placing cyclists between my vehicle and this kerb.

Even in locations where it is patently obvious that safer alternatives exist,the planners persist with the dangerous nonsense that large vehicles of up to 18 tonnes in weight and up to 12 metre's long can somehow safely mix-it with cyclists.

If anybody has the stamina,go take a peep at the outbound stop/shelter opposite the Goat Pub in Goatstown (11 Route,Stop 3018).

Here we have the cycle lane deliberately placed between the Bus and Kerb/Shelter,whilst ample space exists to allow the cyclist to transit BEHIND a repositioned Shelter and it's occupants to connect with the segrated cycle lane which carries on from that point.

It's only a single example where if there had been any meaningful interaction between Bus Driver and Planner we might have had a reality check which could have emiminated yet another point of conflict.

It would appear that the Self-Regard of these Planning Professionals is of such import that no dealings with the great-unwashed can be contemplated.

galwaycyclist · 04-02-2012 3:17pm

BostonB wrote: »

I asked a simple question are their any metrics for the placement of these things. The answer seems to be no. It done on best guess. Personally thats too woolly for the money being spent.

I am not offering this comment in defence of the specific installation above.

Historically the system was arguably the same as the system the Garda have for deciding they might enforce the speed limits. Its called the "somebody has to die first" principle. It goes like this "Unless people are actually getting killed then there is no need to make the roads safer".

It is this system that has contributed to roads that are inherently hostile for cyclists and pedestrians. It has lead directly to the "creation" of unecessary traffic because, to give one example, parents feel obliged to drive their childen everywhere. It is this system that is responsible, in part, for the length of time people find themselves stuck in traffic every morning.

There is also another system which is "we will only do these things at places where it wont affect traffic flow". This system has the same effect cited above.

In such circumstances I find "best guess" a much more attractive system for placement - its the designs I tend to have a problem with.

BostonB · 04-02-2012 6:50pm

Well its the same problem with the speed limits. They do it on safe roads. Leaving people to speed on the dangerous ones. Its just easier to catch people on the easier roads. This would be fine if they did enough to change the culture of dangerous driving. But they don't do it enough to change the culture. So with limited resources, they should target the most critical (dangerous) roads first. But they don't. Ultimately there should be figures to prove that something works. Less accidents less severe accidents. And the figure should not be confused by other issues, cars are safer, or the newer roads are safer etc.

Like wise with these calming features. Fair enough if they saturate the place enough to change the culture. Perhaps they are having that effect and I'm just not aware of it. But what I do see is they put in badly designed features which make the problem worse, or in quiet locations where its not needed. Leaving lots of much busier major junctions alone.My cycle route to and from work hasn't improved one bit since I started a few years back. It might even be worse because they made some roads bus only.

Having said that this specific feature is for pedestrians primarily. Which is fine. I haven't been watching if its consistent with other just pedestrian installations.

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

Comments