Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dutch bicycle roundabout above road junction

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Nice :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    That's really cool. Thanks for the share.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,486 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    I used to live very close to there :) There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.

    http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Alun wrote: »
    I used to live very close to there :) There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.

    http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi
    I remember the underpass on the roundabout in Ballymun. And how scary it seemed with the short lines of sight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,486 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    Veldhoven <> Ballymun :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Couple of questions:
    1. It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    2. How is the main junction now controlled?

    Edit: it looks like its still under construction in that pic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,486 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    SeanW wrote: »
    It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    I think that photo was taken before it was fully operational, I guess the vans belonged to workmen who were still working on it.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Couple of questions:
    1. It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    2. How is the main junction now controlled?

    Edit: it looks like its still under construction in that pic.
    Look at the videos in the original post ;)


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    A good blog post follow up on this from a related Dutch cycling blog: The importance of the mundane.

    Here's were the junction is on Google Maps -- it used to be a roundabout.

    Also note how the BRT did and still does bypass the junction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:

    8418200a1720762849b191512460l.jpg

    I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.

    In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.

    Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).

    Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this! :D) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that???


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:

    8418200a1720762849b191512460l.jpg

    I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.

    In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.

    Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).

    Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this! :D) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that???

    Err...

    If anybody from the NTA are reading this, could you please tell me are you also asking what's going on?

    Wicklow Town Relief Road and Dutch, you put those in the same line?!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    Dont think NTA have had anything out to tender for improvements around Ballymun, nearest scheme I can think of is the Swords QBC


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Dont think NTA have had anything out to tender for improvements around Ballymun, nearest scheme I can think of is the Swords QBC

    Sorry, I wasn't clear - the Ballymun Road was to do with Dublin City Council and Ballymun Regeneration - it just happens to be another example of turning the clock back - in my mind, they turned a 1960's DC (with dedicated cycle/pedestrian facilities) into a 'something like O'Connell Street' and is positively dangerous. I actually walked those underpasses a couple of times (at school going age) and had no problem in doing so. I just hate these 'turn the clock back' solutions which IMO are not solutions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    <snip>In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road.<snip>

    Err...

    If anybody from the NTA are reading this, could you please tell me are you also asking what's going on?

    Wicklow Town Relief Road and Dutch, you put those in the same line?!

    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists - now I realize it's the Dutch model they seem to be getting their inspiration from.

    The ball is now in your court...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,103 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists

    Its excessive provision for motorists as well, anytime I've used it (by bike or car) I've been the only person on it. Its an access route to a port with virtually no ships.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    loyatemu wrote: »
    Its excessive provision for motorists as well, anytime I've used it (by bike or car) I've been the only person on it. Its an access route to a port with virtually no ships.

    There's no doubt IMO that the parish pump was alive and well there - I'm also curious as to where the actual port is - as far as I'm concerned, there is no port - I'd certainly wonder about the justification of the port access element of the scheme. About the road itself, I'm just talking about the provision made for the different transport modes (walking, cycling, motoring) over the entire scheme.

    Regards!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists - now I realize it's the Dutch model they seem to be getting their inspiration from.

    The ball is now in your court...

    Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.

    Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.

    As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:

    219304.JPG

    Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:

    219305.JPG

    Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:

    219307.JPG

    No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:

    219310.JPG

    The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:

    219311.JPG


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.

    EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.

    Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.

    As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:

    219304.JPG

    Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:

    219305.JPG
    Firstly, great pictures I must say. On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.
    monument wrote: »
    Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:

    219307.JPG
    Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.
    monument wrote: »
    No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:

    219310.JPG
    There should be a crossing point just before the bridge (probably not enough room on the bridge) and therefore, the right filter lane IMO. However, it should also be noted that cars turning left from the main road happen to cross the pedestrian/cycle way after making the turn. Although there is no left lane or slip, the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists, and that the cycle/pedestrian path is not on the blindside for motorists having initially made the left turn - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.
    monument wrote: »
    The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:

    219311.JPG
    It's good in principle, but agree that it should be wider to give more comfort to pedestrians/cyclists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.

    EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.

    Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.

    You should send those images to the NTA! :D

    Regards!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Firstly, great pictures I must say.

    To be clear: All images from Google Street View.

    On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.

    Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.

    And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.

    Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.

    There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.

    ...the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.

    As above, it's not important.
    Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.

    You should send those images to the NTA! :D

    Regards!

    I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.

    Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    To be clear: All images from Google Street View.
    Well it's still good to have them posted... :)
    monument wrote: »
    Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.

    And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.

    If I had my way, there would be no private property with direct access to a new/upgraded main road - the small left pockets I'm talking about would be for the mere few cases that might fall through the net for some reason - small pockets could also be used for access to beaches, parks, playgrounds etc. Speaking of low traffic volume, roads such as the Wicklow Port (Port? :rolleyes:) Access wouldn't be built as I would crush the parish pump system - the actual Wicklow Town Relief Road (R750 link) is IMO a good idea.
    monument wrote: »
    There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.

    Well it should be for cyclists too...
    monument wrote: »
    As above, it's not important.

    Well as a cyclist, it doesn't matter to you if traffic is held up - I'm not looking at this road design from a partisan point of view - I'm trying to be inclusive - also as a motorist, it's quite natural that I'm not going to be anti-car. IMO, the left turn design on the road in question is safer in that if motorists had to give way to pedestrians/cyclists, the cycle track would not be on the blindside as the motorists will already have made the turn (please refer to Holland) - maybe when a few of your cycling mates are killed or injured on these new NTA designs, you might appreciate that my ideas are not just car oriented. I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of knocking down a cyclist I didn't see coming from behind.

    monument wrote: »
    I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.

    Agreed for the most part! - Regarding the centre of traditional towns, I'd be using a concentric modal model similar to what's used in some towns in France - the cars go around the town and in, but not through - the town centre is primarily for people (and presumably cyclists) - Vannes in Brittany for example.
    monument wrote: »
    Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.

    Roundabouts that cater properly for all modes would be my priority - funny enough, the old Ballymun Roundabout did just that for a heavy traffic situation - I used it a long time ago myself. I have to reiterate - if we're going to take cycling seriously, we have to put the dosh in - simple as. BTW, I believe that in Holland, 59% commute by car and 25% commute by cycling - the other modes are quite insignificant (16% for the remainder). I'll try and dig up the information source later, but if we are going to follow the Dutch model, then we have to follow the Dutch model (not pseudo-Dutch nonsense) - that means properly catering for motorists and cyclists (and in the Irish case, pedestrians). Walking is IMO quite a popular mode in Ireland given it's flexibility and interchangeability with all modes including public transport, cycling and motoring.

    Regards!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    monument wrote: »
    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    What exactly do you mean by perceived personal safety here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    "Perceived" personal safety is a term used a lot in planning these days. While in theory such-and-such a solution may offer improved *actual* safety, that usually has little bearing on whether the person using it will *feel* safer. In the above example, with a row of trees seperating the bikes from the cars, there is increased actual safety (I would imagine). However, think of youself going to use that cycle-path. You might feel a bit "cut off" from the rest of the world around you-- if you fell, would a car driver notice? You're also out of the minds of the drivers, so if and when you eventually join the main carriageway, it's a bit all of a sudden (if there were no trees, then you'd be seen at all times). These are highly important design features that often dictate the success of these kind of schemes.

    A classic example of "perceived" safety in cycling is the safety-in-numbers idea. If you're the only cyclist on the road, you feel like it's you versus the cars. If, however, you're part of a stream of cyclists, then you feel safer since it's obvious to the cars that there are cyclists around and that they need to be vigilant.

    In the above example, I have a feeling that the trees there would be expected to grow rather tall, so eventually there'd only be the trunks seperating the bikes from the cars. Something which is actually rather appealing, imo. Let's just hope that it doesn't get condemned as a failure in the interim.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    If I had my way, there would be no private property with direct access to a new/upgraded main road - the small left pockets I'm talking about would be for the mere few cases that might fall through the net for some reason - small pockets could also be used for access to beaches, parks, playgrounds etc. Speaking of low traffic volume, roads such as the Wicklow Port (Port? :rolleyes:) Access wouldn't be built as I would crush the parish pump system - the actual Wicklow Town Relief Road (R750 link) is IMO a good idea.

    Combined service road and cycle routes is one way of having no or at least limiting the amount of junctions on link roads. The Dutch use this solution.

    Well as a cyclist, it doesn't matter to you if traffic is held up - I'm not looking at this road design from a partisan point of view - I'm trying to be inclusive - also as a motorist, it's quite natural that I'm not going to be anti-car.

    You're getting carried away, I said it was not important on a road such as the road we're talking about.

    ...IMO, the left turn design on the road in question is safer in that if motorists had to give way to pedestrians/cyclists, the cycle track would not be on the blindside as the motorists will already have made the turn (please refer to Holland) - maybe when a few of your cycling mates are killed or injured on these new NTA designs, you might appreciate that my ideas are not just car oriented. I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of knocking down a cyclist I didn't see coming from behind.

    It's a basic Dutch design principle that when a motorist is pulling into or out of a side road across a cycle track they yield to cyclists. This happens unsignaled and without turning pockets where traffic volumes are higher than the road in question.

    You seem to be trying to claim motorists yielding to cyclists is more dangours for cyclists???? If so the Netherlands and Denmark kind of prove you wrong.

    Actually side road traffic yielding right of way to cyclists and people on foot is basic Irish principle, just interfered with heavily by car-centric road and traffic engineers.

    Agreed for the most part! - Regarding the centre of traditional towns, I'd be using a concentric modal model similar to what's used in some towns in France - the cars go around the town and in, but not through - the town centre is primarily for people (and presumably cyclists) - Vannes in Brittany for example.

    My point isn't what access should or should not be allowed anywhere.

    The point I was making was that for the cycling infrastructure of the link or relief road to be useful to notable numbers of people then there must be high quality links made to the places these people want to go.

    Roundabouts that cater properly for all modes would be my priority - funny enough, the old Ballymun Roundabout did just that for a heavy traffic situation - I used it a long time ago myself.

    The roundabout at Ballymun is gone for a good reasons. Ballymun was a pretty extrema case of that kind of design not working. This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).

    See Aard's post above.

    I have to reiterate - if we're going to take cycling seriously, we have to put the dosh in - simple as.

    Sure, but agreeing on designs is another matter...

    BTW, I believe that in Holland, 59% commute by car and 25% commute by cycling - the other modes are quite insignificant (16% for the remainder). I'll try and dig up the information source later,

    For all trips across the Netherlands it is 48% car driver or passenger, 2% train, 3% bus/tram/metro, 19% walking, and 26% cycling.

    However not all of the Netherlands is cycling friendly and there is even in the Netherlands and urban / rural divide.

    Amsterdam claims around 50% bike usage, but that figure the city uses excludes people walking. When adjusted (see end of this post), the city is at a level of around 38% cycling, 25% for the car and public transport at 18%.

    It's also important to note that the Netherlands uses an "all trips" measurement rather than just a peak time measurement.
    but if we are going to follow the Dutch model, then we have to follow the Dutch model (not pseudo-Dutch nonsense) - that means properly catering for motorists and cyclists (and in the Irish case, pedestrians). Walking is IMO quite a popular mode in Ireland given it's flexibility and interchangeability with all modes including public transport, cycling and motoring.

    To be straight forward about it: If tomorrow the NTA scrapped its guidelines and told all councils in the Greater Dublin Area to implement best Dutch practice for cycling, pedestrians and BRT, then you'd be crying about it.

    You don't want the NTA model but you also don't want the Dutch model. You want your very own "pseudo-Dutch nonsense".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭PseudoFamous


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists

    I think you've pretty much nailed it in one. It's really excessive provision for cyclists. There are very few cycle paths in Wicklow town, particularly in high traffic residential areas where there may actually be some cyclists, and within the town itself (which is laid out incredibly badly for them) where cyclists may actually want to go.

    The R750/751* is pretty much devoid of cyclists. I've been travelling those roads often enough in the last 3 months, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a cyclist on them. It's ridiculous to put cycle paths on roads that no cyclist will ever use, and Wicklow CC seems to have a hard on for doing it.

    Two other stupid examples of cycle paths in Wicklow are between two roundabouts (which are actually impossible to navigate safely on a bike) on the Wexford Road in Arklow, and on a random road circumnavigating the "Arklow Business/Enterprise Park". Neither stretch are long, nor do they lead to anywhere. As far as I know, there are literally no other cycle paths in the town. Why they spend money on isolated cycle paths that lead nowhere is beyond me.

    *Apparently the 751 is not the road I'm thinking of, nor is the one I'm thinking of labelled


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Combined service road and cycle routes is one way of having no or at least limiting the amount of junctions on link roads. The Dutch use this solution.

    Ok, that seems sensible! This would certainly work IMO with relatively low volumes of motorists and cyclists - in this case, cyclists should have the priority on such service roads - at main junctions, I would only allow pestrians and cyclists to go through - they would be phased in with the main road they're following, so that they have equal priority - with left lanes provided, traffic turning left would be phased in with the corresponding right turn movements - this would be to completely eliminate conflict with pedestrians/cyclists. Motorists accessing service roads would do so midway between main junctions.
    monument wrote: »
    You're getting carried away, I said it was not important on a road such as the road we're talking about.

    Well Ok! I was really talking in general. However, I still think it is important that when a motorist is yielding to cyclists/pedestrians upon turning, the cycle/pedestrian path is properly visible to motorists as they're about to cross - having it coming up right beside you on the blind side is IMO dangerous. Also, most current NTA designs do not have any scope for 2 way cycling on both sides of the road.
    monument wrote: »
    It's a basic Dutch design principle that when a motorist is pulling into or out of a side road across a cycle track they yield to cyclists. This happens unsignaled and without turning pockets where traffic volumes are higher than the road in question.

    75% agree - however, with no pocket turning into a side road and aggressive drivers behind you, I just don't think that idea will work in Ireland where there's a relatively high volume of motor traffic and cyclists - I've been screaming for a clampdown on aggressive drivers - they shouldn't be on the road IMO
    monument wrote: »
    You seem to be trying to claim motorists yielding to cyclists is more dangours for cyclists???? If so the Netherlands and Denmark kind of prove you wrong.

    No! I said yielding to cyclists coming up on the blind side - what I want is a yield to pedestrian cyclists having made the turn where-upon the cycle/pedestrian path is relatively perpendicular to motorists (for side roads). At main signalized junctions, what I want is equal priority where straight through pedestrians/cyclists get the same priorty as straight through motorists - left turning traffic would only get the same priority as right turning traffic so as to eliminate conflict altogether.
    monument wrote: »
    Actually side road traffic yielding right of way to cyclists and people on foot is basic Irish principle, just interfered with heavily by car-centric road and traffic engineers.

    OK, that's 99% correct - a trained barrister told me that all traffic (including cyclists and pedestrians) on the main road had the legal right of way by default.

    monument wrote: »
    My point isn't what access should or should not be allowed anywhere.

    The point I was making was that for the cycling infrastructure of the link or relief road to be useful to notable numbers of people then there must be high quality links made to the places these people want to go.

    I don't dispute the above...
    monument wrote: »
    The roundabout at Ballymun is gone for a good reasons. Ballymun was a pretty extrema case of that kind of design not working. This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).

    The roundabout wasn't perfect, but did you see the gombeenism that has taken it's place. My principle is: Grade Separation and Segregation is a good thing where there's excessive conflict, but it's the cars that must be Grade Separated and Segrated, not the pedestrians and cyclists - such should be left to their natural routes as much as is possible - also cars should be grade separated downwards rather than up so as to not injure visual amenity and block out natural light - such good design would cost more, but would be far better for everyone. My 'car centric' ideas would give the finger to current economic priciples and life sized monopoly game that's called the property system - the property system is outmoded and inflexible and does not serve people and certainly does not serve the environment. We really have to rethink the way we live - is it really serving us? I know I'm a hardcore modernist, but what I'd like to see is provision for everything, and yes Monument, I'm all for railways too - would love to see the Dublin underground - disgusted the Dart Underground is not going ahead - it's a no brainer - I'm all for Luas BXD too!
    monument wrote: »
    Sure, but agreeing on designs is another matter...

    Well yes, I think that's where our differences lie - it's not really our objectives, but our methods for getting things done - I don't think we'll ever agree on that.
    monument wrote: »
    For all trips across the Netherlands it is 48% car driver or passenger, 2% train, 3% bus/tram/metro, 19% walking, and 26% cycling.

    However not all of the Netherlands is cycling friendly and there is even in the Netherlands and urban / rural divide.

    Amsterdam claims around 50% bike usage, but that figure the city uses excludes people walking. When adjusted (see end of this post), the city is at a level of around 38% cycling, 25% for the car and public transport at 18%.

    It's also important to note that the Netherlands uses an "all trips" measurement rather than just a peak time measurement.

    Thanks for that - the about stats are good to know!



    monument wrote: »
    To be straight forward about it: If tomorrow the NTA scrapped its guidelines and told all councils in the Greater Dublin Area to implement best Dutch practice for cycling, pedestrians and BRT, then you'd be crying about it.

    You don't want the NTA model but you also don't want the Dutch model. You want your very own "pseudo-Dutch nonsense".

    Will finish this post later...


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Well Ok! I was really talking in general. However, I still think it is important that when a motorist is yielding to cyclists/pedestrians upon turning, the cycle/pedestrian path is properly visible to motorists as they're about to cross - having it coming up right beside you on the blind side is IMO dangerous.

    ...

    No! I said yielding to cyclists coming up on the blind side - what I want is a yield to pedestrian cyclists having made the turn where-upon the cycle/pedestrian path is relatively perpendicular to motorists (for side roads). At main signalized junctions, what I want is equal priority where straight through pedestrians/cyclists get the same priorty as straight through motorists - left turning traffic would only get the same priority as right turning traffic so as to eliminate conflict altogether.

    Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are! :)

    Also, most current NTA designs do not have any scope for 2 way cycling on both sides of the road.

    The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.

    75% agree - however, with no pocket turning into a side road and aggressive drivers behind you, I just don't think that idea will work in Ireland where there's a relatively high volume of motor traffic and cyclists - I've been screaming for a clampdown on aggressive drivers - they shouldn't be on the road IMO

    Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.

    The roundabout wasn't perfect, but did you see the gombeenism that has taken it's place. My principle is: Grade Separation and Segregation is a good thing where there's excessive conflict, but it's the cars that must be Grade Separated and Segrated, not the pedestrians and cyclists - such should be left to their natural routes as much as is possible - also cars should be grade separated downwards rather than up so as to not injure visual amenity and block out natural light .....................

    Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.

    Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are! :)

    Speaking of Dutch, have a look at this!!! :D:D:D

    roadplanning.jpg

    from a page on >>www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com<<!!!
    monument wrote: »
    The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.

    The following is the common theme for the various signal junction designs from the >>National Cycle Manual<<:

    5615_LFT08_3D.jpg

    Please tell me how you can safely achieve 2 way cycling on both sides of the road with the above design - if you want proper cycling infrastructure that serves local as well as long distance cyclists, then there should be 2 way cycling available on both sides of the road - two way paths also allow cyclists to avoid awkward right turns once they can cross over midway between main junctions.
    monument wrote: »
    Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.

    What are you on about? Of course I'm referring to the main urban centres - starting with Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Kilkenny - Kilkenny (due to it's size) could make a good pilot project for new sustainable transport innovations - it has a good substantial ring road (with plans for an almost complete o-ring) which is a start towards the European model.
    monument wrote: »
    Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.

    and are you telling me what's there now is working??? :rolleyes:
    monument wrote: »
    Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.

    You should know well by now that I was only quoting Wicklow for design reference purposes and no I wouldn't be suggesting grade separation there - no need IMO. About the M50, the interchanges were designed before the NRA assumed the role of cycle track provision nationwide - AFAIK, cycling wasn't their responsibility and they fulfilled what was required then - what I'd do there now would be to join up sections of old road (where cycle provision is seriously deficient) with high grade cycleways using gentle curves for ramps (these should be minimized as much as is possible) as opposed to what they're expected to use currently - not good enough IMO. For example, I'd put in a gentle curved flyover for cyclists from the Liffey Valley SC across the N4 and M50 highways to the old road at Palmerston where a circular loop would be used for the decent - this IMO would be far superior to the rubbish the have to contend with today. The planners should also look at widening the Westlink and in doing so, include a high grade cycle/pedestrian facility.

    I just want to say that I have no interest in either auto-totalitarianism or auto-bashing - these positions are IMO childish. If Holland can provide for the car and bicycle, then why can't we??? It's a matter of appropriate use of each mode. Also, in making the country in general more cycling friendly, I'd do something about aggressive dogs coming onto the road (especially in rural areas), bike crime, teenage loitering and taunting of cyclists etc - these were the things that put me off cycling - something that I did for years. Now, cycling is taking off once again (even in rural areas) and that's why I've been changing my position - cycling now needs to be considered properly as well as pedestrians and motorists. I also think teenagers etc should be made cycle more and IMO, the minimum age for driving should seriously be looked at - more bikes please!!!

    BTW, I recently help my little nephew to cycle - not doing too well in being anti-cyclist! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).
    No indeed.

    There is a certain view among some cyclists, and you would seem to be among them, that being pro-cycling means you must be anti-motorist.

    Many people however, myself included, want solutions that benefit everyone. The Dutch roundabout in the O.P. certainly qualifies, as does to a certain extent even the "old" roundabout design, providing as it does segregated cycle paths around the RAB.

    I drive a lot these days and don't even own a bike, but I have campaigned in the past for public transport, when such things were better organised (including the DART Underground, which I still believe in).

    So if you want to build a cycle track, go for it! Same with commuter railway lines, and yes, things for motorists like motorways and whatnot (it's not as if we don't pay enough!).

    Meanwhile certain sections of the cycling community here believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.

    With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Please tell me how you can safely achieve 2 way cycling on both sides of the road with the above design - if you want proper cycling infrastructure that serves local as well as long distance cyclists, then there should be 2 way cycling available on both sides of the road - two way paths also allow cyclists to avoid awkward right turns once they can cross over midway between main junctions.

    Why would you want to put two-way on both sides of the road along that imaginary road?

    A mix of advance stop boxes and box turns (or "staying left to go right") works fine.

    What are you on about? Of course I'm referring to the main urban centres - starting with Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Kilkenny - Kilkenny (due to it's size) could make a good pilot project for new sustainable transport innovations - it has a good substantial ring road (with plans for an almost complete o-ring) which is a start towards the European model.

    I rightly or wrongly understood that we were talking about Wicklow, but even in Dublin etc you can't apply your idea to every road and not even every part of every ring road, it'd be pointless overspend.

    and are you telling me what's there now is working??? :rolleyes:

    Yes, far, far more so than what was there before.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    There is a certain view among some cyclists, and you would seem to be among them, that being pro-cycling means you must be anti-motorist.

    Many people however, myself included, want solutions that benefit everyone. The Dutch roundabout in the O.P. certainly qualifies, as does to a certain extent even the "old" roundabout design, providing as it does segregated cycle paths around the RAB.

    I drive a lot these days and don't even own a bike, but I have campaigned in the past for public transport, when such things were better organised (including the DART Underground, which I still believe in).

    So if you want to build a cycle track, go for it! Same with commuter railway lines, and yes, things for motorists like motorways and whatnot (it's not as if we don't pay enough!).

    Meanwhile you and your ilk believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.

    With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"

    You've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?

    I'm anti-silliness. Like the silliness of around 100,000 people in Dublin driving between 0-4km to work or education. Or like the silliness of having a traffic light system so focused on moving traffic that j-walking is something most Dubliners do on mass without thinking. I'm also interested in moving people around in healthy and cost effective ways -- which benefits the individual and the state.

    I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.

    I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.

    But increasing the levels of cycling does have a wide range of benefits for people, communities and the state -- in general and overall, more benefits than any other mode of transport.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Meanwhile you and your ilk believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.

    With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"

    The Killiney Towers Roundabout is far from perfect last time I seen it, but it's not in the least bit dangerous compared to what was there before. But, hey, according to you the council put it there for "no purpose other the ****ing motorists over" EDIT: ...is there any point in arguing with such an extreme view? And you are the one with the extreme view here, as the design at the Killiney Towers Roundabout still seems to be working, even if some small tweeks would help it.

    How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists? Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    You've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?
    I edited my post my post to take it down a notch :o
    I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.

    I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.
    In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.
    How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists?
    What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit?
    Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so?
    Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 10 miles of a 15 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.

    Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.

    But talking about extremists....
    SeanW wrote: »
    What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.

    I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:



    Not a 90 degree turn:

    219868.JPG

    No 90 degree turn off:

    219866.JPG

    The next turn, no 90 degree turn:

    219867.JPG

    I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?

    Are you sure you're not being an extremist?

    SeanW wrote: »
    Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.

    Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?

    But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    SeanW wrote: »
    In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.

    Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.

    But talking about extremists....
    SeanW wrote: »
    What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.

    I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:



    Not a 90 degree turn:

    219868.JPG

    No 90 degree turn off:

    219866.JPG

    The next turn, no 90 degree turn:

    219867.JPG

    I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?

    Are you sure you're not being an extremist?

    SeanW wrote: »
    Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.

    Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?

    But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?

    I was at the Killiney Towers Roundabout myself and no, they're not as generous as the images suggest - that camera IMO has a long lense. Now, the turns are not 90 deg. either but are rather tight - one or two of them are even tight for cyclists. Solution might be to leave the cycle track as is (except the tight turns) and construct a smaller proper roundabout further in with proper perpendicular yields to cyclists upon exiting - that IMO would be closer to the Dutch model - I would use continental geometry, but not like the NTA specs.

    About Slane, I'm a Meathman, so don't even go there - I don't think you know what you're talking about - 22 people have died there. I don't think it's even suitable for cyclists - they probably need the bypass too given the steep ascents/descents.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I was at the Killiney Towers Roundabout myself and no, they're not as generous as the images suggest - that camera IMO has a long lense. Now, the turns are not 90 deg. either but are rather tight - one or two of them are even tight for cyclists. Solution might be to leave the cycle track as is (except the tight turns) and construct a smaller proper roundabout further in with proper perpendicular yields to cyclists upon exiting - that IMO would be closer to the Dutch model - I would use continental geometry, but not like the NTA specs.

    About Slane, I'm a Meathman, so don't even go there - I don't think you know what you're talking about - 22 people have died there. I don't think it's even suitable for cyclists - they probably need the bypass too given the steep ascents/descents.

    Basically:

    Regardless of how you want to spin it, as I said, no 90 degree turns.

    The roundabout works.

    However, if you paying attention in previous threads I agree that in this case it should have been designed closer to the Dutch type of roundabout where there's spaces between the crossing the centre of the roundabout.

    The roundabout is not done to the NTA guidelines - the design is for a smaller roundabout.

    About Slane, I'm a Meathman, so don't even go there - I don't think you know what you're talking about - 22 people have died there. I don't think it's even suitable for cyclists - they probably need the bypass too given the steep ascents/descents.

    I don't need to ever write a reply to that, somebody else has here: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/13/4004252-no-deaths-in-slane-since-traffic-calming/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
    I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me. I used to live in Dublin, and on a couple of occasions I drove out to Dalkey and that area, before these works were done, and if this is the same RAB I remember, the old version was quite big and worked quite well, from a motorist POV, but could have used better cycling facilities, to be sure.

    But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.
    Are you sure you're not being an extremist?
    Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.

    By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.

    I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
    I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
    And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.

    Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."
    So that's all their problems sorted then :rolleyes: I'm sure.

    The letter you linked to also makes sure to paint the people of Slane as some kind of vile evil monsters, floating their dead like zombies in some nefarious plot to build a needless road that will demolish Newgrange or something, all for no benefit. All they're missing out there in Slane it seems is someone like this
    DrEvil-gray_288x288.jpg
    and a Sphinx cat.

    And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »

    I really can't let that one go...

    ...that article is the greatest load of rubbish - OK, there were no deaths, but:

    5929_1203235003613_1310739543_58936.jpg

    This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!

    BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    I have to agree with SeanW that junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout has made it significantly harder for buses to negotiate their way in and out of junctions. While the junctions may not be 90 degree junctions, they are far from being friendly for vehicles exceeding 11 meters in length. The purpose of the mountable cobble-lock buffer from the roundabout center presents it's own dangers. This is because the hind axle of long vehicles inherently becomes way too close to the traffic island itself which increases the likelihood of jack-knifing.

    Irish and Proud took the words right out of my mouth by describing such "solutions:rolleyes:" as turn the clock back. Don't get me wrong monument, I do think that it is great that the government are actively encouraging cycling as a mode of transport. However, mechanically driven modes of transport (such as trains, trams, buses, trucks and cars) are capable of reaching their destination in a much smaller amount of time than a bicycle. For this very reason, I think accommodating mechanically driven and self propelled transport in the same corridor is a recipe for disaster. As such, I would be inclined to better integrate or join up parallel side-roads such as cul de sacs and other neighborhood centers (where possible) for use by cyclists. In the case of Killiney Towers Roundabout, there is an extensive network of side-roads situated within a kilometer radius of it which could easily be used for cycling with a few minor tweaks.

    While I am somewhat impressed with the OP's picture, the one criticism I might make towards the layout of it is that the lower deck has been turned into a crossroads. This is because the free-flow element has been removed. As per SeanW's assertion of "benefit everyone", a double-decker roundabout is the ultimate solution given that they enable a free-flow mechanism for all modes of transport. In this case, pedestrians don't have to look left or right at all when traversing the roundabout as they would be passing over/under(depending on which level is allocated to cyclists and pedestrians and the level allocated to motorised traffic) the flow of motorised traffic. For the same reason, cyclists wouldn't have to worry about being cut off by motorised traffic. Ergo, no tightening of junctions is necessary for motorised traffic. YAY!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Ya better be careful there Patrick, or you might be called an extremist too :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    Ya better be careful there Patrick, or you might be called an extremist too :rolleyes:

    My questioning if you were an extremist came from you first calling people extremists and then you making up stuff to support your position. :)


    ...that article is the greatest load of rubbish...
    This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!

    Question:

    Is it one notable accident and no deaths in over 10 years? And that's compared to 22 deaths in the previous 20 years?

    If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?

    BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:

    Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50... and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?

    I have to agree with SeanW that junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout has made it significantly harder for buses to negotiate their way in and out of junctions. While the junctions may not be 90 degree junctions, they are far from being friendly for vehicles exceeding 11 meters in length.

    In other threads you were unable to answer how Dublin Bus's low level of buses using the roundabout were unable to manage on a daily bases. Do you have an answer yet?

    The purpose of the mountable cobble-lock buffer from the roundabout center presents it's own dangers. This is because the hind axle of long vehicles inherently becomes way too close to the traffic island itself which increases the likelihood of jack-knifing.

    Err... now you're claiming the centre island which is designed to take large trucks etc, will cause a jack-knifing? :confused:

    Irish and Proud took the words right out of my mouth by describing such "solutions:rolleyes:" as turn the clock back. Don't get me wrong monument, I do think that it is great that the government are actively encouraging cycling as a mode of transport. However,

    However the next think you say is a nonsense reason why you would not promote cycling...

    mechanically driven modes of transport (such as trains, trams, buses, trucks and cars) are capable of reaching their destination in a much smaller amount of time than a bicycle.

    Not true. From the Department of Transport:
    • Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
    • For trips within the M50, the 2006 Census reveals average speed for cyclists of 14kph compared to 18 kph for cars.

    As for buses, trams, and trains: Add in the time to:
    • to get to the station/stop
    • from the station/stop
    • waiting time for buses/trams/trains

    ...and cycling is a bit faster or a bit slower depending on trip - it compares very well for trips around and under 9km (ie the bulk of trips). The difference for the state is that investment in cycling costs a lot less than public transport and on going costs are tiny for cycling compared for rail or buses.

    In the meanwhile, nothing compares to the health benefits of cycling and the return that can have for the state in health care savings.

    While I am somewhat impressed with the OP's picture, the one criticism I might make towards the layout of it is that the lower deck has been turned into a crossroads. This is because the free-flow element has been removed. As per SeanW's assertion of "benefit everyone", a double-decker roundabout is the ultimate solution given that they enable a free-flow mechanism for all modes of transport. In this case, pedestrians don't have to look left or right at all when traversing the roundabout as they would be passing over/under(depending on which level is allocated to cyclists and pedestrians and the level allocated to motorised traffic) the flow of motorised traffic. For the same reason, cyclists wouldn't have to worry about being cut off by motorised traffic. Ergo, no tightening of junctions is necessary for motorised traffic. YAY!:D

    The 'bottom deck' is an increase in capacity.
    SeanW wrote: »
    I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me.

    The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.

    SeanW wrote: »
    But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.

    Patrick is quite fond of exaggeration.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.

    By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.

    What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?

    Conor Faughnan cycles, he also seems supportive of Dart etc, and I would not call him an "AA stooge".

    SeanW wrote: »
    I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
    I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
    And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.

    Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."

    I guess you're an extremist on one small level because you see anything from tight corners (standard practice of making urban roads safer) and you can't even see the benefit in restricting the dominance of cars in areas which should be free for children to play in!

    Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist. Extremists tent to not think they are extremists. :)

    SeanW wrote: »
    And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!

    In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
    Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.
    Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50...
    No, but it helps if you're an actual stakeholder, like the people who live in Slane are. But even if one is not a stakeholder, it would add some credibility to admit that maybe, just possibly those who actually are stakeholders, are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.
    and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?
    It's the beauty of free speech - when someone is as transparently full of shoite as "Save Newgrange" is, the paper giving them a platform is as good as giving them rope to hang themselves.
    The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.
    My bad, I meant Google Images.

    I saw some images of the new RAB in blogs and the like and it looked like all the approach roads end in T-junctions at the roundabout. Suggested that the turns were ridiculously sharp.
    What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?
    I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.
    Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist.
    Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.
    Extremists tent to not think they are extremists. :)
    *Holds up a mirror to monument*
    In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.
    And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.

    That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?

    SeanW wrote: »
    ...are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.

    Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.

    SeanW wrote: »
    I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.

    Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.

    *Holds up a mirror to monument*

    And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.

    Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist. :)

    IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    monument wrote: »
    In other threads you were unable to answer how Dublin Bus's low level of buses using the roundabout were unable to manage on a daily bases. Do you have an answer yet?

    On the months following the completion of the roundabout, I frequently heard bus drivers complaining about the tight corners and how much harder it is to negotiate them. Currently, buses and other large vehicles are tightly hemmed in by the (previously non-existent) boundaries. Additionally, I wouldn't refer to the frequency of buses as low level given that 66 buses pass through it per day (Monday-Friday).
    monument wrote: »
    Err... now you're claiming the centre island which is designed to take large trucks etc, will cause a jack-knifing?

    I was merely saying that the purpose of the cobble-lock center (allowing 'wide:rolleyes:' angles for long vehicles) causes the hind axle of such vehicles to come dangerously close to the raised traffic island. If the hind axle of buses or trucks does hit the raised traffic island, they could topple over.
    monument wrote: »
    However the next think you say is a nonsense reason why you would not promote cycling...


    Not true. From the Department of Transport:
    • Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
    • For trips within the M50, the 2006 Census reveals average speed for cyclists of 14kph compared to 18 kph for cars.

    As for buses, trams, and trains: Add in the time to:
    • to get to the station/stop
    • from the station/stop
    • waiting time for buses/trams/trains

    ...and cycling is a bit faster or a bit slower depending on trip - it compares very well for trips around and under 9km (ie the bulk of trips). The difference for the state is that investment in cycling costs a lot less than public transport and on going costs are tiny for cycling compared for rail or buses.

    I wasn't saying that we shouldn't promoting cycling as I would be contradicting my previous statement in doing so. I was merely saying that trams, trains, trucks, buses and cars are capable of traveling much faster in urban, suburban and rural environments than bicycles. The introduction of traffic calming undermines this. For mechanically driven vehicles, it boils down to a case of "all of that horse power and no room to gallop".

    One of the only roads in the borough of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown which always springs to mind as a perfect example is the N11. Unfortunately bad planning in most other parts of the borough have left very little room for other such roads (bar the M50). The N11 enables motorized traffic to make very good progress into town from a speed perspective. It also has a cycle lane on both sides stretching from Loughlinstown to the city center. Nevertheless, a lot of stretches of cycle lane do need to be resurfaced and redefined.
    monument wrote: »
    In the meanwhile, nothing compares to the health benefits of cycling and the return that can have for the state in health care savings.

    I completely agree with this logic as I too, appreciate the health factor of cycling.
    monument wrote: »
    I guess you're an extremist on one small level because you see anything from tight corners (standard practice of making urban roads safer) and you can't even see the benefit in restricting the dominance of cars in areas which should be free for children to play in!

    I don't agree with this statement as the main road network is not a playground. This is why public parks such as Blackrock, Kilbogget, Killiney Hill and The Peoples Park have playgrounds. In other words, there are designated spots for leisurely use by children. Turning the clock back on transportation infrastructure for additional leisure or other type of amenity space is overkill.
    monument wrote: »
    The 'bottom deck' is an increase in capacity.

    The catch here is that an increase in capacity was made while the free flow element was removed. Essentially one cancels out the other to a certain extent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?

    You're talking about very steep gradients - what traffic calming do you propose - ramps, road narrowing and chicanes would be seriously asking for trouble - the speed limit there is already 30kph - the only extra thing that could be done IMO are average speed cameras measuring vehicles going through the village.
    monument wrote: »
    Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.

    I've driven through there recently and it's dangerous - simple as. The traffic in Slane can be extremely heavy at times - people living there have to contend with not one, but two main roads through their village (N2 and N51) and both with steep gradients (N51 from Drogheda has a very steep section) - that's no way for the people of Slane to live as far as I'm concerned!
    monument wrote: »
    Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.

    Re-balancing on our roads also means that the improved roads must work for everyone - there's this >>new scheme<< near Sandyford for example - bigger roads with pedestrian/cycle facilities they boast - but certainly not better IMO.

    Take this >>proposed junction<< (PDF File - 1.9MB) for example. This is what's proposed for the current Leopardstown Roundabout. To me, their main priorities in the overall scheme are (not in any particular order):

    1) M50 entry/egress traffic;
    2) Cycling Facilities;
    3) New Road Linkages from Sandyford to Leopardstown and Leopardstown to Murphystown (including cycle tracks).

    The said junction won't work well IMO - most left turning traffic and pedestrians seem to be an afterthought and will this will ultimately impact on the effectiveness of 1 & 2 above:

    1) Complete omission of 3 left lanes and slips (I've already stated my problem with left slip omission) - in fact, at least one of these turns (bottom left) could be removed completely as there's a proposed link road (Burton Hall Road Extension - commencement due next month) that will do more or less exactly the same job. The left turn on the opposite corner (top right) could probably bite the dust too as it would link 2 relatively parallel roads heading for the N11 Stillorgan Road - the funny thing is that neither of these turns have corresponding right filters, so is there really a need for these left turns at all. That's 2 down (literally), 1 to go (top left). This remaining left turn is probably required - now the focus of need shifts to cycle tracks - the ones on Burton Hall Road (I've already compromised the motorist). There is already one new cycle track along part of the old Harcourt line linking Sandyford to Leopardstown Road - there will be another in connection with the Burton Hall Road Extension (not Burton Hall Road, but perpendicular to it) - another thing is that the cycle tracks on the Burton Hall Road itself (left arm) lead to an at grade crossing with the Luas and on one of it's sharper curves - hardly a safe thing for cyclists. The cycle tracks on that stretch should IMO be omitted and the left lane from Burton Hall Road to Brewery Road can go ahead without any problem (subject to signals to allow cyclists to travel along the Brewery Road safely. So as a cyclist, you win some and lose some - cyclists would now have less left turning traffic to contend with on some of the other cycle tracks - one of my main reasons for the compete omission of 2 left turns (other reason is for re-alignment of pedestrian crossings - see #3 below).

    2) Excessive crossing distance for pedestrians - especially those with mobility issues - on a tangential note, having visited Killiney Towers Roundabout, a very worrying thing was the vulnerability of old people, people with mobility issues (MS etc) etc on that Roundabout. Is there a right wing element creeping into urban road design - survival of the fittest? Buses forced to negotiate tight corners can't be good for old people either. I am devising road designs myself where pedestrians have no more than 2 lanes of traffic to cross at a time, but yet with signal phases long enough to allow 85% of pedestrians to comfortably clear a main road completely. Back to this junction - just look at the approach from Leopardstown Road West - how the hell are a reasonable percentage of people with mobility issues supposed to clear those 4 lanes in one go (that's 4 x 3.25m = 13m) - there should be an island in the middle - with the left slip (bottom left) gone, there's ample room under the Luas flyover to broaden out the road to accommodate the extra island - the main median AFAIK is occupied by a bridge pier. A little strip of land along Leopardstown Road West might be required. My real preference would be for grade separation of one of these busy traffic movements under the junction (completely) and out of the way - for pedestrians and cyclists, business as usual but with less traffic to contend with.

    3) Staggered Pedestrian Crossings causes too much deflection and would probably force pedestrians to wait a second time (for traffic) in the refuge island (centre each arm) thereby wasting time. This IMO will encourage more jaywalking. These crossings should be aligned straight across the road to allow at least 85% of pedestrians to cross the entire road in one phase comfortably - the refuge island would be primarily for people with mobility issues. The propose layout, as it stands, is IMO designed to put people firmly in their place - the lack of left slips would exacerbate this situation - left slips with pedestrian priority (zebra crossing) would be preferable where ever significant left turning traffic is accommodated.
    monument wrote: »
    Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist. :)

    IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.

    Look, we had auto-totalitarianism in the 1980's - it didn't work, then we had a spell of auto-bashing in the 1990's - it too didn't work - traffic is still as mad as hell in the city despite the cutbacks in road building there and the upgrading of the bus service. There are two things that actually worked well: (1) Luas Green Line (no need for government subsidy) and (2) Dublin Port Tunnel - with the pricing policy, it seems that Dublin has managed to build an inner urban motorway that actually works! :eek: The point I'm making is that we have got to see what works, where it works, when it works etc. In general, I think Luas is the way to go inside the M50 - I've even been drawing plans for a third Luas line - they're in my drawer actually. If there was a Luas Line from the Northside with a good Park 'n' Ride near the M50, I'd visit the city centre more often.


    In short however, Cars are good for certain things, Cycling is good for certain things, Trains ", Buses ", Walking " - even Boats - look at New York etc. I also think it's time to scrap this stupid "Car Free Day" and replace it with something much more positive - "Sustainable Transport Day". Instead of banning cars (or trying! :rolleyes:) - promote public transport by allowing free rides that day and if the crowds come, put on more buses/trains where possible - promote walking and cycling - maybe free bikes with a deposit and let people try it out etc. Cycling is taking off and will replace many car journeys, but the car will remain an important mode along with the renaissance of cycling.

    Regards!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You're talking about very steep gradients - what traffic calming do you propose - ramps, road narrowing and chicanes would be seriously asking for trouble - the speed limit is already 30kph - the only extra thing that could be done are average speed cameras through the village.

    Any pile-ups since the 30k/h limit was set? Is the limit enforced?

    Average speed cameras, there's part of your answer. Also going by Irish standards, I'd be surprised if all engineering steps have been taken around the village and traffic calming can stretch to pushing traffic away from the village, or just a HGV, but that'd do untold damage to the case for a bypass so we could never discuses that.

    Just a reminder:
    I'm on record as not being against a bypass but would have a lot of the concerns of the ABP inspector.

    We're not going to agree and this is so far off topic it's crazy we're still going on about it. Now, back to thing more on-topic....
    1) M50 entry/egress traffic;
    2) Cycling Facilities;
    3) New Road Linkages from Sandyford to Leopardstown and Leopardstown to Murphystown (including cycle tracks).

    Cycling and walking facilities are secondary to an increase in motor traffic capacity in all directions. Min standards of cycle lane widths are not even meet. I'm afraid that DLR Co Co are not as cycling mad as you like to think.
    1) Complete omission of 3 left lanes and slips ....

    According to the NTA there should be zero, and if needed traffic light controlled turning pockets rather than merged-based slip lanes.

    then we had a spell of auto-bashing in the 1990's - it too didn't work

    Errr... we had what???????

    Why do we need to reinvent the wheel so much?

    traffic is still as mad as hell in the city despite the cutbacks in road building there and the upgrading of the bus service.

    I think you'll find that public transport now has a larger modal share in the city centre.
    In short however, Cars are good for certain things, Cycling is good for certain things, Trains ", Buses ", Walking " - even Boats - look at New York etc. I also think it's time to scrap this stupid "Car Free Day" and replace it with something much more positive - "Sustainable Transport Day". Instead of banning cars (or trying! :rolleyes:) - promote public transport by allowing free rides that day and if the crowds come, put on more buses/trains where possible - promote walking and cycling - maybe free bikes with a deposit and let people try it out etc. Cycling is taking off and will replace many car journeys, but the car will remain an important mode alongside the renaissance of cycling.

    Banning cars on car free day? Where did that happen, besides the smallest of streets?

    As for its name and branding: What car free day? -- http://www.mobilityweek.eu/
    On the months following the completion of the roundabout, I frequently heard bus drivers complaining about the tight corners and how much harder it is to negotiate them. Currently, buses and other large vehicles are tightly hemmed in by the (previously non-existent) boundaries. Additionally, I wouldn't refer to the frequency of buses as low level given that 66 buses pass through it per day (Monday-Friday).

    1.5 buses per hour on the 59 is very low, and about eight departures a day each way on the 8 isn't worth walking about... but still, that's 1.5 buses per hour in the operational hours for months now.

    And in fairness, bus drivers are famous for complaining and drivers complain does not make it a major issue.

    I was merely saying that the purpose of the cobble-lock center (allowing 'wide:rolleyes:' angles for long vehicles) causes the hind axle of such vehicles to come dangerously close to the raised traffic island. If the hind axle of buses or trucks does hit the raised traffic island, they could topple over.

    This further shows you know little or nothing about the engineering of the roundabout or the physics of a truck jackknifing.

    I wasn't saying that we shouldn't promoting cycling as I would be contradicting my previous statement in doing so. I was merely saying that trams, trains, trucks, buses and cars are capable of traveling much faster in urban, suburban and rural environments than bicycles.

    That's clearly not true!
    One of the only roads in the borough of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown which always springs to mind as a perfect example is the N11. Unfortunately bad planning in most other parts of the borough have left very little room for other such roads (bar the M50). The N11 enables motorized traffic to make very good progress into town from a speed perspective.

    The N11 isn't such a perfect example, it's a sometime exception.

    Often much of the advantage for cars travelling between the city centre and say Cherrywood is destroyed by traffic congestion on the approach to the city centre or at different points.

    I don't agree with this statement as the main road network is not a playground. This is why public parks such as Blackrock, Kilbogget, Killiney Hill and The Peoples Park have playgrounds. In other words, there are designated spots for leisurely use by children. Turning the clock back on transportation infrastructure for additional leisure or other type of amenity space is overkill.

    The way you are talking you'd think I was suggesting that children should play on the N11 or M50!

    The catch here is that an increase in capacity was made while the free flow element was removed. Essentially one cancels out the other to a certain extent.

    The problem is that a roundabout at or over capacity does not have free-flow to start with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Any pile-ups since the 30k/h limit was set? <snip>We're not going to agree and this is so far off topic it's crazy we're still going on about it. Now, back to thing more on-topic....

    Yes, there's already a thread for the Slane Bypass...

    monument wrote: »
    Cycling and walking facilities are secondary to an increase in motor traffic capacity in all directions. Min standards of cycle lane widths are not even meet. I'm afraid that DLR Co Co are not as cycling mad as you like to think.

    Motor traffic capacity increase in some directions you mean - and I would not place 'walking' on the same line as 'cycling' for that proposed junction - walking and most left turning traffic are last on the list of priorities IMO.

    monument wrote: »
    According to the NTA there should be zero, and if needed traffic light controlled turning pockets rather than merged-based slip lanes.

    Well you know my views on the NTA - did that artist's impression of a Dutch Roundabout (which I posted very recently on this thread) show no slips? In fact, there was one right (would be left in Ireland) and one left incorporated into the semi-turbo design. Also, traffic light controlled pockets without slips may rule out many people with mobility issues from crossing - either put in a slip with pedestrian priority (for relatively low levels of pedestrian traffic) or use a refuge island in the middle of the approach lanes (for higher levels of pedestrian traffic) - in this case, cyclists and pedestrians are phased in properly so that when one road gets the green light, all road users on that road get the green light except motorists turning left or right - they get a separate phase so that they're out of the way of pedestrians/cyclists crossing.

    In some of my designs for urban dual carriageways, I'm looking at spliting up the 2 mainline lanes on approach to junctions so that there are 3 carriageways (2 lanes) at the pedestrian crossing point - 1) Left Filter (no slip required) and Straight Ahead, 2) Staight Ahead and Right Filter & 3) 2 Egress Lanes (for the other direction of traffic) - that's 6 lanes compacted so that at least 85% of pedestrians can comfortably cross that entire road in one phase. OK, I know I'm a pedestrian who likes to walk fast and hate having to wait, but...

    monument wrote: »
    Errr... we had what???????

    Why do we need to reinvent the wheel so much?

    Yes monument, in the 1990's, cars were more or less blamed for everything transport related in Dublin - especially when the rainbow coalition came to power in the then Dublin Corporation in 1991 - why didn't they focus on the lack of good public transport then. Many bus lanes were introduced without any real pressure on Dublin Bus to improve its service as they had the monopoly (and still have to a large degree) - this is the 1990's we're talking about here when the bus service was bloody awful - you might thinks it's bad today, but... Also, what about the bright sparks that shut down railways like the Harcourt Street Line without any foresight - could they not have even converted it to either a greenway or busway. The list goes on...

    monument wrote: »
    I think you'll find that public transport now has a larger modal share in the city centre.

    Yes, but a number a factors must be considered first - as I said before, the Luas has generally been a great success in terms of passenger usage - it hadn't required a government subsidy for years now AFAIK. The Luas is costly to build, but as I said before, if you want to improve transport, then you have to spend the dosh. That said, there's only 2 Luas lines going into Dublin - there's no Luas on the Northside except on the North Bank of the Liffey. You also have to take into account that more people are living in the city centre - when my sister worked in Cork, she stayed near the city centre there - she very rarely used the car except for long distance journeys back towards Dublin. When I came down on visits (mostly by train), I loved the fact that practically anything you needed was within walking distance - mind you, junctions with no left slips annoyed me as I was forced to wait longer by left turning traffic - I do quite a lot of walking.

    monument wrote: »

    Thanks for the link!

    That's all I've time for now...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    monument wrote: »
    1.5 buses per hour on the 59 is very low, and about eight departures a day each way on the 8 isn't worth walking about... but still, that's 1.5 buses per hour in the operational hours for months now.

    Regardless of what you may think, it is unacceptable to implement traffic calming along any road which sees medium to regular use by public transportation.
    monument wrote: »
    And in fairness, bus drivers are famous for complaining and drivers complain does not make it a major issue.

    It kind of does given that I am getting first hand (drivers) perspective of how the recent works to the Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR) has needlessly complicated their job.
    monument wrote: »
    This further shows you know little or nothing about the engineering of the roundabout or the physics of a truck jackknifing.

    What ever twist you may want to put on it, the engineering of the KTR was a turn the clock back "solution:rolleyes:" which has resulted in frequent tailbacks. As such, it was a regressive move. It is also frustrating that €250K was on a move which is regressive.
    monument wrote: »
    That's clearly not true!

    You are obviously in serious denial if you think mechanically driven transport isn't capable of reaching higher speeds than a bicycle. It is a well known fact. To put it another way, who would win in a race? Motorist or cyclist?
    monument wrote: »
    The N11 isn't such a perfect example, it's a sometime exception.

    Often much of the advantage for cars travelling between the city centre and say Cherrywood is destroyed by traffic congestion on the approach to the city centre or at different points.

    Not excessively though. Most of the time when I have driven into town using the N11, it has taken half an hour.
    monument wrote: »
    The way you are talking you'd think I was suggesting that children should play on the N11 or M50!

    Quite an exaggeration there. I was just disagreeing with the notion of reducing the dominance of cars to facilitate free play for children.
    monument wrote: »
    The problem is that a roundabout at or over capacity does not have free-flow to start with.

    The KTR did until the council f^&*ed it up!:mad:


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Motor traffic capacity increase in some directions you mean - and I would not place 'walking' on the same line as 'cycling' for that proposed junction - walking and most left turning traffic are last on the list of priorities IMO.

    Along with the Burton Hall Road works, there's a large capacity increase. After that they seem to have prioritised the higher capacity routes (ie Leopardstown Road over Brewery Road, and in general access to the industrial estate and M50), but because it gets rid of the heavy congestion - every route "wins" to some extent.

    Again: The cycle lanes do not meet min standards for widths. And cyclists using the two-way off-road track are affected as much as people walking, if not more.


    Well you know my views on the NTA - did that artist's impression of a Dutch Roundabout (which I posted very recently on this thread) show no slips? In fact, there was one right (would be left in Ireland) and one left incorporated into the semi-turbo design.

    That drawing shows a comparably low volume roundabout with a high level of segregation for cyclists (so they are not affected by the slip) and full pedestrian and cyclist priority.

    Do you really think a roundabout with full pedestrian and cyclist priority should be tried at Leopardstown? Patrick would crack up just thinking about the cost.

    Also, traffic light controlled pockets without slips may rule out many people with mobility issues from crossing....

    Try that one again: A traffic light controlled junction, with a crossing would "rule out many people with mobility issues from crossing"? How exactly do you explain that?

    Yes monument, in the 1990's, cars were more or less blamed for everything transport related in Dublin - especially when the rainbow coalition came to power in the then Dublin Corporation in 1991 - why didn't they focus on the lack of good public transport then. Many bus lanes were introduced without any real pressure on Dublin Bus to improve its service as they had the monopoly (and still have to a large degree) - this is the 1990's we're talking about here when the bus service was bloody awful - you might thinks it's bad today, but... Also, what about the bright sparks that shut down railways like the Harcourt Street Line without any foresight - could they not have even converted it to either a greenway or busway. The list goes on...

    "why didn't they focus on the lack of good public transport"

    Because regardless of what some people were saying the prevailing view in the 90s was pushing the car -- that was the policy, and that was the prevailing local and national government action.

    Yes, but a number a factors must be considered first - as I said before..............

    Your point was that "traffic is still as mad as hell in the city despite the cutbacks in road building there and the upgrading of the bus service" and I counted that by saying public transport have a larger modal share now. To be clearer: Buses have that larger modal share.

    The vast bulk of city centre residents walk.

    Regardless of what you may think, it is unacceptable to implement traffic calming along any road which sees medium to regular use by public transportation.

    Well, you have a very long list of cities and towns across the world against you on that one!

    It kind of does given that I am getting first hand (drivers) perspective of how the recent works to the Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR) has needlessly complicated their job.

    What ever twist you may want to put on it, the engineering of the KTR was a turn the clock back "solution:rolleyes:" which has resulted in frequent tailbacks. As such, it was a regressive move. It is also frustrating that €250K was on a move which is regressive.

    Yet, regardless of how you dress it up, somehow Dublin Bus drivers are more than able to handle the roundabout on daily bases for months!



    You are obviously in serious denial if you think mechanically driven transport isn't capable of reaching higher speeds than a bicycle. It is a well known fact. To put it another way, who would win in a race? Motorist or cyclist?

    Already been tested:
    • RTE's Capital D did a test with bicycle, car, train and bus from Blanch to Dame Street - the bicycle won.
    • RTE's Capital D did a test with bicycle, car, Luas and bus from Tallaght to O'Connell Street - the bicycle won.
    • BBC's Top Gear did a test between a bicycle, bus, can and I think boat across London - the bicycle won.

    And you're clearly in serious denial if you can't accept the average speeds already posted, no major difference:
    • Inside the canals: 12 km/h for bicycles compared to just 15kph for cars.
    • Within the M50 (but outside the canal), 14km/h for bicycles compared to 18 km/h for cars.

    Quite an exaggeration there. I was just disagreeing with the notion of reducing the dominance of cars to facilitate free play for children.

    Sicking. You want cars to be dominant in and around green areas -- areas which are supposed to be play areas -- in housing estates.


    The KTR did until the council f^&*ed it up!:mad:

    We were talking about the Dutch design and a completely different type of area.

    Given this thread is about what the Dutch do, if you want I can point out what the Dutch more than often do around historic cores like Dalkey and around the residential areas around the roundabout.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    monument wrote: »
    Well, you have a very long list of cities and towns across the world against you on that one!

    Give a few examples of such towns and cities. These cities and towns must be very backward if they think reducing public transport speed makes sense.
    monument wrote: »
    Yet, regardless of how you dress it up, somehow Dublin Bus drivers are more than able to handle the roundabout on daily bases for months!

    "More than able:rolleyes:"....struggling is the word I would use!
    monument wrote: »
    Already been tested:
    • RTE's Capital D did a test with bicycle, car, train and bus from Blanch to Dame Street - the bicycle won.
    • RTE's Capital D did a test with bicycle, car, Luas and bus from Tallaght to O'Connell Street - the bicycle won.
    • BBC's Top Gear did a test between a bicycle, bus, can and I think boat across London - the bicycle won.

    And you're clearly in serious denial if you can't accept the average speeds already posted, no major difference:
    • Inside the canals: 12 km/h for bicycles compared to just 15kph for cars.
    • Within the M50 (but outside the canal), 14km/h for bicycles compared to 18 km/h for cars.


    Cars are far more capable of 15kph as the maximum engine speed of most cars and other mechanically driven transport is well above 90kph. You are probably referring to factors such as traffic lights and traffic calming which cripple the performance of mechanically driven transport making them go a small fraction of their maximum speed. In such case, a bicycle would win. As such, rounding down the speeds to cyclist level is regressive. With these speed reductions comes a much longer (time wise) journey from A to B.
    monument wrote: »
    Sicking. You want cars to be dominant in and around green areas -- areas which are supposed to be play areas -- in housing estates.

    No. I'm saying that existing roads shouldn't be made tighter or less negotiable to become playground extensions which you seem to want. Many towns get business from motorised traffic and moves like tighter roundabouts and corners will strangle arteries leading to towns. Traffic calming should only be kept to cul de sacs and side roads which aren't used by public transport.
    monument wrote: »
    We were talking about the Dutch design and a completely different type of area.

    Given this thread is about what the Dutch do, if you want I can point out what the Dutch more than often do around historic cores like Dalkey and around the residential areas around the roundabout.


    What do the Dutch do around historic cores like Dalkey?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement