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
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
New Master Plan for Cherrywood
-
01-06-2015 10:20pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
yeah, IKEA
Most of the people I know in D18 seem to be all on for that aspect of the cherrywood development. The drive to the other one is a bit far. lol.
anyway, there has been a definitive rejection of this by the council this time last year. They have clearly stated they will not rezone land or alter the master plan for the SDZ in Cherrywood to accommodate a large scale warehouse store. So it won't be happening in Cherrywood anywood. Maybe the Carrickmines retail park will handle it, although, I don't think they have the capacity. Access roads already under huge strain on weekends getting and out.
https://newstalk.ie/Planning-permission-denied-for-second-Dublin-IKEA-store0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Have they never heard of a hard return? That's a wodge of text.
Too right. It's quite hard to read and the "Main Location" section starts with a lower case "i" . It may have been converted to plain text when it was submitted with some parts truncated. The interface for the planning application system appears to be Apache Tomcat as per the Favicon (short for Favorite Icon) in the address bar. So, the back-end is probably a MySQL database which can remove formatting or truncate text depending on the data types and number of characters allowed for each field. Geek mode off.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I have to agree that the replacement of the roundabout with a signalized crossing isn't a bad idea. I drive past this roundabout everyday on the way to work and it looks like a pedestrians worst nightmare. The roundabout itself is enormous with 2 slip lanes (one that is just a cul de sac) which is rather excessive given that the roundabout is up to 3 lanes in width at certain points. It doesn't appear to have any designated crossing points on any of the arms which screams car-centric to me. The one at the entrance to the office blocks is a good 50 meters away from the roundabout which hardly counts. It could still remain as a roundabout. However, I say bring in the Dutch engineers and not that ghastly Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Both are very expensive to construct
As this is the last roundabout before a major motorway from Dun Laoghaire and with the predicted population growth, a signalized crossing will likely cause tailbacks which may very well propagate on to the M50. So, it might be a very rare exception.The latter attracts anti social behaviour
Given that the ones at the junctions between Mount Merrion Avenue and the Rock Road and the second between Carysfort Avenue and Frascati Road were of subway standard, they were bound to attract hooligans. The one in the below picture is probably far more exposed:
The lack of exposure seen in previous underpass designs would indeed provide ample opportunity for anti-social behavior to thrive.They marginalize and inconvenience pedestrians, encourage them to ignore the facilities and cross the road normally and give motorists the impression that they're on a motorway.
The idea behind double-decker roundabouts is free-flow for ALL road users. In fact, in the above picture there could also be an X-shaped cross path to allow pedestrians to cross diagonally. Some designs are undoubtedly an inconvenience to pedestrians if they consist of steps, deflections from desired lines and other time-consuming movements which would be quite marginalizing. However, if done right, pedestrians would not "ignore the facilities".
Either-way, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
the groutch wrote: »without even reading it I can guess the gist of it is "Cycle lanes, cycle lanes everywhere"
There is lots about cycling lanes but there is plenty also about pedestrians and road users too
The current Irish approach seems to be to vilify road users and promote pedestrians exclusively. The article shows there are better ways that can suit everyone. The currently proposed removal of the roundabout is going to end up suiting nobody and will lead to gridlock and, in my opinion, traffic accidents during rush hours and bad weather.Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/
0 -
-
There is lots about cycling lanes but there is plenty also about pedestrians and road users too
The current Irish approach seems to be to vilify road users and promote pedestrians exclusively. The article shows there are better ways that can suit everyone. The currently proposed removal of the roundabout is going to end up suiting nobody and will lead to gridlock and, in my opinion, traffic accidents during rush hours and bad weather.
The existing situation only suits vehicles. Its lethal for pedestrians. Fast and blind approaches, it was a dreadful design to begin with.
In all honesty, it doesn't matter what other innovative designs are proposed, the junction will have to comply with the infamous DMURS, if it doesn't I'd presume the Council won't allow it.0 -
Advertisement
-
To begin with, this post is more or less the exact same as the comment that I posted in Ossian Smyth's page here in relation to the Cherrywood Roundabout.
Anyway, I think Figure 1 is probably the best fit for Cherrywood. There is ample space on the approach to the roundabout from each arm whereby there could be a dip on the edges for pedestrians and cyclists and a ramp for the main carriageway.
Figure 1:
As it stands, most of the entrances and exits to the roundabout have a whopping three lanes and even a fourth slip lane which is gross over-provision for cars. This excessive space could easily be utilised for the installation of a two-way cycle track the entire way around and a pedestrian walkway.
The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) frequently uses the phrase ‘desired lines’. If this were to become a double-decker roundabout as per Figure 1, an additional x-shaped diagonal crossing could pass beneath the carriageway. This would accommodate a 2 way cycle track and pedestrian walkway to save time in crossing the entire circumference. This should help meet the requirements of the ‘desired lines’.
The eye of the roundabout where this x-shaped crossing would be could include kiosks, benches, water features and other amenities for casual cyclists and pedestrians alike. The kiosks would be there in part to ward off any anti-social behaviour which traditionally materialised in less exposed underpasses.
For motorists, the above would mean a roundabout with a constant 2 lanes on approach, exiting and on the actual roundabout itself.
The official proposal of a signalised crossing to replace the roundabout is extremely hazardous and inconvenient for cyclists and pedestrians. It’s somewhat akin to the situation at Westmoreland Street where one has to battle their way across a whopping five lanes of traffic in parts.
For cyclists who don’t want to be side-swiped, this means dismounting from their bike and negotiating their way across a minimum of three traffic islands (if they intend on crossing only one of the 4 roads).
Conversely, Figure 2 would be a massive sacrifice for motorists as it would likely result in horrendous tailbacks propagating all the way to the M50.
Figure 2:
In short, too much provision for the car at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians leaves them marginalised and makes for soulless infrastructure. Too little provision for motorists in favor of cyclists and pedestrians would, in this case cause massive tailbacks possibly, stretching back to the M50. In conclusion, a perfect balance needs to be achieved where ALL road users are happy and I strongly believe that Figure 1 is it.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The apartments in the town centre are meant to complete by 2019.shawnxxiong wrote: »Hi! Is there construction plan and timeframe for the new homes in cherrywood?
This is a photo from the developer's wall:
The developer has revised the junction in response to the comments on the first planning application. There is an opportunity now to submit observations to the planning authority on the revised plans. (the planning ref is DZ15A/0758)
Cherrywood is meant to be designed as the kind of district that you can easily walk or cycle around to get to the shops, go to the park, go to work.
Here are the transport design goals from the SDZ plan:
This is the developer's redesigned central junction in Cherrywood:
If you were on foot, you would have to wait at six sets of traffic lights to get from one corner of this junction to the opposite corner. The clear message is that you'd be a fool not to drive every time for every trip. This development will cost over €2 billion and the design choices made now will be baked in and affect the health of the thousands of future residents and workers.0 -
-
-
-
Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »This is the developer's redesigned central junction in Cherrywood:
If you were on foot, you would have to wait at six sets of traffic lights to get from one corner of this junction to the opposite corner. The clear message is that you'd be a fool not to drive every time for every trip.
There is still a lot that is wrong with this proposed junction. To begin with, the top left-hand corner shows a potential collision point between buses and cyclists. At this point, lanes go from 2 up to 3 with the third one being for buses on the outside of a straight-ahead cycle lane. This means the potential for 3 parallel vehicle movements turning left. The corner on the bottom-right seems to be a better solution but, not perfect either as cars will still be turning left on the outside of a cyclists path. On the other hand, the junction on the bottom-left is sharper than 90 degrees unlike the other arms which are much smoother.
There doesn't appear to be any consistency or uniform shape for each arm of the junction. From the image which is superimposed onto a diagram of the existing roundabout, it is clear that there is a huge amount of space remaining that they could work with to better effect. For example and as per Ossian's comment about negotiating six sets of traffic lights to get from one corner to the other, the developers could still fit a diagonal underpass to accommodate these desired lines. Unlike *those from the past, an underpass would have to be wheelchair and bike friendly and easy to navigate by the elderly. Furthermore, it would have to be open enough so that it doesn't become a hide out for anti-socialites. Like the kiosk connecting platform 1-5 with 6 and 7 in Connolly Station, a similar one could be installed in the underpass to add a formal purpose to it.
*Before they were filled in, the underpasses at Blackrock were horrible and completely unusable to those with mild-severe mobility impairments.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely thrilled with the idea of the proposed residents, parks, shopping center, cinema, bowling alley, offices and schools. However, Hines need to go back and improve this very crucial junction as there are collision points all over it.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement