Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

Cookie_Monster

God almighty just put it back the way it was 20 years ago and stop wasting money on it. Pavement: check, road: check, pedestrian crossing set back slightly from the exits. Job done. It doesn't need 10 crossings or a cycle lane or a million signs or a huge amount of wasted space in the middle. And is there any accountability for this redesign and reredesign, is there ****. heads should be rolling over this in the council offices.

There are so so many better things the money could have been spent on, not least improving the surfaces of surrounding roads and footpaths

vard

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

God almighty just put it back the way it was 20 years ago and stop wasting money on it. Pavement: check, road: check, pedestrian crossing set back slightly from the exits. Job done. It doesn't need 10 crossings or a cycle lane or a million signs or a huge amount of wasted space in the middle. And is there any accountability for this redesign and reredesign, is there ****. heads should be rolling over this in the council offices.

There are so so many better things the money could have been spent on, not least improving the surfaces of surrounding roads and footpaths

The cynic in me would think that it's nothing more than a pathetic attempt at job justification. If this is the type of pet-project they set for themselves it's blatantly obvious that there isn't much actual work to be doing. It's genius! Build a roundabout, make a 10+ year engagement out of it. Get a team together to manage to the planning, have another team manage the management of the planning and scramble another team to manage the inevitable outsourcing and contractual long-term management and upkeep of the roundabout. Jobs for everyone!

I'd love a figure... a guess - go on, amuse me - at how much this thing will cost per year. From planning / building / development and upkeep.

patrickbrophy18

vard wrote: »

I'd love a figure... a guess - go on, amuse me - at how much this thing will cost per year. From planning / building / development and upkeep.

The work done on making the roundabout the way it is today was in the region of €250,000 in terms of cost. Next, there are the regular reviews of the roundabout's operation which would also cost time and money. The upcoming re-revision will probably work out at another quarter of a million. The subsequent audits of that reversion will again incur costs. This pet project of the council will probably work out at a full million before they stop mucking about with it at which stage they will probably revert back to something that closely resembles it's original shape.

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The work done on making the roundabout the way it is today was in the region of €250,000 in terms of cost. Next, there are the regular reviews of the roundabout's operation which would also cost time and money. The upcoming re-revision will probably work out at another quarter of a million. The subsequent audits of that reversion will again incur costs. This pet project of the council will probably work out at a full million before they stop mucking about with it at which stage they will probably revert back to something that closely resembles it's original shape.

Send that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. No kidding.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

Send that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. No kidding.

What?

I was merely making a guess at some of the costs!

The quarter of a million is accurate though!

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

What?

I was merely making a guess at some of the costs!

The quarter of a million is accurate though!

No im serious, the exact cost isnt the issue, but the disastrous project management of the scheme alone is enough to warrant an examination by the C&AG. He would look at the full cost and quantify the wastage as well as the PM deficiencies. Somebody or bodies need to be hauled over the coals for pissing away cash on this mess.

Irish and Proud

Larbre34 wrote: »

No im serious, the exact cost isnt the issue, but the disastrous project management of the scheme alone is enough to warrant an examination by the C&AG. He would look at the full cost and quantify the wastage as well as the PM deficiencies. Somebody or bodies need to be hauled over the coals for pissing away cash on this mess.

...and that goes for the junction at Blackthorn Road/Blackthorn Avenue in Sandyford - all seemingly influenced to a large degree by the National Transport Authority - this quango needs to be scrapped - what a waste of money and resources - the country can't afford infrastructure downgrades! :mad: Now the Killiney Towers Roundabout will not only be a downgrade for motorists, but also for cyclists - great work NTA! :rolleyes:

The RPA also come across as anti-car, but at least something good comes out of them - Luas etc...

Irish and Proud

We've being going on about how the Dutch design their roads...

...well here's how they build some of them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276585/Follow-self-road-Incredible-machine-lays-carpet-bricks-removing-breaking-hard-work.html?ICO=most_read_module#axzz2KcJcBmFd

Clever, isn't it!

Irish and Proud

This >>article<< might be of interest and might be very pertinent in the case of Killiney Towers Roundabout, given that the newest design is not only anti-car, but is also effectively anti-cyclist - this really does raise the question - is the policy of the NTA really about providing for cyclists or is it just plain anti-car???

Bits_n_Bobs

Irish and Proud wrote: »

This is the policy of the NTA really about providing for cyclists or is it just plain anti-car???

Following close, detailed and indeed forensic analysis, and after researching best practises internationally and several reports from me to me I have concluded that the policy of the NTA is pretty much a blend of empire building and self-preservation )

frash

Passed this roundabout at the weekend & they seem to be undoing the bike lane thing - at least some of those daft kerb things have been pulled up.

patrickbrophy18

Here is the finished version of my proposal:



Modifications have been added to the previous proposal including a cobble stone surface as well as speed ramps at the entries and exits.

The colour codes are pretty straight forward:

Dark Grey: Outer curb alignments.
Grey: Junction medians.
Red: Outer cycle track separated by concrete at crucial points. In the above example the cycle track would be raised. The cycle track itself would be roughly 2 to 3 meters in width.
Green: Roundabout island.
Dark Red Line: Outer carriageway boundary.

* Cut and paste from my message at the top of this page to save me from typing out again.:D

New Colour Codes:

Light Grey Area: Cobblestone surface to restrict speeds onto and off the roundabout. It would be along similar lines to the roundabout seen in Carrickmines Retail Park.
Dark Red Area: Supplementary speed ramps to re-enforce the restriction of speeds on and off the roundabout.

Any thoughts?

miller50841

That roundabout was fine before the last work was carried out the turns have been made too sharp and would rather see all the dangerous roads in the near area be repaired.

The fake coble ramps as we all know crumble to bits and actually in the rules of the road are not to the standard set out.

galwayjohn89

Just put it back to the way it was. The angles drivers need to take to leave the roundabout puts the cyclists in their blind spot. Majority of cyclist who use it just cycle on the road and understandably so. Approaching the roundabout is a mind f*ck with all the signage. The signs on the island at each exit block the view of the cars on the roundabouts indicators making it hard to gauge where cars are going.

Cyclists and cars have no idea what to do when they meet at exits because cyclists don't trust the drivers. Just put it back to what it was like which worked for years. Since the new redesign I have seen a cyclist knocked over, and 3 very near misses.

Ghost Train

First time I used the new layout a few months back I didn't realize cars had to yield to bikes, used to live in the area but just wouldn't have expected it and mustn't have noticed the original signs, person in the car with me pointed it out, yielding while exiting a roundabout just isn't the normal, crossings and lights are set back a bit from a roundabout in most cases I can think of. Pity they don't do go for some of the layouts in this thread with the smaller roundabout for cars and larger for bikes, with enough space between them. The redesign they've gone with doesn't do much for bikes

Cookie_Monster

Ghost Train wrote: »

First time I used the new layout a few months back I didn't realize cars had to yield to bikes, used to live in the area but just wouldn't have expected it and mustn't have noticed the original signs, person in the car with me pointed it out, yielding while exiting a roundabout just isn't the normal

Are you for real? You always have to yield to a bike going around on your left, stupid seperate bike lane or not. You can never just cross the lane in front of them and shouldn't overtake them unless you have more than sufficient space to complete the pass well before the exit.

markpb

Ghost Train wrote: »

yielding while exiting a roundabout just isn't the normal,

Yes it is - you're entering a new road and must *always* check that the road is clear before entering it.

Larbre34

markpb wrote: »

Yes it is - you're entering a new road and must *always* check that the road is clear before entering it.

That's just vigilance which is appropriate at any time. In Ireland though you yield to traffic approaching from your right, that is the principle the road traffic laws are built on and is the intuition of any decent driver. In a nutshell, the NTA tried to introduce the counter-intuitive, which quite apart from the aesthetic balls up, was the worst thing about this 'improvement'.

Report Card - Fail.

schemingbohemia

Larbre34 wrote: »

That's just vigilance which is appropriate at any time. In Ireland though you yield to traffic approaching from your right, that is the principle the road traffic laws are built on and is the intuition of any decent driver. In a nutshell, the NTA tried to introduce the counter-intuitive, which quite apart from the aesthetic balls up, was the worst thing about this 'improvement'.

Report Card - Fail.

So encouraging people visually to do what they should always have been doing (but patently weren't given ghost train's post) is a fail? Surely posts like ghost trains show that people are, well I was going to say stupid - but that might be unfair, not paying attention and need some assistance?

Larbre34

schemingbohemia wrote: »

So encouraging people visually to do what they should always have been doing (but patently weren't given ghost train's post) is a fail? Surely posts like ghost trains show that people are, well I was going to say stupid - but that might be unfair, not paying attention and need some assistance?

Tightening the lanes, adding buffer kerbs and a plethora of signs on posts and on the road surface doesn't encourage anyone to do anything, it annoys, confuses and distracts at the precise moment that all you want in your field of vision is the cyclist and the exit road.

If anyone's own position on the road and that of the traffic around them are not enough to adequately keep their attention, then they shouldn't be on the road at all.

Fratton Fred

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tightening the lanes, adding buffer kerbs and a plethora of signs on posts and on the road surface doesn't encourage anyone to do anything, it annoys, confuses and distracts at the precise moment that all you want in your field of vision is the cyclist and the exit road.

If anyone's own position on the road and that of the traffic around them are not enough to adequately keep their attention, then they shouldn't be on the road at all.

I wouldn't disagree with you, but in normal circumstances it is a two way thing. A cyclist coming down killiney road and heading up glenageary road would give way to vehicles on the roundabout, as it stands they dont have to and a car coming from barnhill road has to yield to them if they are turning into Avondale.

The roundabout messes with the normal rules.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

That's just vigilance which is appropriate at any time. In Ireland though you yield to traffic approaching from your right, that is the principle the road traffic laws are built on and is the intuition of any decent driver. In a nutshell, the NTA tried to introduce the counter-intuitive, which quite apart from the aesthetic balls up, was the worst thing about this 'improvement'.

The design of the roundabout was to slow you down, to give you more time to react to other road users and allow them to safely complete their journey. Perhaps you always check the road in front of you but other drivers do not. Perhaps it's only counter intuitive because they're bad drivers?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The roundabout messes with the normal rules.

I know this is unfair but I'm reading your post as: "Change is bad, don't change anything". Perhaps the roundabout is counter-intuitive now but given time and the expansion of its design to other roundabouts, it may have become the norm.

Larbre34

markpb wrote: »

I know this is unfair but I'm reading your post as: "Change is bad, don't change anything". Perhaps the roundabout is counter-intuitive now but given time and the expansion of its design to other roundabouts, it may have become the norm.

Things can always be improved, fair enough. But to change to a counter-intuitive setup on one roundabout while all others remain in a traditional arrangement is getting on for as bad as telling half the country they must switch to driving on the right. And I'm not exaggerating that much, for a first time user of the new roundabout setup its massively distracting.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

Things can always be improved, fair enough. But to change to a counter-intuitive setup on one roundabout while all others remain in a traditional arrangement is getting on for as bad as telling half the country they must switch to driving on the right. And I'm not exaggerating that much, for a first time user of the new roundabout setup its massively distracting.

It's a fair point but they can't change every roundabout at once. And even if they wanted to, wouldn't it be better if they changed one, observed how it worked and got it right before changing the others?

Fratton Fred

markpb wrote: »

It's a fair point but they can't change every roundabout at once. And even if they wanted to, wouldn't it be better if they changed one, observed how it worked and got it right before changing the others?

Yes, provided the roundabout needed improving in the first place

And wasn't anywhere near me!

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tightening the lanes, adding buffer kerbs and a plethora of signs on posts and on the road surface doesn't encourage anyone to do anything, it annoys, confuses and distracts at the precise moment that all you want in your field of vision is the cyclist and the exit road.

I completely agree with this point. The visual clutter would be very distracting to many motorists. By visual clutter, I mean excessive signage at small intervals, rubber kerbing and tightened junctions. The overkill of signage draws the attention of motorists away from the road in front of them which is, more often than not, incredibly dangerous. Mirrors and signal should ideally be the only things a motorist should have to do when taking a turn given that they are within glancing range and easily accessible. If a cyclist or pedestrian is in view, let them pass before taking the turn. Simple!

Thankfully, the ridiculous rubber kerbing is being permanently removed from the roundabout. Annoyingly, a raised asphalt surface will replace this and will effectively make the carriageway width slightly narrower all around. From an aesthetics point of view, it may be smoother looking and less distracting. However, the junctions will still be incredibly tight which have been a struggle for trucks and buses to negotiate with ever since the previous job was done.

For cyclists, this will mean dismounting at each junction if they do intend using the cycle track as it will be noncontinuous. I highly doubt this given that it will be faster for cyclists to use the main carriageway thus, very likely to render the raised asphalt surface redundant.

The end result will be inconvenienced motorists and displaced cyclists. The only people I can think of who will benefit this new design mostly will be pedestrians.

Ghost Train

Well in defense of my post post above, when theres a kerb/divide between the cycle lane and road as there was after the first set of works, you have two seperate systems. You then have cycle lane crossing the exit (road) at right angles. Would always look for traffic on the road on the left when exiting roundabout, the effect of the kerbs or bumpers they installed on the roundabout did make less clear that you're sharing and giving way to bike that cross your path, are there other cases where you get a yield sign right on the exit of a roundabout?

whitesands

The Herald reported this today, Money-Go-Round http://www.herald.ie/news/moneygoround-29174206.html

A FURTHER €155,000 in public money is being spent on a South Dublin roundabout, just a year after a €275,000 upgrade left road users bemused.

Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council decided to undertake the new works 12 months after the initial scheme was completed.

When the current seven-week project is finished, a total of €430,000 will have been spent on the upgrade.

nomdeboardie

whitesands wrote: »

The Herald reported this today, Money-Go-Round http://www.herald.ie/news/moneygoround-29174206.html

This bit is wonderfully ambiguous :pac:

During the previous scheme, drivers endured a traffic headache, with school runs, shopping trips and daily commutes delayed for months.

Ghost Train

are the traffic delays due to roadworks or if the fact that it's been reduced from two lanes roundabout to one?