Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

monument

The buses seem to be managing just fine. And if there is a major problem it's up to Dublin Bus to work it out with the council.

None of these are primary roads to start with, and they are not high frequency bus routes serving then. And your idea amounts to complaining about the spend on a roundabout but then wanting an even larger job done on the roundabout and roads in genral?

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

None of these are primary roads to start with, and they are not high frequency bus routes serving then. And your idea amounts to complaining about the spend on a roundabout but then wanting an even larger job done on the roundabout and roads in genral?

I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can. However, you keep on being a smart-ass. My complaints are in relation to the spending of money which has left the roundabout less efficient for motorists and buses. As it is less efficient, it is effectively, a downgrade and hence, a waste of money. I was merely saying that money should have been spent on doing the opposite i.e. making it more efficient.

Making a road more suitable for cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be done at the expense of road-space for buses, trucks and cars. Otherwise, it is a downgrade. Then again, I can tell that you are pro-cyclist & pedestrian and anti-every other road user. So, of course, you're going to come out with statements like: "Ah sure, they (motorists, buses and trucks) can manage"!

Take Blackrock for example. It has wide roads in all directions and allows for extremely efficient flow of all vehicles because of the ample space. It also helps in making an area more accessible and helps sustain businesses along their path. Towns like Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney are surrounded by tight infrastructure which hinders lot's of potential business because of their poor accessibility.

monument

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

So essentially, we both agree that it is a downgrade. Finally, we agree on something.

However, I find it frustrating because it has already resulted in tailbacks.:mad:

monument

An upgrade overall, even if a slight downgrade for some.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

...roads are not designed just for cars, they're designed for motor vehicles which also include trucks, buses, ambulances, refuse vehicles, service vehicles etc. Also, I dread as a motorist and pedestrian, a cyclist dominated future - as motorists, we have to take both a theory (heavy emphasis on vulnerable road users) and practical test - what do cyclists have to do? Who are cyclists accountable too? - Where's the balance there?

Also, the cycle manual needs a major rethink as it's IMO unrealistic and seems very pedestrian unfriendly. Also, who came up with 3.0m lane widths for buses and other traffic? - Try traveling the Northside (especially by bus) where 3.0m lane widths are common - buses need 3.5m while other traffic should get 3.25m in urban areas IMO. Also, this thing of removing left lanes is a :mad: for me as either a pedestrian or motorist. By experience, slip lanes and medians allow pedestrians to cross traffic streams individually thereby reducing the time it takes for crossing main roads. As a motorist, busy tight junctions are extremely dangerous - as a bus passenger, tight roads and junctions are a nightmare and makes the ride unpleasant (stop/start) - all for promoting public transport.

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable - what will cyclists want next - calming the LUAS (wouldn't it be too fast for cyclists) or even getting rid of it altogether (due to cycle wheels getting stuck in the grooves)? Oh, cyclists don't like one way systems as they'd rather take the short route - OMG, if they want the shortest route for every trip, will their war even extend to railways/canals in future years (they're never happy it seems)? :eek: In any case, I think that cycle manual will get a good watering down over time, now that the Greens are totally wiped out of politics. Also, the most effective way to slow down traffic is ramps - simple as - by experience, road narrowing has failed to do this - if in doubt, why do so many narrow roads have ramps - today, I traveled a 2 way road (don't think it was any more than 5m) which was extremely narrow with high walls on both sides - it also had very severe ramps installed - all for narrow roads reducing speed! :rolleyes:

Let's cut the BS!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

...roads are not designed just for cars, they're designed for motor vehicles which also include trucks, buses, ambulances, refuse vehicles, service vehicles etc. Also, I dread as a motorist and pedestrian, a cyclist dominated future - as motorists, we have to take both a theory (heavy emphasis on vulnerable road users) and practical test - what do cyclists have to do? Who are cyclists accountable too? - Where's the balance there?

Also, the cycle manual needs a major rethink as it's IMO unrealistic and seems very pedestrian unfriendly. Also, who came up with 3.0m lane widths for buses and other traffic? - Try traveling the Northside (especially by bus) where 3.0m lane widths are common - buses need 3.5m while other traffic should get 3.25m in urban areas IMO. Also, this thing of removing left lanes is a :mad: for me as either a pedestrian or motorist. By experience, slip lanes and medians allow pedestrians to cross traffic streams individually thereby reducing the time it takes for crossing main roads. As a motorist, busy tight junctions are extremely dangerous - as a bus passenger, tight roads and junctions are a nightmare and makes the ride unpleasant (stop/start) - all for promoting public transport.

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable - what will cyclists want next - calming the LUAS (wouldn't it be too fast for cyclists) or even getting rid of it altogether (due to cycle wheels getting stuck in the grooves)? Oh, cyclists don't like one way systems as they'd rather take the short route - OMG, if they want the shortest route for every trip, will their war even extend to railways/canals in future years (they're never happy it seems)? :eek: In any case, I think that cycle manual will get a good watering down over time, now that the Greens are totally wiped out of politics. Also, the most effective way to slow down traffic is ramps - simple as - by experience, road narrowing has failed to do this - if in doubt, why do so many narrow roads have ramps - today, I traveled a 2 way road (don't think it was any more than 5m) which was extremely narrow with high walls on both sides - it also had very severe ramps installed - all for narrow roads reducing speed! :rolleyes:

Let's cut the BS!

What an anti-cycling / strange random rant! If you want to cut the bull ****, do so and tell us: Why are you so bitter towards cycling?

I was taking in genral terms when I said roads were designed for cars, but roads were first and foremost designed for cars in the recent past (... Did you know before that they were paved for cyclists mainly?). Buses and trucks came second at best. A lot has/is been done to rebalance things for buses, now the same is slowly being done for the bicycle.

I'm fairly clealy on the record in saying that on-the-spot fines for cyclists would be a good thing and could be done with ease. There's the balance. Beyond that cycling is quite different than driving, so the balance is good as it is. Motorist are tested etc and you still get widespread poor driving!...

People on bicycles have killed how many drivers, pedistrains and other cyclist?... Yes, and all of the people cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, and yet the manslaughter on roads is still the domain of people driving.

And what exactly is so "unrealistic" and "very pedestrian unfriendly" about the cycle manual? Althought I agree there's a good chance it won't be followed too well.

And strangely enoufe in the city centre and else where poor motorists do at least as good of a job as slowing the Luas down as cyclists do. You'll find it has little to do with the greens one way or another.

On lane widths you only seem to half know what you are talking about. Buses are mostly about 2.55m -- so, 3m works. The problem with the apparent 3m bus lanes on the northside is that in many cases the buses are as wide as the lane -- that means the lane can't be 3m! And the 3m in the manual excuses the gutter or buffer widths -- and if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed.

le petit braquet

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Take Blackrock for example. It has wide roads in all directions and allows for extremely efficient flow of all vehicles because of the ample space. It also helps in making an area more accessible and helps sustain businesses along their path. Towns like Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney are surrounded by tight infrastructure which hinders lot's of potential business because of their poor accessibility.

So you want the equivalent of the Blackrock bypass in Dalkey, Killiney and Sandycove:eek: As someone who lives close to the old golf club stretch of the Glenageary Road which has been transformed into the type of super highway you desire - NO THANKS!

patrickbrophy18

Irish and Proud wrote: »

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable

Couldn't have put it better myself. The treatment to Killiney Towers Roundabout was very regressive!

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

What an anti-cycling / strange random rant! If you want to cut the bull ****, do so and tell us: Why are you so bitter towards cycling?

I'm not bitter towards cycling in general - I'm just bitter towards this pen pushing nonsense by the powers that be that anything with a motor in it is evil and that cycling is the best thing since sliced bread - bear in mind that I've been a cyclist for many years, so I'd know all about it! While I'd believe the cycle campaigns in saying that it only rains 8% of the time (if even that), there are other major problems with cycling such as wind, aggressive dogs (in rural areas), bike crime, narrow roads, road maintenance etc. Wind, dogs and narrow roads were the main problems for me - however, you can't get rid of wind and you can't widen every road in the country - however, dogs and poor road maintenance need to be tackled IMO. In short, I don't think cycling is the be all and end all solution for transport, even in urban areas - what about old people, children, families, people with disability etc?

monument wrote: »

I was taking in genral terms when I said roads were designed for cars, but roads were first and foremost designed for cars in the recent past (... Did you know before that they were paved for cyclists mainly?). Buses and trucks came second at best. A lot has/is been done to rebalance things for buses, now the same is slowly being done for the bicycle.

I'd find it hard to believe that roads were originally paved for cyclists mainly - must look it up. Now, a lot of re-balancing work in favour of cyclists has already taken place. Many of the newer junctions give a lot of priority to cyclists IMO - the cycling manual however insists that the type of junctions that stream cyclists amid the traffic lanes are too car friendly - the cycle manual talks of cyclists being cut out by turning traffic - the burning question is, is it the road design that's wrong or is it the law? IMO it's this simple, on approach to a junction, if a cyclist (going straight on) is ahead of a turning vehicle, the turning vehicle should stay behind the cyclist and cross over in turn - on the other hand, if a cyclist (going straight on) is behind a turning vehicle, then the cyclist should let the turning vehicle cross over, but the turning vehicle should not proceed if to do so would cause a prolonged blockage of the cycle lane (that's a good reason for providing left lanes!) If a turning vehicle is stationary having not yet crossed over, there should be no problem with a cyclist (going straight on) proceeding as long as the vehicle remains stationary. Large vehicles such a trucks should require a rear mounted blind side video in order to make the vehicle safe as far as I'm concerned - this would allow drivers to see a cyclist coming up on the blind side. If the traffic laws reflected the above, a lot of problems would be solved in a fair way IMO.

monument wrote: »

I'm fairly clealy on the record in saying that on-the-spot fines for cyclists would be a good thing and could be done with ease. There's the balance. Beyond that cycling is quite different than driving, so the balance is good as it is. Motorist are tested etc and you still get widespread poor driving!...

Maybe free state insurance cover for registered cyclists over 18, but only for those that successfully complete a proper cycling course with a practical and theory test at the end. Cyclists should have to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge regarding the rules of the road as well as demonstrating proper bicycle command (like using the gears and general rider stability) as well as good road craft. I do agree however that motorists should face a far tougher grilling in the test regarding lane disciple - this IMO should cover cycle tracks, motorways, roundabouts etc.

monument wrote: »

People on bicycles have killed how many drivers, pedistrains and other cyclist?... Yes, and all of the people cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, and yet the manslaughter on roads is still the domain of people driving.

Zero I guess, but that still doesn't necessarily make them safe - cyclists are often the cause of complaint amid pedestrians and motorists alike - it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc - I'm sure some pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists - I was very nearly one of them in O'Connell Street years ago - mind you I was jay walking like everyone else, but the cyclist was cycling on the right hand side of the carriageway (not the wrong way, but in the wrong position) and at speed.

monument wrote: »

And what exactly is so "unrealistic" and "very pedestrian unfriendly" about the cycle manual? Althought I agree there's a good chance it won't be followed too well.

Removing slip roads makes road crossing much more difficult by my experience as a pedestrian - of course, the war is AFAIK about to extend to jaywalking pedestrians which I think will be more of the pen pushing nonsense - however, left slips should be angled 30/60 deg with a zebra crossing incorporated which would allow pedestrians to reach the mainline with little or no delay - both motorists and cyclists turning left could share these type of slips. Removing left lanes and slips will only cause more confusion for pedestrians and motorists - as a pedestrian, I hate approaching traffic with no declaration lane thereby making unclear to me what the vehicles are going to do at the junction (and the lack of slips causes even more pedestrian severance) - it especially drives me mad when I'm making my way to a bus or train - there you have it: motorists, pedestrians and users of public transport are unfairly treated. Again, cyclists should have their rightful place, but not a dominant place in the street.

monument wrote: »

And strangely enoufe in the city centre and else where poor motorists do at least as good of a job as slowing the Luas down as cyclists do. You'll find it has little to do with the greens one way or another.

Agreed - and there should be guards going up and down slapping obnoxiously sticky reminders (my Dad wrongfully got one of these regarding a new parking regime in London years ago) upon the wind screens - I bet it would stop very quickly!

monument wrote: »

On lane widths you only seem to half know what you are talking about. Buses are mostly about 2.55m -- so, 3m works. The problem with the apparent 3m bus lanes on the northside is that in many cases the buses are as wide as the lane -- that means the lane can't be 3m! And the 3m in the manual excuses the gutter or buffer widths -- and if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed.

OK, it think it's safe for me to say you don't drive because a vehicle width of 2.55m is the width of a 3.0m lane in driving terms - vehicles are not robots that travel in a perfect straight line - but I bet you would agree with the NTA that cyclists need a lot of wobble room (2.0m). Also, when you're at cruising speed on a bike, would you be able to stay so steady that a 1.0m cycle lane would suffice - now consider wind, road camber, debris etc. Now, since your arms would probably span no more than 800mm when cycling (I have cycled a lot in the past remember), 1.0m should be enough for you if 3.0m is enough for a bus - well isn't that fair??? Now, I'd recommend 1.75m for Cyclists, 3.50m for Buses and 3.25m for General Traffic (and a median strip of 0.50m if required).

Regards!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'm not bitter towards cycling in general - I'm just bitter towards this pen pushing nonsense by the powers that be that anything with a motor in it is evil and that cycling is the best thing since sliced bread - bear in mind that I've been a cyclist for many years, so I'd know all about it! While I'd believe the cycle campaigns in saying that it only rains 8% of the time (if even that), there are other major problems with cycling such as wind, aggressive dogs (in rural areas), bike crime, narrow roads, road maintenance etc. Wind, dogs and narrow roads were the main problems for me - however, you can't get rid of wind and you can't widen every road in the country - however, dogs and poor road maintenance need to be tackled IMO.

Dublin has less rail fall than Amsterdam and Copenhagen, both of which have high cycling numbers. Copenhagen is known to be a very windy city.

There's no need to "widen every road in the country". It's about getting things right. Given we're talking about south Dublin -- the N11 is a good example. The **** cycle track on it have been redesigned something like six times now and still need a good deal of work. It's like putting lipstick on a pig at this stage.

There's also loads of scope to improve things in other parts of the city off-road. The canals alone offer a great chance to have the low amount of stop routes in and out of the city centre. The detail again needs to be right to get the best results.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

In short, I don't think cycling is the be all and end all solution for transport, even in urban areas - what about old people, children, families, people with disability etc?

Who said cycling is the be all and end all solution? Nobody did and the councils, the NTA, or the governments are nowhere near treating it as that.

What about old people? Some can cycle and many more would be able to if they had kept up cycling.

What about children? They can cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQ-d2PBUto

Families can also cycle. What makes you think they can't?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'd find it hard to believe that roads were originally paved for cyclists mainly - must look it up.

Excuse the pun, but cycling paved the way for motorists in many ways. For example John Boyd Dunlop invented the pneumatic tire for the bicycle.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Now, a lot of re-balancing work in favour of cyclists has already taken place.

Very little has overall outside a few example.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If the traffic laws reflected the above, a lot of problems would be solved in a fair way IMO.

The idea that it's only a law or enforcement of current law issue [1] discounts the idea that our road layouts were not designed for cyclists and [2] is not very practical when the goal both nationally and locally is to make cycling more attractive to more people, not just make things safer for those who currently cycle.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Maybe free state insurance cover for registered cyclists over 18, but only for those that successfully complete a proper cycling course with a practical and theory test at the end. Cyclists should have to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge regarding the rules of the road as well as demonstrating proper bicycle command (like using the gears and general rider stability) as well as good road craft.

There's no proven need for any of this. Roads have gotten safer at the same time as there has been a boom in cycling numbers! It would be a waste of time and money.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Zero I guess, but that still doesn't necessarily make them safe - cyclists are often the cause of complaint amid pedestrians and motorists alike - it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc - I'm sure some pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists - I was very nearly one of them in O'Connell Street years ago - mind you I was jay walking like everyone else, but the cyclist was cycling on the right hand side of the carriageway (not the wrong way, but in the wrong position) and at speed.

Motorists were at one point seen as cyclists are now, as it becomes more mainstream this will slowly changed -- just as it did with motorists (one theory is when cars were still out of reach of the masses, that buses made cars more acceptable, see here). Still to this day every type of road user gives out about others and "their own".

Cyclists are allow on the right hand side oft he carriageway, very much so when there's a load of people j-walking (he could have been trying to avoid others). Legally and morally, your j-walking invalidates any point you may have had.

Many motorist park on footpaths, speed, block cycle lanes, block advance stop lines, block ped crossing, tailgate, use the overtaking lane when they should not etc. These are really not lawbreaking cyclists or motorists, but lawbreaking people.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Removing slip roads makes road crossing much more difficult by my experience as a pedestrian

In my experience it means much longer crossing times and filter traffic lights are the least obeyed by motorists.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Removing left lanes and slips will only cause more confusion for pedestrians and motorists

People adapt pretty quickly.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

OK, it think it's safe for me to say you don't drive because a vehicle width of 2.55m is the width of a 3.0m lane in driving terms - vehicles are not robots that travel in a perfect straight line - but I bet you would agree with the NTA that cyclists need a lot of wobble room (2.0m). Also, when you're at cruising speed on a bike, would you be able to stay so steady that a 1.0m cycle lane would suffice - now consider wind, road camber, debris etc. Now, since your arms would probably span no more than 800mm when cycling (I have cycled a lot in the past remember), 1.0m should be enough for you if 3.0m is enough for a bus - well isn't that fair??? Now, I'd recommend 1.75m for Cyclists, 3.50m for Buses and 3.25m for General Traffic (and a median strip of 0.50m if required).

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

There's no need to "widen every road in the country". It's about getting things right. Given we're talking about south Dublin -- the N11 is a good example. The **** cycle track on it have been redesigned something like six times now and still need a good deal of work. It's like putting lipstick on a pig at this stage.

To be fair though, the section between Leopardstown Road and the junction at Foxrock Church has been improved for cyclists significantly. For example, they have now re-arranged the layout of the cycle track to go around the bus stop. This holds true for many other bus stops along the N11 in general. They have also straightened many parts of the cycle lane where a sharp change in direction may destabilize the cyclist in motion. This is another reason why I strongly disagree with tightened junctions such as those on the roundabout in question because it leads to a sudden change in direction.

monument wrote: »

What about old people? Some can cycle and many more would be able to if they had kept up cycling.

To certain extent, this is true. As you have said before, it is good for the ticker;). However, past a certain age, over exercise can cause heart attacks. For those who are in this bracket, I would recommend a cautious approach to exercise.:cool:

monument wrote: »

There's no proven need for any of this. Roads have gotten safer at the same time as there has been a boom in cycling numbers! It would be a waste of time and money.

I will quote a statement by 'Irish and Proud' that "it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc". I also see this very frequently and attests to such a need.

monument wrote: »

Many motorist park on footpaths, speed, block cycle lanes, block advance stop lines, block ped crossing, tailgate, use the overtaking lane when they should not etc.

And this is deplorable. I completely agree with you in this regard. In fact, I would go so far as to fine people who do this.

While cyclists are known for breaking the rules of the road, many motorists are also equally (if not more) guilty of this given that the car becomes a weapon in these circumstances.

In any case, failure to comply with the rules of the road, be it a cyclists or motorist, increases the likelihood of an accident 100%. For this very reason, I believe that most road accidents are caused by a failure to comply.

monument wrote: »

In my experience it means much longer crossing times and filter traffic lights are the least obeyed by motorists.

As I have said in another thread, I do think that the synchronization of pedestrian lights does need to be tweaked to provide far more frequent crossing opportunities at a lot of junctions in The Greater Dublin Area.

monument wrote: »

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

I will also agree with you here. While I amn't an expert in the dimensions of bicycles, it does appear as though they are the best part of a meter in width. As such, at least half a meter of clearance should be provided on both sides of the bicycle to allow for "wiggle or wobble room".:D

Nevertheless, I think that the same thing also applies to buses because their hind axle needs to be somewhat parallel to the curb without getting too close. The junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR) has reduced this clearance to the extent that the extremities of the buses frame are almost touching the central median and the cycle barriers. The only thing I can see in this case is a more dangerous situation for cyclists.

For these very reasons, I think that extensive road widening will eventually need to be carried out on many of the roads in the south eastern portion of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. Essentially, I believe in a solution for all AND an upgrade for all. I took the time to read "The National Cycle Manual" myself. There are some parts of it that I do agree with and other parts where I strongly object. The part which mentioned HGVs recommended very wide entry/exit radii, something that the KTR has omitted.

Irish and Proud

Here's a link to a thread showing some good pictures of the new roundabout design - to me, it seems like a deathtrap for cyclists - I have some reservations about cyclists, but seriously my feeling is: What did cyclists do to deserve a cyclist killing contraption (I certainly didn't wish that on cyclists) - indeed what did motorists do to deserve being used as the killing weapon? Well to me, that is exactly what this design is - a cyclist killing machine! Not only are cyclists crossing left turning traffic on the blind side, but cyclists are being forced to do so from behind such vehicles given the curvature of the roundabout. By the time a motorist has check the rear mirror, left mirror and blind spot before turning off, and having to adjust to such a tight turn, things could change very quickly given the difference in velocity between cyclists and motorists (the cyclists would be the faster IMO). I feel that the risk of collision between cyclists and left turning vehicles is very great. However, barring accident collateral damage, the layout should be safer for pedestrians - that's the only good point I can see in relation to the new design.

An alternative could be a turbo roundabout through which cyclists could be synchronized (through a signalized cycle gate) on approach to the junction - from a quick sketch, a turbo roundabout could easily be rendered acceptable for pedestrians too given the rigidly enforced lane discipline through the roundabout - the problem with conventional roundabouts for pedestrians is the unpredictable nature of the circulating traffic while crossing the exit lane - turbo roundabouts would solve this IMO - also turbo roundabouts could be more favourable towards the installation of pedestrian signalization given the enforced lane discipline and resulting clearer focus that motorists can afford upon entering the exit lane - this IMO would be acceptable to all modes!

Regards!

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

...which is why I'm recommending 1.75m for cyclists - of course 1.0m would never be enough - I'm just asking you to exercise the same consideration for other road users!

I've read your reply (including links) and there's some good points and bad points IMO - still considering...

patrickbrophy18

It was brought to my attention from another thread about the KTR that there was an article in today's Irish Independent which highlights the disgust at the dog's breakfast that was made out of it.

Irish and Proud

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It was brought to my attention from another thread about the KTR that there was an article in today's Irish Independent which highlights the disgust at the dog's breakfast that was made out of it.

The article is so good I'll quote it directly:

Bruce Arnold: How household charge is likely to go down drain
Monday April 02 2012

The following story concerns a roundabout at Albert Road in Glenageary. In the past six months more than €250,000 has been wastefully spent on a foolish local authority project to 'improve' safety by restricting the movement of traffic, contrary to the essential theory and practice of roundabout use.<snip>

Irish Independent

Link to article...

This is actually so good, I'll also link to it in my own thread relating to the cycle manual.

Regards!

RosieJoe

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the household tax had nothing to do with roadworks and more to do with Services for the community?

Is the title just the usual sensationalist rubbish to bemoan the new charge?

Irish and Proud

RosieJoe wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the household tax had nothing to do with roadworks and more to do with Services for the community?

Is the title just the usual sensationalist rubbish to bemoan the new charge?

You can divide up money as much as you want, but public money is public money and has to come from the public by whatever means - the work on Killiney Towers Roundabout is from what I can see, a complete waste of public money - even if you were to ignore the household charge, surely the €250k spent (or misspent?) on the roundabout might have been better spent on road and footpath repairs thereby benefiting every road user including cyclists - when I cycled, road impairment was one of the biggest put-offs regarding cycling - in fact, my only cycle crash was partly down to road impairment.

If stage agencies and local authorities are squandering money on useless projects like nonsensical traffic calming (or is it traffic stopping?) schemes and egotistical monuments etc, then who is to say that the household charge won't be squandered? As the country is in a difficult financial situation, it is important that a precedent is set regarding the use of any public money and most of all, that the general public interest is put first - that does mean public consultation which I believe did not happen in the case of the Killiney Towers Roundabout - IMO, the NTA needs to be looked at in terms of value for money!

Regards!

RosieJoe

Completely agree with you on the misspending of money, just do not like the way the article is titled TBH.

Irish and Proud

This is slightly off topic, but I posted the following on the Roads Forum and it might be of some relevance here:

A new development in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown:

Braemor Road Enhancement Scheme - this road is part of the R112 ring.

Included is a provsion for new 2.0m cycle tracks in accordance with the National Cycle Manual - again it's seemingly sponsored by the NTA but this time, there is public consultation. Mind you, I understand that most trees along the road are to be felled and replaced - the reasons are enclosed in the report. As a motorist, I wouldn't have a real objection to the overall scheme, but I do have reservations regarding certain aspects such as the non-inclusion of a left pocket at one of the signalized junctions. Some right turn lanes are also too narrow.

In any case, I intend to make a detailed submission regarding the scheme.

Regards!

patrickbrophy18

This just in, I saw news of the Cycle Network Review for Dun Laoghaire Rathdown at the following link:

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/cycling/cyclenetworkreview/

As such, I will be making this post to the relevant threads.

Irish and Proud

Here's my take on it at this stage:

If cycling is to be taken seriously, then the traffic engineers and government have to be prepared to spend the dosh in order to come up with proper road designs that properly cater for all modes - if this means cycle freeways, so be it - if it means compromising property so be it. As a basic rule, pedestrians should not be forced to change grade (by means of ramps, steps etc) or excessively diverted if at all possible. Pedestrians should not have to suffer the removal of left slips and lose time at junctions as a result. Pedestrians should also get fair priority at junctions. Traffic underpasses should be of great benefit to pedestrians as long as the above principles are followed. Motorists also have a right to proper road design rather than complicating things by inappropriate traffic calming and bad junction design that the cycle manual seems to be promoting. Cycle friendly measures that should be considered IMO would include cycle underpasses, displaced left turns for general traffic to eliminate uncontrolled conflict (would also benefit QBCs), turbo roundabouts involving low speed multi-laning which should be suitable for cyclists, cycle gating etc. In short, anti-car transport planning should make way for proper intergrated transport planning, and this includes a proper rail system for Dublin!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Pedestrians should not have to suffer the removal of left slips and lose time at junctions as a result.

Do you actually use any left slips as pedestrians or do you just not obay the pedestrian lights on them?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Traffic underpasses should be of great benefit to pedestrians as long as the above principles are followed.

Other than on major duel carriageways or motorways, under/overpasses are not preferable.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Motorists also have a right to proper road design rather than complicating things by inappropriate traffic calming and bad junction design that the cycle manual seems to be promoting.

Let me guess, "inappropriate traffic calming" is anything thing that gets in the way of motorists?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Cycle friendly measures that should be considered IMO would include cycle underpasses

Added to the comments above about the use of underpasses... Where is this a priority???

Irish and Proud wrote: »

displaced left turns for general traffic to eliminate uncontrolled conflict (would also benefit QBCs),

Displaced left turns?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

turbo roundabouts involving low speed multi-laning which should be suitable for cyclists,

This is how the Dutch handle cyclists around semi-turbo roundabouts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP-gkoCc3b0

Irish and Proud wrote: »

In short, anti-car transport planning should make way for proper intergrated transport planning, and this includes a proper rail system for Dublin!

Dublin's road system is largely car-friendly at the expense of everything else. What's needed is rebalancing. Not anti-anything.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

Do you actually use any left slips as pedestrians or do you just not obay the pedestrian lights on them?

Who does, Monument??? - As a pedestrian, waiting at every light loses too much time. I will admit that I'm a hell of a lot more patient at the wheel of a car than I am on foot. However, left slips and traffic islands are good when it comes to being a pedestrian - left slips allow me to save time by dealing with the left turning stream of traffic first. The problem for me is in fact right turns.

monument wrote: »

Other than on major duel carriageways or motorways, under/overpasses are not preferable.

Agree for the most part - however, some very busy junctions such as the one under Dundrum's Luas cable stayed bridge would IMO benefit from an underpass that would divert one of the roads under thereby reducing pedestrian and cyclist severance while maintaining a reasonable flow of traffic.

monument wrote: »

Let me guess, "inappropriate traffic calming" is anything thing that gets in the way of motorists?

NO! Inappropriate traffic calming are measures that disrupt traffic rather than slowing it down. In short, inappropriate traffic calming = traffic stopping. Also, as a pedestrian, traffic calming is not always what it's cracked up to be - some traffic calming schemes can slow down traffic into steady streams thereby causing major severance for pedestrians and locals. Also, traffic islands rather than kerb buildouts should by considered - again, pedestrians would have the opportunity to take one traffic stream at a time - long traffic islands would allow pedestrians to continue walking while between traffic streams - this would IMO also induce lower traffic speeds.

monument wrote: »

Added to the comments above about the use of underpasses... Where is this a priority???

I'm not sure what you mean...

monument wrote: »

Displaced left turns?

A displaced left turn is an idea I have about reducing conflict on QBCs where cycle facilities are also provided. Instead of traffic simply turning left off a QBC dual carriageway (such as the Stillorgan Road), traffic turning left would be made to queue in the median and would be let across the carriageway in phase with the traffic on the intersecting road - such traffic would travel on a parallel slip before joining the intersecting road. This would eliminate uncontrolled conflict with buses and cyclists on the left. Such measures would best be used in conjunction with displaced right turns where right turning traffic prematurely brought across the opposite carriageway before joining the intersecting road. Don't have time ATM to go any more into this...

monument wrote: »

This is how the Dutch handle cyclists around semi-turbo roundabouts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP-gkoCc3b0

Actually, that's quite good and fair IMO - you should also post that to the NTA as far as I'm concerned. That design is way superior to that of the Killiney Towers RAB. Note how far out the cycle track is from the traffic circulatory carriageway in the video - sight lines would surely be far better than those of Killiney Towers. Note the pedestrian facilities too!

monument wrote: »

Dublin's road system is largely car-friendly at the expense of everything else. What's needed is rebalancing. Not anti-anything.

Well you should have seen Dublin in the 1980's - I agree that there's a lot of work to do, but a hell of a lot of rebalancing has already been done since the 1990's. However, proper roads are required to cater for all motor traffic including buses and motor cycles while the areas in between should be made more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Also, underpasses/short tunnels should be used to avoid excessive severance between the said areas - yes I know money would have to be spent and residents compensated for property impact, but if a job is not going to be done properly, why bother doing it at all?

Regards!

Splendour

The 'improvements' are going to cause problems for everyone when it snows...

patrickbrophy18

I'm not too sure if anyone else noticed this. However, today I was walking by the Killiney Towers Roundabout and saw two or three road construction van's parked on the curbs between the junctions with road work signs at a few points.

While it may be a minor maintenance check, I hope it isn't preparation for further tightening.:(

Did anyone else see this?

Larbre34

Article in the current Dun Laoghaire Gazette about the roundabout being discussed at the Council meeting, apparently an engineers report is being prepared for presentation next month, should make interesting reading

Fratton Fred

Larbre34 wrote: »

Article in the current Dun Laoghaire Gazette about the roundabout being discussed at the Council meeting, apparently an engineers report is being prepared for presentation next month, should make interesting reading

"being prepared"?

It's **** and a complete waste of money. Whoever it was that gave it the go ahead should be fired.

There, report written.

nomdeboardie

Larbre34 wrote: »

Article in the current Dun Laoghaire Gazette about the roundabout being discussed at the Council meeting, apparently an engineers report is being prepared for presentation next month, should make interesting reading

Do you know if DLRCOCO are likely to put it up online?

Larbre34

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Do you know if DLRCOCO are likely to put it up online?

No idea, but Im sure the salient points will be well covered in the local media again, i.e. its staying or its going. I suppose the local Councillors will have the report if people wanted it