Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

markpb · 02-10-2012 10:49am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Many of these modern centres have excellent infrastructure leading to them. Dundrum and Carrickmines are situated very near to the M50 and are also equipped with at least one QBC or dual carriageway.

As someone who lives beside Dundrum TC, I have to correct some of that waffle. Dundrum has:

* an out of service QBC with no bus route (Wyckahm Way)
* a bus route every 40 minutes with no QBC (Sandyford road)
* a bus route every 30-40 minutes with no QBC (Ballinteer road)
* awful traffic every weekend, especially from the M50.

Unless you've lived beside Dundrum and seen the same traffic jam for several hours every morning, every Thursday evening and every weekend, you can't claim that the "excellent infrastructure" works.

You're falling for the 1960s theory that wider roads = less congestion but decades of experience has shown us that it's not true. We spent a long, long time putting motorists needs first and it didn't work. Now that we're finally (and very slowly) changing things to encourage people to walk and cycle instead of driving, you're standing in front shouting stop, won't someone please think of the cars.

The reason the roundabout was altered was to make pedestrians and cyclists *feel* safer - lots of people won't cycle in Dublin because of the perceived lack of safety.

patrickbrophy18 · 02-10-2012 9:35pm

Seaswimmer wrote: »

I think we can all agree on traffic law enforcement for ALL road users but its unlikely to happen. All road users are sometimes guilty to a greater or lesser degree. Stand at any junction or set of lights anywhere in Dublin for 20 minutes and observer everyones behaviour..

Tell me about it. Speaking of which, it was brought to my attention in The Irish Times that The Garda are to become tougher on pedestrians and cyclists which forms part of a "new high-profile road safety campaign".

deadlyspot.com · 03-10-2012 12:04am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Tell me about it. Speaking of which, it was brought to my attention in The Irish Times that The Garda are to become tougher on pedestrians and cyclists which forms part of a "new high-profile road safety campaign".

Sorry, but can I ask, do you cycle much? Or do you just drive. It's always good to look at these things from the different road users perspectives. I can see as a cyclist why I would have some difficulty with getting around this roundabout, but it's more to do with the way motorists typically drive. What way do you tackle this roundabout?

Seaswimmer · 03-10-2012 9:36am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Tell me about it. Speaking of which, it was brought to my attention in The Irish Times that The Garda are to become tougher on pedestrians and cyclists which forms part of a "new high-profile road safety campaign".

interesting that Garda are going to target pedestrians at "unofficial crossing points". I always thought pedestrians were free to cross where they wanted providing they took care. You would have to walk a long way in certain areas to find an official crossing point.

These initiatives are usually trotted out at this time of the year as winter approaches but in reality are little more than sound bites. The Guards would be better off enforcing the traffic laws that are there all year round rather than picking on certain groups and temporarily enforcing certain laws.

Tabnabs · 03-10-2012 9:47am

markpb wrote: »

As someone who lives beside Dundrum TC, I have to correct some of that waffle. Dundrum has:

* an out of service QBC with no bus route (Wyckahm Way)
* a bus route every 40 minutes with no QBC (Sandyford road)
* a bus route every 30-40 minutes with no QBC (Ballinteer road)
* awful traffic every weekend, especially from the M50.

Unless you've lived beside Dundrum and seen the same traffic jam for several hours every morning, every Thursday evening and every weekend, you can't claim that the "excellent infrastructure" works.

I grew up in that area and the rush hour traffic has been horrendous long before the TC was built. In the 90s it was not unusual for the queue for Dundrum to begin on Ballinteer avenue.

I think also, TBF, it is important to include the LUAS in Dundrum which does a lot to take people off the road. It runs every 4-15 minutes.

Another significant reason DL is dying off is that many of the empty building belong to single landlords (Dunnes is the main culprit) and have allowed them to get into such a state that they are no longer fit for use as retail units and would require significant investment to bring them up to standard. Who is going to pay for that in this economic climate?

Larbre34 · 03-10-2012 11:30am

Tabnabs wrote: »

Another significant reason DL is dying off is that many of the empty building belong to single landlords (Dunnes is the main culprit) and have allowed them to get into such a state that they are no longer fit for use as retail units and would require significant investment to bring them up to standard. Who is going to pay for that in this economic climate?

Thats a Catch 22, why would people invest in renovation of premises when theres no prospect of occupying them with a viable business

patrickbrophy18 · 03-10-2012 5:34pm

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

Sorry, but can I ask, do you cycle much? Or do you just drive.

I'm mainly a pedestrian actually. I don't really drive or cycle that much. However, when I do either, I have my wits about me. When ever I drive, I stay well clear of cyclists and ensure that there is maximum clearance when over taking. As a rule of thumb, I give them 2 meters of clearance. Similarly, when I cycle, I observe my surroundings and obey the rules of the road. I too have seen the infamous parking of cars on cycle lanes and that is absolutely unacceptable.

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

It's always good to look at these things from the different road users perspectives.

As mentioned, I am mainly a pedestrian which is one of the types of road users that you mention here. In fact, I lost 3 stone in weight walking for miles which was mainly in the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. The vast majority of these walks were done via Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR). However, any time I crossed the road, I looked left and right and crossed when it was safe to do so. Nevertheless, I did see a lot of crap drivers on my travels who hadn't a clue how to drive. In this instance, tougher policing is needed to get these drivers off the road.

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

I can see as a cyclist why I would have some difficulty with getting around this roundabout, but it's more to do with the way motorists typically drive.

Undoubtedly, there are crap drivers on the road who wouldn't give cyclists the time of day and I've seen them bully cyclists, not on the KTR though. I do find those who intimidate cyclists are absolutely ignorant and should be fined.

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

What way do you tackle this roundabout?

There are many ways the roundabout could have been tackled without a massive change to it's layout. Here are a few ideas:

Roundabout with zebra crossing on the exits: This would slow traffic down while allowing the entries and exits to maintain their wide radii for articulated trucks and buses.
A signal controlled roundabout similar to that seen at Glenageary shopping center: The shape of the roundabout would still be big to facilitate articulated trucks and buses. However, the traffic lights would be designed to reduce the amount of traffic on the roundabout at any given time and would also facilitate safer (and more defined) movement of pedestrians.
Another possible solution to the problem would have been to get rid of the roundabout all together and have a junction similar to that at the Mounttown end of Upper Glenageary Road. Like Killiney Towers, five junctions converge at the former Mounttown Roundabout.

In any case, junction tightening and space reduction make a road less than friendly for long vehicles. I also find it dangerous for cyclists as sharper turns brought on by junction tightening could very easily destabilize the cyclist in motion. The added friction to the bicycle tyres could potentially exacerbate the wear and tear process. Either way, I hate the KTR in it's current form.

markpb · 03-10-2012 10:36pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Roundabout with zebra crossing on the exits: This would slow traffic down while allowing the entries and exits to maintain their wide radii for articulated trucks and buses.

A signal controlled roundabout similar to that seen at Glenageary shopping center: The shape of the roundabout would still be big to facilitate articulated trucks and buses. However, the traffic lights would be designed to reduce the amount of traffic on the roundabout at any given time and would also facilitate safer (and more defined) movement of pedestrians.

Another possible solution to the problem would have been to get rid of the roundabout all together and have a junction similar to that at the Mounttown end of Upper Glenageary Road. Like Killiney Towers, five junctions converge at the former Mounttown Roundabout.

Option 1 isn't used any more because its unsafe for pedestrians because of the reduced sight lines. The only way to make it safe is to pull the crossings so far back that sight lines improve but this means pedestrians have to take a long detour to get around.

The second one is a terrible option for everyone. In order to keep traffic moving, pedestrian lights would go green very rarely but, for minimum safety standards, the green and amber time would have to be lengthy, ensuring that even the most immobile OAP could cross. This means pedestrians would wait ages to cross and then vehicles would wait ages while no one is crossing.

patrickbrophy18 · 03-10-2012 10:45pm

markpb wrote: »

As someone who lives beside Dundrum TC, I have to correct some of that waffle. Dundrum has:

* an out of service QBC with no bus route (Wyckahm Way)
* a bus route every 40 minutes with no QBC (Sandyford road)
* a bus route every 30-40 minutes with no QBC (Ballinteer road)
* awful traffic every weekend, especially from the M50.

Unless you've lived beside Dundrum and seen the same traffic jam for several hours every morning, every Thursday evening and every weekend, you can't claim that the "excellent infrastructure" works.

In the above cases, the QBCs aren't being used to their full potential which might explain why the congestion is still abundant. As such, Dublin Bus are the ones at fault here due to a lack of intrapreneurship (entrepreneurship within the company) and not the council.

markpb wrote: »

You're falling for the 1960s theory that wider roads = less congestion but decades of experience has shown us that it's not true. We spent a long, long time putting motorists needs first and it didn't work. Now that we're finally (and very slowly) changing things to encourage people to walk and cycle instead of driving, you're standing in front shouting stop, won't someone please think of the cars.

I have to disagree with your first point here. If you have a single carriage way shared by cars, buses and trucks, the queue will be much longer than that on a dual carriageway or QBC. For example, if the roads leading to Dundrum Town Center where all standard single carriageways, the queue of cars, buses and trucks would be significantly larger. It's not too dissimilar to the speed of an internet connection in that the higher the speed the faster the download. Wider roads where designed to increase capacity and minimize tailbacks.

markpb wrote: »

The reason the roundabout was altered was to make pedestrians and cyclists *feel* safer - lots of people won't cycle in Dublin because of the perceived lack of safety.

By this, do you mean that it will be safer for pedestrians to jaywalk without observing your surroundings or for cyclists to break the rules of the road?

For pedestrians, do they feel safer crossing narrower roads?

I still believe that zebra crossing at each junction would have been a far cheaper and better solution than the one that was carried out. Another solution would have been a signalized crossing at each junction. I am well aware that there are situations where traffic lights offer a small window of opportunity for pedestrians to cross and of course, this needs to be rectified. At the end of the day, my problem is with the new shape of the roundabout with the significantly tighter corners and lane reduction. The reshaping of the Stradbrook Roundabout should have been an inspiration for that at the Killiney Towers Roundabout.

markpb · 04-10-2012 9:20am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have to disagree with your first point here. If you have a single carriage way shared by cars, buses and trucks, the queue will be much longer than that on a dual carriageway or QBC.

That's not entirely true. If you widen a road, you actually increase traffic on that road because it becomes a better road than the alternatives and because people find it easier to make trips so they make more trips.

When the 405 in Los Angeles (the busiest freeway in the US) closed last weekend and last year, overall traffic in the region fell both times. Why is that? Trips were less convenient so people didn't make them. Do you think they skipped something important to them - nope, they just avoided discretionary travel because it wasn't as convenient.

Improving roads can help reduce traffic in some, very limited circumstances, but it doesn't always. Perhaps the changes to the Killiney roundabout will make that route more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and result in a reduction in traffic through the area? If it worked, it would be vastly cheaper than constructing dual carriageway along it's length.

patrickbrophy18 · 04-10-2012 2:05pm

markpb wrote: »

Perhaps the changes to the Killiney roundabout will make that route more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and result in a reduction in traffic through the area?

Unfortunately, the downside to this is a reduction in visitors to towns and villages like Dalkey and Sandycove which are primarily accessed via Killiney Towers Roundabout. This can put a huge strain on business.

markpb wrote: »

If it worked, it would be vastly cheaper than constructing dual carriageway along it's length.

Here is my take on roads in general in the south east of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown burrough:

To the south east of the Rock Road Dual Carriage Way, there is no decent road way traversing the coastal towns of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown as far as Shankill. The road system is half-assed with no strategic purpose or common sense and is merely a network of streets of varying width. Essentially, there is no consistency nor compatibility between them. Beyond Dalkey, many of these roads become ludicrously narrow which acts like a funnel. For this reason alone, I think moves such as the Killiney Towers Roundabout exacerbate this.
I do see a point in time where a congestion charge in the city centre may materialize to provide a dis-incentive for use of the car. However, to prepare for such a time, an attractive alternative to the car will need to be put in place which includes better infrastructure from metropolitan areas to the city centre. The key to this is speed much to the chagrin of a select few cyclists and pedestrians. The DART (although brilliant) is only the tip of the iceberg and makes for the perfect example of rapid transit. Don't get me wrong, I do think the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is important. Nevertheless, the current method of dealing with it is regressive.
I still believe that buses could potentially match DART like speeds to become an attractive alternative to the car. Measures such as the redesign of Killiney Towers Roundabout are a threat to this and are guided by one sided protocols like the National Cycle Policy which are riddled with flaws.
I strongly suspect that the bulk of pedestrians and cyclists who defend measures like the Killiney Towers Roundabout Scheme are mainly those who lack basic observation skills. Any money spent which gives credence to them is a waste.
Junction tightening is one of the notable flaws with Killiney Towers Roundabout which makes traversal of vehicles longer than 11 meters significantly harder as it increases the chances of mounting the rubber barriers. Vehicles matching this description include buses and articulated trucks and need as much clearance as possible because the point of their rotation is their hind axle. In many cases, the hind axle is situated at the very back of the vehicular frame. If one uses the new layout as a reference, the front of such vehicles may also have to come dangerously close to the central median of the entering road to avoid mounting the rubber barrier from the rear axle.

On a broader note, I too think that there is an over dependancy on cars in areas such as the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown burrough and yes this needs to change as I do see a congestion charge for Dublin City in the pipeline. However, before we even consider a congestion charge, the entire suburban fabric also needs to be reconfigured such that it enables public transport such as metros, buses, trams and trains to become attractive alternatives to the car. This is very far from being the case. For example, while I was working for IBM in Damastown, the commute by public transport used to take roughly 2 hours each way. Bear in mind that this distance is only 18 miles. Effectively this was 9 miles per hour which is pathetic. With a car, this journey would take between 30 and 45 minutes thanks to the M50.

On the other hand, the DART is capable of covering 18 miles in less than 50 minutes which makes it an ideal alternative to the car and a good example to follow. Unfortunately, the DART system is confined to the east coast which leaves the vast majority of the remaining Dublin population on the lurch. Moreover, the DART system is not much use to someone wishing to travel from the likes of Dun Laoghaire to City West or Liffey Valley. Similarly, the DART is not much use to someone traveling from Portmarnock to Sandyford Industrial Estate or Cherrywood. In each case, the journey by public transport will more than likely take well over an hour, especially at peak times. The demand for such faster journeys gives cause to the very existence of the M50.

Either-way, the speed of public transport is key in making it an attractive alternative to the car. Unfortunately, decades of bad planning decisions for ground level development has left very little or no room (and money) for strategic, fast-paced transport corridors. The redesign of Killiney Towers Roundabout made this worse.

While bicycles are completely fuel efficient and are brilliant for health, their speed is restricted to the physical capabilities of the cyclist themselves. On the other hand, if public transport (excluding DART, Metro and to a lesser extent Luas) is situated in a less constrictive environment (including excessive stops, traffic calming routes etc), it should be significantly faster at reaching it's destination. It's a case of all that horse power and no room to gallop.

monument · 04-10-2012 2:21pm

It's already been pointed out to you that at peak times in Dublin cyclists travel at comparable (or higher) speeds than motorists.

It was also make clear that the vast bulk of trips in the Dublin area and in the Dalkey area itself are fairly short.

patrickbrophy18 · 04-10-2012 4:49pm

monument wrote: »

It's already been pointed out to you that at peak times in Dublin cyclists travel at comparable (or higher) speeds than motorists.

Funny that you mentioned that because peak hour is when tailbacks occur. In this situation cyclists will be faster than motorised transport. However, tailbacks should be kept to a minimum by increasing capacity. Failing that, make existing two way roads one way. Nevertheless, I don't think that cyclists are capable of reaching the average top speed of a car.

monument wrote: »

It was also make clear that the vast bulk of trips in the Dublin area and in the Dalkey area itself are fairly short.

Where are the statistics for this?

While there is no doubt that a huge amount of trips made by car are short errands (such as picking up medium to small messages) which should indeed be done by cycling, I don't think that this is the vast bulk of trips.

monument · 04-10-2012 5:49pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Funny that you mentioned that because peak hour is when tailbacks occur. In this situation cyclists will be faster than motorised transport. However, tailbacks should be kept to a minimum by increasing capacity. Failing that, make existing two way roads one way.

You want a network of one-way streets around the Killiney Towers? Or do you want road widening? And you think there'll be popular support for those ideas?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Nevertheless, I don't think that cyclists are capable of reaching the average top speed of a car.

Top speed does not matter in urban travel -- average speed and travel time does.

Time to live in the real word and stop thinking car ads are a real image of how cars work in towns and cities.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Where are the statistics for this?

While there is no doubt that a huge amount of trips made by car are short errands (such as picking up medium to small messages) which should indeed be done by cycling, I don't think that this is the vast bulk of trips.

Nearly 100,000 car trips in Dublin are under km according to the Department of Transport.

Click here for the stats for the area inside the M50 and M11 as far as Bray.

I went into the CSO.ie databases before and pulled the data for Dalkey before on another thread already.

patrickbrophy18 · 04-10-2012 10:37pm

monument wrote: »

You want a network of one-way streets around the Killiney Towers? Or do you want road widening? And you think there'll be popular support for those ideas?

I'll say it again. To the south east of the Rock Road Dual Carriage Way, there is no decent road way traversing the coastal towns of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown as far as Shankill. The road system is half-assed with no strategic purpose or common sense and is merely a network of streets of varying width. Essentially, there is no consistency nor compatibility between them. Beyond Dalkey, many of these roads become ludicrously narrow which acts like a funnel. For this reason alone, I think moves such as the Killiney Towers Roundabout exacerbate this.

To better explain what I am talking about, I have attached three maps. The first map shows existing and planned QBCs as highlighted in blue (DunLaoghaireExistingAndPlannedQBCs.jpg). The second one shows potential QBCs as highlighted in red (DunLaoghairePotentialQBCs.jpg). In other words, the red would be the missing piece of the QBN jigsaw puzzle. This would incorporate wide roads and one-way systems where the areas have architectural sensitivity. As such, the third map (EasternOneWaySystem.jpg) gives a rough indication of the one-way system between Dalkey and Blackrock. There are seven color codes in total and are defined as follows:

Purple: Major two way connector.
Blue: Minor two way connector.
Violet: Turn around facilities.
Light Green: Eastbound traffic.
Dark Green: Westbound traffic.
Pink: Southbound traffic.
Cyan: Northbound traffic.

All of the above would be equipped with a cycle lane with mild traffic calming. 1 would have a bus and car lane in each direction as well as a cycle lane. 2 would remain standard single carriageway. 3, 4 and 5 would be one lane in width consisting of heavy traffic calming. 6 and 7 would be the main parts of the one-way system with mild traffic calming and each would be equipped with a car lane, bus lane and cycle lane. Little or no land acquisition would be needed to apply the above road system as most of the infrastructure is there. However, the use of existing highlighted road network would be given a major overhaul. To redefine the road layout with new signage and markings, street parking would have to be heavily curtailed or banned altogether. ABOVE ALL, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WOULD REMAIN UNAFFECTED AND ENTIRELY INTACT.

monument wrote: »

Top speed does not matter in urban travel -- average speed and travel time does.

Time to live in the real word and stop thinking car ads are a real image of how cars work in towns and cities.

It's not so much the cars that I am concerned about, it's the performance of public transport (another form of greener transport) on the roads which also suffers as a result of traffic calming. I'm not suggesting that they travel at dangerous speeds either. However, as mentioned previously the commute to Damastown was painfully frustrating due to the length of time it took to get there (2 hours). Effectively, this was 9 miles an hour which is pathetic. While the bulk of this was caused by badly aligned bus routes and excessive stops, traffic calming and poorly synchronized traffic lights were undoubtedly a factor.

monument wrote: »

Nearly 100,000 car trips in Dublin are under km according to the Department of Transport.

Click here for the stats for the area inside the M50 and M11 as far as Bray.

I went into the CSO.ie databases before and pulled the data for Dalkey before on another thread already.

I probably didn't go to the other thread you're talking about. But alas, you learn something new everyday!:D

That's a **** load trips for such a small distance!:eek:
I could walk this in 10 minutes or less.

While rain may be a small factor in this, I suspect that the majority of these trips AREN'T NEEDED and should be done on foot, bike, tram or local bus. As you often suggest, the former two are great for the ticker!:D

Larbre34 · 05-10-2012 12:00pm

What you propose is certainly considered but the focus is very blinkered and dogmatic.

You can't purport to protect the architecturally sensitive areas and then bemoan the lack of a high quality distributor road from Dun Laoghaire to Shankill, as you would have to destroy whole swathes of mature and conservation properties to provide one. The road network in the area isnt ideal but thats because it has evolved over 3 or 4 centuries and thats what gives the area its character. The alternative is the mind numbing grid pattern of so many modern urban areas, personally I like it the way it is, warts and all.

A mass one way system is just not necessary for the traffic profile of the area, or desirable for the people who live here. Of course there can be congested peak times, but more often than not traffic flows freely and without fuss and it would be totally undesirable for people to have to do major loops and detours to get back to their homes or to approach schools and shops. It makes no allowance for the older age profile in the area or other factors like bad weather. All you would do is create fast moving local link roads with the adjoining homes and amenities becoming incidental to the road. And to provide bus and cycle lanes along the whole network would meaning removing any on-street parking which is impossible again because the conservation laws prevent many people from breaking driveways into their front gardens, if they have gardens in the first place. Any traffic engineer will tell you the most desirable form of traffic calming in an urban environment is parked vehicles and the natural meander of the road. Your proposals would, ironically, require mass traffic calming of the sort you detest to keep traffic to the 30 or 50 kph limit for the area.

patrickbrophy18 · 05-10-2012 11:05pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

What you propose is certainly considered but the focus is very blinkered and dogmatic.

I looked up the words in bold on thefreedictionary.com and it appears as though you think my proposal is short sighted or arrogant. May I ask why?

Larbre34 wrote: »

You can't purport to protect the architecturally sensitive areas and then bemoan the lack of a high quality distributor road from Dun Laoghaire to Shankill, as you would have to destroy whole swathes of mature and conservation properties to provide one.

You obviously don't know the area enough to make this observation. The roads highlighted in pink and cyan are existing two way roads where congestion is a regular occurrence. This is mainly due to motorists who turn left at traffic lights. As well as this, many of the houses along these roads have ample drive way space which makes the adjacent street parking inexcusable. Breffni Road is a prime example of such a road. The change of use from a scattered two way system to a simpler dedicated one way is a non destructive alternative to road widening.

Larbre34 wrote: »

The road network in the area isnt ideal but thats because it has evolved over 3 or 4 centuries and thats what gives the area its character. The alternative is the mind numbing grid pattern of so many modern urban areas, personally I like it the way it is, warts and all.

I am not disputing this for a second as I too appreciate the areas rich character. At the same time, I do know that many of the roads are unsuitable for two way traffic. Instead of widening these roads, create a mass one way system to remove the element of uncertainty that on coming traffic may suddenly materialize.

Larbre34 wrote: »

A mass one way system is just not necessary for the traffic profile of the area, or desirable for the people who live here. Of course there can be congested peak times, but more often than not traffic flows freely and without fuss and it would be totally undesirable for people to have to do major loops and detours to get back to their homes or to approach schools and shops.

It may not be desirable for locals. Then again, many of these are the same people who object to any progressive development as those that you mention at the end of your post here. Peak time congestion is incredibly burdensome for people who need to get to work on time. As such, relieving this should be part of the long term plan.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It makes no allowance for the older age profile in the area or other factors like bad weather.

What do you mean by this?

Larbre34 wrote: »

All you would do is create fast moving local link roads with the adjoining homes and amenities becoming incidental to the road.

I already mentioned that the roads in light green, dark green and violet (which are local link roads) would be subjected to heavy traffic calming with cobble lock speed ramps. On the other hand, trying to fit bi-directional car traffic on a one or one and a half car wide road is daft and dangerous. Where a half car wide section remains, this would be reconstituted for the provision of a cycle lane.

I'll post a sample to illustrate what I mean. Below is a map of how Sandycove Avenue West looks in it's current form (compliments of Google Earth):

As you can see, the remaining width between parked cars and those in motion (including a meter of clearance) is half a car in width. Yet, it still remains two way. How close do cars traveling in opposite directions have to be, to be considered dangerously close?:eek:

Below is the same map with a one-way system complete with speed ramps, cycle lane and re-aligned parking spaces (compliments of Google Earth and yours truly:D):

The area in grey represents standard road space.
The bright red area represents a new cobble-lock entrance to the existing local access road (it should be noted that the houses without driveways could easily use this)
The dark red squares indicate cobble-lock speed ramps in quick succession. Hence, heavy traffic calming.
The orange indicates new position of the parking spaces.
The pink alignment represents the cycle lane (please note that the proposed cycle lane is on the left or passenger door side of the car. Bollards would be place between the cycle lane and the car to prevent passengers doors from swinging wide and blocking the cycle lane).
The yellow marking indicates mainly new and existing curb alignments (the sharp deviation left from Otranto Place would prevent cars from turning right up Sandycove Avenue West). It is here where a signal controlled operation would be in place.
Finally, the dark grey area indicates the tail end of the southbound bus lane.

What do you mean by adjoining houses and amenities becoming incidental to the road?

Larbre34 · 07-10-2012 3:43pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I looked up the words in bold on thefreedictionary.com and it appears as though you think my proposal is short sighted or arrogant. May I ask why?

Yes that would be accurate, Its a proposal that doesnt take account of the fact that its a living breathing community we're living in not an industrial engineering solution who's sole purpose is to get you to work faster between 8.30 and 9am and to hell with how it would effect so many people the other 163 hours a week

You obviously don't know the area enough to make this observation. The roads highlighted in pink and cyan are existing two way roads where congestion is a regular occurrence. This is mainly due to motorists who turn left at traffic lights. As well as this, many of the houses along these roads have ample drive way space which makes the adjacent street parking inexcusable. Breffni Road is a prime example of such a road. The change of use from a scattered two way system to a simpler dedicated one way is a non destructive alternative to road widening.

Born and raised 1 mile from Dun Laoghaire town centre so Ive only the 40 years to go on, so pardon the lack of local knowledge but Im quite sure the families of different sizes and demands that need to come and go to their homes for various reasons would take issue with calling convenient on street parking inexcusable, on roads for which they pay hefty taxes. It is you displaying a lack of local knowledge if you dont recognise, Glenageary Road-Sallyglen Road-Wyattville Road to the N11 as the main from from Dun laoghaire to Shankill

I am not disputing this for a second as I too appreciate the areas rich character. At the same time, I do know that many of the roads are unsuitable for two way traffic. Instead of widening these roads, create a mass one way system to remove the element of uncertainty that on coming traffic may suddenly materialize.

It may not be desirable for locals. Then again, many of these are the same people who object to any progressive development as those that you mention at the end of your post here. Peak time congestion is incredibly burdensome for people who need to get to work on time. As such, relieving this should be part of the long term plan.

I fully support proper planning but if we're not trying to cater for the wishes of the locals generally, then who?

What do you mean by this?

Older people might take one drive a day to go to the shops on a nearby road, why would they want to get into a convoluted one-way system taking them miles away from where they want to be, it would put them off undertaking what might be the one social interaction of their day. Bad weather leads to a large increase in traffic due to people who normally walk or cycle getting back into cars especially in the AM peak, if that traffic is not allowed to dissipate across the network then your proposed system would become a series of uni-directional jams

I already mentioned that the roads in light green, dark green and violet (which are local link roads) would be subjected to heavy traffic calming with cobble lock speed ramps. On the other hand, trying to fit bi-directional car traffic on a one or one and a half car wide road is daft and dangerous. Where a half car wide section remains, this would be reconstituted for the provision of a cycle lane.

I'll post a sample to illustrate what I mean. Below is a map of how Sandycove Avenue West looks in it's current form (compliments of Google Earth):

As you can see, the remaining width between parked cars and those in motion (including a meter of clearance) is half a car in width. Yet, it still remains two way. How close do cars traveling in opposite directions have to be, to be considered dangerously close?:eek:

Below is the same map with a one-way system complete with speed ramps, cycle lane and re-aligned parking spaces (compliments of Google Earth and yours truly:D):

The area in grey represents standard road space.

The bright red area represents a new cobble-lock entrance to the existing local access road (it should be noted that the houses without driveways could easily use this)

The dark red squares indicate cobble-lock speed ramps in quick succession. Hence, heavy traffic calming.

The orange indicates new position of the parking spaces.

The pink alignment represents the cycle lane (please note that the proposed cycle lane is on the left or passenger door side of the car. Bollards would be place between the cycle lane and the car to prevent passengers doors from swinging wide and blocking the cycle lane).

The yellow marking indicates mainly new and existing curb alignments (the sharp deviation left from Otranto Place would prevent cars from turning right up Sandycove Avenue West). It is here where a signal controlled operation would be in place.

Finally, the dark grey area indicates the tail end of the southbound bus lane.

The scope of your scheme would cost tens or hundreds of millions, a total waste of money for the return and the social damage. Besides, why the u-turn, you professed to hating traffic calming in many other posts

What do you mean by adjoining houses and amenities becoming incidental to the road?

You are giving a supposed fully efficient road system primacy in the community by cutting off convenient and desirable access to the homes and premises which they serve, that changes the planning focus to the road and not the homes, thereby making them incidental to the road network

I cant work the quote function on this thing but Ive bolded my responses so they are clear enough

patrickbrophy18 · 07-10-2012 7:23pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes that would be accurate, Its a proposal that doesnt take account of the fact that its a living breathing community we're living in not an industrial engineering solution who's sole purpose is to get you to work faster between 8.30 and 9am and to hell with how it would effect so many people the other 163 hours a week

You're making out that a more defined road system would have a terrible effect on the people living there. So, a scattered non-strategic road system is better?:rolleyes:

It's not just a case of "get you to work faster". It's a case of bringing people in general closer together time wise.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Born and raised 1 mile from Dun Laoghaire town centre so Ive only the 40 years to go on, so pardon the lack of local knowledge but Im quite sure the families of different sizes and demands that need to come and go to their homes for various reasons would take issue with calling convenient on street parking inexcusable, on roads for which they pay hefty taxes. It is you displaying a lack of local knowledge if you dont recognise, Glenageary Road-Sallyglen Road-Wyattville Road to the N11 as the main from from Dun laoghaire to Shankill

I'm well aware of that last point. However, this diverts a lot of potential business away from towns such as Glasthule, Sandycove, Dalkey and Fitzpatricks Castle. This is why I am saying that there is no decent coastal road between Dun Laoghaire and Shankill. The below image shows existing and planned QBCs marked in blue:

The towns to the south east are being bypassed. This is mainly due to a NIMBY driven lack of ambition and a non strategic, nonsensical use of the existing road system. To make matters worse, the conservation laws which you mentioned earlier are so tight that they prevent businesses from even moderate tactical responses to their competition in newer town centers.

The map below shows a more inclusive QBC network with better coverage of the borough as per the red markings:

Larbre34 wrote: »

I fully support proper planning but if we're not trying to cater for the wishes of the locals generally, then who?

The broader spectrum of Irish and international society. The problem with locals in general is that they want the area all to themselves and often kick up a fuss at the mere concept of small to medium ambitious planning in the area. Many of these often dictate local businesses to suit themselves which is the main reason why places like Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey are dying. Much to the chagrin of the local people, I would like to see the south east coast of the borough streamlined so that it can fulfill it's true potential. As for proper planning, the coastal road system to the south east of Dun Laoghaire is definitely not the result of proper planning.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Older people might take one drive a day to go to the shops on a nearby road, why would they want to get into a convoluted one-way system taking them miles away from where they want to be, it would put them off undertaking what might be the one social interaction of their day.

The map which I provided consists of 8 turning loops between Dun Laoghaire and Sandycove (4 per direction). As such, it's a huge over exaggeration to suggest that the system would be "taking them miles away from where they want to be". Similar systems exist in The South of France in areas which are architecturally rich. A massive portion of the population within these towns are elderly. I don't see them complaining.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Bad weather leads to a large increase in traffic due to people who normally walk or cycle getting back into cars especially in the AM peak, if that traffic is not allowed to dissipate across the network then your proposed system would become a series of uni-directional jams

Not necessarily.

Larbre34 wrote: »

The scope of your scheme would cost tens or hundreds of millions, a total waste of money for the return and the social damage. Besides, why the u-turn, you professed to hating traffic calming in many other posts

On local link roads only or roads which would, ironically, facilitate u-turns (light green, dark green and purple). I'm against traffic calming on main systems and distributor roads such as the cyan and pink on the one-way system which would be used by public transport.

I highly doubt that the implementation of such a system would cost tens or hundreds of millions given that the most if not all of the requisite space and physical infrastructure is already in place. If it was done on a phased basis and became part of tasks such as routine maintenance, it would be like killing two birds with one stone.

Cookie_Monster · 08-10-2012 12:53am

To better explain what I am talking about, I have attached three maps. The first map shows existing and planned QBCs as highlighted in blue (DunLaoghaireExistingAndPlannedQBCs.jpg). The second one shows potential QBCs as highlighted in red (DunLaoghairePotentialQBCs.jpg). In other words, the red would be the missing piece of the QBN jigsaw puzzle.

where did the blue QBC plans come from, Sally Glen road doesn't even have bus routes, nor does Church Rd for a large section of it.
As for the red ones there's no demand nor reason to have QBCs around there, there will never be the passenger volumes to justify anything like that in or near Dalkey, it;s a dead end travel wise. I don't see them building a new road through the golf course and Killiney hill either...

patrickbrophy18 · 08-10-2012 1:04am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

To better explain what I am talking about, I have attached three maps. The first map shows existing and planned QBCs as highlighted in blue (DunLaoghaireExistingAndPlannedQBCs.jpg). The second one shows potential QBCs as highlighted in red (DunLaoghairePotentialQBCs.jpg). In other words, the red would be the missing piece of the QBN jigsaw puzzle.

where did the blue QBC plans come from, Sally Glen road doesn't even have bus routes, nor does Church Rd for a large section of it.
As for the red ones there's no demand nor reason to have QBCs around there, there will never be the passenger volumes to justify anything like that in or near Dalkey, it;s a dead end travel wise. I don't see them building a new road through the golf course and Killiney hill either...

I'm talking about a 30-50 year plan, not something in the near future!

patrickbrophy18 · 08-10-2012 3:37pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

where did the blue QBC plans come from, Sally Glen road doesn't even have bus routes, nor does Church Rd for a large section of it.

While the interactive map on the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown website is offline for essential maintenance, the roads marked in blue are indeed existing or planned QBCs and are identified by a sequence of continuous dark green diamonds.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As for the red ones there's no demand nor reason to have QBCs around there, there will never be the passenger volumes to justify anything like that in or near Dalkey,

I know that you have been skeptical about the viability of bus routes along the roads marked in red. I am aware that you did live in Dalkey a few years back as you mentioned it in a number of posts and yes, the 8 was carrying air back then. However, over the last year or two, I have noticed a steady and slow increase in passenger numbers using the 8 route since they added 2 northbound journeys to it. I think the word in bold is slightly pessimistic but each to their own.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it;s a dead end travel wise. I don't see them building a new road through the golf course and Killiney hill either...

The QBC which I propose to the south of Dalkey removes the dead end for travel and carries traffic through to Fitzpatricks Castle Hotel and Killiney Hill Park, Victoria Hill and Killiney Village vicinity, Killiney Golf Course, Church Road and ultimately Cherrywood. This combined with a mass one way system along the coast should provide much needed resuscitation to the communities along it.

I do acknowledge that dense forestry currently occupies a large portion of the aforementioned QBC alignment. Understandably, this will arouse controversy among naturists and conservationists alike. More often than not, much of this controversy is fueled by the concept of a reduction of tree population in the world in general by killing trees. As such, I decided to do my homework to see if there is a method of moving trees without killing them and sure enough I found one. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyVHShnIpnw

Essentially, the above video shows transplanting on a whole new scale.:D

You might be asking yourself where the trees might be moved to. Some of them could be located to other areas of Killiney Hill where there is a lack or imbalance of forestry. The other trees could be relocated and used in the long term to enrich the character of barren landscapes like Cherrywood and Carrickmines. This should sweeten the deal for tree huggers and the like.;)

Back to the topic at hand. Part of my coastal town regeneration idea has been revealed which has been labelled as arrogant and short sighted. But, paradoxically, I look at the bigger picture and like to think ahead which includes the prospect for a more thriving future for coastal towns like Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey. This also incorporates heritage enhancement alongside (not instead of) commercial expansion. As such, I don't agree with the works done at the Killiney Towers Roundabout which makes this slightly more difficult.

Amalgam · 09-10-2012 2:03pm

The Saga continues..

This mailer popped through the letterbox today.

See attached below: (.jpg 700x962 - 216kb)

MBaileyKTR.jpg

---

KILLINEY TOWERS ROUNDABOUT — UPDATE

I would like residents to know that the recent alterations to this roundabout at the junction of
Albert Road/ Barnhill Road/ Killiney Road/Avondale Road and Glenageary Road Upper were begun
without any prior consultation with the local Councillors. As your local representative I
neither requested nor saw the need for any changes and I was as surprised as anyone else when
the works started. I had not received any complaints about the roundabout and, believed that it
functioned well.

When I first became aware of the works I immediately raised my concerns with Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown Transportation Department about the lack of consultation and told them I was not
happy for this project to continue, but it had already been decided and the tender was out and a
contractor appointed. As it continued, my misgivings rose and I continued to express them to
Transportation. When the roundabout was finished the design flaws were obvious. At the same
time I began to receive numerous complaints from residents and road users about the increased
danger - those complaints are continuing — especially for cyclists. Objections refer to confusion
about who has right of way, the narrowness of the traffic lanes and exits from the roundabout,
and the expense of the project. The introduction of pedestrian crossings was welcomed by most.

In view of the number of objections, and also rumours circulating about an increase in accidents
involving cyclists, I immediately put a motion requesting a safety audit. Transportation engaged
structural consulting engineers, who eventually presented their report at the Area Committee
meeting on Monday lst October. Traffic speeds have been reduced and pedestrian safety has
been improved, but I am still not satisfied with the roundabout. The potential for accidents
between cars and bikes when exiting the roundabout seems to have increased. I aired the deep
concern of local residents and road users about the lack of consultation and the dissatisfaction
with the roundabout itself and demanded a further meeting between the Ward Councillors, DLR
engineers, the Gardai and the National Transport Authority to discuss the future of this
roundabout. This will take place in October. (NB. It should be noted that the project was funded
by the NTA and not by the Council)

I am disappointed at the way this has been handled from the start but I will represent your views
most strongly at this meeting. I remain dissatisfied with this roundabout.
IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THIS MATTER, I WOULD WELCOME THEM.

PLEASE EMAIL, WRITE OR PHONE ME BEFORE FRIDAY 19TH OCTOBER

Cllr Maria Bailey

---

Fratton Fred · 09-10-2012 4:16pm

Amalgam wrote: »

The Saga continues..

This mailer popped through the letterbox today.

See attached below: (.jpg 700x962 - 216kb)

MBaileyKTR.jpg

---

KILLINEY TOWERS ROUNDABOUT — UPDATE

I would like residents to know that the recent alterations to this roundabout at the junction of
Albert Road/ Barnhill Road/ Killiney Road/Avondale Road and Glenageary Road Upper were begun
without any prior consultation with the local Councillors. As your local representative I
neither requested nor saw the need for any changes and I was as surprised as anyone else when
the works started. I had not received any complaints about the roundabout and, believed that it
functioned well.

When I first became aware of the works I immediately raised my concerns with Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown Transportation Department about the lack of consultation and told them I was not
happy for this project to continue, but it had already been decided and the tender was out and a
contractor appointed. As it continued, my misgivings rose and I continued to express them to
Transportation. When the roundabout was finished the design flaws were obvious. At the same
time I began to receive numerous complaints from residents and road users about the increased
danger - those complaints are continuing — especially for cyclists. Objections refer to confusion
about who has right of way, the narrowness of the traffic lanes and exits from the roundabout,
and the expense of the project. The introduction of pedestrian crossings was welcomed by most.

In view of the number of objections, and also rumours circulating about an increase in accidents
involving cyclists, I immediately put a motion requesting a safety audit. Transportation engaged
structural consulting engineers, who eventually presented their report at the Area Committee
meeting on Monday lst October. Traffic speeds have been reduced and pedestrian safety has
been improved, but I am still not satisfied with the roundabout. The potential for accidents
between cars and bikes when exiting the roundabout seems to have increased. I aired the deep
concern of local residents and road users about the lack of consultation and the dissatisfaction
with the roundabout itself and demanded a further meeting between the Ward Councillors, DLR
engineers, the Gardai and the National Transport Authority to discuss the future of this
roundabout. This will take place in October. (NB. It should be noted that the project was funded
by the NTA and not by the Council)

I am disappointed at the way this has been handled from the start but I will represent your views
most strongly at this meeting. I remain dissatisfied with this roundabout.
IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THIS MATTER, I WOULD WELCOME THEM.

PLEASE EMAIL, WRITE OR PHONE ME BEFORE FRIDAY 19TH OCTOBER

Cllr Maria Bailey

---

So the NTA just decided, for no apparant reason, to make major changes to a roundabout (whilst also making major changes to a junction just up the road and re-doing speed bumps in Avondale) without consulting any councillors whatsoever.

Least of all two councillors who live 100 metres up the road?

I find that hard to believe to be honest.

schemingbohemia · 09-10-2012 4:41pm

And even though a safety audit has been carried out, she's still not happy with the response? How much additional expense did she put the council through with her stupid request?

monument · 09-10-2012 4:51pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the NTA just decided, for no apparant reason, to make major changes to a roundabout (whilst also making major changes to a junction just up the road and re-doing speed bumps in Avondale) without consulting any councillors whatsoever.

Or the NTA had reasons and the council agreed with them and maybe also the transport SPC?

And making things better for cyclists and people on foot follows stated DLR council policy as agreed by councillors and stated national policy.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Least of all two councillors who live 100 metres up the road?

I find that hard to believe to be honest.[/QUOTE]

Councillors don't bother to watch what happens at SPCs and get annoyed afterwards.

Happens all the time and not just with DLR Co Co!

patrickbrophy18 · 09-10-2012 6:36pm

monument wrote: »

Or the NTA had reasons and the council agreed with them and maybe also the transport SPC?

What's an SPC?

Anyway, here are some photos I took which show examples of the many tailbacks caused by the re-engineering of Killiney Towers Roundabout (in ascending order of length):

Figure 1:

Figure 1 above shows a mild tailback beginning shortly after the turn off for Saval Park Road.

Figure 2:

In Figure 2, the tailback is considerably longer and begins just after the mouth of Saval Park Road.

Figure 3:

The tailback in Figure 3 is actually making contact with Saval Park Road. I've measure this on Google Earth and it is 200 meters.

I've often seen these tailbacks stretching as far as Centra which is completely unacceptable and mind bogglingly frustrating given that this wasn't a problem prior to the application of the new layout to Killiney Towers Roundabout.

Undercover · 09-10-2012 6:51pm

Are these traffic build ups not just a direct consequence of the resurfacing works on Glenegeary Road?

patrickbrophy18 · 09-10-2012 6:54pm

Undercover wrote: »

Are these traffic build ups not just a direct consequence of the resurfacing works on Glenegeary Road?

They were there for months before "the resurfacing works on Glenegeary Road" commenced. The resurfacing works on Glenegeary Road has indeed exacerbated the problem.

patrickbrophy18 · 09-10-2012 7:01pm

Oh, and this just in from the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Website:

"Tuesday 09th October

Within Section 2, continue excavation out lower layers of right hand side carriageway progressing towards the Eden Road/ Corrig Road Junction.

Within Section 1, progress works associated with the installation of new Kerb line, footpath and cycle track at Sallynoggin Roundabout." (http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8743,en.html)

The quote in dark red seems to indicate that the Sallynoggin Roundabout will also undergo a change in layout. I hope that they aren't going to make the same mistake for the much busier roundabout.

Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

Comments