Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

monument

An SPC is a committe. Councils usually have one covering transport, another covering planning etc

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

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.

Shocker that Patrick failed to mention the construction works and diversions.

We already know there were some tail backs before the roundabout so even without the current diversions, so providing "after" photos with no "before" photos and no context of traffic conditions on the days is pointless.

But sure last week people on this site were trying to claim a cyclist was killed at the roundabout when he was not found close to it and we don't even know for sure what happened.

le petit braquet

monument wrote: »

But sure last week people on this site were trying to claim a cyclist was killed at the roundabout when he was not found close to it and we don't even know for sure what happened.

From this it looks like the poor guy collapsed on his bike and there was no other vehicle involved

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1005/breaking60.html

monument

The safety audit makes for interesting reading and proves some of the points made here wrong.

For example, on motorists queuing:

The outputs show that while the spare [motorist] capacity has reduced when compared with the previous layout, the existing roundabout layout is still operating well within capacity with no significant queuing.

le petit braquet

Interesting reading. I'm not sure that on-road signage will improve things greatly. I think that the existing signage on posts needs to be sited nearer the exits and located further down on the posts to bring it nearer the eye level of motorists. Also maybe the wording on the signs could be improved to make it absolutely clear the obligation of the motorist to give way e.g "Motorists MUST Yield to Cyclists When Exiting" and similar signage should be displayed on the approach roads.

Personally as an experienced cyclist, I prefer the solution adopted at the Stradbrook roundabout where the reduction in road width allows me to "take the lane", and ensure my own safety without relying on motorists heeding signage.

thebaz

some of the recent road designs by Dun Laoghaire seams strange if not puzzling - an obsession with widening footpaths, constant digging up roads, along with ensuing ****e road surfaces - the planning seams to be to make road trips so uncomfortable that everyone walks - and dont get me stated on Glenageary road , the oddly positioned round about , the road seams constantly up, is it any wonder that the surface is the way it is


Who is in charge of the current road stategy for the burough ?

le petit braquet

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

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.

I doubt it as the plans filed at the time of the proposed development of the Deerhunter site indicated that this roundabout would be removed and replaced by a traffic light controlled junction.

I suspect that the current work will put an on-path cycle lane from the top of the Lower Glenageary Road around the corner to the pedestrian lights in front of the shopping centre. Cyclists will then be expected to navigate the roundabout via the various pedestrian crossings on the radial roads.

nomdeboardie

le petit braquet wrote: »

I suspect that the current work will put an on-path cycle lane from the top of the Lower Glenageary Road around the corner to the pedestrian lights in front of the shopping centre. Cyclists will then be expected to navigate the roundabout via the various pedestrian crossings on the radial roads.

God, I hope you're wrong :eek::mad:

After me ranting to them at length about Leopardstown Road

patrickbrophy18

le petit braquet wrote: »

Personally as an experienced cyclist, I prefer the solution adopted at the Stradbrook roundabout where the reduction in road width allows me to "take the lane", and ensure my own safety without relying on motorists heeding signage.

I completely agree with you on this point. The Stradbrook Roundabout still provides each of the junctions with decent entry and exit radii. Moreover, the Stradbrook Roundabout doesn't consist of rubber kerbs, cobble lock and excessive signage which cause visual clutter. The position of said signage is way to close to the exits. Instead, the sign posts should be positioned half way between each exit. This way, the motorist will know in advance that they have to yield to cyclists.

Another valid point raised by le petit braquet is the "take the lane approach". This results in single file traversal rather than side by side. Side by side traversal increases the likelihood of being cut off because the path of each will invariably form an X-shape at the point of intersection. This still exists at Killiney Towers. As such, I see the single file traversal of a roundabout as a fool proof way to avoid being cut off.

Finally, I admire and respect the initiative and responsible approach taken by le petit braquet as per the comment: "ensure my own safety without relying on motorists heeding signage". If only more cyclists had this mind set.

grl_1

monument wrote: »

An SPC is a committe. Councils usually have one covering transport, another covering planning etc



Shocker that Patrick failed to mention the construction works and diversions.

We already know there were some tail backs before the roundabout so even without the current diversions, so providing "after" photos with no "before" photos and no context of traffic conditions on the days is pointless.

But sure last week people on this site were trying to claim a cyclist was killed at the roundabout when he was not found close to it and we don't even know for sure what happened.

You must not live near Barnhill road Monument. I do however and Patrick is 100% correct about the traffic tailbacks. Unfortunately it does not matter what time of the day it is (excluding late at night) because the tailbacks are a constant problem on Barnhill road at the moment. Yes it is worse because of the roadworks on Glenageary road but it is also due to our wonderful new roundabout.

With respect to the unfortunate accident last week, it seems that the man was cycling on the footpath because the road is too dangerous at the moment thanks to the new roundabout and detours from Glenageary road. So perhaps it wasn't directly linked to the roundabout but it is related. Even the police admitted this when they were speaking with the neighbours.

le petit braquet

grl_1 wrote: »

With respect to the unfortunate accident last week, it seems that the man was cycling on the footpath because the road is too dangerous at the moment thanks to the new roundabout and detours from Glenageary road. So perhaps it wasn't directly linked to the roundabout but it is related. Even the police admitted this when they were speaking with the neighbours.

Firstly from the link I posted to the Irish Times above, it appears that the poor man collapsed and there was no collision involved. Is that not the case?

Secondly I live in Glenageary and cycle these roads regularly. The stretch of Barnhill Road from the Saval Park junction until it widens near the roundabout is narrow, but no more dangerous than it was prior to the modifications.

monument

grl_1 wrote: »

....Patrick is 100% correct about the traffic tailbacks.

As above, the independent road safety report says otherwise.

grl_1 wrote: »

With respect to the unfortunate accident last week, it seems that the man was cycling on the footpath because the road is too dangerous at the moment thanks to the new roundabout and detours from Glenageary road. So perhaps it wasn't directly linked to the roundabout but it is related.

How exactly is it related to the roundabout design?

Clutching at straws and using a man's death to do so is some first post!

grl_1 wrote: »

Even the police admitted this when they were speaking with the neighbours.

I'd be surprised if while still investigating a death that a garda would assign blame to a road design. For a garda to do so when the design in question is a good distance away where the cyclist was found collapsed would be amazing.

I'd doubt your second or third hand hearsay is true, but, if it is, that sounds like a good case for a professional misconduct investigation.

grl_1

monument wrote: »

As above, the independent road safety report says otherwise.




How exactly is it related to the roundabout design?

Clutching at straws and using a man's death to do so is some first post!




I'd be surprised if while still investigating a death that a garda would assign blame to a road design. For a garda to do so when the design in question is a good distance away where the cyclist was found collapsed would be amazing.

I'd doubt your second or third hand hearsay is true, but, if it is, that sounds like a good case for a professional misconduct investigation.

oh yes and independent reports are always right. The people living there are wrong. Either way, you are entitled to disagree with him and I am entitled to agree with him.

Yes its my first post. congrats on the detective work!!;) I only said the accident was a possible symptom of the now very busy roundabout not a direct result of the roundabout design. Again, we are both entitled to differ in our opinions. oh and as there is no way to prove what is fact or fiction, if you would like to believe that my cat told me..please go ahead.

le petit braquet

Do you know for definite that there was an accident?
If your account that the cyclist was on the footpath is correct then what exactly happened to cause the accident?
Can you clarify how this in any way was linked to the redesign of the roundabout?

grl_1

le petit braquet wrote: »

Do you know for definite that there was an accident?
If your account that the cyclist was on the footpath is correct then what exactly happened to cause the accident?
Can you clarify how this in any way was linked to the redesign of the roundabout?

he tried to avoid a pole and fell from what i can gather. Its more so the increased traffic from Glenageary road that seems to have forced cyclists onto the footpaths that now has the neighbors worried about the next possible accident. The congestion is more pronounced because the cars are further backed up along the roads than normal. It just seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to people's annoyance with the new system.

monument

grl_1 wrote: »

oh yes and independent reports are always right.The people living there are wrong. Either way, you are entitled to disagree with him and I am entitled to agree with him.

If you want to fault the hard facts and measurements (ie traffic counts) in the report you'll have to do better than that.

grl_1 wrote: »

I only said the accident was a possible symptom of the now very busy roundabout not a direct result of the roundabout design

No, you made a direct link, in case you forgot you said:

"the road is too dangerous at the moment thanks to the new roundabout..."

grl_1 wrote: »

if you would like to believe that my cat told me..please go ahead.

So far you have not told us who told you and exactly what they think the unnamed garda has said -- for all we know it could be third or fourth hand hearsay and stories tend to change as they are passed on. As I said, if true, it sounds like a good case for a professional misconduct investigation.

grl_1 wrote: »

...from what i can gather.

What does that even mean?

That could mean anything from a rumour to something backed up with fact -- again we don't know because you are being so vague.

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

If you want to fault the hard facts and measurements (ie traffic counts) in the report you'll have to do better than that.

traffic counts are just wires on the ground, how can you generate tailback data from that?

le petit braquet

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

traffic counts are just wires on the ground, how can you generate tailback data from that?

By feeding the data into a mathematical model - queuing theory. The report in section 3 states that they used the ARCADY computer modelling programme developed by the Transport Research Laboratory and is the "industry standard for assessment of roundabouts in Ireland"

The roadworks on Lr Glenageary Road have had a huge impact on traffic recently which distorts everything. For example last Thursday afternoon, I was at home and had to go to Glasthule. There was a queue of cars from the Sallynoggin roundabout back as far as the junction with Adelaide Road. There was also a further queue on Adelaide Road stretching down as far as Silchester.

schemingbohemia

As someone who lives just off Barnhill Road it seems to me that a lot of the tailbacks are due not to volume but to poor driving. If people indicated correctly at the roundabout there would be much less of a tailback.

patrickbrophy18

schemingbohemia wrote: »

As someone who lives just off Barnhill Road it seems to me that a lot of the tailbacks are due not to volume but to poor driving. If people indicated correctly at the roundabout there would be much less of a tailback.

If you think the tailbacks aren't caused by the reduced roundabout width, you're in serious denial. While bad/tentative driving coupled with the resurfacing of Lower Glenageary Road are indeed a factor, frequent tailbacks did become a new problem immediately after the new layout had been applied. Moreover, the rubber kerbs and excessive signage cause visual clutter which can be distracting to some drivers. The cobble lock buffer also adds to the visual clutter. Finally, the decision to erect sign posts right on top of the exits was completely daft.

I do acknowledge that the design for the new roundabout was based on recommendations set out by the National Cycle Manual and National Cycle Policy. However, many of these recommendations are incredibly short sighted and one sided. When I heard of the National Cycle Manual and National Cycle Policy, I decided to give both them a read. While I do agree with some of the guidelines, many others recommend road layout changes that will inevitably result in tailbacks.

Prime examples of such changes include the tightening of junctions and removal of slip lanes. Even on regular roads, tight junctions result in vehicles longer than 11 meters having to swing wide to the other side of the road to avoid mounting the kerb. Slip lanes and right turns serve the purpose of shortening traffic queues for vehicles proceeding forwards. But alas, the cycle manual and cycle policy think it's a good idea to create tailbacks for the select few pedestrians who are impatient and reckless. In places like Germany and the US of A, the cycle manual and policy would be laughed at.

Many posters here keep saying that the cobble lock buffer is there to compensate for the tightening of junctions to accommodate HGVs and buses at Killiney Towers Roundabout. This is absolute madness because the clearance between the traffic island and the hind vehicular axle is less than adequate. It's only a matter of time before a HGV or bus clips the traffic island. On the other hand, the previous incarnation of the roundabout provided plenty of room for HGVs and buses to manoeuvre safely without the sudden directional changes brought on by tight junctions. The whole attitude from certain posters here of "they manage just fine" is just short sighted.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

the whole attitude from certain posters here of "they manage just fine" is just short sighted.

Isn't it ironic that you yourself are one of those posters. You think cyclists and pedestrians should manage just fine, without the council making any effort to accommodate them. Like I said before, you're living in a 1960s world where delays to drivers must be avoided at all costs. Widen the roads, build dual carriageways, increase exit radii to keep speeds up, create one way systems to speed up traffic and above all else, keep pedestrians and cyclists to a minimum. If the insolent ones do insist on not driving, make them second class citizens.

All you have to prove your case is an irrelevant cycling fatality, slight delays which may not even be relevant, a fear of 9 buses a a day delayed impercibly and a terrible feeling that its unsafe which a safety audit says is rubbish.

Cookie_Monster

le petit braquet wrote: »

By feeding the data into a mathematical model - queuing theory. The report in section 3 states that they used the ARCADY computer modelling programme developed by the Transport Research Laboratory and is the "industry standard for assessment of roundabouts in Ireland"

I wonder if they are using the old flow rates and volume from before the changes to model that though. The sharper exits and removal of one lane dramatically reduce the volume it can take...

le petit braquet

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I wonder if they are using the old flow rates and volume from before the changes to model that though. The sharper exits and removal of one lane dramatically reduce the volume it can take...

Have a look at the report and the answer is there:)

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

le petit braquet wrote: »

By feeding the data into a mathematical model - queuing theory. The report in section 3 states that they used the ARCADY computer modelling programme developed by the Transport Research Laboratory and is the "industry standard for assessment of roundabouts in Ireland"

I wonder if they are using the old flow rates and volume from before the changes to model that though. The sharper exits and removal of one lane dramatically reduce the volume it can take...

Yes, they are comparing before and after and then coming to the conclusion that the difference is not dramatic.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

Isn't it ironic that you yourself are one of those posters. You think cyclists and pedestrians should manage just fine, without the council making any effort to accommodate them.

We might as well get council officials out to hold pedestrians hands while they cross the road or a road warden to stop cars while allowing cyclists to travel against the flow of traffic.:rolleyes:

Like I said earlier on, I am mainly a pedestrian myself. However, unlike a lot of my fellow pedestrians, I don't decide to step out in front of moving traffic nor do I fail to look left and right before crossing the road. In other words, I don't become a nuisance to traffic on the tarmac. Am I not getting through to you at all?

It really is very simple. If you're a pedestrian, make sure the coast is clear before crossing the road. If you're a cyclist, obey the rules of the road.

markpb wrote: »

Like I said before, you're living in a 1960s world where delays to drivers must be avoided at all costs. Widen the roads, build dual carriageways, increase exit radii to keep speeds up, create one way systems to speed up traffic and above all else, keep pedestrians and cyclists to a minimum.

Actually, I was born in 1985!:D

Causing unnecessary delays to motorists in general is completely retarded and nonsensical. The re-engineering of the Killiney Towers Roundabout did exactly that for the relatively scarce number of pedestrians and cyclists who use it.

While I do acknowledge the statistics provided by monument that many existing car journeys under a kilometer could easily be made by foot or bicycle, delaying motorist outside of this bracket is also indirectly causing more pollution. Tight junctions, excessive speed ramps and reduced capacity are the main culprits. Here is the reason why:

• Tight junctions may very well induce lower speeds. However, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Speed ramps also induce lower speeds. Again, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Reduced capacity causes tailbacks resulting in vehicles being in a stationary position. In doing so, fuel is being burned on zero journey progress. Before any of you say it, engines need to be kept on so that the car is ready to move off.

markpb wrote: »

If the insolent ones do insist on not driving, make them second class citizens.

Second class citizens is a huge over exaggeration. However, pedestrians and cyclists are (by and large) a completely different type of road user. This is were footpaths come into the equation. Nevertheless, if pedestrian fails to observe their surroundings or a cyclist doesn't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to be treated like second class citizens.

markpb wrote: »

All you have to prove your case is an irrelevant cycling fatality

The exact details are unknown. We'll wait and see!:eek:

markpb wrote: »

slight delays which may not even be relevant

I wouldn't call a 200 meter tailback a slight delay and it's certainly not irrelevant to this thread given that they are happening towards the roundabout in question.

markpb wrote: »

a fear of 9 buses a a day delayed impercibly and a terrible feeling that its unsafe which a safety audit says is rubbish.

Given that the safety audit was partially conducted by the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (as per their logo on the cover), I amn't too sure if I trust it. In other words, I don't think the council would admit in writing or other means that they wasted money on a huge f&*$ up!:(

zagmund

Umm, engines don't need to be kept on. Back in the old days they did. Modern vehicles start and stop on demand. I *know* not every vehicle does this, but many, many new vehicles in recent years do. You may have noticed the sounds of engines starting as you walk by - that's not the drivers turning a key, that's the car doing it.

"This is were footpaths come into the equation" . . . apart from the bit where cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on footpaths, there's also the bit where pedestrians need to cross roads.

You seem to think drivers rule and others are just obstacles. This is not the case. I have updated your post here - "Nevertheless, if pedestrian or driver fails to observe their surroundings or a cyclist or driver doesn't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to be treated like second class citizens".

In the photos of the tailback you showed a while back, the difference between exhibit 2 & exhibit 3 (m'lud) is the addition of a single car. I don't call adding one car to the back of a queue a big problem. If you took exhibit 4 60 seconds later I think you would have found that the car that was at the back was off in the distance. Do you maybe aim for zero delay for motorists ? Is any/all delay bad ?

We get it - you like cars and their right of way. There are other road users out there though.

z

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

We might as well get council officials out to hold pedestrians hands while they cross the road or a road warden to stop cars while allowing cyclists to travel against the flow of traffic.:rolleyes:

Like I said earlier on, I am mainly a pedestrian myself. However, unlike a lot of my fellow pedestrians, I don't decide to step out in front of moving traffic nor do I fail to look left and right before crossing the road. In other words, I don't become a nuisance to traffic on the tarmac. Am I not getting through to you at all?

It really is very simple. If you're a pedestrian, make sure the coast is clear before crossing the road. If you're a cyclist, obey the rules of the road.



Actually, I was born in 1985!:D

Causing unnecessary delays to motorists in general is completely retarded and nonsensical. The re-engineering of the Killiney Towers Roundabout did exactly that for the relatively scarce number of pedestrians and cyclists who use it.

While I do acknowledge the statistics provided by monument that many existing car journeys under a kilometer could easily be made by foot or bicycle, delaying motorist outside of this bracket is also indirectly causing more pollution. Tight junctions, excessive speed ramps and reduced capacity are the main culprits. Here is the reason why:

• Tight junctions may very well induce lower speeds. However, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Speed ramps also induce lower speeds. Again, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Reduced capacity causes tailbacks resulting in vehicles being in a stationary position. In doing so, fuel is being burned on zero journey progress. Before any of you say it, engines need to be kept on so that the car is ready to move off.

Second class citizens is a huge over exaggeration. However, pedestrians and cyclists are (by and large) a completely different type of road user. This is were footpaths come into the equation. Nevertheless, if pedestrian fails to observe their surroundings or a cyclist doesn't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to be treated like second class citizens.



The exact details are unknown. We'll wait and see!:eek:



I wouldn't call a 200 meter tailback a slight delay and it's certainly not irrelevant to this thread given that they are happening towards the roundabout in question.



Given that the safety audit was partially conducted by the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (as per their logo on the cover), I amn't too sure if I trust it. In other words, I don't think the council would admit in writing or other means that they wasted money on a huge f&*$ up!:(

patrickbrophy18

zagmund wrote: »

Umm, engines don't need to be kept on.

I'm talking about situations where the car is already in traffic. For example, if you powered off a car during a driving test at a set of traffic lights or in a tailback, that would be an automatic fail because it's against the rules of the road. In a driving test, motorists are examined for progress on the straight as well as many other tedious and trivial situations.

zagmund wrote: »

You seem to think drivers rule and others are just obstacles. This is not the case. I have updated your post here - "Nevertheless, if pedestrian or driver fails to observe their surroundings or a cyclist or driver doesn't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to be treated like second class citizens".

You're update in bold explains the need for a driving test. This is something that cyclists aren't forced to do. As a result, many of them think they can use the roads however they please. Having said that, I am well aware of the fact that Ireland does have an abundance of crap and irresponsible drivers.

In any case, if cyclists AND motorists all obeyed the rules of the road, most (if not all) accidents would be eliminated. For pedestrians, it's a matter of patience and observation.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Causing unnecessary delays to motorists in general is completely retarded and nonsensical.

But pedestrians should always come second to motorists?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While I do acknowledge the statistics provided by monument that many existing car journeys under a kilometer could easily be made by foot or bicycle, delaying motorist outside of this bracket is also indirectly causing more pollution. Tight junctions, excessive speed ramps and reduced capacity are the main culprits. Here is the reason why:

• Tight junctions may very well induce lower speeds. However, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Speed ramps also induce lower speeds. Again, reducing speed results in shifting down gears. This burns more fuel making the flow of the vehicle less efficient.
• Reduced capacity causes tailbacks resulting in vehicles being in a stationary position. In doing so, fuel is being burned on zero journey progress. Before any of you say it, engines need to be kept on so that the car is ready to move off.

And who delays motorists the most?

Motorists do, there too many of them for your utopian free flow world and building more capacity has been proven time and time again to just drive demand up.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Nevertheless, if pedestrian fails to observe their surroundings or a cyclist doesn't obey the rules of the road then they deserve to be treated like second class citizens

And motorists do no wrong... Or is that huge percentages of them break the law all the time?!

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The exact details are unknown. We'll wait and see!:eek:

It's sick that you're trying to use that man's clearly unrelated death to push your agenda.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Given that the safety audit was partially conducted by the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (as per their logo on the cover), I amn't too sure if I trust it. In other words, I don't think the council would admit in writing or other means that they wasted money on a huge f&*$ up!:(

The safety audit is conducted for the council but independently of the council.

The council had input but so did residents etc.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In any case, if cyclists AND motorists all obeyed the rules of the road, most (if not all) accidents would be eliminated. For pedestrians, it's a matter of patience and observation.

How is that relevant in any way?

The roundabout was altered to give more priority to pedestrians and cyclists and to make them feel safer. You can go on about looking before you cross the road and a few cars in a traffic jam but it's irrelevant. You're mixing up safety with priority.

monument

Another good question is why can't it be "a matter of patience" for motorist?

le petit braquet

monument wrote: »

Another good question is why can't it be "a matter of patience" for motorist?

Patrick embraces a commuting hierarchy where those using motorised transport are the feudal lords, and pedestrians and cyclists are mere peasants. He as a self-confessed pedestrian is apparently content with his lot, and cannot see why the rest of us aren't. Clearly the journeys undertaken by our betters are more important (as they pay more taxes) and we shouldn't deign to delay them even a little.