Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Nearly sure a mod warned you about this before?

Really?
:eek:
Where?

Why would I be warned about that?
:rolleyes:

I didn't say (erm...write:D) anything wrong!

monument wrote: »

It would mean less free moving traffic and likely a lot more congestion.

Depending on how traffic is prioritized. However, here is how I would prioritize the roads in descending order of usage and route functionality:

1. Barnhill Road
2. Upper Glenageary Road
3. Avondale Road
4. Killiney Road
5. Albert Road

At each junction the length of time of illumination for the green man (pedestrians and dismounted cyclists) and green light (motorists and cyclists in motion) would divided evenly. Would that be fair?

monument wrote: »

When you prioritise something it gets prorirty over other things.

So if you want 'prioritization' for cyclists then you put cyclists ahead of other users.

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians OVER road users on the tarmac. The crossroads which I propose would provide equal priority to all road users within each junction. Nevertheless, one road might require more priority than another based on it's usage and overall route function.

monument wrote: »

It's unsuited to the area because:

A) it would be overkill for the type of roads

unsuited to setting of the areas

C) the gradients and lack of space on the roads leading up to the junction would make it very hard if not impossable to allow for easy movement up or down for cyclists or people on foot.

Acknowledged. Hence, the proposed 5 armed crossroads. It's a far cheaper and less overbearing alternative to a double-decker roundabout and a much more convenient solution to the existing dog's breakfast of a roundabout.

monument wrote: »

Long vehicles can manage just fine and they do so on a daily bases.

Each to their own. However, I beg to differ.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Depending on how traffic is prioritized. ...
At each junction the length of time of illumination for the green man (pedestrians and dismounted cyclists) and green light (motorists and cyclists in motion) would divided evenly. Would that be fair?

It's not about fairness, your design would result in less free flowing traffic and thus more likely more congestion.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians OVER road users on the tarmac. The crossroads which I propose would provide equal priority to all road users within each junction. Nevertheless, one road might require more priority than another based on it's usage and overall route function.

You would not prioritize cyclists -- as I already said.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

and a much more convenient solution to the existing dog's breakfast of a roundabout.

Much more convenient to whom?

Not cyclists, not people on foot, and not the people in cars who will have to wait all the time every time compared to now where they only have to yield sometimes.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Each to their own. However, I beg to differ.

It's a matter of fact:

Trucks and buses are using it daily.

OssianSmyth

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I call it The Starfish due to it's shape.

The Patrick Starfish? jk

patrickbrophy18

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The Patrick Starfish? jk

I gotta admit OssianSmyth, that made me laugh!:D

Anyway, what's your view on the roundabout?

Speaking of views, today the view of Barnhill Road was mayhem. There were tailbacks stretching from Killiney Towers Roundabout all the way back to Centra today.:eek:

If you don't believe me, check out these pictures:

Tailback 1:



(Clearly visible number plates have been blurred to protect the identity of the drivers):D

Tailback 2:



(Once again, I have blurred out the number plates)

Tailback 3:



If this ends up being a regular occurrence (oh, which it is :mad:), the works done to the roundabout little under a year ago will have to be reversed.

patrickbrophy18

This brings the tailbacks up to 300 meters according to Google Earth!

OssianSmyth

This roundabout redesign should not have been introduced without local input. The redesigns of the Graduate and the Sallynoggin roundabouts will surely involve consultation given the controversy.

The Barnhill Rd queuing is partly due to the works on Lwr Glenageary Rd. That said, the new roundabout is slower for cars but faster for pedestrians. Roadspace is finite and sometimes a tradeoff has to be made between the needs of different road users. I have young children who cycle and I would allow them to use the roundabout as redesigned but not the old design.

Dublin drivers are only recently getting used to the increased numbers of cyclists on the roads so there is a learning curve. By the same token, cyclists can't expect to hoor around roundabouts like Lance Armstrong, overtaking cars on the inner ring.

markpb

OssianSmyth wrote: »

This roundabout redesign should not have been introduced without local input.

Why? It's not like local people have any expertise in road design, traffic management, safety for road users or anything else. All they have are prejudices based on their own experience and circumstances.

Depending on who you ask, they'll always prefer what suits them. Drivers will want no cycle lanes, wide roads, no traffic lights. Cyclists will want super cycle highways (especially if their name is Boris Johnson). Pedestrians will want wide footpaths, zebra crossings, etc. Patrick will want roads like industrial estates where trucks can fly about at full speed and pedestrians stay at home.

As you said yourself, the new design works well for cyclists and pedestrians. Do you think any of the local residents would have suggested a design like that?

OssianSmyth

It is a principle of engineering to gather requirements from final users prior to design so that the correct problem is solved and to reduce mistakes. Road engineers should not be allowed to design our cities in isolation of the goals and values of the residents who pay their salaries. We have tried engineer-led urban design in the past with awful results.

The accommodation of the differing needs of the public is the essence of democracy. Public consultation does not mean crowd-sourced design, rather it is an opportunity to validate the engineering solution against the domain specific end user knowledge of the public, many of whom will have expertise in a range of disciplines from legal to planning to scientific, in addition to their local knowledge.

Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists are not mutually exclusive groups in society playing a zero-sum game. A good compromise design will deliver a net benefit to society.

Larbre34

OssianSmyth wrote: »

This roundabout redesign should not have been introduced without local input. The redesigns of the Graduate and the Sallynoggin roundabouts will surely involve consultation given the controversy.

Replacement junctions for these roundabouts are already designed and sitting on a shelf for when there's money to build them in concert with a QBC from Cherrywood to Dun Laoghaire. From what I remember, the guy who wanted to develop the now derelict Deerhunter site had to pay to design the junction to replace the Noggin RA, but of course that all went bust. could be 10 years before you see the junctions built

OssianSmyth

The council says they are negotiating with the NTA now for a 5 yr funding envelope which may include the DLR-Cherrywood QBC. This QBC would include conversion to signalised junctions of the roundabouts at the Graduate and Sallynoggin.

monument

OssianSmyth wrote: »

It is a principle of engineering to gather requirements from final users prior to design so that the correct problem is solved and to reduce mistakes. Road engineers should not be allowed to design our cities in isolation of the goals and values of the residents who pay their salaries. We have tried engineer-led urban design in the past with awful results.

The accommodation of the differing needs of the public is the essence of democracy. Public consultation does not mean crowd-sourced design, rather it is an opportunity to validate the engineering solution against the domain specific end user knowledge of the public, many of whom will have expertise in a range of disciplines from legal to planning to scientific, in addition to their local knowledge.

Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists are not mutually exclusive groups in society playing a zero-sum game. A good compromise design will deliver a net benefit to society.

But it is not in "isolation", elected councilors have voted for develoment plans which support making things better for cyclists and the national cycle policy is supported by most parties.

I'm not against public consultation, but there's examples of it going very right and very wrong. The Blackrock contraflow shows that even when it's done right it does not lower the amout backlash from a vocal minority of people.

OssianSmyth

You're right that the road engineers don't design in isolation. The county dev plan is agreed by the councillors with local input and the national strategies are democratically formed. In this case the roundabout was designed by the roads dept in consultation with the NTA and nobody else. This is not a good enough process to ensure some degree of public oversight and compliance with public policy. In any case, the lesson is learnt.

It is important to contribute to these consultations as the opponents are generally more vocal. Loss aversion theory tells us that people prefer to avoid losses than acquire gains. So the guy losing a convenient parking space is always going to make more noise than those gaining a safer street or a healthier environment.

The Booterstown-UCD-Luas cycle route consultation is open now so I hope you will all contribute before the closing date of 14 November
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8755,en.html

patrickbrophy18

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The council says they are negotiating with the NTA now for a 5 yr funding envelope which may include the DLR-Cherrywood QBC. This QBC would include conversion to signalised junctions of the roundabouts at the Graduate and Sallynoggin.

Would it not make sense then to convert Killiney Towers Roundabout to a signalised junction as well so that all three junctions are compatible with each other?

In other parts of the country, roundabouts are being replaced with signalised junctions. It was discussed briefly here. This leads me to believe that roundabouts (no matter what their shape is) are neither cyclist nor pedestrian friendly.:eek:

Having said all of that, the Dun Laoghaire Cycle Network Review seems to propose a signal controlled junction at Killiney Towers according to the PDF here as well as the Graduate and Sallynoggin. At least I'll have made a blue print for them! :D

Cookie_Monster

Larbre34 wrote: »

Replacement junctions for these roundabouts are already designed and sitting on a shelf for when there's money to build them in concert with a QBC from Cherrywood to Dun Laoghaire. From what I remember, the guy who wanted to develop the now derelict Deerhunter site had to pay to design the junction to replace the Noggin RA, but of course that all went bust. could be 10 years before you see the junctions built

the longer the better IMO, traffic light junctions are inferior to the current roundabouts, you'll simply end up with the same ridiculous sitting at lights that happens at the Monkstown Farm lights

Irish and Proud

OssianSmyth wrote: »

This roundabout redesign should not have been introduced without local input. The redesigns of the Graduate and the Sallynoggin roundabouts will surely involve consultation given the controversy.

The Barnhill Rd queuing is partly due to the works on Lwr Glenageary Rd. That said, the new roundabout is slower for cars but faster for pedestrians. Roadspace is finite and sometimes a tradeoff has to be made between the needs of different road users. I have young children who cycle and I would allow them to use the roundabout as redesigned but not the old design.

Dublin drivers are only recently getting used to the increased numbers of cyclists on the roads so there is a learning curve. By the same token, cyclists can't expect to hoor around roundabouts like Lance Armstrong, overtaking cars on the inner ring.

The real problem with traditional roundabouts is the 2 lane configuration with may give rise to confusion, especially with cyclists involved - unfortunately, the segregated arrangement at Killiney Towers seems to be doing the same same - albeit by a different method - the recent audit has expressed concern over this - circulating cyclists being side swiped by exiting cars - low cost measures have been recommended along with another audit in 6 months - failing this, a revised layout is recommended - see >>here<<!

What I think should be done on roundabouts is to narrow the circulatory carriageway at each exit point so that one lane is for exiting and one is for continuing around - past the exit, the circulatory carriageway fans out again into two lanes with the left lane marked off for exiting. For cycle-friendly roundabouts, give priority to cyclists on each approach with motorists having to yield well in advance of the roundabout. This approach should firmly fix the lines of traffic movements so that much of the confusion is eliminated - cyclists would be compelled to take the right of way and use the lanes - it should be an offence for a motorist to overtake any vehicle including a cyclist on a roundabout. It should also be an offence for a cyclists to attempt to facilitate a motorist overtaking on such roundabouts and also to not make reasonable progress (for a cyclist). Will hopefully supply a sketch of this shortly.

Regards!

Brianj90

Its just a complete joke that roundabout. too narrow and to hard to see the cyclists.

Just saw child that had been knocked off this bike lying on the ground at the exit of the roundabout onto avondale road. The bike looked in very bad shape so i dread to think how the poor child was. hope to god they are alright.

TheVoodoo

It really did look awful. I have no idea how many accidents there have been including todays since the new layout was implemented, but one is too many. My grandparents live near the bottom of Avondale road, and the amount of accidents in the past few months compared to the past few years before the adjustments is crazy. I'm usually all for change, and things that slow drivers down. But the new layout is just completly ludacris.

monument

There's a reason the gardai and most of the media have stopped the use of the term "accident" -- it nearly implies nobody is to blame, but we already know motorists usually are to blame.

The old design also had more than a few collisions.

No design will completely remove the risk of collisions and a small, short-term increase in minor collisions for new inferstucture isn't a reason to rewrite everything -- if it was Luas, would have been scrapped in its first year.

The aim is to reduce the chances of collisions and, more so, of serious collisions while increasing the amount of cyclists and walkers.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

It's not about fairness, your design would result in less free flowing traffic and thus more likely more congestion.

If it's not about fairness, what is it about?:mad:

Again, it all depends on how you prioritize the junctions. The busier junctions such as Upper Glenageary Road, Barnhill Road and Avondale Road would have far more movement opportunities than Killiney Road and Albert Road.

monument wrote: »

You would not prioritize cyclists -- as I already said.

What I proposed was a 50-50 prioritization at each junction. So now cyclists and pedestrians should have more priority over cars, buses and trucks?:eek:

monument wrote: »

Much more convenient to whom?

Not cyclists, not people on foot, and not the people in cars who will have to wait all the time every time compared to now where they only have to yield sometimes.

It would be far more convenient for buses and trucks as there would be ample more space to maneuver than at present. The 2 to 3 lane approach towards the crossroads as well as the left slip lanes, which I proposed, would divide traffic into their intended directions to minimize tailbacks.

Also, there would be a more defined set of rules for each type of road user. As long as each road user obeys the signals presented to them, they should be safe. Than again, any rules which may apply to cyclists or pedestrians is something you seem completely against.

monument wrote: »

It's a matter of fact:

Trucks and buses are using it daily.

I have availed of the 8 bus many times since the new layout was applied and the bus has to practically stop to calculate how it will take the Upper Glenageary Road exit. If they are managing (as you often put it), it is just barely. Anytime they do exit, they have to go right up to the central median to ensure that their hind axle is somewhat distant from the rubber kerbing. Moreover, I doubt that articulated trucks are able to manage this particular exit as they are roughly 3 meters longer.

Earlier on in this thread, you implied that cyclists need extra wiggle and wobble room as per the assertion at the end of your post here. Did you ever stop to think that buses and articulated trucks also need wiggle and wobble room?

There should be at least a meter of clearance at either side of buses and articulated trucks due to their width and length especially when turning into another road. This is far from being the case at present. Either way, I think it should revert back to its previous shape or a crossroads should replace it.

Bits_n_Bobs

Last night was patiently waiting to get onto the roundabout in question. Next thing a car in the entrance to it before mine gets terribly confused and somehow mistakes the bicycle lane for the roundabout.

Rams the outside wheels onto the kerb and navigates towards me via the bike lane. Then gets to my entrance and instead of going onto the actual road bit of the roundabout, the panicked looking driver decides to keep going via bike lane to next exit.

Felt sorry for her, she looked in a right state - just shows that it's not entirely obvious (especially in the dark) how the stupid monstrosity works.

Alias G

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Last night was patiently waiting to get onto the roundabout in question. Next thing a car in the entrance to it before mine gets terribly confused and somehow mistakes the bicycle lane for the roundabout.

Rams the outside wheels onto the kerb and navigates towards me via the bike lane. Then gets to my entrance and instead of going onto the actual road bit of the roundabout, the panicked looking driver decides to keep going via bike lane to next exit.

Felt sorry for her, she looked in a right state - just shows that it's not entirely obvious (especially in the dark) how the stupid monstrosity works.

Unfortunately, no infrastructure can account for the actions of plonkers.

Bits_n_Bobs

Well done on the rush to judgement and pardon me for feeling some sympathy towards a fellow person who made a mistake.

TheVoodoo

Yea, it was a mistake, but it could have been a life threathening one. There's already been one death and several serious accidents involving cyclists.

People are allowed make mistakes, but some are just inexcusable.

nomdeboardie

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Last night was patiently waiting to get onto the roundabout in question. Next thing a car in the entrance to it before mine gets terribly confused and somehow mistakes the bicycle lane for the roundabout.

Rams the outside wheels onto the kerb and navigates towards me via the bike lane. Then gets to my entrance and instead of going onto the actual road bit of the roundabout, the panicked looking driver decides to keep going via bike lane to next exit.

Felt sorry for her, she looked in a right state - just shows that it's not entirely obvious (especially in the dark) how the stupid monstrosity works.

Without commenting on the roundabout (again) or this driver...that's just hilarious :pac::pac::pac:

monument

TheVoodoo wrote: »

There's already been one death and several serious accidents involving cyclists.

There's been no death linked to the roundabout -- there's been one recently near it but away it and unconnected to it.

What are you ranking as "several serious accidents"?

TheVoodoo

Without meaning to sound smart or anything, I 100% can say there has been a cyclist death, as my family knew of the individual. I know the incident you are referring to on Barnhill Road and it was no that. Also my grandparents live on the bottom of Avondale road they are aware of when the emergency services are there.

What are you ranking as "several serious accidents"?

I'd rank the child being hit by the articulated lorry as one, Tbh i'm not going to get into a naming list of individual cyclists or incidents.

monument

TheVoodoo wrote: »

Without meaning to sound smart or anything, I 100% can say there has been a cyclist death, as my family knew of the individual. I know the incident you are referring to on Barnhill Road and it was no that. Also my grandparents live on the bottom of Avondale road they are aware of when the emergency services are there.

I'd rank the child being hit by the articulated lorry as one, Tbh i'm not going to get into a naming list of individual cyclists or incidents.

Can you name the dates of the incidents? If not, why not?

TheVoodoo

I havn't recorded them or taken note, so I cannot be that exact Cian, your Journalism links could find out rough dates i'm sure. There's been at least half a dozen cyclist / commuting cyclists knocked down with more than just scratches and bruises in the past three or so months. A look back through this thread will highlight some dates, such as October 26th.

patrickbrophy18

TheVoodoo wrote: »

I'd rank the child being hit by the articulated lorry as one, Tbh i'm not going to get into a naming list of individual cyclists or incidents.

Don't mind monument. However, this pretty much proves my point that the roundabout is unsuitable for articulated trucks never-mind buses and cyclists. Just yesterday, I was on the 59 bus and I heard the back wheel clipping the rubber curbing when it took the exit on to Avondale Road. The sound was quite loud actually. In both cases, I highly suspect that the tight junctions are the main culprit.

It may very well be there to slow down motorists but for all the wrong reasons because it becomes more hazardous to negotiate. In my opinion, the previous layout of the roundabout was much more friendly for pedestrians too. This is because the triangular medians at each junction provided far more room for pedestrians than the pathetic capsule-shaped medians that are currently in place. In any case, the council fixed a problem that wasn't there and paradoxically caused more problems.

On a separate note, I find it amazing how some of the (anti-motorist) posters on this thread get into such denial and become defensive whenever someone posts about an accident or regular tailbacks. This is probably because they are too afraid to admit that their cowardly attitude towards the road is becoming a nuisance to the broader traveling public.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

On a separate note, I find it amazing how some of the (anti-motorist) posters on this thread get into such denial and become defensive whenever someone posts about an accident or regular tailbacks. This is probably because they are too afraid to admit that their cowardly attitude towards the road is becoming a nuisance to the broader traveling public.

Maybe because there's been one death which some people were claiming happened on the roundabout when it turns out it did not.

Maybe because one poster was making a big deal about the tailbacks without mentioning temporary traffic diversions which added extra traffic to the area.

But, hey, you go ahead and focus on name calling because you find it hard dealing with facts.