Bodkin / Headford Road roundabout replacement [Lights are on!]

what_traffic

ballinadog wrote: »

Sarcasm lad

ballinadog

what_traffic wrote: »

Oh, my bad, I see what you did there 😉

spurscormac

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When you see someone referring to the number of exits you know they're not up to date regarding the use of (Irish) roundabouts.

The RSA issued a leaflet on the subject a couple of years ago (following a bit of pressure, I reckon) so no excuses any more.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Leaflets/Leaf_booklets/Roundabouts_DL_2012_v3.pdf

This might be the Boards thread you had in mind: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056163797&page=48

I take it you're referring to my earlier post.
From your quoted document...

"If taking any exit from the 6 o’clock to the 12 o’clock position, motorists should generally approach in the left-hand lane."

"If taking any exit between the 12 o’clock to the 6 o’clock positions, motorists should generally approach in the right-hand lane."

"traffic conditions might sometimes mean you have to take a different approach"

So there you go, describe it in o'clock, or exit numbers, whatever you wish - the official guidelines are ambiguous on what is and isn't allowed regarding the Kirwin roundabout that was under discussion.
A competent driver will take a reasonable approach based on the traffic conditions & road layout.

I'll continue to use the right lane if I deem it necessary, though I try to avoid approaching from that direction on a daily basis due to traffic buildup coming in the Tuam Rd and use an alternative route to shorten my commute time.

boardzz

I've noticed a lot of people turning right onto QB from headford direction are sticking to the right lane when there are two lanes for going right. Great for me because I get a near empty lane most of the time on the left hand side while everyone else is queuing on the right.

dastardly00

spurscormac wrote: »

To also correct you on the Kirwin issue you state - that's the second exit, by the rules of the road, you can use either lane of a two lane approach for the second exit. What is incorrect however, is those using the left lane coming out from town to then continue on to the N6 towards the Tuam road (as that's the 3rd exit), but it happens all the time.

Its nothing to do with 3,6,9 o'clock, nor any other o'clock for that matter, its the number of the exit on the roundabout.

irisheddie85

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That is to say there are junctions around the city where various arms will not change for cyclists alone. Some that I have experience of are turning right into Rahoon Rd towards the cemetery from the Seamus Quirke Rd, turning right from the Ballybrit industrial estate towards the Tuam Rd, turning from the Fr. Griffin Avenue onto Fr Griffin Rd. etc etc etc.

Turning right into rahoon road toward the cemetry has a turn box with a switch for cyclists on the left hand side in the cylce lane

Turning right from ballybrit toward tuam road can be very safely achieved using a hook turn as described in this thread.

Fr griffin road fr Griffin ave junction is poorly designed from pretty much everyones point of view. But this is actually in the city where there is limitations on space. the lanes are too narrow, poorly aligned and no proper road marking to show what is/isnt the correct lane and the right turn box is in a stupid location

Iwannahurl

ballinadog wrote: »

Cheers, tbh I was just thinking the same thing, should just leave ye to it, ye can go and lay your bikes on the flat at the loops for all I care!

Well there you go. Up to now I was thinking 'fair play to ballinadog for being willing to engage' but in truth I think there's an unfortunate tendency to treat pedestrians and cyclists as also-rans, or somewhat less important at any rate, in these projects. EDIT: just saw post #691.

ballinadog wrote: »

considering that 40,000 vehicles cross this junction every day compared to I'd say 1000 cyclists (not sure on that fig but I'd be willing to bet it covers the actual figure), the cyclist has far more than his fair share of road space...

One of the main justifications for the N6 Multi-Modal Scheme (the clue is in the title) was that it would raise the Level of Service for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users.

In which case, all aspects of the scheme should do exactly that. Unfortunately I suspect that the City Council and whoever else will talk the talk to get the funds, but when it comes to walking the walk they will revert to their usual practice of prioritising motorised traffic.

If the number of cyclists and pedestrians is low compared to car traffic, it is primarily because decades of car-focused "planning" have served to inexorably erode the modal share for walking, cycling and public transport.

I supported the N6 Multi-Modal Scheme when it was first proposed, on the grounds that uncontrolled junctions (roundabouts especially) give continuous priority to motorised vehicles whereas signalised junctions can be configured to make walking, cycling and public transport the easier and more efficient travel options.

It took me four minutes today to traverse the QB side of the N6 at the new junction, because I had to make three separate crossings and the signals were not responsive enough. Meanwhile, pedestrians crossing away from the signals, or without waiting for the Green Man, were able to scoot across in seconds.

Now, self-evidently the signal timings are still being adjusted. However, the basic point is that a controlled junction can be set up to optimise the LoS for pedestrians and cyclists (which is as it should be, if tackling traffic congestion and car dependence really is a public policy priority).

If Galway City Council (and the NRA, NTA etc) really are trying to cater properly for sustainable transport, and if Smarter Travel really is official policy still, then we will see this new junction working well for walking and cycling. For example, we won't see pedestrians and cyclists adapting in unorthodox ways in order to get around pointless delays and restrictions. The proof of the pudding will be in the (signal) timing, and in the manner in which the new layout facilitates the more vulnerable road users, who after all do not cause traffic congestion and in fact alleviate it.

galwaycyclist

thesandeman wrote: »

I'm neither a driver or cyclist nor have I had to negotiate the new layout on foot yet, but I have to say fair play to ballinadog for answering all the points put honestly and to the best of his ability over the last couple of weeks.
If we were asking an official representative of the NRA or the council these questions can you imagine the rubbish that would be spouted in reply.

Yes I agree and as you say fair play to Ballinadog for engaging in the debate.

It is not personal. If Ballinadog were not here the same questions would still be getting asked and the same points would still be getting raised.

It is an unfortunate fact that, as a profession, Irish civil engineers have a lot to answer for. There has recently been the beginings of a debate about governance issues among other professions banking, legal, medical etc.

In my view, the same debates need to happen with regard to the Irish civil engineering profession.

Iwannahurl

Some pix from this morning.

1. Pedestrian coming from the Shopping Centre direction avoids signalised crossing to continue up Sean Mulvoy Road on the left-hand side.



2. Pedestrians coming from left (north) side of QB have to come up to this signal in order to cross. Note the sizeable landscaped area.



3. Guardrail ("sheep pen" in engineering parlance) intended to route pedestrians away from narrowest crossing spot towards signalised crossing.



4. Two pedestrians cross during gap in traffic rather than wait for Green Man.



5. A pedestrian crosses the N6 (QB) at the narrowest point in two quick moves, rather than continue to the signals and wait to cross in three moves. It took me four minutes to cross from location 2 above to this point. Note the cyclist about to turn right, following the pedestrian, in order to avoid the junction.

galwaycyclist

irisheddie85 wrote: »

Turning right into rahoon road toward the cemetry has a turn box with a switch for cyclists on the left hand side in the cylce lane

Turning right from ballybrit toward tuam road can be very safely achieved using a hook turn as described in this thread.

Fr griffin road fr Griffin ave junction is poorly designed from pretty much everyones point of view. But this is actually in the city where there is limitations on space. the lanes are too narrow, poorly aligned and no proper road marking to show what is/isnt the correct lane and the right turn box is in a stupid location

If you dont like those examples then go down to the Seamus Quirke road and have a look wherever there are cycle lanes on the side roads - so Rahoon Rd, Circular Rd, at Westside shopping centre etc.

There are no sensor loops in any of the cycle lanes.

spiritcrusher

The thing is if you wanted to have the pedestrian crossing at the narrowest parts of the road (i.e., back up the QB where there's only 4 lanes) you'd have to have 2 sets of lights, one for peds and one for cars, as you'll always have the cars stop as close to the junction as possible so they pass through the junction quicker and can see clearly across the junction. You'll also want to have the pedestrians crossing in front of the cars so drivers can see them. It really would be totally impractical to have a pedestrian crossing back on the narrow point of the bridge.
And if the issue is pedestrians not correctly using the crossing, well people will always run across the handiest place if there's a gap in traffic, it's not something that a few craftily placed lights will ever change.

Iwannahurl

I'm not sure what the answer is, not being a roads engineer, but I think in principle pedestrians should be facilitated to cross where they want to rather than where engineers prefer to put them.

You often see 'desire lines' on landscaped areas around junctions, because pedestrians naturally travel the most direct and convenient path for walking, rather than the route chosen for them by engineers.

If junctions were designed to accommodate pedestrians in that way, there would be no need for 'sheep pens'. The use of large amounts of guard-rail is a clear indication that direct pedestrian routes are being closed off or discouraged. That said, some people will continue to behave in a silly fashion. But as a pedestrian I don't want to be disadvantaged by doing the right thing.

serfboard

My anecdotal contribution to the new junction.

Went through the junction yesterday evening going eastbound after 7PM. Used the slip lane - no problems. Pedestrians with dark clothing running across the road roughly at the old pedestrian lights. I think Dunnes will have to close their pedestrian exit that led to the old lights.

Came in this morning after rush hour (as usual) and had to wait at lights but for far less time than before. The volume of traffic on the bridge suggested to me that a lot of people who had been avoiding the junction recently are back.

what_traffic

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If you dont like those examples then go down to the Seamus Quirke road and have a look wherever there are cycle lanes on the side roads - so Rahoon Rd, Circular Rd, at Westside shopping centre etc.

There are no sensor loops in any of the cycle lanes.

Can verify that you are correct for Rahoon Rd, Circular Rd and Bothar Le Cheile(Westside Shopping); especially problematic if turning right onto Seamus Quirke/Bishop O Donnell road.()
No sensors in the bike lanes.

dilallio

biko wrote: »

Drove through it today for the time time as a proper intersection as the RB centre is gone.
I wasn't going fast but it felt like the now opened space wasn't perfectly flat?

finlma wrote: »

You're dead right. There's a big bump in the middle of the junction. I came over it today.

Nuns

Cobblestones

irisheddie85

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If you dont like those examples then go down to the Seamus Quirke road and have a look wherever there are cycle lanes on the side roads - so Rahoon Rd, Circular Rd, at Westside shopping centre etc.

There are no sensor loops in any of the cycle lanes.

I agreed on fr Griffin Road. and yes they are bad junctions but your other examples weren't. Getting out on to SQR takes to long for the lights to cycle but this is because SQR is a major regional road and through traffic takes priority over local traffic. Until an alternative is built this will stay more or less the same. When they do build a bypass driving in a car from one end of SQR to the other shouldn't get any faster but travel for pedestrians and cyclists should be improved
There should be sensors in all the new cycle lanes so we can get an accurate measure of how many are using them and how they are being used.

GekkePrutser

what_traffic wrote: »

Can verify that you are correct for Rahoon Rd, Circular Rd and Bothar Le Cheile(Westside Shopping); especially problematic if turning right onto Seamus Quirke/Bishop O Donnell road.()
No sensors in the bike lanes.

Those loops don't work with bicycles anyway... They need a big chunk of metal to work. Sometimes they don't even work with motorcycles, if there's one at the front of the queue it thinks there's nobody waiting.

Iwannahurl

GekkePrutser wrote: »

Those loops don't work with bicycles anyway... They need a big chunk of metal to work. Sometimes they don't even work with motorcycles, if there's one at the front of the queue it thinks there's nobody waiting.

There's an important difference between don't and can't in this context.

TTBOMK there is no technical reason why inductive-loop vehicle detection systems can't be configured for bicycles in Ireland. The, ahem, resistance is more of a political and cultural nature.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm

http://bikeplan.com/aw-signals.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/08may/02.cfm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRkoSa9IjWU

Padkir

To echo what a number of people have already said using my own experience, the biggest issue at the minute is people coming off the bridge and turning left at the lights instead of the filter lane.

Was almost side-swiped this morning at 8.10am. Traffic was pretty heavy and the slip lane was full as were the lanes going straight ahead. We all had green lights. I was in the right hand slip lane and as I was about to join the road, I spotted movement out of the corner of my eye and stopped; some idiot had turned left at the lights and then obliviously kept driving straight into a steady stream of traffic which was entering from the filter lane.

I completely agree that there should be a few Garda floating around there for the majority of the next week or so and fine everyone who does this and other questionable manoevres. It's a very straight-forward junction and people still can't use it; no wonder the old roundabout was such a disaster...

joeKel73

J o e wrote: »

Will be cycling this route tonight and will check it out.

Cycled from Dunnes -> Bridge this evening, doing a hook turn, pulling in at the cycle lane coming from Sean Mulvoy Rd.

It worked grand but there's quite a wait. The traffic light sequence seems to give main priority across the junction to each of the four roads in an anti-clockwise direction.

This means cyclists taking a right turn have to wait for 3 of the 4 sequences again after waiting for a green light on the initial approach. So for example;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Bridge
3. Approach from Woodquay
4. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Bridge [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Bridge
6. Approach from Woodquay
7. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

If the sequence gave main priority in a CLOCKWISE direction, the situation would look like this;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Bridge
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

The same will hold true for cyclists doing right-turns from all directions. I'll email the suggestion to the council.
Is there any disadvantage to other traffic to have the sequence go clockwise instead of anticlockwise?

ballinadog

J o e wrote: »

Cycled from Dunnes -> Bridge this evening, doing a hook turn, pulling in at the cycle lane coming from Sean Mulvoy Rd.

It worked grand but there's quite a wait. The traffic light sequence seems to give main priority across the junction to each of the four roads in an anti-clockwise direction.

This means cyclists taking a right turn have to wait for 3 of the 4 sequences again after waiting for a green light on the initial approach. So for example;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Bridge
3. Approach from Woodquay
4. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Bridge [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Bridge
6. Approach from Woodquay
7. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

If the sequence gave main priority in a CLOCKWISE direction, the situation would look like this;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Bridge
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

The same will hold true for cyclists doing right-turns from all directions. I'll email the suggestion to the council.
Is there any disadvantage to other traffic to have the sequence go clockwise instead of anticlockwise?

Was thinking about this last night actually and said to myself I bet they are set anti clockwise and was to check today but forgot, one reason I can think for is this: if it were clockwise, if for whatever reason a cyclist is ridiculously slow he/she might not get to the hook box in time to make the next set of lights

E.g if comin in Headford rd and want to go to bridge via hook box on Sean Mulvoy, when you get your first green light in theory you only have to get across the Sean Mulvoy outbound lanes and then your into an area of relatively safety as with the sequence goin anti clockwise, you know Sean Mulvoy inbound isn't gonna be movin until last... If it were clockwise, you have to ensure you reach the hook box opposite Sean Mulvoy quickly otherwise the inbound traffic will have gone before ya get there... As far as I know the all stop time should be long enough to ensure this doesn't happen but it's another failsafe I suppose.... I'm sure there is also other reasons though why the traffic goes anti clockwise, ill ask the traffic lads tomoro

joeKel73

ballinadog wrote: »

ill ask the traffic lads tomoro

Thanks lad. I'll have another good look tomorrow before formulating an email to the council.

I think the sequence at Briarhill goes Clockwise and has turning boxes... again I'll check that tomorrow when passing through.

ballinadog

J o e wrote: »

Cycled from Dunnes -> Bridge this evening, doing a hook turn, pulling in at the cycle lane coming from Sean Mulvoy Rd.

It worked grand but there's quite a wait. The traffic light sequence seems to give main priority across the junction to each of the four roads in an anti-clockwise direction.

This means cyclists taking a right turn have to wait for 3 of the 4 sequences again after waiting for a green light on the initial approach. So for example;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Bridge
3. Approach from Woodquay
4. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Bridge [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Bridge
6. Approach from Woodquay
7. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed over the bridge]

If the sequence gave main priority in a CLOCKWISE direction, the situation would look like this;

Shortest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Dunnes [Arrive at green light, proceed through to the right turn box]
2. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

and the Longest possible sequence;

1. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Arrive at junction from Dunnes approach]
2. Approach from Woodquay
3. Approach from Bridge
4. Approach from Dunnes [Proceed through to the right turn box]
5. Approach from Sean Mulvoy Rd [Proceed through to the right turn box]

The same will hold true for cyclists doing right-turns from all directions. I'll email the suggestion to the council.
Is there any disadvantage to other traffic to have the sequence go clockwise instead of anticlockwise?

I've thought of another reason, the slip & filter lanes. By goin anti clockwise the left hand slip & filter lanes of the following arm in the sequence can also be engaged...

antoobrien

J o e wrote: »

Thanks lad. I'll have another good look tomorrow before formulating an email to the council.

I think the sequence at Briarhill goes Clockwise and has turning boxes... again I'll check that tomorrow when passing through.

The green sequence in Briarhill is crossways:
N6 straight on and left (both ways)
N6 right turns (and left filters on Monivea Rd)
From Ballybrit/Doughiska
From Briarhill

ballinadog

antoobrien wrote: »

The green sequence in Briarhill is crossways:
N6 straight on and left (both ways)
N6 right turns (and left filters on Monivea Rd)
From Ballybrit/Doughiska
From Briarhill

This is true, and I think tuam rd junction was also like this up until a couple a months ago but they changed it

ballinadog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Some pix from this morning.

3. Guardrail ("sheep pen" in engineering parlance) intended to route pedestrians away from narrowest crossing spot towards signalised crossing.

The "Sheep Pens" right name is Visi-Rail (engineering parlance). Take a look at it again the next time your passing, every second rail is staggered so Motorists can see in through it better and take note of pedestrians whilst it also
protects pedestrians.

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

There needs to be a no left turn sign on the junction eastbound from the bridge. Plenty of idiot drivers making illegal left turns here.

Is it an illegal turn if there is no signage to indicate no left turn?

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

Is it an illegal turn if there is no signage to indicate no left turn?

Road markings indicate the legal routes in addition to the lights. Signs are going later this week for those incapable of reading the road markings

Iwannahurl

ballinadog wrote: »

The "Sheep Pens" right name is Visi-Rail (engineering parlance). Take a look at it again the next time your passing, every second rail is staggered so Motorists can see in through it better and take note of pedestrians whilst it also protects pedestrians.

What does Visi-Rail add in terms of inter-visibility and safety that, say, bollards wouldn't?

Transport for London refer to "sheep pens" in this policy document concerning the assessment of guard-rail in London, where significant amounts of it are being removed. TfL states that guard-rail "corrals pedestrians into a narrow area and reduces the effective capacity of a crossing" and they quote the UK Manual for Streets 2 as follows:

“Guardrail is a very intrusive element. It disadvantages pedestrian movement by making people walk further, away from their desire lines and creates an unpleasant feeling of restraint. It also narrows the usable footway which can lead to congestion. It is unsightly and detracts from local character and visual amenity and there is evidence that it can increase traffic speeds and present an increased risk to cyclists who can be crushed against it by vehicles."

snubbleste

J o e wrote: »

Cycled from Dunnes -> Bridge this evening, doing a hook turn, pulling in at the cycle lane coming from Sean Mulvoy Rd. ...
This means cyclists taking a right turn have to wait for 3 of the 4 sequences again after waiting for a green light on the initial approach....

Did your heart slowly sink whilst waiting all that time?
It's a disgrace, so it is. Let us know if you get any feedback from the Council