Roadworks: Font & Morris Roundabouts

antoobrien

jkforde wrote: »

a short answer to all that is look at the new junction at Parkmore further on... if travelling in the outside lane to continue on straight one does not have to change lanes as the right-turn lane is filtered off to the right as normal (both previous RABs had three exits so it's directly comparable).

The difference between Parkmore/Briarhill & Ballybane is that there was a median (in Briarhill) to supply the extra space required to add the right filter lane. It's not available in Ballybane due to the inconsiderate placement of a factory/shop building (can't remember what's there right now) and the requirement to leave cycling and pedestrian facilities in place (even I'm not begrudging enough to suggest space shouldn't be allocated for them).

Where else do you want it to come from?

jkforde

antoobrien wrote: »

The difference between Parkmore/Briarhill & Ballybane is that there was a median (in Briarhill) to supply the extra space required to add the right filter lane. It's not available in Ballybane due to the inconsiderate placement of a factory/shop building (can't remember what's there right now) and the requirement to leave cycling and pedestrian facilities in place (even I'm not begrudging enough to suggest space shouldn't be allocated for them).
Where else do you want it to come from?

ah, I think I know where you're coming from... while I considered the outside lane (from Font to Morris) as a legitimate straight ahead lane that could be used to go straight ahead through the Morris roundabout (so outside lane at the 2nd exit) you consider the same outside lane as solely for turning to Renmore etc. - so just different opinions on roundabout usage! (btw, I'm backed up by this advice from www.drivingschoolireland.com; http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/image/roundabout_straight.jpg)

aaanyways, so the outside lane from the Font junction to the Morris junction was or is purely for turning right to Renmore, ok got it, thanks.

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

The difference between Parkmore/Briarhill & Ballybane is that there was a median (in Briarhill) to supply the extra space required to add the right filter lane. It's not available in Ballybane due to the inconsiderate placement of a factory/shop building (can't remember what's there right now) and the requirement to leave cycling and pedestrian facilities in place (even I'm not begrudging enough to suggest space shouldn't be allocated for them).

Where else do you want it to come from?

There's is of course enough room, the road opens from 2 lanes to 4. They took land for the westbound lane to accommodate this.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Logistics is not solely a military concept and perfectly releant to the point at hand.

Btw if the numbers are so low why did you go out of your way to make a big deal about it?

We're just mentioning an unfortunate consequence of making things "better"

Two people divided by a common language, it would seem.

An unfortunate but trivial consequence for a very small number of motorists, within the overall context. Not worth mentioning, IMO, or discussing further.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

There's is of course enough room, the road opens from 2 lanes to 4. They took land for the westbound lane to accommodate this.

With the merge coming from Ballybane, whcih takes up the little bit of space that was there, there isn't enough room. To accomodate the extra westbound lane they took the bit of grass that was outside the path on the westbound lane.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Two people divided by a common language, it would seem.

Perhaps, or perhaps it's one person actually understanding a concept beyond the traditional narrow viewpoints the other holds.



Logistics:

Logistics is the management of the flow of resources, not only goods, between the point of origin and the point of destination in order to meet the requirements of customers or corporations. Logistics involves the integration of information, transportation, inventory, warehousing, material handling, and packaging, and often security. Today the complexity of production logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized and optimized by plant simulation software, but is constantly changing. This can involve anything from consumer goods such as food, to IT materials, to aerospace and defense equipment.

Applied to a car trip where one also needs to buy petrol...you might get the picture, but mostly likely not.

coup1917

Galway city council have a full page ad of the new junctions in todays advertiser...
And unless im mistaken, they have the road names mixed up on the maps....!! ie. Tuam road junction in ballybane/ballybrit...
Is it any wonder there were runours of coffeys working on the wrong junction maps..:rolleyes:

antoobrien

coup1917 wrote: »

Galway city council have a full page ad of the new junctions in todays advertiser...
And unless im mistaken, they have the road names mixed up on the maps....!! ie. Tuam road junction in ballybane/ballybrit...
Is it any wonder there were runours of coffeys working on the wrong junction maps..:rolleyes:

Yeah they've the junction names on the wrong ones.:o

Here the road plan for the Tuam Rd (Flemmings) junction



Here the road plan for the Ballybane (Digital if you're old enough;)) junction -rotated for N/S view

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

perhaps it's one person actually understanding a concept beyond the traditional narrow viewpoints the other holds.

Logistics:

Applied to a car trip where one also needs to buy petrol...you might get the picture, but mostly likely not.

sophistry (n.)ˈsɒf ə stri
a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.


ticket (n.)ˈtɪk ɪt
1. a slip, usu. of paper or cardboard, serving as evidence that the holder has paid a fare or admission or is entitled to some service.

2. a summons issued for a traffic or parking violation.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

sophistry (n.)ˈsɒf ə stri
a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

What's superficially plausible about applying logistical reasoning to the procurement of fuel for a trip?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

ticket (n.)ˈtɪk ɪt

Anybody actually suggesting that a u-turn here is legal?

Come to think of it, have they put up the no u-turn signs yet?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

What's superficially plausible about applying logistical reasoning to the procurement of fuel for a trip?

Anybody actually suggesting that a u-turn here is legal?

I'll leave you to it. Too, um, sophisticated for me...

polskafanka

Zzippy wrote: »

Go in the old Monivea Road and approach the new junction from Mervue/Ballybane direction, its a right turn to go out the dual carriageway then.

Is there a right turn from old Monivea Rd? I would better turn left from dual carriegaway then to Monivea Rd and back to Tuam Rd.

antoobrien

polskafanka wrote: »

Is there a right turn from old Monivea Rd? I would better turn left from dual carriegaway then to Monivea Rd and back to Tuam Rd.

The maps indicate that it's still a left turn only when coming from Castlepark direction, with a right and left turn when coming from Mervue direction.

The easiest (legal) way to get to Hogans from Briarhill/Doughiska would be to go through Castlepark and turn right @ GMIT.

polskafanka

antoobrien wrote: »

The maps indicate that it's still a left turn only when coming from Castlepark direction, with a right and left turn when coming from Mervue direction.

The easiest (legal) way to get to Hogans from Briarhill/Doughiska would be to go through Castlepark and turn right @ GMIT.

-but when you turn right from Castlepark you just get to Dunnes in Briarhill and then the same story - turn left to dual carriegway and no turn back at the junction.

what_traffic

polskafanka wrote: »

Is there a right turn from old Monivea Rd? I would better turn left from dual carriegaway then to Monivea Rd and back to Tuam Rd.

No there is not going inbound. Alot of motorists do a rat run through Rahylin Glebe to make this right turn. They had to install a speed bump on this small road because of the amount of traffic going at speed through this residential area.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

No there is not going inbound. Alot of motorists do a rat run through Rahylin Glebe to make this right turn.

I though that was closed years ago?

Storm 10

Surely there should be a right turn as all they are doing is sending traffic through an estate or the supermarket to turn around, does not make sense. Also we have lost the right turn to McDonaghs from the small road down from Boston Scientific, you have to turn right head down to the Font and turn right onto the Tuam road then a right up the hill. Again very bad planning I can see customers lost for the business up there.

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

With the merge coming from Ballybane, whcih takes up the little bit of space that was there, there isn't enough room. To accomodate the extra westbound lane they took the bit of grass that was outside the path on the westbound lane.

All they need to do is move 30 feet of broken white line, problem solved. The road would not have to be widened, it's just the right size now.

antoobrien

Storm 10 wrote: »

Surely there should be a right turn as all they are doing is sending traffic through an estate or the supermarket to turn around, does not make sense. Also we have lost the right turn to McDonaghs from the small road down from Boston Scientific, you have to turn right head down to the Font and turn right onto the Tuam road then a right up the hill. Again very bad planning I can see customers lost for the business up there.

Since the DC opened (15+ years) there has been no right turn off the Monivea Rd (from either side). There's no easy way of improving this and doing it badly would just negate any benefit of changing the junction.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

All they need to do is move 30 feet of broken white line, problem solved. The road would not have to be widened, it's just the right size now.

The ballybane -> tuam rd part of the road would have to move to the left in order to facilitate moving the tuam rd -> ballybane traffic right.

This is a physical impossibility - there is not enough room to create the extra lane on the Mervue side of the road.

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

The ballybane -> tuam rd part of the road would have to move to the left in order to facilitate moving the tuam rd -> ballybane traffic right.

This is a physical impossibility - there is not enough room to create the extra lane on the Mervue side of the road.

Oh ffs, forget it....

aido76

antoobrien wrote: »

The ballybane -> tuam rd part of the road would have to move to the left in order to facilitate moving the tuam rd -> ballybane traffic right.

This is a physical impossibility - there is not enough room to create the extra lane on the Mervue side of the road.

Why does the inbound part need to move left? There are already 4 lanes on the outbound side - 1 left, 2 Straight on and 1 right. The problem is where the overtaking/fast/outside lane outbound, dog legs to the right while the driving/slow/inside lane splits in two for straight on and aslo splits for the left turn lane. This mean at peak times that 1 lane from the Tuam rd junction is for right turns only while the other lane is for left and 2 straight on (basically 3 lane of traffic in 1). They should have left the 2 lanes outbound from the Tuam road heading straight throught the ballybane junction and have the left lane split left for the left turn and the right lane split right for the right turn.

yer man!

aido76 wrote: »

Why does the inbound part need to move left? There are already 4 lanes on the outbound side - 1 left, 2 Straight on and 1 right. The problem is where the overtaking/fast/outside lane outbound, dog legs to the right while the driving/slow/inside lane splits in two for straight on and aslo splits for the left turn lane. This mean at peak times that 1 lane from the Tuam rd junction is for right turns only while the other lane is for left and 2 straight on (basically 3 lane of traffic in 1). They should have left the 2 lanes outbound from the Tuam road heading straight throught the ballybane junction and have the left lane split left for the left turn and the right lane split right for the right turn.

Ya it should have been that way, can't imagine it'll be very long before they change the lanes around like in moneen where they allowed the left lane of the lough atalia road turn onto the Dublin road a few weeks after it opened.

antoobrien

aido76 wrote: »

Why does the inbound part need to move left?

I'm getting seriously worried about the lack of spatial awareness of galway drivers. Traffic moving in a given direction has to be to the left of oncoming traffic - otherwise the two traffic strings would exist in the same space. Crashes tend to happen in that situation - a possibility that traffic engineers universally attempt to avoid as best they can given the locations they are working with.

aido76 wrote: »

There are already 4 lanes on the outbound side - 1 left, 2 Straight on and 1 right. The problem is where the overtaking/fast/outside lane outbound, dog legs to the right while the driving/slow/inside lane splits in two for straight on and aslo splits for the left turn lane.

Given the lie of the land in the area that "dogleg" as you called it is the only option.

aido76 wrote: »

This mean at peak times that 1 lane from the Tuam rd junction is for right turns only while the other lane is for left and 2 straight on (basically 3 lane of traffic in 1).

Am no, not at all true. The right turn "de-merges" from the two "straight on" lanes. Otherwise the situation you would have is a "straight on & right" outside lane. In that situation, when traffic attempting to turn right to get to Mervue & Ballybane stops to turn right, the Briarhill bound traffic backs up behind it .

aido76 wrote: »

They should have left the 2 lanes outbound from the Tuam road heading straight throught the ballybane junction and have the left lane split left for the left turn and the right lane split right for the right turn.

As I have said before, Briarhill had two margins in the center of the road. From these they made the right filter lanes, allowing traffic ton physically separate itself form the (in the case of Doughiksa inbound) 60 degree left turn "straight on" bit. There was also a hard shoulder - so they were also able to make left filters.

This road had neither central margins or hard shoulders before the conversion. That means we need to grab land from the surroundings to make the filters.

Great I hear you say - except there's a drop of a few feet and the bit that is useful to the junction is being used by the slip from the Ballybane Rd.

There is also a bit of a drop from to a lot of the land to the west of this road is a few feet lower (most of the way down to the Eircom yard I think) - which also makes it hard to move the road west.

So we can't take any extra space to the west of the road (which would be catering for the inbound traffic).

Now to set out the problem simply we have 3 requirements:
1) 2 lanes bringing traffic along the N6 (in both directions - requires 4 lanes)
2) a right turn filter lane of 30-50m (requires an additional 30-50m of a demerge lane)
3) a left turn filter lane of 30-50m

Requirements 1 & 2 are hard requirements. Their aim is to keep traffic flowing in both directions simultaneously as much as possible. #3 Is a nice to have because if you have a green light for straight on, you'll always have a left turn, so this is dependent on space being available. If it's there great, if not no big deal.

We also have constraints:
a) we've no space to take to the west of the junction
b) there's only room for 4 lanes of traffic for most of the length of the road
c) we need to design this so that it's safe for HGVs to turn (they generally have the widest turning radius)

Conundrum - keep 2 lanes inbound, create a right turn filter with allows 2 lanes outbound, without widening the road layout.

it's a doozie of a pickle

Solution:
You take the land from the only place its available - the east (and there's not much available there).

Result:
What we have, an unfortunate but necessary moving left of the outbound traffic stream to cater for the inbound and right turning traffic.

Consequence - if you can't understand all this and follow the road markings, give up your licenses because you're not safe to be left on the road.

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

Am no, not at all true. The right turn "de-merges" from the two "straight on" lanes. Otherwise the situation you would have is a "straight on & right" outside lane. In that situation, when traffic attempting to turn right to get to Mervue & Ballybane stops to turn right, the Briarhill bound traffic backs up behind it .

Am no, the right lane outbound from the tuam road junction is the right turn lane along it's whole length. The left lane outbound starting from the tuam road junction is for straight on traffic and left turning traffic (boston scientific) only, this splits in two at the junction for straight on traffic and also the left turn land diverges from it, ergo, 3 lanes forming from the 1 lane. the other lane originating from the tuam road junction, the right lane, lane closest to the middle of the road outbound is for going right only. Look at the plans......

Storm 10

Driving from the new traffic lights on the Tuam road to the Headford road on the dual carraigeway I see a new sign gone up showing the speed limit is 80, yet on the poles on the way down its showing 50 , have they changed this limit.

Wompa1

The council got design advice from the same sources the council got it from when developing the roundabouts and for every other traffic management decision in the city.

When will they just stop going to people who don't know wtf they are doing!?

aido76

antoobrien wrote: »

Here the road plan for the Ballybane (Digital if you're old enough;)) junction -rotated for N/S view

@ Autoobrien, Are we looking at the same plan of the road?
I have not travelled on this road since the lights were turned on but will be heading in tomorrow so it will be interesting to see the layout first hand. I am going by the plan you posted earlier (above).

From this plan there are 4 outbound lanes approaching the junction for approx 30 mtrs....Do you agree?

Can you not see where the broken white line doglegs and another broken white line appears in the centre of the inside lane so the inside lane splits?

I don't see where you need to take land from as the 4 outbound lanes are already there. It's a matter of repainting the lines so the outside lane does not end as the right turn only lane.

If you thing that the length of the right lane would not be long enough then you should see the back log on the inbound DC at Briarhill in the mornings when the right turning lane is full and the outside lane gets backed up.

Iwannahurl

Storm 10 wrote: »

Driving from the new traffic lights on the Tuam road to the Headford road on the dual carraigeway I see a new sign gone up showing the speed limit is 80, yet on the poles on the way down its showing 50 , have they changed this limit.

Are you sure it's a new sign and not an old one that has been doctored by somebody (I saw a "30 km/h" sign like that once, down a grassy boreen in Cois Fharraige)?

Would a speed limit change like that need a notice in the papers and a vote by the Councillors?

On the other hand, if it's a real change maybe it's one facilitated by the lights?

Almost nobody the speed limit on that road anyway.

Storm 10

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you sure it's a new sign and not an old one that has been doctored by somebody

Yeah its a brand new sign saw it twice today, its a big sign as well compared to the small signs on the poles, also coming up towards the Tuam road from the dual carraigeway there is a new 50 sign and pole before the estate on the left.