Roadworks: Font & Morris Roundabouts

desaparecidos

Someone posted a link to the plans a few pages back. It showed an 80km/h sign at that position so you'd assume the road is having a speed limit change.

Hopefully so anyway.

Iwannahurl

Missed that.

Presumably the new limit was therefore voted on as part of the overall project.

I wonder whether they're just taking the opportunity to make the limit 80, or whether the new signalised junction makes the limit appropriate/feasible, bearing in mind the association between speed and junction capacity. Just speculating here...

desaparecidos

The speed limit drops to 50km/h ~100 meters or so before the estate entrance and ~200meters before the lights.

Both lanes will have big 50km/h markings painted on the ground along with a 50km/h sign, which will have the trafic lights sign on the same pole.

Seems a very logic change to the road so I couldn't care less if it wasn't voted on tbh.

Iwannahurl

The setting of speed limits must be done lawfully, otherwise this could cause difficulties in court cases for example.

antoobrien

aido76 wrote: »

@ Autoobrien, Are we looking at the same plan of the road?

Wasn't referring to the plan - I'm doing this from memory. Plus the plan doesn't show the factories and retail units I'm referring to.

aido76 wrote: »

I don't see where you need to take land from as the 4 outbound lanes are already there.

It depends on what you're trying to do. What I took from yer man! & jkforde's complaints about the layout is that they think that the right turn lane should be further right (splitting out from the N6 traffic instead of having the N6 traffic split left). This would necessitate moving the inbound traffic right - then you'd need the extra land.

aido76 wrote: »

It's a matter of repainting the lines so the outside lane does not end as the right turn only lane.

At last some sense. However there isn't quite enough room to keep the the N6 traffic and the Mervue traffic separate, I'd guess they'd need another 50m-70m minimum that isn't available to do it properly.

The best they could do is something like this (excuse the crudeness):

aido76 wrote: »

If you thing that the length of the right lane would not be long enough

I don't think they need the entire right lane as a right turn - I think about 100m would be enough.

aido76 wrote: »

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.

That's a big weakness with the plan for that junction - that right filter is too short considering the amount of traffic that goes into Parkmore. They should have widened the right turn off the Monivea rd to Parkmore and let the traffic in that way (while getting rid of the rather stupid 60km/h limit on one of the best stretches of road in the county).

There are better alternatives (to my mind) for getting to the factories in Mervue from the Tuam Rd - the industrial estate has an entrance on the Tuam Rd and Connolly ave runs past both Thermo King and Covidien (I think it changes to Michael Collins ave at the factory) - both are left turns from the Tuam Rd.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

Am no, the right lane outbound from the tuam road junction is the right turn lane along it's whole length

I didn't notice any unbroken white line between the two outbound lanes, so if you don't realise that you don't have to stay in the lane I suggest you go hand back your license (or if you don't have one don't sit the test).

It only becomes the right turn lane at the junction - when the lanes demerge (just after Barry's cycles to your left).

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The setting of speed limits must be done lawfully, otherwise this could cause difficulties in court cases for example.

I haven't seen any bye-laws passed for this, so it begs the question: what's the legal method of adoption of the plans by the council? One would presume that if the (new) speed is indicated in the original plan and the council approves the plan without modification (such as what eventually happened for the Ballinfoyle RAB) that all the legalities would be completed.

Also do the city council actually have the authority to change the speed limit on an N road - the NRA are not responsible for them aren't they?

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

I didn't notice any unbroken white line between the two outbound lanes, so if you don't realise that you don't have to stay in the lane I suggest you go hand back your license (or if you don't have one don't sit the test).

It only becomes the right turn lane at the junction - when the lanes demerge (just after Barry's cycles to your left).

Well just after the junction it says on the road sign, left lane - Dublin, right land - renmore. How dare you say to me to hand back my license, for the record I actually agree with the drawing you made, it was what i've been saying all this time!!!! jesus you're like a politician, other people pose an idea, you initially disagree, then realise you're wrong, change your stance and then take all the credit. that lane is essentially a right turning, I saw 10 cars today simply driving straight on from this lane onto the dublin road, where they should have been turning right, which is a poor design. Your drawing (ie. what everyone here was trying to get across to you) corrects this problem. You kept on saying before that no no the road would have to be shifted right, involving construction that would defy the laws of physics, your drawing shows that that is not the case. you said that no no the lines cannot simply be repainted, you now say they can be, your drawing shows this clearly. You clearly realise you were wrong before and are trying to reclaim yourself. I said from the very beginning that the right lane should have be done in a way that it did not end up as the right turning lane for renmore and a turning lane be made off of this lane to make a right turning lane instead, just like the drawing above, just like briarhill but slightly modified. YOU DID NOT AGREE BEFORE THAT THIS WOULD WORK

01NANA

TO ANTOOBRIEN


These boards are so that ALL persons can post and express their opinions. You spend your time critising everything and insulting most of the posters here.

Get a life you seem to be obsessed with these threads. Go spend your time fruitfully....

I presume you will reply with your usual insults please note I will not be playing tit for tat with you....

Let everyone express their opinions without insults please....

Or are you just trying to make trouble and ignorant....... sound familiar

jkforde

yer man! wrote: »

.. for the record I actually agree with the drawing you made, it was what i've been saying all this time!!!! jesus you're like a politician, other people pose an idea, you initially disagree, then realise you're wrong, change your stance and then take all the credit.

well well, so anto now holds the esteemed opinion, upon some mature reflection, that it would indeed be possible to filter off the Renmore-bound traffic and allow for the outside-lane traffic to continue straight. holy god, where did all this physical factory- and cycle lane- occupied space suddenly come from to allow for this radical idea? or did someone just think about it and have it dawn upon them that a simple re-paint job would do it? hmmm, why hadn't anyone else thought of that! yeah.

antoobrien

jkforde wrote: »

yer man! wrote: »

.. for the record I actually agree with the drawing you made, it was what i've been saying all this time!!!! jesus you're like a politician, other people pose an idea, you initially disagree, then realise you're wrong, change your stance and then take all the credit.

well well, so anto now holds the esteemed opinion, upon some mature reflection, that it would indeed be possible to filter off the Renmore-bound traffic and allow for the outside-lane traffic to continue straight. holy god, where did all this physical factory- and cycle lane- occupied space suddenly come from to allow for this radical idea? or did someone just think about it and have it dawn upon them that a simple re-paint job would do it? hmmm, why hadn't anyone else thought of that! yeah.

No, I'm still of the opinion that they need about 50-70 meters more on order to do it properly. What I've pointed out is a best of a bad lot - which doesn't make it a particularly good idea.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

Well just after the junction it says on the road sign, left lane - Dublin, right land - renmore. How dare you say to me to hand back my license,

If you could please point out the unbroken line between the two outbound lanes that prevent you from changing lane I'll concede that your license shouldn't be torn up.

yer man! wrote: »

for the record I actually agree with the drawing you made, it was what i've been saying all this time!!!!

Actually no, what you started saying was:

yer man! wrote: »

they could have put a turning lane coming off the outside lane to turn into renmore.

That to me means that you think that the N6 traffic should move on unimpeded and the traffic going to remnore should move right out of the N6 traffic stream, which is not what's in the diagram I did earlier - it also pushes the N6 traffic left. I'll see if I can conjure up what I think it is you are proposing tomorrow - I only have mspaint which takes a lot of patience to create anything worthwhile.

I was remiss in not pointing out earlier that I don't believe the maps I dreq earlier to be particularly safe. As it is there's a bit of a chicane effect caused by the routing of the road between the businesses on both sides of the road anf then trying to come back left again to meet the DC. The amended lane selection I have drawn up would make the chicane effect worse, especially for HGVs.

yer man! wrote: »

just like briarhill but slightly modified.

Briarhill had hard shoulders and medians to take the lanes from, here we only have a couple of small sections of grass and pre-existing buildings.

I'm going to say it again, creating a Briarhill style filter means moving the inbound traffic to the right. There isn't enough room to create a full right turn filter lane into a filter and keep the N6 traffic moving at a safe speed. Funnily enough it's not because of the outbound traffic but requirement for the inbound turn to be shallow enough to be safe (for HGVs) at 50km/h.

aido76

I also agree that the filter lane for a right turn in the ammended drawing is not ideal but is still a lot better than the way it is. I drove through this juction a few times to day to see if there was enough room for what I was trying to get across. Each time a number of cars went straight on from the right turn lane and a number were crossing the broken white line to get into the correct straight on lane from the right turn lane without indication. It would be the same length as the left turn lane which is better IMHO.

@Autoobrien, Glad too I am not going mad and trying to get people killed by this:

antoobrien wrote: »

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..

Also great to see the inbound lane doesn't need to move to accomadate this change.

antoobrien

01NANA wrote: »

These boards are so that ALL persons can post and express their opinions. You spend your time critising everything and insulting most of the posters here.

If you believe that please report my posts - the mods can decide.

01NANA wrote: »

Get a life you seem to be obsessed with these threads. Go spend your time fruitfully....

Says the person who has just used 2 of their 3 posts to attack me. One might think that you have an unhealthy obsession with me....

01NANA wrote: »

I presume you will reply with your usual insults please note I will not be playing tit for tat with you....

Really haven't you said that before?

01NANA wrote: »

Or are you just trying to make trouble and ignorant....... sound familiar

Am I trying to make... - wait why am I bothering? You got insulted because somebody disagreed with you.

Would you care to join the discussion and perhaps debate some of the things that have been posted. It's a discussion board so don't take it personally when people disagree with you. I find it quite fun.

Btw - since I already answered your turn:

01NANA wrote: »

PS. I wonder what engineering degrees you have??????

Well?

aido76

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a big weakness with the plan for that junction - that right filter is too short considering the amount of traffic that goes into Parkmore. They should have widened the right turn off the Monivea rd to Parkmore and let the traffic in that way (while getting rid of the rather stupid 60km/h limit on one of the best stretches of road in the county).

I am not sure where exactly you are on about here. Maybe the airport rd. If so I think alot of people, including myself, use the DC because of the stupid 60KM/H speed limit and the speed camera enforcing it. It is alot quicker to go the DC than the airport rd way. Also the lights at the junction turning up to Parkmore skip the right turn on occasions in the mornings and you could be sitting at these lights for 2 or 3 sequences before you get a green to turn right.:mad:

KevR

desaparecidos wrote: »

Someone posted a link to the plans a few pages back. It showed an 80km/h sign at that position so you'd assume the road is having a speed limit change.

Hopefully so anyway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Missed that.

Presumably the new limit was therefore voted on as part of the overall project.

I wonder whether they're just taking the opportunity to make the limit 80, or whether the new signalised junction makes the limit appropriate/feasible, bearing in mind the association between speed and junction capacity. Just speculating here...

Saw it in the plans recently.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79042716&postcount=117

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

If you could please point out the unbroken line between the two outbound lanes that prevent you from changing lane I'll concede that your license shouldn't be torn up.




Actually no, what you started saying was:



That to me means that you think that the N6 traffic should move on unimpeded and the traffic going to remnore should move right out of the N6 traffic stream, which is not what's in the diagram I did earlier - it also pushes the N6 traffic left. I'll see if I can conjure up what I think it is you are proposing tomorrow - I only have mspaint which takes a lot of patience to create anything worthwhile.

I was remiss in not pointing out earlier that I don't believe the maps I dreq earlier to be particularly safe. As it is there's a bit of a chicane effect caused by the routing of the road between the businesses on both sides of the road anf then trying to come back left again to meet the DC. The amended lane selection I have drawn up would make the chicane effect worse, especially for HGVs.





Briarhill had hard shoulders and medians to take the lanes from, here we only have a couple of small sections of grass and pre-existing buildings.

I'm going to say it again, creating a Briarhill style filter means moving the inbound traffic to the right. There isn't enough room to create a full right turn filter lane into a filter and keep the N6 traffic moving at a safe speed. Funnily enough it's not because of the outbound traffic but requirement for the inbound turn to be shallow enough to be safe (for HGVs) at 50km/h.

Do us all a favour, shut up and take the bus. You're almost as bad as GAAW......

gammygils

I must say the traffic light system on the Morris & Font roundabouts is really working.
I'm home from work 5-10 minutes later than before.
That's 5 or 10 minutes less of 'Expose' I have to sit through.
Thanks for that!
Oh! I'm also late for work every morning!!!

Iwannahurl

KevR wrote: »

Saw it in the plans recently.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79042716&postcount=117

Do you think it'll be extremely controversial?

I hae me doots. As you say, the majority of drivers were blissfully ignoring the 50 km/h limit anyway.

I recall being overtaken on more than one occasion on that road by Traffic Corps vehicles doing well in excess of the limit, with no blue lights or siren.

The 80 km/h limit will just legalise normal practice, though I'm sure there will still be more than a few going even faster than that.

I'm guessing that the new signals make 80 possible, because of capacity. Now that I think of it, maybe variable speed limits in such situations might be of use to the new AUTC system?

prometheus2012

AFAIK, you can't have anything higher than a 50km/h limit because it's considered an urban area by the NRA.

KevR

prometheus2012 wrote: »

AFAIK, you can't have anything higher than a 50km/h limit because it's considered an urban area by the NRA.

My understanding is that the default speed limit for urban areas is 50kmh but councils can change it in appropriate circumstances.

sentient_6

Driving through both of them last night outbound. Found it strange that the right lane when approaching the ballbane one natural becomes the lane for turning right without any lane change....but the left lane spilts into two & a left filter lane........



People will surely be approaching this in the right thinking they can go straight & it will, maybe already has, cause problems?

Actually i see this brought up a few pages back. Im not really looking to start the agrument about it again. Just to say i think its strange. People driving the DC outbound will arrive at that junction thinking they can continue straight, its going to cause alot of unnecessary late lane changes.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you think it'll be extremely controversial?

I hae me doots. As you say, the majority of drivers were blissfully ignoring the 50 km/h limit anyway.

I'm guessing that the new signals make 80 possible, because of capacity. Now that I think of it, maybe variable speed limits in such situations might be of use to the new AUTC system?

I hope it won't be controversial at all - I'm very much in favour of an increased speed limit on BNT. The majority will be in favour but I think there could be a very vocal minority who will jump on any future accidents and automatically blame speed.

Going way back, did the speed limit not used to be higher on BNT? I'm too young to remember but someone told me that they reduced the speed limit following a single accident. Very knee jerk if that's true.

KevR

sentient_6 wrote: »

Driving through both of them last night outbound. Found it strange that the right lane when approaching the ballbane one natural becomes the lane for turning right without any lane change....but the left lane spilts into two & a left filter lane........



People will surely be approaching this in the right thinking they can go straight & it will, maybe already has, cause problems?

I agree. That layout seems anti-intuitive and it isn't ideal for traffic flow.

You should be able to continue on the N6 in either lane without having to change lanes at the junction. Hopefully they will see sense and re-paint the lines to facilitate this.

EDIT: they will probably re-paint the lines eventually and do something like this. I didn't see antoobrien's diagram before, but it's exactly what I had in mind.

snubbleste

KevR wrote: »

Going way back, did the speed limit not used to be higher on BNT? I'm too young to remember but someone told me that they reduced the speed limit following a single accident. Very knee jerk if that's true.

It used to be 50mph/80kph on the Terryland stretch and was 30mph/50kph on from Menlo roundabout to Ballybane roundabout.
A number of serious collisions in the 90s (which still happen - 1, 2, 3) led to the Terryland stretch being reduced to 50kph.
The Council have tried to increase the speed limit on the rest of BnaT but it has not happened due to the entrance to Glenburren Park near the Tuam Rd junction.

sentient_6

I had stumbled upon the proposal map when looking for the finished one for my post & it seems it was always going to be the set up for straight & right, turning left finished a little different though:



Which doesnt fill me with confidence about them considering changing it.

sentient_6

This is how it should work(excusing my crude paint skills!):

KevR

snubbleste wrote: »

It used to be 50mph/80kph on the Terryland stretch and was 30mph/50kph on from Menlo roundabout to Ballybane roundabout.
A number of serious collisions in the 90s (which still happen - 1, 2, 3) led to the Terryland stretch being reduced to 50kph.
The Council have tried to increase the speed limit on the rest of BnaT but it has not happened due to the entrance to Glenburren Park near the Tuam Rd junction.

The thing I always noticed about that pedestrian crossing at Terryland is that the traffic lights are very very old and as a result are very dim/faint. Compared to new traffic lights which are really bright and can be seen from a distance...

Local people know they are there and watch out for them. I can certainly see how someone who is not familiar with the area could go through a red light there without even realising there are traffic lights there! It's no excuse but I could see how it could happen.

I think one or two of the traffic light units at Terryland have been replaced recently. In my opinion, they should all have been replaced 7 or 8 years ago with modern bright traffic lights that are impossible to miss.

desaparecidos

Cops blocking n6 from tuam road junction to magic roundabout causing traffic cluster**** everywhere.

Iwannahurl

What's up?