Monkstown Village Traffic Management Scheme

patrickbrophy18

It looks like the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council are planning on spending more money needlessly. Only this time, it is at the junction in Monkstown Village where Carrickbrennan Road meets Clifton Avenue, Monkstown Road and Monkstown Crescent. Here is a link to the scheme: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/monkstownvillagetrafficmanagementscheme/.

More junction tightening is on the way. Moreover, it comes as no surprise that part of the scheme is for the provision of more pay and display parking spaces explaining the decision to make Clifton Avenue one-way. The extraordinary thing is that a lot of this is taking place on a planned bus priority route according to the map here. Again, build outs (which are also a huge part of the Monkstown Village Traffic Management Scheme) restrict movement of buses, leading to an increase in their journey length. Essentially, this scheme will do the very opposite to what a bus priority route should be doing.

What do y'all think?

Seaswimmer

Well that junction is a nightmare at the moment. it is next to impossible to cross from Carrickbrennan Road to Clifton Avenue safely and also very difficult to turn right from Clifton Avenue towards town. Also there are a large a number of people who come down Carrickbrennan road towards town who then follow the island round facing the on coming traffic and head back up Carrickbrennan road again. Especially on Sundays before and after mass.
I would think any additional parking would be welcomed by the local businesses. As its pay and display already its nothing new.
I dont see any problem for buses as the vast majority of buses there run on Monkstown Road and there does not seem to be any sharp turns or other obstructions planned..

Larbre34

I agree totally, the lack of demonstrable priority at that irregular junction is dangerous and over many years Ive seen some eye popping vehicle movements by drivers who completely misread it. Another problems is the great distance between the kerbs for pedestrians crossing and the partially obscured approach for drivers. I know theres a signal crossing but its not on the desire line for the churches so isnt used much

If it regualarises the situation for all road users down there its a good thing, the bus routing is a bit of red herring, high frequency corridors and village improvement schemes arent mutually exclusive. its not a bottle neck for traffic so the measures wont much affect bus times as the through routes there are infrequent anyway - and in any case plenty of bus priority routes go through villages that have been traffic calmed or have environmental improvement schemes installed in them.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

I agree totally, the lack of demonstrable priority at that irregular junction is dangerous and over many years Ive seen some eye popping vehicle movements by drivers who completely misread it.

While I agree that Ireland (in general and not just in Monkstown Village) is rampant with crap drivers, I believe that better policing is the answer and NOT the reshaping of junctions resulting in hindrance.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Another problems is the great distance between the kerbs for pedestrians crossing and the partially obscured approach for drivers. I know theres a signal crossing but its not on the desire line for the churches so isnt used much

I find it extraordinary that people think like this. An 8 meter gap between kerbs is not a great distance. Pedestrians must be incredibly impatient, lazy or irresponsible if they find it otherwise. Since when do churches need signal crossings anyway. Moreover, if you do feel the need to cross the road at a non signal point, a little caution is needed and you'll be fine. It's called being street smart. This must be another case of pedestrians overestimating their entitlements. You have to be a complete wimp if you find an 8 meter gap between kerbs a great distance.

Larbre34 wrote: »

If it regualarises the situation for all road users down there its a good thing, the bus routing is a bit of red herring, high frequency corridors and village improvement schemes arent mutually exclusive.

"Down", "Good thing"? I never thought I would here these two words in the same sentence. This is a real testament to the simple-minded mentality of many Irish people: Slow or bring down progress to ensure irresponsible and mundane individuals can feel better about themselves. It really makes me embarrassed to be Irish.

Larbre34 wrote: »

its not a bottle neck for traffic so the measures wont much affect bus times as the through routes there are infrequent anyway - and in any case plenty of bus priority routes go through villages that have been traffic calmed or have environmental improvement schemes installed in them.

Traffic calming measures impede on and defeat the purpose of bus priority. Furthermore, the primary focus of bus priority routes is to ensure that a bus reaches it's destination in less time which makes it more attractive.

zagmund

Steady on there Ted . . .

I agree on the policing thing - I've come to the conlusion that the "traffic corps" cars are permanently off duty. I don't know how many times I've seen someone shoot through a red light right in front of the traffic corps (stopped at a real red light) and not been pulled up on it. Policing & enforcement seems to be pretty much absent in my experience. It's not just people driving the wrong way up a motorway that cause accidents, people shooting through reds are just as lethal.

Other than that, your post is hard to agree with. I use the crossing on Monkstown Avenue lots, and I see loads of other people doing it to. I think the main set of people who walk at all angles across the junction are those who can't get parking beside Spar, have to park across the road and then take the shortest line back. With the improved parking situation, I think this may decrease.

I've never noticed any problems with buses getting delayed going through the village. I don't see the issue.

z

Larbre34

Another nuclear button nonsense reaction from PB, who seems to feel the streets of the Borough are his own personal demesne

Leave aside us lazy impatient and irresponsible types, put yourself in the shoes of an old or impaired person trying to negotiate 8-10 meters of street with no signal crossing and poor sight lines for approaching drivers and you might be less quick to dismiss. Besides which, if the same street was being built from new in 2012 the design guidelines dictate 5.5-6 metres between kerbs for a street of the same function for safety reasons. Hope you never get old or sick.

Churches need crossings the same as any school or local shop does where the amount of patrons warrant it, they're there to cater for people moving about on foot not the vehicles passing through. Monkstown in common with any urban village or town is not there as an inconvenience to the road that runs through it, the opposite is the case. Whether you like it or not the national and city policy is to actively and overtly de-prioritise vehicle traffic in favour of walking and cycling, or failing that to at least give pedestrians a safer chance when moving about in their towns. Be prepared to see a lot more of this into the future, whether in the context of safety measures or urban environmental schemes.

I said 'down there' referring to Monkstown Village, not a word about slowing down anything. If you were less simple minded yourself and absorbed what was in written front of you, you might have saved yourself a rant.

Seaswimmer

This kind of reminds me of PB's threads about the new junction at Ballinaclea road and also his thread about Killiney Towers roundabout. I have not heard Dublin bus complaining about being slowed down or having difficulty manouvering around these obstacles.
I am sure the Monkstown scheme will be the same. Reasonably thought out and an improvement to the area..

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

Another nuclear button nonsense reaction from PB, who seems to feel the streets of the Borough are his own personal demesne

Quite the opposite actually. People who find it difficult or fail to look left and right before crossing the road or indeed step out in front of a moving car are the ones who treat it as their own "personal demesne". As a frequent road user, I do observe my surroundings and cross the road responsibly. It's called being strategic!

Larbre34 wrote: »

Leave aside us lazy impatient and irresponsible types, put yourself in the shoes of an old or impaired person trying to negotiate 8-10 meters of street with no signal crossing and poor sight lines for approaching drivers and you might be less quick to dismiss. Besides which, if the same street was being built from new in 2012 the design guidelines dictate 5.5-6 metres between kerbs for a street of the same function for safety reasons. Hope you never get old or sick.

5.5-6 meters is ludicrously narrow which barely leaves clearance for cars and negative clearance for buses. The rules of the road recommend a minimum clearance of a meter between vehicles. They weren't written for a laugh. Also, the narrower the road is, the higher the possibility of a head on collision. As such, reducing the space between bidirectional traffic is completely nonsensical.

As to your other observation about old and sick. "Looking left and right" is a lesson I learned in junior infants and have been taking this commonsensical lesson on board ever since. I wont use old age as an excuse to discard this as doing so would be irresponsible and would result in me being an impromptu obstacle to moving traffic. I also wouldn't allow my 70-80 year old self to set a bad example to fellow elderly people by stepping out in front of moving traffic. It's called common sense.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Churches need crossings the same as any school or local shop does where the amount of patrons warrant it, they're there to cater for people moving about on foot not the vehicles passing through. Monkstown in common with any urban village or town is not there as an inconvenience to the road that runs through it, the opposite is the case.

It's not an inconvenience now. But, it will be if the plan in question is implemented. Furthermore, roads such as Monkstown Road, Monkstown Crescent and Carrickbrennan Road provide access to urban villages like Monkstown for buses, trucks and cars.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Whether you like it or not the national and city policy is to actively and overtly de-prioritise vehicle traffic in favour of walking and cycling, or failing that to at least give pedestrians a safer chance when moving about in their towns. Be prepared to see a lot more of this into the future, whether in the context of safety measures or urban environmental schemes.

While I do appreciate that walking and cycling are good for the health and clear the mind, I don't appreciate rounding the speed of other traffic down, especially with buses that are already horrendously slow. For example, there are people who need to get to work by bus. As a person who has had their fair share of this mode of transport, there is nothing worse than having your journey comfort and punctuality compromised by traffic calming measures.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I said 'down there' referring to Monkstown Village, not a word about slowing down anything. If you were less simple minded yourself and absorbed what was in written front of you, you might have saved yourself a rant.

I picked you up wrong. Sorry!

Morlar

I think it's unnecessary and would agree that making clifton avenue into a one way street is simply to create more paid parking spaces and generate council revenue.

My view would be that the actual problem area is to the right of this diagram

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/files/Monkstown_Village/Monkstown_Village_Scheme.pdf

just at the far right side of that map (monkstown crescent) is where the road narrows & therefore becomes dangerous. The way it currently is :

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=clifton+avenue,+dublin&hl=en&ll=53.293782,-6.153902&spn=0.0006,0.001742&sll=53.3834,-8.21775&sspn=9.81271,28.54248&hnear=Clifton+Ave,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=h&z=20

doesn't need to be messed around with in my view.

patrickbrophy18

Having thought about it a bit, the current layout of the junction in question is all over the place. It looks like a half roundabout and half T-junction set-up which is a recipe for disaster. Turning right on to Monkstown Crescent from Carrickbrennan Road puts drivers directly in the path of on coming vehicles. I still disagree with the proposed layout. Nevertheless, I do think that the junction heavily lacks definition and is quite ambiguous.

Tabnabs

I would have concerns about the new parking at the very left of the drawing (on Monkstown road, in the vicinity of number 93 & 91). My main concern is about the width of the road and the ability to pass parked cars safely with sufficient room for safety with regards to passengers etc. and oncoming traffic. This is already a problem with cars parking illegally, so I have trouble seeing why allowing them to park there legally would make it any more safe?

After all, the situation on Monkstown Crescent (in the village itself) is pretty disastrous with some very difficult and dangerous situations arising especially when facing an oncoming bus or Aircoach.

Morlar

Tabnabs wrote: »

After all, the situation on Monkstown Crescent (in the village itself) is pretty disastrous with some very difficult and dangerous situations arising especially when facing an oncoming bus or Aircoach.

That was what I was getting at above - I would see this as the problem area. I regularly see dangerous situations arise there, several months ago I witnessed a female cyclist on the ground covered with a blanket, there was a childs seat on the back of her bicycle (the rest was covered by the car). I presume she was ok as I never heard anything later but the point is that this particular part of monkstown crescent is problematic in comparison with the other areas covered by the council plans for traffic restriction & new paid parking.

Another element to consider is how the aesthetic of this area:





will be impacted by these plans. I think culturally, historically and socially the openness of this village will be impacted, the atmosphere will change too and not in a good way.

dublinman1990

I would agree on some Pb's issues regarding the bus routes around Monkstown Village and in particularly the Carrickbrennan Road.

Looking at the map just now and I thinking of the no.8 bus; which I know is not a frequent route; could potentially have a lot of issues when travelling towards Carrickbrennan Road on it's way to Dalkey.

Some buses from Harristown Garage, that are or were serviced on the no.4 bus, could go through there as well. It is a much quicker way for DB drivers by shaving up to 10 minutes off their driving time travelling to Monkstown Avenue if the bus was out of service.

There could be more chances that both the 8 bus and the OOS buses could have more incidences of road accidents if the proposed junction goes ahead.

That half roundabout with the flowerbed in the middle of the junction is a visual eyesore IMO. I suppose these orange specs on the proposed map are traffic & pedestrian lights?

Why would you need those on the one way section leading you into Blackrock and into the City Centre? What a stupid half assed idea.

The advantages of the other routes like the 7 and the aircoach is they don't have that issue as they travel to or from Dun Laoghaire.

patrickbrophy18

Okay, here is my general take on the situation. I'll tell you why I disagree with plans like that in Monkstown Village, Killiney Towers, Stradbrook etc. There a few reasons for this and here they are in no particular order:

• To the south east of the Rock Road Dual Carriage Way, there is no decent road way traversing the coastal towns of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown as far as Shankill. The road system is half-assed with no strategic purpose or common sense and is merely a network of streets of varying width. Essentially, there is no consistency nor compatibility between them. Beyond Dalkey, many of these roads become ludicrously narrow which acts like a funnel. For this reason alone, I think moves such as the Monkstown Village Traffic Management Scheme exacerbate this (or at least, in it's current form).
• I do see a point in time where a congestion charge in the city centre may materialize to provide a dis-incentive for use of the car. However, to prepare for such a time, an attractive alternative to the car will need to be put in place which includes better infrastructure from metropolitan areas to the city centre. The key to this is speed much to the chagrin of a select few cyclists and pedestrians. The DART (although brilliant) is only the tip of the iceberg and makes for the perfect example of rapid transit. Don't get me wrong, I do think the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is important. Nevertheless, the current method of dealing with it is regressive.
• I still believe that buses could potentially match DART like speeds to become an attractive alternative to the car. Measures such as the Monkstown Village Traffic Management Scheme are a threat to this and are guided by one sided protocols like the National Cycle Policy which are riddled with flaws.
• I strongly suspect that the bulk of pedestrians and cyclists who defend measures like the Monkstown Village Traffic Management Scheme and the Killiney Towers Roundabout Scheme are the irresponsible type. In other words, those who step out in front of moving traffic (pedestrians) or who break the rules of the road (cyclists) and have the nerve to become defensive when they get into an accident. Any money spent which gives credence to them is a waste and I don't want to see another 250K thrown down the drain.
• Junction tightening is also a very prominent part of the plan which makes traversal of vehicles longer than 11 meters significantly harder as it increases the chances of mounting the kerb. Vehicles matching this description include buses and articulated trucks and need as much clearance as possible because the point of their rotation is their hind axle. In many cases, the hind axle is situated at the very back of the vehicular frame. If one uses the proposed layout as a reference, the front of such vehicles may also have to come dangerously close to the central median to avoid mounting the kerb from the rear axle.
• Crucial points of the current road system at Monkstown Village will be subjected to considerable road narrowing which will reduce the clearance between on coming vehicles. According to the laws of physics, this increases the chance of a head on collision because their respective paths are closer together. It is also against the rules of the road which recommend a clearance of meter between vehicles. In fact many parts of the National Cycle Policy and National Cycle Manual contradict this fundamental principal. In any case, if the National Cycle Policy and National Cycle Manual are to be taken seriously, they will need a radical revisit.