New Pedestrian Crossing

RosieJoe

Mini rant time:mad:

So you have a flyover at Cherrywood that has footpaths and signals for pedestrians. 200 yards or so down the road you have a footbridge.

Why do people think there is a need to put in a set of pedestrian lights between these?

And who thought it would be a great idea that it goes across the bottom of a slip road?

Probably only a handful of people stupid enough to run across the road here and yet someone thinks it is a great spend of money, well worth it to to protect these Darwin Award candidates and ideally situated.

Sure, we couldn't expect people to put their brain in gear and walk 5/10 minutes out of their way for their own safety [/rant]

galwaycyclist

RosieJoe wrote: »

Mini rant time:mad:

So you have a flyover at Cherrywood that has footpaths and signals for pedestrians. 200 yards or so down the road you have a footbridge.

Why do people think there is a need to put in a set of pedestrian lights between these?

And who thought it would be a great idea that it goes across the bottom of a slip road?

Probably only a handful of people stupid enough to run across the road here and yet someone thinks it is a great spend of money, well worth it to to protect these Darwin Award candidates and ideally situated.

Sure, we couldn't expect people to put their brain in gear and walk 5/10 minutes out of their way for their own safety [/rant]

Five to ten minutes is equivalent to walking 400 to 800 metres that is a shocking diversion to ask anyone to make walking from A to B.

If a slip road has been placed on a clear pedestrian desire line then perhaps we should be asking pointed questions about the people who designed the road?

josip

I drive down that slip road at least once a day and it would not seem like a logical place to put a set pedestrian lights from a motorist's perspective. In the remaining distance to the N11, I wonder is it possible to attain a safe merging speed?

I understand that there was already a set of traffic lights on the other side of the road so it made sense from that perspective, but who will actually use it? People from Loughlinstown who won't/can't go to the Lough Inn going to the Silver Tassie instead? Anyone else?

I suspect/hope that it's such a white elephant that it will be rarely used.

RosieJoe

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Five to ten minutes is equivalent to walking 400 to 800 metres that is a shocking diversion to ask anyone to make walking from A to B.

If a slip road has been placed on a clear pedestrian desire line then perhaps we should be asking pointed questions about the people who designed the road?

Here is the road in question: http://goo.gl/maps/NPiJY

As you can see there is very little on either side of the road at the point of the new lights. The Silver Tassie is on one side and the other has a forest, which is not commonly used. So, I cannot see it as a desire line.

Larbre34

If you saw the number of people with young kids and push chairs who climbed across the road barrier illegally to get between the Tassie and Loughlinstown you might think differently.

Id have liked to see a head height railing put in but the local Councillors have been agitating for donkeys years to get a crossing put in there against the advice of the engineers, looks like they got their way. No doubt it will be hailed as a personal success for some glad-hander or other.

RosieJoe

Larbre34 wrote: »

If you saw the number of people with young kids and push chairs who climbed across the road barrier illegally to get between the Tassie and Loughlinstown you might think differently.

Id have liked to see a head height railing put in but the local Councillors have been agitating for donkeys years to get a crossing put in there against the advice of the engineers, looks like they got their way. No doubt it will be hailed as a personal success for some glad-hander or other.

Field of Dreams said that if you build it, they will come! Reverse logic should never count in this case.

uch

I get the Bus there some mornings and you'd be very surprised how many people cross there in the ten or so minutes I'd be at the bus stop, passing by in a car won't give you an accurate idea of how many.

josip

Does anyone expect the new pedestrian lights to be synced with the existing traffic lights at the top of the slip road?

ted1

josip wrote: »

Does anyone expect the new pedestrian lights to be synced with the existing traffic lights at the top of the slip road?

No not at all , that would be logical.

RosieJoe

josip wrote: »

Does anyone expect the new pedestrian lights to be synced with the existing traffic lights at the top of the slip road?

galwaycyclist

josip wrote: »

Does anyone expect the new pedestrian lights to be synced with the existing traffic lights at the top of the slip road?

If you do that then you are merely trying to manage the pedestrians for the benefit of cars. Why would the pedestrians then bother waiting for the light?

josip

The cars at the top of the slip road have to wait in sequence for their respective green lights before proceeding so that traffic flow is managed efficiently for all users. Why should the nearby pedestrians be treated any differently?

ted1

Because it could be pissing rain and there getting wet. Cars can easily make up lost time especially if stuck at lights as the road in front would be clear.
The council are trying to discourage cars and promote public transport

josip

ted1 wrote: »

No not at all , that would be logical.

ted1 wrote: »

Cars can easily make up lost time especially if stuck at lights as the road in front would be clear.

Sorry Ted I can't tell between your 2 posts if you're in favour of syncing or not?

I think it would make sense that if a pedestrian needs to cross, that the lights permit them to do so, when the lights for the out of town traffic are green at the slip road junction. Only busses should be proceeding down the slip road and presumably then in order to stop at the bus stop, so there would be no impact on slip road traffic. Admittedly the slip road traffic would be less than the N11 volume.

miller50841

I find it so funny the country is broke and even before and obviously still happening we have the pedestrian bridges in a lot of spots along that road and other roads also but people still just run across the road in front of traffic it's one mad back arsed country we live in where people don't have to account for their actions.

galwaycyclist

josip wrote: »

The cars at the top of the slip road have to wait in sequence for their respective green lights before proceeding so that traffic flow is managed efficiently for all users. Why should the nearby pedestrians be treated any differently?

Clearly the traffic flow is not being managed efficiently for all users. Indeed the presumption of traffic light pedestrian crossings is that they are always red for pedestrians by default regardless of how efficient that is for someone walking.

Unless by syncing the lights you mean that the pedestrians will get a dedicated green signal equivalent to the green signal for cars?

josip

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Clearly the traffic flow is not being managed efficiently for all users.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate please?

galwaycyclist

josip wrote: »

I don't understand. Can you elaborate please?

People who walk are also users.

josip

Sorry, that's too terse to clarify for me.

Can you elaborate with reference to the existing traffic flows from the top of the slip road why you think that pedestrian traffic flow will not be managed efficiently with the pedestrian lights being installed?

galwaycyclist

josip wrote: »

Sorry, that's too terse to clarify for me.

Can you elaborate with reference to the existing traffic flows from the top of the slip road why you think that pedestrian traffic flow will not be managed efficiently with the pedestrian lights being installed?

See here

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Clearly the traffic flow is not being managed efficiently for all users. Indeed the presumption of traffic light pedestrian crossings is that they are always red for pedestrians by default regardless of how efficient that is for someone walking.

Unless by syncing the lights you mean that the pedestrians will get a dedicated green signal equivalent to the green signal for cars?

What exactly do you mean by "managed efficiently"? Efficient for whom? If you mean managing pedestrians for the benefit of cars purely because someone in a car objects to waiting for someone to cross the road then that is not efficiency, indeed it is arguably a form of abuse.

josip

Are you familiar with the junction and the layout? The pedestrians are just one of the flows of traffic using that road space. Do you have an issue with them waiting for their turn like other road users?
Are you suggesting that every time a pedestrian comes to the new lights and press the button, that the lights for motorised traffic on the N11 go red? What happens if 10 pedestrians come along at intervals of 1 minute?

galwaycyclist

josip wrote: »

Are you familiar with the junction and the layout? The pedestrians are just one of the flows of traffic using that road space. Do you have an issue with them waiting for their turn like other road users?
Are you suggesting that every time a pedestrian comes to the new lights and press the button, that the lights for motorised traffic on the N11 go red? What happens if 10 pedestrians come along at intervals of 1 minute?

I am not familiar with the junction. However, I am very familiar with some of the language being used. If you are suggesting that in your view, at this location, flows of motor traffic should be prioritised over pedestrian movements, then with respect, just say so.

When you use terms like "managed efficiently for all users" in conjunction with concepts like syncing lights then the implication in the Irish context is efficiency has nothing to do with it and somebody is getting shafted for somebody else's benefit.

It is in the nature of internet bulletin boards that this kind of double speak will get challenged immediately.

mailforkev

These lights have the potential to dangerously affect the cars trying to merge onto the N11 after coming down the ramp if not timed correctly.

Also hopefully they won't work immediately each and every time a pedestrian presses the button like the lights at St Laurence College. How a pedestrian can control the main road from Dublin to the South East like that is beyond me.

ted1

mailforkev wrote: »

How a pedestrian can control the main road from Dublin to the South East like that is beyond me.

the M50 to M11 would now be considered the main road.

voter1983

It's just more nonsense from DLRCC who seem intent on wasting money putting in new sets of traffic lights and crossings everwhere. Just look at the new set of lights put up outside Tesco in Ballybrack. I'd say the crossing is passing almost directly over the tunnel that goes under the road. The amount of traffic lights along that road is staggering and just pure wasteful.

josip

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I am not familiar with the junction. However, I am very familiar with some of the language being used. If you are suggesting that in your view, at this location, flows of motor traffic should be prioritised over pedestrian movements, then with respect, just say so.

When you use terms like "managed efficiently for all users" in conjunction with concepts like syncing lights then the implication in the Irish context is efficiency has nothing to do with it and somebody is getting shafted for somebody else's benefit.

It is in the nature of internet bulletin boards that this kind of double speak will get challenged immediately.

I was suggesting to synchronise a new set of lights with the existing adjacent lights which I don't think is unreasonable.

Perhaps if you weren't so suspicous and distrusting of post content, given that you have little or no knowledge of the pedestrian lights that are the topic of this post you would have been able to understand that.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

RosieJoe

voter1983 wrote: »

It's just more nonsense from DLRCC who seem intent on wasting money putting in new sets of traffic lights and crossings everwhere. Just look at the new set of lights put up outside Tesco in Ballybrack. I'd say the crossing is passing almost directly over the tunnel that goes under the road. The amount of traffic lights along that road is staggering and just pure wasteful.

I saw that! Comical is not the word for it. And a few hundred yards up the road is another set which most people don't use and run across the road yards away from it.

The_Wrecker

RosieJoe wrote: »

I saw that! Comical is not the word for it. And a few hundred yards up the road is another set which most people don't use and run across the road yards away from it.

A crossing at a bus stop/layby. People getting off the bus see the red/amber man and run for it! All you see is the blindspot which is a 34x14.4ft high bus. Many near misses. This is also the foreign students hangout in July/August.

josip

Now that these lights are operational has anyone been stopped at them yet? For pedestrians as opposed to car traffic from the Tassie. I've been through about 15 times so far and it's all green flashing amber so far.

Richard Hillman

I used to cross that road where the lights are to the Tassie a fair bit. It can be a hard road to cross at times. In defense of it though, I dont think the lights would be used that much so it will not cause much disruption with people crossing.

voter1983 wrote: »

It's just more nonsense from DLRCC who seem intent on wasting money putting in new sets of traffic lights and crossings everwhere. Just look at the new set of lights put up outside Tesco in Ballybrack. I'd say the crossing is passing almost directly over the tunnel that goes under the road. The amount of traffic lights along that road is staggering and just pure wasteful.

One of the most farcical decisions I have ever seen. If you are walking up from Coolevin you can cross at the other lights. If you walking to Ashlawn and beyond you can use the underpass. I know there is anti social behaviour at the Underpass at the times but at the times when there are people underneath it, there is very little traffic to cross. The whole thing and the amount of works around that bus stop area, screams of a county council trying to use up their budget.

josip

Richard Hillman wrote: »

screams of a county council trying to use up their budget.

I believe the official term is "capitalise the projected surplus"

“DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL
2013 Budget Meeting
Transfers to Capital 2012 Estimated Outturn
There is a projected surplus of €1.25m on the 2012 Budget. Provision has been made in the Estimated
Outturn to capitalise this projected surplus as follows:
DIVISION NATURE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT
B0405 Part fund minor enhancements in Blackrock Village 50,000.00
B0603
Part fund traffic management improvements/laneway upgrades in Stillorgan
Village 180,000.00
B0603
Traffic management works to facilitate improved access to European
Foundation, Loughlinstown 40,000.00