The new traffic lights at Celbridge House

HonalD

koheim wrote: »

Well, the traffic lights were installed to accommodate traffic turning right onto the Maynooth road, nothing to do with safety. They must go as soon as possible!
If Kildare coco were serious about safety, they would invest some money into the infrastructure, not going for the cheapest possible short term solution.
So many options, and if I could choose omly one (for arguments sake) I would implement a 30km/h zone in Celbridge - and then enforce it.
There problem solved and it didn't cost anything

Not sure, you've made any valid points to back up your comment "They must go....".

On the issue of speed limits, if a 50kph zone cannot be enforced due to Gardai resources issues then why would a 30 kph one be?

On the issue of safety, I'm sure fellow boarders would be interested to hear how traffic lights are "nothing to do with safety." Your words, not mine.

GarIT

koheim wrote: »

Well, the traffic lights were installed to accommodate traffic turning right onto the Maynooth road, nothing to do with safety. They must go as soon as possible!
If Kildare coco were serious about safety, they would invest some money into the infrastructure, not going for the cheapest possible short term solution.
So many options, and if I could choose omly one (for arguments sake) I would implement a 30km/h zone in Celbridge - and then enforce it.
There problem solved and it didn't cost anything

I've seen a couple of kids hit/almost hit at the junction at no more more than 10km/h.

koheim

There is no quick fix, everyone accepts that, but "thinking outside traffic lights" must be allowed. I wish there was an overall plan for traffic management in Celbridge, but all I can see is isolated and reactive actions.
There are thousands of commuters in Celbridge and only 2 main roads out of the place, traffic issues will increase every year.
I am moving and renting out my place, but very interested to see how this develops...

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I was driving through again late enough last night (9) and a bunch of kids legged it across the road in front of me at Aldi. It doesn't matter how many pedestrian crossings etc. you put in, kids are always going to be idiots. If they had left the lights in at Aldi and put in that new set just before the celbridge house everything would be grand.

Teyla Emmagan

They can't seem to get a thing right with the lights in celbridge. The only ones that aren't a disaster are the original ones in the main street and the ones at tesco. And whatever clown put in all the new flashing crossings at the bridge destroyed the place. That junction was complicated but it always managed to work. Now people are all over the place, especially turning over the bridge onto the ardclough road where now you have to immediately break. All my mother's friends have to work themselves up for half an hour before crossing the bridge now. Sheer stupidity.

colaheart98

From my understanding, based in reading the local newspapers and information sent through my door Cllr O'Rourke was involved in the implementation of the lights both on the Maynooth Road and the cluster of flashing lights on the corner of the Ardlough/Dublin/Hazelhatch Road. Both sets of lights in my opinion are causing more harm than good, and neither are a good solutions for drivers or pedestrians. I would think a roundabout in place of the lights in both locations would be a much better solution.

Riskymove

colaheart98 wrote: »

the cluster of flashing lights on the corner of the Ardlough/Dublin/Hazelhatch Road.

I would think a roundabout in place of the lights in both locations would be a much better solution.

I disagree about that Junction I think the only answer is to consider a one way sytem as previously floated. While being a bit inconvienent for some traffic, the only way to reduce congestion is to remove some of the traffic wanting to turn.

a roundabout would simply change priority of traffic and lead to congestion on the Dublin Road heading into Celbridge and improve it coming out

colaheart98

Riskymove wrote: »

I disagree about that Junction I think the only answer is to consider a one way sytem as previously floated. While being a bit inconvienent for some traffic, the only way to reduce congestion is to remove some of the traffic wanting to turn.

a roundabout would simply change priority of traffic and lead to congestion on the Dublin Road heading into Celbridge and improve it coming out

I do think the one way system is a suggestion to consider, however this in itself would create another problem for traffic flow through a built up area in Hazelhatch Park/Callenders Mill/Simmonstown Manor not a ideal solution for an area where children are playing and where there is alerady a good volume of traffic coming through from the train station/hazlehatch road commuter route.

bangkok

terrible idea!

Riskymove

colaheart98 wrote: »

I however this in itself would create another problem for traffic flow through a built up area in Hazelhatch Park/Callenders Mill/Simmonstown Manor not a ideal solution for an area where children are playing and where there is alerady a good volume of traffic coming through from the train station/hazlehatch road commuter route.

it wouldn't necessarily involve that route

the use of Dublin Road and Hazelhatch road might be sufficient

People in that area could then use Ardclough road for going into Celbridge and the Hazelhatch road for heading to Dublin Road

Riskymove

bangkok wrote: »

terrible idea!

wow, your insightful, evidence-based and well argued point has convinced me!

Banjo

Well, I have to admit, last night the lights weren't so bad. Hit them at 6pm-ish, traffic a bit slow from the roundabout at Applegreen but no more so than before the lights went in, and I was through them in about 4 minutes turning right at Celbridge house.

Having said that, it was a nice enough evening and most people would have been scared off by the traffic last week, so maybe this was the best it's going to be. It'll need a couple of rainy mornings and evenings to convince me outright.

Traffic backed up to come out of the Aghards road didn't look any worse than normal, but given most of them were indicating to turn left and there was no traffic on the outbound lane I don't imagine they were feeling the Light-Love. The incomprehensible loss of the left filter lane is hurting them.

Still, I'm happy enough to concede that this was a damned sight better than this time last week, and fingers crossed maybe the lights are going to work out after all?

2ndcoming

A lot of crazy decisions seem to stem from the Aghards Rd. area, as I don't live there I avoid Rampland like the plague to be honest. I'm sure they seemed like a great idea at the time as well but I'd imagine even the most ardent Nanny State-ist local resident would be starting to get sick of spending a grand replacing shocks and running gear on their cars every time the NCT rolls around.

My OH's parents live in the smallest Thornhill and they got a note in the door recently enough asking for their support for another ramp about 20 ft either side of two existing ones, so someone is still getting a kick out of it anyway!

I may be the only lunatic who believes in stressing the importance of road safety to kids and not believing the entire world should be wrapped in cotton wool because I have children, but what the hey!

The lights are a typical half-assed solution to a problem that is hardly there in the first place, but the right way to do it would surely have been a flyover footbridge with cycle lane and ped crossings at either end, then a small road markings only roundabout to free up the junction for traffic. It's an intersection of two single lane roads, it doesn't need to be spaghetti junction!

Of course that would have cost money though, so that's out.


Be some craic if this snow sticks!

Danpad

2ndcoming wrote: »

A lot of crazy decisions seem to stem from the Aghards Rd. area, as I don't live there I avoid Rampland like the plague to be honest. I'm sure they seemed like a great idea at the time as well but I'd imagine even the most ardent Nanny State-ist local resident would be starting to get sick of spending a grand replacing shocks and running gear on their cars every time the NCT rolls around.

My OH's parents live in the smallest Thornhill and they got a note in the door recently enough asking for their support for another ramp about 20 ft either side of two existing ones, so someone is still getting a kick out of it anyway!

I may be the only lunatic who believes in stressing the importance of road safety to kids and not believing the entire world should be wrapped in cotton wool because I have children, but what the hey!

The lights are a typical half-assed solution to a problem that is hardly there in the first place, but the right way to do it would surely have been a flyover footbridge with cycle lane and ped crossings at either end, then a small road markings only roundabout to free up the junction for traffic. It's an intersection of two single lane roads, it doesn't need to be spaghetti junction!

Of course that would have cost money though, so that's out.


Be some craic if this snow sticks!

...and posts like this, displaying an astonishing lack of sense, reasoning and thought out objection are what dilutes the well debated points made before. Folks, please tell me you're applying as much effort in letters/emails to your local area cllrs regarding this topic as you are on this forum!

ytareh

That post made perfect sense to me .

Joe Public

2ndcoming wrote: »

A lot of crazy decisions seem to stem from the Aghards Rd. area, as I don't live there I avoid Rampland like the plague to be honest. I'm sure they seemed like a great idea at the time as well but I'd imagine even the most ardent Nanny State-ist local resident would be starting to get sick of spending a grand replacing shocks and running gear on their cars every time the NCT rolls around.

My OH's parents live in the smallest Thornhill and they got a note in the door recently enough asking for their support for another ramp about 20 ft either side of two existing ones, so someone is still getting a kick out of it anyway!

I may be the only lunatic who believes in stressing the importance of road safety to kids and not believing the entire world should be wrapped in cotton wool because I have children, but what the hey!

The lights are a typical half-assed solution to a problem that is hardly there in the first place, but the right way to do it would surely have been a flyover footbridge with cycle lane and ped crossings at either end, then a small road markings only roundabout to free up the junction for traffic. It's an intersection of two single lane roads, it doesn't need to be spaghetti junction!

Of course that would have cost money though, so that's out.


Be some craic if this snow sticks!

If someone is charging a grand for new shocks you are being ripped off. It's well over 20 years since I've had a car that needed new shocks and I have 170,000 miles on my current car.
A flyover footbridge would be very costly and unsightly looking.
KCC are against roundabouts where you have a lager populated area on the grounds of pedestrian safety. It may not be just a KCC policy but I can't say.
Unfortunately ramps are the only practical way of slowing down traffic and are there for safety reasons.
The only reason I can see for the new lights is to give an easy right hand turn for traffic heading towards Celbridge that's coming from the Aghards Rd.

2ndcoming

I agree a flyover footbridge would be unsightly and costly, but it would improve safety and not cause 90% of the local tax-paying adult population to have to add 45mins to an hour of their day stuck in their cars within walking distance of their homes.

What's a lager populated area? If you're referring to the Celbridge House as far as I know it has about 5 regular patrons. The bridge in the village is a bigger junction, has 3 schools in the area, 4 pubs, and guess what? No ramps, and no traffic lights! What a shocker!

2ndcoming

On the shocks, doesn't really matter how much they cost, why should everyone be forced to abuse their cars because someone thought it'd be a good idea to put Cherry Orchard style speed deterrents in a low-crime area of North Kildare?

HonalD

2ndcoming wrote: »

I agree a flyover footbridge would be unsightly and costly, but it would improve safety and not cause 90% of the local tax-paying adult population to have to add 45mins to an hour of their day stuck in their cars within walking distance of their homes.

I think you've just admitted something in your post that has little or nothing to do with the thread.

1. How do you get your 90% estimate?
2. Do tax payers who drive mean more than tax payers who walk....let's shove pedestrians onto a flyover footbridge just in case they may want to cross the road when I'm driving....etc.
3. A flyover of any sort is a mad idea (mad as in insane) but there is no crime in raising it as a suggestion. Agreeing to a mad suggestion is something else. :rolleyes:

HonalD

2ndcoming wrote: »

why should everyone be forced to abuse their cars because someone thought it'd be a good idea to put Cherry Orchard style speed deterrents

I think you'll find that the vast majority of requests for speed ramps come from 2 sources: individuals and elected representatives (those elected by individuals).

I'm not a fan of ramps especially as I know somewhere an individual sought and got them installed.
:mad:

2ndcoming

HonalD wrote: »

I think you've just admitted something in your post that has little or nothing to do with the thread.

1. How do you get your 90% estimate?
2. Do tax payers who drive mean more than tax payers who walk....let's shove pedestrians onto a flyover footbridge just in case they may want to cross the road when I'm driving....etc.
3. A flyover of any sort is a mad idea (mad as in insane) but there is no crime in raising it as a suggestion. Agreeing to a mad suggestion is something else. :rolleyes:

How does my post have nothing to do with the thread? I disagree with over-elaborate, unnecessary road modifications that someone has pushed through consistently at that end of Celbridge.

The 90% was more of a figure of speech, if you think about it actually affects all driving commuters (which I would say is 90% + of the local working population anyway. I haven't looked that up now, but I don't think anyone would argue the vast majority of the working population commute out of Celbridge to work.)

With regards the flyover, the UK is full of flyovers, barriered ped crossings and subways. They make junctions safer without causing traffic chaos. They might not be pretty, but you can't have it every way. They also cost a lot more than our broke county council is gonna spend.

The problem with local politics like this is where one person sees an issue that isn't there, they can get 10 or so people behind them and the half arsed solution found by the local councillor only makes matters worse, everyone goes nuts and eventually the problem is fixed (usually going back to the original arrangement) til the following year when the usual suspects find a new issue and the cycle starts anew.

HonalD

2ndcoming wrote: »

How does my post have nothing to do with the thread? I disagree with over-elaborate, unnecessary road modifications that someone has pushed through consistently at that end of Celbridge.

The 90% was more of a figure of speech, if you think about it actually affects all driving commuters (which I would say is 90% + of the local working population anyway. I haven't looked that up now, but I don't think anyone would argue the vast majority of the working population commute out of Celbridge to work.)

With regards the flyover, the UK is full of flyovers, barriered ped crossings and subways. They make junctions safer without causing traffic chaos. They might not be pretty, but you can't have it every way. They also cost a lot more than our broke county council is gonna spend.

The problem with local politics like this is where one person sees an issue that isn't there, they can get 10 or so people behind them and the half arsed solution found by the local councillor only makes matters worse, everyone goes nuts and eventually the problem is fixed (usually going back to the original arrangement) til the following year when the usual suspects find a new issue and the cycle starts anew.

That would make sense but the scheme was a product of Public Consultation so the time to suggest flyovers was when the scheme was during the consultation period. (It is physically impossible to build a flyover of any type at the junction, there even is insufficient land available to build a roundabout there too.)

fitz

HonalD wrote: »

That would make sense but the scheme was a product of Public Consultation so the time to suggest flyovers was when the scheme was during the consultation period. (It is physically impossible to build a flyover of any type at the junction, there even is insufficient land available to build a roundabout there too.)

Could have put in a tunnel walkway rather than a flyover, but tbh all of that is a red herring.

The damage was done when they didn't take the opportunity to make a full reworking of the junction a condition of the planning permission for Aldi.

As for public consultation, how are you supposed to find out about these things? The only info I got about it was after the plans were in place.

Joe Public

fitz wrote: »

Could have put in a tunnel walkway rather than a flyover, but tbh all of that is a red herring.

The damage was done when they didn't take the opportunity to make a full reworking of the junction a condition of the planning permission for Aldi.

As for public consultation, how are you supposed to find out about these things? The only info I got about it was after the plans were in place.

You can find a lot of what's going on by checking the Celbridge area meetings

http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/CorporateServices/CorporateServices/CouncilMeetings/CelbridgeAreaCommitteeMeetings/2014/Agendas/

Danpad

There's no use coming on here spouting rhetoric which may be driven by an inability to grasp that some 'areas' are progressive in pushing for a safer environment. Equally as futile is doing so after the fact. If you have such insight into the workings, aspirations and mentality of certain residents groups then you could perhaps attend a meeting and express your 'observations' of them directly. However, assuming that such conviction is absent, another option is to write/email/phone your local Cllr and suggest they rip down what they've done in order to make way for fly-overs and footbridges because the UK have them.

On a more sensible note, here's hoping they'll fine tune the sequencing programs, affording the traffic on the Maynooth rd a much longer processing time.

2ndcoming

Danpad wrote: »

There's no use coming on here spouting rhetoric which may be driven by an inability to grasp that some 'areas' are progressive in pushing for a safer environment. Equally as futile is doing so after the fact. If you have such insight into the workings, aspirations and mentality of certain residents groups then you could perhaps attend a meeting and express your 'observations' of them directly. However, assuming that such conviction is absent, another option is to write/email/phone your local Cllr and suggest they rip down what they've done in order to make way for fly-overs and footbridges because the UK have them.

On a more sensible note, here's hoping they'll fine tune the sequencing programs, affording the traffic on the Maynooth rd a much longer processing time.

You misunderstand me, I don't want flyovers or anything else. As I said, I disagree with unnecessary, over-elaborate road modifications. I see no need for the new lights and I want to see them removed and the old system returned.

I was only highlighting the UK systems because if you are all about the safety well done, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and the cheapo solutions available to county councillors nearly always amount to the wrong way.

Best of luck with your next crusade though.

Danpad

"Best of luck with your next crusade though".

Thanks, but I wouldn't be one of these so called crusaders and for what it's worth I too think the new situation is a nightmare. But I did attend a meeting regarding these new plans where I had my say. Perhaps you could get you an invite to the next 'Aghards area' meeting? You'd be given an opportunity to get involved, debate and object proposals or even criticise actual people to their face rather than moan about it online. My understanding is that their next crusades are to ask for at least another Garda squad car assigned to Celbridge and to make enquiries as to the future viability of either a dedicated ambulance or cardiac response unit....damn those pesky interfering busy bodies!

Joe Public

I noticed this morning that three traffic lights I passed in Celbridge have the green lens smashed or missing but the new ones look ok. I guessing it was mindless vandalism rather than a protest against the new lights.

RayCon

Danpad wrote: »

On a more sensible note, here's hoping they'll fine tune the sequencing programs, affording the traffic on the Maynooth rd a much longer processing time.

This is the next logical step.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I heard that the traffic from celbridge maynooth road get a 40 second green light where as the traffic from O'Rourke's estate get one minute of green light. Quelle surprise if that's true.