DLRCC Traffic Management Team Appreciation Page

mrawkward

1

Larbre34

You can't beat a bit of 'auld libel. Careful now.

mrawkward

1

Larbre34

mrawkward wrote: »

Fear of the truth is indeed a terrible thing.

I'm not saying you're wrong in principle, as a town planner / designer I know only too well of the flaws of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets that have brought about some of the 'quirkier' traffic schemes in DLR and the rest of the city, but I also know what defamation looks like and the tone of that facebook page is going to land someone in bother.

mrawkward

1

Larbre34

I don't think your lawyers be worth the money if they started off there anyway. That S.I. is ancient history and has been superceded many times over.

Legislation and regulation

In 1988, the Road Traffic (Bollards and Ramps)
Regulations (S.I. No. 32 of 1988) were introduced.
This allowed road authorities to construct ramps,
subject to quite stringent restrictions. These
restrictions were relaxed in the Road Traffic Act,
1994, which now allows considerable flexibility in the
types, dimensions and spacing of traffic calming
features.

Design advice

Design advice is contained in the following NRA
documents
■ RS.387A – Speed control devices for residential
roads, 1993 (now superseded by this publication)
■ RS.387B – Speed control devices for roads other
than residential, 1993
■ Guidelines on Traffic Calming for Towns and
Villages on National Routes, 1999
The design advice for residential roads has been
superseded as a result of the relaxations allowed in
the Road Traffic Act 1994 and by developing practice
from Ireland and the rest of Europe. This chapter will
provide advice and references on good practice in the
design and implementation of traffic calming
schemes on existing roads in urban areas.

- Traffic Management Guidelines 2003, Depts of Environment & Local Gov and Transport, Dublin Transportation Office (now National Transport Authority)

A little bedtime reading:

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/traffic_management_guidelines_2003.pdf

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C32669%2Cen.pdf

mrawkward

1

markpb

mrawkward wrote: »

Crazy speed bumps, disastrous junction redesigns, lotto inspired traffic light flow sequencing and more. Share your favourites on here to show examples of the skills of our DLRCC traffic team.

My problem with pages and groups like this is that it just encourages mindless, uneducated, single point moaning. Some people spend their lives studying and implementing traffic management. They perform road traffic counts across the wider area before making changes. The model the potential impacts of all possible changes. They balance the needs of all road users. Then they make a change. And when it's done, pages like this spring up so people who haven't done any of that but think they know better can bring their uneducated whinge to the masses.

As an example, the roundabout in Cherrywood was built at a time when all the traffic using it was vehicular and was passing between a dual carriageway and a motorway. Local traffic, cyclists and pedestrians weren't even an afterthought, they were systematically excluded. Now that the nature of the area is changing and the roundabout is being rebuilt, all the armchair traffic managers in the city are out in force complaining about it. It must change, they proclaim. It's a disaster, what were they thinking! Maybe they were thinking that it's daft to have a luas stop that you can't safely and easily walk to the nearby business park? Maybe it's daft that people can't leave that business park and cross the road to get to their bus.

All across the county, there's a very slow shift away from building roads that cater to drivers and exclude everyone else. Those changes aren't quick enough or good enough for those other users but they still manage to act as a call to arms to the people who think they know better.

mrawkward

1

markpb

mrawkward wrote: »

People should not voice their opinions and concerns on issues such as badly executed traffic calming measures that fail to meet NTA guidelines or ill-executed and sloppy traffic light sequencing?

If people have specific concerns, they should raise them with the council and councillors. Ranting on facebook is unlikely to accomplish anything except make them feel better because they'll be in an echo chamber where everyone has the same opinion. Traffic lights may seem to be badly sequenced but there could be a good reason for it. A motorist sitting at a single set of lights has no idea what other junctions are like. All they see is the red light in front of them and get annoyed because they could be moving.

Dardania

markpb wrote: »

mrawkward wrote: »

People should not voice their opinions and concerns on issues such as badly executed traffic calming measures that fail to meet NTA guidelines or ill-executed and sloppy traffic light sequencing?

If people have specific concerns, they should raise them with the council and councillors. Ranting on facebook is unlikely to accomplish anything except make them feel better because they'll be in an echo chamber where everyone has the same opinion. Traffic lights may seem to be badly sequenced but there could be a good reason for it. A motorist sitting at a single set of lights has no idea what other junctions are like. All they see is the red light in front of them and get annoyed because they could be moving.

I'm still waiting on my emailed concern from April 2015 to be responded to. Apparently it has been passed onto the engineer for comment. Any day now

Pages like that FB one are in response to frustration experienced by not getting clarity or answers from people - while I don't doubt that the traffic managers perform their roles very well, and achieve the best possible compromise possible, I'm not so sure they communicate that very well with the outside world

Larbre34

mrawkward wrote: »

Larbre34. Thank you, very helpful information. I will study it in detail.
In this area, the ramp construction varies greatly in terms of, rise/fall ramp angles, overall height, table length etc. Some are only negotiable without underbody scraping/impacts at speeds as low 15Kph. Many ramps have a unique individual profile, even on the same stretch of road. Surface gouging is widely evident.
There are plenty of ramps in other DLRCC areas such as the Deans Grange route to N11 via Stillorgan Park and in the Merville Rd/Allen Park that are perfectly traverse-able at moderate speeds and no ground impact. I am sure there are plenty more examples of proper design and execution.
Your further comments would be appreciated.

I don't know Merville / Allen Park, but the Stillorgan Park (older stretch) ramps are utterly pointless - I've tried traversing them at different speeds and had to stop trying at 70 km/h cos I was way over the speed limit and they still werent causing me to retard my speed, even in my hard sprung low profile tyres car. I'd suggest that any ramps you can traverse at more than 30 km/h are the ones not up to design spec, rather than vice versa.

I had a look at the facebook page and interestingly some of the posters and subscribers seem to have a particular interest in cars - rallying, auto testing, hill climbing, mod motors etc. Is there a particular agenda at play here?

Personally I've never experienced ground impact on a public road ramp, again in a stiff sprung sports saloon, so I suggest if that is happening to people, they are either approaching them too fast or have a car lowered beyond what is practical for a public road.

Anyway, not to worry, the design guidelines that are coming down the road (pardon the pun) will be more chicanes, pinch-points and contra-flows than ramps, so you will be stopped altogether for a moment or two rather than slowed down.

I've said it before on these fora, government policy is to deliberately and explicitly disadvantage the private car in the long term. Urban areas are and will feel the pain first and in many ways.

mrawkward

1

patrickbrophy18

Okay, so there are a few traffic management plans which I do agree with and others which I flat out don't agree with:

The following is a list which I do agree with:

• Converting Cherrywood Roundabout to a Signalized Junction:
  The reason for the reconfiguration is that the area is going to be home to some 30000 people and the massive roundabout (which was there up until last week) would act as severance to the communities which will live there.
  
  Having said that, I still think that it is going to be an extremely hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists. For pedestrians, it is unfriendly due to the fact that there are upwards of five crossings they will have to do if they want to go diagonally across. For cyclists, there are cycle lanes criss-crossing up to 3 lanes turning left. This is very dangerous as there is a very high possibility of being cut off.
• The Implementation of Cycle Lanes on Blackrock:
  While I initially disagreed with it, it seems to have improved conditions markedly for cyclists and pedestrians alike.
  There are still design flaws where cycle lanes are on the outside of bus stops instead of going around them on the left.
• The Implementation of Cycle Lanes on Wyatville Road:
  As a motorist, I can see that this road has been anything but friendly towards cyclists as I frequently see them fighting for space.
  Traffic from Ballybrack Village onto Wyatville Road goes on a motorway style merging lane which leads to some motorists barging in front of those already on the road.
  This slip lane is going to be completely removed which will mean that the perpendicular traffic lights will apply to all traffic approaching Wyatville. So, in that sense the flow is more defined and hence, safer.
• On a more general term traffic calming measures such as pinch-points, chicanes and tight junctions should be confined to side-roads and enclosed neighbourhoods where larger vehicles and buses would seldom operate. Nevertheless, they shouldn't be implemented on distributor roads or arterial routes.

Next, here is a list which I disagree with:

• Narrowing of Killiney Towers Roundabout:
  The initial works carried out on this roundabout where a complete flop due to the tightness, visual clutter and unsightly rubber barriers.
  Subsequently, a less harsh version was drawn up and implemented which is far better from a usability perspective. It's still very tight which makes it barely usable for vehicles up to a certain length.
• AIP Scheme for Dalkey Avenue, Killiney Hill and Killiney Roads:
  Mini-roundabouts, speed ramps and kerb build-outs are all very well on side-roads and enclosed neighborhood centers. However, these roads have become the main arterial routes for Dalkey, Killiney Village and Killiney Shopping Center. Some of the speed ramps are extremely uncomfortable to drive over even at a measly 5KM/H.:mad:
  I feel sorry for Aircoach Drivers who have to take the ludicrously tight turn from Saval Park Road onto Killiney Hill Road. They end up mounting the grass kerbing to avoid scraping off the traffic island. The divots are there as proof.:eek: It should be a signal controlled junction.

There are many other pros and cons I could dig out. However, I would be here until the morning writing this! :D

why oh why do the traffic lights at the western entrance to the harbour stay red in one direction when they are green in the other? that is so infuriating. There is absolutely no need for it.

I am also amazed that no one has thought to look at the Sallynoggin/Glenageary roundabout. It is far too small for a busy roundabout with five exits.

Larbre34

Looks like MrAwkward felt awkward.

Awaaf

Agreed re: Sallynoggin roundabout. I would suggest that if a low speed limit (<20 kph) was imposed and observed on the roundabout that it might actually work better with greater safety and throughput.

Also if motorists were more inclined to yield to pedestrians crossing at roundabouts then some might be retained rather than being signalised or converted to junctions.

Larbre34

^Neither of those will happen. 30 km/h is the lowest statutory limit and it is mostly ignored, and motorists seldom yield to pedestrians crossing at the mouths of roundabouts, which is why they are all gradually being replaced with lights to protect pedestrians, like at Leopardstown and Cherrywood. Id say the Sallynoggin roundabout won't be far behind.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

^Neither of those will happen. 30 km/h is the lowest statutory limit and it is mostly ignored, and motorists seldom yield to pedestrians crossing at the mouths of roundabouts, which is why they are all gradually being replaced with lights to protect pedestrians, like at Leopardstown and Cherrywood. Id say the Sallynoggin roundabout won't be far behind.

it already does have lights as you come off the roundabout. Which just makes it even more chaotic. You can wait ages for a gap, pull out only to find the roundabout at a standstill because one set of lights is red.

Larbre34

I meant replaced entirely with a standard junction