Redevelopment of R132

Monkeynut

They have plans to change the R132. Looks good. But with every advantage it usually comeswithdisadvantages.

https://www.fingal.ie/news/council-welcomes-feedback-proposed-r132-connectivity-project

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/r132-connectivity-project-non-statutory-consultation

They are proposing to close Drynam road. All traffic will need to go down Malahide road R106 from the looks of it.

Its already a dangerous road with the path so close to the road. Truck tyres usually rub off or mount the side of it.

Cloudio9

Malahide road roundabout will be interesting with the pavilions already creating significant traffic.

In general the roundabouts on that road need some traffic calming. A lot of people take the “racing line” through them.

Is a bus lane necessary on this road? I’ll admit I’m rarely in that area at commuting times.

pinkypinky

There's already a bus lane between Pinnock Hill and the Pavillions. Buses go the whole length of this proposed section though.

The 5 entrance roundabout could definitely go - there's 3 lanes on some "sides" and people definitely misuse it.

While I am in favour of improved cycle facilities - I consider the R132 too dangerous to cycle on at the moment, and usually go over a pedestrian bridge on my bike, I would miss the lovely wild flowers they plant on each of these roundabouts. They add a lovely spot of colour to an otherwise very dull but necessary road.

ETA: you have to register a free account with Fingal to make a submission. I suspect many people will not bother!

sdanseo

Finally. I've been thinking Drynam Road needs to be closed for many years - it causes mayhem, too many roads onto a roundabout that ended up needing traffic signals - a ridiculous combination, you move 10m then get another red light, repeat 3 times.

The cycle plans look very good and might actually encourage cyclists to use the lanes. Not quite the Dutch model of priority but it's certainly a huge improvement on most efforts seen here.

The rest of the roundabouts need removing, not improving.
People use the racing line because there are too many bloody roundabouts in quick succession which when added together dramatically impede progress (and compared to similar journey lengths, increased fuel consumption from all the acceleration).
Volumes of traffic coming from the side roads don't match the mainline and getting out either at Fingallians or Woodies every morning can take ages.

As for the R106 - I gave up on that being upgraded long ago (live just off it). Decades of planning failure mean there's simply been too much development close to it.
On the plus side, very few trucks and relatively little general traffic use Drynam road so the increase to the R106 will not be too dramatic. And half of it will probably use Holywell/R125 depending on the destination.

The only terrible aspect is the speed reduction to 50km/h which is far too slow. 80km/h is possibly a little fast with pedestrians / protected cycle lane but 60km/h is too slow.
In any other European country it would be 70 km/h

Duckjob

Doesn't look bad at first glance. I'll definitely make a submission after i've gone through all the docs.

I've been saying for a long time the R132 badly needs upgrading with the growing population centres in Donabate, Rush, Lusk, Skerries etc. Compared to the equivelent sth Dublin roads, its a hostile car/truck wilderness for anyone not in a car.

50kph speed limit along those sections is fine - its in line with the stated aim of changing the nature of the road to an urban mixed use. Theres already a fast motorway virtually in parallel with this road for high speed vehicular travel.

As someone who lives in Nth Dublin and cycles on the R132 currently, the roundabouts are where I hope they'll change the most as they are the most dangerous parts.

The drawings look quite good if that is how they end up- - protected intersections with traffic islands stop cars sweeping around corners at high speed, though ideally the whole pedestrian and cycle tracks would be raised through the intersections and provide additional traffic calming.

Outside of the roundabouts, a separated cycle track will be welcome. Safety-wise, I actually feel safer when I reach the R132 from where I live, but still, bobbing along a knobbly hard shoulder with cars and trucks passing on the lanes next to you at 80kph+ doesn't exactly feel welcoming.

lucernarian

The R132 is a pretty long road. OP doesn't mention where. If the Malahide Road is mentioned, I take it this is basically the "Swords Bypass" stretch?

GlennaMaddy

lucernarian wrote: »

The R132 is a pretty long road. OP doesn't mention where. If the Malahide Road is mentioned, I take it this is basically the "Swords Bypass" stretch?

Correct

sdanseo

Having had a look through all the drawings it all seems a little narrow. There is plenty of scope to narrow the medians and make these lanes a little wider, and especially to widen the protective kerb between the cycle lanes and running lanes. Those "pencil bollards" have no place in a permanent arrangement. They will only be a money drain and look awful. Make the kerb wider with some permanent signage instead. Also this "future public realm" nonsnese pencilled in for the large swathes of concrete filling in the corners.. absolute nonsense and the height of cheapness/laziness/both. Landscape it now or better yet use the space for footbridges or LILOs.

All of the proposed "toucan" crossings should be footbridges. Again, slowing down traffic for no reason when it could be easily avoided. Footbridges or subways are not overwhelmingly expensive in the context of such a large upgrade.

These measures would help facilitate at least a 60km/h limit in line with other similar dual carriageways. This road carries a lot of local traffic on journeys in the order of 5-10km because of the lack of northbound access or southbound egress from the M1 at Drynam/R125. The new arrangements would very significantly increase journey times from, say, Boroimhe to Lusk with alternative via the M1 being a bit out of the way.

Duckjob wrote: »

I've been saying for a long time the R132 badly needs upgrading with the growing population centres in Donabate, Rush, Lusk, Skerries etc. Compared to the equivelent sth Dublin roads, its a hostile car/truck wilderness for anyone not in a car.

I completely agree, and the stretch from Turvey to Blakes Cross along with the junction there is of much greater urgency than this scheme. Seems to be an accident there at least weekly, it feels like it has become rare to pass it without some sort of debris in the verge or the median. Several serious accidents in recent years too. Needs a signalized junction or possibly a better idea would be making the R132 <-> R127 movement the priority route, and reduce R132 to the north to being the minor road of the three.

Duckjob wrote: »

50kph speed limit along those sections is fine - its in line with the stated aim of changing the nature of the road to an urban mixed use. Theres already a fast motorway virtually in parallel with this road for high speed vehicular travel.

For reasons above I disagree. I use this daily and 80km/h seems to be the lower end of the speeds people are doing. Especially on the Pinnock Hill to Pavilions section.

The pedestrian crossing right on top of a roundabout there will be particularly unwelcome. i don't understand why they can't move these up 100-150m from roundabouts, slight inconvenience to pedestrians but would prevent traffic from constantly backing up through the junction and causing absolute havoc.

I'm all for increasing convenience for cyclists and pedestrians, don't get me wrong, but not at the expense of serious inconvenience to motor traffic when the overwhelming majority of traffic is motorized.

Wishbone Ash

sdanseo wrote:

... the stretch from Turvey to Blakes Cross along with the junction there is of much greater urgency than this scheme....

That's what puzzles me also. Blake's Cross and the immediate R132 southbound from it is one of the most dangerous sections of road for cyclists. I would have hoped that they'd have sorted that bit out first.

(The recent daft decision to extend the continuous white between the two southbound lanes as far as the filling station has made an already dangerous junction even worse.).

sdanseo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's what puzzles me also. Blake's Cross and the immediate R132 southbound from it is one of the most dangerous sections of road for cyclists. I would have hoped that they'd have sorted that bit out first.

(The recent daft decision to extend the continuous white between the two southbound lanes as far as the filling station has made an already dangerous junction even worse.).

I can see why that was done, everyone coming from Lusk was pulling straight out into the overtaking Lane, as there is a dodgy pothole (sunken manhole) and often slow tractors or cyclists in Lane 1. But the angle of the junction means you often don't see traffic in the mirror, needs a shoulder check, and presumably it was causing close calls/accidents.

Wishbone Ash

sdanseo wrote: »

I can see why that was done, everyone coming from Lusk was pulling straight out into the overtaking Lane, as there is a dodgy pothole (sunken manhole) and often slow tractors or cyclists in Lane 1. But the angle of the junction means you often don't see traffic in the mirror, needs a shoulder check, and presumably it was causing close calls/accidents.

It poses two problems for cyclists:

1. Cyclists travelling southbound from the Balbriggan direction can't legally move into the left lane for a considerable distance and are therefore caught in a no man's land between two lanes of fast moving motorised vehicles.

2. Cyclists emerging onto the R132 from the Lusk direction and going southbound now have to contend with following motorists either travelling very close behind them (as it's illegal for them to change lane) or engaging in very close passing within the same lane.

I'd prefer if they reverted to a single lane with a hard shoulder. It was much safer then.

Inquitus

Cyclists aren't going to use a path that requires a pedestrian stop to advance, personally I'd just keep using the road.

PCros

sdanseo wrote: »

Finally. I've been thinking Drynam Road needs to be closed for many years - it causes mayhem, too many roads onto a roundabout that ended up needing traffic signals - a ridiculous combination, you move 10m then get another red light, repeat 3 times.

This won't pass at all, people in Foxwood will appeal that in droves. It will be the biggest cul de sac in the country.

Looking at the link below I actually think Option 3 is better than Option 2 as it just sends the traffic towards Pinnock Hill and not back onto the Malahide Road.

https://ibb.co/yPJyvMS

I was also thinking is this Metro ready if that goes ahead? Would seem mad to do all this work to then dig it all up again as I thought the proposed line is going to be open cut track.

sdanseo

PCros wrote: »

This won't pass at all, people in Foxwood will appeal that in droves. It will be the biggest cul de sac in the country.

Looking at the link below I actually think Option 3 is better than Option 2 as it just sends the traffic towards Pinnock Hill and not back onto the Malahide Road.

https://ibb.co/yPJyvMS

I was also thinking is this Metro ready if that goes ahead? Would seem mad to do all this work to then dig it all up again as I thought the proposed line is going to be open cut track.

I'd imagine that's the only reason they've left the median in (edit: although on second look, it does seem far too tight for space). Otherwise would be two lanes each way plus the bus lane.

Certainly something to ask in your submission - I'll do the same when I get around to it

As to Drynam, sorry meant to add that to my comment, it for sure needs to be closed off in terms of access to the roundabout but 100% there is no reason not to pursue that purple exit option onto the R132 SB. Pushing the traffic back onto the R106 within 50m of the junction is an absolute non starter IMO.

PCros

sdanseo wrote: »

As to Drynam, sorry meant to add that to my comment, it for sure needs to be closed off in terms of access to the roundabout but 100% there is no reason not to pursue that purple exit option onto the R132 SB. Pushing the traffic back onto the R106 within 50m of the junction is an absolute non starter IMO.

Possibly comes down to cost but yes sending traffic around to the R106 is madness. I do think closing it off altogether would be a nightmare for residents on and in the estates off Drynam Road. It's fine to get onto Drynam Road from Mountgorry Way but it is tough job getting out onto Mountgorry Way from Drynam Road and this would just exacerbate the situation.

Digressing here a little but I've always wished that they would open up/connect that road that is beside the Applegreen Station off the R106/Mountgorry roundabout. This would give people the option to bypass the Pav roundabout and head straight to Seatown especially on the school runs and possibly anyone heading north for the M1.

sdanseo

PCros wrote: »

Possibly comes down to cost but yes sending traffic around to the R106 is madness. I do think closing it off altogether would be a nightmare for residents on and in the estates off Drynam Road. It's fine to get onto Drynam Road from Mountgorry Way but it is tough job getting out onto Mountgorry Way from Drynam Road and this would just exacerbate the situation.

Digressing here a little but I've always wished that they would open up/connect that road that is beside the Applegreen Station off the R106/Mountgorry roundabout. This would give people the option to bypass the Pav roundabout and head straight to Seatown especially on the school runs and possibly anyone heading north for the M1.

Couldn't agree more, but the Industrial estate is privately owned as well, there are barriers on the Seatown side, so presumably they don't want the through traffic.

I often collect parcels in the An Post depot in Seatown and then want to call to Applegreen on the way home. Would also be very handy when you get to the roundabout heading for Malahide and see the queue of traffic build all the way back, you could just hang a left and go the Estuary instead. Mind you that's probably another reason why it hasn't been opened.

PCros

Yes I assumed that it is privately owned but you would wonder when a compulsory purchase order comes into play for the benefit of the area.

I was hoping when the green light was given for the 150 apartments across from Applegreen that there would be a stipulation to open it up.

sdanseo

PCros wrote: »

Yes I assumed that it is privately owned but you would wonder when a compulsory purchase order comes into play for the benefit of the area.

I was hoping when the green light was given for the 150 apartments across from Applegreen that there would be a stipulation to open it up.

They can't compel the applicant for the apartments to open a road they don't own though.

PCros

sdanseo wrote: »

They can't compel the applicant for the apartments to open a road they don't own though.

Sorry I came across as if I would expect the applicant to open the road. That's not what I was trying to say, this solely lies with Fingal CoCo.

sdanseo

PCros wrote: »

Sorry I came across as if I would expect the applicant to open the road. That's not what I was trying to say, this solely lies with Fingal CoCo.

Can they CPO a right of way through a privately owned Ind Est?
(if so would be fantastic I just assumed this is why it hasnt happened)

PCros

sdanseo wrote: »

Can they CPO a right of way through a privately owned Ind Est?
(if so would be fantastic I just assumed this is why it hasnt happened)

No I'd say not - but I've no idea how CPO's work.

Funnily enough I was having a look through the original planning application for the Applegreen and the maps show the road open with a cycle lane too. I'll have to read the whole document in full.

http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00475360.pdf

EDIT - I found the decision on ABP. Long story shortened...Applegreen came up with the road connection in their plans and IDA were not approached and basically said no.

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/242/R242051.pdf

kravmaga

Pinnock Hill Roundabout is a disaster from a pedestrian point of view. Its just car centric.

Walking from Airside to get across the roundabout to Main Street is so dangerous.

No footpath even, you have to walk across mucky grass, then trying to
circumnavigate the dual carriageway, you take your life in your hands.

A pedestrian bridge would be ideal at the Pinnock Hill roundabout instead of traffic lights.

https://www.fingal.ie/news/council-welcomes-feedback-proposed-r132-connectivity-project

Inquitus

kravmaga wrote: »

Pinnock Hill Roundabout is a disaster from a pedestrian point of view. Its just car centric.

Walking from Airside to get across the roundabout to Main Street is so dangerous.

No footpath even, you have to walk across mucky grass, then trying to
circumnavigate the dual carriageway, you take your life in your hands.

A pedestrian bridge would be ideal.

Aye I work in Airside Business Park, back in the days when you went to the office, and the only way from there to the Pavillions is to go through the gap in the hedge in the median having diced with death on the southbound portion before dicing with death again crossing the northbound portion before entering the Pavillions car park!

plodder

This is long overdue. The traffic lights were put on the Malahide roundabout prior to the M1 opening as a way to manage the enormous volume of traffic on the main Dublin Belfast rd. Could never understand why they didn't take the traffic lights away after the motorway opened (17 years ago). But, this is a much better idea anyway. Everything about that roundabout is ridiculously dangerous for all road users, and the Drynam road access easily the worst part of it.

The Davestator

I agree that something should be done, but reducing the road to one lane is silly as its too busy.

There is loads of extra land in the central median on both sides to do the cycle path and retain the 2 lanes.

I say this as a cyclist who cycles it regularly

PCros

The Davestator wrote: »

There is loads of extra land in the central median on both sides to do the cycle path and retain the 2 lanes.

I'd say that land is earmarked for the Metro North tracks down the line.

Pete_Cavan

One of the issues with this proposed scheme is that it doesn't address the bus stops on the R132. The stops are not very accessible, generally located away from the junctions which means bus services are not attractive for local journeys. Unless something is done to make it easier to get from a bus stop to a destination (or vice versa), I can't see there being much of a shift from car to bus for local journeys, regardless of a bus lane replacing a general traffic lane. Ideally the stops would be incorporated into the junctions which means they are close to potential destinations (Pavilions, Airside, etc.) and would be beside road crossings.

Pete_Cavan

Perhaps one of the cyclists here could clarify for me, in the junction below, is left turning traffic held at lights while cycles proceed straight on and only turn left when lights stop cyclists? Or can the left turn be made but giving way to cyclists?

Pete_Cavan

PCros wrote: »

The Davestator wrote: »

There is loads of extra land in the central median on both sides to do the cycle path and retain the 2 lanes.

I'd say that land is earmarked for the Metro North tracks down the line.

Metrolink is being build to the east of the R132, the central median is up for grabs and I would imagine it will eventually be used as a compromise - cycle and buses lanes added on the sides and replacement general traffic lane created in the middle.

Wishbone Ash

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Perhaps one of the cyclists here could clarify for me, in the junction below, is left turning traffic held at lights while cycles proceed straight on and only turn left when lights stop cyclists? Or can the left turn be made but giving way to cyclists?....]

I'd imagine cyclists will proceed with pedestrians. So a cyclist going straight ahead (and who chooses to use the segregated track) will have to wait in the diagonal section to accommodate left turning motor traffic. There will probably be a separate green light for cyclists and pedestrians which will activate when the other light prohibits left turns.

plodder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd imagine cyclists will proceed with pedestrians. So a cyclist going straight ahead (and who chooses to use the segregated track) will have to wait in the diagonal section to accommodate left turning motor traffic. There will probably be a separate green light for cyclists and pedestrians which will activate when the other light prohibits left turns.

How will it work there between the cyclist and the two pedestrians crossing his path. Will there be a red light for the cyclist when the pedestrians have a green light? Or does the cyclist just give way to them?