Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets

monument · 30-03-2013 4:21pm #1

The Department of Transport and Department of Environment last week released the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets. It's a big change in national thinking on urban design.

For urban roads it replaces the NRA's Manual for Roads and Bridges which is seen as an unsuitable design manual for urban areas.

The new manual has a focus on pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport.

PDF here: http://www.transport.ie/uploads/documents/news/Design%20Manual%20for%20Urban%20Roads%20and%20Streets.pdf

patrickbrophy18 · 31-03-2013 1:28am

The manual seems to be anti "segregation of road users", anti distributor roads and against anything that minimizes journey lengths for medium to long hall journeys. In the introduction to the manual, it praises the lengths the department of transport went to reduce journey times only to come up with ways to effectively undo it in many (if not most) urban settlements. One of the roads criticized was the recently completed Monkstown Ring Road even though it has speed ramps, a fantastic cycle track and pedestrian path.

It becomes overly dramatic about scenarios with statements like "pedestrians taking greater risks in front of faster moving traffic". Provided that they look both ways before crossing, it wont be a risk. This is why jaywalking is banned in some countries. It mentions locations like Killiney Village where the narrow roads give people a sense of place. As a local of Killiney and Dalkey "villages:rolleyes:*", the infrastructure in these areas in particular is appalling and should be in the list of "do nots" of urban planning.

It also seeks to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists over road based public transport which will more than likely double the journey length of core bus routes in Irish cities. Buses are still far from achieving their true potential without regressing back to slower transit methodologies. Ideally, most frequent bus routes should follow a rapid transit framework. Currently, most bus routes in Dublin take an hour to travel 10 miles. Effectively, this is a mile every 6 minutes which is a joke.

* :rolleyes:: Sarcasm is due to the fact that Dalkey and Killiney have been towns for two centuries at this stage. Yet, people insist on treating them like the sticks.

Carlow2011 · 31-03-2013 1:34am

A lot of the manual makes sense but this is going to be a very hard sell to the ordinary punter and local elected reps alike. A lot of the more radical thinking has been trialled and gone down like a lead ballon due to perception rather than fact. In a country where there is objection to the most simple change this is going to cause tension. Having said this the fact it's mandatory, is a live document and will introduce consistency throughout the country is great.

Victor · 31-03-2013 4:03am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

* :rolleyes:: Sarcasm is due to the fact that Dalkey and Killiney have been towns for two centuries at this stage. Yet, people insist on treating them like the sticks.

Ooops, sorry, urban district status was abolished in the 1930s! :pac:

ezra_pound · 31-03-2013 11:58am

Wow. What a document. Revolutionary. The future is brighter for our urban environments. Interesting to see how quickly we will see implementation.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2013 2:48pm

Skimmed through it the other evening, and at last, planners are learning from the huge number of mistakes they made over the last 20 years.

What I cannot understand is the European obsession with 90 degree parking, it forces road widths to be wider, and causes huge problems with getting in and out of the available spaces. Having spent a lot of time in a number of countries, the system that seems to work well is the American concept of having the parking at about 45 degrees to the main flow, as it's a lot easier to get in and out of the spaces, without blocking 2 way flow where it happens, and there are fewer problems with longer vehicles. Also solves the problem of the moron that nips in to the space in a short vehicle from behind you when you were about to do it properly and reverse in to the space.

Another advantage is that the eejits that think one way systems in car parks don't apply to them soon discover that if they go the "wrong way" in a herringbone pattern, it's kind of hard to get in to the spaces, unless they reverse in, which is usually beyond their capability anyway. Herringbone also means that the space needed for the feeder road is narrower, as the vehicles don't have to turn as much to get in and out. that might slow traffic down in a place where speed is totally inappropriate.

I hope the message about having more access in and out of estates is taken on board, I've spent way too much time in recent years having to do significant distances to get out of one section of an estate to then have to go all round the parish to get into another entrance to the same area, because there were no internal links.

Just hope it means there won't be too many more estates like Bremore Castle in Balbriggan. Had to do a delivery up there one evening, and between the problems of the roads being too narrow so a transit van delivering a washing machine meant no one could get past, and Fingal CC renumbering the entire estate so finding the correct address was a nightmare, and no road marking to show where the way in and out was, ended up in a parking area on the edge with the road I really wanted the other side of a pavement area. After 15 minutes trying to find the exit, I took the cheats way out, over the pavement to the adjacent parking area and out. That one delivery took over 30 minutes to do, and the customer had paid €5 for the delivery. Not exactly a profitable estate to deliver to!

What's not been discussed at all in the manual is that there needs to be more standardisation on naming and numbering within an estate, so there is less confusion about odds and evens, and how the sequences work. There are way too many estates where the numbering is either based on when they were connected to ESB, so effectively random, or where the plan changed at a later date, so 90 to 94 are between 50 and 51.

That sort of utter stupidity is beyond crass, as it could mean the difference between life and death in an emergency services call out. OK, it may not be possible to renumber existing estates, but it should be possible to change the system to have standardisation going forward, and to INSIST that ALL new developments have the house NUMBER clearly visible from the road even at night in dark conditions, with the numbers also being put on the road identifiers. This should also apply to all existing estates in urban areas as well, and we're not talking big money here.

If we could only get the powers that be to agree on a sensible postcode system (prefer location code really, but that's splitting hairs in this thread) that very useful piece of information could also be on the street name plates, acting as a confirmation for people that don't know the area that they are (or are not) in the right location.

This last is not about making it easier for non Irish taxi drivers to find where they're going (though it will help), it's about facilitating ALL the services that have to call to houses on estates, and reducing their significant costs of doing business. Florists, plumbers, electricians, all the other service industries that call to houses as part of their service, as well as couriers, and of course as mentioned earlier, emergency services would all benefit from a simplified and improved street structure, especially if it's accurately tied in to the eventual post/location code system that is being delayed because An Post don't want it for competitive reasons.

Ahh shore, tis Ireland, and we don't need anything that might improve the performance of our domestic economy, shore, we can't afford to do things like that can we.:mad::mad:

Aard · 01-04-2013 2:49pm

I can't believe that there is such a guide in Ireland now. Previously if I wanted to read anything of the sort, it would be from the UK, Germany, or Scandinavia. Streets in Ireland have long been overlooked, and yet it is on the street where all the action happens. It's easy to get new areas done correctly from the get-go, but the big task will be in retrofitting inapproprate street infrastructure. Hopefully Local Authorities will embrace DMURS and provide the requisite funding. Even if they begin with simple and cheap things like decluttering streets - removing and consolidating signage comes to mind - it would go a long way to improving everybody's experience of the public realm.

MadsL · 03-04-2013 5:28am

Some mention of de-cluttering of the public realm. Overdue.

Con Logue · 03-04-2013 9:43am

Will have a delve later, but one concept over the last forty years that makes little or no sense in the Irish context are grass verges between the footpath and the road. Considering that it rains 300 days a year here (or so it seems) why have an instant quagmire to hand no matter where you go in suburbia?

markpb · 03-04-2013 10:00am

Con Logue wrote: »

Will have a delve later, but one concept over the last forty years that makes little or no sense in the Irish context are grass verges between the footpath and the road. Considering that it rains 300 days a year here (or so it seems) why have an instant quagmire to hand no matter where you go in suburbia?

Perhaps the grass verges help to drain away the water by providing a porous surface? Without them, the water would be trapped by the road and the footpath.

Edit: Also in my experience, the only verges that turn into quagmire are the ones that people persist in (illegally) parking on.

munchkin_utd · 03-04-2013 10:10am

markpb wrote: »

Perhaps the grass verges help to drain away the water by providing a porous surface? Without them, the water would be trapped by the road and the footpath?

thats it, and to be honest Irish suburbia needs more quagmire not less.

Concreting over every square inch of land is partially the reason you get flash floods like Douglas in Cork sees regularily now.
The water from driveways and other paved areas is not being soaked into the ground but is channeled instantly into the drains and sewers and streams which cannot handle such a deluge.

The alternative would be porous concrete that they are now using in new orleans on footpaths which allow water to soak into the ground rather than be channeled into already over capacity drains.

galwaycyclist · 03-04-2013 5:41pm

Only time for a quick scan so far. Some of the material is welcome.

One thing that really stands out in section 4.4 is that they are proposing narrow and dangerous carriageway widths for town and city streets where, in effect, they are using unprotected human beings on bicycles as a form of mobile traffic calming.

See here for explanation
Busting Myth that Road Narrowing Schemes are Good for Cyclists
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/i-b-i-k-e-l-o-n-d-o-n/133551/road-narrowing-cyclists

AlekSmart · 03-04-2013 5:59pm

MadsL wrote: »

Some mention of de-cluttering of the public realm. Overdue.

I do hope they have dropped a few copies off to the NTA,Dublin City Council and the Gardai,who have some de-cluttering job to do in Westmoreland Street with Bus-Stops alone....why the fluich the collectively agreed to 7 SEPERATE Bus Stops,2 of which are Long-Dwell Inter Urban Coach services, at a single Bus-Bay is a mystery to me....presume some lad has a brother making Bus Stop Poles....;)

It's one thing to produce and wave documents such as this around,it's another thing to ensure the relevant "Proffesionals" bother their ass reading it !!!

Con Logue · 03-04-2013 7:05pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

I do hope they have dropped a few copies off to the NTA,Dublin City Council and the Gardai,who have some de-cluttering job to do in Westmoreland Street with Bus-Stops alone....why the fluich the collectively agreed to 7 SEPERATE Bus Stops,2 of which are Long-Dwell Inter Urban Coach services, at a single Bus-Bay is a mystery to me....presume some lad has a brother making Bus Stop Poles....;)

It's one thing to produce and wave documents such as this around,it's another thing to ensure the relevant "Proffesionals" bother their ass reading it !!!

It is ridiculous and is purely clutter, but no doubt someone in Official Ireland thinks that vandalising the street scape with redundant bus stops is somehow a Good Thing..

monument · 07-04-2013 2:24pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

One of the roads criticized was the recently completed Monkstown Ring Road even though it has speed ramps, a fantastic cycle track and pedestrian path.

On what page and why does it criticise the Monkstown Ring Road? Is there good reason to criticise?

Why are the cycle tracks fantastic?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It becomes overly dramatic about scenarios with statements like "pedestrians taking greater risks in front of faster moving traffic".

Why is that statement "overly dramatic"? What is so "overly dramatic" about it?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It mentions locations like Killiney Village where the narrow roads give people a sense of place. As a local of Killiney and Dalkey "villages:rolleyes:*", the infrastructure in these areas in particular is appalling and should be in the list of "do nots" of urban planning.

In fairness, when you were on here last suggesting changing the current system into a massive one-way system you got little support and a lot of people rejecting your idea.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It also seeks to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists over road based public transport which will more than likely double the journey length of core bus routes in Irish cities. Buses are still far from achieving their true potential without regressing back to slower transit methodologies.

What bases do you have for saying the manual's advice would "likely double the journey length of core bus routes in Irish cities"? Because it seems like you have no bases for such.

It also seeks to prioritise public transport over private motor transport.

patrickbrophy18 · 07-04-2013 8:19pm

monument wrote: »

On what page and why does it criticise the Monkstown Ring Road?

There are a two pages which have specifically criticized it. Here they are:

The bottom of page 21 says that on "Figure 2.11: Pedestrians have been marginalised along the street edge and have their path obstructed in order to provide additional width to the vehicular carriageway and space for signage". That picture is unmistakably the junction of the Monkstown Ring Road with Newtownpark Avenue. The way the Design Manual puts it, you'd swear they were trying to encourage pedestrians to walk on the road. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, cycle tracks are for cyclists and roads are for cars.
The third picture on page 24 is also near the start of the Monkstown Ring Road and criticizes the "ramps on wide carriageways". This road is wide because it's a QBC with speed ramps to discourage speeding. What more could pedestrians and cyclists want?

monument wrote: »

Is there good reason to criticise?

No. If my memory serves me correctly, it is more than adequate for pedestrians. I have walked this route countless times in the past and never had a problem here. Contrary to the phrasing of the design manual, the signage is adequate and unobstructed.

monument wrote: »

Why are the cycle tracks fantastic?

I cycled the route once or twice and didn't have a problem. The cycle track was about 1.5 to 2.0 meters in width and provide plenty of breathing space between me, the cars to my right and pedestrians to my left. Again, clearance is key. This is due to the spacious and wide nature of the Monkstown Ring Road. So, there goes the ludicrous argument that narrower roads are safer for cyclists.

monument wrote: »

Why is that statement "overly dramatic"?

The use of the word "risk" makes it "overly dramatic".

monument wrote: »

What is so "overly dramatic" about it?

Generally, anyone with common sense would not step out in front of fast moving traffic as doing so would be idiotic and not a "risk". Here is where a lot of double standards in our society come to play. Motorists are constantly being hounded and told to "expect the unexpected" (as per the recent TV Advert) even if some hoodlum kicks a ball out into the road. Yet, pedestrians and cyclists are never penalized for a lack of observation. Even if a cyclist breaks a red light, when they do get into an accident, the driver will be to blame. Hypocrisy much?

monument wrote: »

In fairness, when you were on here last suggesting changing the current system into a massive one-way system you got little support and a lot of people rejecting your idea.

When I was talking about a "massive:rolleyes:" one-way system, I was merely referring to roads in the area that are unsuitable for bidirectional travel. If there are roads where the clearance between opposite traveling vehicles is scarce, the paths overlap or they squeeze by with an inch or two to spare, such roads should not be two way. If the physics don't permit bidirectional flow, nor should councils.

monument wrote: »

What bases do you have for saying the manual's advice would "likely double the journey length of core bus routes in Irish cities"? Because it seems like you have no bases for such.

A lot of the manuals recommendations are dismissive of wide roads and junctions. Some of the examples which were the subject of criticism by the manual are purposely built roads and communities which enable efficient movement of public and private transport. In particular, it criticizes "Distributor Roads" as per the statement in page 19 on the grounds that it "creates severance between communities". The whole purpose of "severance" (I call it segregation) is to minimize interference of traffic movement on "Distributor Roads". Reversing this trend by needlessly creating demand for pedestrian crossings, speed ramps and traffic lights will have an impact on public and private transport using these roads. Going by the initial work done to areas like Blackthorn Road and Killiney Towers Roundabout and the rather disastrous tailbacks which followed, a county and indeed country wide implementation of such measures would cause gridlock to urban areas. This also has a considerable impact on public transport using such roads.

monument wrote: »

It also seeks to prioritise public transport over private motor transport.

Public transport should be at the top of that list.

Then again, that's my opinion!;)

Iwannahurl · 07-04-2013 10:16pm

Some of it, eg guidelines re 'Movement and Place', seem to be a direct cog from the 2007 UK Manual for Streets.

Not the first time they've opted for British hand-me-downs. Why do they do that?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Generally, anyone with common sense would not step out in front of fast moving traffic as doing so would be idiotic and not a "risk". Here is where a lot of double standards in our society come to play. Motorists are constantly being hounded and told to "expect the unexpected" (as per the recent TV Advert) even if some hoodlum kicks a ball out into the road. Yet, pedestrians and cyclists are never penalized for a lack of observation. Even if a cyclist breaks a red light, when they do get into an accident, the driver will be to blame. Hypocrisy much?

The roads hierarchy used in this country for many years now has inevitably led to a situation in which permeability for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users has been greatly reduced. In my general locality there are numerous cul-de-sac estates where the only pedestrian and cycle access to schools, shops, commercial centres and other amenities is via arterial and collector roads where speeding is endemic and no pedestrian crossing facilities are provided. Common sense doesn't come into it: children, older people with impaired mobility and disabled people have no choice but to cross roads that routinely feature fast-moving traffic. The risk is real, and is not of the pedestrians' making. Incidentally, the "hoodlums" kicking a ball around may actually be children playing near their homes. The hypocrisy, as I see it, is that of a local authority pretending to cater for the needs of all road users while really designing the city for private motor vehicle dominance/dependence and treating pedestrians, cyclists and bus users as also-rans. This new manual might change such totally outdated and unsustainable "planning" but I won't hold my breath...

Cookie_Monster · 08-04-2013 12:55am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Public transport should be at the top of that list.

Good post, the only point I would make is that Pedestrians should be top, followed by cyclists then PT. PT still pumps out huge amounts of green house gases and consumes huge amounts of fuel. While better than private travel I think it should still rank behind walking / cycling, particularly over short distances, such as within the city centre.

Victor · 08-04-2013 12:05pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Some of it, eg guidelines re 'Movement and Place', seem to be a direct cog from the 2007 UK Manual for Streets.

Not the first time they've opted for British hand-me-downs. Why do they do that?

If it works, this shouldn't be a problem.

lucernarian · 08-04-2013 12:11pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Good post, the only point I would make is that Pedestrians should be top, followed by cyclists then PT. PT still pumps out huge amounts of green house gases and consumes huge amounts of fuel. While better than private travel I think it should still rank behind walking / cycling, particularly over short distances, such as within the city centre.

Just curious, why should cycling be prioritised over the needs of public transport? (I don't count taxis as public transport in this instance). It's not like public transport inevitably has to incur greater greenhouse gas emmision though I suppose that's something we may only see in the aspirational future...

Iwannahurl · 08-04-2013 12:14pm

Victor wrote: »

If it works, this shouldn't be a problem.

If it works.

Thing is, the UK went about systematically creating a car-dependent society over decades, and we just aped what they did.

We're trailing behind the UK, which in turn is many years behind other parts of Europe, IMO.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and emulate the best of what more advanced European countries have been doing for decades?

Irish Steve · 08-04-2013 1:04pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If it works.

Thing is, the UK went about systematically creating a car-dependent society over decades, and we just aped what they did.

We're trailing behind the UK, which in turn is many years behind other parts of Europe, IMO.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and emulate the best of what more advanced European countries have been doing for decades?

With the major problem that most of Europe has a much more organised and integrated public transport system in place, which works, and is light years ahead of anything that's in place here. We're still trying (failing) to get single ticketing for all modes of transport in Dublin working, and there's no such thing as coordinated planning between the different services to make sure that connections are good. There are woefully few Park & Ride systems in the Dublin area, none around the Northside/Airport area, the list goes on. Even simple ideas like BE long distance buses not picking up in the city area, but stopping at an interchange point on the outskirts (like the Luas Park & Ride at the Red cow, or Clonee M3 Parkway) are not happening, it would be far more sensible to let the long distance buses deal with the long distance, and then let the DB routes handle the distribution in the city, with good local express feeds into the park & ride (or similar locations like the Airport, or Sandyford, etc).

That's where we are so far behind the rest of Europe, and finding the money to bring Ireland up to date now is going to be a major problem.

The comment about grass verges a while back is relevant as well, especially on estates where the road is not wide enough for 2 cars to park opposite each other and still leave enough width for emergency vehicles and the like to get access, and the "planners" were bullied into allowing houses with no space on the plot for parking that is worth talking about.

Our estate here was designed in the 80's, and has just enough space for 1 vehicle off road per house, but how many houses in places like Ashbourne only have 1 car? Very few, due to the lack of good public transport.

If 2 cars are parked opposite each other, a transit van is tight to fit between them, and something like a fire engine or ambulance stands no chance of getting through, unless one of the cars is partially parked on the grass verge, which is what tends to happen, although the other option for a short car is that the owner parks it on the verge/pavement, behind the one that is in their access driveway, which ends up blocking the pavement to any users, regardless of their ability to then get round the vehicle.

Not exactly friendly to mothers with small children and buggies, or wheelchairs, or the blind, or any other physical mobility problem, but hey, it's part of the culture to illegally park rather than walk 20 metres at this stage, happens all the time, don't we know that flashing hazard warning lights make the thing invisible :mad:

On the drainage front, most new estates are being built with detention tanks that can hold the fast flow but only release it at a slower rate into the drainage systems. In many respects, using bollards or poles and no raided kerbs to delineate the pavement and the road would make it a LOT easier for anyone using any form of wheeled device to get around, way too many pavements with grass verges don't have access ramps in the right places to facilitate pushchairs, wheelchairs etc, and getting up or down kerbs with a grass edge is a pain, as wheels don't move so well on grass, especially when it's not been cut, which is often the case now with local authority cutbacks.

The money is just not there now to do remedial work, and make changes that would solve some of the problems, like massive estates with only one access road in and out that is blocked up at peak periods.

galwaycyclist · 08-04-2013 1:15pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Just curious, why should cycling be prioritised over the needs of public transport? (I don't count taxis as public transport in this instance). It's not like public transport inevitably has to incur greater greenhouse gas emmision though I suppose that's something we may only see in the aspirational future...

In the case of the Dublin bikes scheme, Velib in Paris, Boris bikes in London, Bicing in Barcelona etc cycling is a form of public transport.

patrickbrophy18 · 08-04-2013 1:15pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Good post, the only point I would make is that Pedestrians should be top, followed by cyclists then PT.

Thanks. I suppose a fairer compromise would be to grant equal prioritization to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Again, this is just my opinion.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

PT still pumps out huge amounts of green house gases and consumes huge amounts of fuel.

I do acknowledge that many forms of public transport do still leave their mark in terms of carbon footprint-age. However, given that more sustainable or environmentally friendly means of powering them are either existent or emerging, this could eventually be a thing of the past. For example, the DART is powered by overhead wires and doesn't spew out fuel for momentum which makes it environmentally friendly. Conversely, for all I know, the grid feeding power to the DART could be drawing it's energy from a fuel burning power plant which are major pollutants from a global warming perspective. Nevertheless, that's not to say that grid couldn't be reconfigured to draw it's energy from the likes of wind-farms which are sustainable and environmentally friendly. If wind-farms have hidden contributions to global warming that anyone here knows of, please feel free to enlighten me!

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While better than private travel I think it should still rank behind walking / cycling, particularly over short distances, such as within the city centre.

I too, think that city centres are still overly dominated by vehicular transportation and I do foresee a time when a congestion charge (certainly on cars anyway) will need to be imposed to encourage walking, cycling and freer movement of public transportation. Having thought about it a lot, streets such as Grafton Street and Henry Street show how pedestrianization of commercial streets can be a huge success. Effectively, such streets behave much like the concourse of a shopping mall in that they are (almost if not completely) devoid of vehicular transportation. This does have a positive impact on trade. Having said that, the mass one-way system around Dawson Street, Nassau Street and Kildare Street provide adequate movement of public transport in walking distance of Grafton Street.

On a broader note, optimization of public transportation between metropolitan areas and their corresponding city centres is far from fulfilling their true potential in this country anyway. Undoubtedly, many areas in the suburban fabric surrounding Dublin City need to be heavily reconfigured for this potential to be fulfilled. Indeed, an adequate mix of provision for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport is needed. For example, pedestrianization of streets in village centers, towns and hubs like Dalkey, Blackrock or Dun Laoghaire could be done. Nevertheless, decent distributor roads in their vicinity would be needed to connect them with other village centers, towns and hubs like Deansgrange, Dundrum and Sandyford.

Ideally, a distributor road should be 21 meters in width i.e, 10.5 meters per direction. From the edge inwards to the center line, 2 meters would be allocated to a cycle track, 2 meters for pedestrians, 3.25 meters for a bus lane and 3.25 meters for a car lane. In advance of junctions where left and right turn filters would exist (perhaps 100 meters), traffic lights would alternate between buses, bicycles and cars. For instance, cars would be stopped while buses and bicycles would continue onwards to the type of junction mentioned. This would free up the center lane so that cyclists could to position if they intend on turning right. The lower ratio of buses to cars in this 100 meter stretch would present more crossing opportunities for pedestrians.

lucernarian · 08-04-2013 1:27pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the case of the Dublin bikes scheme, Velib in Paris, Boris bikes in London, Bicing in Barcelona etc cycling is a form of public transport.

The reason why I excluded taxis was because I had mass transportation in mind, not just "public transport" per se. The velib schemes are public transport, sure, but I was thinking of modes of transport that carried multiple passengers on a pre-determined route, not individual point-to-point journes.

Maybe I should have asked if Cookie Monster had any other reasons for wanting cycling to be prioritised over bus, tram and train transportation.

monument · 08-04-2013 2:17pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Just curious, why should cycling be prioritised over the needs of public transport? (I don't count taxis as public transport in this instance). It's not like public transport inevitably has to incur greater greenhouse gas emmision though I suppose that's something we may only see in the aspirational future...

Because in Dublin and in Ireland generally cycling has a much greater potential to replace private motor vehicle than public transport does -- thus limit the effects of congestion.

Because cycling is cheaper to provide for. Because getting people even cycling slowing has has massive health benefits. And that's before I mention emission or noise etc.

But it's worth saying: It's not a hard and fast rule which should always apply all the time and an on ever route or ever section of ever route.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Some of it, eg guidelines re 'Movement and Place', seem to be a direct cog from the 2007 UK Manual for Streets.

Not the first time they've opted for British hand-me-downs. Why do they do that?

It's a great a question.

The direct cog stuff could be explained by one of the author's of the UK manual advising on drafts of the Irish one... but the overall question of "Why follow the UK?" stands!

With cycling I keep hearing Irish groups quote UK or Sustrans standards, when the NTA, councils and their advisers are already referencing Dutch standards in some reports and documents (just not following them that much).

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

There are a two pages which have specifically criticized it. Here they are:
The bottom of page 21 says that on "Figure 2.11: Pedestrians have been marginalised along the street edge and have their path obstructed in order to provide additional width to the vehicular carriageway and space for signage". That picture is unmistakably the junction of the Monkstown Ring Road with Newtownpark Avenue. The way the Design Manual puts it, you'd swear they were trying to encourage pedestrians to walk on the road. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, cycle tracks are for cyclists and roads are for cars.

Wait a second.

All it says is that: "Pedestrians have been marginalised along the street edge and have their path obstructed in order to provide additional width to the vehicular carriageway and space for signage.".

And the picture clearly backs that up, showing a tiny footpath with polls in the way, while the carrageway has a ton of surplus space as well as generous lane sizes:

6034073

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

[*]The third picture on page 24 is also near the start of the Monkstown Ring Road and criticizes the "ramps on wide carriageways". This road is wide because it's a QBC with speed ramps to discourage speeding. What more could pedestrians and cyclists want?

There's a number of options of keeping road speeds down without using ramps -- some the manual deals with and others such as protected bus lanes which is does not.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

No. If my memory serves me correctly, it is more than adequate for pedestrians. I have walked this route countless times in the past and never had a problem here. Contrary to the phrasing of the design manual, the signage is adequate and unobstructed.

The footpath in the above photo is tiny and the polls are clear an obstruction to two people walking side-by-side.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I cycled the route once or twice and didn't have a problem. The cycle track was about 1.5 to 2.0 meters in width and provide plenty of breathing space between me, the cars to my right and pedestrians to my left. Again, clearance is key. This is due to the spacious and wide nature of the Monkstown Ring Road. So, there goes the ludicrous argument that narrower roads are safer for cyclists.

I don't recall the cycle lanes being at all fantastic and the images make me think my recall is right.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The use of the word "risk" makes it "overly dramatic".

Generally, anyone with common sense would not step out in front of fast moving traffic as doing so would be idiotic and not a "risk". Here is where a lot of double standards in our society come to play. Motorists are constantly being hounded and told to "expect the unexpected" (as per the recent TV Advert) even if some hoodlum kicks a ball out into the road. Yet, pedestrians and cyclists are never penalized for a lack of observation. Even if a cyclist breaks a red light, when they do get into an accident, the driver will be to blame. Hypocrisy much?

It seems the risk is real given the stats on the amount of people killed by motorists and the amount of motorists convicted as being in the wrong from hitting people to speeding to using phones while driving -- all risky behaviour caused by the driver, not the person crossing the road.

It's highly unlikely in this country that when a cyclist breaks a red light that a driver would be blamed for hitting them, but as the rules of the road says: "A green light is not a right of way, it is a licence to proceed with caution."

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

When I was talking about a "massive:rolleyes:" one-way system, I was merely referring to roads in the area that are unsuitable for bidirectional travel. If there are roads where the clearance between opposite traveling vehicles is scarce, the paths overlap or they squeeze by with an inch or two to spare, such roads should not be two way. If the physics don't permit bidirectional flow, nor should councils.

The physics of it working on a daily bases seems to prove you wrong!

In any case: Your idea got little support and lots of opposition.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A lot of the manuals recommendations are dismissive of wide roads and junctions. Some of the examples which were the subject of criticism by the manual are purposely built roads and communities which enable efficient movement of public and private transport. In particular, it criticizes "Distributor Roads" as per the statement in page 19 on the grounds that it "creates severance between communities". The whole purpose of "severance" (I call it segregation) is to minimize interference of traffic movement on "Distributor Roads". Reversing this trend by needlessly creating demand for pedestrian crossings, speed ramps and traffic lights will have an impact on public and private transport using these roads. Going by the initial work done to areas like Blackthorn Road and Killiney Towers Roundabout and the rather disastrous tailbacks which followed, a county and indeed country wide implementation of such measures would cause gridlock to urban areas. This also has a considerable impact on public transport using such roads.

The majority of public transport provision will be fine on QBCs, BRT, tram and rail routes where there is space for such.

In reality the network of fully or mostly segregated distributor roads in many places has lead to more traffic and more congestion as the severance caused by the segregation turns what should be short walks or cycles into longer trips which people then use cars for:

6034073

The above shows an example where the problem could be fixed without changing the distributor roads, but the same happens between estates which are segregated by distributor roads. For example a 60m walk across the R118 distributor road in your area becomes a 500m+ walk because of the walls and lack of crossings.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Thanks. I suppose a fairer compromise would be to grant equal prioritization to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Again, this is just my opinion.

You may think you're saying something else, but equal prioritisation to pedestrians and public transport would mean you put bus lanes and bus services everywhere you put footpaths.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

.... like Dalkey, Blackrock or Dun Laoghaire could be done. Nevertheless, decent distributor roads in their vicinity would be needed to connect them with other village centers, towns and hubs like Deansgrange, Dundrum and Sandyford.

The apparent need for such distributor roads dissipates when cycling, walking, and (lesser so) public transport is given a proper change.

galwaycyclist · 08-04-2013 3:07pm

monument wrote: »

The direct cog stuff could be explained by one of the author's of the UK manual advising on drafts of the Irish one... but the overall question of "Why follow the UK?" stands!

With cycling I keep hearing Irish groups quote UK or Sustrans standards, when the NTA, councils and their advisers are already referencing Dutch standards in some reports and documents (just not following them that much).

Ah I think I can deal with this one. The issue is either follow the Dutch or the UK.

In Ireland for our general roads we have been following the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) or a variation on this - which is arguably too car focused and inherently hostile for cyclists and pedestrians. Hence the need for a manual for streets.

When they were the Dublin Transportation Office, the people who are now the National Transport Authority released Traffic Management Guidelines that in some aspects were even worse than the DMRB.

They then claim to be following the Dutch for cycle facilities guidance.

The idea that you can then come along and cherry pick only the cycle facilities from Dutch practice and then "drop" them out of the sky into roads built to the DMRB or worse is simply daft.

Iwannahurl · 08-04-2013 3:21pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

When they were the Dublin Transportation Office, the people who are now the National Transport Authority released Traffic Management Guidelines that in some aspects were even worse than the DMRB.

They then claim to be following the Dutch for cycle facilities guidance.

The idea that you can then come along and cherry pick only the cycle facilities from Dutch practice and then "drop" them out of the sky into roads built to the DMRB or worse is simply daft.

As I recall from school, there are people who simply cannot get things right even when cogging (or whatever it's called these days).

Iwannahurl · 08-04-2013 3:31pm

Irish Steve wrote: »

The comment about grass verges a while back is relevant as well, especially on estates where the road is not wide enough for 2 cars to park opposite each other and still leave enough width for emergency vehicles and the like to get access, and the "planners" were bullied into allowing houses with no space on the plot for parking that is worth talking about.

Our estate here was designed in the 80's, and has just enough space for 1 vehicle off road per house, but how many houses in places like Ashbourne only have 1 car? Very few, due to the lack of good public transport.

If 2 cars are parked opposite each other, a transit van is tight to fit between them, and something like a fire engine or ambulance stands no chance of getting through, unless one of the cars is partially parked on the grass verge, which is what tends to happen, although the other option for a short car is that the owner parks it on the verge/pavement, behind the one that is in their access driveway, which ends up blocking the pavement to any users, regardless of their ability to then get round the vehicle.

Not exactly friendly to mothers with small children and buggies, or wheelchairs, or the blind, or any other physical mobility problem, but hey, it's part of the culture to illegally park rather than walk 20 metres at this stage, happens all the time, don't we know that flashing hazard warning lights make the thing invisible :mad:

I had a quick virtual scout around Ashbourne, and I can't see what the problem is.

The issue in most cases is as you describe it, imo: our culture favours illegal parking for maximum convenience in order to avoid walking if at all possible.

Spook_ie · 08-04-2013 9:31pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The reason why I excluded taxis was because I had mass transportation in mind, not just "public transport" per se. The velib schemes are public transport, sure, but I was thinking of modes of transport that carried multiple passengers on a pre-determined route, not individual point-to-point journes.

Maybe I should have asked if Cookie Monster had any other reasons for wanting cycling to be prioritised over bus, tram and train transportation.

Not too concerned because taxis will always be an anathma to anyone who doesn't think things through logicly, but when the bus/rail whatever drops you off 2 miles from your door and you want to get home what are you going to use or do you propose that every road should be a bus route?

Cookie_Monster · 08-04-2013 9:41pm

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Just curious, why should cycling be prioritised over the needs of public transport? (I don't count taxis as public transport in this instance). It's not like public transport inevitably has to incur greater greenhouse gas emmision though I suppose that's something we may only see in the aspirational future...

Essentially Monuments answer below covers the point I was making.
Cycling is a cheap, fast, healthy method of commuting that has so many positive benefits and so few drawbacks (over the 0-25km distances)

monument wrote: »

Because in Dublin and in Ireland generally cycling has a much greater potential to replace private motor vehicle than public transport does -- thus limit the effects of congestion.

Because cycling is cheaper to provide for. Because getting people even cycling slowing has has massive health benefits. And that's before I mention emission or noise etc.

But it's worth saying: It's not a hard and fast rule which should always apply all the time and an on ever route or ever section of ever route.

Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets

Comments