Protected Roads, ever used?

murphaph

Does anyone know if the following section from the 1993 Roads Act has ever been used?

Protected roads.

45.— (1) A protected road means a public road or proposed public road specified to be a protected road in a protected road scheme approved by the Minister under section 49.


(2) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may provide for the prohibition, closure, stopping up, removal, alteration, diversion or restriction of any specified or all means of direct access to the protected road from specified land or from specified land used for a specified purpose or to such land from the protected road.


( 3 ) ( a ) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may prohibit or restrict the use of the protected road or a particular part thereof by—


(i) specified types of traffic,


(ii) specified classes of vehicles,


but shall not prohibit or restrict such use—


(I) by ambulances or fire brigade vehicles,


(II) by vehicles used by members of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in the performance of their duties as such members,


(III) for the purpose of maintaining such protected road.


( b ) A person who contravenes a prohibition or restriction under paragraph (a) shall be guilty of an offence.

The Jack Lynch tunnel prohibits peds and cyclists but is that legally enforceable under this act? I'd like to see the Chapelizod bypass restricted to motor vehicles only if not given full motorway status (albeit with a 100 or 80 limit).

Chris_533976

It also prevents Horse drawn Carriages, even though I've never seen one of them anywhere near Cork

invincibleirish

i occasionally spin by cyclists on the link either side of the tunnel so im guessing they might go into the tunnel, however anyone who is willing to go cycling on any dual carriageway particularly extremely busy ones with no hard shoulders (like the N25) should be certified crazy!

corktina

Chris_533976 wrote: »

It also prevents Horse drawn Carriages, even though I've never seen one of them anywhere near Cork

no? Ive come across them racing on the public highway....

Carawaystick

murphaph wrote: »

I'd like to see the Chapelizod bypass restricted to motor vehicles only if not given full motorway status (albeit with a 100 or 80 limit).

Why? there's a wide bus/cycle lane the entire length. the alternative routes would be much more dangerous; longer, and cyclists would have to stop more.

Also coming up the hill from Chapelizod and having to turn right to get to Palmerstown on a bike would be far more dangerous than taking the N4.

John R

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why? there's a wide bus/cycle lane the entire length. the alternative routes would be much more dangerous; longer, and cyclists would have to stop more.

Wide? Try driving a bus in it. It is just wide enough to get a coach through with the right wheels on the line and the left wheels millimetres from the edge, although it is very handy for the maintenance folks as the bus mirrors do the hedge trimming for them.

It is practically impossible to get through it cleanly at peak times with the cars mistakenly and purposely over the bus lane line.

It needs to be re-designed; get rid of the grass reservation, widen the bus lanes and put in a segregated cycle lane.

It couldn't be made motorway though, not with lights and crossroads at Islandbridge, Kilmainham and Palmerstown.

Carawaystick

Wide for a cycle lane I meant!

A segregated cycle lane would be a disaster, all the detritus would end up in it and it would be a) unusable b) bullsh it PR saying how great the local authority was providing more cycling lanes.

there's room for the driving lanes to be narrowed, to allow the bus lane be widened alright

murphaph

The Chapelizod bypass doesn't even have a footpath in some parts. It should not be permitted for pedestrians to use it. End of story.

If and when they install a jersey barrier and retrofit segregated cycle lanes and a footpath then it could be safe for them to use it but as it stands in it's current incarnation I reckon it is an accident waiting to happen.

I also don't see why the bypass can't be motorway JohnR, it doesn't go all the way to Palmerstown, just from the lights on Con Colbert Road to just before the Maxol.

A road like this in Germany/France and possibly the UK would almost certainly prohibit everything but motor traffic.

markpb

John R wrote: »

Wide? Try driving a bus in it. It is just wide enough to get a coach through with the right wheels on the line and the left wheels millimetres from the edge, although it is very handy for the maintenance folks as the bus mirrors do the hedge trimming for them.

You sound surprised! Since when were bus lanes in Dublin designed with buses in mind?

L1011

murphaph wrote: »

If and when they install a jersey barrier and retrofit segregated cycle lanes and a footpath then it could be safe for them to use it but as it stands in it's current incarnation I reckon it is an accident waiting to happen.

Are the carraigeways not on different heights at one point? Couldn't put Jersey barriers in then, realistically...

murphaph

MYOB wrote: »

Are the carraigeways not on different heights at one point? Couldn't put Jersey barriers in then, realistically...

The M50 has a double jersey barrier where the carriageways are at different heights.

Carawaystick

Is there not Armco most of the way along the route?

You'll find most roads don't have footpaths for most of their length.
Segregated bike lanes will make it worse to use than the existing shared bus/cycle lane. all the debris will end up on the bike lane, as the bike traffic will not clear it, due to the speed and type of tyres bikes use.

What is the issue with bikes using the road at present? compared to the R132 at swords say?
there is a separate lightly used lane for bikes and professionally driven vehicles.
A lot of national routes have no hard shoulders and a higher speed limit. should pedestrians and cyclists be removed from these or should motorists actually take some responsibility for their actions and drive safely?

murphaph

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there not Armco most of the way along the route?

Yes but by removing the median and installing a jersey barrier you can widen the verges to accomodate proper cycle facilities behind armco and out of harm's way.

Carawaystick wrote: »

You'll find most roads don't have footpaths for most of their length.

Most all purpose urban roads? I don't think so.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Segregated bike lanes will make it worse to use than the existing shared bus/cycle lane. all the debris will end up on the bike lane, as the bike traffic will not clear it, due to the speed and type of tyres bikes use.

If the median were to be narrowed through the use of a jersey barrier and the verges widened you could add a safe off street cycle track behind armco and raised to the level of a footpath so detritus would collect in the gutter ready for the roadsweeper, not somehow leap up onto the cycle track. See the R136 for what we're talking about.

Carawaystick wrote: »

What is the issue with bikes using the road at present? compared to the R132 at swords say?

The R132 has vastly superior sightlines (and is not even a national route anymore as the M1 bypasses it), both vertical and horizontal. One has a pretty clear view of any ped/cyclist ahead on the R132. This is not the case for most of the N4 Chapelizod Bypass. There is also the fact that there is a simple alternative route using Chapelizod itself, out by the West County Hotel and along to the lights at the Shell Garage. The Chapelizod Bypass should have opened as motorway or protected road from day one and nobody would have gotten used to using it.

Carawaystick wrote: »

there is a separate lightly used lane for bikes and professionally driven vehicles. A lot of national routes have no hard shoulders and a higher speed limit. should pedestrians and cyclists be removed from these

If the national route is a new bypass of an older national route and has not been designated as a motorway scheme then I believe it should be a protected road and non-motor traffic banned from it. Existing national routes for where there is no simple alternative however should remain accesible to all traffic.

Carawaystick wrote: »

or should motorists actually take some responsibility for their actions and drive safely?

Motorists should always take full responsibility for their actions and always drive safely. The two are not mutually exclusive.

May I ask, as it is my legal right, would you object to me driving a herd of animals along the Chapelizod bypass at 5pm?

John R

Those pictures are exactly what I meant by segregated cycle path, completely seperate from the roadway. A safe continuous cycle-way on a trunk commuter route like that may even help encourage people to cycle rather than drive.

In the case of the chapelizod by-pass for the most part it could easily be accomodated away from the roadway behind the trees/bushes that line the road giving an improved environment for cyclists.

As far as debris-strewn cycle-lanes, is it really beyond the wit of DCC/SDCC/NRA to run a mini-roadsweeper along them every so often?

Once the N3/M50 freeflow junction is completed there will be massive pressure on the Palmerstown junction. A deep cut underpass there should have been included in the project.

L1011

John R wrote: »

A deep cut underpass there should have been included in the project.

Should have, but the second set of lights (at the ex-Shell) are as bad, and it would make one complex junction or a very close set of merge/demerges... something will have to be done though.

John R

MYOB wrote: »

Should have, but the second set of lights (at the ex-Shell) are as bad, and it would make one complex junction or a very close set of merge/demerges... something will have to be done though.

That one would just be closed off. All the roads can be accessed from Kennelsfort Rd and with slips to/from the N3 at that junction it would easily take the extra diverted traffic.

L1011

Its the N4