Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

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?

Let's stay on topic and not get into a taxi vs mass transport debate.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Let's stay on topic and not get into a taxi vs mass transport debate.

It is on topic name one city in Europe that doesn't have a taxi service to deliver the service required for people whom don't want to start/finish a journey on foot, a perfect example of the anathema mentioned

lucernarian

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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)

Up to 25km? I have no problem in cycling around the current extent of the dublinbikes scheme for example, but 25km? I don't think I'll ever be at the stage of enjoying a >90 minute cycle just to go to or from work for example. This is exactly where the likes of trains and buses win out over cars, in that they offer the ability to not have 3 hours of your day outside while you can sit in relative comfort and get to your destination quickly.

To put it in perspective, practically none of Dublin Bus' routes extend 25 km from the city centre. I'm not sure you're implying this but I don't agree that we should prioritise road design to cater for cycling at the expense of buses, over every Dublin Bus route corridor. I can see great merit in targeted improvements for both or to allow the use of one method to complement the others (e.g. prioritising cycling on roads that lead to train stations) at least.

Irish Steve

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Garden City is not too bad, but that picture would have been taken during the day, when the vast majority of vehicles are out of town due to the poor public transport systems, it's a different story later in the day, especially in the later phases of the estate, where the roads are narrower and the density of houses is higher.

The main feeder road there is a reasonable width, it was built somewhat earlier than the estates I'm thinking of, the estates from the late 80's, like Brookville, Huntsgrove, Tudor Grove, Deerpark and others were all built before multi car ownership became an issue, and with much narrower roads, so even things like oil deliveries or bin/skip collections are a problem when most cars are at home, and due to the rural attitude of the planners, and the greed of the property developers, it was deemed inappropriate or unnecessary to have more than one car space per property, unless you got lucky, so any extra vehicles are on the road, and if there's only one way in and out, that can be a problem.

I've maintained for a long time that we need a new word in either English or Irish, which describes the act of leaving a vehicle in an illegal or inappropriate location, not parked, as most likely, one or more of the wheels is some significant distance from the road edge. It's not therefore parked, but neither can it be classed as abandoned, the owner has every intention of returning to it at some stage and removing it.

Irish Steve

Looking at some of the thoughts on cycling.

Commuting to and from work is not going to be reliably viable by bike until at least 3 things change.

The first is that cycle lanes have to be built to a much higher standard than they are now, way too often, cycle lanes become the drainage channel in wet weather, which is no help if commuting.

Employers are going to have to be pressurised into providing safe and secure cycle storage on their premises, so that there's no risk of bikes being damaged or stolen while parked up,

Employers are going to have to provide facilities at the work place to allow cyclists to store "work wear" and their cycle wear, so that if they either get very hot and sweaty or wet while travelling, they can change into more appropriate wear for work, and possibly take a shower while doing so, and put wet gear into somewhere to dry before going home later in the day. Arriving at work hot and sweaty, or soaked, and not having facilities to shower and change is not exactly being helpful to the cyclist or their work colleagues.

In the same vein, shelters at bus stops should not be an optional extra, if the weather is bad, there's nothing worse than standing at a bus stop and being soaked by the rain and the spray thrown up by passing vehicles. This latter point would be even more relevant if we ever get to the point of having "interchange" points, where local and longer distance buses share stops to allow swaps from one service to another.

lucernarian

Irish Steve wrote: »

Looking at some of the thoughts on cycling.

Commuting to and from work is not going to be reliably viable by bike until at least 3 things change.

The first is that cycle lanes have to be built to a much higher standard than they are now, way too often, cycle lanes become the drainage channel in wet weather, which is no help if commuting.

Employers are going to have to be pressurised into providing safe and secure cycle storage on their premises, so that there's no risk of bikes being damaged or stolen while parked up,

Employers are going to have to provide facilities at the work place to allow cyclists to store "work wear" and their cycle wear, so that if they either get very hot and sweaty or wet while travelling, they can change into more appropriate wear for work, and possibly take a shower while doing so, and put wet gear into somewhere to dry before going home later in the day. Arriving at work hot and sweaty, or soaked, and not having facilities to shower and change is not exactly being helpful to the cyclist or their work colleagues.

In the same vein, shelters at bus stops should not be an optional extra, if the weather is bad, there's nothing worse than standing at a bus stop and being soaked by the rain and the spray thrown up by passing vehicles. This latter point would be even more relevant if we ever get to the point of having "interchange" points, where local and longer distance buses share stops to allow swaps from one service to another.

I agree with this, particularly regarding bus stops. I'd also like to mention that the modern bus shelter used by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann (presumably supplied by adshel) offer even less shelter than the older version. Bus shelters should be wider in every place that can allow for it, provided there's enough space for wheelchair users to pass by. The design manual posted above does not appear to comment on this, or the suitable location and placement of bus stops.

Cookie_Monster

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Up to 25km? I have no problem in cycling around the current extent of the dublinbikes scheme for example, but 25km? I don't think I'll ever be at the stage of enjoying a >90 minute cycle just to go to or from work for example. This is exactly where the likes of trains and buses win out over cars, in that they offer the ability to not have 3 hours of your day outside while you can sit in relative comfort and get to your destination quickly.

To put it in perspective, practically none of Dublin Bus' routes extend 25 km from the city centre. I'm not sure you're implying this but I don't agree that we should prioritise road design to cater for cycling at the expense of buses, over every Dublin Bus route corridor. I can see great merit in targeted improvements for both or to allow the use of one method to complement the others (e.g. prioritising cycling on roads that lead to train stations) at least.

No, I don't see the need for catering for cyclists on the road / in road design at the expense of PT. But things like mandating every office over a certain size provide secure storage and showers would be a great step IMO - not directly related to to road design to be fair but something that needs to be considered all the same.
25km in Dublin will take less than an hour as it is so flat once you get used to it, the same bus journey at rush hour could take twice that. Even on corridors like the N11 I've frequently kept up with or beaten 145s and 46a's from the CC to Foxrock / Cabinteely on the bike for example, despite the less than ideal cycle lanes in place there.

One of the main goals I think should be cycle / bus lanes wide enough to allow buses to easily pass cyclists. Separate cycle lanes don't work and just end up filthy and dangerous, if they were combined at least you get decent quality surface which is kept clear and tidy.

patrickbrophy18

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I agree with this, particularly regarding bus stops. I'd also like to mention that the modern bus shelter used by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann (presumably supplied by adshel) offer even less shelter than the older version. Bus shelters should be wider in every place that can allow for it, provided there's enough space for wheelchair users to pass by. The design manual posted above does not appear to comment on this, or the suitable location and placement of bus stops.

I'll second that. The new bus shelters are going in for this new age modern look and are very minimalist. In the process, passengers waiting on the bus are more exposed. As such, the design of these bus "shelters" behaves more like an awning than a place where people are adequately shielded from the elements. One need look no further than the shelters at the platforms of Dun Laoghaire Dart Station which are made up of a roof and 3 and a half walls. Gaps to the left and right of the track facing wall allow for decent accessibility. There is also a seat inside. Perhaps, this type of design should be of some inspiration to bus shelter designers albeit on a thinner scale as they would take up the entire footpath.

Unfortunately, decades of poorly guided urban planning (within Ireland anyway) in the latter part of the 20th century has resulted in a half assed road system plagued by design flaws. For example, the stretch of the Rock Road QBC to the north of Blackrock Shopping Center is one of many in Dublin and nationwide where the bus lane doubles as a cycle lane. In other words, the cycle lane overlaps with the left half of the bus lane. Beyond Merrion Gates, cars are actually parked in designate parking spots which are on the bus and cycle lane. While some may argue that this is for the convenience of the residents living adjacent to that particular portion of QBC, the fact still remains that this convenience is being granted at the expense of those cycling and busing it to work. Consequently, this makes bus and cycle transportation less attractive. For buses, this means getting stuck in frequent bottlenecks with private transport (cars) while cyclists are forced out to the main carriageway leaving them exposed to vehicular traffic.

On the other hand, the N11 QBC between Shankill and Donnybrook Bus Depot is the only road in the Dun Laoghaire Borough anyway which provides fast access to Dublin City. As such, cars and buses are very well accommodated for. Nevertheless, for cyclists, it leaves a lot to be desired with potholes galore all the way along it. I acknowledge that some sections have and are still undergoing major improvements in this regard. The stretch between Foxrock Church and Leopardstown Road is one example where the interaction between the pedestrian path and cycle track has been significantly improved.

Most of the design flaws for the Shankill to Donnybrook section of the N11 are present towards the outer edges of the route which are used by pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, there are some portions where the cycle track lies just outside the bus lane increasing the chances of being cut of when a bus pulls into a stop. The aforementioned section between Foxrock Church and Leopardstown Road addressed this flaw by placing the cycle track to the left of the pedestrian path. Moreover, the cycle track goes smoothly along the left of the bus stop allowing for unadulterated movement by both modes of transport. Bus shelters which closely resemble the platform shelters at Dun Laoghaire Dart Station could easily fit into the pedestrian and cycle space with plenty of room to spare.

Back to the topic at hand. Regarding the type of distributor road mentioned at the bottom of page 19 in the manual (Figure 2.6), the permeability for pedestrians and cyclists is lacking, I'll accept that. What I don't accept is the use of cyclists and pedestrians as leverage to slow traffic down. Post 12 by galwaycyclist pretty much nails this on the head here. As is the case with the road seen in Figure 2.6, permeability issues could have easily been avoided during the construction of the neighbourhoods. The roads and houses seen in this picture are clearly modern and purpose built to an extent. As such, an extensive series of underpasses could have been constructed (perhaps every *50 meters or so) while the road was being laid down. These would connect communities as well as both sides of the road at strategic locations. This way, an acceptable level permeability is achieved without slowing traffic at the surface.

*: The frequency or amount of underpasses in any given distributor road would be determined by a number of factors. These include busy junctions, bus stop locations, proximity to sports amenities and other high functioning facilities, where adjacent cul de sacs are particularly close etc.

redarmyblues

Reading between the lines on this makes me think the the government has conveniently unburdened itself of some hefty capital commitments without incurring the usual attendant bank bench flak associated with canceled local projects. Two expensive and much touted schemes hereabouts now appear to be dead ducks. A clever and long overdue change in policy.

lucernarian

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, I don't see the need for catering for cyclists on the road / in road design at the expense of PT. But things like mandating every office over a certain size provide secure storage and showers would be a great step IMO - not directly related to to road design to be fair but something that needs to be considered all the same.
25km in Dublin will take less than an hour as it is so flat once you get used to it, the same bus journey at rush hour could take twice that. Even on corridors like the N11 I've frequently kept up with or beaten 145s and 46a's from the CC to Foxrock / Cabinteely on the bike for example, despite the less than ideal cycle lanes in place there.

One of the main goals I think should be cycle / bus lanes wide enough to allow buses to easily pass cyclists. Separate cycle lanes don't work and just end up filthy and dangerous, if they were combined at least you get decent quality surface which is kept clear and tidy.

That's a good post, not that I'd want to commit myself to cycling 25 km each way in Ireland. Though you touch on an interesting point about buses. If you are able to outcycle buses on >10km journeys that involve dual carriageways, is that a success of cycling, a failure of giving priority to bus travel on our roads and investing in bus services that use them or a bit of both? My thoughts are that it's the latter and this is exactly why I'd love to see bus lanes that are wide enough to safely accommodate cyclists in Dublin. E.g. Pearse St. beside the new entrance to Pearse Station.

Cliff Lyons

Patrick, mmmm lets discuss...

'The manual seems to be anti distributor roads'. Yes it is anti -roads that encourage excessive speeding, are barriers and blight the urban landscape.

Monkstown Ring Road - this is an example of a flawed road design. Why would you design a wide open road and then put ramps along it to slow it down?

'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'

Have you any evidence to support this statement? How do you think people get to/from the buses?

patrickbrophy18

Cliff Lyons wrote: »

'The manual seems to be anti distributor roads'. Yes it is anti -roads that encourage excessive speeding, are barriers and blight the urban landscape.

So, you would prefer an urban and suburban fabric where all motorised transport goes at a snails pace?

The purpose of distributor roads is to optimize traffic along them. I've walked along many and didn't see them as either a "barrier" or a "blight" on "the urban landscape".

A large number of distributor roads carry buses where higher speeds should be encouraged to improve journey times for passengers. In other words, distributor roads should enable buses to behave more like a rapid transit system.

Then again, you could say the same thing about the DART being a barrier or blight on the urban landscape. And yes, sometimes barriers are needed to reduce the likelihood of pedestrians from stepping out in front of moving traffic. Having said that, the development of underpasses or bridges should be encouraged to connect bus stops and neighbourhood centres on both sides of a distributor road to solve the permeability problem. A perfect example of this is the underpass adjacent to the crossroads in Stillorgan.

Cliff Lyons wrote: »

Monkstown Ring Road - this is an example of a flawed road design. Why would you design a wide open road and then put ramps along it to slow it down?

For a road that is designated as a future Quality Bus Corridor (QBC), it isn't really doing a good job at improving the quality of bus journeys. As a regular bus passenger, I find that speed ramps make a bus journey quite uncomfortable and annoying. I'd hate to suffer from motion sickness.

Cliff Lyons wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support this statement?

The fact that it aims to backwards engineer many road typologies in both urban and suburban areas will result in tailbacks, especially in high population or heavy commercial centers. Moreover, if you take one bus route and apply these regressive measures to many points in it's journey, it will collectively all add up to a significantly longer journey.

Cliff Lyons wrote: »

How do you think people get to/from the buses?

I'm well aware that people get to bus stops on foot, on bike or are driven there by car. However, people who do go by foot are advised to cross at traffic/pedestrian lights or look both ways before crossing where there is a lack of such. Similarly, those who choose to cycle to a bus stop along the way should do so in a manner where they don't break the rules of the road i.e. breaking traffic lights or cycling against the flow of traffic. While motorists regularly break the rules of the road, there are also a large number of cyclists who think that it doesn't apply to them. In any case, observation is key. Sadly, many members of our society think they shouldn't have to be observant.

Iwannahurl

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

So, you would prefer an urban and suburban fabric where all motorised transport goes at a snails pace?

The purpose of distributor roads is to optimize traffic along them. I've walked along many and didn't see them as either a "barrier" or a "blight" on "the urban landscape".

[...]

I'm well aware that people get to bus stops on foot, on bike or are driven there by car. However, people who do go by foot are advised to cross at traffic/pedestrian lights or look both ways before crossing where there is a lack of such. Similarly, those who choose to cycle to a bus stop along the way should do so in a manner where they don't break the rules of the road i.e. breaking traffic lights or cycling against the flow of traffic. While motorists regularly break the rules of the road, there are also a large number of cyclists who think that it doesn't apply to them. In any case, observation is key. Sadly, many members of our society think they shouldn't have to be observant.

1. Define "snail's pace please.

2. The Western Distributor Road in Galway is one of the ugliest pedestrian/cycle/PT-hostile roads in the city, which is saying something. Infested with roundabouts, no pedestrian crossings (even near schools and shops), chronic speeding, no proper bus stops, decrepit glass-strewn "cycle lanes", only access route for numerous cul-de-sac estates and so on ad nauseam. It is a prime example of unsustainable car-dependent Irish "planning", and it is hardly an isolated example of such. He who has eyes to see...

3. So pedestrians and cyclists just have to get on with it, and take all the responsibility for their own safe passage, even where local authorities have systematically marginalised them through the deliberate non-provision of facilities such as proper crossings, traffic calming, speed controls and permeable/accessible routes for walking and cycling? Is that it? Cater for the car first and foremost and let the pedestrians, cyclists and bus users look out for themselves?

patrickbrophy18

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Define "snail's pace please.

30 - 50 KMPH. Though, I do understand these types of speed limits in enclosed neighbourhoods, cul de sacs and adjacent to schools. On the other hand, roads such as The Rock Road or The Monkstown Ring Road should have higher speed limits.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. The Western Distributor Road in Galway is one of the ugliest pedestrian/cycle/PT-hostile roads in the city, which is saying something. Infested with roundabouts, no pedestrian crossings (even near schools and shops), chronic speeding, no proper bus stops, decrepit glass-strewn "cycle lanes", only access route for numerous cul-de-sac estates and so on ad nauseam. It is a prime example of unsustainable car-dependent Irish "planning", and it is hardly an isolated example of such. He who has eyes to see...

In this particular example, I will agree with you. The Western Distributor Road is an example of how inefficiency of space arises in planning. On the straight, it consists of a narrow kerb, one cycle lane and one car lane per direction. On the map, it is clear that the bulk of the space from wall to wall is grass verges. A huge chunk of this space could be used for underpasses/bridges connecting severed neighbourhoods, wider pedestrian paths, cycle lanes and bus lanes. The lack or scarcity of pedestrian crossing facilities at either end of each section is nothing short of farcical. And yes, I too realize that there are thousands of distributor roads nationwide with these shortcomings.

Some of the roundabouts you mentioned have three lanes (left, ahead and right) on the approach which is superfluous given that it is the roundabouts job to distribute traffic. Either-way, much of this surplus space could be used for cyclists and the provision of pedestrian crossings. Again, this is down to inefficient use of space. While grass verges are an aesthetic "saving grace", they are essentially dead space.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. So pedestrians and cyclists just have to get on with it, and take all the responsibility for their own safe passage

For the most part, yes. There are a lot of people that I see on a daily basis who would step out in front of moving traffic without looking left or right which is incredibly irresponsible. The only exception that I would make to this is children and those with medium to severe physical or mental impairments or people with compromised independence. Nevertheless, the remaining road users (including motorists) should indeed take all responsibility for themselves as doing otherwise would be complacent.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Even where local authorities have systematically marginalised them through the deliberate non-provision of facilities such as proper crossings, traffic calming, speed controls and permeable/accessible routes for walking and cycling? Is that it?

The aforementioned Western Distributor Road in Galway is an example of a road way that should not be followed and is undoubtedly the type of road fitting your description here.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cater for the car first and foremost and let the pedestrians, cyclists and bus users look out for themselves?

I think all road users should look out for themselves and each other. Unfortunately, each type of road user has it's fair share of irresponsible members. The thing is that a lot of measures I have seen in making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists thus far are taking the piss. These measures include junction tightening, removal of filter lanes and pedestrian lights in quick succession (e.g. the east end of Boghall Road in Bray). When I mentioned that buses should behave more like rapid transit systems, it favors bus users by shortening their journey length leaving them with more personal time.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While grass verges are an aesthetic "saving grace", they are essentially dead space.

Slightly OT but those grass verges are actually incredibly useful. They serve as sponges for rainwater which helps alleviate flooding (roads and footpaths not being very permeable). They can be used to cover utilities which makes them easier to access than buried utilities. They also act as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles which is a) safer, b) more pleasant and c) keeps pedestrians away from the part of the road where air pollution from cars naturally gathers.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The thing is that a lot of measures I have seen in making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists thus far are taking the piss. These measures include junction tightening, removal of filter lanes and pedestrian lights in quick succession (e.g. the east end of Boghall Road in Bray).

I have long since stopped believing that you are anything other than a 1970s road engineer, at least in beliefs - I've never seen you demonstrate any opinions contrary to that awful design system. Those things are the things that make being a pedestrian safer and more pleasant. They make cycling a lot safer and hopefully make people more likely to take up those modes of transport.

To put it clearly: a wide junction allows a vehicle to take the turn without slowing down. If they don't slow down, they won't have time to spot or react to any hazard on the road. That hazard could have been crossing the road legally and safely but they'll be struck by a driver who was encourage to take the turn too quickly. Perhaps the hazard is an old person who takes time to cross the road. Perhaps they're a parent pushing a pram. Perhaps they're a normal, fully accessible person who was struck by someone who didn't have time to see them.

Filter lanes are twice as bad. They allow a driver to take a turn without slowing down and they also make it very unsafe for a cyclist who is continuing straight ahead or turning right. They give drivers the idea that they're simply changing lanes instead of what they're actually doing which is *crossing* a cycle lane.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last point but I assume it's one of the few junctions in Ireland where a pedestrian might be able to legally cross the road at the lights without the risk of growing old and dying of terminal boredom? Instead we could continue with the time honored approach of deprioritising pedestrians knowing that the young will ignore them and the old won't care?

Iwannahurl

markpb wrote: »

Slightly OT but those grass verges are actually incredibly useful. They serve as sponges for rainwater which helps alleviate flooding (roads and footpaths not being very permeable). They can be used to cover utilities which makes them easier to access than buried utilities. They also act as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles which is a) safer, b) more pleasant and c) keeps pedestrians away from the part of the road where air pollution from cars naturally gathers.

I concur with most of your comments, including the generality of your remark regarding 1970s thinking. Irish roads and traffic engineers, aping what was done in the UK over many years, are decades behind some other EU countries. The consequences of their outdated thinking are evident everywhere in this country and will take a long time to fix. In some cases, eg large cul-de-sac estates, no practical solution may be possible, and these will remain pedestrian/cycle/PT-hostile forever.

One quibble: the grass verges on the Western Distributor Road in Galway, for example, are not between the foot/cycle path and the roadway. Were that the case, pedestrians and cyclists might have some sort of buffer against the noise and speed of traffic.

monument

The way the manual attacks distributor roads is completely over the top.

The years of poor design and poor planning does not mean there's no place for such roads in urban areas and it also does not mean that that distributor roads cannot be done better.

Iwannahurl

Any examples of quality distributor roads in Ireland or elsewhere?

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Any examples of quality distributor roads in Ireland or elsewhere?

Have a look around Utrecht, The Netherlands, in Google Maps and Street View -- distributor roads are a key component and these benefit cyclists as well as motorists.

Can post exact examples when I get a chance.

Iwannahurl

I'll check those out, thanks.

What are the desirable characteristics of good quality distributor roads?

EDIT: Approximately three quarters of fatal crashes involving cyclists in the Netherlands 2007-2009 occurred on "distributor roads". Source: https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_facilities.pdf

Quote:

On 50 and 80km/h [distributor] roads, almost two thirds of the fatal bicycle crashes happen at intersections. This is due to the fact that there are more possible conflict points at intersections than on road sections. There are more than twice as many road fatalities on 50km/h roads than on 80km/h roads; the explanation being that the number of cyclists is higher in urban areas. On both 50 and 80km/h roads most cyclist fatalities occur in crashes involving motorized vehicles. Particularly at road sections on 50km/h roads a number of fatalities is the result of single bicycle or bicycle-bicycle crashes.

.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Have a look around Utrecht, The Netherlands, in Google Maps and Street View -- distributor roads are a key component and these benefit cyclists as well as motorists.

Can post exact examples when I get a chance.

Interesting! I also notice that some roundabouts and junctions have level crossings on them. Many of these are the kind that are very busy. I wonder how this works?

Anyway, it is possible to have distributor roads which benefit all modes. However, a lot of lessons need to be learned from issues seen in many of Ireland's existing distributor roads today. A do acknowledge that permeability is a big issue which affects the residential areas surrounding them and to a certain extent, I do recognize that they severe such areas. The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) does highlight extreme cases where distributor roads have walls on either side for the entire length which hinders access to them for pedestrians. I'll accept that. Nevertheless, roads with pedestrian crossings every 50 to 100 meters or speed ramps in quick succession can potentially lead to delays for public transport using them. A possible solution to this problem that has gone unexplored is underpasses.

Underpasses could easily be configured in such a way that they eliminate the need for right hand filters at ground level as well as improving permeability for pedestrians and cyclist. These could be strategically placed at points in the road where neighbourhood streets on both sides of the road are directly facing each other. The underpasses themselves would resemble motorway junctions on a much smaller and tighter scale. Access to them would be achieved through a mixture of ramps (mainly for cars, bicycles and wheel chairs) and steps for pedestrians. On each side, a loop would carry cyclists who wish to go straight ahead on the outside of the system to safe guard them from being cut of by motorists exiting at each junction. The carriageway connecting both sides beneath the distributor road would be 13 meters in width or 6.5 meters per direction. 3 meters would be used for cars while the remaining 3.25 meters would be a shared pedestrian and cycle path.

The neighbourhood streets surrounding the distributor road would consist of a mixture of lane ways and small streets with medium to tight corners. Each street would be equipped with a cycle lane. Where space is particularly scarce, a one way system might suffice. The purpose of this would be to discourage the outdated practice of sending buses into actual neighbourhoods themselves. I've always thought that this practice discourages people from taking even modest amounts of exercise (well within a mile or a kilometer). Having said that, I am aware that people with moderate to severe mobility impairments living in such areas would find this very difficult. In such cases, an arrangement may need to be made to make it easier to get to and from the main road. Mobility scooters and other similar devices can solve this issue. But, this is just a suggestion.

markpb wrote: »

Slightly OT but those grass verges are actually incredibly useful. They serve as sponges for rainwater which helps alleviate flooding (roads and footpaths not being very permeable). They can be used to cover utilities which makes them easier to access than buried utilities. They also act as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles which is a) safer, b) more pleasant and c) keeps pedestrians away from the part of the road where air pollution from cars naturally gathers.

I appreciate this.

markpb wrote: »

I have long since stopped believing that you are anything other than a 1970s road engineer, at least in beliefs - I've never seen you demonstrate any opinions contrary to that awful design system. Those things are the things that make being a pedestrian safer and more pleasant. They make cycling a lot safer and hopefully make people more likely to take up those modes of transport.

I'm neither that old nor a road engineer. I'm a computer scientist actually.

Anyway, the suggested solutions to problems such as pedestrian permeability which are mentioned in the DMURS will likely have a negative impact on buses and trucks as well as cars. I have acknowledged some of the flaws of 1970's road planning above.

markpb wrote: »

To put it clearly: a wide junction allows a vehicle to take the turn without slowing down. If they don't slow down, they won't have time to spot or react to any hazard on the road. That hazard could have been crossing the road legally and safely but they'll be struck by a driver who was encourage to take the turn too quickly. Perhaps the hazard is an old person who takes time to cross the road. Perhaps they're a parent pushing a pram. Perhaps they're a normal, fully accessible person who was struck by someone who didn't have time to see them.

Wide junctions are designed to be more friendly to vehicles exceeding 11 meters in length. It enables them to take a left turn on to a perpendicular road without crossing the center line of that road. This is because of the smoother shape of the turn. In many instances, a triangular shaped traffic island is provided for use by pedestrians/cyclists to guide them across the wider roads. Coupled with a median, this breaks the crossing into smaller simpler steps. A speed ramp has recently been installed in the slip lane on to Kill Avenue at the Mounttown end of Upper Glenageary Road. It seems to be doing a good job at slowing down motorists who would otherwise be bombing along. They have also removed one of the northbound lanes as it didn't really have a purpose. And yes, I agree with this.

On the other hand, you have junctions such as those at the bottom of York Road in Dun Laoghaire and the T junction connecting Dame Street with Georges Street. At these locations, the front of the bus ends up swinging into the path of on coming traffic to avoid mounting the curb of a tight corner. Some of these buses are almost 13 meters in length such as the Dublin Bus Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 (tri-axle). In extreme cases, the front of the bus is only inches away from a stationary car which is dangerous.

markpb wrote: »

Filter lanes are twice as bad. They allow a driver to take a turn without slowing down and they also make it very unsafe for a cyclist who is continuing straight ahead or turning right. They give drivers the idea that they're simply changing lanes instead of what they're actually doing which is *crossing* a cycle lane.

As with the aforementioned Upper Glenageary Road example, I think speed ramps could be installed at key point (s) in advance of junctions with slip lanes or filter lanes. This way, the cyclist can get ahead of the pose and take the desired position on the road depending on where they go after that junction. Either-way, filter lanes divide the traffic into more than one direction so that it isn't confined to a single lane. Otherwise, tailbacks arise. Unfortunately, the DMURS aims to take the most inconvenient approach to solving permeability issues.

markpb wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the last point but I assume it's one of the few junctions in Ireland where a pedestrian might be able to legally cross the road at the lights without the risk of growing old and dying of terminal boredom? Instead we could continue with the time honored approach of deprioritising pedestrians knowing that the young will ignore them and the old won't care?

I think this part of the comment is slightly over the top. However, I think many of the actions taken to "re-prioritize" pedestrians are akin to spoon feeding. If more pedestrians looked both ways before crossing (a lesson taught in junior infants which only takes a second), they might find that there are more crossing opportunities than they think. I've even seen pedestrians walking on the road when the sidewalk next to them is completely free which I think is daft. Having said that, small tweaks to traffic light signals such as longer crossing time and more regular green men could make a better difference.

sdanseo

Wouldn't usually aid in the bumping of an old thread but there's been a few posts since and on leafing through the DMURS I've noticed a few rather startling things.

There seems to be a mandate for more signalised pedestrian crossings. Zebra crossings are horribly under-utilised in this country and seem to have been abandoned because motorists were not paying them proper heed. I've just returned from Spain where there are Zebra crossings literally everywhere, and you will never see a car fail to stop for one. They work. And if the old issue resurfaces, slap on four points and a €500 fine for any moron motorist (and I'm a motorist too) who fails to engage their brain enough to stop for one.

In addition to this, there also appears to be specific mention that "appropriate signalised crossings" should be "combined" with roundabouts. Given that the manual says that busy link and arterial routes should have signalised, rather than zebra crossings, this means that the utterly absurd practice of placing sets of pedestrian traffic lights at roundabouts seems to be effectively legislated as compulsory. When will road designers learn that this practice causes traffic chaos? All that's needed is a zebra crossing or, God forbid, a footbridge. Even moving the signalised crossing 50m down would work to alleviate backed-up traffic on roundabouts in most cases.

As an aside here - traffic lights or roundabouts. Never both. Dear god it's my pet peeve.

Finally, on the distributor road front - there's places where they work and places where they don't. Where they divide communities, they are bad. Where they provide good routes through areas where rough ground already divides communities, they are fine - because they can always be opened out onto in the future. It's not set in stone that a distributor road can never have new junctions. Holywell in Swords is an example of an estate with rough ground on three sides that is crying out for a "ring road" to take traffic out of its miserable, mini-roudabout ridden hellhole of a "village".

Iwannahurl wrote: »

EDIT: Approximately three quarters of fatal crashes involving cyclists in the Netherlands 2007-2009 occurred on "distributor roads". Source: https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_facilities.pdf

Quote:

On 50 and 80km/h [distributor] roads, almost two thirds of the fatal bicycle crashes happen at intersections. This is due to the fact that there are more possible conflict points at intersections than on road sections. There are more than twice as many road fatalities on 50km/h roads than on 80km/h roads; the explanation being that the number of cyclists is higher in urban areas. On both 50 and 80km/h roads most cyclist fatalities occur in crashes involving motorized vehicles. Particularly at road sections on 50km/h roads a number of fatalities is the result of single bicycle or bicycle-bicycle crashes.

.

What that says is that of all cycle accidents that happen to occur on distrubutor roads, 75% occured at intersections. Not a particularly earth-moving statistic, anyone could tell you most crashes happen at places where roads meet.

Cliff Lyons wrote: »

Patrick, mmmm lets discuss...

For the sake of all our eyes - and I grant you that it's your first ever post - perhaps use the

[*/QUOTE] tags (my * included to prevent them forming a quote) to add automatic idents to quoted posts. Cheers.

Iwannahurl

sdeire wrote: »

What that says is that of all cycle accidents that happen to occur on distrubutor roads, 75% occured at intersections.

No, the SWOV report Bicycle facilities on distributor roads clearly states (a) "approximately three quarters of the fatal crashes involving cyclists occurred on distributor roads" and (b) "on 50 and 80km/h [distributor] roads, almost two thirds of the fatal bicycle crashes happen at intersections."

I'm merely quoting from an official Dutch report on distributor roads and cycle safety. What conclusions can be drawn from that in the Netherlands and Ireland I'm not in a position to say at this time.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'll check those out, thanks.

What are the desirable characteristics of good quality distributor roads?

EDIT: Approximately three quarters of fatal crashes involving cyclists in the Netherlands 2007-2009 occurred on "distributor roads". Source: https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_facilities.pdf

First, it does not explicitly say 50km/h and 80km/h roads = distributor roads. It's not the case, there's a lack of informtaion as noted road type is not recorded so they are doing a good bit of guess work saying 50km/h and 80km/h roads = distributor roads -- many roads with those limits are not distributor roads as were are talking about.

Secondly, its says: "For 53% of the road fatalities among cyclists the registration form reported a 50 km/h speed limit and for 25% the
reported speed limit was 80 km/h. These percentages are probably an overestimation, as 50 and 80 km/h are often ticked off as the limit when the actual limit is 30 or 60 km/h (Braimaister et al., to be published)."

Also, it says: "There are more than twice as many road fatalities on 50km/h roads than on 80km/h roads; the explanation being that the number of cyclists is higher in urban areas."

Maybe most importantly: Given that Dutch 30km/h zones are designed so effectively and cyclists are banned from motorways, it's not massively surprising that 50km/h and lesser so 80km/h zones account for so much incidents.

Also of great importance is that the Dutch standards are not static, where there's large numbers of cyclists crossing large roads they are upgrading and adding full segregation by way of over-bridges or underpasses for cyclists -- designed far better than anything here!

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Also of great importance is that the Dutch standards are not static, where there's large numbers of cyclists crossing large roads they are upgrading and adding full segregation by way of over-bridges or underpasses for cyclists -- designed far better than anything here!

Amen to that monument. I think underpasses have been completely airbrushed off the DMURS agenda. While over-bridges are good way of getting pedestrians and cyclists to the other side of the road, I do think many of those in Dublin (especially along the N11) lack proper protection along the main crossing section. This is usually because the railings aren't sufficiently high enough. As someone who suffers from severe vertigo, I'm often petrified on them because of the lack of enclosure. In particular, the footbridge beside Cabinteely Church gives me a bad case of the heebie jeebies as it moves slightly in the wind.