N31 Blackrock Bypass Downgrade Proposal

Middle Man

I feel a need to highlight the so called...

>>Frascati Road and Temple Hill Route Improvements<<

...and call a spade a spade. Just click on the link above and see the plans for yourselves. Bear in mind that the Blackrock Bypass is supposed to be a National Primary Route linking a port town. Even if the port aspect completely vanishes in the future, Dun Laoghaire is still a very large town that would probably be a city in itself if it wasn't part of Dublin.

Now, the proposed downgrade includes the narrowing of traffic lanes to just 3 metres (for buses and trucks mind you), considerable tightening of some junctions and very generous cycle lanes (that motorists will have to fight their way across turning left - even to stay on the N31 via Mount Merrion Avenue). Shockingly, the NRA seems happy with this in the report (top of page). Now on top of all that, the said report seems to suggest consideration to removing most of the left turn slips and further reductions in road space.

Yet, local businesses in Dun Laoghaire are giving out stink about a severe falloff in trade and are blaming part of that on high parking prices and clamping in the town. What will traffic calming on the roads approaching Dun Laoghaire do to encourage people to visit the town. In my mind, there's an urgent need to consider at least one high quality road to Dun Laoghaire and perhaps, extending the Luas Green Line from Cherrywood into Dun Laoghaire.

Instead, we have more money wasting BS from the powers that be. While pedestrian connectivity in Blackrock is a serious issue, this scheme as it stands (even without the report) goes way too far. As a motorist, I simply won't be doing any business in Blackrock. What to you guys think of the scheme?

markpb

The funny than about Ireland is that people say they won't take public transport because it's not of good quality. They say they won't cycle because the cycle lanes are too dangerous. But when there's any suggestion of improving either of those things, if it impinges on the space allocated to motorists at all, people scream and shout.

Narrowing lanes slightly to make space for cyclists - catastrophe. Losing left slip lanes which are lethal for pedestrians and cyclists while statistically adding very little to road throughput - my human rights are being denied.

This is a road in a city, a road used by more than just motorists. Roads all over the city are being improved to correct decades of building them to facilitate motorists first and everyone else last. This was never going to be built any differently and that's no bad thing.

You say they should build a Luas line to Dun Laoghaire - something I'd like to see too - but I'm guessing you'd only be happy if they could build it without touching any road anywhere along the route?

mopeds

Thanks for pointing this out OP, a long overdue upgrade of this dangerous road. Cars think this road is a dual carrageway not a city road and as such it is dangerous to cycle on, this is a main artery into the city and has no cycle lane. A cyclist died on this road earlier this year and dedicated cycle lanes will def make it safer for all road users. Roads are not just for motorists but are for all users.

Middle Man

If you want to design urban roads for everybody, here's how the Dutch do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

Whatever about road space, the engineering aspect makes complete sense. Also, I've figured out a while back how such junctions could operate in 4 phases (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) with no conflict between motorists and other road users.

Our urban planners seem miles behind everyone else in Europe...

Middle Man

Interestingly, grade separation between motorists and other road users does not have to be so evil as this video from the Netherlands show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFTd8kuVrHY

Of course you have to bear in mind that the Dutch are one of the most advanced in terms of road engineering in the world - champions of both the highway and greenway. What's real funny is that we had a roundabout like this in Ballymun and guess what we did - oh yeah, rip it out and replace it with an at grade 6 lane death trap...

Tweedle dee tweedle dum... :rolleyes:

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

The funny than about Ireland is that people say they won't take public transport because it's not of good quality. They say they won't cycle because the cycle lanes are too dangerous.

The funny thing is that public transport in Ireland leaves a lot to be desired because the existing transport providers don't listen to customers (i.e. would be commuters). The coordination of public transport is shocking and is often less than sensible. Take someone traveling from Dun Laoghaire to Citywest for example. By public transport, they have to go into Dublin City by train only to come out the other end by a much slower and unpleasant tram system. From experience, this takes 2 hours each. Conversely, the car only takes 30 minutes (45 minutes tops). I have lost all faith in the Irish public transportation system due to the obvious cut and paste responses I get from suggestions to the relevant transport bodies.

There are a myriad of different methods to make cycling safer without resorting to the blatant inconveniencing of motorists and half assed segregation of motorists and cyclists. A good example of this is seen in the plans just outside Frascati Shopping Center. Instead of planning the cycle lane to go around the bus stop, they are proposing a crisscross approach which is a collision waiting to happen. Having seen the cross sections, I amn't entirely critical of the proposal as it appears to be placing the cycle lane on a slightly raised elevation. This is far better than the traditional lick of paint that supposedly separates motorists and cyclists. On the other hand, I do disagree with the narrowing of the bus lane to 3 meters when most buses are 2.55 meters wide. That's less than a quarter of a meter of clearance either side.

markpb wrote: »

But when there's any suggestion of improving either of those things, if it impinges on the space allocated to motorists at all, people scream and shout.

While it will for sure be an improvement for cyclists, I can see it being a considerable dis-improvement for buses given that there is a much smaller margin for error and removal of slip lanes makes for tighter turns.

markpb wrote: »

Narrowing lanes slightly to make space for cyclists - catastrophe.

It all depends on the function of the lane being narrowed. As I mentioned above, buses are 2.55 meters in width and should have a clearance of half a meter either side. Conversely, standard car lanes can afford to lose a bit of width given that they can be anything from 1.5 to 2 meters wide. As such, 2.5 or 2.75 is plenty.

markpb wrote: »

Losing left slip lanes which are lethal for pedestrians and cyclists while statistically adding very little to road throughput - my human rights are being denied.

Just a tad overly dramatic here. As a pedestrian, left slip lanes seem to work fine for me whenever I cross the road. Just a quick glance both ways and away I go. Plus, they split the crossing process into simpler steps. Crossing the road in bite sized chunks. However, I do see how they can be quite dangerous for cyclists who intend on going straight on as they are at risk of being side swiped. Then again, taking center stage in advance of the slip road puts the cyclist in front instead of left. A cyclist priority light could better facilitate this.

markpb wrote: »

This is a road in a city, a road used by more than just motorists. Roads all over the city are being improved to correct decades of building them to facilitate motorists first and everyone else last. This was never going to be built any differently and that's no bad thing.

I will agree with you on this. Here is a quote from yours truly which I posted in another similar thread and which should sum things up:

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In the latter half of the 20th century, the main transport bodies made a dogs breakfast of (what was at the time) a very extensive public transport network. Let's start off with CIE. Up to the 1960s, our country had a vast heavy rail network. Towns as small as Schull in County Cork and Letterkenny in Donegal had train stations. Back then, they were privately run with better names like The Great Southern Railway etc. These rail routes had been open for decades which would indicate that they were viable. If not, they would have ceased operations after a few years. Even further back, there were plans to connect Harcourt Street Station with Broadstone Station. In the early 1900s, Dublin's tram network, as far as I know, was one of the most extensive in Europe. Enter CIE and the subsequent nationalization of the public transport network. Since then, a very sophisticated rail and tram network was dismantled, leaving with it, disconnected towns. At a time when popularity of the private car began to soar, CIE effectively caused a disincentive for public transport use and thus, resulting in many would-be commuters resorting to the car.

NIMBYism and over-prioritization of architecture in many suburbs, towns and cities in Ireland resulted in uncontrolled and poorly guided residential and commercial development culminating in the urban sprawl we see today. We should have built upwards instead of outwards and placed more of an emphasis on consolidating population growth within a short range of existing train stations. Instead, we have elasticized the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) through decentralization creating unnecessary dependency on the car. For example, new developments such as City West and Cherrywood where initially built well away from any decent transport system. Since then, the LUAS has been extended to serve them. Had they been mooted for areas like Castleknock, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock or Dalkey which are equipped with rail connections, the architecture police (NIMBYs) would have slated them. Consequently, they end up being built in areas that are only reachable by car. Again, this adds more weight to car dependency in Dublin and other similar situations nationwide.

markpb wrote: »

You say they should build a Luas line to Dun Laoghaire - something I'd like to see too - but I'm guessing you'd only be happy if they could build it without touching any road anywhere along the route?

I know that there are plans for a QBC from Cherrywood to Dun Laoghaire via Bride's Glen. It's not to late to revise this into a Luas plan as nothing has been built yet. At least, it would be powered by electricity instead of diesel. However, given the track record (no pun intended) of our planning authorities, I can assume this suggestion would be a pipe dream.

markpb

Middle Man wrote: »

we had a roundabout like this in Ballymun and guess what we did - oh yeah, rip it out and replace it with an at grade 6 lane death trap...:

How many people have been killed in the ten years since that roundabout was removed? Because surely that's what you mean by death trap...

I.do agree with you that we have a lot to learn from the Dutch though.

Iwannahurl

"Downgrade" for whom?

As always, I advocate that the engineers describe such schemes using neutral terms such as "modifications", clearly stating the expected changes in Level of Service for different categories of road user.

Reallocating road space to more sustainable and space/energy-efficient modes of travel is now policy nationally and internationally, and schemes like this one should demonstrate how the anticipated changes in LoS are in alignment with such objectives.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Downgrade" for whom?

As always, I advocate that the engineers describe such schemes using neutral terms such as "modifications", clearly stating the expected changes in Level of Service for different categories of road user.

Summary of Animal Farm wrote:

Boxer has a split hoof that is giving him pain. Boxer makes it a point not to show the others that he is in pain, and refuses to work less. His ambition is to get the new windmill close to completion before his retirement next summer.
Rations for all animals are reduced. The only exceptions are the pigs and dogs. When Squealer announces that ration sizes are changing, it is labeled as a ration adjustment rather than reduction.

http://www.hyperink.com/Ldquoanimal-Farmrdquo-Summary-Chapter-9-b254a16

Sound familiar?

HydeRoad

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Reallocating road space to more sustainable and space/energy-efficient modes of travel is now policy nationally and internationally, and schemes like this one should demonstrate how the anticipated changes in LoS are in alignment with such objectives.

To my eye, this new scheme is not 'reallocation' of road space. Rather, they are just squeezing everything up, and shoehorning an inadequate cycle lane in, trying not to lose any car space as they do so.

It is notable that the only losers here will be trucks and buses, who will find their safe passage through greatly reduced, and their danger and difficulty increased. Cars will continue to flood in, at exactly the same volume as before, unhindered, and cyclists will have another narrow cycle lane that they will most likely find too dangerous to use, and will therefore remain on the roadway, like they always do.

A true 'reallocation' of road space, to my mind, would have been the loss of one entire traffic lane each way on Frascati Road, bus priorites on entering the village of Blackrock, and a three metre wide, road-level cycle lane. Let me describe further.

Frascati Road every morning is at a standstill. There are a number of cumulative reasons for this, primarily down to traffic volume. One of my own bugbears, that they are retaining, I see, in this new scheme, is the 'two-into-one' inbound at the junction with Mount Merrion Avenue. I despise this arrangement, which all the Dublin Councils seem fixated upon, having two straight ahead lanes at a traffic light, but only one lane the far side. All this does is create a logjam, as nobody is willing to merge, particularly having sat in a queue for twenty minutes or more, and all are encouraged to jump the junction, and sit blocking the junction when the lights change for the other roads.

By reducing the Frascati Road to one lane each way, you are effectively pushing the traffic queue back much further, but at the same time, you are effecting it's quicker dispersal, as instead of logjams at these 'two-into-ones,' traffic will move more smartly through, in single file, without all the merging, and less junction blocking. It is much safer too, which surely should be a good enough consideration in itself. This may have an effect on villages like Monkstown, but they are going to be queued in the morning anyway. A longer queue that moves twice as fast is the same as a shorter queue that moves twice as slowly. The volume is the same.

This would allow for a cycle lane of proper width. The cyclists are going to need at least three metres, because in the headlong morning rush, you are going to have very fast cyclists, very slow cyclists, and everything in between. They are simply not all going to be able to cycle in single file on a narrow, kerb-mounted lane, with buses brushing past right up against them in too-narrow lanes. I also object to kerb raised cycle lanes, as cyclists simply will not use these, they will stay down on the road. If it is not a road level cycle lane of proper width, then it is not a cycle lane, and no amount of calling it one will change that.

Ideally the width is there, on Frascati Road, to realign the central island altogether, and have one traffic lane each way, one three metre cycle lane each way, and one inbound bus lane, which would really be crucial here. There would be less or no need for a similar outbound lane.

Regarding access to Blackrock village, we have to take into account that many of the residents of Blackrock are rather well-heeled, which usually works against any reallocation of private motoring space. But this is not about reduction of car space. What looks like a reduction of space, is merely intended to get things moving more freely. A longer queue moving more quickly is better, in my view than a shorter queue, which is moving much more slowly and congested.

My suggestion would be that access to Blackrock village for private cars be restricted to Carysfort Avenue and Temple Road only from outbound, and Carysfort Avenue and Rock Hill only from inbound, using right turn restrictions (which would be a gain for traffic on the main drag too). Therefore, only buses would be allowed access Rock Hill outbound (run the existing outbound bus lane right up to Rock Hill without any car access), and only buses allowed access Temple Road inbound. That gives bus priority into Blackrock village, still allows full car access, but discourages use of the village as a rat-run.

The scheme has one positive element, and that is that finally they are accepting that there is no room on Temple Hill for two lanes outbound, which was difficult and dangerous.

All of that is pretty radical, too radical for DLRCC most likely, primarily because on face value, it appears to be cutting too much away from private cars. I argue that it isn't. It is probably too controversial a view, as will be evident, I am sure, from the responses we will get here (oh, you can't do that), but I argue that the present situation is unsustainable, the new scheme makes absolutely no difference to anything, other than imposing another expensive and unusable cycle lane into a city full of expensive and unused cycle lanes, retaining the same volume of congested car traffic, and managing only to impede the buses and trucks, the two types of traffic that really need to be there, and need to keep schedules.

I still, unfortunately, suspect that the councils do not want to give greater bus priority, that their preference is to maintain car priority everywhere, despite noises towards greater inclusion of cyclists. This new cycle lane is not a proper cycle lane, it is the same old junk that has been foisted upon us for years, and everything about this new scheme screams of retention of car volumes a priority. It is not a 'reallocation' of road space.

Larbre34

The Mods need to have a look at the title of this thread. 'Downgrade' is a subjective description and the nature of the scheme is arguable.

As for a suggested lack of political or bureaucratic will to bring in bus priority? There is so much unused bus priority in this city that has been installed over the last 10 years, I suspect if you nodded off under a tree on a grassy verge there's a high likelihood you would wake up with a 200mm wide white stripe up your back and 'Láná Bus' stamped on your T-shirt....

HydeRoad

Larbre34 wrote: »

As for a suggested lack of political or bureaucratic will to bring in bus priority? There is so much unused bus priority in this city that has been installed over the last 10 years, I suspect if you nodded off under a tree on a grassy verge there's a high likelihood you would wake up with a 200mm wide white stripe up your back and 'Láná Bus' stamped on your T-shirt....

There is tons of useless bus priority all over the city. I would suggest that less than a quarter of the city's bus lanes are any way effective, and somewhere between a quarter and a half are practically unusable, or simply useless.

Just like cycle lanes, the fact that a council might implement what they call a bus lane, doesn't mean that the bus lane has been designed by anyone with a remote idea about driving buses or the requirements of a bus service, and doesn't mean that bus drivers will actually be able to use the thing, any more than cyclists are able to use many of the so-called cycle lanes around the city.

A typical bus route can have quite an amount of bus lane where the bus seldom gets held up by traffic anyway, and then just when the bus actually needs the bus lane, the bus lane disappears. I have driven in every bus lane in the city, and I can safely say that in at least half of cases, it is safer for me to stay out in the main traffic lane. What is the point of an expensive engineering project to implement cycle lanes or bus lanes if the finished product cannot be used by the people who are meant to use it? The money might as well be refunded to the hard pressed taxpayer, unless it is going to be done right. And in Ireland, it seldom is.

Iwannahurl

HydeRoad wrote: »

To my eye, this new scheme is not 'reallocation' of road space. Rather, they are just squeezing everything up, and shoehorning an inadequate cycle lane in, trying not to lose any car space as they do so.

Fine, in which case presumptive terms such as "upgrade" are misleading. The question is, what is the proposed change in the Level of Service for different modes of travel, and how can those changes be demonstrated?

Iwannahurl

HydeRoad wrote: »

Just like cycle lanes, the fact that a council might implement what they call a bus lane, doesn't mean that the bus lane has been designed by anyone with a remote idea about driving buses or the requirements of a bus service, and doesn't mean that bus drivers will actually be able to use the thing, any more than cyclists are able to use many of the so-called cycle lanes around the city.

Very interesting. Your experience with bus lanes mirrors that of many cyclists who are typically expected to be abjectly grateful for shoddy "upgrades" of one sort or another. Galway City is festooned with such "improvements".

In my opinion, one loophole that allows local authorities to get away with such muppetry is that they are not required to quantify and guarantee the Level of Service that will supposedly result from the scheme.

Sheldons Brain

It could be argued that the cost of this scheme could be better spent elsewhere in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown to benefit both cyclists and buses.

Middle Man

markpb wrote: »

How many people have been killed in the ten years since that roundabout was removed? Because surely that's what you mean by death trap...

I.do agree with you that we have a lot to learn from the Dutch though.

I've driven the Ballymun Road myself and it's lethal IMO. From what I saw, pedestrians now have to fight their way across. Also, the parking on the side southbound - don't get me started - this IMO is an accident waiting to happen. Also, cyclists who originally had hard shoulders and no conflicting motor traffic for a long distance now have a mere 1m wide (it seems) road marking - not fit to be called cycle lanes IMO. Downgrade for everybody it seems...

Middle Man

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The funny thing is that public transport in Ireland leaves a lot to be desired because the existing transport providers don't listen to customers (i.e. would be commuters). The coordination of public transport is shocking and is often less than sensible. Take someone traveling from Dun Laoghaire to Citywest for example. By public transport, they have to go into Dublin City by train only to come out the other end by a much slower and unpleasant tram system. From experience, this takes 2 hours each. Conversely, the car only takes 30 minutes (45 minutes tops). I have lost all faith in the Irish public transportation system due to the obvious cut and paste responses I get from suggestions to the relevant transport bodies.

+10 - Couldn't agree more - since I got my full driving license in Jan 2011, I've never looked back - given my rural address, the car for me is a life changer. If people are to use public transport, then the Luas Green Line is the standard required to entice people from their cars IMO - every six/seven minutes no hassle. However, it's just one line - one swallow doesn't make a summer!

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

There are a myriad of different methods to make cycling safer without resorting to the blatant inconveniencing of motorists and half assed segregation of motorists and cyclists. A good example of this is seen in the plans just outside Frascati Shopping Center. Instead of planning the cycle lane to go around the bus stop, they are proposing a crisscross approach which is a collision waiting to happen. Having seen the cross sections, I amn't entirely critical of the proposal as it appears to be placing the cycle lane on a slightly raised elevation. This is far better than the traditional lick of paint that supposedly separates motorists and cyclists. On the other hand, I do disagree with the narrowing of the bus lane to 3 meters when most buses are 2.55 meters wide. That's less than a quarter of a meter of clearance either side.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While it will for sure be an improvement for cyclists, I can see it being a considerable dis-improvement for buses given that there is a much smaller margin for error and removal of slip lanes makes for tighter turns.

Yes, a bus needs at least 3.5m - sure a tram gets that and albeit probably a little wider than a bus, it's guided along. Also, these tighter junctions are simply going to cause more problems for buses and traffic in general. It might be better to reduce the dual carriageway to single 2 lane with decent lane widths, turning lanes and junctions similar to major signal junctions in the Netherlands - after all, there's only one lane each way of general traffic on Rock Road. To move buses along, maybe traffic meter the approaches to bypass and provide bus lanes on the approaches - I'm using some of the ideas from what HydeRoad is saying. We either have a dual carriageway or we don't.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It all depends on the function of the lane being narrowed. As I mentioned above, buses are 2.55 meters in width and should have a clearance of half a meter either side. Conversely, standard car lanes can afford to lose a bit of width given that they can be anything from 1.5 to 2 meters wide. As such, 2.5 or 2.75 is plenty.

I'd say 3.25m for general traffic and 3.5m for buses - one has to allow for vans and small trucks etc. If lanes are too tight in any town/area, people might be discouraged from going in to do their business/shopping etc there. I believe that this is now a problem in the UK as this >>article<< might suggest. I for one would never go into many a town if I can avoid it - I've no accidents to date and I want to keep it that way - I certainly don't want to drive roads like the Ballymun Road if I can help it.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Just a tad overly dramatic here. As a pedestrian, left slip lanes seem to work fine for me whenever I cross the road. Just a quick glance both ways and away I go. Plus, they split the crossing process into simpler steps. Crossing the road in bite sized chunks. However, I do see how they can be quite dangerous for cyclists who intend on going straight on as they are at risk of being side swiped. Then again, taking center stage in advance of the slip road puts the cyclist in front instead of left. A cyclist priority light could better facilitate this.

As a long distance walker, I couldn't agree more. I have walked in various places where I'd be frustrated because I could cross a road only for left turning traffic with no slip. Junctions without slips can cause unnecessary delays to pedestrians. The only reason why slips are a problem these days are because of anti-jaywalking (anti-pedestrian I'd actually call it) laws. It is also interesting to note that according to the urban road design manual, it's perfectly OK for trucks to cross to the wrong side of the road they're turning left into to make the turn on a tight junction. Seriously, do these planners not think that some motorists will cop this on and follow suit. At least slips can make the motorists do the turn - if one wants to slow traffic, then a 30/60 slip should do the trick. Also, if a slip is long enough, then there's plenty of room for a zebra crossing thereby giving pedestrians priority. Also, a slip can be designed allow turning traffic to exit a road smoothly but compelling them to do the turn at the other end - this to me is good planning. Of course, I still think the best designs are Dutch style signal junctions where there are good turning radii and good pedestrian/cycle facilities with no need for slips.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I know that there are plans for a QBC from Cherrywood to Dun Laoghaire via Bride's Glen. It's not to late to revise this into a Luas plan as nothing has been built yet. At least, it would be powered by electricity instead of diesel. However, given the track record (no pun intended) of our planning authorities, I can assume this suggestion would be a pipe dream.

Both a Luas extension and an upgraded road to Dun Laoghaire could help turn the town around - both these links should be developed as one project in the interest of good planning. The Luas to Fassaroe should IMO be scrapped as it is only a vehicle for yet more urban sprawl. A new Luas to Dun Laoghaire should utilize the old railway viaduct and serve the hospital at Loughlinstown.

Good post Patrick!

patrickbrophy18

Middle Man wrote: »

I've driven the Ballymun Road myself and it's lethal IMO. From what I saw, pedestrians now have to fight their way across. Also, the parking on the side southbound - don't get me started - this IMO is an accident waiting to happen. Also, cyclists who originally had hard shoulders and no conflicting motor traffic for a long distance now have a mere 1m wide (it seems) road marking - not fit to be called cycle lanes IMO. Downgrade for everybody it seems...

I completely agree. Sadly, this is one of the ideologies being mooted by the DMURS as active street edges. In other words, it creates unnecessary need for caution among motorists by placing vulnerable road users nearer their path. To put it another way, it is turning vulnerable road users into leverage to slow traffic down. This includes buses which, in my opinion, should be encouraged to go faster (albeit not to a dangerous degree) to achieve shorter journey lengths.

There should be proper grade separation between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Where space permits, there should be a grass verge separating each and for cyclists, there would be a two way cycle lane on each side. This way, at the start of each road, cyclists will have taken to the side of the road which favours their desired destination. Next, pedestrian crossings would be provided every 50-100 meters depending on the land topologies on either side. However, if the population density is particularly scarce, there would be little or no need for pedestrian crossings. Property developers on such routes should also be encouraged to provide a mixture of bridges and underpasses to prevent the need for pedestrian crossings in quick succession.

Iwannahurl

I had high hopes for the DMURS when it appeared, and at first glance it looks good. The rhetoric is positive at any rate.

However, I'm rapidly becoming disillusioned. For example, one flaw I see is the DMURS promotion of those nonsensical "courtesy crossings".

According to the DMURS, "courtesy crossings ... allow pedestrians to informally assert a degree of priority over drivers and are particularly effective at promoting pedestrian priority."

What a load of crap. Unlike Zebra or Pelican crossings, "courtesy crossings" have no basis whatsoever in road traffic legislation, are not well understood by either motorists or pedestrians, and are very often installed where pedestrians already have right of way.

In my view roads engineers, justified by the DMURS nonsense, are using "courtesy crossings" as a way of pretending to cater for pedestrians while really working to ensure that motorised vehicles have priority, even where pedestrians already have priority by law.

How such muppetry came to be in the DMURS, thereby giving road engineers the perfect excuse, is beyond me.

Aard

IWH:
Those photos are not of courtesy crossings as I understand them. A better example is the new ones in Castlebar. https://mobile.twitter.com/JTUrbanDesign/status/438679286288224256/photo/1

The ones in your photo are just your standard dished kerbs that can be seen all over urban areas and are not what DMURS would recommend.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

IWH:
Those photos are not of courtesy crossings as I understand them. A better example is the new ones in Castlebar. https://mobile.twitter.com/JTUrbanDesign/status/438679286288224256/photo/1

The ones in your photo are just your standard dished kerbs that can be seen all over urban areas and are not what DMURS would recommend.

What's the difference, in terms of road traffic legislation, Rules of the Road etc?

Also, have a look at this photo, taken from the webpage linked above:



My impression is that the road with the cars on it is the 'main' road, the one on the right being a side road.

If that is the case, then pedestrians walking along the main road have right of way crossing the junction, and traffic exiting the side road must yield to them.

Yet Mayo County Council have installed a "courtesy crossing", inviting motorists not to yield to pedestrians if they don't feel like it.

Why does the DMURS advocate this approach I wonder?

monument

There's no such thing as a "courtesy crossing" in Ireland.

Mayo County Council is completely in the wrong giving the impression that any crossing in Ireland works the same as UK-style courtesy crossings.

Sheldons Brain

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As usual, the pedestrian doesn't even have to step on the road, the cylist is aiming for them on the footpath.
Get off our footpaths!

afatbollix

monument wrote: »

There's no such thing as a "courtesy crossing" in Ireland.

Mayo County Council is completely in the wrong giving the impression that any crossing in Ireland works the same as UK-style courtesy crossings.

They have been in Westport for years and most people will stop to let you by. I think that is where they got the idea for Castlebar but have put them in the wrong places.

Iwannahurl

"Courtesy crossings" have no legal basis and no standards regulating them.

It is a nonsense to have pedestrians relying on the whim of motorists whether to stop or not.

In my experience, especially when pushing a buggy, many motorists do not stop. Or when traffic is slow-moving they do stop, right across the meaningless "courtesy crossing".

Westport is a lovely small town, but it's a traffic-clogged mess in places. Having two lanes of heavy traffic trundling along one-way streets with parking on both sides is pure lunacy. But in 21st Century Ireland that's still completely normal, as are road crossings with no law governing them.

patrickbrophy18

I had a look at some of the proposed suggestions and answers in the document entitled "Report Following Non Statutory Public Consultation". Some points give me cause for concern:

1. One of them seems to indicate that some individuals favor the provision of trees at medians or close to the carriageway as, yet again, another form of traffic calming. This is idiocy at it's finest as the roots of said trees will inevitably rip up the medians, sidewalks or roads that surrounds them resulting in unnecessary maintenance costs. I've been on buses routes where the upper saloon frequently rubs against overhanging branches. There was one incident on the 38A a few years ago where the branch ended up smashing in the two front-left windows. The clearance between buses and the kerbs and/or bus stops should also include cubic meters i.e. the height as well as the width and length of the vehicle. See point "VII" on page 7 of the document.
2. Another suggestion regarding underpasses and over-bridges was quite sharply dismissed on the grounds that they "do not meet with pedestrian desire lines" as a result of "detours" or "diversions". If done right, they can be just as direct as ground level crossings. In fact, a recent planning submission regarding the revamp of Frascati Shopping Center sees the planned installation of a basement car park. Given that Blackrock Shopping Center already has a basement car park, the two could be connected far more directly via a tunnel. In time, this could also pave the way (no pun intended ) for a major merge of the two shopping centers. Sadly, this may be deemed to convenient to those at head office. See point "X" on page 8 of the document.

In general, the rest of the document is very one-sided. I also remain very skeptical that the largest percentage of comments favor the proposal.

SeanW

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

As usual, the pedestrian doesn't even have to step on the road, the cylist is aiming for them on the footpath.
Get off our footpaths!

Why did IWH take down just that image?

Carawaystick

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I had a look at some of the proposed suggestions and answers in the document entitled "Report Following Non Statutory Public Consultation". Some points give me cause for concern:

1. One of them seems to indicate that some individuals favor the provision of trees at medians or close to the carriageway as, yet again, another form of traffic calming. This is idiocy at it's finest as the roots of said trees will inevitably rip up the medians, sidewalks or roads that surrounds them resulting in unnecessary maintenance costs. I've been on buses routes where the upper saloon frequently rubs against overhanging branches. There was one incident on the 38A a few years ago where the branch ended up smashing in the two front-left windows.

Dublin bus have at least one bus which has trimmers to allow trees to be cut back to a bus sized space

So this is a DB fault

Also there's DB routes I rural locations where this is to be expected

patrickbrophy18

Carawaystick wrote: »

Dublin bus have at least one bus which has trimmers to allow trees to be cut back to a bus sized space

This is a form of maintenance that can be avoided if trees aren't planted so close to routes which see heavy use by buses. As such, it shouldn't be repeated in future infrastructure designs.

Carawaystick wrote: »

So this is a DB fault

While I agree with this statement by virtue of the fact that bus drivers should be more careful about overhanging vegetation, let's not invent further reasons for such care. Unfortunately, many quality bus corridors (QBCs) are faced with over bearing vegetation, particularly in the city. If future QBCs are being fitted with intrusive obstacles to create unnecessary caution, the journey length will more than likely be increased thus, removing the quality aspect from them.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Also there's DB routes I rural locations where this is to be expected

On legacy infrastructure laden with flaws such as intrusive vegetation, it is to be expected. Let's not continue this trend.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I had high hopes for the DMURS when it appeared, and at first glance it looks good. The rhetoric is positive at any rate.

However, I'm rapidly becoming disillusioned. For example, one flaw I see is the DMURS promotion of those nonsensical "courtesy crossings".

According to the DMURS, "courtesy crossings ... allow pedestrians to informally assert a degree of priority over drivers and are particularly effective at promoting pedestrian priority."

What a load of crap. Unlike Zebra or Pelican crossings, "courtesy crossings" have no basis whatsoever in road traffic legislation, are not well understood by either motorists or pedestrians, and are very often installed where pedestrians already have right of way.

In my view roads engineers, justified by the DMURS nonsense, are using "courtesy crossings" as a way of pretending to cater for pedestrians while really working to ensure that motorised vehicles have priority, even where pedestrians already have priority by law.

How such muppetry came to be in the DMURS, thereby giving road engineers the perfect excuse, is beyond me.

...

...

Why has the third image here been deleted - by the poster? Are they trying to hide something?

Aard

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Who uploaded what photo and why is irrelevant to the discussion of the Blackrock bypass project.

- Moderator.

patrickbrophy18

I was walking along Mount Merrion Avenue beside where it meets Frascati Road and I noticed that they have done away with the north-west bound slip lane altogether. This wasn't in the initial plans. It has now become a slip lane for cyclists alright. Buses such as the 17 will now have to swing wide and squeeze between the footpath and median.

Another criticism which I will make on closer inspection of the original plans is that the bus stop on the opposite side of the road before the entrance to Rock Hill is also placed inside the cycle lane. Again, this is an accident waiting to happen. As is the case with the proposed arrangement in front of Frascati Shopping Center, in order for the bus to pull into the stop safely, they will need to cross the cycle lane. This inherently flawed road design will give rise to a mandatory blind spot check by the bus driver at a crucial point in the road where the driver should only be looking ahead. In this case, the crucial point of the road is a busy section where people might cross ahead of the designated crossing.

To better demonstrate my concern, here is a picture of a bus stop where this type of crisscross pattern is likely:



On the other hand, here is a picture of a minor adjustment whereby the cyclist and bus driver don't even need to look out for one another:

ardmacha

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

On the other hand, here is a picture of a minor adjustment whereby the cyclist and bus driver don't even need to look out for one another:

This latter arrangement is nonsense as it means that pedestrians having to run a gauntlet of cyclists when they get off the bus.

Traffic, cyclists included, should give way to buses stopping and leaving bus stops.

Aard

The "bus stop island" arrangement above is quite common elsewhere, eg in the Netherlands. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after a day it becomes second nature to watch out for bikes.

ardmacha

Aard wrote: »

The "bus stop island" arrangement above is quite common elsewhere, eg in the Netherlands. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after a day it becomes second nature to watch out for bikes.

Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.

markpb

ardmacha wrote: »

Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.

They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop. They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath. It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop.

The passengers of the bus are but not the cyclist.

markpb wrote: »

They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath.

Having two paths (i.e. a cycle lane and bus lane) crossing is a design flaw which has plagued many of our roads to date. In my opinion, it is an accident waiting to happen. Thankfully, some of these flaws were rectified along the N11 by having the cycle lane/track going around the bus stops. Plus, space isn't an issue for the Blackrock Bypass which can well afford more cycle friendly bus stops. Sadly, the old approach of the bus stop inside the cycle lane is the design of choice for the Blackrock Bypass. Unless this is another form of leverage to create unnecessary additional levels of caution among bus drivers. Either-way, I don't see any benefit to this whatsoever.

markpb wrote: »

It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.

By its very design, cyclists could easily be cut off by a stopping bus which can be fatal. So, whether or not the cause of death is by a land mine or a road accident, the result is ultimately the same.

ardmacha

markpb wrote: »

They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop. They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath. It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.

Why should they have to cross anything? The cyclists should be on the road the the bus should stop at the footpath at the side of the road, not one in the middle of the road. Note in the above there is no pedestrian crossing.

The proposed arrangement is only dangerous if cyclists try to undertake the bus.

Aard

ardmacha wrote: »

The proposed arrangement is only dangerous if cyclists try to undertake the bus.

AKA cycling straight ahead. In the example above, the cyclist wouldn't be undertaking the bus -- the bus should wait for the cyclist to pass before crossing the cycle lane. If the bus-stop was arranged in an island pattern, however, there'd be no conflict between bus and bike. Yes, passengers alighting the bus would be required to cross a 1.5m cycle track in that instance.

What you describe about undertaking is only relevant if there is no cycle lane, and bikes/busses/cars ostensibly share the one lane.

monument

ardmacha wrote: »

This latter arrangement is nonsense as it means that pedestrians having to run a gauntlet of cyclists when they get off the bus.

Traffic, cyclists included, should give way to buses stopping and leaving bus stops.

You're somehow thinking that pedestrians can't cross a 2 meter cycle path? But yet they have to cross 8+ meter roads unaided with two-way traffic of buses, cars, bicycles and trucks.

ardmacha wrote: »

Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.

Elderly people, young children, people who have disabilities -- all of those people cycle and the plan is to get more of them on bikes.

They should not be compromised because you like stereotypes. It's likely Blackrock now has a cycling modal share of ~10% and growing.

donvito99

That type of island arrangement is used a lot on the N11. Cyclists are expected to yield at some of them, it works quite well. So long as there is line of sight for both cyclists and pedestrians, and that the cycle lane is properly distinguished so that it is not mindlessly trespassed upon, there shouldn't be a problem.

Middle Man

monument wrote: »

You're somehow thinking that pedestrians can't cross a 2 meter cycle path? But yet they have to cross 8+ meter roads unaided with two-way traffic of buses, cars, bicycles and trucks.



Elderly people, young children, people who have disabilities -- all of those people cycle and the plan is to get more of them on bikes.

They should not be compromised because you like stereotypes. It's likely Blackrock now has a cycling modal share of ~10% and growing.

500- Cyclists

---

= 10%??? :rolleyes:
30,000+ PCUs

...I'm being generous, and that's not even counting pedestrians!!!

Aard

According to Census 2011, the Electoral Divisions in Blackrock see a cycling modeshare (work/school/college) of around 8-9%.

monument

Middle Man wrote: »

500- Cyclists

---

= 10%??? :rolleyes:
30,000+ PCUs

...I'm being generous, and that's not even counting pedestrians!!!

Blackrock had a cycling modal share of 7.53% in the 2011 Cencus, given the increases shown by counters it's now likely close to 10%.

Given the state of the road, I'm surprised they even managed to count 500 bicycles movements on Blackrock bypass before the improvement works started.

While there's still going to be some fairly poor shared bus/taxi/cycle lanes between Blackrock and the city centre, the Blackrock bypass was the worst section of one of the worst cycle routes into Dublin from the south side.

Sheldons Brain

donvito99 wrote: »

That type of island arrangement is used a lot on the N11. Cyclists are expected to yield at some of them, it works quite well. So long as there is line of sight for both cyclists and pedestrians, and that the cycle lane is properly distinguished so that it is not mindlessly trespassed upon, there shouldn't be a problem.

Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.

Aard

^He's talking about cycle tracks, not footpaths.

Deedsie

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.

I'm a cyclist, I obey all the rules of the road. Get off my cycle lane while you are texting or have headphones in. We all need to take care and carry our own share of responsibility for road safety. I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorist... Every group has its faults and failings. We need to share commuting space

donvito99

Aard wrote: »

^He's talking about cycle tracks, not footpaths.

What he said ^^^.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.

Seaswimmer

Well what do people think of it so far. As someone who cycles that route twice a day I am impressed by the width of the new lanes. I also like the line of cones just after the 2nd entrance to Frescati heading into town. This will stop cars cutting into the cycle lane too early and blocking it. I know its a continuous line which shouldn't be crossed anyway but the cones make it more obvious.

Only bit I am a bit dissapointed by is after crossing the bottom of Merrion Avenue (towards town) the cycle lane veers fairly sharply in left close to the kerb. The natural line here is for cyclists to stay out and aim for the next bit of cycle lane after the bus stop.

But overall so far so good..

Middle Man

Just had the pleasure of crossing the Frascati Road which now has de-facto hard shoulders - waste of road width that pedestrians are now forced to cross - not one cyclist while everyone else suffers - place crawling with pedestrians and motorists. Not one serious pedestrian improvement from the DART to Frascati Centre that I could see despite all the road downgrades. More slips being removed at the centre. What's needed is an open pedestian underpass at Frascati Road, direct path to the DART and restoration of Frascati Road to a reasonable standard - 7m carriageways with decent lane widths instead of wasteful 8m pavements that are pedestrian unfriendly.

Seaswimmer

Middle Man wrote: »

Just had the pleasure of crossing the Frascati Road which now has de-facto hard shoulders - waste of road width that pedestrians are now forced to cross - not one cyclist while everyone else suffers - place crawling with pedestrians and motorists. Not one serious pedestrian improvement from the DART to Frascati Centre that I could see despite all the road downgrades. More slips being removed at the centre. What's needed is an open pedestian underpass at Frascati Road, direct path to the DART and restoration of Frascati Road to a reasonable standard - 7m carriageways with decent lane widths instead of wasteful 8m pavements that are pedestrian unfriendly.

not sure where you are coming from here?

Dosent matter how the road is divided up, the pedestrians still have the same distance to go. As long as the green man sequence is adequate then there should be no issue.

Also it looks to me like the cars are getting a right turning lane into Frascati coming from town. Surely this is an improvement and not a downgrade?

There are 2 perfectly good direct pedestrian routes from the Dart.

Up Georges Avenue which leads to a pedestrian crossing with a regular, long green man sequence straight across to the centre.

Up Rock hill and through or beside the Blackrock shopping centre to another pedestrian crossing straight across to the centre.

I actually cycle it twice a day and there has been a 30% increase of cycle traffic along this corridor, some of it due to the improvements at Frascati no doubt.


I will admit it was fairly chaotic today as I cycled past with numerous cars containing 1 person queuing for long periods to enter the car park.

but hey,

its Christmas.