Provision for cyclists on new national road schemes

marno21

Continue discussion here please.

Middle Man

I think it should be national policy to develop a national Greenway Network that includes provision for walkers and leisure cyclists etc. and that National Roads should be reserved solely for motoring purposes wherever possible. The purpose of any new national road is to get motor traffic from A to B as efficiently and safely as possible and such an objective should involve separation of fast through traffic from other traffic/modes as much as possible.

marno21

Whilst cycling commuters would be very beneficial to traffic reduction, I would be of the belief that money would be better spent on s project such as the Dodder greenway as opposed to the New Ross bypass or between two villages in rural Sligo. The purpose of these schemes is to take national roads far away from settlements and developments so cyclists wouldn't have an opportunity to access the road nor would there be any destinations along the route.

magicbastarder

coming late to this (i.e. i didn't see the original discussion), what provisions have been mooted? on road or off road cycle lanes?

magicbastarder

marno21 wrote: »

I would be of the belief that money would be better spent on s project such as the Dodder greenway as opposed to the New Ross bypass or between two villages in rural Sligo.

the two villages in rural sligo would not generally be linked by an N road, would they? however, if you did want to promote cycling between them, what options do cyclists have - using an N road with no provision for them, or using back roads? i suspect providing a slightly wider road surface, or explicitly marking hard shoulders for the use of cyclists, and maintaining them as such, might be all that is required.

the one (old) N route i would know best would be the old N2 between ashbourne and finglas; this does seem to get a modicum of commuting cyclists on it, and i suspect a lot of people in ashbourne who might otherwise commute would be put off by the fact it's not a great road to cycle at night (not helped by the recent awful resurfacing jobs).
however, this might technically be a red herring as it's no longer an N road.

HivemindXX

I don't think this should focus entirely on cyclists. Pedestrians are very poorly served by rural road building as well. We hear about the problem of rural isolation on a regular basis. It is impossible to get around without a car people say. This isn't because the distances are so great but because even a couple of kms are too far if you have to walk on the carriageway with cars passing at 60-80kph.

Apart from motorways, I think every road should have pedestrian facilities. Certainly every new road scheme should include pedestrian access. It is insane that so many people feel it is unsafe (and likely it is unsafe) to go a kilometre down the road to the shops without taking their car. This happens because roads are built with no footpath or even a hard shoulder and are designed for car speeds of 60+kph. I can understand why people are unwilling to walk or cycle in that situation.

magicbastarder

how many new road schemes are there outside towns, though? i would guess (citation required) that there are not too many roads being built in rural areas. a targetted retrofitting of existing roads with footpaths is probably required.

joujoujou

HivemindXX wrote: »

[...] It is insane that so many people feel it is unsafe (and likely it is unsafe) are too lazy to go a kilometre down the road to the shops without taking their car. [...]

Fixed your post.

Well, in fact that would be safer to have foothpaths/cycle lanes along all the roads alright, but I would not want to be a taxpayer in a country doing so. No country I travelled through so far has that done. And I think I know why. :cool:

HivemindXX

There is no doubt that a lot of people are lazy. That they use their cars by default and they are only looking for reasons that they 'need' to take the car. However that is not the only factor. There is no doubt that a lot of roads are very hostile places for cyclists and pedestrians.

Here's an example. I am certain there are far better examples but I happen to be familiar with the N71. The link shows a route of 500m (a six minute walk according to Google) which goes along the N71 between Pedlar's Cross, where the local bar is, and a nearby residence.
https://goo.gl/maps/11FGCHx7op62

The limit on that road, like most N roads, is 100kph. I would not be happy to walk along there at night after the pub, especially considering that others might feel they were forced to drive home after their couple of drinks. Here's a link to an image.
https://goo.gl/maps/6S5RV2NAXZD2

If you can afford to build and maintain a road then you can afford to put a place for pedestrians at the side. Unfortunately a lot of people see no benefit at all in facilitating walking or cycling and therefore see any money spent on that as a waste.

magicbastarder

there's a problem with providing footpaths in ireland in rural areas; we appear to have the second highest paved roads per capita in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Highways/Paved/Per-capita

my issue with providing footpaths for much of irelands population is that we have a disproportionately high number of people who have chosen to live a mile or four miles from the nearest village, and providing footpaths for them is nonsense. they've been allowed lock themselves into car dependency, and spending money dealing with that would be colossally expensive.

HivemindXX

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a problem with providing footpaths in ireland in rural areas; we appear to have the second highest paved roads per capita in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Highways/Paved/Per-capita

I had read previously that we have far more paved roads than other countries because we tend to have local roads (built and maintained, although not necessarily very well, by the government) where other countries would have unpaved or private roads. We also have a relatively low population density which would tend to increase the roads per capita measure. On the site you linked our roads per square kilometre metric isn't exceptional.

I don't expect every twisty lane which serves three houses to have a footpath. Those types of roads don't feel that dangerous to me because there is usually a very low volume of traffic and speeds tend to be quite low. All it takes is one fool who thinks they are in a rally to scare the hell out of you though and I suspect quite a lot of rural pedestrian fatalities actually are on regional or local roads.

According to wikipedia we have just under 8,000km of national roads, which includes motorways, 12,000km of regional roads and a staggering 79,000km of local roads. That does seem like a lot of roads for such a small country.

Questions about the expense of retrofitting pedestrian access on to the existing road network or the need for pedestrian facilities on quiet lanes do not indicate any reason why new development of major roads shouldn't be required to be pedestrian and cyclist friendly though.

magicbastarder

that post was really just a reaction to complaints i've heard from extended family members who moan about lack of footpaths, etc.; people who have chosen to live 4km from the nearest village.

loyatemu

I'd like to see more long-distance, cross country cycle paths, but cycling beside a motorway (even if it's a separate path beside the road) isn't great - it's noisy and windswept.

In the case of the New Ross bridge and similar though, I think they should provide a ped/cycle path on the bridge as it provides a crossing of a major obstacle that could be connected into a path or greenway on either side (or a signed route on minor roads). it wouldn't add any significant cost if it was included in the initial design, so why not.

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

I don't think it's really relevant to this though and is just a distraction.

agreed, i'd remove it but it's a bit late now.

HivemindXX

loyatemu wrote: »

I'd like to see more long-distance, cross country cycle paths, but cycling beside a motorway (even if it's a separate path beside the road) isn't great - it's noisy and windswept.

I believe there is a rule that there must be equivalent alternate routes where motorways are provided, although I'm not sure how rigorously that rule is followed or how relaxed the definition of alternate is. This should mean that there is no real need to cycle or walk alongside a motorway since you should be able to use the alternate route.

This is not the case with N roads. A lot of them seem to be pretty much the only route with any alternate involving a big detour. These routes are the ones that would benefit from having pedestrian and cyclist friendly designs.

By the way, while a foot path and a segregated cycle path would be nice, in the case of the N71 between Inishannon and Clonakilty simply making the road a little wider so that there is enough space for a car going 100kph to safely overtake a pedestrian of cyclist would be a huge improvement.

The N7 between Dublin and Naas has a very different problem, where it has motorway style slip roads meaning that even though there is plenty of space for a cyclist or walker at the side of the road every junction is a Ben Hur-esque experience where cars are passing on your right at 100kph and cars on your left are accelerating up to 100kph so they can join the traffic on the motorway road. Making that design friendly to cyclists and pedestrians would be expensive. Off the cuff my solution would be to not use that style of entry point at all on N roads. It might seem great design from the driving seat but from a cyclist or pedestrian point of view it's a disaster.

magicbastarder wrote: »

agreed, i'd remove it but it's a bit late now.

I think it is useful to see what counter-points people might make, even if they turn out to be tangential.

magicbastarder

i've often wondered what proportion of houses live within ten minutes walk of the nearest shop (an arbitrary rule i made up when were were looking at buying a house four years ago - i did not want to buy a house which necessitated a drive to pick up a litre of milk). not the sort of data which is available, though.

magicbastarder

it's gas what passes for an N road at times in ireland - i've driven the N51 between navan and athboy a couple of times in the last few years, and some sections are shockingly bad - bumpy and narrow - for a road with an N designation. you wouldn't even consider walking on it, no matter the time of day.

Middle Man

Deedsie wrote: »

Cyclists do pay for the upkeep of our roads as it is paid for through general taxation. Roads are not just for motorists, cyclists are entitled to be on any road big or small. Stick to motorways if you want to avoid cyclists. But do bare in mind that most cyclists are also motorists.

Obvious bias against cyclists aside surely you could not oppose hard shoulders on our roads to give cyclists space from lunatic ill disciplined motorists.

Hard Shoulders are a waste of space on most roads IMO - if you want wide forgiving roads, then Type 2 Dual is the best option available. On motorways, the area marked off by the solid yellow line should be termed as the 'Emergency Lane'.

Middle Man

Deedsie wrote: »

Try cycle on or overtake a group of cyclists (who are 100% entitled to be on the road) on the N52 someday and tell me then that hard shoulders are a waste of space.

The improve safety for all road users

Instead of promoting cycling, the powers that be should be modernising our property system to make it more affordable and flexible so that anyone has the option of moving within walking distance of public transport and essential services in the towns. I stayed over in Cork a couple of times off Lancaster Quay and could walk practically anywhere - it was bliss (well, I love walking) and far superior to cycling (did that when I was young because I had no choice). The alternative is to get a car.