It seems to me that ramps on a hill risk knocking cyclists freewheeling
downhill off their bikes. This is what Fingal is currently doing
at Yellow Walls Road in Malahide, a location used by lots of children
going to school. I’m particularly aware of it because it’s part
of my route to Fingal County Council’s offices in Swords and while it’s
outside my area, I’m concerned because of the risk that someone could
be seriously hurt.
I would be grateful for any feedback on this. Below, I have put copies of correspondence on this subject.
________________________________________
From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme
Dear Peter,
I refer to the above scheme proposal. As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.
You indicated at today’s meeting (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit. As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists. I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other.
I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.
Is mise, le meas,
David Healy
Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.
{mospagebreak}OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
Report
September 2004
Prepared for:
Clifton Scannell Emerson
Seafort Lodge
Castledawson Avenue
Blackrock
Co. Dublin
Ireland
Prepared by:
Steer Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds
LS1 2DR
[t] +44 (0)113-242 9955
[i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Contents Page
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT 4
General 4
Signals 5
3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT 8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Safety Audit
carried out on a proposed traffic management scheme along Old Yellow
Walls Road, Malahide, Ireland.
1.2 The scheme forms a component of an area wide
traffic management scheme seeking to address issues of road safety,
excessive vehicle speeds and rat-running through residential areas to
the west of Malahide town centre. The Old Yellow Walls Road scheme
additionally seeks to address issues arising from narrow carriageway
and footway widths.
1.3 Old Yellow Walls Road is subject to 30 mph speed
limit and currently caters for a two-way all day traffic flow of 15,000
vehicles. The road accommodates two bus routes with approximately 6
buses per hour in each direction.
1.4 The scheme proposes a consistent cross-section of
a 5.0m carriageway with 1.5m footway, speed tables and a short section
of one-way shuttle working controlled by a new traffic signal
installation.
1.5 The scope of the audit is defined as the length
of Old Yellow Walls Road between Hillcrest and Millview Road.
1.6 The Design Organisation is:
Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates, Seafort Lodge, Castledawson Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin, Ireland.
1.7 The audit was carried out by:
Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Principal Consultant.
Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Senior Consultant.
1.8 The Audit was carried out in the Leeds office of
Steer Davies Gleave on the 9th and 10th September 2004 following a site
visit on 8th September 2004. The audit comprised of an examination of
the documents forming the audit brief and an examination of the site.
This information was considered sufficient for the purpose of carrying
out the road safety audit requested.
1.9 Andrew Barker undertook the visit to the site in
the afternoon and evening of 8th September 2004 (15:00-18:00hrs). On
the day of the site visit the prevailing conditions were fine and the
road surface was dry.
1.10 The Audit was undertaken with reference to the
Highways Agency standard HD 19/03 and to The Institution of Highways
and Transportation "Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways".
Comments and recommendations in this report are on the road safety
implications of the scheme, as presented, and do not verify the
compliance of the design to any other criteria.
1.11 The following reference documents were studied as part of the audit:
• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/109,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Traffic Management Plan – Alternative
Option Shuttle Lights”, dated August 2004.
• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/111,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Alternative B – Shuttle Lights Full
Area”, dated August 2004.
• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/002,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road – Traffic Count Locations”, dated
22/11/2002.
• Accident data printout for the period 1994 to 1999.
2. ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT
General
Problem
2.1 Location: Entire length of highway link, except shuttle section.
2.2 Summary: Narrow carriageway width may increase
the risk of accidents due to vehicles clashing. Increased risk to
cyclists. Increased risk to pedestrians from vehicles encroaching onto
footway.
2.3 The proposed carriageway width of 5.0m is
narrower than existing. Whilst speeds may be lower and heavy goods
vehicles are to be banned from using the link, use by 2.45m wide
double-decker buses remains. This is particularly relevant on the bend
located at the west end of the proposed scheme.
Recommendation
2.4 Maximise the width of carriageway by locally widening to match the extent of the highway land available.
Problem
2.5 Location: Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and Millview Road.
2.6 Summary: The standard and nature of the highway
link differs appreciably from the surrounding highway network.
Increased risk of accidents due to unexpected driving conditions.
2.7 Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and
Millview Road has a lower standard of alignment, forward visibility and
carriageway/footway width than roads in the surrounding highway
network.
Recommendation
2.8 Employ ‘Road Narrows Dangerously’ traffic signs on the approaches to the sub-standard section.
Signals
Problem
2.9 Location: Shuttle section
2.10 Summary: Increased risk of vehicle collision due to drivers not clearing one-way section.
2.11 It is anticipated that at peak periods delays
will be experienced by vehicles queuing on the approaches to the
signals. Driver frustration may result in vehicles ‘following through’
the section despite the signal turning red.
Recommendation
2.12 Introduce a system of “all-red extension”
detection loops between the signal installations to monitor vehicles
clearing the one-way section, and extend the all-red clearance period
when necessary.
Problem
2.13 Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.14 Summary: Risk of vehicles striking signal heads/poles.
2.15 Several of the proposed signal pole locations have insufficient clearance from vehicular traffic.
Recommendation
2.16 Re-site poles such that signal heads are a
minimum of 300mm from carriageway edge (or greater in areas of high
carriageway crossfall).
Problem
2.17 Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.18 Summary: Risk of vehicular accidents due to non-standard layout of signal heads.
2.19 Whilst it is appreciated that the design is at
an early stage, the proposed signal locations appear non-standard in
terms of location and of primary/secondary provision. This is
especially relevant due to spatial constraints and the possible
reliance on third party land.
Recommendation
2.20 Re-position signal heads.
Problem
2.21 Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.22 Summary: Risk of accidents from vehicles emerging from private driveway with inadequate visibility.
2.23 The location of the stop line will result in
poor access/egress manoeuvres for users of the private driveway.
Visibility will be impaired by the presence of waiting vehicles.
Recommendation
2.24 Re-position stop line and consider use of ‘Yellow-box’ markings.
Problem
2.25 Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.26 Summary: Risk of shunt accidents for westbound vehicles approaching stop line.
2.27 Forward visibility to the westbound stop line
location and nearside primary signal head is sub-standard. The
mitigation proposal to cut back the hedgerow may prove unworkable
beyond the current highway boundary. The proposed off-side primary
signal will experience masking by eastbound traffic.
Recommendation
2.28 Employ warning sign ‘Traffic Signals Ahead’ on nearside as well as proposed off-side location.
2.29 Re-position signal/stop line to achieve 50m
forward visibility, giving consideration to the likelihood of future
hedge growth.
Problem
2.30 Location: Shuttle section – stop-lines
2.31 Summary: Risk of shunt and overshoot accidents for vehicles approaching stop lines.
2.32 Both stop are located on down-gradients.
Recommendation
2.33 Employ high skid-resistant surface on the approach to the signal stop-lines.
3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
3.1 I certify that I have examined the drawings and
documents listed at the beginning of this report and have visited the
site. The examination has been carried out with the sole purpose
of identifying any features of the design that could be removed or
modified in order to improve the safety of the scheme. The
problems identified have been noted in this report together with
associated safety improvement suggestions that I recommend should be
studied for implementation. I have not been involved with the
scheme design.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER
Signed ……………………………………… Date …………………
Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK
AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS
Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name: OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS
Document Title: Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
Client Contract/Project Number:
SDG Project/Proposal Number: 205959
ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No. Date Details
1 13/09/2004 1st Issue
REVIEW
Originator: ADB
Other Contributors: MCG
Review By: Print: Andy Barker
Sign:
DISTRIBUTION
Clients: Geoff Emerson, Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates
Steer Davies Gleave: File
{mospagebreak}
From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 27 September 2005 11:36
To: ‘leedsinfo@sdgworld.net’
Cc: Jeroen Buis (jeroen.buis@dto.ie)
Subject: Attn: Andrew Barker, re: Safety Audit for Old Yellow Walls Road
Dear Mr. Barker,
I refer to the safety audit carried out on the Old Yellow Walls Road
scheme, a copy of which I attach. I also attach below
correspondence to the Transport Department of Fingal County Council in
relation to the safety audit.
I would be grateful if you could indicate whether the two issues I
raised in my letter were considered as part of the safety audit and if
so what the results of that consideration were.
Cllr. David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
www.davidhealy.com
54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair, B.Á.C. 13
01 8324087
087 6178852
From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme
Dear Peter,
I refer to the above scheme proposal. As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.
You indicated at today’s meeting (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit. As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists. I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other.
I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.
Is mise, le meas,
David Healy
Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.
