{"id":131,"date":"2006-05-30T22:52:52","date_gmt":"2006-05-30T22:52:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","slug":"City_Council_draft_design_puts_Northside_cyclists_at_risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/?p=131","title":{"rendered":"City Council draft design puts Northside cyclists at risk"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dublin City Council has produced a design for the QBC from Amiens St., through Fairview and out along Malahide Rd.&nbsp; The design involves cycle lanes of sub-standard width placed often where cyclists would be at risk from doors being opened by parked cars.&nbsp; At junctions, it leads cyclists into increased danger by putting them to the left of left-turning traffic.&nbsp;&nbsp; At other locations, it attempts to squeeze buses past cyclists where there simply isn&#8217;t room on the carriageway.<\/p>\n<p>I have made a submission to the City Council; see below.&nbsp; The deadline for submissions is 16th June. <\/p>\n<pre><span class=\"contentpane\"><br \/><\/span><\/pre>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Councillor David Healy<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Green<br \/>\nParty\/Comhaontas Glas&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Howth&nbsp;ward<br \/>\n\/ Dublin North East<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.davidhealy.com\/\">www.davidhealy.com<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">01<br \/>\n8324087<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">54,<br \/>\nP&aacute;irc &Eacute;abh&oacute;ra, Beann &Eacute;adair<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">54,<br \/>\nEvora Park, Howth<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span class=\"contentpane\">Comments on Malahide Road QBC proposals.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"right\"><span class=\"contentpane\">30th May 2006<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"right\"><span class=\"contentpane\">By email to<br \/>\nqbnoffice@dublincity.ie<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The following comments are submitted in response to<br \/>\nthe public display of the proposed changes to the Malahide Road QBC <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">My comments focus in particular on the safety of<br \/>\nthe proposed design for cyclists.&nbsp; My<br \/>\ncomments are made as a cyclist who uses part of the route to access the city<br \/>\ncentre myself, and as a Green Party representative for the general Dublin<br \/>\nNorth-East area for which either all of part of the route constitues the only<br \/>\neffective cycling access to the city centre.&nbsp;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Comments refer to entire route<br \/>\nproposal drawn up, not just that on display at the moment<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The following comments refer to the design drawings<br \/>\nfor the entire route from Amiens St. to Clare Hall, dated 18th August<br \/>\n2005.&nbsp; I understand that the drawings on<br \/>\ndisplay start with North Strand\/ Annesley Bridge and therefore Section 5 below<br \/>\n(Sheet 5 in the full set of drawings) relates to Sheet 1 in the drawings on<br \/>\ndisplay. &nbsp;I understand also that the<br \/>\ndesign on display does not go beyond the Artane Roundabout.&nbsp; Section 17 (Sheet 17 in the full set of<br \/>\ndrawings) corresponds to Sheet 13 in the display. &nbsp;I enclose my comment on all the elements of<br \/>\nthe design as I feel this would be most efficient.&nbsp; Comments which relate only to the elements<br \/>\ncurrently on display are from Sections 5 to 17.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Generally the scheme is not good<br \/>\nfor cyclists<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">I note that improving facilities for cyclists is<br \/>\none of the stated objectives of the scheme.&nbsp;<br \/>\nUnfortunately it does not achieve that objective.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">At the Velo-city conference last year, the flaws in<br \/>\nthe existing design in Fairview were openly acknowledged by Dublin City Council<br \/>\nstaff. &nbsp;Indeed attendees including myself<br \/>\nwere assured that that the City Council have learnt a lot since and would not<br \/>\nmake the same mistakes again.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Unfortunately, this appears not to be the case. The<br \/>\ndesign proposed retains almost all the defective elements of the existing<br \/>\ndesign from the Fairview\/Malahide Rd. junction to Amiens St.&nbsp; It proposes to add many kilometres of<br \/>\nsubstandard cycle facilities to the route.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The potential exists along this route to create a<br \/>\ngood quality route, minimising conflicts and risks for cyclists and creating a<br \/>\npleasant and safe cycle facility along the route.&nbsp; The current design proposal does not meet<br \/>\nthat potential and I urge the members of the City Council to require that it be<br \/>\nredesigned.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 1 Amiens St. (not in<br \/>\ncurrent consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">1.1 Traffic lights near Foley<br \/>\nSt.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The proposal here is to change the northbound cross<br \/>\nsection at the traffic lights from<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">Footpath 3.8m <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">traffic lane 2.8m, and <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">traffic lane 2.6m <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">to<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">Footpath 2.7m, <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">traffic lane 3.5m including cycle lane 1.5m, and <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">traffic lane 3m<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">A lane of 3.5 is not wide enough to allow a wide<br \/>\nvehicle to safely pass a cyclist (ref pp. 62-63 of National Manual).&nbsp; This route has many buses and they can be<br \/>\nexpected in this lane. &nbsp;Painting lanes<br \/>\nwith inadequate widths encourages motor vehicles to pass too close to cyclists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The traffic island could be eliminated to provide<br \/>\nadequate cycle lanes.&nbsp; If this is not<br \/>\ndone, it would be better to mark no cycle lane than to paint lanes which<br \/>\nencourage passing where there is insufficient space.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">1.2 What is the appropriate<br \/>\ncycle lane width?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The proposed design includes cycle lane on the<br \/>\ncarriageway &nbsp;as low as 1.20m before the<br \/>\nMalahide Rd. and 1.08m on the Malahide Road.&nbsp;<br \/>\n(presumably including half of the adjacent road markings). &nbsp;According to the National Manual (a document<br \/>\nwhich is not without its flaws) the &ldquo;absolute minimum&rdquo; excluding road markings<br \/>\nshould be 1.25m. The &ldquo;preferred width &#8230; is between 1.5m and 2m. &#8230;When the<br \/>\nvolume of cycle traffic is high, a width of 2m is recommended.&rdquo; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">According to the Canal cordon count (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.dto.ie\/rumr.pdf\">http:\/\/www.dto.ie\/rumr.pdf<\/a>) 215 cyclists<br \/>\ncrossed the Canal southbound at Newcomen Bridge between 8 and 9 a.m.&nbsp; This is 17% of the total traffic count during<br \/>\nthis hour. &nbsp;It is also the highest number<br \/>\nover any canal bridge during this hour.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s<br \/>\na reasonable guess that this cyclist numbers applies to the stretch between<br \/>\nMalahide Rd. and Connolly Station. &nbsp;One<br \/>\ncould also guess that evening peak numbers, while more spread out, are similar.&nbsp; Logic dictates that if the reference to high<br \/>\nvolumes of cycle traffic in the Manual mean anything, they apply to the route<br \/>\nbetween Malahide Rd and Connolly Station.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">1.3 New cycle lane at bottom of<br \/>\nBuckingham St.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Why is the traffic island being set back here to<br \/>\ncurve the cycle lane away from the centre of the road?&nbsp; The important issue for cyclists&rsquo; safety at<br \/>\nthis location is that they are positioned in the road where traffic waiting to<br \/>\nturn right into Buckingham St. will be looking for oncoming traffic. It is hard<br \/>\nto tell at the scale shown but it seems that the current design will have the<br \/>\nopposite effect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 2 Amiens St.\/Portland<br \/>\nRow (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">2.1 Buffer shown in<br \/>\ncross-section<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The buffer (door zone) is shown 0.6m on northbound<br \/>\ncarriageway and 0.8 on southbound in cross-section. &nbsp;What is your minimum? I would have expected at<br \/>\nleast 1m of a buffer zone on a road with such speeds and volumes, enabling the<br \/>\ncyclist to comfortably maintain a passing distance of 1.5m<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">2.2 Cycle lane placed in<br \/>\ndoor zone&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">However, further south there is no buffer and the<br \/>\ncycle lane passes directly beside parked cars.&nbsp;<br \/>\nSafe cyclists do not use the cycle lane in this area.&nbsp; However, inexperienced or trusting cyclists<br \/>\nmay do so.&nbsp; Additionally, markings like<br \/>\nthis result in agression to cyclists who do not use them from bus drivers, taxi<br \/>\ndrivers and car drivers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">2.3. Cycle lane positioning<br \/>\ncyclists to the left of left-turning traffic<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Coming into the Five Lamps junction, the cycle lane<br \/>\nkeeps cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic.&nbsp; This is not safe.&nbsp; I would not position myself to the far left<br \/>\ncoming into such a junction.&nbsp; Road<br \/>\nmarkings should encourage cyclists to occupy the lane.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 3 North Strand (not in<br \/>\ncurrent consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">3.1 Width of lanes in<br \/>\ncross-section<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Your cross-section diagram shows a bus passing a<br \/>\ncyclist in a 3.7m lane.&nbsp;&nbsp; p.59 of the<br \/>\nNational Manual shows width segments.&nbsp; In<br \/>\nan area with a maximum 50km\/hr the distance from a cyclist to a passing vehicle<br \/>\nshould be at least 1.05m.&nbsp; Applying the<br \/>\nwidth segments to to this design, the bus, to pass safely within the lane,<br \/>\nwould have to be a maximum width of 1.635m, which, as we know, is not the case.&nbsp; According to the Manual, the necessary width<br \/>\nfor buses to pass cyclists is 4.5m.&nbsp; Widening<br \/>\nthis lane to an insufficient width such as 3.7m will encourage buses to try to<br \/>\nget past cyclists where there isn&rsquo;t space.&nbsp;<br \/>\nThis increases the risk for cyclists.&nbsp;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">3.2 Dangerous existing footpath<br \/>\ncycletrack<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The southbound design retains the dangerous<br \/>\ncycletrack on the footpath north of the Canal, which requires a cyclist to come<br \/>\nback onto the carriageway into a traffic lane immediately before the Ossory<br \/>\nRoad junction.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The southbound design also retains the dangerous<br \/>\ncycletrack on the footpath south of the Canal which brings cyclists off the<br \/>\ncarriageway over a curb at a dangerous angle, brings the cyclist into conflict<br \/>\nwith turning traffic at 3 locations and always has pedestrians walking on<br \/>\nit.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Many cyclists do not use this track because of the<br \/>\nadditional risk.&nbsp; However, inexperienced<br \/>\nor trusting cyclists may do so.&nbsp; Irish<br \/>\nlaw requires that cyclists use such facilities, so cyclists are put in a<br \/>\nposition where their safety and traffic laws conflict.&nbsp; Additionally, markings like this are proven<br \/>\nto result in agression to cyclists who do not use them from bus drivers, taxi<br \/>\ndrivers and car drivers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This dangerous facility needs to be redesigned.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 4 North Strand (not in<br \/>\ncurrent consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">4.1 Road markings should direct<br \/>\ncyclists to occupy the lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Cyclists using this section have to occupy the bus<br \/>\nlane.&nbsp; It might be appropriate for<br \/>\nadvisory road markings to indicate this.&nbsp;<br \/>\nAn assessment of such markings is at<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bicycle.sfgov.org\/site\/uploadedfiles\/dpt\/bike\/Bike_Plan\/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf\">http:\/\/www.bicycle.sfgov.org\/site\/uploadedfiles\/dpt\/bike\/Bike_Plan\/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 5 North Strand\/East Wall<br \/>\nRoad (Sheet 1 of current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">5.1 Dangerous existing junction<br \/>\nwith East Wall Road<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The dangerous junction at Annesley Bridge and East<br \/>\nWall Road is to remain unchanged.&nbsp;<br \/>\nInstead of dealing with the danger, cyclists who, following the design<br \/>\n(as they are legally obliged to do), have been thereby been put in a dangerous<br \/>\nposition to the left of left-turning traffic are to be warned by a sign:&ldquo;Cyclists<br \/>\nbeware of HGV&rsquo;s turning left to East Wall Road.&rdquo;&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The problem here is two-fold:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">HGVs or any road user who turn left across the path<br \/>\nof another road user are breaking the rules of the road and thereby endangering<br \/>\nthe other road user.&nbsp; Any sign should<br \/>\nwarn them to comply with the rules before warning others of the danger they<br \/>\npose. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Secondly, cyclists are in a position to be hit by<br \/>\nsuch HGVs if they occupy the road position which they are instructed to take by<br \/>\nthe cycle lane marking.&nbsp; The design here<br \/>\nis one which consciously puts cyclists in danger and then attempts to warn them<br \/>\nof the danger!<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The reasonable solutions are as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">Ban left-hand turns at this junction (and redesign the junction in<br \/>\n     order to prevent\/impede illegal turns.)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">Direct the cyclist to occupy the lane with markings as referred to at<br \/>\n     4.1 above<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 6 Annesley Bridge<br \/>\nRoad\/Fairview (Sheet 2 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This is appalling.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">6.1 Seriously inadequate cycle<br \/>\nlane in door zone<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cross-section shows a cycle lane (at 1.20m below<br \/>\n&ldquo;absolute minimum width&rdquo; and far below the recommended 2m) in the door zone of<br \/>\nparked cars. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">6.2 Substandard cycletrack<br \/>\nagainst railing with substandard footpath<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The design also retains the 1.05 cycletrack on the<br \/>\nfootpath on the other side of the road.&nbsp; According<br \/>\nto the National Manual, a one-way track off the carriageway should be given a<br \/>\nwidth from 1.75m for a peak hour cycle traffic volume of up to 150, a width of<br \/>\n2.5m for 150 to 750 cyclists and 3.5m for over 750 cyclists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">According to the Canal cordon count (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.dto.ie\/rumr.pdf\">http:\/\/www.dto.ie\/rumr.pdf<\/a>) 215 cyclists<br \/>\ncrossed the Canal southbound at Newcomen Bridge between 8 and 9 a.m.;&nbsp; it&rsquo;s a safe estimate that cyclist numbers<br \/>\nalong Annesley Bridge Road are similar.&nbsp;<br \/>\nTherefore the width should be 2.5m<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This track of sub-standard width is marked to the<br \/>\nleft of the pedestrian area of the footpath.&nbsp;<br \/>\nThere is a cycletrack of substandard width directly beside a<br \/>\nrailing.&nbsp; The National Manual requist<br \/>\nthat the edge of the cycletrack should be &gt;0.5m from objects such as<br \/>\nlamp-posts etc. and &gt;0.75m from solid walls.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Unsurprisingly the pedestrians do not remain in<br \/>\ntheir minimal 1.05m allocation and walk on the entire footpath.&nbsp; Additionally, cars park on this footpath,<br \/>\nprobably in part because of the difficulty in crossing the road on foot.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cyclist facilities along here are entirely<br \/>\ninadequate.&nbsp; An aware cyclist would not<br \/>\nuse them as they are more risky than using the rest of the carriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The obvious solution is to remove one of the two<br \/>\nnorthbound general traffic lanes to provide cycle facilities of adquate width<br \/>\non both sides of the road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 7 Fairview (Sheet 3 of<br \/>\nconsultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">7.1 Seriously inadequate cycle<br \/>\nlane in door zone<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The same considerations apply as for Section<br \/>\n6.&nbsp; The cross-section shockingly shows a<br \/>\n1.25m cycle lane in the door zone of a parked car with a bus passing the<br \/>\ncyclist on a 2.3m bus lane.&nbsp; The bus in<br \/>\nthe diagram is wider than the bus lane.&nbsp;<br \/>\nHow can a design like this be put on public display?&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">7.2 Unnegotiable angles<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The only additional element here are the sharp<br \/>\nangles on the footpath cycletrack westbound. These contravene the absolute<br \/>\nminimum curve radius of 4m in the National Manual.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">At this location there are two northbound and two<br \/>\nsouthbound general traffic lanes in addition to the bus lanes.&nbsp; This 6-lane road completely severs Fairview<br \/>\nPark from its hinterland making a dangerous environment for pedestrians.&nbsp; It would make sense to take this an<br \/>\nopportunity to reduce the impact of&nbsp;<br \/>\ntraffic on this area and facilitate it&rsquo;s rejuvenation and improvement.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 8 Fairview \/Malahide<br \/>\nRoad (Sheet 4 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">8.1 What happens to the existing<br \/>\nstraight-ahead cycle lane?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The design is not clear as to what is intended for<br \/>\nthe straight ahead eastbound cycle lane at the junction of Marino Road and<br \/>\nMalahide Road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 9 Malahide Road (Sheet 5<br \/>\nof consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">9.1 Road markings should direct<br \/>\ncyclists to occupy the lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Given the carriageway width,<br \/>\nthere is no room for overtaking of a cyclist within the lane.&nbsp; Markings as referred to in 4.1 above should<br \/>\nbe considered.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 10 Malahide<br \/>\nRoad\/Griffith Avenue (Sheet 6 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">10.1 Cycle lane positioning<br \/>\ncyclists to the left of left-turning traffic<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Travelling northbound at the Griffith<br \/>\nAvenue\/Malahide Road junction, there is a bus lane marked for straight ahead, a<br \/>\nleft turning traffic lane to the left of it and a cycle lane to the left of<br \/>\nthat.&nbsp; Is this for cyclists travelling<br \/>\nstraight ahead?&nbsp; The sign coming into<br \/>\nthis junction instructs road users that the left lane is for turning left only<br \/>\nand makes no reference to the cycle lane which is to be marked.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Cyclists travelling north on Malahide Road turning<br \/>\nonto Griffith Avenue should be facilitated with a cyclelane thorugh the<br \/>\noriginal alignment of Griffith Avenue.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Cyclists travelling north through the junction<br \/>\nshould occupy the centre of the bus lane and the bus lane should be marked as<br \/>\nsuch with markings such as those referred to in 4.1 above.&nbsp; Alternatively a cycle lane of appropriate<br \/>\nwidth could be placed to the left of the bus lane.&nbsp; Cyclists coming from Brian Road need to be<br \/>\nfacilitated in joining whichever straight-ahead lane is provided for cyclists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">10.2 Advanced Stop Lines<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">All arms of this junction should be provided with<br \/>\nadvanced stop lines for cyclists (ASLs).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">10.3 Inadequate cycle lane width<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">In the cross-section, the&nbsp; existing northbound cyclelane at 1.15m are<br \/>\nbelow the minimum width. There is plenty of room on the northbound carriageway<br \/>\nto increase this about 2m which would be more appropriate given the large<br \/>\nnumbers of&nbsp; buses on this route and the<br \/>\nspeeds on the road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 11. Malahide Road,<br \/>\nClontarf Golf Club (Sheet 7 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">11.1 Inadequate cycle lane width<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">These cyclelanes are substandard width and should<br \/>\nall be increased to 2m.&nbsp; At the cross<br \/>\nsection location, there is sufficient space for 2m +3m +3m.&nbsp; If more space is needed it can be taken from<br \/>\nthe traffic island.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 12.&nbsp; Malahide Road\/Donnycarney Road (Sheet 8 of<br \/>\nconsultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">12.1 Inadequate cycle lane width<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">As for Section 11.&nbsp;<br \/>\nThe cross-section northbound proposes a 2.65m bus lane beside a 1.25m<br \/>\ncycle lane.&nbsp; This would bring a bus<br \/>\ntravelling at speed far too close to a cyclist.&nbsp;<br \/>\nThe cycle lane should be increased to 2m.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Travelling southbound, the bus lane is to be widened<br \/>\nfrom the current width but the cycle lane is kept at an inadequate 1.25m<br \/>\nwidth.&nbsp; The cycle lane should be<br \/>\nincreased to 2m.&nbsp; Space can be taken from<br \/>\nthe bus or general traffic lanes for this.&nbsp;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 13 Malahide Road \/<br \/>\nCollins Avenue (Sheet 9 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">13. 1 &nbsp;Inadequate joint bus and cycle lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cross section shows a joint bus and cycle lane<br \/>\nof 3.5m including a cycle lane allocation of 1.25m.&nbsp; As discussed in 3.1 above, this is not a safe<br \/>\ndesign for cyclists and is worse than the inadequate current situation.&nbsp; It is not possible for a bus to safely pass a<br \/>\ncyclist in this design.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">A design of 3.5m is shown in the National Manual<br \/>\nfor a shared lane (no separate cycle lane is marked in it) with the condition<br \/>\nthat bus speeds should be &lt;30km\/hr&nbsp;<br \/>\nand bus and bicycle volumes should be low: &ldquo;This design can only be used<br \/>\non roads where buses and cycle traffic have a minor function&rdquo;. These conditions<br \/>\ndo not apply here.&nbsp; 4.5m are<br \/>\nrequired here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Note that no separate cycle lane is marked within<br \/>\nthe 3.5m lane in the Manual.&nbsp; Marking a<br \/>\nseparate inadequate cycle lane within the bus lane will encourage bus drivers<br \/>\nto try to pass cyclists where there isn&rsquo;t room to safely pass.&nbsp; It makes an inadequate design worse.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where there isn&rsquo;t room to pass, road markings<br \/>\nshould direct cyclists to occupy the lane as in 4.1 above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">One option here is to take more space from the<br \/>\nfootpath. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Another is to only have a bus lane north bound.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Another option within the proposed carriageway<br \/>\nwidth would be to provide an adequate 2m cycle lane northbound \/uphill to<br \/>\nfacilitate buses passing cyclists who will be travelling more slowly in this<br \/>\ndirection, and providing a joint bus\/cycle lane southbound\/downhill where<br \/>\ncyclists&rsquo; speed is closer to that of buses.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">13.2 Road markings should direct<br \/>\ncyclists<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Coming northbound into the junction of Malahide Rd.<br \/>\nand Collins Ave., cyclists should be guided to occupy the straight-ahead lane<br \/>\nby markings such as those referred to in 4.1 above.&nbsp; Alternatively a cycle lane of appropriate<br \/>\nwidth could be placed to the left of the bus lane.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">13.3 Is it really necessary to<br \/>\nhave 4 north bound lanes?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Widening the northbound entry to this junction will<br \/>\nmake it harder for cyclists to turn right here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">13.4 Advanced Stop Lines<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">At the junction of Malahide Rd. and Collins Ave.,<br \/>\nthere should be ASLs on all arms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 14 Malahide Road (Sheet<br \/>\n10 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">14.1 Inadequate joint bus and<br \/>\ncycle lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">As for point 13.1 above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 15 Malahide<br \/>\nRoad\/Killester Avenue Junction (Sheet 11 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">15.1 Inadequate joint bus and<br \/>\ncycle lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">As for point 13.1 above<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 16 Malahide Road\/<br \/>\nKilmore Road Junction (Sheet 12 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">16.1 Inadequate cycle lane width<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">It is proposed to retain the existing substandard<br \/>\ncyclelane of 1.1m in order to facilitate the southbound buslane.&nbsp; This brings unacceptable risks to cyclists. There<br \/>\nis not room for a bus lane on the current carriageway nor on the proposed<br \/>\nslightly wider carriageway.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would be<br \/>\nmore appropriate to provide a 2m cycle lane and a 3m general traffic lane in<br \/>\neither direction.&nbsp; The traffic lights at<br \/>\nKilmore Road could be use to give priority to buses leaving the junction and<br \/>\nsimilar priority could be given southbound say at the junction with Daneli Road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 17 Malahide Road, Artane<br \/>\nRoundabout (Sheet 13 of consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.1 Removal of roundabout<br \/>\nwelcome<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The removal of the roundabout at this location is<br \/>\nmost welcome.&nbsp; The design seems to be a<br \/>\nconsiderable improvement on the current situation.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.2 Width of cycle lanes<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cycle lanes on the road sections need to be of<br \/>\na decent width considering the speeds of traffic in this area.&nbsp; The National Manual recommends that the cycle<br \/>\nlanes approaching the jucntion should be 1.75 to 2m.&nbsp;&nbsp; If road space is tight, this can be taken<br \/>\nfrom central islands and traffic hatching on all arms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.2 Straight-ahead cycle lane<br \/>\nstarting to the left of a left-turning lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cycle lane coming into the junction on Ardlea<br \/>\nRoad should start from the main lane on the carriageway not from within a<br \/>\nleft-turning lane as shown.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.3 Cyclist traffic lights<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">There is no indication on the design as to the<br \/>\nlocations of the traffic lights. This would be an appropriate location for<br \/>\ncyclist specific traffic lights at a lower level.&nbsp; To discourage motorists from encroaching onto<br \/>\nthe ASLs the main lights should be targetted at the motorists&rsquo; stop line.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.4 Bus stop missing?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Is there to be no southbound bus stop at this<br \/>\njunction?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">17.5 Left-turning filter lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The left-turning filter lane southbound into the<br \/>\njunction is very long.&nbsp; What are the<br \/>\nconsequences for cyclists using the cycle lane of motorists having the<br \/>\nopportunity to cross their path over a longer stretch like this and<br \/>\nadditionally of having motorists joining the filter lane behind them then<br \/>\npassing them to the right potentially at speed?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 18 Malahide Road (not in<br \/>\ncurrent consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">18.1 An opportunity for a<br \/>\nquality cycle facility<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The problems with inadequate width for cyclists<br \/>\nbeing passed by buses referred to in 13.1 apply here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">There is an opportunity to do something quite<br \/>\npleasant here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">On this road section it would be appropriate to<br \/>\nprovide a segregated cycle facility.&nbsp; The<br \/>\nnecessary road space can be taken from the central median.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The cross section could be <\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">2m cycle track, <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">1.5m grass verge including trees<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m bus lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m general traffic lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m general traffic lane (other direction)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m bus lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">1.5m grass verge including trees<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">2m cycle track<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This is only 0.85m wider between existing grass<br \/>\nverges than the current design.&nbsp; That<br \/>\nsmall amount of space could be taken from the existing verges to provide this<br \/>\nquality facility.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The bus stops could, with appropriate curves, be on<br \/>\nthe new grass verge outside the cycle track. This design would of course<br \/>\nrequire that cyclists are brought safely back onto the carriageway at relevant<br \/>\njunctions (on adjacent sheets) to prevent conflict with turning traffic.&nbsp; Unless this can be done safely and<br \/>\neffectively then segregation should not be pursued.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 19 Malahide Road (not in<br \/>\ncurrent consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">19.1 Opportunity for quality<br \/>\ncycle facility continues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Most of the same considerations apply as to Section<br \/>\n18.&nbsp; Here again we have inadequate,<br \/>\nsub-standard and dangerous widths being proposed for cyclists (1.08m cycle lane<br \/>\nbeside 3m bus lane).&nbsp; There is even more<br \/>\nspace in the central media here available for a pleasant segregated design as<br \/>\nin 18.1 and it could be easily implemented within the current<br \/>\ncarriageway+median width.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The junction with St. Brendan&rsquo;s Drive and Coolock<br \/>\nVillage would need to be designed carefully to bring the cyclists from the<br \/>\nsegregated facility onto the carriageway in order to negotiate the junction<br \/>\nsafely.&nbsp; Alternatively or as part of<br \/>\nthis, traffic lights might be appropriate here.&nbsp;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Additionally, cyclists will have to be brought onto<br \/>\nthe carriageway before the Tonlegee Rd. junction, or the junction redesigned<br \/>\nwith cyclist phases in the traffic lights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 20 Malahide Road\/ Oscar<br \/>\nTraynor Road (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">20.1&nbsp; Opportunity for quality cycle facility<br \/>\ncontinues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The road section south of the junction is wide and<br \/>\nnorth of the junction is wide again.&nbsp;<br \/>\n(For the first time, the design shows cycle lanes of minimum<br \/>\nwidths.)&nbsp; Here again there is an opportunity<br \/>\nfor a pleasant segregated design as described under 18.1 above<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">20.2 Advanced Stop Lines<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">At the junction with Tonlegee Rd. ASLs should be<br \/>\nprovided on all arms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">20.3 Conflict between cyclists<br \/>\nand left-turning traffic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">On three of the entrances to the junction there is<br \/>\na risk to cyclists of being crossed by left-turning traffic.&nbsp; This risk needs to be recognised and designed<br \/>\nfor.&nbsp; Markings as referred to in 4.1<br \/>\nabove should be considered.&nbsp; Another possible<br \/>\nresponse is for the curb radius of the filter lane to be be low enough to<br \/>\nprevent a fast turn across the cycle lane.&nbsp;<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 21 Malahide<br \/>\nRoad\/Greencastle Road junction (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">21.1 Opportunity for quality<br \/>\ncycle facility continues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the<br \/>\ncross-section.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above would<br \/>\nfit here without difficulty well.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the<br \/>\ncentral median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the<br \/>\ncarriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">21.2 Conflict between cyclists<br \/>\nand left-turning traffic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The junction with Greencastle Road needs to be<br \/>\nconsidered carefully. The proposal to cut away the curb and facilitate a faster<br \/>\nleft turn onto Greencastle Road across a marked cycle lane is worrying,<br \/>\nespecially as buses make this turn.&nbsp; There<br \/>\nshould be clear facilities for cyclists travelling straight ahead.&nbsp; Markings as referred to in 4.1 above should<br \/>\nbe considered.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 22 Malahide Rd., Newtown<br \/>\ncottages (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">22.1 Opportunity for quality<br \/>\ncycle facility continues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the<br \/>\ncross-section<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above<br \/>\nwould fit here without difficulty well.&nbsp;<br \/>\nThe only caveat is that the presence of driveways would require that<br \/>\ntraffic turning across the path of cyclists coming either onto or off the<br \/>\ncarriageway would need to be made very aware they are crossing another&rsquo;s right<br \/>\nof way.&nbsp; Appropriate verge widths would<br \/>\nhelp to address this as would surfacing and signs.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the<br \/>\ncentral median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the<br \/>\ncarriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 23 Malahide Road\/<br \/>\nNewtown Road (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">23.1&nbsp; Opportunity for quality cycle facility<br \/>\ncontinues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the<br \/>\ncross-section.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above<br \/>\nwould fit here without difficulty well.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the<br \/>\ncentral median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the<br \/>\ncarriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">23.2 Left-turning filter lane<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The same question arises in relation to the junction<br \/>\nwith Newtown Road as in 17.5 above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 24 Malahide<br \/>\nRoad\/Priorswood Road (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">24.1 Replace roundabout with<br \/>\ntraffic lights<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This roundabout should be replaced with a normal traffic<br \/>\nlights controlled crossroads.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The proposed roundabout design is a disaster for<br \/>\ncyclists.&nbsp; There are shart right angled<br \/>\nturns on the cycle track, which it is not physically possible to negotiate by<br \/>\nbicycle.&nbsp; Cyclists coming from Priorswood<br \/>\nRoad to Blunden Drive will have to cross 4 sets of traffic lights.&nbsp; They will also have to negotiate 6 impossible<br \/>\nsharp right-angled turns.&nbsp; As with other<br \/>\nsimilar designs in Dublin, most cyclists will not use it and remain on the<br \/>\ncarriageway, dealing with a dangerous roundabout.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The proposed design is also a major inconvenience<br \/>\nfor pedestrians, taking them well out of their way in negotiating the junction.&nbsp; It is not appropriate for a built-up area<br \/>\nwhere official policy is to encourage and facilitate walking and cycling.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">This should be replaced with a traffic lights<br \/>\ncontrolled crossroads as with the Artane Roundabout.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 25 Malahide Road, Grove<br \/>\nLane (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">25.1&nbsp; Opportunity for quality cycle facility<br \/>\ncontinues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the<br \/>\ncross-section.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above<br \/>\nwould fit here without difficulty well.&nbsp; Alternatively,<br \/>\nthe central median could be retained as is and the necessary space obtained by<br \/>\nonly providing one general traffic lane in each direction, giving the following<br \/>\ncross-section:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">2m cycle track, <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">1.8m grass verge including trees<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3.5m bus lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m general traffic lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">8.85m median<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3m general traffic lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">3.5m bus lane<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">1.8m grass verge including trees<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"contentpane\">2m cycle track<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the<br \/>\ncentral median or the verges on either side would allow decent 2m cycle lanes<br \/>\nto be provided on the carriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 26 Malahide Road \/ Clare<br \/>\nHall shops (not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">26.1&nbsp; Opportunity for quality cycle facility<br \/>\ncontinues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the<br \/>\ncross-section.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Either of the segregated designs suggested under 18.1<br \/>\nor 25.1 above would fit here without difficulty.&nbsp; This would require a redesign of the junction<br \/>\nwith the Clare Hall shopping centre access, which would not be particularly<br \/>\ndifficult with cyclists&rsquo; traffic lights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the<br \/>\ncentral median or the verges on either side would allow decent cycle lanes to<br \/>\nbe provided on the carriageway.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">Section 27 Malahide Road \/ N32<br \/>\n(not in current consultation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">27.1 Cycle lane positioning<br \/>\ncyclists to the left of left-turning traffic<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">The northbound cycle lane leaves the cyclist on the<br \/>\nleft edge of the left-turning lane, bringing her \/him directly into conflict<br \/>\nwith left-turning traffic if (s)he is travelling straight ahead.&nbsp; This is unacceptable.&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"contentpane\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dublin City Council has produced a design for the QBC from Amiens St., through Fairview and out along Malahide Rd.&nbsp; The design involves cycle lanes of sub-standard width placed often where cyclists would be at risk from doors being opened by parked cars.&nbsp; At junctions, it leads cyclists into increased danger by putting them to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}