It seems to me that ramps on a hill risk knocking cyclists freewheeling
\ndownhill off their bikes. This is what Fingal is currently doing
\nat Yellow Walls Road in Malahide, a location used by lots of children
\ngoing to school. I’m particularly aware of it because it’s part
\nof my route to Fingal County Council’s offices in Swords and while it’s
\noutside my area, I’m concerned because of the risk that someone could
\nbe seriously hurt.<\/p>\n
I would be grateful for any feedback on this. Below, I have put copies of correspondence on this subject.
\n ________________________________________
\nFrom: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe \/ David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
\nSent: 6 May 2005 18:01
\nTo: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
\nCc: Dto (dto)
\nSubject: Seabury\/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme<\/p>\n
Dear Peter,<\/p>\n
I refer to the above scheme proposal. As you know this is a
\npotentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
\ntravelling between Swords and Malahide.<\/p>\n
You indicated at today’s meeting (5th May 2005) of the local area
\ncommitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit. As
\nyou know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
\nhill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists. I am also
\nconcerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
\npredictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
\neach other. <\/p>\n
I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.<\/p>\n
Is mise, le meas,<\/p>\n
\nDavid Healy<\/p>\n
Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.
\n{mospagebreak}OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS<\/p>\n
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit<\/p>\n
Report
\nSeptember 2004 <\/p>\n
\nPrepared for:
\n
\nClifton Scannell Emerson
\nSeafort Lodge
\nCastledawson Avenue
\nBlackrock
\nCo. Dublin
\nIreland<\/p>\n
Prepared by:
\nSteer Davies Gleave
\n1 York Place
\nLeeds
\nLS1 2DR<\/p>\n
[t] +44 (0)113-242 9955
\n[i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com <\/p>\n
\nContents Page
\n1. INTRODUCTION 2
\n2. ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT 4
\nGeneral 4
\nSignals 5
\n3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT 8<\/p>\n
\n1. INTRODUCTION
\n1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Safety Audit
\ncarried out on a proposed traffic management scheme along Old Yellow
\nWalls Road, Malahide, Ireland.
\n1.2 The scheme forms a component of an area wide
\ntraffic management scheme seeking to address issues of road safety,
\nexcessive vehicle speeds and rat-running through residential areas to
\nthe west of Malahide town centre. The Old Yellow Walls Road scheme
\nadditionally seeks to address issues arising from narrow carriageway
\nand footway widths.
\n1.3 Old Yellow Walls Road is subject to 30 mph speed
\nlimit and currently caters for a two-way all day traffic flow of 15,000
\nvehicles. The road accommodates two bus routes with approximately 6
\nbuses per hour in each direction.
\n1.4 The scheme proposes a consistent cross-section of
\na 5.0m carriageway with 1.5m footway, speed tables and a short section
\nof one-way shuttle working controlled by a new traffic signal
\ninstallation.
\n1.5 The scope of the audit is defined as the length
\nof Old Yellow Walls Road between Hillcrest and Millview Road.
\n1.6 The Design Organisation is:
\nClifton Scannell Emerson Associates, Seafort Lodge, Castledawson Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin, Ireland.
\n1.7 The audit was carried out by:
\nAndrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
\nSteer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Principal Consultant.
\nMatthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
\nSteer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Senior Consultant.
\n1.8 The Audit was carried out in the Leeds office of
\nSteer Davies Gleave on the 9th and 10th September 2004 following a site
\nvisit on 8th September 2004. The audit comprised of an examination of
\nthe documents forming the audit brief and an examination of the site.
\nThis information was considered sufficient for the purpose of carrying
\nout the road safety audit requested.
\n1.9 Andrew Barker undertook the visit to the site in
\nthe afternoon and evening of 8th September 2004 (15:00-18:00hrs). On
\nthe day of the site visit the prevailing conditions were fine and the
\nroad surface was dry.
\n1.10 The Audit was undertaken with reference to the
\nHighways Agency standard HD 19\/03 and to The Institution of Highways
\nand Transportation "Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways".
\nComments and recommendations in this report are on the road safety
\nimplications of the scheme, as presented, and do not verify the
\ncompliance of the design to any other criteria.
\n1.11 The following reference documents were studied as part of the audit:
\n• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089\/109,
\ntitled “Old Yellow Walls Road Traffic Management Plan – Alternative
\nOption Shuttle Lights”, dated August 2004.
\n• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089\/111,
\ntitled “Old Yellow Walls Road Alternative B – Shuttle Lights Full
\nArea”, dated August 2004.
\n• Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089\/002,
\ntitled “Old Yellow Walls Road – Traffic Count Locations”, dated
\n22\/11\/2002.
\n• Accident data printout for the period 1994 to 1999.<\/p>\n
\n2. ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT
\nGeneral
\nProblem
\n2.1 Location: Entire length of highway link, except shuttle section.
\n2.2 Summary: Narrow carriageway width may increase
\nthe risk of accidents due to vehicles clashing. Increased risk to
\ncyclists. Increased risk to pedestrians from vehicles encroaching onto
\nfootway.
\n2.3 The proposed carriageway width of 5.0m is
\nnarrower than existing. Whilst speeds may be lower and heavy goods
\nvehicles are to be banned from using the link, use by 2.45m wide
\ndouble-decker buses remains. This is particularly relevant on the bend
\nlocated at the west end of the proposed scheme.
\nRecommendation
\n2.4 Maximise the width of carriageway by locally widening to match the extent of the highway land available.
\nProblem
\n2.5 Location: Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and Millview Road.
\n2.6 Summary: The standard and nature of the highway
\nlink differs appreciably from the surrounding highway network.
\nIncreased risk of accidents due to unexpected driving conditions.
\n2.7 Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and
\nMillview Road has a lower standard of alignment, forward visibility and
\ncarriageway\/footway width than roads in the surrounding highway
\nnetwork.
\nRecommendation
\n2.8 Employ ‘Road Narrows Dangerously’ traffic signs on the approaches to the sub-standard section.
\nSignals
\nProblem
\n2.9 Location: Shuttle section
\n2.10 Summary: Increased risk of vehicle collision due to drivers not clearing one-way section.
\n2.11 It is anticipated that at peak periods delays
\nwill be experienced by vehicles queuing on the approaches to the
\nsignals. Driver frustration may result in vehicles ‘following through’
\nthe section despite the signal turning red.
\nRecommendation
\n2.12 Introduce a system of “all-red extension”
\ndetection loops between the signal installations to monitor vehicles
\nclearing the one-way section, and extend the all-red clearance period
\nwhen necessary.
\nProblem
\n2.13 Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
\n2.14 Summary: Risk of vehicles striking signal heads\/poles.
\n2.15 Several of the proposed signal pole locations have insufficient clearance from vehicular traffic.
\nRecommendation
\n2.16 Re-site poles such that signal heads are a
\nminimum of 300mm from carriageway edge (or greater in areas of high
\ncarriageway crossfall).
\nProblem
\n2.17 Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
\n2.18 Summary: Risk of vehicular accidents due to non-standard layout of signal heads.
\n2.19 Whilst it is appreciated that the design is at
\nan early stage, the proposed signal locations appear non-standard in
\nterms of location and of primary\/secondary provision. This is
\nespecially relevant due to spatial constraints and the possible
\nreliance on third party land.
\nRecommendation
\n2.20 Re-position signal heads.
\nProblem
\n2.21 Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
\n2.22 Summary: Risk of accidents from vehicles emerging from private driveway with inadequate visibility.
\n2.23 The location of the stop line will result in
\npoor access\/egress manoeuvres for users of the private driveway.
\nVisibility will be impaired by the presence of waiting vehicles.
\nRecommendation
\n2.24 Re-position stop line and consider use of ‘Yellow-box’ markings.
\nProblem
\n2.25 Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
\n2.26 Summary: Risk of shunt accidents for westbound vehicles approaching stop line.
\n2.27 Forward visibility to the westbound stop line
\nlocation and nearside primary signal head is sub-standard. The
\nmitigation proposal to cut back the hedgerow may prove unworkable
\nbeyond the current highway boundary. The proposed off-side primary
\nsignal will experience masking by eastbound traffic.
\nRecommendation
\n2.28 Employ warning sign ‘Traffic Signals Ahead’ on nearside as well as proposed off-side location.
\n2.29 Re-position signal\/stop line to achieve 50m
\nforward visibility, giving consideration to the likelihood of future
\nhedge growth.
\nProblem
\n2.30 Location: Shuttle section – stop-lines
\n2.31 Summary: Risk of shunt and overshoot accidents for vehicles approaching stop lines.
\n2.32 Both stop are located on down-gradients.
\nRecommendation
\n2.33 Employ high skid-resistant surface on the approach to the signal stop-lines.<\/p>\n
\n3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
\n3.1 I certify that I have examined the drawings and
\ndocuments listed at the beginning of this report and have visited the
\nsite. The examination has been carried out with the sole purpose
\nof identifying any features of the design that could be removed or
\nmodified in order to improve the safety of the scheme. The
\nproblems identified have been noted in this report together with
\nassociated safety improvement suggestions that I recommend should be
\nstudied for implementation. I have not been involved with the
\nscheme design.
\nAUDIT TEAM LEADER<\/p>\n
Signed ……………………………………… Date …………………
\n Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
\nSteers Davies Gleave
\n1 York Place
\nLeeds, LS1 2DR
\nUK<\/p>\n
\nAUDIT TEAM MEMBERS<\/p>\n
Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
\nSteers Davies Gleave
\n1 York Place
\nLeeds, LS1 2DR
\nUK<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
CONTROL SHEET<\/p>\n
Project\/Proposal Name: OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS<\/p>\n
\nDocument Title: Stage 1 Road Safety Audit<\/p>\n
\nClient Contract\/Project Number:
\n
\nSDG Project\/Proposal Number: 205959
\n
\nISSUE HISTORY<\/p>\n
Issue No. Date Details
\n1 13\/09\/2004 1st Issue
\nREVIEW<\/p>\n
Originator: ADB
\n
\nOther Contributors: MCG
\n
\nReview By: Print: Andy Barker
\n
\n Sign: <\/p>\n
DISTRIBUTION<\/p>\n
Clients: Geoff Emerson, Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates
\n
\nSteer Davies Gleave: File<\/p>\n
{mospagebreak}
\nFrom: David Healy \/ Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
\nSent: 27 September 2005 11:36
\nTo: ‘leedsinfo@sdgworld.net’
\nCc: Jeroen Buis (jeroen.buis@dto.ie)
\nSubject: Attn: Andrew Barker, re: Safety Audit for Old Yellow Walls Road<\/p>\n
Dear Mr. Barker,<\/p>\n
I refer to the safety audit carried out on the Old Yellow Walls Road
\nscheme, a copy of which I attach. I also attach below
\ncorrespondence to the Transport Department of Fingal County Council in
\nrelation to the safety audit. <\/p>\n
I would be grateful if you could indicate whether the two issues I
\nraised in my letter were considered as part of the safety audit and if
\nso what the results of that consideration were. <\/p>\n
Cllr. David Healy
\nGreen Party\/Comhaontas Glas
\n
\nwww.davidhealy.com
\n54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair, B.Á.C. 13
\n01 8324087
\n087 6178852<\/p>\n
From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe \/ David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
\nSent: 6 May 2005 18:01
\nTo: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
\nCc: Dto (dto)
\nSubject: Seabury\/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme<\/p>\n
Dear Peter,<\/p>\n
I refer to the above scheme proposal. As you know this is a
\npotentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
\ntravelling between Swords and Malahide.<\/p>\n
You indicated at today’s meeting (5th May 2005) of the local area
\ncommitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit. As
\nyou know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
\nhill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists. I am also
\nconcerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
\npredictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
\neach other. <\/p>\n
I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.<\/p>\n
Is mise, le meas,<\/p>\n
\nDavid Healy<\/p>\n
Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 […]<\/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\/59"}],"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=59"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=59"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=59"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=59"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}