Quinns Cross to Raheen Roundabout

Uimhir Thagarta Uathúil: 
LCC-C110-QUINN-13
Stádas: 
Submitted
Údar: 
Leo Dillon
Comhairliúchán: 
Part VIII - R510 Quinn's Cross to Raheen Roundabout
Líon na ndoiciméad faoi cheangal: 
0
Teorainneacha Gafa ar an léarscáil: 
Níl
Údar: 
Leo Dillon

Litir Chumhdaigh

To whom it concerns,

In general we should be welcoming any measure that enables people to choose cycling over driving for short local trips. Unfortunately the proposed scheme is so poorly designed that I fear a lot of time and money will be invested for little to no return. This has been the trend in Limerick for over 20 years now with little evidence that this will change. It would be a shame to see this scheme delayed even further but as the quality is so poor, I believe major changes are required to make this fit for purpose.

Regards

Tuairimí

Cycle paths are too narrow to allow people to cycle two abreast

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages
Ábhair: 
Part 8 Plan Drawings

According to the drawings, the width of the cycle path between the grade separated nearside footpath and raised offside kerb range between 1500mm and 1750mm.

According to guidelines set out in the National Cycle Manual, to allow for single file + overtaking the lane would need to be 2000mm at a minimum (inside edge: 250mm, cycling regime: 1250mm, outside edge: 500mm). As this link will service St. Nessan's primary school, an additional 250mm should also be added bringing the general total width to a minimum of 2,250mm. Where bollards are proposed to be used, an inside edge of 500mm should be provided so outside St. Nessan's school, the usable space withing the cycle track should be 2,500mm. 

The ability for people to be able to cycle safely and comfortably two abreast is critical to the success of any cycle route and especially those that service primary schools where parents are likely to cycle with their children. The first two lines in the NCM are as follows:

'The “cycling offer” within urban areas must be improved to encourage more people to cycle, including those who are risk-averse. The goal is now to “raise the bar” and to aim to provide for two-abreast cycling in a stress free and safe environment.'

Section 4.1.5 of the NCM on 'The need to Confer Advantage on the Bicycle' states:

'Key advantages that can be conferred include: Pleasant and popular routes to encounter / talk to other cyclists, cycle two-abreast, take exercise'

The first key objective on the design of cycle links in Section 4.2 is as follows:

'Providing for two abreast where possible – this makes cycling more enjoyable, but the wider cycle facility also makes it safer, more visible and more attractive.'

Therefore, it is not acceptable in 2022, 11 years after the NCM was first published, to continue proposing and building cycling infrastructure that very few people will consider attractive or comfortable enough to consider making short car journeys by bike instead. This route is also meant to be a primary cycle network corridor - a primary network corridor should at a minimum cater for two-abreast cycling.

Inconsistent junction design with Fr. Russell Rd proposals

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

The junction designs proposed differ from those proposed in the nearby Fr. Russell Rd scheme. Below is an example from the Quinns Cross to Raheen Roundabout scheme. The corner radii, while reduced from what exists today, are still quite large and the vertical deflection for motor traffic is not set back from the attempted continuous footway. No detail is provided on what this cross section will look like either - ie: the vertical deflection between carriageway and cycle track and cycle track and footway.

This is an example from the Fr. Russell Rd scheme. The corner radii are tighter and the vertical deflection for motor traffic is set further back from the pedestrian crossing. While there are issues with the design of this continuous footway (outlined in Fr. Russell Rd submission), all junction treatments on both schemes should be practically identical in order for all road users to understand how to use them. This is one of the basic principles of sustainable safety.

Inconsistent bus stop design with Fr. Russell Rd proposals

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

The pedestrian crossing of the cycle track proposed for this scheme at bus stops use belisha beacons. Apart from being completely unecessary, they are inconsistent with the bus stop design used on the Fr. Russell Rd scheme and the NTA's own emerging design standard for bus stops. 

The bus stops proposed for Fr. Russell Rd do not use belisha beacons (see below). All schemes in Limerick - and particularly 2 schemes that are connected to each other - should use the same bus stop design. This is a basic principle of sustainable safety.

Zebra crossing design

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

The proposed replacement zebra crossing layout does not align with any guidelines, makes no sense and is unsafe. Despite the standard red L-pattern blister paving being used at either side of the crossing to indicate to visually impaired pedestrians where the crossing starts and finishes, the drawing also indicates tactile paving will be used at either side of the crossing on the cycle track. This is incorrect and unecessary. 

Incorrect use of tactile paving throughout proposal

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

As with nearly all cycle schemes in Ireland, the tactile paving specified is once again incorrect and does not comply with the guidelines set out in the National Cycle Manual. Once again we are seeing corduroy/hazard paving specified in ladder and tramline pattern to indicate the entry/exit points of cycle tracks at shared pedestrian and cycle spaces. The guidlines clearly state that cycleway paving (which is similar to hazard paving) should only be used when both the cycle track and footway are at grade. In this scheme, the cycle track and footpath are grade separated so this paving pattern should not be used. According to the NCM, only hazard paving in ladder direction should be used on the cycle track to indicate its presence. There should be no tactile paving on the footpath.

Guidance from the National Cycle Manual:

Unnecessary use of traffic sign RUS 009

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

Four traffic signs (RUS 009) in total are specified for this scheme. They are to be located at either end of this scheme to indicate the start and end of this cycle link. These are unnecessary as the cycle track is not ending in these locations. The cycle track is simply approaching a junction but it continues at either side of these junctions so we do not need to add more pointless visual clutter to our already over crowded streets and roads. 

Removal of trees at Raheen Roundabout to maintain motor traffic volume

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

The proposal indicates that up to 12 semi-mature trees will be removed to maintain a multilane entry into Raheen Roundabout.  

Section 4.8.5 of the National Cycle Manual covers how to improve existing roundabouts:

Many existing urban roundabouts were designed primarily from a motorist or capacity perspective, and are not conducive to safe pedestrian and cycling movements. Flared multi-lane approaches can be converted to single lane right-angled approach lanes as shown below. The benefits include a safer cyclist and pedestrian environment, slower speeds and reduced risk, greater legibility for drivers and better gap acceptance.

Removing these trees would also contravene one of the main strategic objectives of the Southern Environs Local Area Plan: 

Protect, enhance and connect areas of natural heritage, green infrastructure and open space for the benefits of quality of life and biodiversity, while having the potential to facilitate climate change adaptation and flood risk measures.

We are experiencing a climate and biodiversity crisis (as declared by Limerick Metropolitan Council in 2019) so why are we prioritising the volume and speed of motor traffic over green infrastructure and walking and cycling?

Motor traffic will block cycle traffic at junction exits

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

Due to the high volume & speed of motor traffic passing between Quinns Cross Roundabout and Raheen Roundabout, motor traffic entering from side roads will end up blocking the cycle tracks. While stop lines are indicated, motorists will naturally nudge forward over the raised crossing as they wait for a gap in the passing traffic. Due to the sometimes 'lengthy' waiting times, motorists will undoubtedly end up blocking the cycle tracks for oncoming cyclists. Where possible, cycle tracks should be set back 5m from the junction mouth to allow motorists cross the cycle track before then negotiating their entry to the main carriageway.

Unnecessary bus gate

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

An earlier version of this scheme included both left and right turn lanes for motor traffic at the Mungret Gate junction. The left turn lane has now been replaced by a bus gate. This seems completely unnecessary as there are currently no buses running here so is based on a purely speculative future bus route provision. Does a location like - the outer suburbs of a small city - warrant a 100m bus lane/gate? What benefit will this bring considering there will be no bus corridors either before or after the bus gate? Rather than insisting on using this additional lane for some form of motorised traffic, why not remove it completely and make the junction safer and more comfortable for pedestrians to cross?

Earlier version of scheme:

Pencil bollards

Caibidil: 
Chapter 2. Drawings and Photomontages

The scheme proposes the use of over 60 'pencil' bollards running next to the carriageway outside St. Nessan's primary school. While some people might consider these bollards cute, installing 60 bright yellow bollards will result in the further 'uglification' of our towns and cities through the over use of this cheap and unimaginiative 'safety' measure. These bollards also present a danger to cyclists due to the narrow width of the proposed cycle tracks. If the purpose of the bollards is to prevent people parking in the cycle track then there are more aesthetically pleasing and safer options available (that are not bollards).

Faisnéis

Uimhir Thagarta Uathúil: 
LCC-C110-QUINN-13
Stádas: 
Submitted
Dáta a cuireadh isteach: 
16.06.2022 - 11:02
Líon na ndoiciméad faoi cheangal: 
0
Teorainneacha Gafa ar an léarscáil: 
Níl
Comhairliúchán: 
Part VIII - R510 Quinn's Cross to Raheen Roundabout