1. Explore Two-way cycle track option A well-segregated two-way cycle track offers a significant improvement in experience and quality of service for people cycling. The maps attached to the emerging preferred route documents of BusConnects suggest a two-way cycle track on the N27 (ref. H. Airport road to city – p34, image below). It would be great to explore this option within the current scheme to pre-emptively influence travel choices as a stepping stone towards the implementation of BusConnects.
Pedesrians
Teideal:
Use of ‘shared path’
Between Frankfield Rd junction and Bull McCabes junction, the scheme proposes the use of shared footpath/cycle path (Drawings GA1006-01, 02, 03 and 12). As with many previous schemes, we would strongly urge the council to reconsider this decision as this fails to provide a good experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. This becomes all the more important in this case since the width of the shared path is only 3.0-3.4m,
which is well below the 4.0m standard. It may be possible that this deviation from the standard is due to the fact these are meant to be one-way paths rather than two-way paths, but in reality (similar to desire lines) the behaviour of people walking and cycling on a shared path cannot be controlled in this manner.
We strongly recommend that the cycle path and footpath be separated, or at the very least have a shared path that is at least 4m wide.
Road Junctions
Teideal:
Junctions with minor side roads
We recommend the use of continuous cycle lanes and footpaths on a raised table at junctions with minor side roads (ref. image below from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council). This provides a much better and importantly safer experience for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally, in accordance with DMURS, we strongly recommend reduced turning radius at these minor junctions (refer in particular to the junction in drawing GA1006-02 on the eastern side of the road)
Cycle Lane
Teideal:
Cycle lane separation
We note that in the ‘urban area’ part of the scheme (assuming this refers to a 50kmph speed limit) orca separators are proposed, and in the ‘rural area’ part an extruded kerb separation is proposed between the cycle lane and general motor traffic. While the extruded kerb separation might be sufficient for a road with lower speed limit, we urge the council to explore an additional buffer space (for example a grass verge) between the extruded kerb and the motor traffic lane given the 100 kmph speed limit on this road. It would be a missed opportunity in terms of safety in this scheme not to provide the highest quality separation since this already does and will continue to hold the record for the cycle lane alongside the fastest road in Cork city. We also recommend to extend the kerb-separation also to the ‘urban area’ part of the scheme since it provides a higher quality of service than the orcas and despite having a lower speed limit, the observed traffic speeds in this stretch are usually still quite high. We would also like to note that the angled-side of the kerb should face the cycle track.
Cyclist
Teideal:
Bike parking
Drawing GA1006-04 shows a ‘toaster rack’ design for the proposed bike parking at Bull McCabes junction. We urge the council in the strongest possible way to avoid the use of this design for the bike racks. These provide very little safety in terms of locking the bike to the stands, and are also known to damage the wheels quite easily. We recommend the use of standard Sheffield stands that were installed by the council around the city recently at various locations.
Road Junctions
Teideal:
Forge Hill / Bull McCabes junction
At the major junctions where there is a cycle lane going straight ahead and a general traffic lane turning left, there is an greatly increased chance of conflict. This is especially true for the downhill direction where vehicles tend to turn left into Forge hill at high speeds. We urge the council to look into additional safety features here for the cycle lanes including but not restricted to advance cycle lights, raised table crossings, flashing amber left for motor vehicles etc. We also take this opportunity to recommend the use of eye-level traffic lights for the cycle lanes as is done in Dublin and other countries.
Road
Teideal:
Maintenance parking
In drawing GA1006-06, the location of the maintenance parking is proposed to be inside the cycle lane which also requires a break in the kerb-separated cycle track. We recommend that the parking be placed outside the cycle track. This helps not only in the cycle track being continuous, but also protects the cycle track further by not having vehicles pull in and out of the parking crossing the cycle lane.
Teideal:
Airport Roundabout
According to the National Cycle Manual section 4.8.5), existing two-lane roundabouts should be upgraded to more pedestrian and cycle friendly designs as shown in the figure below.
In the current proposed design (drawing GA1006-12) there is no provision for people cycling from the airport to go straight (and consequently also to turn right). We strongly recommend a full redesign of this roundabout in accordance with the National Cycle Manual, which will automatically resolve this issue.
Tuairimí
1. Explore Two-way cycle track option A well-segregated two-way cycle track offers a significant improvement in experience and quality of service for people cycling. The maps attached to the emerging preferred route documents of BusConnects suggest a two-way cycle track on the N27 (ref. H. Airport road to city – p34, image below). It would be great to explore this option within the current scheme to pre-emptively influence travel choices as a stepping stone towards the implementation of BusConnects.
Between Frankfield Rd junction and Bull McCabes junction, the scheme proposes the use of shared footpath/cycle path (Drawings GA1006-01, 02, 03 and 12). As with many previous schemes, we would strongly urge the council to reconsider this decision as this fails to provide a good experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. This becomes all the more important in this case since the width of the shared path is only 3.0-3.4m,
which is well below the 4.0m standard. It may be possible that this deviation from the standard is due to the fact these are meant to be one-way paths rather than two-way paths, but in reality (similar to desire lines) the behaviour of people walking and cycling on a shared path cannot be controlled in this manner.
We strongly recommend that the cycle path and footpath be separated, or at the very least have a shared path that is at least 4m wide.
We recommend the use of continuous cycle lanes and footpaths on a raised table at junctions with minor side roads (ref. image below from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council). This provides a much better and importantly safer experience for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally, in accordance with DMURS, we strongly recommend reduced turning radius at these minor junctions (refer in particular to the junction in drawing GA1006-02 on the eastern side of the road)
We note that in the ‘urban area’ part of the scheme (assuming this refers to a 50kmph speed limit) orca separators are proposed, and in the ‘rural area’ part an extruded kerb separation is proposed between the cycle lane and general motor traffic. While the extruded kerb separation might be sufficient for a road with lower speed limit, we urge the council to explore an additional buffer space (for example a grass verge) between the extruded kerb and the motor traffic lane given the 100 kmph speed limit on this road. It would be a missed opportunity in terms of safety in this scheme not to provide the highest quality separation since this already does and will continue to hold the record for the cycle lane alongside the fastest road in Cork city. We also recommend to extend the kerb-separation also to the ‘urban area’ part of the scheme since it provides a higher quality of service than the orcas and despite having a lower speed limit, the observed traffic speeds in this stretch are usually still quite high. We would also like to note that the angled-side of the kerb should face the cycle track.
Drawing GA1006-04 shows a ‘toaster rack’ design for the proposed bike parking at Bull McCabes junction. We urge the council in the strongest possible way to avoid the use of this design for the bike racks. These provide very little safety in terms of locking the bike to the stands, and are also known to damage the wheels quite easily. We recommend the use of standard Sheffield stands that were installed by the council around the city recently at various locations.
At the major junctions where there is a cycle lane going straight ahead and a general traffic lane turning left, there is an greatly increased chance of conflict. This is especially true for the downhill direction where vehicles tend to turn left into Forge hill at high speeds. We urge the council to look into additional safety features here for the cycle lanes including but not restricted to advance cycle lights, raised table crossings, flashing amber left for motor vehicles etc. We also take this opportunity to recommend the use of eye-level traffic lights for the cycle lanes as is done in Dublin and other countries.
In drawing GA1006-06, the location of the maintenance parking is proposed to be inside the cycle lane which also requires a break in the kerb-separated cycle track. We recommend that the parking be placed outside the cycle track. This helps not only in the cycle track being continuous, but also protects the cycle track further by not having vehicles pull in and out of the parking crossing the cycle lane.
According to the National Cycle Manual section 4.8.5), existing two-lane roundabouts should be upgraded to more pedestrian and cycle friendly designs as shown in the figure below.
In the current proposed design (drawing GA1006-12) there is no provision for people cycling from the airport to go straight (and consequently also to turn right). We strongly recommend a full redesign of this roundabout in accordance with the National Cycle Manual, which will automatically resolve this issue.