strategic cycleway scheme from bury’s bridge to ... · design team and has not examined or...

Cork County Council

Strategic Cycleway Scheme from Bury’s

Bridge to Carrigtwohill (Old N25), Co. Cork

Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit

October 2019

Cork County Council Strategic Cycleway Scheme from Bury’s Bridge to Carrigtwohill (Old N25)

Stage 1/2 RSA Report

Page i

P:\Barry's Project Files\19 Projects\19666 - Burys Bridge Carrigtwohill RSA\02. General\02. Documents\191022-19666-RP-0001_Stage1-2_RSA_Burys_Bridge_to_Carrigtwohill_P03.docx

Document Control Sheet

Client: Cork County Council

Project Title: Strategic Cycleway Scheme from Bury’s Bridge to Carrigtwohill (Old N25)

Document Title: Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit

File Name: 191022-19666-RP-0001_Stage1-2_RSA_Bury’s_Bridge_to_Carrigtwohill_P02

Table of Contents

(incl. Y/N)

List of Tables

(incl. Y/N)

List of Figures

(incl. Y/N)

Pages of Text

(No.)

Appendices

(No.)

Y N N 13 2

Document Revision Document Verification

Issue Date (DD/MM/YY)

Revision

Code

Suitability

Code

Author

(Initials)

Checker

(Initials)

Reviewer

As Per PMP (Initials)

Approver

As Per PMP (Initials)

Peer Review

(Initials or N/A)

Add hyperlink to Verification Email on PIM Register for each issue

22.10.19 P01 S3 AO’N &

TD AO’N AO’N TF N/A

14.11.19 P02 S3 AO’N &

TD AO’N AO’N TF N\A

18.12.19 P03 S3 AO’N &

TD AO’N AO’N TF N\A



Page ii


Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Visit .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Road Accident History .............................................................................................. 1

AUDIT ISSUES IDENTIFIED .................................................................................... 4

2.1 Problem: HGV Parking – The Island Gate Restaurant ............................................. 4 2.2 Problem: Priority at Entrances .................................................................................. 5 2.3 Problem: Lack of Public Lighting .............................................................................. 5 2.4 Problem: Parking – At Fitzpatrick’s Shop ................................................................. 5 2.5 Problem: Lack of Tactile Paving Detail - General ..................................................... 6 2.6 Problem: Vehicles Overhanging Shared Surface – The Island Gate ....................... 7 2.7 Problem: Cycle Environment – Fitzpatrick’s Shop.................................................... 8 2.8 Problem: Cycle Parking – The Island Gate/Mace/Al’s Diner .................................... 8 2.9 Problem: Bus Stop Facilities – General .................................................................... 9 2.10 Problem: Access to Little Island Train Station .......................................................... 9 2.11 Problem: Pedestrian Refuge – The Elm Tree ......................................................... 10 2.12 Problem: Parking Encroachment ............................................................................ 11 2.13 Problem: Toucan Crossing – SK 1117 ................................................................... 11

AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT ................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX 1: DRAWINGS PROVIDED

APPENDIX 2: FEEDBACK FORM



Page 1


Introduction

1.1 Background

This report results from a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit (RSA) of proposed Strategic Cycleway Scheme on

the ‘Old N25’ from Bury’s Bridge to Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork. The scheme design and drawings were prepared

by AECOM, consulting engineer on behalf of their Client, Cork County Council. Cork County Council

commissioned JB Barry and Partners, consulting engineers to carry out this RSA.

This audit was prepared in accordance with TII GE-STY-01024 (December 2017) - Road Safety Audit. The

Audit Team has examined and reported on only the road safety implications of the design submitted by the

Design Team and has not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any other criteria. The

members of the Road Safety Audit Team are independent of the Design Team, and include:

Road Safety Audit Team Leader: Mr. Adrian O’Neill BEng MSc CEng MIEI

J.B. Barry & Partners Road Safety Audit Team Member:

Mr. Tim Delaney BEng CEng MIEI J.B. Barry & Partners

The drawings audited are as detailed on the drawing issue schedule contained in Appendix A. A copy of

the RSA Feedback Form is contained in Appendix B.

1.2 Site Visit

The audit was carried out between Monday 14 October 2019 and Tuesday 22 October 2019. The Road

Safety Audit site visit was carried out during daylight hours from midday to 4:00pm on Monday 14 October

2019. The was constant heavy rain during the site visit and the road surfaces were wet with surface ponding.

Traffic volumes were average at the time of the site visit. Pedestrian activity was generally low, but

pedestrians were observed crossing the carriageway near shops and restaurant and groups gathering at

bus stops. There was significant unregulated parking associated with the retail/public areas such The Island

Gate, Fitzpatrick’s shop and Glounthaune train station. Many HGVs park at the Island Gate and opposite

Amber filling station.

1.3 Road Accident History

No historical road accident data for the study area was made available to the Audit Team. An online check

of the Road Safety Authority website shows that there were many recorded collisions between 2005 and

2016 at or near the site.

A total of 14 minor collisions, 2 serious collisions and 0 fatal collisions occurred along the site. The collision

locations were evenly distributed throughout the site. One of the serios collisions involved a cyclist and one

of the minor collisions involved a pedestrian. The rest of the collisions involved single vehicles, one head-

on collision, one involved a HGV and two involved a right turn movement at a junction/access. Refer to

Figures 1.2 to 1.3.



Page 2


Figure 1.1: RSA collision history (2005 to 2016) – West section of Site

Figure 2.2: RSA collision history (2005 to 2016) – Middle section of Site

SITE



Page 3


Figure 3.3: RSA collision history (2005 to 2016) – East section of Site



Page 4


Audit Issues Identified

2.1 Problem: HGV Parking – The Island Gate Restaurant

From the site visit, many HGV’s were observed parking along the roadside along both sides of the road next

to The Island Gate restaurant and neighbouring premises including along a section of road where parking

is currently prohibited by way of signage. It is proposed to regularise this parking by providing formal parking

bays which may result in HGVs and other vehicles mounting the footpath and parking for periods up to an

hour. This parking practice would create obstructions for pedestrians and cyclists using the shared surface,

increasing the risk of conflict. Also, the spaces provided do not appear to be wide enough for HGV parking,

particularly if drivers are opening doors and stepping into the carriageway.

Recommendation

Provide sufficient parking at retail areas or install a physical barrier to prohibit this unsafe behaviour such

as vertical bollards. Ensure that all parallel roadside spaces proposed are sufficiently wide to cater for a

2.4m wide HGV to park allow enough room for the drivers to safety exit the vehicle without the need to step

out onto the carriageway.



Page 5


2.2 Problem: Priority at Entrances

It is unclear from the drawings, whether vehicles or cyclists/pedestrians have priority at the entrances.

Ambiguity at entrances could cause confusion for drivers and cyclists/pedestrians, increasing the risk of

collisions.

Recommendation

Given the scheme is for a shared route, which will promote walking/cycling, consideration should be given

to giving priority to cyclists/pedestrians at all entrances, providing a direct and consistent route. This could

be achieved by maintaining the level and surface material of the shared surface through the entrances.

2.3 Problem: Lack of Public Lighting

It is unclear from the drawing if appropriate public lighting will be provided as part of the scheme. Text

provided with the drawings outlines public lighting will be included but the drawings do not show proposed

public lighting.

Recommendation

The design team should provide appropriate public lighting along the length of the scheme.

2.4 Problem: Parking – At Fitzpatrick’s Shop

Similar to Problem 2.1, many vehicles (cars and LGVs generally) were observed parking within the

unregulated parking area in front of Fitzpatrick’s shop and neighbouring premises and along the public road.

Currently, parking is ad hoc with many different vehicle manoeuvres occurring simultaneously, increasing

the risk of conflict. It is proposed to regularise the parking in this location to increase safety, however some

vehicles may continue to park at the roadside which could subsequently result in vehicles mounting and

parking on the shared surface or footpath. This could obstruct pedestrians and cyclists on the shared

surface.



Page 6


Recommendation

Consider using vertical bollards along the road kerb and back of path (each side of shared surface) to

prevent vehicles from mounting the footpath to park. This would create a safe unambiguous route for cyclist

and pedestrians travelling through this area.

2.5 Problem: Lack of Tactile Paving Detail - General

The drawings do not include tactile paving. Insufficient crossing facilities such as tactile paving, tramline

paving, public lighting increase the risk of injury to pedestrians and cyclists.

Tower Hill Access Rockgrove Industrial

Estate Access



Page 7


Recommendation

Carry out a review of the entire scheme to ensure that tactile paving is used at all public road junctions and

at busy commercial access points.

2.6 Problem: Vehicles Overhanging Shared Surface – The Island Gate

The proposed perpendicular parking at the back of the shared surface will result in cars overhanging over

the shared surface thus reducing the available footpath space and creating an unsafe environment for both

cyclist and pedestrians.

Recommendation

Provide a buffer to prevent cars from encroaching over the shared surface such as rubber blocks fixed to

the surface (see photo insert above) or vertical bollards aligned along the back of path.



Page 8


2.7 Problem: Cycle Environment – Fitzpatrick’s Shop

The proposed layout will encourage cyclists to use the car park to access the ‘greenway’ section of old road

to the east. There is an increased risk of a conflict between a passing cyclist and a vehicle reversing out of

a parking space.

Recommendation

Revise the layout so that the shared surface is streamlined more towards encouraging cyclists to remain on

the shared surface and easier to access the ‘greenway’ from the shared surface. See recommendation for

Problem 2.3.

2.8 Problem: Cycle Parking – The Island Gate/Mace/Al’s Diner

There does not appear to be any cycle parking provided at the local amenities (shops and restaurants) at

Island Gate. Lack of safe cycle parking would lead to cyclists travelling through car parks increasing the risk

of collisions. A lack of facilities may also lead to cyclists leaving bicycles at unsafe locations on the shared

surface creating hazards for other users.



Page 9


Recommendation

The design team should consider providing appropriate cycle parking facilities to provide safe access to

these amenities. It could also double as parking for the nearby bus stops, promoting multi-modal trips.

2.9 Problem: Bus Stop Facilities – General

It is not clear from the drawings how it is proposed to segregate groups waiting at the bus stop from passing

cyclists. Groups of people waiting at the bus stop will reduce the available space and may result in collisions

especially as a bus approaches or result in cyclist using the carriageway to bypass the bus stop, increasing

the risk of being struck by a passing vehicle.

Recommendation

Follow the NTA guideline for bus bays and consider using tram-line paving where appropriate. Where

possible, widen the footpath locally at each bus stop.

2.10 Problem: Access to Little Island Train Station

Cyclists do not appear to be catered for when accessing the Little Island train station from the shared

surface. If there is a lack of appropriate facilities, it could encourage cyclists to cross at unsafe locations. A

pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed bus stops, however, it does not cater for cyclists as

the opposite footpath appears narrow.



Page 10


Recommendation

Consider installing a toucan crossing above the junction to the train station, providing a more direct route to

the train station for cyclists. If this is not possible, consider replacing the proposed pedestrian crossing with

a toucan crossing and widen the footpath on the train station side to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.

2.11 Problem: Pedestrian Refuge – The Elm Tree

It is proposed to install and pedestrian refuge at the pedestrian crossing. The design currently doesn’t

adequately cater for those with a vision impairment and may lead to pedestrians failing to appreciate the

island and inadvertently trying to cross a wide section of carriageway without taking refuge if required.

Recommendation



Page 11


Provide a ‘full’ island, dished appropriately with tactile paving and wide enough to accommodate a person

with a buggy.

2.12 Problem: Parking Encroachment

Parking is proposed adjacent to the bus stop by the Glounthaune playground. There is no physical barrier

between the parking and bus stop. Given the parking practices observed during the site visit, there is an

increased risk of parking encroaching into the bus stop area. This would force the bus to stop in the

carriageway. Given that the opposite bus stop is an inline stop, there would be an increased risk of head on

collisions from traffic passing stationary buses.

Recommendation

Provide a physical separation (buildout) between the parking and bus stop.

2.13 Problem: Toucan Crossing – SK 1117

A long straight section of shared surface suddenly ends at a toucan crossing creating a ‘tunnel effect’ which

could lead to pedestrian or cyclist, especially young children, failing to stop at the toucan crossing and

running onto the carriageway and been struck by a passing vehicle.



Page 12


Recommendation

Install a gate or a staggered barrier to slow down pedestrians or cyclists and result with them stopping at

the toucan crossing before crossing the carriageway. The pedestrian gate should slow cyclists but not be

such that they have to dismount and face the oncoming stream of traffic.



Page 13


Audit Team Statement

We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents listed in the appendices to this report.

The examination and subsequent report were made with the sole purpose of identifying any features of

the scheme that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the proposals.

The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated safety improvement

suggestions, which we recommend should be studied for implementation.

No one on the Audit Team has been involved in the initial scheme design.

Assessment Team Leader

Name: A.O’Neill

BEng MSc MIEI

Signed:

Position: Design Engineer Date: 22.10.19

Organisation: J.B. Barry & Partners Ltd.

Address: 3 Eastgate Road

Eastgate

Little Island

Co. Cork

Assessment Team Member

Name: T. Delaney

BEng CEng MIEI

Signed:

Position: Associate Date: 22.10.19

Organisation: J.B. Barry & Partners Ltd.

Address: 3 Eastgate Road

Eastgate

Little Island

Co. Cork

Appendix 1: Drawings Provided

Table A: List of drawings provided for audit

Drawing Title Drawing No. Revision

Route Overview - Bury’s Bridge to Carrigtwohill

Sheet 1 of 17

60580596 SK-1101 04


Sheet 2 of 17

60580596 SK-1102 04


Sheet 3 of 17

60580596 SK-1103 04


Sheet 4 of 17

60580596 SK-1104 04


Sheet 5 of 17

60580596 SK-1105 04


Sheet 6 of 17

60580596 SK-1106 04


Sheet 7 of 17

60580596 SK-1107 04


Sheet 8 of 17

60580596 SK-1108 04


Sheet 9 of 17

60580596 SK-1109 04


Sheet 10 of 17

60580596 SK-1110 04


Sheet 11 of 17

60580596 SK-1111 04


Sheet 12 of 17

60580596 SK-1112 04


Sheet 13 of 17

60580596 SK-1113 04


Sheet 14 of 17

60580596 SK-1114 04


Sheet 15 of 17

60580596 SK-1115 04


Sheet 16 of 17

60580596 SK-1116 04


Sheet 17 of 17

60580596 SK-1117 04

Typical Cross Sections - Bury’s Bridge to

Carrigtwohill Sheet 1 of 1

60580596 SK-1118 03

Appendix 2: Feedback Form

Road Safety Audit Feedback Form

Scheme: Strategic Cycleway Scheme from Bury’s Bridge to Carrigtwohill (Old N25), Co. Cork

Audit Stage: Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2

Date Audit Completed: 22 October 2019

Paragraph

No. in Report

To Be Completed by the Design Team To Be Completed by

the Audit Team

Problem

accepted

(yes/no)

Recommended

measure accepted

(yes/no)

Alternative measure (describe)

Alternative measure

accepted by Auditors

(yes/no)

2.1 Yes Partially

Parking bays will be 2.4m

minimum width.

Additional formalised parking is

being provided as part of the

scheme on the southern side of

the road with a controlled

pedestrian crossing to facilitate

safe movement of pedestrians.

The detailed design will consider

the installation of bollards.

Enforcement of parking

restrictions is preferable over the

installation of vertical bollards

initially. Operations will be

monitored post construction.

Retention sockets for bollards can

be installed in the footpath to

future proof against this potential

problem.

Yes

2.2 Yes Yes

It is intended to give priority to

cyclists and pedestrians at all

entrances

2.3 Yes Yes

It is intended to provide LED

public lighting to Cork County

Council standards along the entire

route

2.4 Yes Partially

The existing parking situation is

being improved from a safety

point of view.

Additional parking spaces

complete with a new footpath and

controlled crossing are proposed

on the southern side of the road.






Yes






problem.

2.5 Yes Yes

Best practice from the National

Cycling Manual and DMURS will be

implemented throughout the

scheme

2.6 Yes Yes

2.7 No Partially

The entrance could be relocated

slightly to the east and a more

streamlined route (possibly with

signage) could be used.

An element of public realm works

eg flower beds of boxes could

form a physical barrier to direct

cyclists

Yes

2.8 Yes Partially The detailed design will look at

issues such as cycle parking

2.9 No No

The Waterford bound bus stop is

not a busy route for people

waiting at this stop. There is

ample space (4m) in the proposed

shared use path for all to co-exist

while all taking due care and

attention.

Yes

2.10 Yes Partially

The controlled crossing will be a

toucan crossing catering for

cyclists to cross safely.

The detailed design will look to

widen the footpath on the

southern side of the road.

CCC is also progressing a

separate scheme aimed at

improving access to the train

station which will look at this

issue.

Yes

2.11 Yes Yes

A controlled pedestrian crossing

will be provided which does cater

for those with a visual impairment

and will have the required tactile

and sound detection systems. The

centre refuge could be eliminated

from the design as it is not

required with a controlled

crossing.

Signed: …………….…….…….…….. Designer Date……18/12/19…………….

Signed: …........................…. Audit Team Leader Date 18.12.19

Signed: ……… …….…….. Client Date ………18/12/19………..

2.12 Yes No











problem.

Yes

2.13 Yes No

The alignment of the path with

respect to the crossing will be

changed to eliminate the ‘tunnel

effect’. This is preferable to the

gate or barrier option

Yes