Rhebogue Neighbourhood Greenway Road Safety Audit Stage 2 Report Number: 12/007/00/00057 July 2014 Mid West National Road Design Office Lissanalta House, Dooradoyle County Limerick Tel: 061 496 800 Fax: 061 583 150 info@midwestroads.ie
1. INTRODUCTION This report describes a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Rhebogue Neighbourhood Greenway in Rhebogue, Limerick. 1.1 The audit team members were as follows: Tim Fitzgerald Mid West National Road Design Office Team Leader Jari Howard Mid West National Road Design Office Team Member 1.2 This Stage 2 audit comprised an examination of the drawings and documents relating to the Rhebogue Neighbourhood Greenway designed by Limerick Smarter Travel for Limerick City & County Council and a day time site visit on 7 th July 2014. The proposed traffic calming scheme includes the introduction of a special 30kph speed limit, raised platforms, widened/new footpaths, cycle ways, signage and ancillary works. 1.3 This Stage 2 audit has been carried out in accordance with the relevant sections of NRA HD 19/12. The team has examined only those issues within the design relating to the road safety implications of the scheme, and has therefore not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any other criteria. 1.4 All of the problems described in this report are considered by the audit team to affect the safety of the scheme. 1.5 Appendix A describes the drawings and other information examined by the audit team and includes a copy of the main drawings. 1.6 Appendix B includes the NRA Letter of approval for the Road Safety Audit team (not required as not an NRA project).
2. ITEMS ARISING FROM THE AUDIT 2.1 Problem: Connection with Old Dublin Road scheme under construction The scheme ties into a separate scheme (Groody Roundabout) currently under construction. The drawings indicate an existing planned table top junction at the junction between Rhebogue Rd and the old Dublin Rd. There is existing cycle lanes on the old Dublin Rd for which the connection to the proposed cycle lanes on Rhebogue is not shown. The large gateway signs may impede cyclists from moving between Old Dublin Rd and Rhebogue Road cycle tracks. The designer should ensure that the overlapping schemes are consistent at this location and ensure there are clearly identified routes for pedestrians and cyclists to connect from Old Dublin Road to Rhebogue Road.
2.2 Problem: Pedestrian railings a risk to cyclists The scheme introduces a cycle along the edge of carriageway along the first section of Rhebogue Road. The existing pedestrian railing along the western footpath may force cyclists further out in the road and the start of the railings at the entrance to Formula for Fun and at the start of the bend are particular risks for cyclists striking them with their handlebars. The designer should review the existing pedestrian barrier along this section of road and consider removing or relocating this to minimise risk to cyclists.
2.3 Problem: Dropped kerb across entrance to Formula for Fun There is no dropped kerb at the southern side of the crossing at the entrance to Formula for Fun complex. Pedestrians with mobility restrictions and pushchairs may have difficulty mounting the kerb at this entrance and therefore increase the risk of conflict with traffic using the entrance. The designer should provide dropped kerbs at crossing locations.
2.4 Problem: Limited space for cyclists on bend at junction with Rhebogue Meadows The design terminated the cycle land just before the bend with no guidance or provision for the cyclists with no dropped kerbs, placement of end of cycle lane signs. The combination of the tight bend, central islands and pedestrian railing along the kerb leave any cyclists at risk of collision with vehicles on the bend. The designer should review the design to ensure that cyclists have clear guidance and space to negotiate this bend. This could involve the removal or relocation of the pedestrian railing or the provision of a cycle accessible shared surface around the bend. 2.5 Problem: Location of Proposed Lighting Columns The proposed location of some of the new public lighting is shown in the middle of the footpath or across existing entrances. This will impact the use of the footpath and existing entrances. The designer should review the proposed locations of public lighting columns and ensure they are located appropriately.
2.6 Problem: Concrete bollards at existing ramps There are low concrete bollards in the footpath adjacent to a number of existing ramps to warn drivers of their location. These bollards are a hazard to pedestrians. The designer should remove the concrete bollards along with the ramps which are being removed. 2.7 Problem: Existing access and raised platform at Junction 2 There is an existing entrance to the south of Junction 2. There is a risk that users of this entrance may have difficulty as there will be level differences between the entrance and the raised junction. The designer should review this entrance to ensure it will tie into the proposed junction table.
2.8 Problem: Proposed Cark Parking / Bus Bay near Junction 3 The design indicates a proposed car parking bay / future bus stop between Junction 3 and the Rail Bridge. There is no provision shown for this area as the footpath is being built out. Without removal of the new footpath any parking / bus bay here would encroach into the carriageway just before the pinch point under the railway bridge. The designer should review the proposed location of new signs within this widened footpath if they wish to remove it in the future. 2.9 Problem: Existing tactile pavement at Junction 3 The design provides for widening of the footpath on the southern approach to Junction 3 with new tactile pavement being provided at the crossing. There is existing tactile paving which would not coincide with the new crossing. This could lead to confusion for mobility restricted pedestrians. The designer should remove the existing tactile pavements.
2.10 Problem: Northern Footpath on eastern approach to Rail Bridge The existing footpath on the northern side follows the set back of the entrances immediately prior to the railway bridge. The drawings indicate a widening of this footpath over an entrance to a property. This will restrict access to and from the property. Due to the restricted visibility through the bridge pedestrians were observed to follow the northern edge of carriageway through the bridge. Pedestrians going under the bridge would not follow the existing footpath as the visibility through the bridge from this recess is poor. The designer should consider introducing a shared surface footpath along the line of the carriageway through these entrances to the proposed ramp at eastern side of bridge.
2.11 Problem: Raised Platform under Rail Bridge The existing rail bridge has a height restriction of 3.55m. It is evident that the bridge has been struck on the western approach which would have the lessor clearance due to the fall in the road. The design proposed a raised platform through the bridge. This could further reduce the vertical clearance under the bridge and lead to further bridge strikes. The designer should consider introducing a raised platform either side of the bridge with no increase in pavement levels under the bridge. The red surfacing could be continued under the bridge between these two platforms to help warn drivers of the hazard and use by pedestrians.
2.12 Problem: Advance warning of narrow bridge For drivers approaching the bridge from the west there is limited visibility of the width of restricted width of the bridge. There is a risk that non local drivers would approach the bridge at higher speed from the west and increase the risk of head on collision or conflict with pedestrians on the road under the bridge. Whilst the design includes road narrow warning signs this may not adequately warn drivers of the narrow bridge and risk of pedestrians. The designer should consider providing LED warning signs that indicate the nature of the hazard and the likelihood of pedestrians using the carriageway. 2.13 Problem: Pedestrian crossing west of the Rail Bridge The geometry of the western approach to the bridge leads pedestrians to pass under the bridge on the northern side of the carriageway. Therefore pedestrians are likely to want to cross the road between Junction 4 and the bridge. There are no proposed uncontrolled crossings on this section of road.
The designer should provide an uncontrolled crossing on this section of road. 2.14 Problem: Existing pole east of Junction 4 limiting restricting footpath width An existing utility pole creates a pinch point in the northern footpath which will remain if the current design is constructed. This will require pedestrians to step down onto the carriageway to avoid the pole and increase the risk of collision with passing vehicles.
The designer should consider relocating the existing pole and widening the footpath to the north to provide a minimum width footpath.
2.15 Problem: Southern approach at Junction 4 The design has a local widening of new footpath on the western side of the southern approach to Junction 4. This widening may force drivers to approach the junction at an angle and lead to conflict with turning vehicles. The designer should consider realigning the approach road over a distance rather than with a radial build out at the stop line. 2.16 Problem: Tactile pavement on northern approach at Junction 4 The drawing does not indicate any tactile paving for a crossing on the northern approach to junction 4. The designer should provide crossing locations on all arms of the junction if possible. 2.17 Problem: Existing ramps not indicated on drawings east of Junction 5 The existing ramps just east of Junction 5 are not indicated on the drawings. If not removed they would be inconsistent with the route approach to raised platforms. The designer should remove the existing ramps.
2.18 Problem: Entrance onto proposed raised platform at Junction 5 There is an existing entrance to the south of Junction 5. There is a risk that users of this entrance may have difficulty as there will be level differences between the entrance and the raised junction. The designer should review this entrance to ensure it will tie into the proposed junction table. 2.19 Problem: Existing ramps not indicated on drawings south of raised table 4 The existing ramps just south of Raised Table 4 are not indicated on the drawings. If not removed they would be inconsistent with the route approach to raised platforms. The designer should remove the existing ramps. 2.20 Problem: Tactile pavement missing from Raised Table 4 and Junctions 6 & 7 The drawing does not indicate tactile paving for all crossings crossing on raised table 4 and Junctions 6 & 7. The designer should provide crossing locations on all arms of the table / junctions if possible.
2.21 Problem: Trip hazard in footpath north of Junction 6 There is a significant level difference at the joint of the footpath adjacent to Junction 6. The designer should consider replacing this section of the existing footpath to remove this trip hazard. 2.22 Problem: Narrowing of existing entrance at Junction 7 The design shows the entrance in to Mount Richmond Court (Junction 7) being narrowed which will not allow anyone to enter the entrance whilst a car is waiting to exit. This may lead to increased risk of rear end collisions. The existing entrance is not excessive and does not facilitate high speed entrance or exit. The designer should consider retaining the existing width of the entrance as per Junction 6. NONE OTHER COMMENTS BY AUDIT TEAM
Appendices Rhebogue Greenway Road Safety Audit Stage 2 APPENDIX A LIST OF DRAWINGS AND OTHER INFORMATION EXAMINED: Drawings & Reports Drawing:- Rhebogue Neighbourhood Greenway LST-R3-L1-01 to 14 Rev A 26 June 2014 NRA Approval for Audit Team [Not Required]
FEEDBACK FORM Rhebogue Greenway Road Safety Audit Stage 2 SAFETY AUDIT FORM FEEDBACK ON AUDIT REPORTS Scheme: Rhebogue Neighbourhood Greenway Road Safety Audit Stage: 2 Date Audit Completed: 7 th July 2014 Paragraph No. In Safety Audit Report 2.1 Problem accepted (Yes/No) Recommended measure accepted (Yes/No) Alternative Measures (describe) Alternative measure accepted by Safety Auditor (Yes/No) 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17
FEEDBACK FORM Rhebogue Greenway Road Safety Audit Stage 2 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 Signed.Project Team Leader Please complete and return to safety auditor. Date. Road Safety Audit Sign off: Audit Team Leader: Date: Scheme Project Manager: Date: