Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this active travel scheme. This submission represents my own views and not those of my employer or any other organisation.
I’d like to generally welcome this scheme which seeks to achieve a more balanced allocation of road space. The project report correctly identifies the current car-dominated road layout in the village as dating from when this road through Birdhill formed part of the N7. I am making this submission from the perspective of someone who has walked, cycled and driven through Birdhill on many occasions.I have a few specific comments on aspects of the scheme below.
Removal of left and right turning lanes
I welcome the removal of the left and right turning lanes in the village. The level of car traffic through Birdhill nowadays is extremely low and the removal of the turning lanes is entirely appropriate and in line with recommendations in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS).
Continuous footpaths and cycle tracks with bevelled kerbs
I particularly welcome the design elements of continuous footpaths and bevelled kerbs in this scheme. This design approach is only starting to be used in Dublin and it is welcome that Tipperary is at the forefront of modern urban road design: I hope this will be a benchmark for future active travel schemes in the county. The continuous footpaths will particularly make it more comfortable for wheelchair users, people pushing buggies and prams and others who will benefit from flat walking and wheeling surfaces.
In the detailed design stage it is important that the footpath and cycle track are not slightly dipped at entrances – the bevelled kerb shown on the design drawings will be enough to facilitate the drop in levels.
Moving of bus shelters
The moving of the bus stops closer to the junction is to be welcomed: it will improve the interchange between the 323/72 bus and the train station.
R445/R504/R466 junction
While the layout of the junction between the R445 and R504/R466 roads is much improved in this design, I have some concern about traffic turning on to the R504 and R466: specifically the lack of passive traffic calming for vehicles travelling in these directions. Two elements that could be considered at detailed design stage are the partial set back of the cycle lane and footpath across the R504 and R466 that would allow provision of a ramp so that the cycle lane and footpath would be raised on both sides crossing the R504 and R566; and the second is the tightening of the corner radius to slow down cars turning left off the R445 to the R504 and R566. Every effort should be made to slow vehicle traffic down as much as possible at this junction as it is the site of many conflicting movements and these passive measures would improve safety at the junction.
Crossing point for cyclists travelling from Ballina towards Birdhill
The scheme design requires cyclists coming from the Ballina direction to cross over the R445 to continue westwards. This crossing is in a 60 km/h zone and consideration should be made to extending the 50km/h zone to before this crossing point, and making sure that the crossing is raised with a significantly high and steep ramp that will provide some passive protection for vulnerable road users. It could be argued that the crossing could be moved further away from the roundabout as a safety measure.
Tidy Towns group collaboration
As Birdhill has a significantly successful Tidy Towns group, I wonder if greater provision could be made in the scheme for planting and other amenities that could be managed by the Tidy Towns group and whose feedback might be sought at design stage to support the vision of the Tidy Towns group.
