Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has recently proposed a redesign of Monkstown Road to add much needed cycling infrastructure, as well as a few other minor changes.

While certain aspects of the proposal are welcome, it is unlikely to make cycling on the road much safer, and certain aspects of the design are downright dangerous.

There’s a primary school of 484 pupils on an adjacent road, and over 700 school age children living on the roads beside Monkstown Road. Clearly, this project could do a great deal to get more kids in the area using their bikes to get around, but it would need to be a lot more ambitious than this. As we have seen with the Grand Canal Cycle Route, full segregation is a very successful way to get a more diverse group of people using their bikes.

The Grand Canal Cycle Route has brought more women, children, and utility cyclists onto the road.

At first glance, this road might seem to be too narrow for complete segregation, but that’s not actually true. It is likely too narrow for a segregated cycle track on both sides, but a bidirectional track is much more space efficient than a unidirectional track on both sides. The road is typically about 13 metres wide, which leaves space for a 2.5 metre bidirectional track, a 5.4 metre carriageway, and enough extra space for pavements and a buffer.

Possible layout for a 13 metre road with a bidirectional cycle track.

Where space is limited, the floating bus stop could be as narrow as 1.5 metres, with the bus stop and bench located on the main pavement.

As the above diagrams show, there is space for a segregated track. Any small variance in the road width can be absorbed by the buffer. At bus stops, there is space for a small island to avoid conflict between cyclists and bus users as they board/disembark. The bus stop and bench can still be placed on the main pavement and the island only used to get on or off. While the island may seem excessively narrow, it is common in the Netherlands and Denmark to use islands like this or sometimes even narrower where space is not plentiful.

1.5 metre wide bus stop island in Denmark.

Pinch points

While most of the road is 13 metres, the pinch point between Shandon Park and Monpelier Manor, where the road narrows to 9.95 metres, might scupper the project. Conveniently, at this pinch point, there’s a grass verge for 12 metres between the pavement on one side and the first property. The pinch point could be entirely eliminated just by widening the road into some of the grass, and removing a small amount of driveway from the neighbouring house. Once the pinch point is eliminated, the bidirectional cycle track can run the whole length of this road.

Pinch point

Not possible?

The council may argue that the pavements and the bus stop island are too narrow to be built, or that the pinch points can’t be fixed, or that they don’t want to CPO part of a driveway in order to build this cycle track, which are all very reasonable concerns. An alternative option which avoids all these problems would be to use Seapoint Avenue and Monkstown Road to create an anticlockwise one way loop giving space on both roads for high quality cycling infrastructure, and ample space for wide pavements and floating bus stops.

On Monkstown Road, traffic would move in an easterly direction from Temple Hill to Monkstown. The fact that it is currently not possible to turn right from Temple Hill onto Monkstown Road is a concern, and perhaps it would make more sense to use a clockwise loop, but the general point is the same. A segregated, bidirectional cycle track could be provided to the left of general traffic. Bus stops would need to be placed between the cycle track and the carriageway, with the necessary tactile paving to help bus users cross the cycle track after getting off the bus. Additionally, some or all of the residential roads between Monkstown Road and Seapoint Avenue would get bollards at this end of the road, which would have the dual effect of preventing rat running, and reducing the number of conflict points between turning cars and cyclists on Monsktown Road.

The traffic direction on Clifton Avenue could be reversed and this road could be used to complete the one way loop. This road is ideal because it avoids traffic being diverted into Monkstown Village. Additionally, it is too narrow to be two way, so it would have to remain open at both ends anyway, and there are only two houses on the road, which makes it safer.

On Seapoint Avenue, the traffic would move westbound from Clifton Avenue towards Newtown Avenue. The bidirectional cycle track would be provided on the right of traffic this time, since all the residential streets to the left would be accessible only from this road. Conflict points between cars and cyclists would be reduced to the few very small residential streets on the coastal side of the road, as well as the off street parking to the right. This would also provide convenient access to Blackrock Scout Den. Bus stops would also need to be installed on Seapoint Avenue for buses which currently travel westbound along Monkstown Road (currently the 7 and 7a, which will be merged into the 7 if BusConnects is implemented). These could be installed broadly without the loss of any parking, though the first stop after the split may be difficult to locate without the loss of one or two parking spaces.

What about the effect on traffic congestion? Well, both of these roads act as a link between Monkstown and Temple Road/Blackrock, as well access to the residential streets along the route, so the diversion is not major for the vast majority of people. With one way systems, the traffic light sequences become simpler, so more time can be allocated at Temple road to get the greater volume of eastbound traffic onto Monkstown Road, and the extra westbound traffic off Seapoint Avenue. The same amount of traffic is flowing onto the same arterial road, so it seems unlikely that congestion will increase substantially, especially if the cycle track as the desired effect of reducing car usage.

Neither Seapoint Avenue, nor Monkstown Road are currently safe for cyclists, particularly at some of the narrower sections of road. A proposal like this could radically change that fact.

What about the current proposal?

Even if the council considers the road too narrow for segregation, and is unwilling to entertain the idea of the one way loop, there are still improvements which could be made to the proposal as it currently stands.

There are two notable pinch points along the stretch of road in question, only one of which was identified in the report. The first pinch point occurs at the junction between Temple Hill and Monkstown Road. While Temple Hill has a fully segregated cycle track, there is not enough space on Monkstown Road for these cyclists to turn left at the same time as the cars beside them. For this reason, cycling traffic lights have been installed to separate the bikes from the cars. Unfortunately, while the motor traffic lights are synchronized with previous junctions to ensure that cars can flow freely, the cycle lights are not, which makes it almost impossible for a law abiding cyclist to avoid a 40 second wait to turn left or continue straight, while cars beside them move freely in both directions. I have never once arrived at this junction to a green light.

DLR’s proposal recommends keeping the road layout essentially the same, except to take away some of the pavement to make room for a cycle lane on the westbound side of the road. The proposal also recommends turning the eastbound lane into shared cycle/traffic lane, but this simply means painting a bike symbol onto the road, and it will do nothing to tackle the problem of two lanes being suddenly merged into one at a busy junction. The 40 second wait will continue if this design is implemented.

There are several ways that this problem could be avoided, none of which is suggested in the proposal. The most sensible option would be to reduce the two turning lanes on Monkstown Road to one, leaving room for the segregated cycle track to continue through the junction. This would allow cars and bikes to turn left freely without excessive wait times, or having to jockey for space. If necessary, the length of the green light signal on Monkstown Road could be extended to ensure that there is enough time for all the cars turning onto Temple Hill to get through the junction.

If this is not feasible, the officials could look into ways to ensure that there is never more than a 10–15 second wait between a cyclist being detected, and the cycle light going green, or alternatively, left turning cars could be required to yield to straight and left moving cyclists, as is standard at junctions in other European countries.

The other side of this junction is also poorly thought out, even if we ignore the fact that it is 25 cm narrower than the National Cycle Manual recommends. The absence of an advance stop line at this junction is a major flaw in the design. Countless cycling deaths on our roads are caused by exactly this sort of junction design. When you have trucks and buses driving around with huge blind spots, it’s simply not acceptable to expect cyclists to line up beside traffic and just hope they get seen. There is no reason that the stop line for cars can’t be moved back a couple of metres to give space for cyclists to position themselves where they are clearly visible to the drivers around them. Additionally, advance stop lines prevent left turning drivers from cutting off right turning cyclists when the light goes green.

The second pinch point occurs about 200 metres later, where the road narrows from 13 metres to less than 10 over the space of just 6 metres. When approaching this stretch of road, the safest thing to do is to pull out early and claim the lane until the narrow section has been cleared. Inexperienced or nervous cyclists usually try to stay as close to the kerb as possible, which forces them to suddenly merge with traffic when the carriageway narrows. Unfortunately, this redesign will actively encourage this sort of risky cycling without providing any extra safety features. The cycle lanes at this pinchpoint will be 1.7 metres wide, but the carriageway lanes will only be 1.9 metres, which is too narrow for cars and buses to use while also respecting the cycle lane. The proposal even admits that buses would have to occupy most of the cycle lane in order to pass this pinch point, and even cars would have to encroach on the cycle lane somewhat, which begs the question what is the point of having the cycle lane at all?

There is a wealth of evidence showing that cycle lanes on roads which are too narrow actually make cycling more dangerous than no cycling infrastructure at all. The main reason for this is that cyclists tend to get less space from overtaking motorists when there is a cycle lane present. For this reason, it would be better to acknowledge that this stretch of cycle lane will not be respected, and just to designate this stretch of road as a shared cycle/traffic lane. This is how it is currently being used, and will continue to be used no matter what is painted on the ground.

As I have already mentioned, this pinch point can be easily removed if the council is looking to do this properly.

The rest of the proposal is fairly predictable. As I’ve already mentioned, there is probably not enough space for complete segregation with a unidirectional lane on each side, though because of the staggering of the bus stops, bus stop bypasses are likely feasible for at least some of the bus stops. Bus stops, junctions and roundabouts are the most dangerous parts of the road for cyclists, and every effort should be made to protect cyclists at these dangrous locations.

Not all bad

The proposal does have some good suggestions. Some of the junctions between Monkstown Road and adjacent residential streets would be amended to make the turns tighter. This will prevent cars from making these turns at speed as if they’re turning off a motorway, and the amended junctions will make is safer for pedestrians to cross by giving them a better view of the road, and shortening the crossing distance.

A tighter bend at the junction to Shandon Park would give pedestrians a better view of the road and slow down turning motor traffic.

Additionally, the proposal recommends the installation of speed detection signs to discourage motorists from speeding.

Unfortunately, the actual cycling infrastructure is little more than some paint on the ground, which is disappointing, and actively dangerous at the main pinch point. It will do little to make cyclists feel safer on the road and even less to make them actually safer. Ultimately, it is unlikely to get more people, particularly children, using their bikes to go to school or the local villages, and that is a great shame.

Of course doing this properly would be much more expensive than the current proposal, but it’s important to note that it is possible because all too often people justify our poor cycling infrastructure by pointing to out narrow, winding, and often nonsensical road layout. While this does make quality cycling infrastructure often difficult, and sometimes impossible to implement, there are also countless examples of bad cycling infrastructure which exist solely because we choose not to make it better.