Signalised Junctions & Road Markings

roadsguy

Hi,

I'm looking for some guidance on alternatives to road markings. I have a job where there is a granite paved street proposed on all approaches to a new T-junction in a reasonably busy private development. There is strong reluctance to change any of this to asphalt concrete. A signalised junction with pedestrian crossing phase on each arms is required. Line markings on granite look terrible and are an absolute last resort. A raised table priority junction is not an option as the whole area is considered a shared surface.

My questions are:
- Can we omit line marking paint altogether and maybe do the pedestrian crossing in a different colour granite? Or do we HAVE to include line markings if we have signals?
- Can we omit line marking paint and do the stop lines and continuous centre lines on each arm in a contrasting band of say white granite?
- Do zebra crossings require line markings?
- Has anyone knowledge of instances where any of the above has been done? Or any obvious alternatives to the above that don't involve putting paint on the nice new granite road?
Would really appreciate some feedback! Thanks

Gumbo

Have you a part M requirement for tactile paving?
Can you do the markings with different/contrasting stone?
Will the estate be taken in charge by the council, now or in the future?

I’d try meet with the local roads and traffic engineer and come to an agreement.

roadsguy

kceire wrote: »

Have you a part M requirement for tactile paving?
Can you do the markings with different/contrasting stone?
Will the estate be taken in charge by the council, now or in the future?

I’d try meet with the local roads and traffic engineer and come to an agreement.

- Part M doesnt cover tactile paving, and tactile paving isnt the issue here.
- Thats my original question
- No
- Not their jurisdiction and they'll only stick to DMURS anyway which is of no use here

thebsharp

I've worked on a similar scheme before and the advice we got was that road markings were mandatory for regulatory purposes.

You'll see plenty of examples in Smithfield Dublin, particularly around Smithfield Luas Stop.

We used different colour paving for pedestrian crossings, but still had to include M131 pedestrian line marking to make 'rules of the road' enforceable. There's no allowance in the traffic signs manual for different paving only.

roadsguy

thebsharp wrote: »

I've worked on a similar scheme before and the advice we got was that road markings were mandatory for regulatory purposes.

You'll see plenty of examples in Smithfield Dublin, particularly around Smithfield Luas Stop.

We used different colour paving for pedestrian crossings, but still had to include M131 pedestrian line marking to make 'rules of the road' enforceable. There's no allowance in the traffic signs manual for different paving only.

I suppose the definition of a road/line marking is the key point - do they have to be painted on. From recent publications such as the SDCC Adamstown Street Design Guide, the approach seems to be to cut down on markings and signage in areas of high amenity value, and have recommended the omission of line markings at priority junctions.
I'm just thinking of O'Connell Street too, where they spent millions on new granite paving and again it's blighted by unsightly road marking paint - such a shame!
Surely there's a better solution!