DMURS

buffalo

Anyone with even a passing interest in transportation planning has no doubt come across DMURS (https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/guidelines/urban-roads-and-streets/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets-low-res)


Question - why is it so often ignored? County councils and the NTA/TII seem to carry on as they see fit, rather than following its directions. Who is supposed to call them to task for not following DMURS?

JimmiesRustled

buffalo wrote: »

Anyone with even a passing interest in transportation planning has no doubt come across DMURS (https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/guidelines/urban-roads-and-streets/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets-low-res)


Question - why is it so often ignored? County councils and the NTA/TII seem to carry on as they see fit, rather than following its directions. Who is supposed to call them to task for not following DMURS?

It's a complete and utter joke. There have been often times in a planning application that DMURS is followed only to be rejected by the council.

A lot of residential areas going through planning at the moment have shared surfaces in order to both slow traffic and increase amenity space. The council will not take anything in charge unless it's concrete or tarmac in which case the developer is left to maintain the area.

In relation to cycle tracks, we've been on multiple jobs where a cycle track has been implemented at design stage only for the council to reject it as they would have to maintain it or continue it outside of our site boundary. It's a disgrace.

EDIT: Irish water also make following DMURS a nightmare. The hoops you've to jump through to satisfy both Irish water and the council.... It's a wonder anything gets done at all.

eeeee

What is DMURS? The link is broken for me.

Chips Lovell

Fixed the hyperlink in the OP's post

I've seen a few places here have estates built and lovely new bike lanes to nowhere installed. Can't blame the developer it's not their place to continue them beyond their sites. Part of me thinks why bother at all and the other that maybe the council will extend them and make them useful one day then I laugh at myself.

One of the new ones I can think of drops you off at probably the worst part of the R152 just outside Drogheda and it would be a direct route to some local schools but not on my life would I put a child on it.

godtabh

eeeee wrote: »

What is DMURS? The link is broken for me.

Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets. Except it’s not a design manual. It’s a philosophy. Hence why many people have different interpretations.

Rumour is DMURS 2 is drafted. I haven’t seen it yet but was told it is closer to a design manual than the original.

hans aus dtschl

I've pointed out on Part 8 submissions that they've gone against DMURS, for instance by having a road go straight on past a junction, where the cycle lane and pedestrians stop. DMURS states that the pedestrians and cyclists should have priority over motorists (DMURS 2.2). However, the response is always very simply "we followed DMURS".

They could plonk a bed of nails in the middle of the road and say "we followed DMURS" and ignore any submission you make. It's extremely frustrating to me.

If DMURS 2.2 was actually followed, vehicles would be the ones waiting for a green light at junctions, and pedestrians would have the "normally open" circuit.

godtabh

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I've pointed out on Part 8 submissions that they've gone against DMURS, for instance by having a road go straight on past a junction, where the cycle lane and pedestrians stop. DMURS states that the pedestrians and cyclists should have priority over motorists (DMURS 2.2). However, the response is always very simply "we followed DMURS".

They could plonk a bed of nails in the middle of the road and say "we followed DMURS" and ignore any submission you make. It's extremely frustrating to me.

If DMURS 2.2 was actually followed, vehicles would be the ones waiting for a green light at junctions, and pedestrians would have the "normally open" circuit.

What do you mean a road go straight past a junction?

magicbastarder

i think he's referring to where a cycle lane yields to a lesser road at a t-junction, even when the cycle lane is on the major road?

godtabh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think he's referring to where a cycle lane yields to a lesser road at a t-junction, even when the cycle lane is on the major road?

Maybe but DMURS in Section 2.2.1 isnt saying that cars should wait for pedestrians it says the design must consider pedestrians, cyclists first.

For example, stop lines should be behind dropped kerbs and not in front of it. In this way pedestrians are given priority in the design.

The National Cycle Manual has multiple examples of how cycle lanes on the major arm cross the minor arm.

hans aus dtschl

godtabh wrote: »

Maybe but DMURS in Section 2.2.1 isnt saying that cars should wait for pedestrians it says the design must consider pedestrians, cyclists first.

For example, stop lines should be behind dropped kerbs and not in front of it. In this way pedestrians are given priority in the design.

The National Cycle Manual has multiple examples of how cycle lanes on the major arm cross the minor arm.

A simple example for you from the last 24 hours:
At the junction of the Lower Glanmire Road and Water Street in Cork, the cycle lane disappears onto a footpath (becomes discontinuous) on a 90-degree bend of a primary route into the City. This is literally being built by the council right now as we speak.

There's no way on earth that discontinuity is in keeping with DMURS. You can't have considered pedestrians and cyclists first if you end up with a design that includes unusable infrastructure for them.

When you bring this mistake up in a submission, the answer will always be "we followed DMURS". There is zero consideration given to pedestrians or cyclists by the people designing for Cork City and County Councils - it's motorists first and sometimes motorists only.

buffalo

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

A simple example for you from the last 24 hours:
At the junction of the Lower Glanmire Road and Water Street in Cork, the cycle lane disappears onto a footpath (becomes discontinuous) on a 90-degree bend of a primary route into the City. This is literally being built by the council right now as we speak.

There's no way on earth that discontinuity is in keeping with DMURS. You can't have considered pedestrians and cyclists first if you end up with a design that includes unusable infrastructure for them.

When you bring this mistake up in a submission, the answer will always be "we followed DMURS". There is zero consideration given to pedestrians or cyclists by the people designing for Cork City and County Councils - it's motorists first and sometimes motorists only.

This is what I've seen. The question is, what do we do about it? If we contact councillors and explain how exactly it's in contradiction of DMURS, can they hold the roads dept to account? I can't imagine heads rolling, but somebody should get a bollocking at least.

hans aus dtschl

buffalo wrote: »

This is what I've seen. The question is, what do we do about it? If we contact councillors and explain how exactly it's in contradiction of DMURS, can they hold the roads dept to account? I can't imagine heads rolling, but somebody should get a bollocking at least.

I have no answer for you I'm afraid.
Explaining it to the engineers themselves doesn't even work, in my experience.

Design shortcomings are almost always immediately obvious to other cyclists I speak with, so it's a case of the people designing don't cycle and don't understand the needs of cyclists. So another possible angle to deal with it (my personal hobby horse!) could be to request test-cycle of the new infrastructure, the same way they test-drive new roads.

Seth Brundle

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

So another possible angle to deal with it (my personal hobby horse!) could be to request test-cycle of the new infrastructure, the same way they test-drive new roads.

That would require anyone on the design and build teams being remotely interested in what cyclists have to say. Which I don't believe they do!

saccades

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

A simple example for you from the last 24 hours:
the cycle lane disappears onto a footpath (becomes discontinuous) on a 90-degree bend of a primary route

Also happening in Cherrywood Business park, I bet there will be a painted "give way" sign on the end of the straight bit just as it throws you into the pedestrians looking to cross the road.

I also bet they will be regularly used by cars for parking as despite the 10 gazillion miles of width between building, the roads are only just wide enough for a single vehicle (there is a hard median so you can't use the other side of the road).

A brand new multi million pound project boasting everything for everyone and yet failing miserably at such a basic level.