|
Improved Portmarnock traffic flow plan advances
PORTMARNOCK: Plan aimed at improving trafficflow and pedestrian safety has advanced.
A PLAN aimed at improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety in Portmarnock village has advanced another stage after approval by local councillors who were reviewing the plan after consultation with the public. The Portmarnock Traffic Management Plan returned to the Malahide/Howth Area Committee last week, after locals were canvassed on their opinion of the plan. The plan aims to tackle speeding through the village and the consultant engineers who prepared the plan, DBFL, recommended the placing of speed cushions at 80/90 metre intervals through the town to ensure that traffic speeds remain low throughout the day. An additional two ‘bus-friendly’ speed ramps were recommended for north of Carrickhill Road where the greater road width makes speed cushions inappropriate. The consultants suggest that additional indented parking be provided in front of the Portmarnock Shopping Centre in order to reduce the number of vehicles stopping on the main road at that point. All footpaths at junctions are to be provided with dropped kerbs and appropriate ‘tactile’ paving for the benefit of people with disabilities. A signalised pedestrian crossing is proposed for in front of the church. This will require the removal of two car parking spaces in front of the shops, opposite the church. In order to facilitate the new pedestrian crossing, it is suggested in the plan that the bus stop be relocated in front of the ‘Adventure Club’ premises and in order to provide a shelter at the bus stop, land will have to be acquired from the club. In order to relived traffic congestion at Mass times, DBFL suggests that the direction of traffic flow within the church car park be reversed. According to the consultant engineers, this will improve the sightlines for vehicles exiting this car park and when linked to the position of the proposed pedestrian crossing will enable cars to leave the church grounds quicker following Mass. According to DBFL, the proposed traffic management plan will ‘provide improvements for all road users but in particular for pedestrians’. In total, eight observations were received from locals and each has now been responded to by Fingal County Council. Some of the submissions resulted in changes to the plan, like one from Ms Carmel Langton who said a ‘Future Building Line’ marked on the plan ran through her property. Her objection was accepted by council officials and the building line was removed from the plan. The council did not agree however with another submission from Mr Thomas Cullen who was concerned that extra car parking spaces provided for in the plan would be used by rail commuters. The council said in response that it was ‘viewed highly unlikely that commuters will park at this location and walk to the DART station, which is more than 750 metres away’. Mr John McMahon was concerned about build-outs on Strand Road which he said had caused damage to vehicles in the past. The council agreed and committed to removing the build-outs as part of the plan. Council officials did not agree however, that no ramps should be put on the route saying that ‘research has shown that speed cushions and road humps, when located in accordance with the appropriate guidelines, generally result in lower mean vehicle speeds and consequently, safer driving conditions.’ A submission from Gary Murphy resulted in a number of additions to the plan including new road markings and improved sight-lines on the left hands side of Suncroft Avenue at the Strand Road junction, a bicycle parking bay relocated away from the same location and yellow lines and a yellow-box painted at the same junction. Fiona Loughran wanted access to the school changed by making staff vehicles enter through the church car park but the council said the lay-out of access to the school was outside its control. But the council agreed that appropriate speed limit signage be provided, as well as ‘appropriately sized kerbs’ and a yellow box at the entrance to St Anne’s. Mr Marc Coyle, succeeded in getting five car-parking spaces opposite the petrol station on Strand Road removed because it would involve ‘encroachment on the Baldoyle Estuary Nature Reserve and increased disturbance to a sensitive site’. The plan found broad agreement at the Malahide/Howth Area Committee. Cllr Darragh O’Brien (FF) said he welcomed the plan but said it was important not to forget that improved access and egress from St Anne’s Estate and Strandmill onto Strand Street had to be addressed. Cllr Alan Farrell (FG) also welcomed the scheme and said the council had obviously listened to the public and given ‘constructive responses’ to their submissions. He said the plan was an important one for Portmarnock, saying it was ‘impossible to do business’ in Portmarnock at the moment because the village was constantly ‘at a standstill’. Cllr Peter Coyle (Lab) also brought up the concerns of residents in St Anne’s and Strandmill and said that there access to and from Strand Street was an issue that still needed to be addressed. He asked about the possibility of providing a filter lane turning left of Carrickhill Road but said he would not be in favour of the lane if it meant significant widening of the road. DBFL Consulting representative, Joe Seymour said that a filter lane would require significant widening of the road, losing up to a metre off adjacent footpaths. While some councillors felt that removing the parking bays opposite the Texaco station didn’t acknowledge the fact that the area is already being parked on by people feeding the bird-life on the green, there was broad agreement on the committee that the area needed protection. ‘It is a high amenity area and it’s very important we preserve it,’ Cllr Robbie Kelly (GP) said. While Cllr Darragh O’Brien was adamant that speed bumps instead of ramps were more appropriate for the village area, he ultimately agreed to let the plan go ahead, conditional on a review of the traffic calming measures after six months. By John Manning Fingal Independent 19/07/2006
|
|
