Samuel Beckett Bridge under construction in Holland

Cookie_Monster

Aran wrote: »

I have written to two local politicians regarding NOT having access to the bridge if you are from East Wall....

No joy yet.....

It's really not fair.... there is a fabulous new piece of infrastructure that a whole community is excluded from using.

At the moment many are taking right turns from Guild street illegally which risks 2 penalty points and an 80 Euro fine...

Surely there must be somebody out there who can sort this out!!!

Does anybody have access to the right person in DCC???

did you object to the original planning permission? if not why not, that was your opportunity to address the "problem".

The Swordsman

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

did you object to the original planning permission? if not why not, that was your opportunity to address the "problem".

:D:D:D

Aran

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

did you object to the original planning permission? if not why not, that was your opportunity to address the "problem".

You must be Trolling!!! :cool:

Cookie_Monster

Aran wrote: »

You must be Trolling!!! :cool:

its a serious question. I take it by your flippant answer that you only decided to get uppity about it after it was built and you could see it in action: when you found out it didn't suit your preferred commuting route.

Aran

My point is that it excludes an entire community which is essentially wrong. This includes anyone who wants to commute or use it for leisure or whatever at any given time of the day.

Also when the plan was put forward it was not made outwardly obvious that the traffic management would be so draconian. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have objected (maybe they did I just don't know).

There is plenty of space for a right turn lane from Guild Street at the Sherrif Street junction. Yesterday there was a de facto one there anyway.

Nit picking smart ass comments don't really provide assistance IMO.

Does anybody have the phone number or email address for office or person who is responsible for traffic management in that area?

Then perhaps we can bombard them collectively and see if we can get a satisfactory resolution.

Cookie_Monster

Aran wrote: »

My point is that it excludes an entire community which is essentially wrong.

people driving are not a community!

it excludes no-one. if you want to walk or cycle over it from any direction you can. the only thing it excludes is traffic using it as a rat run, short cut or excuse for skipping the toll bridge.

The bridge was designed and built to help the flow of through traffic in the area and thats exactly what it does. Would you rather it wasn't there at all, in which case everyone suffers.

Aran

Firstly it is not a rat run if you happen to live there!! Look it up!!

Secondly "an excuse of skipping the toll bridge" There should not be a toll on that or any bridge in the first place. It has paid for itself many times over now. We pay some of highest road tax, fuel tax & VRT in the world! Nuff said!!

Thirdly I love the bridge!! I would just love to be able to drive across and then go home without having to travel as far as Summerfield before turning right or doing unsafe and annoying U turns.

The Swordsman

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

did you object to the original planning permission? if not why not, that was your opportunity to address the "problem".

Jaysus, I didn't think you were actually being serious.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

people driving are not a community!

it excludes no-one. if you want to walk or cycle over it from any direction you can. the only thing it excludes is traffic using it as a rat run, short cut or excuse for skipping the toll bridge.

The bridge was designed and built to help the flow of through traffic in the area and thats exactly what it does. Would you rather it wasn't there at all, in which case everyone suffers.

Firstly, any 'rat runs' in the area were there before the bridge was built, usually used by people looking to get to the East Link. I know the area quite well and I can't think of any new 'rat run' that could occur if traffic was allowed turn left to come on to the bridge or to turn right coming off the bridge.

Secondly, who would use the bridge if it didn't serve as a shortcut of some sort?

Thirdly, if the authorities want people to keep using the East Link, take the toll away. The toll no longer offers value for money and the authorities know that.

Finally, I would argue that the bridge helps the flow of traffic in the area, particularly on the Northside. It may help traffic on Amiens Street, but not in Seville Place or any roads heading down to the bridge. I find that, in general, it is quicker to cross the river at the IFSC than head towards the Beckett Bridge and I'd imagine it's the same for most people coming from the Northside.

AlekSmart

Jaysus, I didn't think you were actually being serious.

Heysoos 2 Swordsman,neither did I.... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Crikey that was an eye opener.

it excludes no-one. if you want to walk or cycle over it from any direction you can. the only thing it excludes is traffic using it as a rat run, short cut or excuse for skipping the toll bridge.

Cookie_monster is surely being a weeee bit disengenuous here ?

If Pedestrians and Cyclists were it`s full target demographic then surely DCC might have managed to get Santiago to design a Cyclist friendly Footbridge...perhaps they might have even managed to get two such items for the price of the full-monty one ?

The other point....

Did you object to the original planning permission? if not why not, that was your opportunity to address the "problem".

...could equally be a bit iffy,as by definition the Bridge is designed to be a transitory experience for it`s users.

I would imagine only a minute number of the total amount of potential daily motorised users would even have been aware of the Planning Process for the ediface much less had the opportunity to make their submissions on it.

It is of course,far easier for local residents themselves,either individually or through various activist groups to make their objections as they will be up close and personal with every move of the process,something just not possible for the itinerant driver.

At this stage in Irish affairs the State really must look towards achieving full efficiency from all of its infrastructure,particularly its recently delivered elements.

The Beckett Bridge is but one example where parochial and even much lessened negative-collateral effects should not necessarily result in the damn item sitting there in spite-of the quite obvious demand for its full capability to be utilized.

Why does all this talk of nudgy-nudgy, winky-winky illegal-ish U Turns and the likes remind me of the 1970`s Condom Trains from Amiens St to Belfast.......and back...the next step simply has to be the arrival of the gardai en-masse into Sherriff St (Ok Ok then...en-massER) where they will do their duty to their utmost.... ?

Carawaystick

This is the same planning board that allowed DCC build a motorway to the point, after deciding none of that traffic could use the bridge.

After all this is ireland, just change the use and apply for retention.

Aran

Phew!! Thank you for some intelligent discourse...

After cookiemonster I thought I had landed in a loony bin.

Cookie_Monster

Aran wrote: »

Phew!! Thank you for some intelligent discourse...

After cookiemonster I thought I had landed in a loony bin.

I just can't understand why you've waited until its all been completed and built to object; makes no sense to me.

Aran

Because I have a life

Ham'nd'egger

Aran wrote: »

Because I have a life

A life without a turn onto the bridge:p

Aran

Tis true :rolleyes:

gurramok

The Swordsman wrote: »

Finally, I would argue that the bridge helps the flow of traffic in the area, particularly on the Northside. It may help traffic on Amiens Street, but not in Seville Place or any roads heading down to the bridge. I find that, in general, it is quicker to cross the river at the IFSC than head towards the Beckett Bridge and I'd imagine it's the same for most people coming from the Northside.

Amen to that. Too many traffic lights not synchronised especially heading northbound, I gave up on the bridge at peak hour a long time ago.

BrianD

Not sure how long it's been there but a new right turn off Guild St. onto Upper Sherrif St. has been put in place. It's signal controlled as well.

This means that you can access all the North Docklands, Docklands Station, Port Tunnel etc. if you are travelling North using the Samuel Beckett bridge.

trellheim

IIRC was that the one that was waiting for the conference center works to be completed - i.e. it's not a new road per se ?

BrianD

trellheim wrote: »

IIRC was that the one that was waiting for the conference center works to be completed - i.e. it's not a new road per se ?

No, there is a right turn into Mayor St. that runs directly behind the conference centre. Technically this is a dead end and is only for car park access.

The right turn I refer to is further north at the junction of Guild St., Saville and Upper Sherrif St.

Snickers Man

BrianD wrote: »

No, there is a right turn into Mayor St. that runs directly behind the conference centre. Technically this is a dead end and is only for car park access.

The right turn I refer to is further north at the junction of Guild St., Saville and Upper Sherrif St.

Yup. That's right. Use it myself frequently now. All we now need is for a left turn to be allowed off Sherriff St onto the road leading to the bridge so that you can make that same route going the other way. There is no good reason for that restriction to remain in place.

I'm sure our traffic Czars can come up with 10 BAD reasons but that's not the same thing at all.

Cathaoirleach

Here are some pictures of the Calatrava Bridge in Valencia, Spain, which cost slightly less than our own Samuel Beckett Bridge, yet is about 3 times the size. Did we get our money's worth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGSlAi09r_A

L1011

Did we get our money's worth: No

Is that at least partially our fault: Yes

Some of the higher cost is going to have been down to our planning system, admin delays and higher construction costs. Some is probably down to being gouged...

charlemont

MYOB wrote: »

Did we get our money's worth: No

Is that at least partially our fault: Yes

Some of the higher cost is going to have been down to our planning system, admin delays and higher construction costs. Some is probably down to being gouged...

All true then add in the Irish factor*.

*An ability to make a molehill into a mountain.:o

Losty Dublin

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

Here are some pictures of the Calatrava Bridge in Valencia, Spain, which cost slightly less than our own Samuel Beckett Bridge, yet is about 3 times the size. Did we get our money's worth?

Nobody doubts that Ireland has a culture of higher costs related to projects but the Beckett Bridge is a swing span and it wasn't cast on site, a la this bridge.

That said, the price difference is huge