Beckett Bridge shambles

loyatemu

http://www.dublincycling.com/beckettbridge

(as seen on the the Infrastructure forum.)

Really - this is pathetic on the part of Dublin City Council - a brand new bridge, redesigned approach roads and they've still managed to cock it up completely. And they've even claimed that the reason there are so many turning restrictions around the bridge is to facilitate pedestrians and cyclists - yet the restrictions apply to cyclists as well.

If AMontague is reading - does nobody in your roads dept. ride a bike!?

poochiem

that's desperate isn't it? Is there not some dodginess about that bridge? I heard them insinuating there was some shadiness about it's future on one of the sunday morning radio shows.

I sent that on to Joe maybe he'll get the council on to explain it.

Chips Lovell

Just cycle on the road.

Coriolanus

poochiem wrote: »

that's desperate isn't it? Is there not some dodginess about that bridge? I heard them insinuating there was some shadiness about it's future on one of the sunday morning radio shows.

I sent that on to Joe maybe he'll get the council on to explain it.

Don't quote me now, but I got the impression they were implying some restrictions were going to be in place to feed money to some fella who owns the toll roads or something. At least they were talking about him, then the bridge in connection to him, then another matter related to him.

rochefan

that is shocking. I do feel for cyclists in Dublin, the volume of traffic is so much more than here in Cork. Its more of an insult to cyclists than helpful when they create cycle lanes that last 75 meters and brings you back onto where you were, making you stop

kona

**** them.

They gave dublin the bikes scheme. Their work RE:cyclists is over.

The bridge is ****ing pointless anyways, It brings you to a bunch of 1 way roads and no left turns.

petethedrummer

SomeCouncilGuy wrote:

These dodgy cycle lanes are just a legacy from the 1990s. From now on they will be done to the best international guidelines. yeah I know we mucked this one up. But its not like we had a blank canvas to work with....oh we did...oh right. Well the next one I promise will be great. Cross my heart and hope to die. It won't be a complete and utter c0ck up. SERIOUSLY. you believe me right?

.

poochiem

Nevore wrote: »

Don't quote me now, but I got the impression they were implying some restrictions were going to be in place to feed money to some fella who owns the toll roads or something. At least they were talking about him, then the bridge in connection to him, then another matter related to him.

I just quoted you. but yeay, that.

kona

poochiem wrote: »

I just quoted you. but yeay, that.

There is always some slimy brown-nosing cocksucker on the make from this government.

The government are only to happy to facilitate this raping of the oridinary worker.

If that Greedy Fat bastard cowan thinks that other corrupt bastard berlisconi got it bad, he aint seen nothing.

Jip

kona wrote: »

The bridge is ****ing pointless anyways, It brings you to a bunch of 1 way roads and no left turns.

Absolutely, I work near the southside end and thought it was going to be a bonus in getting to the northside. It's takes a bit of traffic away from Pearse Street and gets you to to the northside alright, but once over there you can go feic all places useful. Even going to from the north to the southside it's not than handy if coming down the quays, you're still better off crossing at the IFSC, for me anyway.

Blowfish

el tonto wrote: »

Just cycle on the road.

Definitely. There are nice shiny bus lanes on the bridge with no busses using them. Perfect surface, wider than any cycle lane, what more could you ask for?

eggie

Councils are useless, full stop. These are the same people, whose permission you need if you want to build even a hen house in your own land????? They are qualified to do nothing yet have all the power and decision making responsibilities above their means and standing.

Its the voters fault, we spent years getting English rules out of Ireland and the very first thing they introduced/adopted was the English land reform laws, pathetic.

AMontague

Several years ago, when the bridge was being debated in the council, I specifically raised the issue of catering for cyclists. I was assured that cyclists would be looked after. But there is much more to looking after cyclists than putting in a cycle lane. They have to be linked into the road structure.

I met with the engineers today and they agreed that the layout is not good enough and they have also agreed to address the issues.

Andrew

DirkVoodoo

AMontague wrote: »

I met with the engineers today and they agreed that the layout is not good enough and they have also agreed to address the issues.

Andrew

Great work Andrew, your continued presence here is great to see also. But why can't these things be sorted out during the design phase? It seems to be a typically Irish thing that we build it first and worry about asking questions later.

I haven't cycled along the bridge yet, but the photos that were put up recently would make me never want to go near it.

Bunnyhopper

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Great work Andrew, your continued presence here is great to see also. But why can't these things be sorted out during the design phase? It seems to be a typically Irish thing that we build it first and worry about asking questions later.

I haven't cycled along the bridge yet, but the photos that were put up recently would make me never want to go near it.

+1 I've tried cycling along Custom House Quay and City Quay etc. It's infuriatingly badly designed. It's great to hear that someone's trying to improve things. Keep it up please

Even when the questions are asked the builders seem quite determined not to listen: witness the shambles on the Doughiska Road in Galway, against which the local cycling representative group campaigned, and the continuing tendency of local authorities to hide behind standards.

Fingal's recent plans for an off-road cycle track as part of the Huntstown Way bus priority measures met with a long and detailed list of objections from the Dublin Cycling Campaign. The Council's response (quite insultingly inadequate, I thought) boiled down to, "We've done this sort of thing before so it'll be fine". It'll be interesting to see what they actually come up with.

Even after the government has come out and said that existing cycling infrastructure is inadequate, has set out new policies, and has proposed new design standards, the local authorities are still telling us that things will be fine because they're going to keep on doing what they've been doing. That's far from reassuring because it's clear that what they've been doing is the problem not the solution.

I'm no fan of Fianna Failure but Dempsey does seem to have some good intentions when it comes to cycling. I wish he'd knock some local authority head together sharpish.

tomasrojo

The Latin motto you see on some Dublin City Council projects is "Obedientia Civium Urbis Felicitas", or "The obedience of the citizens [makes] a happy city".

So perhaps if you just dismount at every junction, as ordained by the planners, you'll feel a lot better.

fixieboy

Fair play to Cllr Montague for engaging once again.

Could you also see if DCC can do anything about the light sequence coming from the IFSC...the bridge should make it shorter to get to work but the light sequence means that my journey time is longer when compared with old route.

Also, if the engineers are going to put a cycle lane in the bridge bus lane they'll need to do something about the expansion joints on the south side which are right on the corner. If these are wet and a cyclist goes over them at any speed there will certainly be injuries.

kona

fixieboy wrote: »

Also, if the engineers are going to put a cycle lane in the bridge bus lane they'll need to do something about the expansion joints on the south side which are right on the corner. If these are wet and a cyclist goes over them at any speed there will certainly be injuries.

There isnt much they can do, in fairness, you cycle over much worse on the roads. I dont think they are a problem. Also isnt the bridge moveable?

kona

AMontague wrote: »

I met with the engineers today and they agreed that the layout is not good enough and they have also agreed to address the issues.

Andrew

I think you need new engineers.:p

How much was spent on that bridge? Its like you lot paid for it then said "oh **** where can we put it?".
I hope the days of airheaded spending is over and days of hiring people who have a clue are in.

fixieboy

kona wrote: »

There isnt much they can do, in fairness, you cycle over much worse on the roads. I dont think they are a problem. Also isnt the bridge moveable?

They could at least treat the surface of the joints to give tyres more grip - a metal sander would improve it. At the moment it's sheer metal which is like ice when wet.

kona

fixieboy wrote: »

They could at least treat the surface of the joints to give tyres more grip - a metal sander would improve it. At the moment it's sheer metal which is like ice when wet.

Not for us on 26x 1.5

fixieboy

kona wrote: »

Not for us on 26x 1.5

Fair point - I'm thinking of the citybike types

dubmess

Well the couriers of Dublin are very thankful for this bridge. We've been waiting years for a quick way to drop that package from southside to IFSC...

loyatemu

AMontague wrote: »

Several years ago, when the bridge was being debated in the council, I specifically raised the issue of catering for cyclists. I was assured that cyclists would be looked after. But there is much more to looking after cyclists than putting in a cycle lane. They have to be linked into the road structure.

I met with the engineers today and they agreed that the layout is not good enough and they have also agreed to address the issues.

Andrew

Glad to hear you're looking into it Andrew - I hope that "addressing the issues" includes removing all the turning rectrictions for cyclists (tbh I think some of the restrictions for motorists are also daft and the bridge is very badly signposted, but these are different issues).

L.

Blowfish

I should probably say that despite the complete mess they've made of the 'cycle facilities' on the bridge, I still find the bridge itself quite useful.

It doesn't really shorten my commute either distance or time wise, however by using it I'll be away from the HGV's on the East Link, don't have to put up with the crap road surface on the North Quay's/East Link roundabout and will be affected much less by the increase in traffic every time there is a gig on at the point.

Overall I'm glad the bridge is there and will likely keep using it, but I'll definitely be sticking to the road rather than the cycle track for now.

tomasrojo

I cycled over it both ways this evening, just out of interest.

The bridge looks lovely. I didn't bother using the cycle lane but had a quick look at it. I really don't see the point of swerving 90 degrees off the road , travelling for a few tens of metres and then swerving back onto the road. In fact, I can't see any reason to leave the road, barring the inevitable bullying from buses that will begin as soon as they're on the bridge.

Handy, as Blowfish says, to be able to avoid the East Link. When I worked in East Point, I think I'd have been glad of it.

mambo

Cyclists deem new bridge ‘dangerous’

Dublin’s new Samuel Beckett bridge, which will form part of the government’s €10m cross-city cycle route, has been described as “dangerous, unusable and unacceptable” by a cycling lobby group

More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

TimAllen

mambo wrote: »

More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

This is exactly the kind of media campaign that I would expect from cycling lobbyists and exactly the reason why such lobbies fail to get what they want. The art of politics is one of managing compromise.
You have a pro-cycling minister who wishes to make political capital from the improvements he's making for cyclists and it gets thrown back at him on a mainstream Sunday newspaper.
My guess is that the Minister will soon realise that there is no pleasing the cycling lobbyists and the finite political capital he has to invest will yield greater dividends on other issues.

Blowfish

TimAllen wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of media campaign that I would expect from cycling lobbyists and exactly the reason why such lobbies fail to get what they want. The art of politics is one of managing compromise.
You have a pro-cycling minister who wishes to make political capital from the improvements he's making for cyclists and it gets thrown back at him on a mainstream Sunday newspaper.
My guess is that the Minister will soon realise that there is no pleasing the cycling lobbyists and the finite political capital he has to invest will yield greater dividends on other issues.

The 'facilities' on the bridge are not legal cycle lanes, therefore it is illegal for cyclists to use them as they would be cycling on the footpath.

Given that the DCC 'spokesman' doesn't seem to have a problem with this, that means that DCC are implicitly supporting illegal/criminal behaviour. Surely according to your own post here, you should be supporting the cyclists fully on this one. By not speaking out against this, surely you are implicitly supporting it too?

TimAllen

Blowfish wrote: »

The 'facilities' on the bridge are not legal cycle lanes, therefore it is illegal for cyclists to use them as they would be cycling on the footpath.

Given that the DCC 'spokesman' doesn't seem to have a problem with this, that means that DCC are implicitly supporting illegal/criminal behaviour. Surely according to your own post here, you should be supporting the cyclists fully on this one. By not speaking out against this, surely you are implicitly supporting it too?

The Minister finds them adequate so I guess you can assume they're legal and there's no need to get your "knickers in a twist" over them.
There you have it - the cycle lanes tracks are legal and safe to use:cool:

Diarmuid

TimAllen wrote: »

The Minister finds them adequate so I guess you can assume they're legal

Solid reasoning there

tomasrojo

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Back to hiding behind standards again. Who cares what OUR national standards are? They're complete crap anyway.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

The Minister finds them adequate

:rolleyes:

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

tomasrojo

On the point of signage, the cyclists groups are correct: the shared-use sign is not included in any regulations. It's a UK sign that councils and local authorities started using here without incorporating it into our regulations.



According to that article, they are going to introduce the sign to the regulations, about a decade after they started using it.

The law explicitly forbids cycling on the footpath without a Cycle Track being present. A Cycle Track is defined by having one of these two signs:





So, strictly speaking, the cycling groups are correct as things currently stand. You can't make something legal just by saying "We, the local authorities made it, so it's legal." You have to use what's in the regulations.

Chips Lovell

The doctrine of ministerial infallibility?

Anyway, Dempsay did not say he found them adequate, but issued a no comment and an acknowledgement that many facilities are substandard.

TimAllen

The substantive point I was making (before some started side tracking it with their usual and boring efforts to discredit and chastise) was that this kind of whingeing in public by cycling lobbyists is counter productive to achieving results.
I am quite confident that the Minister will see the disparate groups that represent cyclists as being impossible to please and will pay lip service to them but not take them too seriously. Maybe put in some cycle tracks and then stop listening to the clamour of whingeing from lobbyists who seem to in my opinion want:
More cycle tracks
Less cycle tracks
Get rid of cycle tracks
Better cycle tracks
Continuity cycle tracks
Real cycle tracks
I cant believe its not a cycle track
Cycle tracks that give cyclists right of way everywhere
Get rid of the mandatory use of cycle tracks
Less traffic
More cyclists
Less cyclists (because they hate each other anyways, going too fast, going too slow, stopping at red lights, jumping red lights)
More testing of drivers
More testing of cyclists
Continued non testing of cyclists
Yep, the cycling lobby is the one to be listening to as a Minister and taking serious - if you want a headache!:eek:

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

(before some started side tracking it with their usual and boring efforts to discredit and chastise)

before some started pointing out your inability to read an article.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

I am quite confident that the Minister will see the disparate groups that represent cyclists as being impossible to please and will pay lip service to them but not take them too seriously.

You're quite wrong on that. The Cycling frame work document that the government released was a topic for discussion at a Dublin Cycling Campaign meeting during the summer. They regarded the document so good they have fully endorsed it. So the Minister and the Dublin Dycling Campaign are in agreement about how cycling policy and infrastructure should be laid out for the future. In fact all parties have endorsed the document except Fine gael(who plan to issue their own). But once again maybe your mind reading skill are better than your article and fuel gauge reading skills and you know the minister better.

It is the implementation of the framework and policies laid down where the problem has occurred in this instance.

TimAllen wrote: »

Maybe put in some cycle tracks and then stop listening to the clamour of whingeing from lobbyists who seem to in my opinion want:

As far as I know there is only one large cycling lobby group for Dublin City and thats the Dublin Cycling Campaign. Maybe you are taking the disaparate views of people who post on here and confusing them as lobby groups. In fact the only group refferred to the article is the Dublin Cycling campaign. There are a few smaller groups (Skerries Cycling Initiative, Fingal Safe Cycling Action Group) but they are based in County Dublin and I would doubt their goals are markedly different to the Dublin Cycling Campaign. Neither of these were mentioned in the article as they are not based in the city

Can you name a few of these disparate lobby groups you are referring to?

TimAllen

petethedrummer wrote: »

before some started pointing out your inability to read an article.

Now I remember you. You were going on about some crotch grabbing responses to motorists a few months back. I suggested a more apt handle for you in that context but got into some trouble for it. Right, now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

You have a pro-cycling minister who wishes to make political capital from the improvements he's making for cyclists and it gets thrown back at him on a mainstream Sunday newspaper.

There is no criticism of the minister in the article or the original http://www.dublincycling.com/beckettbridge article. There is criticism of how the cycling infrastructure is implemented on the bridge which is a criticism of the engineers involved and Dublin City council.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

Now I remember you. You were going on about some crotch grabbing responses to motorists a few months back. I suggested a more apt handle for you in that context but got into some trouble for it. Right, now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

that was me. hello. you said i might end up on a sex offenders register. i haven't....yet.

I'd also like to point out a slight error I made earlier. Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie is also quoted in the article. But he is the former chairman of the Dublin Cycling Campaign so he can't be considered a disparate view. And Cyclist.ie is the umbrella group for all the other cycling campaigns in Ireland, so another reason why he is not a disparate voice. http://cyclist.ie/

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

Now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

So you have now moved the debate so far, you want me to propose solutions to the bridge?

The solution is simple. No cycle lanes and just ride on the road, easier, safer, better.

Was looking at the pics in the vintage cycling pics thread, and noticed how many cyclists there were on the streets, and how completley unconcerned they were by the lack of cycle lanes.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

The solution is simple. No cycle lanes and just ride on the road, easier, safer, better.

That's what James Leahy is alluding to when he says:

The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list.

The new policy is supposed to be to examine every possible alternative before putting in a cycle lane. For reasons that are obvious to most people who post here, I think.

tomasrojo

If the road engineers want to try out something new (for them), they could take away part of the very wide footpath and create an extra-wide bus lane. That way bikes and buses can share the same lane, both able to overtake the other without leaving the lane. I'd be very happy with that.

Failing that, I'd be happy enough to share a standard bus lane with them. I am not going to use that shared-use thing.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

If the road engineers want to try out something new (for them), they could take away part of the very wide footpath and create an extra-wide bus lane. That way bikes and buses can share the same lane, both able to overtake the other without leaving the lane. I'd be very happy with that.

That's what I'd prefer myself.

Victor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

Cyclists deem new bridge ‘dangerous’
Sarah McInerney

Dublin’s new Samuel Beckett bridge, which will form part of the government’s €10m cross-city cycle route, has been described as “dangerous, unusable and unacceptable” by a cycling lobby group.

The landmark €60m piece of infrastructure, which opened last week, is an integral part of a circuit that will link Rathmines and Fairview Park. When launching the 7km route in September, Noel Dempsey, the transport minister, said it would “open up the city” to cyclists and show that “cycling can be safe for everyone”.

However, the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after testing the course that the cycle lanes are of insufficient width and in some cases put cyclists in danger. The group also claims that many lanes stop without warning and much of the signage appears to be illegal.

“It’s just not usable,” said James Leahy, who tested the route for the cycling body. “You cannot use it safely or without breaking the law. This is meant to be a new flagship phase in cycle routes for the next generation, but in this case they have just repeated all the same mistakes of the past.”

Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie, an umbrella group for Irish cycling campaigns, said the design of the facilities suggests they were an afterthought. “I suspect that when the bridge was designed it had no cycle lanes, and then last year Dempsey gave the city council €10m for the cycle route across the city,” he said.

“At that point it was too late. They couldn’t make the bridge wider, so they just put lanes in willy nilly wherever they could find the space. It really makes us despair. The engineers in Dublin city council just don’t get things right for cyclists.”

Leahy claimed the cycle lane on the east side of the bridge leads directly into oncoming traffic. The one on the west side has a “a very narrow cycle track on the footpath” which turns sharply on to the road, he added.

“These particular instances are actually quite dangerous,” Leahy said. “It would have been much better for the council not to draw out any cycle lanes and leave cyclists on the road.”

In a number of instances, the council has erected signs directing cyclists on to the footpath, which Leahy believes may be against the law.

“It is illegal to cycle on footpaths unless there is a designated cycle lane, and on one side of the bridge, there’s no cycle lane,” he said. “It’s meant to be a ‘shared space’ but that only works in an area where pedestrians and cyclists are taking their time. This is a commuter route where cyclists are likely to be going at high speed. This signage also is not in the Traffic Signs Regulations, so I would question its legality.”

Leahy said that even if the design does not break the rules, it is still unsuitable for cyclists to be on the pavement. “We’re constantly hearing calls from pedestrian groups to get us off the path, and we agree,” he said. “For elderly people it’s disconcerting to have cyclists zipping past in a blur, and it’s also been a big issue for the blind.”

Fionnuala Murphy, communications officer for the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, said the group is opposed to having cyclists on the pavement. “If you’re trying to navigate the city with a guide dog or a cane, it already takes a lot of concentration,” she said. “Trying to be aware of people flying past you at high speed just adds to the difficulty.”

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge but admitted there were substandard cycling facilities in urban areas. “One of the reasons I published Ireland’s first national cycle policy in April was because I recognised there were so many problems to be addressed before we could have a cycling culture,” he said.

Leahy and McKillen praised the principles set out in the policy, but said they were not in evidence on the bridge. “The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list,” Leahy said.

amacachi

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

penexpers

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

I constantly get 404's from it too.

blorg

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

I often get 404s, I think it is related to Opera.

404s? Where? I want a pair.:p