Beckett Bridge shambles

blorg

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Here you go, I got a pair, he may still have some

ba

i agree that most of the cycling infrastructure surrounding the samuel beckett bridge is a shambles (as evidenced by the linked article) but the cycle lanes on the bridge seem to function fine. the engineer ( santiago calatrava) has left ample room on either side for the bridge for the circulation of pedestrians and cyclists as distinct from road users. as for the author of that lengthy report on cycle lanes... get a life mate.

i also agree with el tonto, just get on with it and cycle.

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

Bunnyhopper

ba wrote: »

i agree that most of the cycling infrastructure surrounding the samuel beckett bridge is a shambles (as evidenced by the linked article) but the cycle lanes on the bridge seem to function fine. the engineer ( santiago calatrava) has left ample room on either side for the bridge for the circulation of pedestrians and cyclists as distinct from road users. as for the author of that lengthy report on cycle lanes... get a life mate.

i also agree with el tonto, just get on with it and cycle.

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

It's still shambolic, however wide those lanes are. It simply doesn't function fine unless you ignore all of the signage, road markings, etc., etc., etc. (Ignoring the law, while you're at it.) All the things wrong with it are still wrong whether the lanes are wide or not and I think the author of the lengthy report on it is damn right to point out how shambolic it is.

This is a bridge that was touted as "an important pedestrian and cycle crossing facility", has had €59,950,000 of public money spent on it, and yet is still a shambles from a cyclist's point of view. To shrug our shoulders and say, 'Sure ignore it and it'll be grand' would be a typical Irish response of the sort that's been letting local authorities and central government get away with this kind of wasteful nonsense for years.

Saw some Council lads changing the signs from the cycleway sign to a buslane one there on the north quays. Was in a car so don't have pics or something.

dave.obrien

ba wrote: »

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

Down in front!!!

I actually agree with you on part of this, I think a lot of his buildings are rubbish, but his bridges are ok, no?! What about this one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2723670654_11e48c7c4a.jpg

Or this one:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_K72O_1efmX0/R5uwxVS3rrI/AAAAAAAAAGU/DSvNs9u1-9E/s320/Puerto+Modero+-+The+Woman+Walking+Bridge+-+Buenos+Aires+-+compressed.JPG

Wait a second, am I spotting a theme...

I have to say though that there seems to be a lot of disparate requests from cycling lobbyists: do we want totally segregated special lanes and junctions, or equal status on existing roads, with perhaps better driver-cyclist education? If we want them to be better educated in their tests about cyclists, should we not have to prove that we are capable of using the roads with them there too? Why aren't errant cyclists suffering the same level of punitive measures that their equivalent drivers are? If a driver drives on the footpath, he is a criminal, if a cyclist cycles on the footpath, why is he just a d1ckhead?

petethedrummer

I think the general view from the cycling lobby groups is:

1. Ideally there should be no need for cycle lanes.
2. If there must be cycle lanes they should be done properly.
3. Stop making criminals of us for not using the existing sh!t cycling facilities.

blorg

Cycle tracks can be useful for families with kids or anyone pootling along at a gentle pace. Cross country ones can be quite nice for touring cyclists if there are long distances between junctions. The UK government recognises this and recommends that faster cyclists not use them but stay on the road instead. I don't mind them being there if they are in good condition and not compulsory.

dave.obrien

I agree with that view completely. I just find it confusing when I hear about the various expectations of cycling lobby groups, which at times seem to run contrary to each other. Like the demand for sufficiently wide cycle paths that don't start in the middle of the footpath would be negated by the simple provision that we are allowed the choice not to use those facilities and can instead cycle on the road, which is a very do-able around there.

I realise that's more or less just what you said, but this Leahy character had an awful lot to say on top of that, and as someone sad earlier, pointing out every flaw in a plan made by a bunch of traffic engineers to one of the few councilors with a genuine interest in cycling matters as if it was his fault might over time be perceived as belly-aching, and might frustrate him to the point of apathy.

In summary, Calatrava's bridges all look the same, and us cyclists should be allowed to use the road, which would render all those stupid 75m bike lanes a cute antiquated relic of a less enlightened previous civilisation.

But mostly Calatrava's bridges all look the same.




EDIT: Good point Blorg, they are handy for families, my uncle takes his son(8) and all the young fella's in their estate for a Snday morning bike path spin in Kilboggit Park, there'll be a new Cabinteely CC yet...

petethedrummer

dave.obrien wrote: »

I agree with that view completely. I just find it confusing when I hear about the various expectations of cycling lobby groups, which at times seem to run contrary to each other. Like the demand for sufficiently wide cycle paths that don't start in the middle of the footpath would be negated by the simple provision that we are allowed the choice not to use those facilities and can instead cycle on the road, which is a very do-able around there.

As was pointed out to TimAllen previously in this thread, there aren't a whole load of cycling lobby groups. There is 1 covering the area where this bridge is located, Dublin Cycling Campaign.

dave.obrien wrote: »

I realise that's more or less just what you said, but this Leahy character had an awful lot to say on top of that, and as someone sad earlier, pointing out every flaw in a plan made by a bunch of traffic engineers to one of the few councilors with a genuine interest in cycling matters as if it was his fault might over time be perceived as belly-aching, and might frustrate him to the point of apathy.

1. I don't know if you have ever been involved in an engineering project but pointing out flaws before, during and after a project is how things get done properly and how lessons are learned for future projects. In fact any engineer worth his salt would want his work rigorously reviewed.

2. Who is Leahy? and when did he single out Cllr Montague?

dave.obrien

petethedrummer wrote: »

As was pointed out to TimAllen previously in this thread, there aren't a whole load of cycling lobby groups. There is 1 covering the area where this bridge is located, Dublin Cycling Campaign.



1. I don't know if you have ever been involved in an engineering project but pointing out flaws before, during and after a project is how things get done properly and how lessons are learned for future projects. In fact any engineer worth his salt would want his work rigorously reviewed.

2. Who is Leahy? and when did he single out Cllr Montague?

To the first point, fair enough, I don't know enough about the topic, but I do seem to hear/read numerous different requests which at times seem to be easier to summarise as you did earlier, with ideally no need for separate infrastructure; if needed, make it work; don't victimise us for using our own intelligence. The requests from the cycling lobby often seem to be far more complex and confusing than necessary.

And yes, I have been involved in many engineering projects. I am of the opinion that as many flaws as identified and designed through as possible, the better the project will be. The flaws identified and after are far more difficult to deal with, and more often than not impossible to deal with in a manner that is as efficient, intelligent and thorough than the result would be had it been identified at the design stage. Retrofitting something is never as efficient as getting it right in the first place, but that does not relieve one of the duty to try to make up for the mistakes that were made. These flaws sure do provide one with very worthy lessons for later projects, but that doesn't change the inherent difficulty posed by the original "lesson", which in this case is a major, and expensive, piece of infrastructure of national importance.

James Leahy is the Leahy to whom I was referring, but I take your point, nowhere can I identify any point where he singles out Cllr Montague.

petethedrummer

dave.obrien wrote: »

The flaws identified and after are far more difficult to deal with, and more often than not impossible to deal with in a manner that is as efficient, intelligent and thorough than the result would be had it been identified at the design stage.

There are so many flaws that I would doubt that the design of the cycling facilities were properly reviewed at any stage.

dave.obrien wrote: »

Retrofitting something is never as efficient as getting it right in the first place, but that does not relieve one of the duty to try to make up for the mistakes that were made. These flaws sure do provide one with very worthy lessons for later projects, but that doesn't change the inherent difficulty posed by the original "lesson", which in this case is a major, and expensive, piece of infrastructure of national importance

The sentence in bold is what gets my goat. NOTHING is learned. The standard excuse for poor cycling facilities is "oh that cycle lane is a legacy of the 90's when we didn't know what we were doing". Well this bridge was built in 2009/10 and still they are producing rubbish. Why couldn't they just email Copenhagen City Council and ask for a photograph of a bridge and copy the lay out?? Its not rocket science. Its concrete, tar and paint.

Why must we continually come up with Irish solutions to simple problems?

Doctor Bob

Agreed fully, though it's worth bearing in mind that a Danish solution would probably be infrastructure-based, and thus in all likelihood unacceptable to the Dublin Cycling Campaign. The cyclist.ie policy position espouses the Hierarchy of Solutions (first proposed by the CTC and then incorporated into the DfT design guidance in the UK) irrespective of location, road type or any other contextual factor.

The fundamental problem with this bridge is that it was designed as a stand-alone project, with the cycle lanes imposed on it subsequently rather than being designed in from the outset. The same problem exists with the James Joyce bridge further upstream- the cycle lanes on the bridge deck follow the graceful curves of the parapets, so they fit in with the overall design but put cyclists in undesirable situations. (I have a photo that shows this well, but I can't seem to find it just now. I'll check at home later if I think of it.)

I have no real problem with infrastructure-based solutions when they are well designed, as Copenhagen cycle tracks generally are.

Bunnyhopper

Doctor Bob wrote: »

…The same problem exists with the James Joyce bridge further upstream- the cycle lanes on the bridge deck follow the graceful curves of the parapets, so they fit in with the overall design but put cyclists in undesirable situations. (I have a photo that shows this well, but I can't seem to find it just now. I'll check at home later if I think of it.)…

Might this one show some of what you're getting at?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cianginty/3911180226/in/pool-dublincyclelanes



The note on it on flickr is "Directs cyclist towards the building and footpath rather than the road ahead."

dave.obrien

@ petethedrummer, I agree with you, I said that the designers SHOULD have integrated all solutions from an early stage, but because they didn't, they are forced to retrofit with inadequate facilities. I don't accept these "facilities", and would rather sharing a lane with a bus and being legally entitled to do so. Also, the Dublin City traffic engineers SHOULD use the lessons they learned from these utterly ridiculous endeavor to ensure that future projects are well considered, but history shows this probably won't be the case. I wasn't arguing that that's what will happen, I was just responding to what you said:

"I don't know if you have ever been involved in an engineering project but pointing out flaws before, during and after a project is how things get done properly and how lessons are learned for future projects. In fact any engineer worth his salt would want his work rigorously reviewed."

Working like that tends to deliver the best possible project, but Dublin City engineers seem to be incapable of delivering anything in this manner, instead it's do now, think later. I don't think that's acceptable.

petethedrummer

I'm not havin a go at you, in case it comes across like that.

dave.obrien

Cool, I was reading it as you disagreeing with some of the things I was saying, which was confusing me, because I keep thinking that I'm agreeing with you!

Doctor Bob

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Might this one show some of what you're getting at?

It sure does. My own photo is an aerial from the top floor of The Dead House that gives a fuller view of the bridge- the poxy alignment is even more apparent when viewed from above.

Doctor Bob

This is the one I was thinking of -

SubLuminal

Don't see how they expect people not to just cycle wherever they feel like it when the cycle lanes are so dodgy.