New Ross bypass bridge

Seth Brundle

Cookiemunster wrote: »

No. There shouldn't be pedestrians or cyclists on any 100kph road. It's highly dangerous. There's a reason that N roads that are replaced by motorways drop to 80kph.

My point was that it's fine all over Ireland to mix the two but to create a new road with space set aside for all non-engined transport obviously wasn't done (i.e. segregates space). I'd obviously be against mixing the two (VRUs & engined traffic) but to completely exclude them is a disgrace.
It shows the ongoing lack of investment in any kind of meaningful cycling infrastructure whilst pouring millions into infrastructure for engine based vehicles.

Cookiemunster

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My point was that it's fine all over Ireland to mix the two but to create a new road with space set aside for all non-engined transport obviously wasn't done (i.e. segregates space). I'd obviously be against mixing the two (VRUs & engined traffic) but to completely exclude them is a disgrace.
It shows the ongoing lack of investment in any kind of meaningful cycling infrastructure whilst pouring millions into infrastructure for engine based vehicles.

Cycling infrastructure can be placed along the now quieter old road and in and around New Ross itself. A national road connecting Cork to Waterford and Wexford isn't the place for it.

And as Harry said above, there's soon to be a greenaway for which a bridge has been built over the new road.

Last Stop

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My point was that it's fine all over Ireland to mix the two but to create a new road with space set aside for all non-engined transport obviously wasn't done (i.e. segregates space). I'd obviously be against mixing the two (VRUs & engined traffic) but to completely exclude them is a disgrace.
It shows the ongoing lack of investment in any kind of meaningful cycling infrastructure whilst pouring millions into infrastructure for engine based vehicles.

It’s a road bypass, why would any cyclist want to use it unless they are training for the Tour de France (which some cyclists seem to think they are).
The road will eventually be upgraded to motorway once the section to the Waterford bypass so it makes no sense to put a cycle lane on it.
If anything, this post shows that no matter how much space cyclists are given (a brand new greenway being built serving the same route) they still want more!!

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

It’s a road bypass, why would any cyclist want to use it unless they are training for the Tour de France (which some cyclists seem to think they are).
The road will eventually be upgraded to motorway once the section to the Waterford bypass so it makes no sense to put a cycle lane on it.
If anything, this post shows that no matter how much space cyclists are given (a brand new greenway being built serving the same route) they still want more!!

Always reassuring to see people sneering at cyclists, but some do actually be in training for La Marmotte, and not the TDF.

As for cyclists looking for more road space? Cycling infrastructure here is an absolute disgrace. Hundreds of millions being promised to add more cars and pollution around Galway, and we still haven't got a safe cycling greenway along the Royal Canal from Dublin to Leixlip which could instantaneously reduce car demand on Intel, and for a fraction of the cost.

irish_goat

md23040 wrote: »

The longest bridge in Ireland previous to this is the Foyle Bridge in Derry (11 metres shorter) and it's a hot spot for suicide jumpers with a similar elevation. I am sure that if there was a foot path across the bridge it would become a problem and glad it hasn't been included in the design.

AFAIK, studies have shown the existence of a local bridge doesn't affect suicide numbers.

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

Always reassuring to see people sneering at cyclists, but some do actually be in training for La Marmotte, and not the TDF.

As for cyclists looking for more road space? Cycling infrastructure here is an absolute disgrace. Hundreds of millions being promised to add more cars and pollution around Galway, and we still haven't got a safe cycling greenway along the Royal Canal from Dublin to Leixlip which could instantaneously reduce car demand on Intel, and for a fraction of the cost.

So do you want a cycle lane along the M50 or M8 for those cycling enthusiasts? Because this road is essentially a motorway and will be one once the section to the Waterford bypass is complete.

donvito99

Last Stop wrote: »

So do you want a cycle lane along the M50 or M8 for those cycling enthusiasts? Because this road is essentially a motorway and will be one once the section to the Waterford bypass is complete.

If there was space why not? The M50/M8 doesn't offer an incredible view and an interesting route for people to walk or cycle.

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

So do you want a cycle lane along the M50 or M8 for those cycling enthusiasts? Because this road is essentially a motorway and will be one once the section to the Waterford bypass is complete.

If there was the will, I'm sure there would be a way to accommodate safe cycling infrastructure parallel to a motorway, but politicians, civil servants, council officials, engineers, don't give a damn.

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

If there was space why not? The M50/M8 doesn't offer an incredible view and an interesting route for people to walk or cycle.

1. Cost
2. Safety
3. Lack of demand

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

If there was the will, I'm sure there would be a way to accommodate safe cycling infrastructure parallel to a motorway, but politicians, civil servants, council officials, engineers, don't give a damn.

Could it be that cycling isn’t anywhere near as popular as some people make it out to be and there is no demand for such a route?

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

Could it be that cycling isn’t anywhere near as popular as some people make it out to be and there is no demand for such a route?

Nobody could've imagined cars would become so popular, but you know what?

The state went ahead and built a vast road network.....

gman2k

Well, I hope to cycle across it tomorrow afternoon!

Sober Crappy Chemis

So we want a Narrow Foothpath on an extremely exposed river bridge suspended dozens of metres above river level with HGVs whizzing past at high speeds....

Fcuk me. People’s thinking is very basic really. Jesus.

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody could've imagined cars would become so popular, but you know what?

The state went ahead and built a vast road network.....

New roads (including this one) were built to match increasing demand...exactly the opposite of what you’re saying

whisky_galore

Fritzbox wrote: »

Did Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy ever visit Ireland in her life?

And why are we naming it after the mother of a US President - I mean, when did we last name an important piece of Irish infrastructure after the mother of an Irish President - or the mother of a Taoiseach?

They couldn't name it after the Kennedy that ran away from a car accident or the other Kennedy they forced a lobotomy on or the crooked patriarch of the family.

Andrewf20

Ive been on numerous bridges around the world with 100km/h or similar speed limits with barriered off cycle lanes / footpaths. They could also drop the speed limit for the road to 80km/h if needed.

Different traffic volume perhaps - but the N52 is 100km/h with an unprotected footpath.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8751913,-8.2268704,3a,75y,48.53h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVn8A8XGMtFcEAEm9EFYyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I feel they missed a trick here. Even to make space for a potential cycle or walk way in the future.

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

New roads (including this one) were built to match increasing demand...exactly the opposite of what you’re saying

Which will bring more cars on to the roads and we'll be back at the same congestion problem further down the line.

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which will bring more cars on to the roads and we'll be back at the same congestion problem further down the line.

And somehow building a cycle lane on a bypass will change all that?

Seamai

donvito99 wrote: »

Cycling the Golden Gate is a legitimately frightening experience, the noise is deafening and the proximity of the traffic is startling.

I walked over it and it's kinda scary all right, more scary than the 200 foot drop.

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

And somehow building a cycle lane on a bypass will change all that?

It's about the overall attitude to cycling infrastructure.

Last Stop

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Ive been on numerous bridges around the world with 100km/h or similar speed limits with barriered off cycle lanes / footpaths. They could also drop the speed limit for the road to 80km/h if needed.

Different traffic volume perhaps - but the N52 is 100km/h with an unprotected footpath.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8751913,-8.2268704,3a,75y,48.53h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVn8A8XGMtFcEAEm9EFYyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I feel they missed a trick here. Even to make space for a potential cycle or walk way in the future.

Except this have been designed as a future motorway with a speed of 120km/hr and the N52 is a two way road which is completely different scenario

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's about the overall attitude to cycling infrastructure.

Or it’s the attitude of cyclists. The 2+2 road cross section has been used to great effect all around the country without cyclist facilities yet the moment they build one which happens to have a good view, cyclists start complaining.
There was no such comments on the Tuam Bypass or N3 for example...

whisky_galore

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's about the overall attitude to cycling infrastructure.

Fair enough cycle lanes around towns and cities.
But a bypass?

It's not convenient for commuting so I can only assume you're looking for a leisure facility. What wrong with the soon to be quieter old road?

Charles Babbage

md23040 wrote: »

The longest bridge in Ireland previous to this is the Foyle Bridge in Derry (11 metres shorter) and it's a hot spot for suicide jumpers with a similar elevation. I am sure that if there was a foot path across the bridge it would become a problem and glad it hasn't been included in the design.

Yes, if you going to jump you'll not want to risk being run over.

Last Stop

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fair enough cycle lanes around towns and cities.
But a bypass?

It's not convenient for commuting so I can only assume you're looking for a leisure facility. What wrong with the soon to be quieter old road?

Or the purpose built greenway all the way to Dungarvan?

Andrewf20

Last Stop wrote: »

Except this have been designed as a future motorway with a speed of 120km/hr and the N52 is a two way road which is completely different scenario

I was alluding to some of the comments on the previous page saying that 100km/h roads beside cycleways / footpaths is too dangerous.

magicbastarder

Last Stop wrote: »

1. Cost
2. Safety
3. Lack of demand

lack of demand for cycling along the M50? how do you know?
if it's simply not possible, there won't be a demand for it; but look at the couple of people i know who live in castleknock/blanch and work(ed) in or near parkwest. it's not a long cycle, if they had been able to use the M50 - say a cycle lane at the top of the embankment; it would have been a boon.

has this bridge been designed to take traffic moving at 120km/h with no hard shoulder? really? a road designed to take traffic moving that fast which is unable to cope with a breakdown, what have you?

Last Stop

magicbastarder wrote: »

lack of demand for cycling along the M50? how do you know?

That point was in reference to building cycle lanes along the entire M8 or other motorway bypasses

if it's simply not possible, there won't be a demand for it;

That makes no sense and is completely untrue

but look at the couple of people i know who live in castleknock/blanch and work(ed) in or near parkwest. it's not a long cycle, if they had been able to use the M50

Anecdotal evidence is not the same as demand. I’ve a couple of friends who live in London and work in New York. It’s not a long flight, if they had been able to use Concorde

- say a cycle lane at the top of the embankment; it would have been a boon.

Which would work perfectly if the M50 was entirely in cut, which it isn’t, and there wasn’t roads crossing over it which would clash directly with the cycle lane. Incidentally the journey you’ve suggested from Blanch to parkwest includes the east link bridge which doesn’t even have room for a hard shoulder...

has this bridge been designed to take traffic moving at 120km/h with no hard shoulder? really? a road designed to take traffic moving that fast which is unable to cope with a breakdown, what have you?

Yes? There’s hard shoulders on both approaches to the bridge and plus emergency lay bys at either side.
It’s the same as the Malahide viaduct on the M1 (which actually has 3 lanes in each direction)

magicbastarder

Last Stop wrote: »

Which would work perfectly if the M50 was entirely in cut, which it isn’t, and there wasn’t roads crossing over it which would clash directly with the cycle lane. Incidentally the journey you’ve suggested from Blanch to parkwest includes the east link bridge which doesn’t even have room for a hard shoulder...

oh, i'm not saying it would have been easy. i'm saying it would have been used.
you can argue the bridge has no room, that's a superficial argument to make when the bridge was built with no room.

btw, going from blanch to park west via the east link would have been a curious choice. probably quicker cycling if you chose that route

Last Stop

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh, i'm not saying it would have been easy. i'm saying it would have been used.
you can argue the bridge has no room, that's a superficial argument to make when the bridge was built with no room.

Well the bridge has room... before it was widened to meet demand.