Beckett Bridge shambles

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.