New Library Discussion/Construction Thread

mp3guy

lordgoat wrote: »

Agree or disagree:
1) Less people crossing the road means there are less chances of people getting injured by cars?
2) Less trafic lights means traffic flows better and congestion in maynooth (which is abysmal) is lessened

I don't know why you're asking these agree/disagree questions, the answers to both are innate in everyone.

lordgoat wrote: »

The college is afraid of someone (student or otherwise) either falling off it accidently or jumping from it.

Source please.

lordgoat wrote: »

In the nanny state this country has turned into it simple removes the bridge, rather than improve it.

Source please.

lordgoat wrote: »

You don't seem to understand either that it's not just a set of traffic lights, it's the knock on effect they have, the lights will ensure back logs of cars on the hour.

As previously stated there are multiple sets of lights on that same road, used on a constant basis. Lights on that road are nothing new.

lordgoat wrote: »

In town planning traffic lights are one of the main items that you generally try to avoid, particularly pedestrian lights as they bring traffic in all directions to a complete halt.

Source please.

cython

Wow, the hyperbole on both sides of the discussion here is frankly amazing. Seems like whether for or against the footbridge, there are people on each side who believe that the other option is a (potential) deathtrap (though this does not apply to everyone, merely highlighting the presence of extreme opinions on both sides). Personally I think each option has its merits, but with the bridge having to be removed for the library, I can see the rationale behind not building a new one.

Let's first consider when the bridge was built - the road between the campuses was the main N4 (no M4 motorway back then), so virtually all traffic between Dublin and Galway/Sligo/Mayo/anywhere in between had to pass along that road. Adding pedestrians into this mix was asking for trouble. This is no longer the case, however, and it is reflected in the speed limits on the road, as well as the fact that the new roundabout/traffic lights/etc in front of the north campus could even be installed.

Next up, the volume of students who actually have to go between north and south campus between lectures has decreased massively even over the course of the last 8 years (as long as I have been here). Since JH opened, and now Iontas, many lectures that traditionally had to be held in either Callan/Physics Hall, or even the Aula, have been moved to theatres on the North Campus. I am aware that some students still have to trek to and fro, but the volume having to do this has been drastically reduced. The need to visit a lot of offices located on the south campus (e.g. for essay submission) by students based on the north campus has also been reduced, either by moving some of them to the north campus (e.g. maths physics), or through use of moodle for online submissions. Yes, the library is still there, but even bearing that in mind, going there, or to offices need not be done on the hour, at what has been suggested as being the peak times for traffic across. Essentially, people taking a shortcut through the south campus between their homes and the north campus is probably as big a source as anything, and this is hardly the university's responsibility. Certainly, if it were a major concern, there would be a pedestrian gate on Parson's street/by Bond Bridge.

There is also an accessibility issue. While never having had to do it myself, I do recall a student a few years ago confining himself to a wheelchair for a week to write an article in the college paper (the Spoke, as it was then) as an informal audit of the accessibility of the campus to people with physical disabilities, and his major bugbear about the whole thing was trying to get over the bridge, and safely down the other side. Surely a pedestrian crossing as a lot more suitable for anyone with restricted mobility, be it due to disability, injury (I'd imagine a crossing to be easier than the bridge to negotiate on crutches too), or even age (an extreme example, I will admit)

This is before we even consider the likely significantly higher cost of rebuilding the bridge in a new location. It shouldn't be hard to see that if you look at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, then while at the time of the bridge's construction (higher traffic volumes, resources more split between north and south) the bridge option would have been clearly favoured, there has certainly been a shift towards the viability of a crossing, and it's not beyond comprehension to consider that perhaps the crossing actually now performs better in the face of such analysis than a bridge/underpass.

lordgoat

mp3guy wrote: »

I don't know why you're asking these agree/disagree questions, the answers to both are innate in everyone.



Source please.



Source please.



As previously stated there are multiple sets of lights on that same road, used on a constant basis. Lights on that road are nothing new.



Source please.

Ahhh a pedant, who for someone so pedantic continuously misses, rather ignores, the point.

If you must know why the questions are posed: Why do the opposite of something that is "innate in everyone"?

Putting in traffic lights is not a good thing or the best solution. Do you know there are more traffic lights between Esso and the college and Esso and Belfast airport?

Well for the first source one of my teammates work with in the college and they are the actual reasons for it. Feel free to call into the campus development office and ask them about it.

http://cpdoffice.nuim.ie/index.shtml


Are you actually asking for a source that the foot bridge is going to be removed? Or did you just get caught up in the moment and started asking for sources rather than make an argument that doesn't involve "there are other traffic lights it's not a problem. Bridge is bad etc"

I believe there was an email sent regarding the removal of the footbridge.


The town planning one, i'm sure if you google it you'll find more than these.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/11/us-germany-traffic-odd-idUSGOR14512420070911

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/2743688/Rip-them-out.html

http://www.shared-space.org/files/18445/nieuwsbriefSS.06.6.pdf

mp3guy

cython wrote: »

...

Good points made here, especially about accessibility.

mp3guy

You get half marks.

lordgoat wrote: »

Are you actually asking for a source that the foot bridge is going to be removed? Or did you just get caught up in the moment and started asking for sources rather than make an argument that doesn't involve "there are other traffic lights it's not a problem. Bridge is bad etc"

It's nice of you to give me the benefit of that doubt in saying that I got "caught up in the moment" as I can assure you that this is most definitely the highlight of my day and possibly week. But if you had been more conscious of your actual claim, you'd have copped that I was in fact asking for source proving that the University has chosen to remove it over improving it. In other words a source saying "NUIM has chosen to remove the bridge altogether instead of improving it".

lordgoat wrote: »

The town planning one, i'm sure if you google it you'll find more than these.

It's your responsibility to hold up your argument, not mine, so please don't suggest I go looking for your sources for your argument. But thanks for providing those that you did.

lordgoat wrote: »

Well for the first source one of my teammates work with in the college and they are the actual reasons for it. Feel free to call into the campus development office and ask them about it.

http://cpdoffice.nuim.ie/index.shtml

I will not call into the campus development office to ask about it, I want an article or otherwise stating that the college is getting rid of the bridge for fear of student injury. If you can't provide that, it's a void point.

lordgoat wrote: »

I believe there was an email sent regarding the removal of the footbridge.

Yes, nothing about the injury of students. Having searched the past 4 years of student notices with the key words "bridge" and "crossing".

pnag

Folks, all of this is immaterial if you don't consider the simple fact

Regardless of numbers increasing or decreasing, a lot of students cross via the footbridge on the hour.

My source? It's a fact - I see it as I work on campus.

Now, I'm not saying there will be deaths, or that it's horrendous, what will we do, world coming to an end... BUT!

All of those students will now have to get from one campus to another via that crossing, something they do NOT have to do now. Yes, there are 2 sets of lights on that road, but they do not have to take the same pedestrian load as the footbridge.

Speaking to people, THAT'S their concern. Jesus, can we have a reality check on this?!?

philologos

lordgoat has summed it up more perfectly than I ever could have hoped to :pac:

mp3guy - the argument will be that it will be worse without a bridge or an underpass, not that we couldn't make do with the pesky crossing.

mp3guy

Cool.

thebman

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I'd agree if I didn't know a number of people who had twisted ankles or broken legs because of that bridge. It's nearly happened to me a few times! Bad conditions and it does get dangerous. Building a bridge at such an angle should never have been allowed

People twist their ankles and break legs in weird places all the time.

It doesn't mean it is dangerous.

It is safer than a road crossing with two sets of people in a hurray. One trying to reach lectures and the other trying to get through the horrible mess of traffic lights that Maynooth has become.

pnag

Agreed - I broke my leg in our back garden with the bad weather at the beginning of the year - not looking to tear that asunder!

philologos

By the by, if the problem was just with the old bridge what would have been the problem with building another bridge?

pnag

That one's easy - there'll be no where to put a gradient bridge, the massive new library extension will be in the way.

thebman

philologos wrote: »

By the by, if the problem was just with the old bridge what would have been the problem with building another bridge?

A crossing costs less and doesn't cause any problems until someone gets run over.

philologos

thebman - but that's nonsense considering the amount of funding that they've gotten for the library. Surely a bridge / underpass wouldn't cost much more?

mp3guy

pnag wrote: »

That one's easy - there'll be no where to put a gradient bridge, the massive new library extension will be in the way.

As seen here there are plenty of places a bridge could be put in, displaced up/down that road by a few metres.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaiUGm6m8U

philologos wrote: »

thebman - but that's nonsense considering the amount of funding that they've gotten for the library. Surely a bridge / underpass wouldn't cost much more?

The library is costing €20 million, last time I heard.

philologos

mp3guy wrote: »

The library is costing €20 million, last time I heard.

My point exactly. How much does a bridge or an underpass cost? A drop in the water in comparison to €20mn I would surmise.

the_syco

One of the reasons for getting rid of the bridge I'd say is that you can't upgrade it to put a cage around it, as has been done on most other bridges.

For example, Liffey Valley. It used to have a bridge something like the one in Maynooth, but it got replaced due to safety concerns. I'd say there'd be more safety concerns about stuff being flung from the bridge by scumbags, than someone falling off, tbh.

thebman

philologos wrote: »

thebman - but that's nonsense considering the amount of funding that they've gotten for the library. Surely a bridge / underpass wouldn't cost much more?

Probably weren't allowed use money from the funding for the library for it.

Would have to come out of college funds which they didn't want to spend on it.

Would be my guess.

By using a road crossing, I imagine it is being part funded or totally funded by the town council or maybe NRA depending on how looks after the road there, saving the college money.

mp3guy

Makes sense. The original application for capital for the library obviously didn't include plans for a bridge.

lordgoat

cython wrote: »

.

Next up, the volume of students who actually have to go between north and south campus between lectures has decreased massively even over the course of the last 8 years (as long as I have been here). Since JH opened, and now Iontas, many lectures that traditionally had to be held in either Callan/Physics Hall, or even the Aula, have been moved to theatres on the North Campus. I am aware that some students still have to trek to and fro, but the volume having to do this has been drastically reduced. The need to visit a lot of offices located on the south campus (e.g. for essay submission) by students based on the north campus has also been reduced, either by moving some of them to the north campus (e.g. maths physics), or through use of moodle for online submissions. Yes, the library is still there, but even bearing that in mind, going there, or to offices need not be done on the hour, at what has been suggested as being the peak times for traffic across. Essentially, people taking a shortcut through the south campus between their homes and the north campus is probably as big a source as anything, and this is hardly the university's responsibility. Certainly, if it were a major concern, there would be a pedestrian gate on Parson's street/by Bond Bridge.

There is also an accessibility issue. While never having had to do it myself, I do recall a student a few years ago confining himself to a wheelchair for a week to write an article in the college paper (the Spoke, as it was then) as an informal audit of the accessibility of the campus to people with physical disabilities, and his major bugbear about the whole thing was trying to get over the bridge, and safely down the other side. Surely a pedestrian crossing as a lot more suitable for anyone with restricted mobility, be it due to disability, injury (I'd imagine a crossing to be easier than the bridge to negotiate on crutches too)

Very good points above.

the_syco wrote: »

One of the reasons for getting rid of the bridge I'd say is that you can't upgrade it to put a cage around it, as has been done on most other bridges.

For example, Liffey Valley. It used to have a bridge something like the one in Maynooth, but it got replaced due to safety concerns. I'd say there'd be more safety concerns about stuff being flung from the bridge by scumbags, than someone falling off, tbh.

Another good point, there are plenty of ways a modern bridge could have been put in.

Wishing everyone a last safe week while crossing the bridge.

rcaz

Maybe we'll be able to cycle between campuses now?

xxshebeexx

El Pr0n wrote: »

Maybe we'll be able to cycle between campuses now?

But I loved pushing my bike up the bridge, especially in icy weather!

rcaz

xxshebeexx wrote: »

But I loved pushing my bike up the bridge, especially in icy weather!

Yeah, it was loads of craic. I'll miss all those lols.

LeixlipRed

I'll miss a sneaky cycle down the steep side when there was no one about. The speed you could get up to :pac:

xxshebeexx

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I'll miss a sneaky cycle down the steep side when there was no one about. The speed you could get up to :pac:

I used to always do that. Until I was caught by Health and Safety one day... they didn't appreciate the argument that it was more fun than walking down..

LeixlipRed

Common experience for me over the years:

Brendan Ashe: "No cycling!!"
Me: "You'll need a bike to catch me"

:pac:

pnag

mp3guy - I'm aware that from an architect's mockup video it looks like there's plenty of space for a bridge, but there actually isn't.

Ever wonder why the library didn't just extend out back, where the car park is, and leave things as they are? There are dreadful problems with the water table there - just ask the Manor Mills builders/architects!

mp3guy

pnag wrote: »

I'm aware that from an architect's mockup video it looks like there's plenty of space for a bridge, but there actually isn't.

Ever wonder why the library didn't just extend out back, where the car park is, and leave things as they are? There are dreadful problems with the water table there - just ask the Manor Mills builders/architects!

It sounds to me like they should've consulted you instead of those professional architectural firms.

Turtyturd

mp3guy wrote: »

The library is costing €20 million, last time I heard.

I hope 15 million of that goes on sockets and seats, I would be quite happy if the new library was built to contrast the new one and consisted of thousands of sockets and about a dozen books.

Duddy

Congrats to Declan06 for being the last person to cross the footbridge!