Emmet Bridge

DirkVoodoo

Not commenting on cause of this accident, but my gf lives on Parnell road so I know that bridge well and I've seen some appalling driving there. I rely can't believe there is a right turn allowed when traffic is coming over the blind hump of the bridge. I've also nearly been hit in rush hour traffic by cars heading east and just folding in on top of me in the bike lane.

Hope cyclist is OK.

jameshayes

I have to pass this junction on my way to work, it's a nightmare. It is the only time i don't follow the rules of the road on my bike, i (like tons of other bikes) cross onto the footpath at Delaneys and then onto the canal.

Not saying it's what happened; but waiting at the crest of that hill to be smashed by a truck is worth breaking the rule for

arse_jackeen

jameshayes wrote: »

I have to pass this junction on my way to work, it's a nightmare. It is the only time i don't follow the rules of the road on my bike, i (like tons of other bikes) cross onto the footpath at Delaneys and then onto the canal.

Not saying it's what happened; but waiting at the crest of that hill to be smashed by a truck is worth breaking the rule for

This. I had a near miss there last week. A car was in lane to turn right onto Grove Rd. but suddenly decided to pull out left to go straight into town and just missed me.

I am so nervous taking a right onto Grove Rd. and often take the "safer" route by crossing over onto footpath and waiting for pedestrian lights to get on to Grove Rd.

Thinking of the injured cyclist.

Chuchote

The hump-back bridge seems to me perfect for replacing with one of the Dutch-style bridges that can be raised in the (rare) event of boats needing to pass.



These are level with the canal or river, and normally have cycle lanes at the sides. They allow a clear view in all directions.

seamus

I like that Chuchote, probably the least bit of engineering required to make that bridge better. Otherwise you're looking at making the roads higher, which is a no-no.

I know some people will always cite heritage concerns about these things, but you can't leave a dangerous bridge in place just because it has sentimental value.

It's a case of either re-engineering the bridge or drastically changing the road layout, such as making it one-way south-to-north and adding calming measures to force traffic to slow down as they crest the bridge.

ED E

Tbh a small modification and a left spiraling slipway to put you out under the bridge and eastbound along the canal would suffice if structurally possible.

Allinall

There should be no right turn northbound at that bridge for any traffic.

Chuchote

seamus wrote: »

I like that Chuchote, probably the least bit of engineering required to make that bridge better. Otherwise you're looking at making the roads higher, which is a no-no.

I know some people will always cite heritage concerns about these things, but you can't leave a dangerous bridge in place just because it has sentimental value.

It's a case of either re-engineering the bridge or drastically changing the road layout, such as making it one-way south-to-north and adding calming measures to force traffic to slow down as they crest the bridge.

It would be possible to keep the original parts of the bridge and use them at the sides of the canal.

Of all people, I can't imagine young Robert Emmet objecting to the bridge commemorating him being rebuilt to save Dubliners' lives!

And yes, there should be no right turn there.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

The hump-back bridge seems to me perfect for replacing with one of the Dutch-style bridges that can be raised in the (rare) event of boats needing to pass.

you know what would happen though.

selfish boat owners cause gridlock for dublin's commuters as they hold up traffic for several minutes waiting for their boat - which they don't pay road tax on - to pass.

the only answer is to lower the canal.

seamus

Chuchote wrote: »

And yes, there should be no right turn there.

I'm not sure if the right turn northbound is the big issue there.

The visibility over the crest is the main problem. Even without the right turn you will have pedestrians and cyclists crossing on the south side of the bridge when the north-south traffic has a green light. And some of them will take the risk of darting across even though they can't tell if someone will emerge southbound over the bridge.

This is something you can't solve with lights and rules and requires engineering to remove the main danger.

If the bridge was one-way and only allowed northbound traffic, that would seem to me to be a very easy short term solution pending something more concrete.

Kaisr Sose

Chuchote wrote: »

The hump-back bridge seems to me perfect for replacing with one of the Dutch-style bridges that can be raised in the (rare) event of boats needing to pass.



These are level with the canal or river, and normally have cycle lanes at the sides. They allow a clear view in all directions.

The bridge is most likely a protected structure!! Why spend millions on a bridge that can be raised when it is fine as a static bridge for decades?? The money could and would be better spent on improving the junction for all road users, including putting cameras on it to catch those vehicles running the lights ? It's old tech at this stage and we still have none in this country! In saying this, I am not saying this was the cause of this collision.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

The bridge is most likely a protected structure!! Why spend millions on a bridge that can be raised when it is fine as a static bridge for decades?? The money could and would be better spent on improving the junction for all road users, including putting cameras on it to catch those vehicles running the lights ? It's old tech at this stage and we still have none in this country! In saying this, I am not saying this was the cause of this collision.

I like the bridge, but it hasn't really been fine for decades. I avoid cycling through it where possible even going straight, and dismount and cross at the lights if I'm turning. The visibility for oncoming traffic in both directions is cat.

By the way, is there a list of protected structures anywhere? I'd doubt that Emmet Bridge would be one.

http://ie.geoview.info/robert_emmet_bridge,4934503w

Robert Emmet Bridge



Robert Emmet Bridge is next to Clanbrassil Street and is located in Ireland. Robert Emmet Bridge has a length of 0.03 kilometres.
bridge: yes
highway: secondary
layer: 1
maxspeed: 50
ref: R137

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dublin_bridges_and_tunnels

Clanbrassil Bridge was rebuilt in 1935-36 and renamed to Emmet Bridge in honour of the 1803 rebellion leader Robert Emmet.[8] There is a ghost bike attached to railings beside the bridge.

(The ghost bike is gone for a long time now.)

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=DU&regno=50080983

Robert Emmet Bridge, Clanbrassil Street Upper, Harold's Cross Road, Dublin 8, Dublin City
50080983
Eastern elevation
Reg. No. 50080983
Date 1930 - 1940
Previous Name Clanbrassil Bridge
Townland
County Dublin City
Coordinates 314943, 232411
Categories of Special Interest ARCHITECTURAL ARTISTIC HISTORICAL SOCIAL TECHNICAL
Rating Regional
Original Use bridge
In Use As bridge

Description
Single-arch bridge, built 1935-6, carrying road over the Grand Canal. Elliptical arch with rendered spandrels and string course. Balustrade comprising balusters and rendered handrail, terminating in rendered piers with inset panels surmounted by lamp standards. Rendered wing walls with rendered string courses, cut limestone and rendered copings. Carved limestone plaque with bust of Robert Emmet to eastern balustrade.

Appraisal
The original canal bridge at this location was named for James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Clanbrassil, and was constructed around 1790. The current structure was rebuilt in 1935-6 [so I don't suppose it's protected], its design echoing the composition of the eighteenth century bridges on this stretch of the Grand Canal. It was renamed Robert Emmet Bridge to commemorate the member of the United Irishmen who led a failed rebellion against the British in the early nineteenth century. Emmet was captured in Harold's Cross and executed in 1803. A limestone plaque and relief bust by Albert George Power and an inscription in Irish add artistic and historical interest.

RobertFoster

Chuchote wrote: »

By the way, is there a list of protected structures anywhere? I'd doubt that Emmet Bridge would be one.

The Dublin City Council website has a Record of Protected Structures in Dublin (2MB PDF). No mention of Emmet Bridge.

tomasrojo

It's not an especially nice bridge, or especially old. That junction is terrible and needs a fundamental change. That may not involve a new bridge, but if it does, I won't miss a bridge with a lethal deficiency in sight lines.

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

Tbh a small modification and a left spiraling slipway to put you out under the bridge and eastbound along the canal would suffice if structurally possible.

Allinall wrote: »

There should be no right turn northbound at that bridge for any traffic.

They would need to extend the Grand Canal cycleway along the Harolds Cross to Portobelly stretch, though I suspect that there are ownership issues for the bit that runs behind the new apartments (the old Ever Ready garage).

Chuchote

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They would need to extend the Grand Canal cycleway along the Harolds Cross to Portobelly stretch, though I suspect that there are ownership issues for the bit that runs behind the new apartments (the old Ever Ready garage).

The plan being mooted by the Dublin Cycling Plan is to bring the Poddle Greenway out through Greenmount and across the canal there (not sure how - another bridge?) coming out at Griffith College, and I think then on through the Tenters.

Kaisr Sose

@Chuchote
My comment on the bridge (design) being fine as a static one for decades is correct. I am of course referring to it not lifting. Why put a lifting bridge in when there are canal locks there for raising and lowering the water level in situe and doing just fine?

You should not look to redesign all systems / infastructure or processes as a knee jerk reaction. The problem and solution lies mostly with effective policing and that begins and ends with more resources and crucially use of modern technology to catch those who believe rules for the safe sharing of the roads don't apply to them. If that does not happen, millions of € spent on flattening bridges will not deliver any change in behaviour or move us on from where we are now.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@Chuchote
My comment on the bridge (design) being fine as a static one for decades is correct. I am of course referring to it not lifting. Why put a lifting bridge in when there are canal locks there for raising and lowering the water level in situe and doing just fine?

The canal is at a high point here. Short of digging it deeper (and this would cost hundreds of millions), a Dutch-style bridge that can be raised is the only solution for bringing the road down to the level and getting rid of the arch preventing oncoming traffic from being seen.

The Grand Canal at this point has occasionally flooded, including the bad flood a few years ago in which a woman living in an adjoining basement flat with bars on the windows was drowned.

Unknown Soldier

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure if the right turn northbound is the big issue there.

.

It's not the big issue, but it is an issue.

Those in the know, know to get in the left/bus lane if you want to go straight.

Those not in the know, or just saps who leave it too late and think they can edge their way left are a problem. Even more so the chancers that know the road and take the right lane to avoid the left, and then bully their way in.

None of it is good news for cyclists or drivers tbh.

There are a few N bound bridges over the canal that you can't right turn on, this should be added. I say that as a car driver.

I hope the poor cyclist make a good recovery.

Tenzor07

Chuchote wrote: »

The canal is at a high point here. Short of digging it deeper (and this would cost hundreds of millions)

The local authorities can't even engineer a small bridge, yet the Dutch can remove a Waterway, replace it with a 11 lane highway, and then remove the Highway and replace it with a canal again...

Kaisr Sose

Amazing transformation and retransformation!

I wonder if the road has gone underground? We are so behind in not having major arterial roads through the city underground, and putting cars underground too. Going under takes pressure off existing clogged roadways and increases the efficiency of surface public transport. Big investment required but it will increase productivity.

Tenzor07

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I wonder if the road has gone underground?

Nope! The road is just..Gone...Not needed anymore..

Ireland is basically where The Netherlands was back in the 1960's when the motor vehicle was King...

OleRodrigo

Its actually quite worrying that it took a lot of bicycle fatalities in the Netherlands before they began building their cycling Infrastructure ( plus they had the cash )

Posted before but worth another look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

Kaisr Sose

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Nope! The road is just..Gone...Not needed anymore..

Ireland is basically where The Netherlands was back in the 1960's when the motor vehicle was King...

It just shows that if you seriously invest in public transport and reduce on street parking /make it very expensive, people will switch to the more sustainable and more efficient mode! Living in Switzerland for a few years and I never seen aggressive driving or snarled up traffic. Reason: Enforcement and good public transport. Don't recall seeing any car crashes in the city either.

Beasty

Posts moved from the "cyclist down" thread

Please don't turn threads concerning individual incidents into discussions on infrastructure. The authorities can consider any relevant facts including any recommendations for changes. However it's not appropriate to turn a thread expressing best wishes to someone with serious injuries into a thread on wider safety issues. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss such issues

GrumpyMe

Chuchote wrote: »

The canal is at a high point here. Short of digging it deeper (and this would cost hundreds of millions), a Dutch-style bridge that can be raised is the only solution for bringing the road down to the level and getting rid of the arch preventing oncoming traffic from being seen.

The Grand Canal at this point has occasionally flooded, including the bad flood a few years ago in which a woman living in an adjoining basement flat with bars on the windows was drowned.

Canal is, as usual for canals, fairly flat being within the stretch from Suir Road lock to Rathmines lock.

The flooding in that area when the woman drowned came from the Poddle and surface run off from torrential rain not the canal.

Budawanny

GrumpyMe wrote: »

Canal is, as usual for canals, fairly flat being within the stretch from Suir Road lock to Rathmines lock.

The flooding in that area when the woman drowned came from the Poddle and surface run off from torrential rain not the canal.

The Dodder I think

Kaisr Sose

Yes, it was not the canal. More likely the Poddle as it runs through Kimmage on the way to the Liffey.