New Ross bypass bridge

hans aus dtschl

Last Stop wrote: »

The fact you’ve made several reference to DMURS.. the design manual for URBAN roads and streets completely undermines your argument

Two references yeah.
I don't know much about New Ross, but I'd suspect the scheme might have been a bypass of an urban area.
Accordingly any traffic analysed would have been in the urban area.

I'm willing to bet there was no analysis of sustainable transport needs though. That's simply not how we do things.

If you know DMURS you'll know that the heirarchy of needs maps across all of the NTA's strategies and the dept for Transport's strategies.

hans aus dtschl

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Just because I don't agree with the general attitude/behaviour of cyclists, doesn't mean I must not be one!

The idea that there is some homogeneous group of "cyclists" is literally the point I was making in my previous posts. If you are a cyclist (which I concede is perfectly possible though surprising to me) then you've proved the point pretty well that you feel that people on bicycles as a homogeneous group behave in a particular way.

From what I can see, either you're not a cyclist (which you deny, so fine) or are both a member of the group and simultaneously disassociate from them because of "their attitude/behaviour" (your attitude/behaviour).

I hate to point this out but when I'm driving you're simply one of THEM.

You're one of the ones who probably thinks you're in the Tour de France and is some kind of eco warrior and thinks that every piece of infrastructure should be designed for you alone and is perfectly happy to hold up traffic.

Osamabindipper

Was on the bridge again over the weekend I just love it, what a fine piece of archetecture.

I for one appreciate that there is no where for cyclists and cars to pull in and admire the view and what not, it would be far too dangerous for that.

Again so many different routes for cyclists to take and the cost of making the bridge wider just for a minority on a Sunday afternoon would be crazy and money wasted.

Seth Brundle

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

... and is perfectly happy to hold up traffic.

In fairness a cyclist is part of traffic according to our laws.
Also why rant on about a cyclist holding up traffic and presumably you don't have the same impatience when a car does the same thing e.g. in an urban area?

Seth Brundle

Osamabindipper wrote: »

Again so many different routes for cyclists to take and the cost of making the bridge wider just for a minority on a Sunday afternoon would be crazy and money wasted.

...and yet spending such a large sum of money *only* for an unsustainable mode of transport is good value for money?

hans aus dtschl

Last Stop wrote: »

I really don’t know why this is even being discussed. The time to raise this was during the 2 publication consultations or the planning process... not 20 years later when the road has been built and opened.

I fully agree. The horse has long bolted. This road may be made "motorists only" (which I don't disagree with, personally).

The two points I was making were that the transport infrastructure decision making process seems flawed at the moment and that we're not buying into the notion of "sustainable transport" as being "for us".

We're not predicting large numbers of sustainable transport users, despite the government messaging around "modal shift" and we're not building for them as a result. And we're also not building for THEM because most of us have (and need) cars.

Specifically with regards the RFK scheme, I'm not saying cyclists should be on the structure. I'm saying that I'd rather have see an analysis of needs arrive at that conclusion.

hans aus dtschl

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness a cyclist is part of traffic according to our laws.
Also why rant on about a cyclist holding up traffic and presumably you don't have the same impatience when a car does the same thing e.g. in an urban area?

I think you missed my point.

The previous poster simultaneously says "I'm a cyclist" and complains about "cyclists general attitude/behaviour".

I was deliberately using all the general "bloody cyclists" tropes to get the point across: the second you step on a bike you're one of THEM.

hans aus dtschl

Osamabindipper wrote: »

Again so many different routes for cyclists to take and the cost of making the bridge wider just for a minority on a Sunday afternoon would be crazy and money wasted.

There were other routes for motorists to take also, but we correctly deemed them inadequate.
We now deem them to be adequate for pedestrians and cyclists, based on no analysis. When the bridge is closed, those legacy routes will be no safer than they ever were.

On the Sunday afternoon thing, you could well be right that the only users would be an extreme minority on a Sunday afternoon, but in general it would be better to have that analysis to hand.

As an aside, I'd say most "Sunday afternoon" people would prefer the under-construction circuitous greenway.

Osamabindipper

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

There were other routes for motorists to take also, but we correctly deemed them inadequate.
We now deem them to be adequate for pedestrians and cyclists, based on no analysis. When the bridge is closed, those legacy routes will be no safer than they ever were.

On the Sunday afternoon thing, you could well be right that the only users would be an extreme minority on a Sunday afternoon, but in general it would be better to have that analysis to hand.

As an aside, I'd say most "Sunday afternoon" people would prefer the under-construction circuitous greenway.

The New Ross bypass wasn't just about motorists it was about taking the traffic from new Ross and allowing the average daily folk go into the town and spend money in the town without the major congestion.

It also benenifts the 100s of daily commuters that have to travel down to waterford ever day for work or college,

It also bennifits tourism coming off the boat and driving to Cork.

The only people it doesn't benifit is cyclists and walkers and and for it to benifit them it would probably cost twice the amount, but the old routes are now alot more cycle friendly so happy days.

You can't please everyone but I guarantee you I'd prefer please thousands of locals and commuters then I would to please a handful of people that are now moaning because they can't cycle over a bridge.

AndrewJRenko

Osamabindipper wrote: »

Again so many different routes for cyclists to take and the cost of making the bridge wider just for a minority on a Sunday afternoon would be crazy and money wasted.

Build it, and they will come.

Don't build it, and they'll stay in their cars, destroying our air, our roads, our planet.

hans aus dtschl

Osamabindipper wrote: »

The New Ross bypass wasn't just about motorists it was about taking the traffic from new Ross and allowing the average daily folk go into the town and spend money in the town without the major congestion.



It also benenifts the 100s of daily commuters that have to travel down to waterford ever day for work or college,

It also bennifits tourism coming off the boat and driving to Cork.

Yep, I think that's accurate.

Osamabindipper wrote: »

The only people it doesn't benifit is cyclists and walkers and and for it to benifit them it would probably cost twice the amount, but the old routes are now alot more cycle friendly so happy days.

You can't please everyone but I guarantee you I'd prefer please thousands of locals and commuters then I would to please a handful of people that are now moaning because they can't cycle over a bridge.

That looks like a bit of a straw man argument, if I'm reading you correctly
It doesn't benefit cyclists, walkers, people on horseback etc, but then maybe it doesn't actually NEED to? We don't know either if it would cost twice the amount or a marginal amount extra.

It's not a question of pleasing thousands of locals and commuters OR a handful of people moaning because they can't cycle over a bridge. For starters I'm quite explicitly NOT complaining about not being able to cycle over the bridge and I think it's actually legal to cycle over it anyway! Also, local commuters MIGHT have occasionally wanted to cycle over that bridge. This doesn't need to be about us/them.

My ask (complaint?) was that the design docs be available to account for these decisions. I've said it many times in this thread now, I'm OK with some roads being "motorist only" but I'd like the justification documented. Projected cost is not adequate justification since retrofitting something afterwards - if it's needed - costs much more.

You might be able to explain to me how the old routes are more cycle friendly, because I appear to be working with old maps and information. Genuine question.

Last Stop

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Two references yeah.
I don't know much about New Ross, but I'd suspect the scheme might have been a bypass of an urban area.
Accordingly any traffic analysed would have been in the urban area.

I'm willing to bet there was no analysis of sustainable transport needs though. That's simply not how we do things.

If you know DMURS you'll know that the heirarchy of needs maps across all of the NTA's strategies and the dept for Transport's strategies.

I would suggest you have a read of DMURS before incorrectly using it to support your arguments.

DMURS is intended for use on roads and streets with a speed of 80kmph or less. Anything over this (like this scheme) is governed by DMRB

More significant than that is that DMURS was introduced in 2013... 6 years after this scheme got planning. So even if it was an urban street, DMURS wouldn’t have applied because it didn’t exist.

Hibernicis

Last Stop wrote: »

I would suggest you have a read of DMURS before incorrectly using it to support your arguments.

DMURS is intended for use on roads and streets with a speed of 80kmph or less. Anything over this (like this scheme) is governed by DMRB

More significant than that is that DMURS was introduced in 2013... 6 years after this scheme got planning. So even if it was an urban street, DMURS wouldn’t have applied because it didn’t exist.

To quote Mark Twain, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I don't know much about New Ross

PhilOssophy

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

........ or are both a member of the group and simultaneously disassociate from them because of "their attitude/behaviour" (your attitude/behaviour).

That's the point....as for the rest of your post, well I honestly don't even understand what your point was, but anyway!

hans aus dtschl

Last Stop wrote: »

I would suggest you have a read of DMURS before incorrectly using it to support your arguments.

DMURS is intended for use on roads and streets with a speed of 80kmph or less. Anything over this (like this scheme) is governed by DMRB

More significant than that is that DMURS was introduced in 2013... 6 years after this scheme got planning. So even if it was an urban street, DMURS wouldn’t have applied because it didn’t exist.

You're quite right in everything you've written.

However if you re-read, I was replying to the question "why do cyclists feel they should be considered in every scheme".

To which I responded: maybe DMURS? Or was that a rhetorical question?

hans aus dtschl

PhilOssophy wrote: »

That's the point....as for the rest of your post, well I honestly don't even understand what your point was, but anyway!

I'm afraid I don't follow. If you don't mind humouring me, you said "why do cyclists feel the need to be considered in every scheme" and then followed up by saying you're a cyclist yourself. I am surprised that you would have that attitude, as I'd have thought you'd have encountered poorly designed schemes yourself.

My overall point (previous to replying to you) was that people keep coming on to say "well of course this bridge shouldn't allow cyclists or pedestrians". But I don't believe that's based on any analysis. I further believe that all potential modes should be considered in roads schemes. Horse & cart, pedestrian, cycle, tractor, the whole lot. Rule out their needs / requirements by all means. If the argument is solid and straightforward then it won't take much effort or cost much, right? For instance motorways ban most of the above for very good reasons.

I am surprised that people in here find it unacceptable to ask why the scheme was designed without even hard shoulders. Even at face value, if there's a breakdown and you don't want pedestrians on the structure, what is the correct procedure?

PhilOssophy

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

My overall point (previous to replying to you) was that people keep coming on to say "well of course this bridge shouldn't allow cyclists or pedestrians". But I don't believe that's based on any analysis. I further believe that all potential modes should be considered in roads schemes. Horse & cart, pedestrian, cycle, tractor, the whole lot. Rule out their needs / requirements by all means. If the argument is solid and straightforward then it won't take much effort or cost much, right? For instance motorways ban most of the above for very good reasons.

I am surprised you didn't let the public consultation know your opinion, in spite of your admission that you hardly even know where New Ross is surely you attended the public hearing? Or how are you sure these weren't considered?

Sam Russell

Mod: Cut the bickering, and marvel at the bridge,

Insults, and snide remarks are against the charter. Any more and sanctions will follow.

magicbastarder

that was a theoretical positioning, i didn't make that clear enough; i.e. whether one should comment on such matters only in areas they're familiar with, based on previous comments on that line.
however, i now fear this is veering into the territory the mod warning was intended to address.

hans aus dtschl

Edit: apologies to the moderator, I posted while you posted.

magicbastarder

i'm probably asking a question which was already answered in the thread, but is there a standard procedure for this sort of infrastructure, similar to DMURs?
i.e. what 'algorithm' is used as regards what speed the bridge can sustain, whether a hard shoulder should be provided, how many lanes, etc?

Last Stop

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm probably asking a question which was already answered in the thread, but is there a standard procedure for this sort of infrastructure, similar to DMURs?
i.e. what 'algorithm' is used as regards what speed the bridge can sustain, whether a hard shoulder should be provided, how many lanes, etc?

TII DMRB

PhilOssophy

Last Stop wrote: »

TII DMRB

I was about to say just this, but it takes a lot more than the bridge into account AFAIK, i.e. what is in the area, access/egress to the road, road user needs (of all types), demand, etc.

magicbastarder

so what was the reasoning to not put a hard shoulder on a bridge with two lanes, for example? cost, or deemed as not required from a technical perspective?

Osamabindipper

Was over the bridge again yesterday..... Stunning views I'd say it would be dodgy enough on a windy day if you were on a bike... Maybe that's why they decided against it.

PhilOssophy

magicbastarder wrote: »

so what was the reasoning to not put a hard shoulder on a bridge with two lanes, for example? cost, or deemed as not required from a technical perspective?

Dunno really, there could have been an environmental constraint, poor ground for foundations, etc? I'm speculating but I'd say google could take you a long way as a lot of these are available under FOI I think?

hans aus dtschl

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I was about to say just this, but it takes a lot more than the bridge into account AFAIK, i.e. what is in the area, access/egress to the road, road user needs (of all types), demand, etc.

Yep it'd presumably take into account existing (now legacy) traffic through New Ross and also try to predict future demand.
Unfortunately in any recent roads schemes I've seen, the publicly-available documents don't include analysis of vulnerable users or their future needs: only AADT and HGV percentages. Of course maybe the analysis IS performed but not publicly available.

A simple example of a problem arising from "poor prediction of needs" would be the Jack Lynch Tunnel. Open 20 years now, at the time of build it was reasonable to say there's no need for a dedicated sustainable transport route. But the tunnel itself changed the development of the area and has near 100k AADT now, with a significant amount of short-distance journeys. Mahon to Little Island (a normal commute) is a 5km drive or a sketchy 12km cycle. Glanmire to Mahon would be 7km/13km. There's now little chance of enticing these commuters out of the car and they clog the road up for the longer-distance people who need it. Any retrofitting - if it were possible - would be difficult and expensive.

I will bow out now because my input/opinion is unwelcome and potentially inflammatory. My opinion's just an opinion and it's clearly the minority. That is absolutely fine.

gman2k

Osamabindipper wrote:

Was over the bridge again yesterday..... Stunning views I'd say it would be dodgy enough on a windy day if you were on a bike... Maybe that's why they decided against it.

It's dodgy on a bike because there is no room for a bike( I've cycled across it both ways). But the only restriction ( bridge only) is for pedestrians.
Most of the bypass has no hardshoulder, which I presume was done for cost saving.
The road would have to be almost 50% wider to accommodate two hard shoulders. This may have doable on the road, but on the bridge it would have added massive cost.
However, the tolled Waterford bridge does have hard shoulders, and even space behind the barrier that could accommodate a footpath, yet cyclists are not allowed....

Victor

gman2k wrote: »

The road would have to be almost 50% wider to accommodate two hard shoulders.

No. Between embankments, verges, traffic lanes, medians, etc., the width an cost increase would be much less than 50%

SeanW

gman2k wrote: »

It's dodgy on a bike because there is no room for a bike( I've cycled across it both ways). But the only restriction ( bridge only) is for pedestrians.
Most of the bypass has no hardshoulder, which I presume was done for cost saving.
The road would have to be almost 50% wider to accommodate two hard shoulders. This may have doable on the road, but on the bridge it would have added massive cost.
However, the tolled Waterford bridge does have hard shoulders, and even space behind the barrier that could accommodate a footpath, yet cyclists are not allowed....

Victor is correct, adding hard shoulders would not have made the bridge 50% wider per-se.

All new N roads in Ireland are built to certain standards that are updated from time to time. For example, single carriageways there's "Type 3 single" "S2" (Standard 2 lane) and so on.

With regard to dual carriageways, we have two modern standards. The first is Type 2 (the kind used here) it has narrow running lanes and no hard shoulder. These also tend to have roundabouts interrupting the main line (as these are safer than median breaks) or if grade separated junctions are provided, they are really cheap and nasty. It is often called 2+2, because, as the name implies it just has two lanes each way and really nothing more.
The other kind is Type 1, which has full hard shoulders and wider running lanes. Type 1 DC tends to have full diamond or dumbell grade separated junctions. Type 1 DC if done to a high enough standard can be designated motorway (obviously not relevant here).

So it would have been highly irregular to just add hard shoulders to a 2+2/Type 2 DC. More likely if hard shoulders were required, the decision would have been to make the dual carriageway Type 1, which would have involved not just hard shoulders but wider running lanes. As such, your 50% figure was not far off on that basis because all components of the road would have needed to be wider.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

A simple example of a problem arising from "poor prediction of needs" would be the Jack Lynch Tunnel. Open 20 years now, at the time of build it was reasonable to say there's no need for a dedicated sustainable transport route. But the tunnel itself changed the development of the area and has near 100k AADT now, with a significant amount of short-distance journeys. Mahon to Little Island (a normal commute) is a 5km drive or a sketchy 12km cycle. Glanmire to Mahon would be 7km/13km. There's now little chance of enticing these commuters out of the car and they clog the road up for the longer-distance people who need it. Any retrofitting - if it were possible - would be difficult and expensive.

I will bow out now because my input/opinion is unwelcome and potentially inflammatory. My opinion's just an opinion and it's clearly the minority. That is absolutely fine.

I wouldn't say that, very few on these boards if any are opposed to investing in sustainable transport, at least or especially with regards to things that are "win-win" for everyone.

My only ever problem with this thread and some of the views herein was what is the problem with this bridge? It could be that I am not a cyclist, but I understand that most cycling is short haul and within urban areas. E.g. you live in a town and cycle into the town centre. Or you live in a big city and cycle commute/travel around that.

But this bridge is nearly 5 miles from New Ross and a good 10 miles from Waterford City. And the new segment of N25/N30 is in the middle of nowhere, only useful because of its role in moving people/goods quickly over long distances by means of motor vehicle. In which it follows best international practice, like French/UK Expressways and Dutch Autoweg.

You raise some good points about Cork, which make some sense and with which I'm not disagreeing, but I just don't get what that has to do with this bridge. On a prima facie basis, it would seem to me that cyclists should be looking at New Ross and Waterford for better cycling priority/facilities in the urban areas.

And as to some of the other points raised by other posters, I just don't get that at all.