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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.....
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?
Last Stop wrote: » New roads (including this one) were built to match increasing demand...exactly the opposite of what you’re saying
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.
donvito99 wrote: » Cycling the Golden Gate is a legitimately frightening experience, the noise is deafening and the proximity of the traffic is startling.
Last Stop wrote: » And somehow building a cycle lane on a bypass will change all that?
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.
Zebra3 wrote: » It's about the overall attitude to cycling infrastructure.
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?
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
Last Stop wrote: » 1. Cost 2. Safety 3. Lack of demand
magicbastarder wrote: » 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 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...
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.
