Belfield Running Track Closure

Bluefox21 · 01-12-2011 01:21AM

Has the SU spoken out about this?

electrictrad · 01-12-2011 08:59PM

SU have offered their support to the campaign. . .but basically they've let UCD A/C run it. ..Paddy Guiney of the Sports Crew has been very supportive. . .

Going forward, the SU has a big role to play in this IMO. ..this really isnt just an athletics issue, its a whole heap of things. . .community, sports, health and wellbeing. . .especially since UCD actually didnt pay a penny towards the track's construction. . .

electrictrad · 11-05-2012 07:43AM

Well, it'll be at the site of the track next year... one can see Hughie's priorities loud and clear...

electrictrad · 09-02-2014 01:02AM

http://guntotape.blogspot.ie/2014/02/shame-of-ucd-belfield-track-scandal.html

Sam the Sham · 09-02-2014 01:20AM

electrictrad wrote: »

http://guntotape.blogspot.ie/2014/02/shame-of-ucd-belfield-track-scandal.html

Absolutely shameful but typical of the Brady years: pursue a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with student (or societal) interests and lie about the reasons.

Mr Pseudonym · 09-02-2014 04:34AM

It was clearly handled badly, but €1.6m is an awful lot for a facility that a minority of students would use - to put that figure in perspective, I think the new Law school cost €25m. Also, I imagine the reason the track was originally closed was because it was felt that it was in sufficient disrepair to have had the potential for students to injure themselves, which may have left UCD liable. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the UCD Ball doesn't consist of any athletics events (though I'm aware many are hammered, with a tendency to throw-up). Therefore, I don't see why hosting it in the in-field would be considered unsafe.

However, I'm amazed to hear that gym-times for students are limited in that way. 5:30-8:00 pm? - i.e. when all but the Arts students have time off from their hectic schedule of lectures. Was there much fuss about that at the time? Students should have held a sit-in (or maybe a work-out?). I don't think that because a student-levy funded the place, students should dictate policy (after all, it was built on UCD grounds). But, it's farcical that the private company should have been allowed to impose those restrictions.

I'm actually really annoyed about it! Haha! Was that anger conveyed in my prose?!

electrictrad · 09-02-2014 01:23PM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

It was clearly handled badly, but €1.6m is an awful lot for a facility that a minority of students would use

Hardly a minority, most of the UCD teams would have used it for winter training. It was also being used by non-club students for jogging ect.

It was also a resource for the community that paid for it. D4 and South Dublin has no track now at all.

Saying that a track is just for 1 college athletics club is wrong - every single track in the country (most of them in colleges) have tens of clubs and thousands of athletes training on them. It's like claiming the GAA fields should be scrapped because a minority of people in UCD play GAA. Which is true btw - UCD Athletics and GAA have quite similar memberships, because not an awful lot of people in college fancy their chances of making a GAA team filled with inter-county players. Yet we have about 5 GAA pitches.

Mr Pseudonym · 09-02-2014 03:01PM

electrictrad wrote: »

Hardly a minority, most of the UCD teams would have used it for winter training. It was also being used by non-club students for jogging ect.

It was also a resource for the community that paid for it. D4 and South Dublin has no track now at all.

Saying that a track is just for 1 college athletics club is wrong - every single track in the country (most of them in colleges) have tens of clubs and thousands of athletes training on them. It's like claiming the GAA fields should be scrapped because a minority of people in UCD play GAA. Which is true btw - UCD Athletics and GAA have quite similar memberships, because not an awful lot of people in college fancy their chances of making a GAA team filled with inter-county players. Yet we have about 5 GAA pitches.

I note that this is not the first thread you started on this topic.

I think you over-state the level of student participation. UCD Athletics has about 200 members. Saying that occasional joggers can use the facility is hardly a compelling argument.

I don't think the community should necessarily be considered. It may have been funded by the them, but it was built on UCD grounds, and it had come to the end of its working life: the university wasn't obliged to replace it.

No it is not like saying the "GAA fields should be scrapped"!

It seems wrong to me that a uni of UCD's calibre and sporting significance would not have a track, and I can fully imagine it being used by the wider community (all of south County Dublin's finest private school's would be queuing to use it! - I jest). But, the university, at a time of limited funding, should be considering what's best for its own students. And, I don't think a track is.

I know it's a very long time (100k+ students will have missed-out), but I would be amazed if another track hadn't been built in ten years' time.

RandomName2 · 09-02-2014 06:57PM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

It was clearly handled badly, but €1.6m is an awful lot for a facility that a minority of students would use

Hi - we have decided that to make a working running track we would need €1.6 million.

Oh - an itemised list?

Well €4000 to strip the existing surface
€10000 to install a new surface
€2000 to replace the old cages etc.
€10000 for additional facilities and contingency
€8000 for insurance
someting like €26000 in workers' wages
and around €2700 VAT

The remaining 1.53 million euro? Dunno.. piss-up?

stop · 10-02-2014 12:06PM

electrictrad wrote: »

D4 and South Dublin has no track now at all.

False.

Irishtown

ironclaw · 12-02-2014 02:20PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh - an itemised list?

Well €4000 to strip the existing surface
€10000 to install a new surface
€2000 to replace the old cages etc.
€10000 for additional facilities and contingency
€8000 for insurance
someting like €26000 in workers' wages
and around €2700 VAT

The remaining 1.53 million euro? Dunno.. piss-up?

Where are you pulling those figures from? They seem really on the low side.

€4000 wouldn't pay someone to strip the track and €10,000 is way under the mark for a new one. AstroTurf for example is about €50 a sq.m and thats assuming the under surface is already constructed. To properly install a new running surface you'd need to dig down, install new drainage and level it etc etc. Unless a contractor produced those figures they are meaningless.

While it wouldn't cost a million, it would cost an awful lot more than you are suggesting in my opinion.

Btw, who is behind that article? Its the only article on that site.

ergo · 14-02-2014 11:04AM

nothing new in this particular blog but glad someone's talking about it

have we really got the answers as to why the track was ripped up? - I mean why did they want it ripped up......? who would want to rip it up? why would a department or faction of UCD, for example, not want to have a track that is operational? why did they put it out of commission? who sanctioned the bulldozer?

is health and safety grounds enough to bulldoze part of it (admittedly a small part)..?

UCD track being ripped up is a scandal

stop · 14-02-2014 06:57PM

it's really quite simple.

UCD received a H&S report saying the track was unsafe for use. They had to act on this or risk being liable for personal injury claims.

They put barriers up to close off access. Of course people jumped fences and pushed barriers aside to gain access to the track, as you'd expect. Not everyone will read a warning sign or take heed of it. So UCD decided to put the track out of action to stop people using it. Now when exactly this decision was taken isn't really clear, but it hardly matters. Its done.

I wouldn't worry so much about secret factions and car park conspiracies, bigger questions such as why did UCD Sport authorities allow their facility to degrade to a point it was deemed unsafe, and what have UCD sports authorities done since?

The track being ripped up is not a scandal, the track being allowed to deteriorate to a point that it was deemed unsafe is.

ergo · 17-02-2014 09:40PM

stop wrote: »

it's really quite simple.

UCD received a H&S report saying the track was unsafe for use. They had to act on this or risk being liable for personal injury claims.

They put barriers up to close off access. Of course people jumped fences and pushed barriers aside to gain access to the track, as you'd expect. Not everyone will read a warning sign or take heed of it. So UCD decided to put the track out of action to stop people using it. Now when exactly this decision was taken isn't really clear, but it hardly matters. Its done.

I wouldn't worry so much about secret factions and car park conspiracies, bigger questions such as why did UCD Sport authorities allow their facility to degrade to a point it was deemed unsafe, and what have UCD sports authorities done since?

The track being ripped up is not a scandal, the track being allowed to deteriorate to a point that it was deemed unsafe is.

what you have written is not quite correct from my recollection

they bulldozed track same day as barriers went up - it wasn't because people were ignoring signs - they did it the same day - it was all very sudden
why was that and who authorised it?

there may be more to this than meets the eye and don't be surprised if more comes out about this in the near future

Chet T16 · 18-02-2014 01:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hi - we have decided that to make a working running track we would need €1.6 million.

Oh - an itemised list?

Well €4000 to strip the existing surface
€10000 to install a new surface
€2000 to replace the old cages etc.
€10000 for additional facilities and contingency
€8000 for insurance
someting like €26000 in workers' wages
and around €2700 VAT

The remaining 1.53 million euro? Dunno.. piss-up?

Student rep training weekend for the track.

stop · 18-02-2014 02:18PM

ergo wrote: »

what you have written is not quite correct from my recollection

they bulldozed track same day as barriers went up - it wasn't because people were ignoring signs - they did it the same day - it was all very sudden
why was that and who authorised it?

Sorry I wasn't quiet clear in my post - my point was that it was obvious that barriers alone were not going to stop people using it, indeed even following the digging of trenches, people continued to use the track.
The whys of the digging can be found within the H&S advice - UCD were liable as long as the track was used (to the best of my knowledge) so the track was put out of use. The exact timeline on the digging is irrelevant really.

Questioning the digging is a distraction, if people are going to question anything it should be why the track was allowed deteriorate, and the H&S advice that UCD are relying on for the closing of the track.

Seans_Username · 19-02-2014 11:43PM

Getting rid of that track was ridiculous imo.

I was running on it almost every morning before they blocked it off, and I never noticed a single problem with it. I lived on campus at the time so it was extremely convenient for exercise. I wasn't a member of the athletics club and I didn't like making the trek over to Roebuck gym not knowing if it was empty or not. Running on the pitches wasn't great when the weather got bad so it was a real pain not having that track.

groovyg · 21-02-2014 06:15PM

1.6million to replace the track, thats not bad considering a million was spent making the new cosy student space in ground floor of the Health Sciences building. Despite all that money spent - they still haven't managed to solve the heating issues, or the massive plumbing issues in the building.

beardedmaster · 23-02-2014 08:06PM

groovyg wrote: »

heating issues, or the massive plumbing issues in the building.

Where's Health Sci too cold, and what's the plumbing issues? If by plumbing issues you mean the toilets are crap, I can see where you're coming from...

copacetic · 24-02-2014 01:55AM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

It was clearly handled badly, but €1.6m is an awful lot for a facility that a minority of students would use - to put that figure in perspective, I think the new Law school cost €25m. Also, I imagine the reason the track was originally closed was because it was felt that it was in sufficient disrepair to have had the potential for students to injure themselves, which may have left UCD liable. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the UCD Ball doesn't consist of any athletics events (though I'm aware many are hammered, with a tendency to throw-up). Therefore, I don't see why hosting it in the in-field would be considered unsafe.

However, I'm amazed to hear that gym-times for students are limited in that way. 5:30-8:00 pm? - i.e. when all but the Arts students have time off from their hectic schedule of lectures. Was there much fuss about that at the time? Students should have held a sit-in (or maybe a work-out?). I don't think that because a student-levy funded the place, students should dictate policy (after all, it was built on UCD grounds). But, it's farcical that the private company should have been allowed to impose those restrictions.

I'm actually really annoyed about it! Haha! Was that anger conveyed in my prose?!

It's true the times are limited like that, but not for 'corporate clients' as the article makes out constantly. Surprised it doesn't say bank or hedge fund clients to exaggerate a bit more!

They are using private clients (a lot of them alumni who helped pay for the centre) to pay highish fees to pay for the ongoing running of the sports centre. By doing this is can just about fund itself as a going concern with minimal charge to students.

Mixing it in with the shameful track situation just weakens the point altogether.

Mr Pseudonym · 24-02-2014 04:18AM

copacetic wrote: »

It's true the times are limited like that, but not for 'corporate clients' as the article makes out constantly. Surprised it doesn't say bank or hedge fund clients to exaggerate a bit more!

They are using private clients (a lot of them alumni who helped pay for the centre) to pay highish fees to pay for the ongoing running of the sports centre. By doing this is can just about fund itself as a going concern with minimal charge to students.

Mixing it in with the shameful track situation just weakens the point altogether.

I think the bolded weakens your point. They are non-students who are paying to a commercial operator - where they studied doesn't enter the equation.

I presume that it as a presumption that the operator "can just about fund itself". Is it really the case that having these non-student times is essential to its profitability?

Whatever the case, there is a situation whereby students are limited as to when they can use the university gym, which is, IMO, greatly undesirable and possibly unique in Ireland.

Kiltennel · 24-02-2014 01:45PM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I think the bolded weakens your point. They are non-students who are paying to a commercial operator - where they studied doesn't enter the equation.

I presume that it as a presumption that the operator "can just about fund itself". Is it really the case that having these non-student times is essential to its profitability?

Whatever the case, there is a situation whereby students are limited as to when they can use the university gym, which is, IMO, greatly undesirable and possibly unique in Ireland.

They can use the Performance Gym during these hours. I'm very happy to be restricted from using the gym for 2 hours if it means I don't have to pay any extra to use it outside of these hours.

delta_bravo · 13-07-2014 07:31PM

Bit of a bump on this but I went past it yesterday and noticed a lot of the gravel and materials that was being kept on it have gone and it appears to have been cleaned up a bit. Anyone aware of any plans to reinstate the track?

Ruski · 14-07-2014 09:13AM

delta_bravo wrote: »

Bit of a bump on this but I went past it yesterday and noticed a lot of the gravel and materials that was being kept on it have gone and it appears to have been cleaned up a bit. Anyone aware of any plans to reinstate the track?

As a car park maybe.

ironclaw · 14-07-2014 12:31PM

Ruski wrote: »

As a car park maybe.

Unless they were going to make a proper investment in it, I think this would be a far better usage than storing building materials.

Sam the Sham · 07-08-2014 11:01AM

It's definitely a car park. Was running by it yesterday and they have painted arrows on the tarmac.

Replacing a track with a car park. Says a lot about UCD's priorities.

ironclaw · 07-08-2014 12:16PM

Sam the Sham wrote: »

It's definitely a car park. Was running by it yesterday and they have painted arrows on the tarmac.

Replacing a track with a car park. Says a lot about UCD's priorities.

If you cast your eyes to the other side of campus, there is a massive, state of the art sports facility and acres of green pitches. And as has been said, the track was not UCDs direct responsibility. To be fair to UCD, they are providing the facilities for the general masses to a high standard. Ok, we don't have a track, but if needed there is Ringsend and AIT and for everything else, you easily have a half marathon worth of trails in the immediate area.

Yes, its a shame. I actively run myself but honestly I'd rather see it done properly than not at all.

Sam the Sham · 07-08-2014 10:22PM

ironclaw wrote: »

If you cast your eyes to the other side of campus, there is a massive, state of the art sports facility and acres of green pitches. And as has been said, the track was not UCDs direct responsibility.

Not their direct responsibility? Huh? It's on their land and they ripped it up.

To be fair to UCD, they are providing the facilities for the general masses to a high standard. Ok, we don't have a track, but if needed there is Ringsend and AIT and for everything else, you easily have a half marathon worth of trails in the immediate area.

Yes, its a shame. I actively run myself but honestly I'd rather see it done properly than not at all.

Agreed. It should be done properly. There are no signs at all of that happening.

ironclaw · 08-08-2014 08:47AM

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Not their direct responsibility? Huh? It's on their land and they ripped it up.

Could be completely wrong, but I believe it was built by the club, but as its on UCD land then UCD become liable for it, both from an upkeep and security perspective i.e. If I broke my leg there, UCD are liable. Its also their land, so they can do what they wish with it.

I'd rather see the track taken down that UCD leave it go to be neglected. To be fair I think the bill to actually fix it was going to be astronomical. There are other areas of UCD that need money.

Sam the Sham · 09-08-2014 04:24PM

There really was no reason UCD couldn't have maintained the track. Except for letting it continue to exist would've interfered with this pipe dream that Brady once had (and blew €10 million on).

€10 million that had to be made up one way or another . . .

Belfield Running Track Closure

Comments