New Ross bypass bridge

hans aus dtschl · 10-02-2020 11:15am

SeanW wrote: »

I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.

If you engage with any of the advocacy groups, you find that a major complaint is that roads designs are predominantly dismissive of their existence and need to be retrofitted - usually badly - afterwards.

So while it makes sense from your perspective (and I agree!) that it would be great to have dedicated infrastructure and priority measures along the old road alignments, it normally either doesn't happen, happens very poorly or happens way after all of the other road infrastructure has been funded.

The net effect of this approach is to prevent modal shift. So if we're to say that the correct approach is to ban cyclists and pedestrians from the RFK bridge, then it would also be the correct modern approach to simultaneously provide for them elsewhere, preferably on the most direct route rather than a circuitous detour route.

I hope this makes sense: it's hard to explain.
Basically, it's OK to create new "motorist only" roads, but only when the alternate routes are inviting/forgiving of vulnerable users. Otherwise, you should include the vulnerable users in the new scheme. It's doesn't make sense to plague everybody with the "you should be using sustainable transport" message while omitting them from your new infrastructure designs!

Seth Brundle · 10-02-2020 7:10pm

SeanW wrote: »

I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.

Speaking for muself, the problem is that the bridge is reflective of the general spend on sustainable travel - none (or next to none).
Much of the money spent these days is either on painting a line on a footpath or road for a cycle path which is a waste of time. Most infrastructure projects that include any kind of cycling aspect does not appear to be discussed with people who actually cycle.
Most capital spend these days is on tourist routes and greenways which again is good for tourism but not much use to the person who wants to commute.

Zebra3 · 10-02-2020 8:27pm

Was a piece about the bridge on Nationwide but only just caught the very end of it.

hans aus dtschl · 10-02-2020 9:55pm

We also seem to have an extremely negative public discourse and attitude towards sustainable transport infrastructure.
On this thread alone, there's talk of "shrieking" "near religious" "tour de France wannabes". This perception (maybe it's the reality also!) probably isn't helpful when it comes to designing for them, but I'm certain that it's the perception that my local council shares.

But it's worth bearing in mind that most cyclists drive (80% according to the RSA) and most cycling advocates already cycle.
So when they're complaining about substandard transport infrastructure, they're typically complaining:
1: On behalf of those who are currently afraid to cycle.
2: Coming from a position of understanding motorists needs.

Even at a minimum, if you can't accept the previous two points, perhaps think of it as "another car out of my way"!

They're not the enemy of motorists, no matter how the media hams it up.

AndrewJRenko · 10-02-2020 11:19pm

SeanW wrote: »

And yet most of them talk about motorists and cars like they are the emissaries of Satan ...

Really? Have you spoke to most cyclists about motorists and cars?

SeanW wrote: »

Fairly sure I stated the exact opposite - that cyclists are AFAIK and should be banned from the new bridge because it is intended for fast traffic and regulated accordingly.

I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.

What exactly is a 'remote expressway' in Irish traffic law? It sounds a bit like you've just make things up.

SeanW · 11-02-2020 1:27am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really? Have you spoke to most cyclists about motorists and cars?

A lot of them are like you ... I'll say no more.

What exactly is a 'remote expressway' in Irish traffic law? It sounds a bit like you've just make things up.

Where exactly did I claim that it was? I merely pointed to the Autoweg designation of road in the Netherlands, similar in France and in the UK they're introducing expressways. It looked to me like this bridge is similar to those and that's why I used the term.

As to the "remote" part, I got that by looking at a map:
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3701495,-6.977562,6698m/data=!3m1!1e3
There's nothing around most of the new N25/N30 section but green fields. Where are the hordes of cyclists that would find it so useful if only it had a cycle lane?

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

We also seem to have an extremely negative public discourse and attitude towards sustainable transport infrastructure.
On this thread alone, there's talk of "shrieking" "near religious" "tour de France wannabes". This perception (maybe it's the reality also!) probably isn't helpful when it comes to designing for them, but I'm certain that it's the perception that my local council shares.

But it's worth bearing in mind that most cyclists drive (80% according to the RSA) and most cycling advocates already cycle.
So when they're complaining about substandard transport infrastructure, they're typically complaining:
1: On behalf of those who are currently afraid to cycle.
2: Coming from a position of understanding motorists needs.

Even at a minimum, if you can't accept the previous two points, perhaps think of it as "another car out of my way"!

They're not the enemy of motorists, no matter how the media hams it up.

It's not just the media ...
For my part, I've only ever used public transport to commute to work, so I tend to care most about that. I also have no problem in theory with the bicycle, my general negative view is of the cyclist.

I hope this makes sense: it's hard to explain.
Basically, it's OK to create new "motorist only" roads, but only when the alternate routes are inviting/forgiving of vulnerable users.

I'd be fine with that, but you tend to have a lot of people whose view is "don't build anything for motorists, ever" and they seem to respond "induced demand" to just about anything along those lines. To many advocates of sustainable transport - not all, to be sure, but it is common - it would not make any difference whatsoever what is done with the old road, providing something for motorists is in and of itself a bad thing. To them, the chance to "crowbar people out of their nice comfy cars" is the only thing that matters. Even though you have no shortage of Irish people trying to crowbar themselves into insanely overcrowded Commuter/DART trains, Luas and buses.

For my part, I would consider myself to be an advocate for sustainable transport - I was a small part of the old Platform 11 campaign for the Dart Underground, back then called the Interconnector, in or around 2005. I had taken the view that public transport in Ireland and Dublin specifically was a joke and did what little I could to rectify it, alas to no avail. But I may be in the minority in taking the view that sustainable transport should be complimentary to - not a replacement for - a full and appropriate road network.

hans aus dtschl · 11-02-2020 11:34am

SeanW wrote: »

It's not just the media ...
For my part, I've only ever used public transport to commute to work, so I tend to care most about that. I also have no problem in theory with the bicycle, my general negative view is of the cyclist.

Yes, this is very common. Again though, 80% of cyclists are motorists and they are not the enemies of "themselves". This "negative view of the cyclist" you describe is very normal in Ireland. I don't think it's unusual at all. We do not think of "person on a bicycle", we think of "cyclist". It's an important distinction and an effective dehumanisation which maps over to reticence towards "providing for cyclists", rather than "providing for people with bicycles".
Treating a minority as a homogenous group to be resisted is something we're pretty good at as a species. We do it instinctively with members of the travelling community, members of the settled community, people from other countries, people with different skin colour etc etc. We think of "us and them". This isn't something you personally came up with and it's a very normal human trait. Which the media hams up all day long to try to sell things.
Sadly for cycling advocates, roads design teams are very much still designing for "them" instead of "us" and until that changes, we won't get modal shift.

SeanW wrote: »

I'd be fine with that, but you tend to have a lot of people whose view is "don't build anything for motorists, ever" and they seem to respond "induced demand" to just about anything along those lines. To many advocates of sustainable transport - not all, to be sure, but it is common - it would not make any difference whatsoever what is done with the old road, providing something for motorists is in and of itself a bad thing. To them, the chance to "crowbar people out of their nice comfy cars" is the only thing that matters

Yes those people definitely exist. But cycling does not have the monopoly on extremists, we're just lucky that they rarely have the opportunity to harm other road users!

SeanW wrote: »

I may be in the minority in taking the view that sustainable transport should be complimentary to - not a replacement for - a full and appropriate road network.

I don't think you're in the minority.
But many people are now looking at the Sustainability Mobility Policy as a complete and utter failure/farce. We've completed ten more years of pursuing unsustainable transport approaches and avoiding sustainable approaches. This is causing many people to want to overthrow the whole regime and stop roads development until we "catch up" with sustainable transport. I think that mindset is understandable enough. Until there's some meaningful reform and meaningful provision of Sustainable Transport options these people will increase in number.

I mean we still need to complete connection of the major cities by motorway. But it's getting more and more urgent to start thinking of walking and cycling first.

Stark · 11-02-2020 11:42am

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.

Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.

hans aus dtschl · 11-02-2020 12:06pm

Stark wrote: »

Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.

This is extremely common in Ireland.
In the upcoming Dunkettle Interchange design, pedestrians and cyclists take a 2km uphill detour to get past the junction where motorists go direct on the flat.

This is the kind of thing advocates are complaining about. Yes there's an "alternative route" available but there's little to no effort to make that alternative route desirable. It's just a check-box rather than a primary concern. The direct route is for motorists only (who could easily afford to drive uphill or an extra km here and there) and the alternative route is circuitous, discontinuous, illegible, dangerous, etc.

It costs way more to re-engineer solutions retrospectively after schemes have been completed.

Again, I'm generalising here rather than specifically talking about the RFK bridge. And maybe a Great Island crossing could become a greenway or something in years to come, which would be a reversal of fortunes, so to speak.

Last Stop · 11-02-2020 8:05pm

Stark wrote: »

Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.

The ideal situation to that would be a public transport (with cycling facilities obviously) only bridge following the Metro West alignment between Porterstown and the N4...

Last Stop · 11-02-2020 8:10pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

This is extremely common in Ireland.
In the upcoming Dunkettle Interchange design, pedestrians and cyclists take a 2km uphill detour to get past the junction where motorists go direct on the flat.

Well when you’re tasked with designing a junction with the requirement to make the movements between essentially 3 motorways freeflow, cyclists tend to take a back seat...

hans aus dtschl · 12-02-2020 9:36am

Last Stop wrote: »

Well when you’re tasked with designing a junction with the requirement to make the movements between essentially 3 motorways freeflow, cyclists tend to take a back seat...

It's the only route between the city centre and one of it's biggest employment areas. "Cyclists" were amongst the highest of primary concerns listed in the design documents. Sustainable transport didn't take a back seat as a strategy, it's just the default position of shoddy Irish design teams.

Edit: and cyclists currently enjoy freeflow East to West, so this design will actively restrict them.

The awful thing is that some extremely simple cheap designs were available, highlighted to the designers and subsequently ignored.

PhilOssophy · 12-02-2020 7:35pm

Lets be real here, what makes cyclist think that every piece of infrastructure has to include them? Is there really "commuting cyclists" as mentioned above cycling from Slieverue to Wexford or where?
I am both a commuting and leisure cyclist, why wouldn't you want to go cycle through New Ross, look at the Dunbrody, stop for a coffee, etc, rather than being deafened by noise on a motorway?
Seriously, get over yourselves lads, imagine the outcry if the proposed railway greenway in Wexford was widened to incorporate lorries!

hans aus dtschl · 12-02-2020 7:48pm

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Lets be real here, what makes cyclist think that every piece of infrastructure has to include them?

Probably DMURS?
Or was that a rhetorical question?

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Is there really "commuting cyclists" as mentioned above cycling from Slieverue to Wexford or where?

No idea. Presumably there were traffic studies carried out...oh wait...did you just prove the point I'm making?

PhilOssophy wrote: »

why wouldn't you want to go cycle through New Ross, look at the Dunbrody, stop for a coffee, etc, rather than being deafened by noise on a motorway?

Not a motorway. What you're proposing is a much longer route.
Why wouldn't you want to sit in traffic for a couple of hours in New Ross and enjoy the radio in the car? Um...because that wasn't where you were planning on going.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I am both a commuting and leisure cyclist,

Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

imagine the outcry if the proposed railway greenway in Wexford was widened to incorporate lorries!

Presumably the greenway won't be widened to incorporate lorries because the existing road has instead been widened to incorporate lorries loads of times?

If the above is the best argument against adhering to DMURS and the NTA's Smarter Travel Plan, we're basically sorted.

Last Stop · 12-02-2020 8:03pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Probably DMURS?
Or was that a rhetorical question?

No idea. Presumably there were traffic studies carried out...oh wait...did you just prove the point I'm making?

Not a motorway. What you're proposing is a much longer route.
Why wouldn't you want to sit in traffic for a couple of hours in New Ross and enjoy the radio in the car? Um...because that wasn't where you were planning on going.

Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.

Presumably the greenway won't be widened to incorporate lorries because the existing road has instead been widened to incorporate lorries loads of times?

If the above is the best argument against adhering to DMURS and the NTA's Smarter Travel Plan, we're basically sorted.

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

Victor · 12-02-2020 8:13pm

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13

Roads Act, 1993 wrote:

Responsibility of road authorities for the maintenance and construction of public roads.

13.—(1) Subject to Part III , the maintenance and construction of all national and regional roads in an administrative county shall be a function of the council or county borough corporation of that county.

...

(5) In the performance of their functions under subsections (1) and (2), a road authority shall consider the needs of all road users.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

Roads Act, 1993 wrote:

Functions generally of the Authority.

17.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part and, in particular, to such directions and guidelines as may be given by the Minister under section 41 , it shall be the general duty of the Authority to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads and for that purpose it shall have—

...

(2) In the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority shall consider the needs of all road users.

Last Stop · 12-02-2020 8:23pm

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/45/enacted/en/html

A protected road means a public road or proposed public road specified to be a protected road in a protected road scheme approved by the Minister under section 49 .

(2) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may provide for the prohibition, closure, stopping up, removal, alteration, diversion or restriction of any specified or all means of direct access to the protected road from specified land or from specified land used for a specified purpose or to such land from the protected road.

(3) (a) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may prohibit or restrict the use of the protected road or a particular part thereof by—

(i) specified types of traffic,

(ii) specified classes of vehicles,

but shall not prohibit or restrict such use—

(I) by ambulances or fire brigade vehicles,

(II) by vehicles used by members of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in the performance of their duties as such members,

(III) for the purpose of maintaining such protected road.

(b) A person who contravenes a prohibition or restriction under paragraph (a) shall be guilty of an offence.

Victor · 12-02-2020 10:12pm

Has it been designated a protected road by the minister?

Last Stop · 12-02-2020 11:10pm

Victor wrote: »

Has it been designated a protected road by the minister?

Read it again... it is not designated by the minister but approved. Given it was approved to go to construction by the minister... yes

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.

PhilOssophy · 13-02-2020 12:48pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.

What, do you want me to post a video of my cycle home today, or to work tomorrow, or my possible cycle at the weekend (although the weather forecast is bad).

But tut tut, I also own a car, which I use < a tank full of petrol every month. But I also know that certain infrastructure isn't compatible with me cycling. I would include motorways in this.

Just because I don't agree with the general attitude/behaviour of cyclists, doesn't mean I must not be one! But anyway, you have a good day hans!

hans aus dtschl · 17-02-2020 10:18am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:30am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:34am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:42am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:46am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:46am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:51am

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 · 17-02-2020 10:56am

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 · 17-02-2020 12:03pm

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 · 17-02-2020 12:37pm

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 · 17-02-2020 1:19pm

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 · 17-02-2020 8:59pm

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 · 18-02-2020 2:39am

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 · 18-02-2020 3:57pm

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 · 18-02-2020 5:02pm

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 · 18-02-2020 5:18pm

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 · 18-02-2020 5:31pm

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 · 18-02-2020 5:35pm

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

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

magicbastarder · 18-02-2020 5:45pm

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 · 18-02-2020 5:49pm

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

magicbastarder · 18-02-2020 5:51pm

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 · 18-02-2020 7:56pm

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 · 19-02-2020 10:22am

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 · 19-02-2020 11:13am

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 · 19-02-2020 12:02pm

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 · 19-02-2020 12:42pm

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 · 19-02-2020 12:50pm

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 · 19-02-2020 7:23pm

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 · 20-02-2020 2:58am

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 · 20-02-2020 8:17am

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.

New Ross bypass bridge

Comments