future systems bridge dublin

Oooh, interesting. Any images of this floating around? I don’t want to pre-judge without having a proper look.

My initial feelings? Commissioning a signature architect didn’t work for the Joyce Bridge; a bridge that dips and rises has potential to be more of a hindrance than a help to pedestrians and cyclists; the DDDA clearly has money to spend, so why don’t they invest some of it in proper facilities for cyclists?

(Re my last point, I’ve heard that it’s proposed for the new Schwartz Square not to permit cyclists to cross it on wheels. ‘Get off and walk’ is the strategy. Don’t know about you, but I’d swap a fancy Future Systems bridge for a connected cycle network in the Docklands, no question in my mind at all.)

which luas line will cross the river here? I don’t know of any.

Frank: it crosses the canal not the river. I hope the dip won’t block the canal for boat traffic. I know it is already block by a rail line, but not excuse for blocking it again.

Beckett bridge: they have a barge there now, Weapon IV or a sibling!

@ctesiphon wrote:

Oooh, interesting. Any images of this floating around?

Haven’t seen one yet, I assume it’ll be in Irish Times tomorrow

The Sunday Times had pics yesterday.

That is a fantastic improvement on what was there before and with the linear park out to tender you would know that we are into an election year in Dublin Central.

Thanks Paul.

Is this the only canal bridge that won’t be single span? Why must it touch the water? Is there clearance for barges / other craft?

Why does it accommodate cars? Whatever about facilitating Luas, pedestrian and cycle movements, it should not facilitate cars. There is no bridge there at the moment, so in essence this bridge is creating demand for car trips where none exist currently.

Where do the cyclists go? That path (Is it shared? Ped only?) looks too narrow to accommodate both modes.
And if cyclists are indeed supposed to use that path, why does it follow a bowed line instead of a direct line?
And what do cyclists and pedestrians do at the end? Just follow the bend around? ‘But Guard, I’m going straight on!’ ‘Never mind, sonny, keep to the path and all will be fine.’
Will cyclists be facilitated on the towpath? The clearance looks quite low on the west bank (east looks higher, but I could be wrong), and the path looks too narrow for pedestrians and cyclists. Again.

Suggestions?
Remove the general traffic lanes and turn them into cycle lanes.
Provide (I mean really provide– DDDA should be taking the lead in this area, as I’ve said often before) for cyclists under the bridge on the towpaths.
Remove the central strut. (Is it structural?)

Oh I forgot- it’s by a ‘name’ architect, so the normal rules apparently don’t apply.

ctesiphon, I guess they’re reckoning there’ll be demand for cars from the ongoing redevelopment down river, but thankfully the renderings only show the mystery machine from scooby doo heading back into town (to unmask Dick Gleeson only to discover George Redmond underneath… possibly)

And yes, what’s goin on there for cyclists? Love how none feature in the drawings ffs.

Overall though. It looks pretty damn cool..

There’ll need to extra lanes of traffic because of the scale of the Point Village development I think

It will be needed there is no question of that and if memory serves me correctly I think that a map of the Lotts before the railway was inserted displays that this was a throughway.

Virtually the entire area between O’Connell Street and the Eastlink will be 5 stories or higher within 5 or 6 years; I wonder how much the RPA were able to claw back from Capital contributions on this?

I can also see this intersection being a major traffic blackspot as the merging route of Guild Street will link with the Macken Street Bridge route from Grand Canal Street to Seville Place and onward to the North Circular Road.

Ah yes, where would we be without architects’ beloved glowy, half-light digital renderings of their proposals? The bridge looks all seductive, dreamy, sculptural, Zaha Hadid-ish. Yet the daytime elevated view reveals an altogether more prosaic and un-“incredibly slender” vehicle carrier with 2 bulge-outs in the middle ……

To add to the questions re cycling, I don’t see any cycle lane along the linear park. Surely we would have something as basic as that sorted by now? People are going to want to cycle there. Well DDDA?

@alonso wrote:

ctesiphon, I guess they’re reckoning there’ll be demand for cars from the ongoing redevelopment down river

@jdivision wrote:

There’ll need to extra lanes of traffic because of the scale of the Point Village development I think

@PVC King wrote:

It will be needed there is no question

But…

@PVC King wrote:

I can also see this intersection being a major traffic blackspot

Exactly.

This area is on the doorstep of the city and will have a dedicated Luas line running right through it. I fail to see why it needs to be served by another road for private motorised traffic. It’s not as if the area will be cut off from private car access]getting in the way[/i], which will ultimately be to the detriment of cycling in the Docklands area and further afield. Thanks DDDA. You still have the opportunity to make a difference with this one, but your time is running out. Should I hold my breath?

Still, at least the bridge design provides for skateboarding and BMXing- those low guard rails look ideal for rail slides. Now where did I leave my block of wax…

For the record, I don’t hate the bridge, but I don’t see it as the solution to the problem it should be addressing. First and foremost it should perform its function; only then should aesthetics come into it. A beautiful bridge that doesn’t do its job has failed. (I don’t think it’s beautiful, but I’ll allow that some people might think it is, though I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that it will ‘act as a foil’ to the conference centre- was this published on April 1st?)

Lastly, am I right in thinking that this doesn’t need to go through the planning process because it’s in the Docklands? So we won’t have an opportunity to make our feelings known in an official forum? Handy that. Should I just email them the link to here?

@ctesiphon wrote:

Is this the only canal bridge that won’t be single span? Why must it touch the water? Is there clearance for barges / other craft?

I assume the central span is there because it is crossing the restored width of Spencer dock which is quite wide and from the looks of it you’d get a barge under it all right.

It is actually listed as local traffic only in the 2003 masterplan (p64)

i) Mayor Street (Guild Street to New Wapping Street) – This is
required to facilitate the extension of Luas and its use should
be restricted to public transport and local access only, with a
prohibition on through traffic movements.

It is actually listed as local traffic only in the 2003 masterplan

Hopefully that’s the case. There will doubtless be access to underground parking (minimal) for offices and residents along here too

On the traffic issue, my main concern would be with cycle provision along mayor street. As ctesiphon said, being on the doorstep of the city does mean that the need for the car is minimised, and is less attractive in any case.I just can’t think that DDDA are that incompetent that they’ll fck up the North Lotts completely…ah sure they probable are.

What happened to the old DTI policy back in 95 of no additional vehicular road space inside the M50? ah thems were the days..

although the DTO Strategy does state:

“There will be no significant increase in road space on radial roads inside the M50 Motorway. Further, there will be no additional roads to cater for car traffic passing through the Metropolitan Area, apart from those roads contained in the Strategy.”

Is it significant? probably, esp if it eventually connects East Wall road to Amiens Street. is it radial? certainly. And this road ain’t in the strategy under Non-National Roads.

interesting….

This is an image taken from the Railway Order for the Luas extension. The car lanes are for access only – it appears to be for access to/from an underground carpark – possibly related to the proposed convention centre.

Rory-
That may well be the case re the central support, but I can’t see that it was essential. Canal bridges simply do not touch the water in Dublin, and across the country too if memory serves. I certainly can’t think of one that does. And if the span was too wide (unlikely) surely that’d be an opportunity for a suspension bridge or somesuch. If nothing else, a suspension bridge might actually ‘act as a foil’ to the NCC. Instead we have a newish bridge on the Liffey that doesn’t follow established design rules and one proposed for the canal that also doesn’t follow the rules, but in reverse. Can we just swap them over? 🙂

notjim-
Thanks for that. I actually found some of the old DDDA/RPA documentation earleir today which confirms what you say. The plans show the access roads turning south about 100 yards east of the bridge. I’d still be worried, though, that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that calls to connect the access road will be made not long after it opens. And I still dispute the need for this direct local access route. What’s wrong with the existing road network?

Watch this space.

Ha. X-post with adhoc. That’s the image I saw this morning alright.

are there any plans of the royal canal linear park i just saw tenders no images,

mayor street is quite narrow isn’t it

found some good pics of the sherrif street bridge

http://marinas.com/view/bridge/445

18-C canal bridges bow up in the middle, this (flat) one (for Luas) bends down at the edges: enough?

@trace wrote:

enough?

Or too much? 🙂

Interesting pics of the Sheriff Street Bridge, lostexpectation, thanks. (Though I’d call it a bascule bridge, not a drawbridge.) They also show how the canal was so crudely filled in south of the bridge- the line of the old east wall is buried under that earthen bank. So classy- it seems cackhandedness is not a recent phenomenon in the Docklands, and this ‘infill’ probably didn’t go out to public consultation either.:rolleyes:

As an expression of the official sentiment towards cycling, and a possible answer to ctesipon’s earlier question re clearance:

Time to invest in a recumbent?

Or perhaps the runt recumbent, to be on the safe side?

Or should we just join the Luas on the rails?

To get this bridge to look like this at this time of the day (image) it must be

A internally illuminated (translucent skin)
B illuminated from beneath the water (water patterns on the underside would be obliterated if illumination was above the water line (unless someone can prove the physics)

This is going to look a lot duller than this, especially during the day.

Regardless of the claims to the contrary this looks bloated and overwrought for getting from a to b.

“It broadens and dips down in the middle with curved walkways and cycle paths on either side to take pedestrians and cyclists close to the water.”

That cycle/pedestrian path looks pretty danderous. Are cyclists are meant to follow the path into a sudden dip and a bend in the bridge with people milling around? Where is the cycle path? I think it would be better to keep the cycle path beside the car traffic lane. They can dismount if they want to “be closer to the waer”

Looks very cramped.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Rory-
That may well be the case re the central support, but I can’t see that it was essential. Canal bridges simply do not touch the water in Dublin, and across the country too if memory serves. I certainly can’t think of one that does.
.

Typical canal bridges, unless the sides are very high all vary in “humpedness” from steep to severe – the luas can cope with slopes but can’t cope with such a sharp change in incline before the whole tram has cleared it. it’s much easier to do a single span if the bridge arches,

Future systems are a funny lot – some wild and wonderful stuff interspersed with the criminally dull. When they do a dull one they tend to paint / light it a funky colour to deflect attention. In this waste conscious era in which we live, lighting bridges for the craic will cease to be viable. Besides, it will keep the people under the bridge awake.

I think an architect’s mock up is just that. Cycle lanes will be added I have no doubt of that. The biggest problem in this area is that the whole thing won’t be fully open for years. Or at least it’ll be running through a building site for years. I believe that’s part of the reason why Guild street is currently in the state it’s in….due to construction traffic, there’s no point resurfacing til “it” is finished. “It” is a blurred concept though. The canal is being widened..apparently to it’s original width, though I’m not entirely sure what that is. I think that bridge looks like we’ve got some serious algae problems in that canal……..

I wish I could take credit for this, as it seems a most sensible addition to the proposed design. Alas, I am only a humble messenger.

Instead of taking the time, care, and planning to reasonably accomodate cyclists in the Docklands, a warning similar to this will appear alongside the bulging ‘cyclist’ lanes (that neatly seem to disappear on either end of the bridge), thereby neatly solving a sticky planning predicament for Future Systems and the DDDA.

Consider yourselves warned.

But which one is it?*#!?

It was granted permission by DCC and is now under appeal – http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/229844.htm

nice find devin…

nice master bedroom 😀 could see myself living there if I could afford to buy a house 😉
its quite a comprehensive application 😀

I hope it gets permission in some curveball or form

So maybe this has been noted elsewhere but amazingly this bridge is open, to pedestrians at least!

And I didn’t notice a bike lane when I passed over it the other day. It seem that one either cycles along the luas tracks or in the traffic lane.

@notjim wrote:

So maybe this has been noted elsewhere but amazingly this bridge is open, to pedestrians at least!

any pictures of it in the flesh? always interesting to see how a project like this looks after it has been through the hands of a quantity surveyor, engineer and builder.

I did post them on another thread but here ya go again.

here’s a better side view
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3412839960_55528d5a68_b.jpg ….this photo really makes Dublin look like an unplanned mess :rolleyes: