6 ms·

These bridges appear nice, but in their current state they wouldn't be used in the Netherlands, because they do not seem to support bicycles.

LurkersWillLurk 5y ago
They also don't support wheelchairs, which in the United States would tend to violate the ADA.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  That is a much better argument.
  - bkor 5y ago
    The previous comment was about not handling bicycles in the Netherlands. For the Netherlands it's important that it handles bicycles properly, by being able to cycle. Pushing a bike or getting off isn't an acceptable solution (for NL). Though doubt making it less steep and longer would really be an issue.
    - analog31 5y ago
      That seems quite reasonable for the NL. At least for myself, here in the States, I'd be happy to push my bike for a few feet rather than have to go miles out of my way or ride on a super busy street to cross a railroad. Of course, if we still had railroads in the US. But crossing busy roads is an issue here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  Looks like they are aiming to remedy that: >The next phase of the project will include a ramped version of the bridge to support those with impaired mobility.
  - varispeed 5y ago
    This is so lazy of them. Probably the next phase will drop from the list of priorities and maybe come back if there will be too much noise in the media. They should begin with the design having disabled people in mind. I hate when some people are being treated like second class citizens.
    - themaninthedark 5y ago
      I understand your feelings but engineering is an iterative process, what they created here was a prototype with 3 goals: - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics Now the team can go back with the lessons they learned and modify the design. One thing I noticed upon a second reading is how much they were emphasizing the remote monitoring capabilities. >is that the bridge will feature built-in monitoring to monitor usage and maintenance needs. The cynic in me reads this as yet another step in cutting staff for inspection but it may possible that they are planning on deploying this style bridge to more rural locations where there may be unofficial crossings of hiking trails.
      - varispeed 5y ago
        > - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics The disability issue is orthogonal. You either develop with it in mind or just ignore it and hope it will go away at a later stage. This is wrong!
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I feel like a lot of people are commenting without much context. These bridges are for legal footpaths. They’re usually in the countryside. The paths aren’t maintained they’re just a legal right of way through the countryside and they have a legal obligation to put a bridge so as to not obstruct it for people on foot. It’s not like a trail as in the US. The paths aren’t even remotely wheelchair accessible for miles either way they’re usually mud. You would have to climb over stys to get to the bridge. The bridge would be the least of your problems.
  - gsnedders 5y ago
    And the point of this is to be able to close high-risk at-grade crossings of the line, especially those with relatively poor sight lines or where the necessity to maintain sufficient sight lines is an impediment to increasing the line speed.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    It wouldn't matter. In (most of?) the US, anything you so must meet all the latest code, so if you aren't rich you line in a tent (I'm exaggerating slightly, but you are forbidden from a building a 1970s car, house, etc)
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      For example is the Appalachian Trail ADA compliant?
      - coryrc 5y ago
        If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail, then they would literally be required to build ADA-compliant ramps down to the mud.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail I don't understand why people are so deeply muddled about this. There is no train station. It's for bridges over the railway in the middle of nowhere, far from train stations, along country footpaths. You cannot traverse the footpaths on a wheelchair, so you cannot even get to the bridge in the first place.
tialaramex 5y ago
The most necessary pedestrian bridge near me has what look like metal gutters running up and down the stairs. In fact they mean when you dismount a bicycle it becomes fairly easy to go up and down the stairs pushing your bicycle. The at-grade crossing there is closed for up to 40 minutes per hour, because the railway carries both freight (to/ from a major port) and passenger trains. If you're in a vehicle too bad, "Long Queue. Turn Engines Off" as the signs say but if you're on foot the bridge means you don't need to care too much about that. You might be wondering: Why isn't there a road bridge? It's an industrial estate, so any road bridge needs to carry large goods vehicles, articulated trucks and so on, which means a fairly large concrete structure with up and down ramps occupying a large footprint and there's nowhere to put that. It's also next to a tidal river, dig down and it'll flood, further into the city they just tunnelled the entire railway under the park, but that is not cheap.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Why would you expect to be able to bicycle over a footbridge? They follow footpaths. You shouldn’t be cycling on a footpath. They’re for people on foot. It’s not a bridleway or cycle path. Clue is in the names!
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  Are there separate "cyclebridges" ?
  - fy20 5y ago
    In the UK a "footpath" is a legal right of way for people on foot. It's often muddy, goes through fields with animals, and there usually are many gates or stiles [0] you need to cross. You probably could cycle over parts of it, but some of the footpaths near where I grew up are even hard to walk as the hedges between fields are often overgrown. You only have the right to walk along a footpath, any other use - including cycling - without the land owners pernission is considered trespass. Often they are hundreds of years old, so any new construction needs to allow the public to cross over them. When I was growing up, one of my neighbours did a lot of research into footpaths in the area, and uncovered a lot of forgotten footpaths. Some of them even went through people's back gardens, and as they were legal rights of way, they had no choice but to open them up (apparently there's a way to move them now for cases like this now). [0] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/stile https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/stile
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    How do you imagine you would get to this bridge with a bicycle in the first place?
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      What bridge are you talking about specifically?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago

LurkersWillLurk 5y ago

They also don't support wheelchairs, which in the United States would tend to violate the ADA.

aliasEli 5y ago
That is a much better argument.
- bkor 5y ago
  The previous comment was about not handling bicycles in the Netherlands. For the Netherlands it's important that it handles bicycles properly, by being able to cycle. Pushing a bike or getting off isn't an acceptable solution (for NL). Though doubt making it less steep and longer would really be an issue.
  - analog31 5y ago
    That seems quite reasonable for the NL. At least for myself, here in the States, I'd be happy to push my bike for a few feet rather than have to go miles out of my way or ride on a super busy street to cross a railroad. Of course, if we still had railroads in the US. But crossing busy roads is an issue here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
themaninthedark 5y ago
Looks like they are aiming to remedy that: >The next phase of the project will include a ramped version of the bridge to support those with impaired mobility.
- varispeed 5y ago
  This is so lazy of them. Probably the next phase will drop from the list of priorities and maybe come back if there will be too much noise in the media. They should begin with the design having disabled people in mind. I hate when some people are being treated like second class citizens.
  - themaninthedark 5y ago
    I understand your feelings but engineering is an iterative process, what they created here was a prototype with 3 goals: - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics Now the team can go back with the lessons they learned and modify the design. One thing I noticed upon a second reading is how much they were emphasizing the remote monitoring capabilities. >is that the bridge will feature built-in monitoring to monitor usage and maintenance needs. The cynic in me reads this as yet another step in cutting staff for inspection but it may possible that they are planning on deploying this style bridge to more rural locations where there may be unofficial crossings of hiking trails.
    - varispeed 5y ago
      > - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics The disability issue is orthogonal. You either develop with it in mind or just ignore it and hope it will go away at a later stage. This is wrong!
chrisseaton 5y ago
I feel like a lot of people are commenting without much context. These bridges are for legal footpaths. They’re usually in the countryside. The paths aren’t maintained they’re just a legal right of way through the countryside and they have a legal obligation to put a bridge so as to not obstruct it for people on foot. It’s not like a trail as in the US. The paths aren’t even remotely wheelchair accessible for miles either way they’re usually mud. You would have to climb over stys to get to the bridge. The bridge would be the least of your problems.
- gsnedders 5y ago
  And the point of this is to be able to close high-risk at-grade crossings of the line, especially those with relatively poor sight lines or where the necessity to maintain sufficient sight lines is an impediment to increasing the line speed.
- coryrc 5y ago
  It wouldn't matter. In (most of?) the US, anything you so must meet all the latest code, so if you aren't rich you line in a tent (I'm exaggerating slightly, but you are forbidden from a building a 1970s car, house, etc)
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    For example is the Appalachian Trail ADA compliant?
    - coryrc 5y ago
      If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail, then they would literally be required to build ADA-compliant ramps down to the mud.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail I don't understand why people are so deeply muddled about this. There is no train station. It's for bridges over the railway in the middle of nowhere, far from train stations, along country footpaths. You cannot traverse the footpaths on a wheelchair, so you cannot even get to the bridge in the first place.

tialaramex 5y ago

The most necessary pedestrian bridge near me has what look like metal gutters running up and down the stairs. In fact they mean when you dismount a bicycle it becomes fairly easy to go up and down the stairs pushing your bicycle. The at-grade crossing there is closed for up to 40 minutes per hour, because the railway carries both freight (to/ from a major port) and passenger trains. If you're in a vehicle too bad, "Long Queue. Turn Engines Off" as the signs say but if you're on foot the bridge means you don't need to care too much about that. You might be wondering: Why isn't there a road bridge? It's an industrial estate, so any road bridge needs to carry large goods vehicles, articulated trucks and so on, which means a fairly large concrete structure with up and down ramps occupying a large footprint and there's nowhere to put that. It's also next to a tidal river, dig down and it'll flood, further into the city they just tunnelled the entire railway under the park, but that is not cheap.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Why would you expect to be able to bicycle over a footbridge? They follow footpaths. You shouldn’t be cycling on a footpath. They’re for people on foot. It’s not a bridleway or cycle path. Clue is in the names!

CyberDildonics 5y ago
Are there separate "cyclebridges" ?
- fy20 5y ago
  In the UK a "footpath" is a legal right of way for people on foot. It's often muddy, goes through fields with animals, and there usually are many gates or stiles [0] you need to cross. You probably could cycle over parts of it, but some of the footpaths near where I grew up are even hard to walk as the hedges between fields are often overgrown. You only have the right to walk along a footpath, any other use - including cycling - without the land owners pernission is considered trespass. Often they are hundreds of years old, so any new construction needs to allow the public to cross over them. When I was growing up, one of my neighbours did a lot of research into footpaths in the area, and uncovered a lot of forgotten footpaths. Some of them even went through people's back gardens, and as they were legal rights of way, they had no choice but to open them up (apparently there's a way to move them now for cases like this now). [0] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/stile https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/stile
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  How do you imagine you would get to this bridge with a bicycle in the first place?
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    What bridge are you talking about specifically?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago