5 ms·

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

by LurkersWillLurk 5y ago

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.

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.