Clyde Bridges

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby Local Hero » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:46 pm

looking at the bridge even at high tide I am presuming that the river bus (and presumable other boats of similar draught) will still be able to traverse up to the central railway bridge.

hopefully the proposed footbridge in the city plan from the Springfield Quay to the former dock of the Waverley will also be of sufficient height to allow similar travel. If this does go ahead they could do worse than call it the Waverley Bridge as the steamer berthed there for so many years.
Ah used tae be indecisive but noo ah'm nae sae sure.
User avatar
Local Hero
First Stripe
First Stripe
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby scallopboy » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:29 pm

Pripyat wrote:Crusty, upstream from Dalmarnock there is a few more, but we seem to loose high definition google earth on the way to Blantyre :( Looking at the OS mapping site at present.


I traced the Clyde on my groovy Fugawi map software thingy from the confluence of the Daer Water and Portrail Water down to the last bridge above Dalmarnock. I counted 37 in total.

Source of the Clyde (NS 954 137)

Rail (NS 958 167)
M74 (NS 956 182)
A702 (NS 957 182)
Foot bridge (NS 956 210)
C road Crawford (NS 952 212)
Rail (NS 948 211)
C road Abington (NS 933 233)
A702 (NS 940 267)
Rail (NS 969 301)
B7055 (NS 971 302)
A72 (NT 019 361)
C road Thankerton (NS 978 382)
Rail (NS 962 441)
C road Carstairs (NS 956 444)
A73 Hynford Bridge (NS 914 414)
Unclassed road/dam? (NS 884 406)
Unclassed road (NS 868 439)
A72 Kirkfield Bank (NS 868 439)
Unclassed road (NS 849 441)
B7056 Crossford (NS 827 464)
Unclassed road (NS 811 488)
Sewer pipe (NS 803 502)
Garrion Bridge 1 (NS 793 509)
Garrion Bridge 2 (NS 793 510)
Rail (NS 747 557)
A723 Motherwell (NS 737 562)
M74 (NS 717 578)
A725 E Kilb expressway (NS 712 578)
B7071 Bothwell (NS 710 577)
Footbridge Blantyre (NS 696 584)
Footbridge Uddingston (NS 688 608)
Rail (NS 687 608)
B758 (NS 685 615)
Disused rail (NS 655 615)
A763 (NS 645 612)
C road (NS 636 618)
Rail (NS 636 618)
User avatar
scallopboy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Strathbungo

Postby McShad » Mon May 01, 2006 8:20 pm

Local Hero wrote:looking at the bridge even at high tide I am presuming that the river bus (and presumable other boats of similar draught) will still be able to traverse up to the central railway bridge.

hopefully the proposed footbridge in the city plan from the Springfield Quay to the former dock of the Waverley will also be of sufficient height to allow similar travel. If this does go ahead they could do worse than call it the Waverley Bridge as the steamer berthed there for so many years.


I work on the other side of the river from the new STV building and in the last year I've watched the bridge, the BBC and the STV building being built.
They've been doing the welding work over night on the bridge at the joins... pretty noisey and lots of spark showers
User avatar
McShad
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Ibrox, Glasgow

Postby HollowHorn » Mon May 01, 2006 9:39 pm

McShad wrote:They've been doing the welding work over night on the bridge at the joins.

Did the same work in the same wee tents at four times the height, on oil rig legs up at Nigg Bay, horizontal snow? Tell me about it :roll:
In my time, I've also built the launch tubes for trident missiles, the European wind tunnel, for testing the aerodynamics of planes. Nuclear & conventional power stations, oil terminals & sundry other industrial masterpieces that make your pesky & insignificant little lives easier. Did one of you ever say thanks? :roll: Squinty Bridge? I'll give you Squinty Bridge :twisted:
Last edited by HollowHorn on Mon May 01, 2006 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby HollowHorn » Mon May 01, 2006 9:39 pm

Gie's a delete hinngy, goanne?
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby Fossil » Mon May 01, 2006 10:02 pm

HollowHorn wrote:Gie's a delete hinngy, goanne?


::): naw
Bum tit tit bum tit tit play yer hairy banjo
User avatar
Fossil
-
-
 
Posts: 12310
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Pitt Street

Postby Mori » Tue May 02, 2006 1:48 am

glasgowken wrote:
Maybe a daft question, is this new bridge going to be open to all ? Will it not be swamped with cars ?
I'm glad there's another road crossing, but it just seems so narrow.

Apparently there will be 4 lanes on the road, 2 of which will be for buses/taxis/cycles
only. We'll see.



James H



Mpeg movie of the Finnieston Bridge.

http://www.halcrow.com/html/media/mov/finnieston.htm


And this the traffic Impact assessment measures taken by Landservices to ensure that the Bridge is not used by Rat Runners ...:) .

The range of measures proposed initially for the strategy are based largely on amendments to the SECC traffic
management scheme and include improved junction engineering at Finnieston Street/Clydeside Expressway;
banned manoeuvres at the new Finnieston Roundabout junction and on Tunnel Street; one-way operations on
lengths of Finnieston Street and Tunnel Street; additional bus lanes on Finnieston Street and Govan Road; a
bus gate at Pacific Drive; and specific cycle times for automatic signals in favour of bridge traffic.
The updated TIA re-addresses management needs in the absence of the SECC scheme, and abandons the
original measures in favour of:
(i) no turns onto Finnieston Quay or Lancefield quay from the bridge;
(ii) no right turn from Finnieston Street onto Finnieston Quay;
(iii) no right turn from Finnieston Quay onto the bridge;
(iv) no left turn from Lancefield Quay onto the bridge;
(v) no left turn from the bridge onto Govan Road;
(v) no right turn from Govan Road onto the bridge;
(vii) no U-turn on Govan Road at its junction with Pacific Drive;
(viii) one way direction on Tunnel Street and no right turn from there onto Finnieston Street;
(ix) a bus gate on Govan Road at Pacific Drive; and
(x) a bus pre-signal linked to the southern bridgehead junction.


Image
User avatar
Mori
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:05 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby retired tiger » Tue May 02, 2006 2:26 pm

Should be interesting to see if the 'no right, no left turns' are enforced, the new one at Partick Cross introduced for the 'quality' bus lane is routinely ignored by all, including these self styled professional drivers, the cabbies. :evil:
User avatar
retired tiger
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: beside the judges

Postby AlanM » Tue May 02, 2006 6:50 pm

You still get idiots trying to turn right onto GWR from Byres Rd and that was introduced about 10yrs ago.
Who needs a six pack....when you've got a keg!!!
Image
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

Postby McShad » Tue May 02, 2006 7:04 pm

I can't see why they want to make tunnel street one way...

Only problem on that street is arseholes parking on the pavements and double yellows for the casino, despite the fact they have a large car park
User avatar
McShad
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Ibrox, Glasgow

Postby Mori » Tue May 16, 2006 9:06 am

Image

£22m limit for bridge across Clyde

THE budget for a controversial bridge over the River Clyde, which was scheduled to be built by one of Britain's leading architects, has been cut by millions of pounds.
Glasgow City Council scrapped the original plans for the pedestrian and cycle link between Tradeston and Broomielaw, designed by Richard Rogers, after the price of the project soared from £38m to nearly £60m.
Tenders have now been issued for a total of £22m for the bridge, the quay walls, and public areas around the site.
Officials claimed the revised design would still be "attractive and functional" and have produced a European-wide advert offering a £6m contract for a new design and build team for the bridge.
The notice, in the Official Journal of the European Union, also indicated that it would be around two years before it was finally ready.
A separate tender has been put out for a £14-16m contract for work to develop the quay walls and area around the bridge.
A council spokeswoman said: "We have advised the consortium, which includes the Richard Rogers Partnership, that we cannot got ahead with a redesign because it breaks all the rules of European procurement. Therefore, we have to go out to tender for a new bridge design.
"However, on the issue of quay walls and the public realm, we are renegotiating with Faithful & Gould in order to deliver these elements.
"We are going to retender for the bridge in terms of design and who is going to be involved. It is up to the Richard Rogers Partnership to decide if they want to be involved in this process."
It is thought savings will be made through simplifying designs for the bridge and using different materials.
The Richard Rogers Partnership, the architect behind the Millennium Dome, Madrid Barajas airport, and the new Welsh Assembly building, were involved in the original aborted project, but it looks unlikely it will retender.
The bridge was due to be completed next year and remains at the centre of the council's 10-year plan to rejuvenate Glasgow's waterfront and redevelop run-down areas.
The Richard Rogers Partnership declined to comment, but Steven Purcell, the council's leader, has said a new design for the bridge, which had been named Neptune's Way, would still bring commercial and tourist investment into the city.
He said the decision to cut the cost of the bridge was not about "compromising but making sure we deliver quality regeneration without additional burden for Glasgow's taxpayers".
He added: "This will still be a destination which will attract business, residents and tourists."
However, Alan Dunlop, of Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop architects, a Glasgow-based firm, said a cheaper bridge would not act as a landmark on the Clyde.
He said: "I would question the need for the project at all now when in all likelihood it won't be the iconic structure and marker for a regenerated Clydeside it was originally intended to be. If you need to get across the river at this point, you could use the King George V Bridge, 100 metres further along.
"It's a decent enough structure, functional and will serve it's purpose but it is not a icon of a rebirth of the Clydeside. We now run the risk that the Tradeston Bridge won't be either, so why bother?"
User avatar
Mori
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:05 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby viceroy » Tue May 16, 2006 11:03 am

Mori wrote:However, Alan Dunlop, of Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop architects, a Glasgow-based firm, said : "I would question the need for the project at all now when in all likelihood it won't be the iconic structure and marker for a regenerated Clydeside it was originally intended to be. If you need to get across the river at this point, you could use the King George V Bridge, 100 metres further along."


I would tend to agree with that. As the man says : why bother?
User avatar
viceroy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:23 pm
Location: Glasgow no more

A bridge too dear now to cost £40m less

Postby james73 » Tue May 16, 2006 5:38 pm

From the Evening Times.

THE cost of a new footbridge across the Clyde has been slashed again.
City council bosses have now set a cap of £22million on the new city-centre
bridge, which will link Tradeston with the Broomielaw.

It comes just two months after the Evening Times first revealed that
designers had been told to go back to the drawing board and come up with a
"simpler" design which was cheaper to build.

This followed the cost of the project soaring from £38m to almost £60m.


Image



James H
james73
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2035
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:08 pm
Location: urbanglasgow.co.uk - come & join us.....

Postby job78989 » Tue May 16, 2006 8:25 pm

I agree with previous posters, why bother!

John
Sometimes the people need to speak if they want to be heard.
User avatar
job78989
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:07 pm
Location: Thornliebank, Glasgow, Scotland

Postby maxpower » Tue May 16, 2006 9:41 pm

retired tiger wrote:Should be interesting to see if the 'no right, no left turns' are enforced, the new one at Partick Cross introduced for the 'quality' bus lane is routinely ignored by all, including these self styled professional drivers, the cabbies. :evil:


What exactly are the rules now at Partick Cross? I drove through it about a month ago and, having only basic knowledge of the junction as it is, couldn't understand exactly what was now a 'no go' route and what wasn't. Seeing a sign that said 'No left turn', and then seeing half a dozen cars doing a left turn didn't help matters!
maxpower
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Hidden Glasgow Projects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests