Cyclists Dismount signs on Dyfi bridge

[horizon]

I cannot find any reference to the number of times the road is closed due to flooding and the number of times due to lorries hitting the bridge.

I also cannot find any reference to whether the flooding incidents are increasing in number, length or severity. Any ideas?

[meic]

Flooding will make the news about twice a year. I have had occasion to wade there a few times myself and I live 70 miles away and dont go there very frequently, it is an arduous trek with no real alternative route.

[pwa]

I cannot find any reference to the number of times the road is closed due to flooding and the number of times due to lorries hitting the bridge.

I also cannot find any reference to whether the flooding incidents are increasing in number, length or severity. Any ideas?

I live in Wales so I get the Welsh news on TV, and the Dyfi Bridge and its accompanying causeway across the flood plain is well known for flooding. It cuts the town off from neighbouring communities when it happens. I imagine the nearby cycle facility gets flooded at the same time. It may well be that the original road builders got it wrong.

[meic]

For Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and my half of Carmarthenshire that little bridge is not just the road to North Wales but also Merseyside and hence Northern England and Scotland.
Consider how large the bridge would be in England for such a route! Humber Bridge.
Pwa (about 100 miles away) can always take the A470 instead but for us that is a long detour.

[pwa]

For Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and my half of Carmarthenshire that little bridge is not just the road to North Wales but also Merseyside and hence Northern England and Scotland.
Consider how large the bridge would be in England for such a route! Humber Bridge.
Pwa (about 100 miles away) can always take the A470 instead but for us that is a long detour.

Meic, that's the price you pay for living in The Back of Beyond. But I still envy you.

[meic]

Are you sure? No Audaxes left here any more, only a destination for rides starting further afield.
I have to drive 200 miles to cycle here!

[acyclistfrommidwales]

Hi, Surely anyone would dismount to cross the old bridge at present (with traffic still on) anyway? -at least all but very experienced cyclists? The slow speed of traffic across the bridge currently allows for this. You are correct that the photomontage on the leaflet does show the cycleway near Millenium bridge retained, which I'm sorry I only managed to work out by careful scrutiny of this last night. This agrees with what I was told by the firm on enquiring at the exhibition. However, the map, both on the leaflet, and on show at the exhibition on 7 Oct, does show the new road bridge overlapping the cycleway (red line on top of the blue one), which was why I asked both at exhibition , and on this forum.-Presumably just a confusing method of presentation. I wasn't disputing the cycleway would be still available ( notice my'hopefully', though interesting to know what happens during construction?), but puzzled how they can fit all this infrastructure into the small space available ( small corner of a field, on a slope)especially without cutting any trees? Note that in the montage, this area is obscured by trees to the east, so you can't see.. At the exhibition, on asking for more details, I was told the plans are still at an early stage.- Would there be an embankment between, one supposes? (impossible to see on montage). You seem to have ignored that road traffic also creates considerable noise, disturbing the rural tranquillity of the route, and whatever the exact distance between the new bridge and the cycleway, it would appear to be less than distance to the current road? I enquired if the construction firm ( who were very helpful at explaining , despite the information available not being very informative) if they intend using 'quiet' road surface material ( for benefit not only of visitors, but local residents & wildlife), but they said that would depend on background noise survey, yet to be done .Surely, although many local people do use the cyclepath, it's also a tourist attraction in its own right due to the amazing scenery, and in reality , not very practical in wet weather due to puddles. Although the firm said they're obliged not to cause flooding to other users,I'm rather sceptical what may actually happen, especially initially before things get properly sorted (from experience with other road schemes)? Anyhow, how are cyclists meant to access it if the old A487 and Dyfi bridge are supposedly to be closed so often from flooding? Now that there won't be motorised vehicles, would these be left open permanently, so that walkers & cyclists could cross at their own risk? Many a time the old bridge has been closed to traffic when one could easily have walked /waded across.Why I say absence of traffic on the historic bridge won't help, is that turning east is not currently (or in future )an option for any sensible cyclist, given the cycleway instead. Turning west won't be helped, because, as I said, There's no provision for cyclists on this part of the Aberdyfi road,. There are already excellent cycle/footpaths on the old A487 before (just south of)the Dyfi bridge, so what's gained? Nothing but a few metres of historic bridge free of traffic- at most a few minutes ' delay for cyclists saved. I regard this as 'hype' by the Welsh Government to justify ruining enjoyment of the present cycleway, which after all was partly required because of previous road improvements to the north
( any extra recreational benefit, including to users from the east,which I didn't mention as it's a footpath so not relevant to this forum maybe?)will be mainly spoiled by the current proposals. Plus ca change! I want to make clear I'm not totally opposed to the scheme, just feel cyclists should be aware , make their voice heard , and ensure any promises of further improvements in/near this location are kept. One is reminded of certain cycle/footpaths further south either side of the A487 Glandyfi Improvement that still haven't materialised....

[acyclistfrommidwales]

Hi Horizon, why not to give motorists what they want ? For the very good reason that it's not a sustainable solution to traffic problems & the inherent conflict between cyclists (and walkers, and horseriders, and those using public transport, and a considerable proportion of motorists who would prefer to travel at a more leisurely speed, enjoying magnificent scenery less spoilt by their own infrastructure requirements and don't mind the odd brief delay here & there). Aside from any 'green' arguments, which I would have expected residents of this area especially to have latched onto by now, there's the more obvious problem in this hilly area, dissected by rivers and teeming with protected wildlife, National Parks and other designations, that there's rather a shortage of suitable space for roads, paths etc if all users have to have their own segregated route, and if they don't, it tends to be the cyclists/ pedestrians losing out. That;s why I say'plus ca change'. The present cyclepath was a good compromise, with actual benefits for recreational users, but now the motor lobby gets priority by taking over the best route, much to the detriment of other users . What I was trying to work out is if there could be a feasible more suitable route for the road bridge (from a cyclis'ts viewpoint), which might also avoid excessive intrusion on the landscape and minimise the amount of new road-surface .? This might also be cheaper. At this time of austerity & council cuts, this seems a ridiculous sum to be spending on new roads to solve a minor problem, which, though important, doesn't occur very often. Yet, typically, the project has to be over-engineered.Think how many existing roads could be resurfaced, potholes filled, or even new cycle paths constructed for that anount. Or even how many buses subsidised ( to avoid traffic problems in the first place) , or even services provided at local schools and hospitals etc to avoid the need to travel. The main problem with the existing bridge seems to be large lorries damaging this historic monument, and it's known large lorries can be a danger to cyclists. Why not try to keep them off the roads in this area, with more local self-sufficiency or use of railways for freight?. This is a nationwide problem, but coming to a crisis locally one would have expect to activate the local environmental community rather than allow a construction symbolic of the opposite to dominate the landscape.- Could be just me an aging hippy, though..

[acyclistfrommidwales]

Sorry I'm getting a bit confused who said what, but just like to clarify I lived in Machynlleth for 7 years, previously in Aberystwyth since 1990 and now on the coast to NW. So I do have a fair bit of experience, tho as you may've guessed, I don't drive. a car. The buses I've used frequently over that time have rarely been obstructed by flooding ( being higher), the trains (where applicable) even less often. Buses almost always seemed to reach destination going diversion via Llanwrin, if slightly delayed.As I said road closure more of an obstacle to cyclists than the actual water. Emergency services is an issue, but as I just said, part of this is due to recent cuts and centralisation , eg why should ambulances have to come from/ go to Aberystwyth or even Carmarthen? Savings on this sort of wasteful project could be better used to avoid such problems by re-localising. Dolgellau? -did anyone realise the recent junction'improvements' are so dangerous there are demands for them to be done over again, yet another unnecessary expense. Yes there is a campaign by locals in favour of a bridge, but I doubt much thought of exactly what sort of bridge or other improvements to transport they want. When desparate , such campaigns tend to lose all foresight of the long-term consequences, and any hope that local people might be able to devise a more wholistic solution covering many issues of day to day living here. Accepting the options given by Welsh government without question isn't necessarily a panacea, and in this cradle of'alternative' society one might have expected more innovative thinking. In fact there is at least some dissent in local newspapers about who was consulted on what etc. Anyway, I'd better get on with my own response to the feedback form in time. Cheers, at least some people seem to be thinking about it!

[pwa]

I think the route planned for the short new bit of road must have been chosen because it is the shortest, most obvious line. And it does have the merit of taking most of the traffic away from the cottages at the far end of the Dovey Bridge. This proposal is in its early stages and will be refined as time goes on, but I would be surprised and disappointed if the landscaping and cycle use aspects were neglected. Time will tell.

I may be reckless (my wife sometimes says as much) but I do cycle the old bridge, occasionally, and the road to Aberdyfi, and I have cycled the A487 all the way to its junction with the A470. I like to ride roads to show that cyclists still have a right to. I've not had major problems on any of those roads. But I wouldn't cycle with children on them.

[horizon]

I've tried to untangle the different issues on this scheme. There's flooding, there are collisions, there are lorries, there is congestion. So where does the truth really lie? Well here's the new scheme in all its glory:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-34462014

Yes, the flooding issue is recognised and this will be resolved with the new bridge. But otherwise it's all there in its naked, honest brutality: "She said the current Grade II listed bridge on the A487 road is narrow and creates a pinch-point."

What I'm trying to tease out from this is to decide whether it's just a road scheme, like all the others, with the flooding problem as a fig leaf: are we saying goodbye to the view of the river and saying hello to the march of concrete and the motorists' boots on the landscape of Wales because of the flooding or are we losing the setting of an ancient bridge, a river plain and hills beyond because of congestion and oversize lorries? What acyclistfrommidwales AIUI is saying is that it is the latter and that the flooding, while serious, could be looked at in other ways.

[AMC]

Yes, the flooding issue is recognised and this will be resolved with the new bridge.

The flooding issue won't be solved by the new bridge (more of a bypass really) as the most regular floods occur further south under the railway bridge & the new road can't bypass this. The new bridge is designed to obviate the damage caused to the old bridge by large vehicles crashing into the parapet, which happens depressingly often. Having said that, when the river does flood at the bridge itself there is a wide body of extremely fast moving deep water which is extremely unsafe to attempt to cross by bike. I know a few people who've tried & have had to be rescued under pretty frightening circumstances.

Noise emanating from the bypass is certainly one of my concerns, quite apart from the effect on the cycle paths. There have been calls by cyclists locally to ensure that a cycle/walking path is provided alongside the new bypass & bridge as they feel that the other routes will be too awkward to use in practice for various reasons, & which would also mean non-drivers could cross on the occasions when the river's up at the old bridge.

Whilst I understand the concerns of people living north of the bridge who are concerned about emergency services not being able to get through when the current bridge is out of action (due to lorry damage) it does all seem horribly short term & depressing that other solutions just aren't considered, & there was no publicity at all in the area about the 1 day so-called consultation which is also pretty frustrating. We live in a world ruled by the motoring lobby I fear. There is always money for roads in Wales even as our services are decimated by cuts.

[pwa]

Yes, the flooding issue is recognised and this will be resolved with the new bridge.

The flooding issue won't be solved by the new bridge (more of a bypass really) as the most regular floods occur further south under the railway bridge & the new road can't bypass this. The new bridge is designed to obviate the damage caused to the old bridge by large vehicles crashing into the parapet, which happens depressingly often. Having said that, when the river does flood at the bridge itself there is a wide body of extremely fast moving deep water which is extremely unsafe to attempt to cross by bike. I know a few people who've tried & have had to be rescued under pretty frightening circumstances.

Noise emanating from the bypass is certainly one of my concerns, quite apart from the effect on the cycle paths. There have been calls by cyclists locally to ensure that a cycle/walking path is provided alongside the new bypass & bridge as they feel that the other routes will be too awkward to use in practice for various reasons, & which would also mean non-drivers could cross on the occasions when the river's up at the old bridge.

Whilst I understand the concerns of people living north of the bridge who are concerned about emergency services not being able to get through when the current bridge is out of action (due to lorry damage) it does all seem horribly short term & depressing that other solutions just aren't considered, & there was no publicity at all in the area about the 1 day so-called consultation which is also pretty frustrating. We live in a world ruled by the motoring lobby I fear. There is always money for roads in Wales even as our services are decimated by cuts.

Your comment that the new bit of road will not prevent flooding concerns me. Are you sure about that? I know the railway bridge you refer to.

On the point about money spent on roads, whilst I would not defend every scheme without looking at it in detail, we do need to maintain roads and, sometimes, improve them. We all use roads, even those who do not have cars. We rely on ambulances, we use the buses, we buy food brought to the shops by lorries, and we cycle on the roads. I dread to think what it would be like getting around Wales if the budget for roads was greatly reduced. Regardless of the merits of this particular solution, the Dovey Bridge has been crying out for major work for decades.

[PDQ]

Yes, the flooding issue is recognised and this will be resolved with the new bridge.

The flooding issue won't be solved by the new bridge (more of a bypass really) as the most regular floods occur further south under the railway bridge & the new road can't bypass this. The new bridge is designed to obviate the damage caused to the old bridge by large vehicles crashing into the parapet, which happens depressingly often. Having said that, when the river does flood at the bridge itself there is a wide body of extremely fast moving deep water which is extremely unsafe to attempt to cross by bike. I know a few people who've tried & have had to be rescued under pretty frightening circumstances.

Noise emanating from the bypass is certainly one of my concerns, quite apart from the effect on the cycle paths. There have been calls by cyclists locally to ensure that a cycle/walking path is provided alongside the new bypass & bridge as they feel that the other routes will be too awkward to use in practice for various reasons, & which would also mean non-drivers could cross on the occasions when the river's up at the old bridge.

Your comment that the new bit of road will not prevent flooding concerns me. Are you sure about that? I know the railway bridge you refer to.

On the point about money spent on roads, whilst I would not defend every scheme without looking at it in detail, we do need to maintain roads and, sometimes, improve them. We all use roads, even those who do not have cars. We rely on ambulances, we use the buses, we buy food brought to the shops by lorries, and we cycle on the roads. I dread to think what it would be like getting around Wales if the budget for roads was greatly reduced. Regardless of the merits of this particular solution, the Dovey Bridge has been crying out for major work for decades.

AMC is correct. The main problem at times of flooding is the underpass of the railway bridge.
Lowest point of the the road and below the level of the water in the flooded estuary. The old bridge remains clear but the causeway to it also floods.The old bridge is narrow and has been damaged many times by HGV,s.
Perhaps they should just make it wider with a less acute Northern approach? And raise and drain the causeway. Seems like a cheaper option to me.

So lets be quite clear- the new scheme, as it stands, with not prevent closure of the new road due to flooding at railway bridge underpass.(in my understanding of things)
Imagine it, millions spent, a fine and colourful opening ceremony with all the local worthies in attendance, school children with waving pennants and we get heavy rain for several days. Cut the ribbon and bingo - "sorry road closed".

I can find no projected costs for this by-pass scheme. Anybody know?
For this is just another bridge saga waiting to happen.
God forbid that the Local Highways dept are involved for, as I have stated before, they are professional incompetents - especially in planning and design.

Gwynedd council and others between them cannot find £40000 to maintain Barmouth Bridge footway but this scheme looks financeable?

There have been calls by cyclists locally to ensure that a cycle/walking path is provided alongside the new bypass & bridge as they feel that the other routes will be too awkward to use in practice for various reasons, & which would also mean non-drivers could cross on the occasions when the river's up at the old bridge.

I dont quite understand this point.
There is a cycle walking route already, the new Millenium Bridge, I guess its access path also closes in time of floods?
The boards of the bridge are laid in the direction of travel and it is dangerous for narrow tyres. You couldn't make it up!! See piccy. Fancy subsidised artwork but impractical!!
Where were Sustrans and other pro-cycling groups when that was planned??
But slightly off topic.

[AMC]

Your comment that the new bit of road will not prevent flooding concerns me. Are you sure about that?

I've lived in Mach for 23 years & the lowered road under the railway bridge floods much more frequently that the river itself by the old road bridge.