Crazy council plan for clontarf.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

Finian McGrath TD Sea Wall Update on NearFM http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=16980 claims extra feet added to wall that wasn't in original plan? really?

i emailed him to ask to expand on that claim

Sorry about the delay but the wall in the original plan was lower and hence now the independent expert reviewing the plan.

FMcG

won't get details nor sense out of this guy

expectationlost

City council details sea wall actions http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsideeast/articles/2015/12/11/4110797-city-council-details-sea-wall-actions/

groups invited to this environmental liason committee and

A spokesman for Dublin City Council said: “In trying to source an independent expert to assess the appropriateness of the design height of the wall, we are somewhat constrained in that a large number of independent experts have already been involved in this project and studies relating to it. Therefore, a shortlist of five remaining candidates on the island of Ireland who have knowledge in this area has been assembled.

“We are approaching the academic candidates to see their availability for what will require a significant amount of their time to re-evaluate all of the existing documentation and studies associated with the nine years to date of this project and carry out any further evaluations required.”

While construction of the wall is currently suspended, the city council said the contractor for the project is continuing to operate on site dealing with the water main installation and other ancillary works not related to the flood defence wall.

“To date, the council is incurring some additional costs relating to changes to work schedules,” he added.

“In the coming weeks it will be crucial that a situation is reached where the contractor is allowed to recommence work, subject to the findings of the independent expert, on the lower elements of the wall, to avoid exposing the council to substantial contractual claims.”

- See more at: http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsideeast/articles/2015/12/11/4110797-city-council-details-sea-wall-actions/#sthash.mHdksdr1.dpuf

deandean

Works are suspended?

FFS!

The crap traffic lights are not suspended. So are these going to be in place for the foreseeable future?

The only realistic solution I see is to raise the road height a bit. The road is being dug up anyways.

Raising the road height (with appropriate drainage) will eliminate the possibility of road flooding in the event of water coming from rainfall - as happened in the recent (and only) occurrence of flooding along this stretch.

expectationlost

deandean wrote: »

Works are suspended?

FFS!

The crap traffic lights are not suspended. So are these going to be in place for the foreseeable future?

Clontarf Traffic Update
http://www.finianmcgrath.ie/viewNews/id/874/
10 December, 2015
John Hyland
Project Manager,
HND BSc Civil Eng MIEI

Squeaksoutloud

deandean wrote: »

Works are suspended?

FFS!

The crap traffic lights are not suspended. So are these going to be in place for the foreseeable future?

The only realistic solution I see is to raise the road height a bit. The road is being dug up anyways.

Raising the road height (with appropriate drainage) will eliminate the possibility of road flooding in the event of water coming from rainfall - as happened in the recent (and only) occurrence of flooding along this stretch.

Wall works suspended. Everything else continuing so the lights are not there for the fun of it!

Interesting to see what comes of an academic review of wall height. Probably say its too low!

odyssey06

Latest update...

"Disputed sea wall can be lowered in some places, says expert report... the controversial Clontarf sea wall could be lowered in places - that's according to an independent expert drafted in to review."

http://www.herald.ie/news/disputed-sea-wall-can-be-lowered-in-some-places-says-expert-report-34446267.html

monument

By just a mere 10-20 centimeters -- which is tiny and the objectors don't agree with.

To say the council are wrong by that amount is nitpicking really and the independent report does make it clear that demountables and glass would be a lot more expensive.

odyssey06

monument wrote: »

By just a mere 10-20 centimeters -- which is tiny and the objectors don't agree with.
To say the council are wrong by that amount is nitpicking really and the independent report does make it clear that demountables and glass would be a lot more expensive.

What a very strange spin to try to put on the report...
I don't remember much debate on this thread about demountables and glass being cheaper or not - I think everyone accepted that they are a more expensive option but that needs to be balanced against the visual amenity of the area.
And I do remember a helluva lot about whether they were feasible for sea flood defences. And the report says there is now "no doubt" that they are, contrary to the original DCC contention.

The independent report:
* Criticises the criteria given by DCC in preparing the report i.e. a 200 year basis instead of 50 years. This is reflected into the reduced height.
* Contradicts original DCC report about the feasibility of glass defences
* Criticises the DCC report as lacking a single design document

I'll leave it up to other readers of this thread to consider whether that counts as 'nitpicking'.

deandean

As well as the wall height... check the road width!

Judging by the newly laid kerbing, the road is being narrowed so much that two trucks will have trouble passing. There are also several very permanent-looking 50km/h speed signs.

So the overall plan may be to reduce the speed limit from 60 to 50 permanently. A very poor arrangement bearing in mind the road was a 60 zone from Wong's all the way to Fintan's which really helped the volumes of traffic to make progress.

odyssey06

deandean wrote: »

So the overall plan may be to reduce the speed limit from 60 to 50 permanently. A very poor arrangement bearing in mind the road was a 60 zone from Wong's all the way to Fintan's which really helped the volumes of traffic to make progress.

I remember reading something about reducing to 50 but I thought that was only for the stretch alongside St Annes rather than beyond the Causeway - am hoping it's only that stretch.

monument

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't remember much debate on this thread about demountables and glass being cheaper or not - I think everyone accepted that they are a more expensive option but that needs to be balanced against the visual amenity of the area.
And I do remember a helluva lot about whether they were feasible for sea flood defences. And the report says there is now "no doubt" that they are, contrary to the original DCC contention.

Hold your horses there... I can't find a copy of the report but of it The Irish Times said that it found that:

"In relation to other solutions instead of the concrete wall, Dr Murphy said demountable barriers were a “well proven solution” but would require new planning permission and the costs would be 'relatively high'."

The newspaper added:

"There was 'no doubt that glass panels could be designed to work' for the site, but he acknowledged these could cost up to €5,000 a metre, would require regular cleaning, be prone to vandalism, and could have negative environmental impacts.”

Unless the actual report says something different, "designed to work" does not amount to them being "feasible" -- feasibility includes costs, ease of maintenance, and environmental impacts. It's ok for somebody to say that the solutions are feasible from a technical view point, but it's another being all-round or overall feasible.

Demountable in any case will be used at access points etc. I don't think it's common to use them along long stretches, do you?

odyssey06 wrote: »

The independent report:
* Criticises the criteria given by DCC in preparing the report i.e. a 200 year basis instead of 50 years. This is reflected into the reduced height.
* Contradicts original DCC report about the feasibility of glass defences
* Criticises the DCC report as lacking a single design document

I'll leave it up to other readers of this thread to consider whether that counts as 'nitpicking'.

A 200 year basis seems like a safer bet given the inaction on climate change.

Re a single design document -- bad practice but hardly earth shattering that that's happening.

odyssey06

monument wrote: »

Unless the actual report says something different, "designed to work" does not amount to them being "feasible" -- feasibility includes costs, ease of maintenance, and environmental impacts. It's ok for somebody to say that the solutions are feasible from a technical view point, but it's another being all-round or overall feasible.

Ah, ok I'll resolve to be more precise in use of the word feasible going forwards...

The previous report by DCC on this questioned whether glass defences were technically feasible for use as sea wall defences given expected wave action and DCC used this as one of their justifications for not adopting them. This latest report updates that position and clarifies that they can be used.

This puts the ball in DCC's court in terms of the all-round\overall decision.
An engineer cannot make that decision - he can provide costs, impacts, assessments of technical feasibility etc. An engineer can rule out some options if not technically feasible.
So I think that is significant in terms of this latest report.

Demountables... I've only ever seen them here used along access points. But Wells on Sea in UK (see earlier in thread) replaced their demountables which covered a section of their quay with glass defences.

And whatever the merits of 50 v 200, it would be very significant for the rest of Clontarf flood defences if 50 years is used as the basis rather than 200.

loyatemu

deandean wrote: »

So the overall plan may be to reduce the speed limit from 60 to 50 permanently. A very poor arrangement bearing in mind the road was a 60 zone from Wong's all the way to Fintan's which really helped the volumes of traffic to make progress.

It's 10km from Sutton Cross to Fairview. At 60 that's 10 minutes, at 50 it's 12 minutes, but in reality it's probably less than 2 minutes difference as you'll hit lights and have to slow down/speed up. It is an urban road and the works are making it narrower.

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Ah, ok I'll resolve to be more precise in use of the word feasible going forwards...

The previous report by DCC on this questioned whether glass defences were technically feasible for use as sea wall defences given expected wave action and DCC used this as one of their justifications for not adopting them. This latest report updates that position and clarifies that they can be used.

we don't know that because we havn't read it.

deandean

loyatemu wrote: »

It's 10km from Sutton Cross to Fairview. At 60 that's 10 minutes, at 50 it's 12 minutes, but in reality it's probably less than 2 minutes difference as you'll hit lights and have to slow down/speed up. It is an urban road and the works are making it narrower.

It's just the latest round in the anti-car witch hunt.

This new DCC designed bottleneck is going to lead to evening rush hour queues all the way back to Fairview.

They should retain the road standard to keep it a 60 zone.

schemingbohemia

deandean wrote: »

It's just the latest round in the anti-car witch hunt.

This new DCC designed bottleneck is going to lead to evening rush hour queues all the way back to Fairview.

They should retain the road standard to keep it a 60 zone.

Sorry but do you really think people are actually driving at 60km/h during rush hour along that stretch anyway?

expectationlost

Naoise O'Muiri published the report http://naoise.ie/report-by-independent-expert-on-the-dollymount-flood-defence/

Conclusion and Recommendation
The analysis that I have carried out show that the current wall height (4.25m ODM) is justified based
on the design criteria used even though the components that make up this height differ slightly from
indicated values.
This still leaves the issue with regards to the loss of visual amenity and in this review I have
suggested a number of solutions. The majority of solutions considered have significant implications
in terms of costs, planning requirements and environmental effects and would be unlikely to resolve
the immediate issue. Therefore the recommendation that I would make is that DCC review the
design criteria and in particular the SLR allowance included in the design. My suggestion is that a
value in the range of 0.2‐0.3m be used (instead of 0.4) which would mean that by current mid range
SLR scenarios the wall height should still be sufficient to provide flood protect for at least 50 years.
This proposed adjustment of the wall height should only be applied at locations where the visual
amenity is most affected as agreed between DCC and local groups. If this solution is implemented
then DCC would need to frequently review both extreme water levels and sea level rise rates and
have a plan in place for increasing the wall height to ensure that there is a sufficient level of flood
protection.

strange report he seems to back the council height and just throw it out for visual amenity's sake there are claims the DCC will follow his recommendations but not sure if thats true
oh heres a statement from the CRA/CBA
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/sea-wall-update-from-cra-wall-height-to-be-reduced

DCC have now agreed that the height of the new wall opposite the Park can be cut by 300mm. Per DCC this reduction should enable inbound drivers to see over the entire length of the wall and outbound drivers will be restricted for 75m.

The community groups were originally looking for a 600mm reduction. We have revised that to a 450mm reduction. We feel that a reduction at this level is necessary to ensure that the visual amenity is restored for all those not on the new cycle track or sea side footpath.

In essence there is now 15cm or 6 inches between DCC and the community groups.

expectationlost

so they plan to restart work March 28th ? http://www.tommybroughan.com/upcoming-roadworks-on-clontarf-road-broughan/ although they've been doing other work all along


although link in previous post says meeting on the 11th of april

expectationlost

Council agrees to reduce by 300mm parts of Clontarf sea wall http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/council-agrees-to-reduce-by-300mm-parts-of-clontarf-sea-wall-1.2602501

A spokeswoman for the council said it has agreed to cut two short sections of flood wall by 300mm along a 20 metre stretch to show residents visually what this combined reduction proposal would mean.

how long is the complete section they are giving out about? this is just a sample

expectationlost

only discussing the cutting and finishing of the wall at the Aril 10th meeting

Initiation of the Part 8 procedure for the alteration to the flood wall at the Sutton to Sandycove Project ( S 2 S) pdf icon PDF 293 KB

( Report to follow ) Chris Manzira
Additional documents:

SK-053 - Sea Wall Works Part 8 , item 3a pdf icon PDF 2 MB

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=2154&EVT=105

other work had been delayed by problems with the water pipe http://irishcycle.com/2017/01/12/dublin-bay-cycle-route-opening-likely-delayed-until-march/

expectationlost

finally some info comes out to the general public about this Clontarf Promenade Development & Flood Defence Project [and water main] https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s20791/Clontarf%20Promenade%20Development%20area%20meeting%2015th%20october.pdf

A revised preliminary scheme layout was agreed. This, in general, proposes the removal of the earth
embankments and relocating a flood wall closer to Clontarf Rd. It is anticipated that relocating the wall
away from the immediate coastline will reduce the height of the flood wall. The concept being that
when the primary wave breaks on the existing sea wall some of its energy is lost, and the promenade
area starts to fill up. It will eventually fill with water in front of the sea wall and secondary waves can
propagate towards the second defence beside Clontarf Road.

a video will be shown to councillors and then hopefully made public

expectationlost

a doc but wheres the video https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s20791/Clontarf%20Promenade%20Development%20area%20meeting%2015th%20october.pdf

There
are significant benefits
to the new
proposals such as;
defence heights along the prom have
been reduced by between 300mm and 700mm from the previous proposal.
Break down of the wall Heights:

317m of the wall is greater than 1.4
m

391m is between 1.2 and 1.4

885m is between 1.0m and 1.2

1223m is less than 1m