Merrion Gates removal scheme

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

Does anyone know will there be a cycle lane and a footpath on the bridge through the church park?

Well, going by the artistic drawings, it does not show road markings but it does show a cyclist going by Merrion Hall on the new road - but you know cyclists, they do not always obey the rules - even in artists impressions.

Enduro

Deedsie wrote: »

Does anyone know will there be a cycle lane and a footpath on the bridge through the church park?

If you dig into the design drawings in the PDF it looks like there is. So all good.

D.L.R.

Carawaystick wrote: »

A bridge would mean a rise/fall of 6m whereas an underpass would only need 3m

That's fair enough then. Just seems a bit over the top, if you'll pardon the pun.

monument

This isn't a cycling project, it's mainly a public transport project (rail and bus) with cycling elements and traffic flow helped too.

Overall there's a number of projects bundled into this:

• The railway level crossing closure
• The bus and cycle route upgrade on the Merrion Road / Rock Road
• The S2S costal cycle route

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The fact this is coming out of the cycling budget is ridiculous.

stop wrote: »

Coming from cycling budget isn't it?

No, it's not. There's no such budget.

The NTA are seeking funding via the national capital and infrastructure spending review.

LuckyLloyd

The residents are going to fight this tooth and nail I reckon. Lots of comments in the Times story covering the proposal from residents about how it will 'devalue the properties'.

Idbatterim

As an aside, after the initial pain of the construction period those houses in the newly formed cul-de-sac will surely increase in value substantially.

you heard it here first!

D.L.R.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The residents are going to fight this tooth and nail I reckon. Lots of comments in the Times story covering the proposal from residents about how it will 'devalue the properties'.

Seafront cul de sac property in Dublin 4. Yes what a difficult sell.

Sam Russell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The residents are going to fight this tooth and nail I reckon. Lots of comments in the Times story covering the proposal from residents about how it will 'devalue the properties'.

The people who were asked by the IT were the ones that might have their gardens reduced in size. (They may actually be employed by the IT.)

As far as I can see, no-one on Strand Road south of Merrion Hall were asked - that's the bit that will have a busy road turned into a cul de sac with only unruly cyclists passing by to complain about. They, unfortunately will suffer an increase in their property vales.

I would think the vast majority of the locality will be delighted if the terrible traffic blockages are eased significantly. In the evening, the backup from the Merrion Gates goes all the way back to Sean More Road. Also Merrion Road is backed up right through Ballsbridge.

As far as I can see, the only significant acquisitions are two car parks to provide land for the bypass, and a few metres of gardens to provide cycle lanes and room for pedestrians - and these are options as described in the draft consultation document.

If people believe their houses will be unsaleable, they can force the Council to purchase them, and the Council can then sell them off after the work is complete. The Council could well turn a profit because of the calmer traffic situation.

Closing date for all submissions in relation to this project is 5pm on Friday 16th of December 2016.

Middle Man

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The residents are going to fight this tooth and nail I reckon. Lots of comments in the Times story covering the proposal from residents about how it will 'devalue the properties'.

To hell with property prices - this is one of the very things holding this country back as getting anything significant done in urban areas has become next to impossible. Rail is the main concern here and while the road and pedestrian connections in the area must be upgraded and maintained, our public transport needs serious attention as it is the laughing stock of Europe. The whole cycling drive seems to be a mechanism by which the government can absolve themselves of any real action regarding rail infrastructure. The usual anti-car BS goes on while our public transport continues to be neglected. Cycling is no substitute for quality public transport (try beating the Luas on a bike) - from what I can see, most people prefer to walk anyway.

Get that rail inter-connector built now!!!

josip

Middle Man wrote: »

To hell with property prices - this is one of the very things holding this country back as getting anything significant done in urban areas has become next to impossible. Rail is the main concern here and while the road and pedestrian connections in the area must be upgraded and maintained, our public transport needs serious attention as it is the laughing stock of Europe. The whole cycling drive seems to be a mechanism by which the government can absolve themselves of any real action regarding rail infrastructure. The usual anti-car BS goes on while our public transport continues to be neglected. Cycling is no substitute for quality public transport (try beating the Luas on a bike) - from what I can see, most people prefer to walk anyway.

Get that rail inter-connector built now!!!

Luas? I'm faster than the Dart door-to door on my bike on my commute.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we leave the Luas and travelling time for another thread. Equally comments about travelling time by bike.

This thread is about the Merrion Gates and their removal/upgrade as part of the Sandymount / Merrion to Blackrock Corridor Study.

This study is attempting to improve cycling for commuting and for leisure. If you wish to discuss the cycling aspect of this study outside the Merrion Gates proposal, please start a new thread.

Thank you.

Sam

NuMarvel

The NTA are holding two information evenings this week in the Tara Towers Hotel on Merrion Road:

Tuesday 22nd November from 7pm to 9.30pm: and
Wednesday 23rd November from 7pm to 9.30pm.

Information on the proposals will be available at both sessions, and members of the NTA plus the design team will be available to answer queries on both evenings.

Sam Russell

The information meeting is on tonight (Tuesday) or tomorrow (Wednesday) in the Tara Towers - just up from the Merrion Gates.

Start time is 7 PM.

Sam Russell

Went to the information evening.

A bit of a disappointment as there was no formal presentation, just a wall of maps and a number of represents of the proposers. I got the impression that they thought they had got the best possible proposal and anything else was restricted by conservation of the bay, budgets, etc. etc.

I like the proposal re: Merrion Gates, and re: bikes.

Not sure about the traffic managements aspects though. If the toll was removed to make it more favourable for cars to be routed across it, it would help the flow of traffic in the morning, particularly Beckitt bridge. In the evening, Blackrock is the problem as is the Stillorgan dual carriageway - not much in this to help with either of those.

Carawaystick

Sam Russell wrote: »

Went to the information evening.

A bit of a disappointment as there was no formal presentation, just a wall of maps and a number of represents of the proposers.

That's always the way at these consultation meetings

Idbatterim

If the toll was removed to make it more favourable for cars to be routed across it, it would help the flow of traffic in the morning, particularly Beckitt bridge.

is removing the toll on the cards? i definitely think it should be gotten rid of, its an absolute joke trying to get over the macken street bridge east bound, at most times of the day...

also as the m50 is such a joke, I wonder would some people start to use the port tunnel while it is at the lower fee, to avoid the m50 when heading to sandyford etc?

L1011

The toll is now under the control of the Corpo so there is always a chance of it being removed but currently they're happy to take the income.

lucernarian

L1011 wrote: »

The toll is now under the control of the Corpo so there is always a chance of it being removed but currently they're happy to take the income.

The east link is already fully congested at peak times. Removing the toll wouldn't improve much.

The widening and signalling project at the Point itself is not going to help matters for bridge-bound traffic.

Sam Russell

lucernarian wrote: »

The east link is already fully congested at peak times. Removing the toll wouldn't improve much.

The widening and signalling project at the Point itself is not going to help matters for bridge-bound traffic.

The congestion is caused by the toll booths and the roundabout on North Wall Road. That needs to be sorted out. The toll booths have three lanes going north narrowing into one lane - a source of significant frustration for drivers. If the booths were removed, one lane would be all that was needed removing the problem.

I am not aware of the project at the Point.

The relief would be felt at the Beckett bridge, and Macken St.

Kitsunegari

Deedsie wrote: »

The congestion is caused by unsustainable number of single occupant private cars in the city centre. The toll should be kept to discourage them from entering the city, congestion charge. Wont work unfortunately.

They can't do that as public transport is already at a stand still and doesn't have the capacity to absorb the extra demand should DCC impose a congestion charge on the city.

Huge expenditure is needed on public transport. Then incentivise people to leave the cars at home through both a decrease in the cost of public transport and the introduction of a congestion charge. The media don't care about public transport so it isn't a big issue for them and the NTA don't care what the public think about how badly transport works in the greater Dublin area.

We'll still be giving out about the same issues in 20 years becuase we are absolutely useless at long term planning in this country.

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

The congestion is caused by unsustainable number of single occupant private cars in the city centre. The toll should be kept to discourage them from entering the city, congestion charge. Wont work unfortunately.

The toll causes people to go over the Beckett bridge. This in turn cause backups onto Macken St, and Guild St which causes further congestion into Butt Bridge and so on. Removing the toll allows traffic along East Wall Rd onto Strand Road and past Merrion Gates. With Merrion Gates gone, traffic flows would ease - at least as far as that.

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

The toll is already there. People talking about DCC removing the toll are being unrealistic. There is plenty of room on buses and trains coming into Dublin. If you want to use your car in Dublin City Centre you should be charged for the privilege.

Fair enough, but toll the Beckett bridge as well - or instead.

marno21

Public transport needs massive improvement to incentivise people to use it.

Considering the obscene congestion on the M1, N3, N4, N7 & N11 every morning it speaks volumes about how poor PT is that people are willing to sit in their car for that long.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we return to the discussion of the Merrion Gates scheme. It only effects traffic from Blackrock to the Eastlink bridge. Thankyou.

Sam Russell

The Merrion Gates scheme is open for submissions until 16th December 2016.

Written submissions and observations may be made

Through the online form in the “Public Consultations” section of our website ie/consultations/nta-opens-consultation-on-ambitious-proposals-to-tackle-merrion-gate-bottleneck/
By email: to eastcoast@nationaltransport.ie
By post to: East Coast Consultation, NTA, Dun Scéine, Iveagh Ct, Harcourt Lane, Dublin 2, D02 WT20

strassenwo!f

MYOB wrote:

The toll is now under the control of the Corpo so there is always a chance of it being removed but currently they're happy to take the income.

I'd say it's sensible for it to remain as a toll. It can represent a significant saving on time, and many people are happy to pay for that. If it wasn't tolled it'd be swamped and make it less desirable.

Idbatterim

I'd say it's sensible for it to remain as a toll. It can represent a significant saving on time, and many people are happy to pay for that. If it wasn't tolled it'd be swamped and make it less desirable.

strassenwo!f is offline Report Post

It would probably take a look of traffic off macken street and pearse street, which is an absolute joke...

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'd say it's sensible for it to remain as a toll. It can represent a significant saving on time, and many people are happy to pay for that. If it wasn't tolled it'd be swamped and make it less desirable.

Is there a reason you deliberately altered that post to "quote" an obsolete username of mine?

Sea point

Does anyone know when the NTA are going to share the results of the consultation and let people know what the current or emerging preferred options are?

CatInABox

The Merrion gates project seems to be in disarray due to local objections. Irish times has more here.

I can somewhat understand their objections due to the CPOs for gardens and building, and certainly a new overpass is less than ideal, but then they go on about how this will make traffic worse. I'd really have to scoff at that, removing the main reason for traffic there in the first place, a slow turn across a main road followed by highly used railway tracks will only make things better.

It'll be interesting to see what the effect of ten minute DART timetable will have on the area, my guess is that traffic will be backed up for miles around.

Bray Head

I think the scheme has been mis-sold.

It has been sold as a cycling scheme while really it has very little to do with cycling. It is really about rail capacity. The less level crossings you have, the more trains can pass. It would also greatly reduce traffic.

The bridge near Merrion Gates would also allow the closure of the Sandymount Avenue LC, although obviously they are being coy about this. Long-term, you could replace either Landsdowne Road LC or Serpentine Avenue LC with a bridge or tunnel, and close the other.

bk

Bray Head wrote: »

It has been sold as a cycling scheme while really it has very little to do with cycling. It is really about rail capacity. The less level crossings you have, the more trains can pass. It would also greatly reduce traffic.

Isn't the scheme being sneakily paid out of the cycling infrastructure budget?

I could be wrong, but I think that is why it was sold as a cycling project.

I agree that in reality it has little to do with cycling, but then it should come out of the rail budget and not cycling one. I think they might have shot themselves in the foot here.

4ensic15

The sensible thing to do would be to tunnel under the beach from the car park at the Martello Tower to the car park at Booterstown Dart Station.

CatInABox

bk wrote: »

Isn't the scheme being sneakily paid out of the cycling infrastructure budget?

I could be wrong, but I think that is why it was sold as a cycling project.

I agree that in reality it has little to do with cycling, but then it should come out of the rail budget and not cycling one. I think they might have shot themselves in the foot here.

It is, as part of the Dublin Bay cycle track.

It's an accounting fudge that Donald Trump would be proud of.

Bray Head

I am not sure there really is a 'rail' and 'cycling' budget.

It all comes the Department of Transport's capital budget via the Exchequer one way or the other. It may be part of a notional cycling envelope but it's all the same money.

CatInABox

4ensic15 wrote: »

The sensible thing to do would be to tunnel under the beach from the car park at the Martello Tower to the car park at Booterstown Dart Station.

Sensible perhaps, but extremely costly, which is the still the main sticking point for every project in Ireland now.

LeinsterDub

4ensic15 wrote: »

The sensible thing to do would be to tunnel under the beach from the car park at the Martello Tower to the car park at Booterstown Dart Station.

Surely that would be prohibitively expensive ?

In a recent letter to Labour Senator Kevin Humphreys, the NTA said it had been unable to come up with an alternative scheme because of EU protections on the seafront.

“Because of those environmental constraints we do not yet see a viable alternative scheme that complies with current environmental law. Yet the problems of increasing congestion remain.”

Bray Head

4ensic15 wrote: »

The sensible thing to do would be to tunnel under the beach from the car park at the Martello Tower to the car park at Booterstown Dart Station.

I think there is reference in the article about how this cannot be done for environmental law reasons*. Flooding might be an issue too.





*Even though the construction of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway in the 1830s made big changes to the foreshore. The birds, over the decades, have adapted.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

I think the scheme has been mis-sold.

It has been sold as a cycling scheme while really it has very little to do with cycling. It is really about rail capacity. The less level crossings you have, the more trains can pass. It would also greatly reduce traffic.

The bridge near Merrion Gates would also allow the closure of the Sandymount Avenue LC, although obviously they are being coy about this. Long-term, you could replace either Landsdowne Road LC or Serpentine Avenue LC with a bridge or tunnel, and close the other.

The Merrion Gates scheme was to be part of the cycling project but should have been a stand-alone traffic/railway project. Personally, I would favour an underpass as it would be lesser visual impact with little difference to the project. That could be built without the effect on local properties as that part of the project was to do with provision of bus lanes and cycle lanes.

The impact on the other four LCs would be small unless it was a huge success in solving the throughput of traffic through the new connection, rendering the remaining LCs as purely local access traffic.

There is no possibility of doing much about Lansdowne RD LC - if anything was to be done, it should have been done as part of the new stadium construction.

Raising or dropping the line would be a huge undertaking that would be an unrealistic capital cost given other projects requiring funding. The Dart needs 5m of clearance, as does traffic, so a net 5m has to be achieved and I do not see how that could be achieved.

It is not a small project (unlike the bridge) and for what would be a small gain. Trains get priority, not cars, so it would not affect the trains at all.

4ensic15

Can't be much dearer than the proposal being floated. A short tunnel, even to the Jacobs building car park from the Sandymount car park would only involve some land reclamation, would not involve CPO of any free-standing buildings and would not impact on the amenities of the area. The tunnell could be built with a cut and cover approach so would be easily and cheaply done.

Sam Russell

4ensic15 wrote: »

Can't be much dearer than the proposal being floated. A short tunnel, even to the Jacobs building car park from the Sandymount car park would only involve some land reclamation, would not involve CPO of any free-standing buildings and would not impact on the amenities of the area. The tunnell could be built with a cut and cover approach so would be easily and cheaply done.

The Merrion Strand is a conservation area (as is the whole Dublin Bay) which I was told at the public consultation was a no-no for anything like that. Most objections were related to the loss of gardens and car parking on Merrion Rd.

Poster King

The proposal for a bridge going over the railway near the Merrion Church was never going to fly and it's a crazy solution. A cut and cover tunnel running north from the Jacob's building along the seafront and joining Strand Road near Strand House seems to me to be an ideal solution. It would involve tunnelling under the railway but I believe this can be done without disturbing railway movements - I remember seeing something similar being done in Boston's Big Dig where they slid a large wide road tunnel under several railway tracks.
There would be some temporary impact on the environment but this would return to normal once works were completed. There simply has to be some flexibility with Environmental Protection Laws, if not, nothing will get done.

See attached my rough sketch showing my proposed route.

https://ibb.co/kDRizx

vrusinov

Sandymount strand floods every few years during high tides. I imagine any tunnel is no-go for this reason.

LeinsterDub

Poster King wrote: »

See attached my rough sketch showing my proposed route.

https://ibb.co/kDRizx

You want to build a cut and cover tunnel in the middle of the sea ? :eek:

Sam Russell

The current proposal for replacing the Merrion Gates ignoring the rest is 250 m of road inc a new bridge. The existing gates are to be replaced by an pedestrian underpass. Compared with a few km of cut and cover tunnel, it is significantly cheaper, and would cause less disruption. No homes lost and little CPO.

If going for a tunnel, then go all the way from the Irish Glass Bottle site, and take all the traffic from the Frank Clarke Bridge - it would be across the strand - and then a causeway would be cheaper, with a bridge across the railway.

Crayons anyone?

Poster King

A sealed buried tunnel won't let in water along its length. The southern end opening isn't at risk of flooding as it would be set back from the sea and be protected by the railway line and a sea wall, the northern opening might possibly be at risk of some flooding during very high tides combined with an easterly storm, but protections could be put in place at that location and in extreme very rare situations the tunnel might have to be closed and traffic rerouted by Sydney Parade. Strand Route itself doesn't flood that much, what floods is the below sea level land to the West of it.
I'd be very interested to know if the cut and cover tunnel option was ever even considered or did someone just say "No can do - would be in breach of ridiculously strict and inflexible environmental protection laws"

Poster King

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You want to build a cut and cover tunnel in the middle of the sea ? :eek:

Yes, very easily done I believe. You build a temporary sea wall using metal panels that are piled into the ground, then you dig your trench, then you insert concrete 'tubes' which are totally sealed, then you fill back in the hole and cover with sand/beach.

Poster King

Sam Russell wrote: »

Compared with a few km of cut and cover tunnel, it is significantly cheaper, and would cause less disruption. No homes lost and little CPO.

It would be 550m of tunnel, NOT a few km. The tunnel option would cause a lot less long term disruption and NO homes would be lost to CPO. The only thing that might have to go is a Petrol station (these will be obsolete in a few years anyway) and maybe a a couple of meters of grass and car park from St Mary's Nursing home so that Merrion Road could be realigned/widened to make room for a new junction.

LeinsterDub

Poster King wrote: »

Yes, very easily done I believe. You build a temporary sea wall using metal panels that are piled into the ground, then you dig your trench, then you insert concrete 'tubes' which are totally sealed, then you fill back in the hole and cover with sand/beach.

Budget blown, environment ruined, cycle lane not implemented.
Other than that completely feasible

Poster King

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Budget blown, environment ruined, cycle lane not implemented.
Other than that completely feasible

A little negative thinking there. The budget just might have to be increased, this problem needs to be solved once and for all, and they shouldn't try and pass this off as part of the coastal cycle route. This is a major piece of very necessary infrastructure whcih will reduce traffic congestion but much more importantly it will allow for significant increase in train frequency.

I don't believe the environment would be "ruined". A very small strip of beach will be impacted for a period of probably 3 years, the environment will adapt and return to it's previous state very quickly and once the job is complete the tunnel will be hidden and it will have far less visual impact than a bridge.

And as regards the very important cycle path, this can very easily be incorporated into this scheme. You make the tunnel under the railway wide enough to accommodate a cycle path and then have this cycle path come back to the surface immediately on the sea side of the railway line via a ramp, then the cycle lane continues north along the now very quiet section of Strand Road.