Merrion Gates removal scheme

Carawaystick

D.L.R. wrote: »

Merrion-Blackrock needs two running lanes each way for cars. The Gates aren't the main problem, its the heavy flows merging onto a single lane - at the Blackrock end in the morning and the Merrion end in the evening. Disappointing to see this issue being ignored yet again, especially considering the ample space.

Disapointing to see people with 2 good forms of public transport whinge about getting more space to drive cars...

Disappointing to see cycle infrastructure proposed by the organisation that wrote the national cycling manual, which fails to meed the standards in the manual.

Disappointing to see a scheme which will spend the vast majority of construction funds on a road for cars come from the cycling budget.

lucernarian

Carawaystick wrote: »

Disapointing to see people with 2 good forms of public transport whinge about getting more space to drive cars...

Disappointing to see cycle infrastructure proposed by the organisation that wrote the national cycling manual, which fails to meed the standards in the manual.

Disappointing to see a scheme which will spend the vast majority of construction funds on a road for cars come from the cycling budget.

You made some good points there and I agree in the main. At least what is being done will be a substantial benefit to public transport also.

The big question I have regarding this is how the NTA are managing local expectations and fears. The idea does seem to be the best option in a general sense but there should have been a very detailed look into alternatives and even a route selection part. It might seem pointless but then there would be less risk of legal objections and political grievance.

Its not the first time the NTA did something like this. There was an ostensibly good idea as part of the BRT to Swords to route it through an almost complete route, and reopen a closed part behind JC's supermarket in Swords. Thing is, the local estates had the idea sprung on them and the idea was canned amid fiery opposition. All in the run-up to a local election too.

Sam Russell

Merrion Gates is only a small part of a project that goes from Sean More Road in Irishtown to Seapoint in Monkstown.

The proposal for the bridge to bypass the Merrion Gates is very good because it is hard to see an alternative that achieves as much.

The proposal includes making the bus lanes 24 hour so that will make a difference, and separating the cycle lanes from the bus lanes which will also make a difference.

Merrion Gates is a small part of the scheme - I do not know how much of the budget it eats up. Merrion Gates is a disaster as it is, but the pedestrian and cycle underpass could be dropped in favour of a pedestrian bridge.

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

What the hell? On one hand you praise the separating of bus and cyclist and in the next paragraph you want to cut the cycling part of the scheme. This project is coming out of the cycling budget, it is the last big obstacle in the Sutton to Sandycove cycle way. The budget is €48 million, why go straight for cutting the cycling feature of the project and in doing so ruin the efforts of joining up cycling routes from Sutton to sandycove?

I'm not cutting anything. The underpass is not needed and is likely to be seen as a safety issue by people who see such things as a threatening environment, particularly at night, and a location for anti-social behaviour.

There could be a smaller level crossing for bikes and/or a bridge for people and bikes. The problem caused by the Merrion Gates is related to vehicle traffic - it would be OK for bikes without cars and lorries.

It is a discussion document, not even a definite proposal and is a much greater project than just a Merrion Gates bypass.

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

A level crossing for bikes? Why overly complicate a situation that a perfectly good solution has already been found for?

It is actually a simplification. Replace the current gates with smaller gates for bikes and people. Underpasses for people and bikes tend to be frightening places at night - particularly for those of a female persuasion.

karma_coma

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is actually a simplification. Replace the current gates with smaller gates for bikes and people.

While yes, this removes the issue of vehicle strike on the current level crossing, this idea fails to reflect the overall issue with level crossings; they slow down rail traffic on the busiest commuter rail line in the city.

The real goal in slowly shutting off pedestrian and vehicular traffic from the DART line is to facilitate an increase to the frequency of trains per hour.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Underpasses for people and bikes tend to be frightening places at night - particularly for those of a female persuasion.

I think a lot of peoples fear of underpasses stems from past designs (Blackrock underpass/ Stillorgan N11 underpass) and associated negative experiences in walking through them (no daylight, poorly artificially lit, narrow, cold concrete finish, poorly policed).

As is shown in the renders for this design, it seems these urban design errors of past underpasses are being addressed.
The street level grading down towards the underpass is broken in to a landscaped area and the through way itself is nearly as wide as it is long (get your innuendos in here).

This I believe, reduces the visceral (association) fear in pedestrians minds with an underpass being a hive for anti-social behaviour. Reason being, it feels more like an archway than a long, never lit by daylight throughway.

There's plenty of examples of these more modern styled underpasses i've been through myself.

I'd also argue that another pedestrian bridge has more risks than a graded underpass in terms of antisocial behaviour; youths dropping objects from above on to tracks below.

Also, the engineering/construction cost of shoring up & excavating an underpass would be a cheaper option vs the cost of designing a fancy pedestrian overpass across the line. An overpass would also more likely be met with more local objection from residents on that end of the street who'd have their light blocked.

In this area specifically, I think an underpass is the best solution. It's heavily trafficked by strollers and cyclists daily and at night and will be well lit. As such, I don't think fear of underpasses should be a reason to disagree with it.

D.L.R.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Disapointing to see people with 2 good forms of public transport whinge about getting more space to drive cars...

Its not about me or local PT, its about managing heavy traffic effectively.

Good PT is not an excuse for bad traffic management.

ted1

D.L.R. wrote: »

Merrion-Blackrock needs two running lanes each way for cars. The Gates aren't the main problem, its the heavy flows merging onto a single lane - at the Blackrock end in the morning and the Merrion end in the evening. Disappointing to see this issue being ignored yet again, especially considering the ample space.

The dart frequency is increasing and the level crossing will be down more often. It's going to get worse.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

I'm not cutting anything. The underpass is not needed and is likely to be seen as a safety issue by people who see such things as a threatening environment, particularly at night, and a location for anti-social behaviour.

There could be a smaller level crossing for bikes and/or a bridge for people and bikes. The problem caused by the Merrion Gates is related to vehicle traffic - it would be OK for bikes without cars and lorries.

It is a discussion document, not even a definite proposal and is a much greater project than just a Merrion Gates bypass.

So we spend millions to get rid of the level crossing only to end up with a level crossing? And then 12 years after we can go back and link up the lines remove the level crossing.

Bray Head

Carawaystick wrote: »

Disapointing to see people with 2 good forms of public transport whinge about getting more space to drive cars...

I have used the Rock/Merrion Road bus service over the years and it is not a 'good' form of public transport. The routes are long so you get bunching. They are sometimes full at peak times. The service is slow, more so than for similar routes using the Howth Road/Amiens St corridor for whatever reason.
Over the last 25 years more and more (finite) road space in Dublin has been given over to buses. This is fine in principle. My problem is that they do not use it nearly as efficiently as they could be. My feeling is that you will only get small improvements in bus times from increasing the length of bus lanes, while at the same time you are inconveniencing a greater number of motorists.

4ensic15

Bray Head wrote: »

I have used the Rock/Merrion Road bus service over the years and it is not a 'good' form of public transport. The routes are long so you get bunching. They are sometimes full at peak times. The service is slow, more so than for similar routes using the Howth Road/Amiens St corridor for whatever reason.
Over the last 25 years more and more (finite) road space in Dublin has been given over to buses. This is fine in principle. My problem is that they do not use it nearly as efficiently as they could be. My feeling is that you will only get small improvements in bus times from increasing the length of bus lanes, while at the same time you are inconveniencing a greater number of motorists.

Inconveniencing motorists often results in them switching to public transport. Most drivers on the Rock and Merrion roads could use the DART.

Bray Head

4ensic15 wrote: »

Bray Head wrote: »

I have used the Rock/Merrion Road bus service over the years and it is not a 'good' form of public transport. The routes are long so you get bunching. They are sometimes full at peak times. The service is slow, more so than for similar routes using the Howth Road/Amiens St corridor for whatever reason.
Over the last 25 years more and more (finite) road space in Dublin has been given over to buses. This is fine in principle. My problem is that they do not use it nearly as efficiently as they could be. My feeling is that you will only get small improvements in bus times from increasing the length of bus lanes, while at the same time you are inconveniencing a greater number of motorists.

Inconveniencing motorists often results in them switching to public transport. Most drivers on the Rock and Merrion roads could use the DART.

Inconveniencing motorists is one way to stimulate modal shift to bus or rail.

It is neither terribly effective nor terribly efficient though.
I like the idea of a system that moves the maximum number of humans along a finite piece of road space. Bus, private car and bicycle are all part of that optimal mix, whatever that mix is.

dublinman1990

The PT issue addressing the bus routes is that this area is getting a new look 7 route to Brides Glen Luas & a new daily 7a route to Loughlinstown Park along with the current 4 route which increases the use of buses in that area as well as a high frequency DART which also runs every day.

The idea of the 24 hour bus lane is also good because Aircoach, the taxis can use their vehicles on it with any minimal distruption to other traffic.

So you wouldn't be stuck with PT in the area then to what it was before.

The idea of a modern underpass in place of the LC is also a good idea because the modern design is safer to use because it has an efficient use of lighting in that vicinity; it cuts down on anti-social behaviour at night because Strand Road statistically has a very low crime rate.

An overpass is a ridiculous idea because it is a extreme waste of money to build one & not an attractive build IMO.

Sam Russell

karma_coma wrote: »

While yes, this removes the issue of vehicle strike on the current level crossing, this idea fails to reflect the overall issue with level crossings; they slow down rail traffic on the busiest commuter rail line in the city.

The real goal in slowly shutting off pedestrian and vehicular traffic from the DART line is to facilitate an increase to the frequency of trains per hour.




I think a lot of peoples fear of underpasses stems from past designs (Blackrock underpass/ Stillorgan N11 underpass) and associated negative experiences in walking through them (no daylight, poorly artificially lit, narrow, cold concrete finish, poorly policed).

As is shown in the renders for this design, it seems these urban design errors of past underpasses are being addressed.
The street level grading down towards the underpass is broken in to a landscaped area and the through way itself is nearly as wide as it is long (get your innuendos in here).

This I believe, reduces the visceral (association) fear in pedestrians minds with an underpass being a hive for anti-social behaviour. Reason being, it feels more like an archway than a long, never lit by daylight throughway.

There's plenty of examples of these more modern styled underpasses i've been through myself.

I'd also argue that another pedestrian bridge has more risks than a graded underpass in terms of antisocial behaviour; youths dropping objects from above on to tracks below.

Also, the engineering/construction cost of shoring up & excavating an underpass would be a cheaper option vs the cost of designing a fancy pedestrian overpass across the line. An overpass would also more likely be met with more local objection from residents on that end of the street who'd have their light blocked.

In this area specifically, I think an underpass is the best solution. It's heavily trafficked by strollers and cyclists daily and at night and will be well lit. As such, I don't think fear of underpasses should be a reason to disagree with it.

The level of gratuitous graffiti around the area is unbelievable. IR have had to repaint a services box next to Sydney Parade many times. The have errected a 3m fence. They have installed CCTV cameras. All this to no avail.

The same senseless idiots scrawl their far from artistic dawbs on any flat surface they think that the paint will stick to - the more inaccessible the better the bragging rights among their mindless friends.

By the way, the new pedestrian bridge at Sydney Parade might be a good model for the Merrion Gates istead os an expensive underpass - and while they are at it, remove/replace the hideous one at the back of the church (Our Ladies, Queen of Peace, Merrion Road). With the new bridge it will be unnecessary.

karma_coma

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have installed CCTV cameras. All this to no avail.

The same senseless idiots scrawl their far from artistic dawbs on any flat surface they think that the paint will stick to - the more inaccessible the better

So graffiti on a pedestrian bridge, higher up is less visible/ difficult to access than an underpass?

Anyway, graffiti is a separate issue and should not be mentioned in this thread. We're talking about infrastructure. Not anti-social behaviour. Issues associated with policing it at present should have a separate thread.

Sam Russell wrote: »

By the way, the new pedestrian bridge at Sydney Parade might be a good model for the Merrion Gates istead os an expensive underpass

Would be interested in seeing the new bridge if you've an image? Currently living outside the country. I remember the temporary one IR installed (and remained in place for what seemed like a year) was woeful. A bridge i'd imagine would require lifts for prams/wheelchair users which constantly break down/incur lifetime cost through maintenance.

Also stairs over a short/compact footbridge require cyclists to dismount. This would defeat the purpose of this being designed as a piece of infrastructure to improve user experience for cyclists. Ramps up to pedestrian bridges are difficult to pull off as to make them easy to use they need a gently graded ramp. This would inevitably be an obstruction to houses on the sea side of Merrion Gates.

I would concede this could be pulled off it it graded up slowly over the line past Merrion Gates towards the petrol station on the other side. Presumably this option was considered and perhaps there were issues with requiring land CPO.

At the end of the day, the underpass design proposal makes the most sense for a number of different reasons mentioned previously.

D.L.R.

I think the underpass is a bit unnecessary tbh. A well designed bridge would be equally appealing.. and a lot cheaper.

Bray Head

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think the underpass is a bit unnecessary tbh. A well designed bridge would be equally appealing.. and a lot cheaper.

I would hazard a guess that there is not enough space for a grade-separated junction as well as an underpass.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZWLdzdd9Yk12

Carawaystick

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think the underpass is a bit unnecessary tbh. A well designed bridge would be equally appealing.. and a lot cheaper.

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

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that there is not enough space for a grade-separated junction as well as an underpass.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZWLdzdd9Yk12

Carawaystick wrote: »

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

In the proposal. there is a bridge beside Merrion Hall (the old CTT building) and the church (Our ady Queen of Peace). By some luck, the proposed route for the bridge goes over two car parks and requires no buildings to be acquired and knocked. This could be built with little to no disruption of traffic.

I would imagine that once this has been completed, the Merrion Gates would be closed (permanently) and the bike and pedestrian underpass would be constructed.

There is not enough space to construct a roadway through the Merrion Gates without a large number of buildings being demolished. An underpass might be prone to a flooding risk, but I would presume they have thought of that.

I think the road bridge next to Merrion Hall is a clever solution, but it is only part of a very extensive scheme. I am not so sure about the underpass at Merrion Gates - it is an expensive, and I would have thought unnecessary, addition to the scheme.

The bridge is unlikely to be open in the next five years.

murphaph

I think the proposed solution is very clever. A bridge in place of the proposed underpass would be a horrible "user experience" for pedestrians and cyclists. It's coastal so windy enough without elevating the users 6m above ground level.

They do need to design it well and it should be extremely well illuminated, day and night.

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.

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.