No New Malahide Railway Bridge Till 2011

Sponge Bob

The reason is simple. The Malahide Estuary is a something or other habitat and it will take A FULL YEAR OF RESEARCH to work up an EIS around which the plan for replacing the bridge will be formulated . This appears to me to indicate that construction cannot commence before 2011 .

I personally blame the likes Ian Lumley and Brian Guckian and Peter Sweetman for tying development of essential infrastructure in Ireland up in knots with their constant environmental whining It is vital that commuters affected by this write to these sociopaths and tell them to butt out of this one .

I also vote for Ian Brian and Peter to spend the winter counting the ****ing geese in Malahide Estuary together and actually do something useful for sustainable transport for teh first time ever the lot of ye

Paul Melia, The Irish Independent, 13th May 2008


Rules forcing councils to investigate what impact development would have on bird habitats has resulted in plans for a €1Om football academy in north Dublin being shelved.

The Sporting Fingal facility will have to be built elsewhere because it would have taken a year to find out if it would have affected a rare
species of goose on the Malahide estuary.

A town plan for Swords which will see its population double to 100,000 will also have to be put back as a result of the new guidelines.

Before town plans are finalised or developments approved near Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, the future impact on rare bird species will have to be discovered. Permission must be refused, and town plans altered, unless it can be proved there will be no negative effects.

Gerry Clabby, Heritage Officer with Fingal County Council said yesterday "It's a fairly rigorous process .. in the Malahide estuary you have an internationally important site".

And some of these rare gooses are on their way down from the Artic right now.

Run_to_da_hills

If this was bombed by the Nazis in Allied territory you could be damn sure that something would be up and running within the week.

Judgement Day

Spongebob you should have posted that in Rant and Raving - you are really losing the plot.

Sponge Bob

Judgement Day wrote: »

you are really losing the plot.

Dude . The Malahide Railway bridge is SLAP in the middle of an SAC

Nothing can be done in a SAC, Guckian Lumley and Sweetman spend all their time objecting to people looking at a SAC.

You may not even DEMOLISH a structure in a SAC without an EIS .

Furthermore the Malahide Railway bridge is unfortunately the only key piece of transport infrastructure in the while of the state that happens to be located IN in a SAC .

Read

http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,3893,en.pdf

Malahide Estuary is situated immediately north of Malahide and east of Swords. It isthe estuary of the River Broadmeadow. The site is divided by a railway viaduct built in the 1800s.

furthermore

The estuary is an important wintering bird site and holds an internationally important population of Brent Geese and nationally important populations of a further 15 species.

and now , in late august ...

http://npweb.npolar.no/english/arter/ringgas

Brent geese arrive at their nesting sites toward the end of May or in early June. The autumn migration occurs in the first half of September.

So they have about a week to rebuild the bridge and then nothing may be done till May with the gooses about .

dolby

I will go and shoot the F**kin gooses problem solved! same **** back when they built the M7 with a F**Kin worm:rolleyes:

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

Spongebob you should have posted that in Rant and Raving - you are really losing the plot.

Far from it I would suggest.

And the irony of this is that the "anti-development" folk screw up public transport and make the car more indispensable with the vast complex of regulations they have brought in!

The 'pro-roads' establishment do whatever is required to make sure roads are built. But it suits them down to the ground when the same obstacles are put in the way of a Luas, bus-lane, railway - so they let the NIMBYs and Cranks have there day in the planning process; and their 3rd party appeals, and their beloved Euro-regulations, the High Court court appeals, the Supreme Court appeals, the "whining to Europe", and their concern for every slug and snail that might be discommoded!

While they get on with pushing the roads programme through.

I love it! (Being an irony junkie).

:D:D

Sponge Bob

That snail held up the Kildare bypass for around 7 years IIRC ...till they wrapped the motorway in plastic or something . The worm lived in a SAC a bit to the north of the motorway but the motorway would have affected its habitat until it was designed not to .

In Malahide this bridge is slap in the middle of the SAC, an important existing physical element in the SAC dividing inner/outer estuary .

Malahide railway bridge should not take quite that long to rebuild but like I said nothing can be done from September once the gooses arrive until May when they naturally bugger off for the summer

about that snail!

http://www.iwai.ie/releases/pollardstown.fen.phtml

Kildare County Council initially proposed the motorway route in 1982.


•An E.I.S. and final reports were completed in 1993. •The O.P.W. (now Duchas) completed their assessment of the E.I.S. in November 1993. They listed, in serious terms, 35 objections to the proposed dewatering of the aquifer (see below).

•A public enquiry was held in November 1993. A report by the Inspector was completed in May 1994. The Inspector outlined grave reservations in relation to the proposed design of the motorway.

•The matter was referred to Minister for the Environment. A decision was made, in 1996, to proceed with the motorway but to raise the road level by 2m. This would still leave the road well below the water table and cause loss of water from the aquifer. The Minister requested that a monitoring programme be initiated to follow any changes in the water levels.

•An Taisce became aware of the situation in 1998 and submitted copies of the OPW and Chief Planner's reports to the E.U.

•Mid 1998 the E.U. stopped further work on the motorway pending their investigation. •Report by independent hydrogeologist, Professor Ken Rushden was completed in April, 1999.

•Letter from Irish authorities to EU Directorate-General re the complaint P98/4307 concerning Pollardstown fen.

•Letter from EU Directorate- General requesting the Duchas report + etc.

•Nov. 2000 the contracts for the bypass construction were signed.

Wild Bill

Certainly if they try to rebuild the viaduct with a callous disregard for the rich biosphere of marine critters I'll be the first to take out an injunction. After all, what is the rail network and tens of thousands of commuters driven onto the M1 when set beside the rights of some fascinating bottom feeding worm? :mad:

Sponge Bob

Wild Bill wrote: »

Certainly if they try to rebuild the viaduct with a callous disregard for the rich biosphere of marine critters I'll be the first to take out an injunction. After all, what is the rail network and tens of thousands of commuters driven onto the M1 when set beside the rights of some fascinating bottom feeding worm? :mad:

Brent Geese dude

But the important precedent here is that No other piece of key infrastructure in the state is an integral physical PART of a SAC .

We have never had to rebuild infrastructure located In a SAC before .

Brian Ian and Peter simply must exercise themselves with this delicate issue for the next while and if it means they feck off out of Galway then I commend they do so forthwith...obviously for the greater good

L1011

Can we start work on the Outer Bypass while they're off goose-hugging, please?

Wild Bill

Epilogue: the Pollardstown snail is now extinct I heard. Drowned. By the successive wet summers of 2007 and 2008. If only they'd let the original motorway go ahead this critter might still be around.

Sometimes folk reap what they deserve!

Amtmann

This will truly test the metal of the M1 and the M50 upgrade.

Sponge Bob

Wild Bill wrote: »

Epilogue: the Pollardstown snail is now extinct I heard. Drowned. By the successive wet summers of 2007 and 2008.

Jebus :eek: The poor little divil.

But were someone to shoot all the gooses this winter ( a few 1000 of them may I add) one would still have to do a full EIS to PROVE they are no longer actually there and that EIS could not start till september 2010 ....could it ??

Wild Bill

Furet wrote: »

This will truly test the metal of the M1 and the M50 upgrade.

Alas! The junction of those roads is under construction with myriad ongoing traffic restrictions. Thank the Lord I don't live on the Northside. They can only lie back and think of the geese. :P

dolby

it's such a joke to many do-gooders in this country, im sure the geese wont mind its only a bridge! how bout the 90 trains passing there everyday that didn't kill them?..
if a certain C.J.H was still the main-man they would have builders employed building there as we speak!
we all can see how bad the planning laws have not worked (above person partly to blame!). Common Sense should prevail:rolleyes:

markpb

Furet wrote: »

This will truly test the metal of the M1 and the M50 upgrade.

The M1 will be fine, it's the N1, Whitehall, Drumcondra and the city centre I'm worried about!

Judgement Day

Yeah, why bother having any planning guidelines at all, or designated areas of heritage interest - just build what, where and when you like. The environment of Ireland is already so fxxxxxxd it little more damage won't make any difference. Anyway this is a total red herring - the presence, or otherwise, of Brent Geese, snails or FF pond life will have no affect on the timescale for rebuilding of the viaduct. It will be down to the finance being available and Dempsey getting off his backside to make sure the job is got on with. Surprised you haven't all started An Taisce's position on the rebuilding of the viaduct! Don't worry, I am so mad with the Neanderthal reaction towards the environment on this thread I won't annoy any of you by enaging further. The viaduct will be rebuilt as soon as the finance is provided. :mad:

lucernarian

dolby wrote: »

it's such a joke to many do-gooders in this country, im sure the geese wont mind its only a bridge! how bout the 90 trains passing there everyday that didn't kill them?..
if a certain C.J.H was still the main-man they would have builders employed building there as we speak!
we all can see how bad the planning laws have not worked (above person partly to blame!). Common Sense should prevail:rolleyes:

Especially in the malahide estuary area:p CJH will truly turn in his grave when the environmentalists come along. Charlie wasn't a man not to get his own way in his own backyard.

And the affected areas aren't the northside in the full sense. Northside always sounds North-of-liffey Dublin city. That's rural Co. Dublin with a few medium sized towns. The real northsiders from Malahide (yep even those white-collar denizens) southwards will be grand on their darts.

Judgement Day, I think the problem most posters have on this discussion, is that the EU/Irish environment guidelines are very skewed in favour of qualitative instead of quantitative effects on the environment. There will be massive problems building this bridge, as the law is really about the presence of special conservation interests. Not nearly as much about how much or little they would be affected.

This repair/replacement work will surely negatively affect the SAC. This will have to be accepted if the bridge is to be rebuilt. Rebuilding could take a long time, for damage to be minimised fully. Also, I'd like to know how Railway Orders can be affected by Bord Pleanála guidelines, i.e. about SACs

Zoney

Presumably the real issue is that they should be able to go through what is required quickly even for a SAC. A lot of these lengthy processes simply need to be swiftly processed rather than ditched.

But no, we live in a country where it takes until Easter to finally start paying out student maintanance grants for previous September's semester where the claims went in by the previous July!

mikemac

If you ever watch those WWII documentaries you see the army installing bridges in days or even hours.
Bailey bridge I believe is the term.

Could the army not put in something temporary while a permanent solution is being worked on.
60 years ago they were able to build bridges for tanks......

RobD_

irish rail say it'll be atleast 3 months before the current bridge is usable ... nothing about a new one

Victor

The full span is 180m, bailey bridges simply can't do that, assuming that all the piers will be considered suspect.

There is also the matter of the safety standards you are operating under. In a war, where you expect those tanks to have been blown up in 3 days anyway, you are will to take a lot more risks.

Sponge Bob

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anyway this is a total red herring - the presence, or otherwise, of Brent Geese, snails or FF pond life will have no affect on the timescale for rebuilding of the viaduct. It will be down to the finance being available and Dempsey getting off his backside to make sure the job is got on with.

I can tell you for certain that the full gamut of environmental blow hards from Ian Lumley to Brian Guckian to Peter Sweretman to the NPWS would be swarming all over us in Galway were we to attempt the construction of ANYTHING in a SAC or in an NHA .

I expect that the same people will blow just as hard about this

Chris_533976

..except when they want to plop a housing estate on an SAC

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

I am so mad with the Neanderthal reaction towards the environment on this thread I won't annoy any of you by enaging further.

Well I'm mad as hell at the preservationists who are hell bent of exploiting our daft planning system (designed to enrich insiders in the re-zoning process) being used to push the cost and timescale to deliver modern infrastructure to ridiculous lengths.

The "usual suspects" with their 3rd party objections are not environmentalists; they are an assemblage-of-convenience of anti-roads fetishists, Luddites, NIMBYs , political radicals and Green mystics (now that trad religions are out of fashion). :mad:

Rowley Birkin QC

Planning issues aside, I worked on motorway construction during summers for the last few years. I've driven fully laden 40 tonne dumpers, tractors, steamrollers over Bailey Bridges that were constructed in days and placed over operational national routes. The sheer speed that the construction industry is capable of operating at is blistering these days. This is an occasion when this kind of pace is needed.

This repair/replacement really needs to be fast-tracked in a major way.

lostexpectation

stop getting mad at mythical people,stop making them myths

isn't this a case of sib, strategic infrastructure procedures... with can speed planning and or avoid lengthy studies.

surely they'll have done some studies there for marina etc...

Sponge Bob

Strategic infrastructure may be built quicker but this is still an integral part of a SAC .

The question hinges on whether they can drop new crossbeams onto the existing piers or not . If the foundations are sound and if they need but drop in a few crossbeams and rebuild the railway on top they should be able to do that quickly .

However if the key failure were in the piers or their foundations and they want to fix the bridge they must modify these foundations.

The bridge / causeway keeps water levels high in the inner estuary where the gooses winter. Modifications to the foundations have implications for the ecosystem west of the bridge where dropping a few new beams across the existing foundations do not.

They must therefore design a new bridge and produce an EIS of the design and the of the engineering implementation of the design in that case

From the Independent today

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/my-legs-turned-to-jelly-as-i-saw-the-bridge-collapse-1867312.html

Engineers had inspected the viaduct on the main Dublin to Belfast line only last Tuesday, but heavy rain in the following days may have played a part in a 20-metre section of the viaduct falling into the fast flowing waters of the estuary just before 6.30pm on Friday.

Indicating some foundations were washed away . And

The viaduct and bridge were built in the late Sixties to replace a bridge built in 1848.

I am not sure if all the bridge is 40 years old or if that date refers only to the beams that collapsed. The piers look like they are original 1848 jobbies.

lostexpectation

merge with other thread for the win

Boston

dolby wrote: »

it's such a joke to many do-gooders in this country, im sure the geese wont mind its only a bridge! how bout the 90 trains passing there everyday that didn't kill them?..
if a certain C.J.H was still the main-man they would have builders employed building there as we speak!
we all can see how bad the planning laws have not worked (above person partly to blame!). Common Sense should prevail:rolleyes:

The reason for these EIS is because of developments in Ireland historically taking the piss when it comes to the environment.

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They must therefore design a new bridge and produce an EIS of the design and the of the engineering implementation of the design in that case

They don't need an EIS as they are replacing an existing structure which has been there for over 150 years. Now go off and find something else to scaremonger about please.

Sponge Bob

Hungerford wrote: »

They don't need an EIS as they are replacing an existing structure which has been there for over 150 years. Now go off and find something else to scaremonger about please.

Wrong , they do not normally need an EIS to repair or replace a structure which was built on foot of a railway order ....except that this bridge is in a SAC , ie an Annex 1 Natura 2000 site , and therefore the Habitats Directive applies first of all .

http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,6683,en.pdf

Natura 2000 sites

In relation to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA), it is a
requirement of the Habitats Directive ((92/43/EEC) that the competent consent authority, which
in this case is the planning authority or An Bord Pleanála on appeal, must ensure that a proposal
which is likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or SPA, is authorised only to the extent that

the authority is satisfied it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area.

An Board Pleanala may possibly exempt IE from this EIS under Section 10(2) of the Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 but this leads to the possibility of an EU investigation/sanction seeing as IE inspected it 3 days earlier and passed it and then they may have to do an EIS anyway :cool:

Wild Bill

Makes the advisability of calling an area containing such a vital piece of infrastructure an SAC in the first place. Does the precious area extend as far up the estuary as the M1 bridge? I seem to remember the swans and geese were about to be exterminated by that bridge being built! It would appear they survived the trauma.

In the light of this collapse it's a durn good thing the "environmentalists" didn't manage to block construction of the M1

Sponge Bob

IE will not replace the bridge. They will

1. Replace the pier that collapsed only
2. They will replace the deck across that pier
3. They will shore up the weir (completed) to its previous level .
4. IE have brought on a sort of parallel EIS consultant to deal with SAC isues but IE are lying to everybody about the consultant .

There is no Professor Keogh in UCC except in the History department and he is not qualified to advise IE on this matter. SEE what I mean for yourself .

5. They will do some work on the bases of the remaining piers to mitigate against scour without replacing the piers or decks . This will probably require armour rock and concrete . Some of this work will be done after the bridge opens .

However as they are now only going to replace that which collapsed and are not installing a new bridge it does qualify as a repair and probably does not require an EIS .

If they find they need to knock and replace another pier or two that will all change very quickly and a full EIS will be required .

Now who is this "Professor Keogh of UCC" chap that IE are telling people about ???

ad hoc

Sponge Bob wrote: »

IE will not replace the bridge. They will

1. Replace the pier that collapsed only
2. They will replace the deck across that pier
3. They will shore up the weir (completed) to its previous level .
4. IE have brought on a sort of parallel EIS consultant to deal with SAC isues but IE are lying to everybody about the consultant .

There is no Professor Keogh in UCC except in the History department and he is not qualified to advise IE on this matter. SEE what I mean for yourself .

5. They will do some work on the bases of the remaining piers to mitigate against scour without replacing the piers or decks . This will probably require armour rock and concrete . Some of this work will be done after the bridge opens .

However as they are now only going to replace that which collapsed and are not installing a new bridge it does qualify as a repair and probably does not require an EIS .

If they find they need to knock and replace another pier or two that will all change very quickly and a full EIS will be required .

Now who is this "Professor Keogh of UCC" chap that IE are telling people about ???

Hey Square Pants, its Eamon McKeogh, not Keogh.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0828/breaking49.htm
http://www.ucc.ie/en/civileng/People/SeniorLecturer/EamonJMcKeogh/

Sponge Bob

ad hoc wrote: »

Hey Square Pants, its Eamon McKeogh, not Keogh.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0828/breaking49.htm
http://www.ucc.ie/en/civileng/People/SeniorLecturer/EamonJMcKeogh/

I was quoting what IE Told Malahide Chamber of Commerce last week.

Eamonn is not a professor but a senior lecturer . Not questioning his ability or professionalism in any way ...only the skewed misleading IE presentation of 'their' expert !

http://www.ucc.ie/academic/civil/acastaff.html

The Word Is Bor

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I was quoting what IE Told Malahide Chamber of Commerce last week.

Eamonn is not a professor but a senior lecturer . Not questioning his ability or professionalism in any way ...only the skewed misleading IE presentation of 'their' expert !

http://www.ucc.ie/academic/civil/acastaff.html

Sponge Bob, I think that list is (a good bit) out of date. It's been a few years since I was there but Jocky Campbell retired a good few years ago (same with Orr I think) and I'm nearly positive that Phil O'Kane has moved on. Donnacha O'Cinnéide has also retired.

Sponge Bob

He could have been a prof in some other country and then come back to Cork as a lecturer ...and he keeps the title if he so wishes .

If you Google "Professor Eamonn McKeogh" he only exists on Google and with that title in PR bumf that IE evidently put out .

murphaph

The main thing is that they're obviously getting on with it and fixing this this asap. For once no procrastination and it is to be welcomed.

Sponge Bob

They also appear to have the correct sort of expert advising them , an obviously eminent hydraulics expert and should manage to effect these repairs without unduly damaging the SAC .

Alan Farrell

Sponge Bob wrote: »

... to effect these repairs without unduly damaging the SAC .

I'm sorry I missed this thread.

Despite your assertions that this could take years and will require some form of permission, could you please explain, if permission is required to replace the bridge then why have IE had men, materials and machinery on site and working to repair the bridge for the past 2 1/2 weeks?

I doubt three months is achievable but the suggestion that because a structure is going through a man made, designate SAC would delay the project for years is nonsense.

Sponge Bob

They are stabilising the crumbling weir for the dear gooses who shall arrive between mid sept and mid oct. They have NOT actually repaired any of the bridge Alan , that is quite obvious is it not ??

If the weir collapsed the gooses would be goosed Repair is not the same as replace !!

Alan Farrell

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They are stabilising the crumbling weir for the dear gooses who shall arrive between mid sept and mid oct. They have NOT actually repaired any of the bridge Alan , that is quite obvious is it not ??

If the weir collapsed the gooses would be goosed Repair is not the same as replace !!

I think you are for the birds, you old coot.

(They are repairing the structure of the piers that are still standing and reinforcing the base structure, I've been out to the site.)

Sponge Bob

It was supposed to be replaced when the thread was started , you dozy old git

Alan Farrell

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It was supposed to be replaced when the thread was started , you dozy old git

Old???

Victor

Eh, ahem?

Sponge Bob

He is probably the same Alan Farrell ( FG) who wanted to put a cycle track and footpath across the bridge without knowing what an EIS was :eek: shheeeeessssh :cool: sez de Alan .

While the priority is of course the replacement of the bridge, I believe Irish Rail would be remiss to turn down the opportunity to look into this community gain project a little further

That Alan Farrell wanted the bridge "replaced" the very day this thread was started as I am sure did many others . But if you replace it you must EIS the replacement thereby delaying the replacement process for a whole year.

Repairs are all they can do in a SAC and then only in a highly controlled and limited way . Of course repairs would have stopped it falling in in the first place. Say hi to the gooses for me Alan willya .

Alan Farrell

Sponge Bob wrote: »

He is probably the same Alan Farrell ( FG) who wanted to put a cycle track and footpath across the bridge without knowing what an EIS was :eek: shheeeeessssh :cool: sez de Alan .



That Alan Farrell wanted the bridge "replaced" the very day this thread was started as I am sure did many others . But if you replace it you must EIS the replacement thereby delaying the replacement process for a whole year.

Repairs are all they can do in a SAC and then only in a highly controlled and limited way . Of course repairs would have stopped it falling in in the first place. Say hi to the gooses for me Alan willya .

"He" is me.

You are mistaken regarding an EIS to a structure that is already there. There would not be material changes to it therefore one would not be required.

(The cycle track/footpath is an entirely separate matter which would require a foreshore license and most probably an eis as part of that process.)

You've said your part, I've said mine, lets leave it at that.

Sponge Bob

Alan Farrell wrote: »

"He" is me.

You are mistaken regarding an EIS to a structure that is already there.

There would not be material changes to it therefore one would not be required.You've said your part, I've said mine, lets leave it at that.

I am not mistaken and as a former Mayor of Fingal and local councillor and no doubt a veteran of many planning issues you should know that by now .

You lot have a heritage officer attached to planning so please consult with him before you shoot your mouth off next time or 'call for' something daft like 'replacing' a bridge in a SAC .

The plan early on was to flatten the bridge and build a new one. Such a plan has its merits of course but I refer to the Irish Times a week after this thread started and after you mentioned "replacement"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0829/1224253453185.html

And if it does need to be replaced, you have to remember that Broadmeadow Estuary is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and that would mean doing a full environmental impact statement (EIS).”

He recalled that the National Roads Authority had “horrendous problems” in building a bridge across the estuary to carry the M1. For not only is it designated an SAC under the EU Habitats Directive, but also a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Birds Directive – mainly to protect migratory Brent Geese. Thus, any new viaduct or bridge would have to go through the planning process, even though it would qualify for a direct application to An Bord Pleanála under the Strategic Infrastructure Act. “You’re talking about a long time-scale for that, a lot longer than three months,” the railway engineer warns.

The works under way are seemingly not a replacement , rather a de minimis repair job where only the collapsed pillar and decking and track shall be replaced rather than all the pillars and all the deck .

I take it that your Heritage Officer in Fingal has got consents in place for this de minimis work and that An Taisce and the NPWS have indicated their explicit consent for these limited works meaning that Fingal County Council shall not have to enforce anything ??

And I take it that you probably are sorry for wandering in here on the 7th of September when this issue was flagged on the weekend of the 23rd and covered by the Times on the weekend of the 29th and was seemingly new to you on the 7th of September ... but an apology would be in order .

Victor

Can things be toned down a little?

Wild Bill

Sponge does have a point. At the start of this thread there was a bit of a flare-up about the planning issues and as the IT extract shows Sponge was largely correct.

We should probably de-classify this area completely, as we should have the Glen of the Downs; they are not suitable locations for indulging green fetishes. :cool: