Merrion Gate proposal

expectationlost

NTA have launched a proposal to reroute the road away from Merriongates rail crossing and outline its non-car pathway along Sandymount to Booterstown with a shared surface local access road and underpass accress to the beach

PR https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/minister-ross-launches-public-consultation-by-nta-on-ambitious-proposals-to-tackle-merrion-gate-bottleneck/

Docs https://www.nationaltransport.ie/consultations/nta-opens-consultation-on-ambitious-proposals-to-tackle-merrion-gate-bottleneck/

nicking images grabs from https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/791308561712345089


the road goes through what is now the car park of an office building and the carpark of a church


wonder how much the people in the houses on the other side of the office, will like this plan.


https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Dublin/@53.3176598,-6.2069514,19z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e80ea27ac2f:0xa00c7a9973171a0?hl=en

L1011

Not sure this or anything similar ever came up on the crayons threads on here - it certainly deals with the water line issues most of the proposals here had.

IE 222

Can see the people of Ailesbury Mews accepting a bridge overlooking their back gardens. Make for some tight turns as well but a good plan. Should go one step further and close Sydney Parade crossing while there at it.

Chris_5339762

Clever solution.

I have to laugh at the photoshops of the proposals... its quite clear they just plopped the new road on without removing the tops of the trees that the road will now occupy.

Grandeeod

Only 13 years after it was first proposed in the SRR in 2003.:rolleyes:

Del.Monte

I still think whack the road onto Sandymount Strand on stilts over the railway and across the redundant bird sanctuary is the way to go.

Bray Head

Could the cycle path not go over the bridge too? Underpasses are unpleasant and could become a magnet for anti-social behaviour at night.

Otherwise it seems like a neat solution to an awful bottleneck.

Pim Pictus

Bray Head wrote: »

Could the cycle path not go over the bridge too? Underpasses are unpleasant and could become a magnet for anti-social behaviour at night.

Otherwise it seems like a neat solution to an awful bottleneck.

Little chance of anti-social behaviour around there.

Montpelier Hill

Had a look at the plans, great to see, I cycle that route regularly and this would be a massive improvement.

Just a few comments:
1. Some of the bus stops don't route the cycle path behind the bus shelter (this in my opinion is repeating poor cycle path design).

2. I'm not too keen on a shared cycle / pedestrian path through the tunnel (this will bring cyclists and pedestrians into conflict).

3. Does anyone remember the proposed "blue line" rapid transit bus route (proposals were being promoted about 2010)? The proposal was for a bus route between St. Vincents hospital and Sandyford. I think the idea was that commuters could walk from Sydney Parade Dart station to St Vincents, and then get on the BRT bus. Does the design on the Merrion Road (opposite St. Vincents) need to take this into account (if the BRT plan ever went ahead this could avoid rework perhaps)?

BonnieSituation

Montpelier Hill wrote: »

Had a look at the plans, great to see, I cycle that route regularly and this would be a massive improvement.

Just a few comments:
1. Some of the bus stops don't route the cycle path behind the bus shelter (this in my opinion is repeating poor cycle path design).

2. I'm not too keen on a shared cycle / pedestrian path through the tunnel (this will bring cyclists and pedestrians into conflict).

3. Does anyone remember the proposed "blue line" rapid transit bus route (proposals were being promoted about 2010)? The proposal was for a bus route between St. Vincents hospital and Sandyford. I think the idea was that commuters could walk from Sydney Parade Dart station to St Vincents, and then get on the BRT bus. Does the design on the Merrion Road (opposite St. Vincents) need to take this into account (if the BRT plan ever went ahead this could avoid rework perhaps)?

I remember this well. Thought it died a death.

trellheim

I can see the Booterstown sanctuary. Why can't a boardwalk/cycle run along the seaward side of the Dart - it wont' touch the sanctuary ?

Chris_5339762

The sanctuary is probably off limits because its a sanctuary but there is probably a stay on development as it'll be dug up completely should the eastern bypass be built.

Del.Monte

trellheim wrote: »

I can see the Booterstown sanctuary. Why can't a boardwalk/cycle run along the seaward side of the Dart - it wont' touch the sanctuary ?

The 'sanctuary' is no more than a polluted pond and wouldn't be missed if it was filled in for road works.

Bray Head

The proposal sees retention of the pair of bus stops at the Merrion Centre and Vincent's respectively, a mere 180m apart.
It would speed up the bus service a bit if either of these could be got rid of in the process.

plodder

I'm sure some people will be against it, but overall it looks very positive for the area, never mind the wider community.

Carawaystick

nta public consultation document, section 2.1 wrote:

Along the Merrion Road / Rock Road corridor, while there
are a considerable number of cyclists using the route, the
facilities to accommodate those cyclists are inadequate.
Cyclists do not have a dedicated track or cycle lane
along the corridor, and share the bus lane with buses
where a bus lane exists. Even along these sections, the
arrangements result in difficult conditions for both cyclists
and bus/taxi drivers, with cyclists frequently impeding bus
flow and bus/taxi drivers having to undertake awkward
passing manoeuvres to pass cyclists.

The bolded test is an extremely biased point of view, and shows the thing for a sham:mad:. There are 2 lanes in each direction on the road, so taxi and bus drivers can use the general lane to overtake people cycling. If the general lane is full of cars, then it is cars impeding busses, not cyclists.
There is no "forced overtaking", people driving busses and taxis decide of their own free will to perform passing manoevers.

Lastly I would suggest busses hold up cyclists more than cyclists hold up busses, and there is no mention of this.

Charles Babbage

Carawaystick wrote: »

The bolded test is an extremely biased point of view, and shows the thing for a sham:mad:. There are 2 lanes in each direction on the road, so taxi and bus drivers can use the general lane to overtake people cycling. If the general lane is full of cars, then it is cars impeding busses, not cyclists.
There is no "forced overtaking", people driving busses and taxis decide of their own free will to perform passing manoevers.

Lastly I would suggest busses hold up cyclists more than cyclists hold up busses, and there is no mention of this.

Play the other violin, it specifically says "Even along these sections, the
arrangements result in difficult conditions for both cyclists and bus/taxi drivers". The passage of buses is an important part of the city infrastructure for the public at large, taxis and cyclists are of less importance.

Carawaystick

I see ye haven't defended the "having to perform awkward passing manoeuvres" piece.

josip

Deedsie wrote: »

I wouldn't get overly excited about it. Totally agree that cyclists should be prioritised above private cars but the alignment of the road as is does make it awkward for buses to get around cyclists. I agree with you that it's not the cyclists fault it's the line of cars taking up all the space just seems like poor phrasing rather than a dig at cycling to me.

Agree about the poor phrasing.
When I first read it, I misunderstood the 'undertake' and had a picture of double deckers ducking up the inside of cyclists to get by.

monument

Deedsie wrote: »

I wouldn't get overly excited about it. Totally agree that cyclists should be prioritised above private cars but the alignment of the road as is does make it awkward for buses to get around cyclists. I agree with you that it's not the cyclists fault it's the line of cars taking up all the space just seems like poor phrasing rather than a dig at cycling to me.

Normally maybe but poor overtaking (mainly I think by taxis) is probably worse and/or more frequent on the Rock Road etc bus lanes than anywhere else so central to the city.

trellheim

he proposal sees retention of the pair of bus stops at the Merrion Centre and Vincent's respectively, a mere 180m apart.
It would speed up the bus service a bit if either of these could be got rid of in the process.

Different audiences - sick people without much money, and pensioners with heavy shopping bags ...

Cookie_Monster

trellheim wrote: »

Different audiences - sick people without much money, and pensioners with heavy shopping bags ...

and either of those affect people walking an extra 180m than they've already had to walk how?

That's a really slow section due to lights, stop, lights, stop, lights (inbound)
removing a stop would help dramatically

magicbastarder

Del.Monte wrote: »

The 'sanctuary' is no more than a polluted pond and wouldn't be missed if it was filled in for road works.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101482146&postcount=29

trellheim

and either of those affect people walking an extra 180m than they've already had to walk how?

I know I'm often accused of cynicism and many other things here but I do think that comment is a level above anything I've ever come out with. For shame.

Bray Head

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

Different audiences - sick people without much money, and pensioners with heavy shopping bags ...

and either of those affect people walking an extra 180m than they've already had to walk how?

That's a really slow section due to lights, stop, lights, stop, lights (inbound)
removing a stop would help dramatically

I agree.
Merrion Gates to the entrance to Wanderers on Merrion Road is 1.1km.
When this work is done there will be potentially ten occasions for a bus to stop on this short stretch because of junctions, bus stops and pedestrian crossings.
It would be a nice opportunity to trim this a little bit.
The number of bus stops as well as dwell times are both very high in Dublin. Small changes would yield big improvements in average speeds. And of course this needs a more global solution from the NTA and DB.

LXFlyer

I really think people need to remember that this is a city bus service not an express transit system.

It's there to serve everyone, young and old.

While the optimum distance between bus stops is (using TfL guidelines) is 300-400m, it goes on to say that a closer spacing maybe required in town centres and residential areas where passenger requirements warrant it.

I'd suggest that this is one of those areas.

By all means there should be more express bus routes, but some people here seem to lose track of what a bus service is - it's there for everyone.

Carawaystick

And if the bus stops too much, you could always get a train...

Graham

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Clever solution.

I have to laugh at the photoshops of the proposals... its quite clear they just plopped the new road on without removing the tops of the trees that the road will now occupy.

At least they virtually unclamped the Peugeot.

MrMorooka

Graham wrote: »

At least they virtually unclamped the Peugeot.

Nice catch, wonder why they did that, clearly intentional. It's in the 'church car park' photos in the OP.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101482146&postcount=29

Nice photograph, but there's hardly a drainage ditch in the South East that doesn't shelter a Little Egret these days. Booterstown Marsh is a sad joke thanks to An Taisce mismanagement. In 1976 I offered to bring volunteers from my school to clean-up the place, but I'm still waiting for a date.

strassenwo!f

IE 222 wrote: »

Can see the people of Ailesbury Mews accepting a bridge overlooking their back gardens. Make for some tight turns as well but a good plan. Should go one step further and close Sydney Parade crossing while there at it.

It certainly looks like a very neat idea. With proper sound barriers at the sides of the proposed road it is very possible that the sides of the houses (or other buildings) along it should have no extra noise than is currently experienced at the front, along the Strand Road.

A query I would have is about the gradients involved and how this will affect the eventual junctions of this new road with the Merrion Road and the Strand Road. There are still very large trucks travelling along that section and they currently handle it well, by and large, because it's flat, but this plan introduces a new steep climb (and descent) for such trucks, and a worry is about what happens if some heavily-laden truck breaks down going up or down this proposed route. Can we be confident that the maths has been done?

expectationlost

Dublin 4 residents express shock over plan to tackle bottleneck http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-4-residents-express-shock-over-plan-to-tackle-bottleneck-1.2847434

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

I really think people need to remember that this is a city bus service not an express transit system.

It's there to serve everyone, young and old.

DB is supposed to be a mass transit system that moves the highest number of people in the faster and most efficient manner possible. Unfortunately they're constantly hamstrung by politics and the need to serve everyone instead of the majority. There is something fundamentally wrong with slowing down hundreds and hundreds of people every day just for the benefit of 1 or 2 potential users.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that.

magicbastarder

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

There is something fundamentally wrong with slowing down hundreds and hundreds of people every day just for the benefit of 1 or 2 potential users.

i believe what Cookie_Monster is saying that dublin bus should not have to allow wheelchairs on to the buses.

magicbastarder

that post was in jest, lest there be any confusion.

LXFlyer

The fact remains that those two stops are located outside two major individual traffic generators and as such they actually deserve a stop.

There are certainly locations where stop locations could be reviewed and I've long advocated a complete review of bus stop locations across the city.

But some of the posts I read here frankly are pathetic - I suspect when those posters have elderly relatives in their eighties who use the bus every day to go and do some shopping they might begin to appreciate why locating stops outside shopping centres etc is important.

And that part of our population is not "1 or 2".

You get around that at peak times by introducing more Xpresso routes.

Sam Russell

Could the bridge over the railway not be an underpass?

Doing it as an underpass reduces privacy and noise issues. Essentially, the Dart would use a bridge to cross the lowered link road.

markpb

Sam Russell wrote:

Could the bridge over the railway not be an underpass?

I'd imagine that would be more expensive, more difficult to build and require a long blockade during the cutover. It might also require a longer bridge to reduce the climb.

Sam Russell

markpb wrote: »

I'd imagine that would be more expensive, more difficult to build and require a long blockade during the cutover. It might also require a longer bridge to reduce the climb.

I am not a civil engineer, so I'm open to advice.

Surely the height of the bridge to clear the overhead wires would be at least 5m, and the underpass would need a headroom of about 5m to allow trucks to pass. No difference there then. The width of the Dart line is much the same as the width of a two lane road. The bridge to support the Dart line would need to be about the same as that required for the overpass.

I do not see a huge difference myself.

Perhaps someone with civil engineering costing experience might enlighten as to the likely cost of bridge or underpass - one way or the other.

magicbastarder

i suspect the problem with the underpass is that you're going to undermine the rail line - it's one thing closing it for 12 or 24 hours to crane bridge parts in, quite another to lift entire sections of rail away while the reinforced bed is created to allow cars underneath.

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect the problem with the underpass is that you're going to undermine the rail line - it's one thing closing it for 12 or 24 hours to crane bridge parts in, quite another to lift entire sections of rail away while the reinforced bed is created to allow cars underneath.

Any costs?

magicbastarder

yeah, i'll do option 1 for €45m and option 2 for €60m.

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i'll do option 1 for €45m and option 2 for €60m.

Is that based on anything at all?

It appears to be preferred at Merrion Gates to put in an underpass, and to put a bridge at the bypass a km further along the track. Why is it cheaper option for one and not possible for the other. The trains weigh the same at both points.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

And that part of our population is not "1 or 2".

It's 1 or 2 who would have issue with making the short additional distances involved if one of those stops were removed.

I have relatives in their 80s who still walk from Glasthule to DL because the bus service is so bad, never mind have to walk the distance from one stop to the next...

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the bridge over the railway not be an underpass?

I reckon you'd open it up to potential flooding issues so close to the coast there, no? At the very least it would have to be accounted for and designed against which may just make it cost prohibitive.

But at the same time; The rail line could be lowered a couple of metres and a lower overpass put in place? it's at least 500m to Sydney Parade, more to Booterstown. at 3% you could lower the line by 15m max in that distance, even 1/3rd of that would be sufficient.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lxflyer wrote: »

And that part of our population is not "1 or 2".

It's 1 or 2 who would have issue with making the short additional distances involved if one of those stops were removed.

I have relatives in their 80s who still walk from Glasthule to DL because the bus service is so bad, never mind have to walk the distance from one stop to the next...

With respect you're just wrong on this - as I have already said they are two significant traffic generators in their own right.

Just because your relatives can do that doesn't mean everyone can or that the numbers that can't are insignificant.

Sam Russell

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I reckon you'd open it up to potential flooding issues so close to the coast there, no? At the very least it would have to be accounted for and designed against which may just make it cost prohibitive.

But at the same time; The rail line could be lowered a couple of metres and a lower overpass put in place? it's at least 500m to Sydney Parade, more to Booterstown. at 3% you could lower the line by 15m max in that distance, even 1/3rd of that would be sufficient.

Flooding is a greater risk for the proposed underpass at the Merrion Gates as it is actually just metres from high tide, and would be below high tide water level. If it is possible to put one underpass, why not two?

Lowering the track is nonsense. If they could do that, they could cope with the Merrion Gates by lowering the track, plus the disruption to Dart services would be unacceptable.

magicbastarder

I can't see them lowering the track, or making any major modifications to it, which would close the railway line for more than a few days at a time. Lowering the track would take months.

strassenwo!f

I've seen the 'box push' method used successfully twice, on both occasions under 4-track railway lines and in both cases with no disruption to the suburban and long distance services overhead.

It basically involves very slowly pushing a pre-cast concrete box (pretty much a hollow rectangular shape) under the tracks, then removing the earth when the concrete box is in place.

I obviously can't say if it would work in this case.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am not a civil engineer, so I'm open to advice.

Surely the height of the bridge to clear the overhead wires would be at least 5m, and the underpass would need a headroom of about 5m to allow trucks to pass. No difference there then. The width of the Dart line is much the same as the width of a two lane road. The bridge to support the Dart line would need to be about the same as that required for the overpass.

I do not see a huge difference myself.

Perhaps someone with civil engineering costing experience might enlighten as to the likely cost of bridge or underpass - one way or the other.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect the problem with the underpass is that you're going to undermine the rail line - it's one thing closing it for 12 or 24 hours to crane bridge parts in, quite another to lift entire sections of rail away while the reinforced bed is created to allow cars underneath.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Any costs?

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i'll do option 1 for €45m and option 2 for €60m.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that based on anything at all?

It appears to be preferred at Merrion Gates to put in an underpass, and to put a bridge at the bypass a km further along the track. Why is it cheaper option for one and not possible for the other. The trains weigh the same at both points.

So no civil engineer prepared to put on the cost difference between an underpass and a bridge over the Dart line.

Well, I would guess raising a road over 5 metres or dropping a road by 5 metres is probably about the same. The bridge or underpass are probably as broad as long so costs would be about the same as the width and span would be the same.

An underpass for the Merrion Gates bypass would be better from a visual and amenity basis(IMHO). If it works at the gates themselves, why does it not work for the bypass? Am I missing some fundamental concept here?

Del2005

Sam Russell wrote: »

So no civil engineer prepared to put on the cost difference between an underpass and a bridge over the Dart line.

Well, I would guess raising a road over 5 metres or dropping a road by 5 metres is probably about the same. The bridge or underpass are probably as broad as long so costs would be about the same as the width and span would be the same.

An underpass for the Merrion Gates bypass would be better from a visual and amenity basis(IMHO). If it works at the gates themselves, why does it not work for the bypass? Am I missing some fundamental concept here?

There'll be a lot more digging for an underpass than a bridge. A bridge can be trucked in and raised in a few hours. An underpass would require lots of heavy plant for digging and removal of the soil, in an already badly congested area it'd be disaster.

goingnowhere

Under isn't really an option due the risk of flooding. Its a combination of granite and limestone in that area, so its not a simple dig