Merrion Gates removal scheme

marno21

As this scheme includes both road and rail connections, the thread for discussion will be in the Infrastructure forum.

The NTA has launched a public consultation for feedback on the plan to remove the level crossing at Merrion Gates: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/minister-ross-launches-public-consultation-by-nta-on-ambitious-proposals-to-tackle-merrion-gate-bottleneck/

Article in the Herald here: http://www.herald.ie/news/first-look-at-50m-plan-for-merrion-gates-bottleneck-35164878.html

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

As this scheme includes both road and rail connections, the thread for discussion will be in the Infrastructure forum.

The NTA has launched a public consultation for feedback on the plan to remove the level crossing at Merrion Gates: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/minister-ross-launches-public-consultation-by-nta-on-ambitious-proposals-to-tackle-merrion-gate-bottleneck/

Article in the Herald here: http://www.herald.ie/news/first-look-at-50m-plan-for-merrion-gates-bottleneck-35164878.html

About damn time

LeinsterDub

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

Del2005

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

It's a cycle route that they are building, the road realignment is part of it. It all comes from the same pot anyway so doesn't really matter.

seamus

Only a brief scan there, but it seems sensible to effectively close the merrion gates for vehicular traffic. There's not a lot of room there to carry out any engineering that would keep the main road open and remove the level crossing.

I wonder what the logic is in the cycling/walking underpass though? Surely going over the tracks is the easier solution and isn't going to attract anti-social behaviour.

L1011

seamus wrote: »

Only a brief scan there, but it seems sensible to effectively close the merrion gates for vehicular traffic. There's not a lot of room there to carry out any engineering that would keep the main road open and remove the level crossing.

I wonder what the logic is in the cycling/walking underpass though? Surely going over the tracks is the easier solution and isn't going to attract anti-social behaviour.

The chances of anti-social behaviour are slashed purely by where it is.

There are other underpasses in that general area which have been there for years without any.

ted1

L1011 wrote: »

The chances of anti-social behaviour are slashed purely by where it is.

There are other underpasses in that general area which have been there for years without any.

Where? They filled in the one further towards blackrock ?

ted1

Del2005 wrote: »

It's a cycle route that they are building, the road realignment is part of it. It all comes from the same pot anyway so doesn't really matter.

The road realignment is different, the fly over and land acquisition will be the big costs

Mary63

Its reported that about thirty five properties might be compulsorily required.

The residents living beside the gates must be concerned particularly the ones with the sea view.

LeinsterDub

Del2005 wrote: »

It's a cycle route that they are building, the road realignment is part of it. It all comes from the same pot anyway so doesn't really matter.

Yes and no. But the next time I hear x million spent on cycling infrastructure I'll know take that with a pinch of salt

ted1

Mary63 wrote: »

Its reported that about thirty five properties might be compulsorily required.

The residents living beside the gates must be concerned particularly the ones with the sea view.

All the properties are marked on the map. Don't see what a sea view has to do with it?

L1011

ted1 wrote: »

Where? They filled in the one further towards blackrock ?

There were two, and is one still.

D.L.R.

Phenomenal news!

Rock Road really needs to be sorted too. Shockingly bad design for the volumes it has to deal with.

Sam Russell

I think the design is brilliant - as far as it goes. It will sort out the Merrion Gates problem and ease the traffic in the whole area.

One level crossing gone - four to go.

Sam Russell

The NTA document available here.

4ensic15

I don't see why they don't close the Sydney Parade level crossing as well, while they are at it.

Sam Russell

4ensic15 wrote: »

I don't see why they don't close the Sydney Parade level crossing as well, while they are at it.

With the Merrion Gates gone, the Sydney Parade one will have much less traffic as it makes more sense for traffic on Strand Road to use the proposed flyover than use Sydney Parade.

The 47 bus could be rerouted over it and most through traffic would go that way too.

Also, the current setup is for the gates at Sydney Parade close at the same time as Merrion Gates for North bound trains which means that the gates close for three minutes for N bound trains but only two minutes for S bound trains. The flyover would presumably mean that the gates will be open more of the time.

NuMarvel

Sam Russell wrote: »

With the Merrion Gates gone, the Sydney Parade one will have much less traffic as it makes more sense for traffic on Strand Road to use the proposed flyover than use Sydney Parade.

The volumes at Sydney Parade are never as high as those going through the Merrion crossing (based on the traffic queues at any rate), but any reduction would be welcome.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The 47 bus could be rerouted over it and most through traffic would go that way too.

This would depend on whether the Merrion bypass would allow both left and right turns at it's junction with Merrion Road. The current Merrion gates junction only had left turns, so the NTA may mirror that in the junction layout. And if it's left turns only, then there would be no way for the 47 to get back onto its original route at Nutley Lane.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also, the current setup is for the gates at Sydney Parade close at the same time as Merrion Gates for North bound trains which means that the gates close for three minutes for N bound trains but only two minutes for S bound trains. The flyover would presumably mean that the gates will be open more of the time.

These timings will change if/when the 10 minute DARTs start, but the new layout would still benefit at least roughly half the motorists who use the Sydney Parade crossing

Sam Russell

NuMarvel wrote: »

This would depend on whether the Merrion bypass would allow both left and right turns at it's junction with Merrion Road. The current Merrion gates junction only had left turns, so the NTA may mirror that in the junction layout. And if it's left turns only, then there would be no way for the 47 to get back onto its original route at Nutley Lane.

There would be no right turn for the 47 bus at Ailesbury road/Merrion Rd junction, except they allow buses to do so.

The same could apply for the flyover. They are not a very frequent service.

ted1

Sam Russell wrote: »

There would be no right turn for the 47 bus at Ailesbury road/Merrion Rd junction, except they allow buses to do so.

The same could apply for the flyover. They are not a very frequent service.

The air coach used to turn down at the St. Michaels Junction but then switched to merrion gate. It should knock some time off the journey

ted1

L1011 wrote: »

There were two, and is one still.

Where is the remaining one ?

4ensic15

Sam Russell wrote: »

With the Merrion Gates gone, the Sydney Parade one will have much less traffic as it makes more sense for traffic on Strand Road to use the proposed flyover than use Sydney Parade.

The 47 bus could be rerouted over it and most through traffic would go that way too.

Also, the current setup is for the gates at Sydney Parade close at the same time as Merrion Gates for North bound trains which means that the gates close for three minutes for N bound trains but only two minutes for S bound trains. The flyover would presumably mean that the gates will be open more of the time.

There will be more trains travelling, which is the reason for the fly-over. The Sydney Parade gates will be closed more often. If traffic starts right-turning after coming off the flyover onto the Merrion Road, it will cause considerable delay. It appears to be only a single carriageway. Also traffic coming from Rock road will have to right-turn onto it. The Flyover/merrion road junction should be a cloverleaf or roundabout design.

stampydmonkey

What are the chances of the cycle underpass being regularly flooded from high tides/storm surges?

4ensic15

stampydmonkey wrote: »

What are the chances of the cycle underpass being regularly flooded from high tides/storm surges?

2950 to 1

Carawaystick

stampydmonkey wrote: »

What are the chances of the cycle underpass being regularly flooded from high tides/storm surges?

There's no cycle underpass, there's a shared use underpass, which is against best practise.

Storm surges are irregular. Does the crossing at present suffer from flooding at high tides or storm surges?

Middle Man

For me, rail is what should be at the centre of this - this project's main aim should be grade separation between road and rail thereby allowing an increase in rail capacity while maintaining/upgrading pedestrian connections and retaining a reasonable road network - perhaps, the proposed road bridge could also eliminate the need for the LC at Sydney Parade where a pedestrian footbridge with lifts should suffice. Basically, one proper road (at least 7m across) replacing two substandard routes (Merrion and Sydney Parade).

Bray Head

It's funny how this is being promoted as a big deal for cyclists. It is not a huge big deal to have to pause at Merrion Gates as a cyclist. In any case most commuter cyclists don't cross it as they are going to the city centre.
In reality it will make a big difference for motorists, as well as the residents of the area. It is also great news for suburban rail as I understand it makes higher frequencies easier to maintain.
But the media message is that it is all about cyclists. Packaging is everything I suppose.

stop

Bray Head wrote: »

It's funny how this is being promoted as a big deal for cyclists. It is not a huge big deal to have to pause at Merrion Gates as a cyclist. In any case most commuter cyclists don't cross it as they are going to the city centre.
In reality it will make a big difference for motorists, as well as the residents of the area. It is also great news for suburban rail as I understand it makes higher frequencies easier to maintain.
But the media message is that it is all about cyclists. Packaging is everything I suppose.

Coming from cycling budget isn't it?

seamus

Bray Head wrote: »

It's funny how this is being promoted as a big deal for cyclists.

They're touting it as removing one of the blockers from some fabled coastal cycle route from the city centre to Bray. In reality no such route exists. It's a series of roads running parallel to the coast, interspersed with a few hundred metres of really bad cycle tracks here and there.

D.L.R.

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.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

It's funny how this is being promoted as a big deal for cyclists. It is not a huge big deal to have to pause at Merrion Gates as a cyclist. In any case most commuter cyclists don't cross it as they are going to the city centre.
In reality it will make a big difference for motorists, as well as the residents of the area. It is also great news for suburban rail as I understand it makes higher frequencies easier to maintain.
But the media message is that it is all about cyclists. Packaging is everything I suppose.

It might be a coincidence but I note that DCC have painted 'No Cycling' on the entrance to the park area along Strand Road, at each break in the sea wall. They always had it written on the footpath along beside the sea but this is recent.

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.