Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Merrion Gates removal scheme

«13456710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ LeinsterDub


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,961 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,333 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 61,030 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,595 ✭✭✭✭ 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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,595 ✭✭✭✭ 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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 801 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,595 ✭✭✭✭ 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?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 61,030 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    ted1 wrote: »
    Where? They filled in the one further towards blackrock ?

    There were two, and is one still.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    Phenomenal news!

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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    The NTA document available here.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭ NuMarvel


    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.
    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.
    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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,595 ✭✭✭✭ ted1


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,595 ✭✭✭✭ ted1


    L1011 wrote: »
    There were two, and is one still.

    Where is the remaining one ?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,347 ✭✭✭ stampydmonkey


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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    What are the chances of the cycle underpass being regularly flooded from high tides/storm surges?
    2950 to 1


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,781 ✭✭✭ Carawaystick


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭ 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).


  • Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,333 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


Advertisement