Linking road between M3/M4 at Leixlip

yannakis

Couldn't find a post about this already, apologies if there is one.

I got to it from an upcoming rally in St. Catherine's Park but couldn't find more info on the alignment etc.

Chris_5339762

That road is badly needed and I saw the plans years ago, and it does head through the west side of the park. It really should be re-routed... we shouldn't be building roads through our parks if at all possible.

sdanseo

Should do something like the below instead. Not sure which side of the triangle youd leave out but you wouldn't build all 3 sides.

A few advantages:

1. Continues the ORR and actually makes sense rather than having it as a dead end like it is now.
2. Provides a ring-road (distributor road) for Lucan
3. Slightly longer route for those who might be inclined to use it to bypass the M50 toll (especially if you left out, initially at least, the connection to the R403).
4. Saves the park (which looks like a pretty crappy park, to be fair)

Sam Russell

They could use the R449 which would add 2km to the route.

Middle Man

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

That road is badly needed and I saw the plans years ago, and it does head through the west side of the park. It really should be re-routed... we shouldn't be building roads through our parks if at all possible.

Agree - our parks are such valuable resources and should not be permanently compromised - I use the beautiful park at Newbridge Demesne (near Donabate) a lot and would hate to see it compromised in such a way. Regarding St. Catherine's Park, a long cut 'n' cover tunnel should be required with complete restoration of the park above once the road is finished.

bmwguy

sdanseo wrote: »

Should do something like the below instead. Not sure which side of the triangle youd leave out but you wouldn't build all 3 sides.

A few advantages:

1. Continues the ORR and actually makes sense rather than having it as a dead end like it is now.
2. Provides a ring-road (distributor road) for Lucan
3. Slightly longer route for those who might be inclined to use it to bypass the M50 toll (especially if you left out, initially at least, the connection to the R403).
4. Saves the park (which looks like a pretty crappy park, to be fair)

It's a beautiful park. I use it a lot but I am not opposed to the road. The park will still be there.

yannakis

Middle Man wrote: »

Agree - our parks are such valuable resources and should not be permanently compromised - I use the beautiful park at Newbridge Demesne (near Donabate) a lot and would hate to see it compromised in such a way. Regarding St. Catherine's Park, a long cut 'n' cover tunnel should be required with complete restoration of the park above once the road is finished.

Good idea, like they did with Fairview Park and the Port Tunnel!

lucernarian

I've been in that park. For the sake of this much-needed road, I'd be okay with it being built without a tunnel. We don't have the money to spend on vanity projects and so many projects are stifled by exorbitant costs and unnecessary engineering. E.g. the cut and cover proposed under some of Ballybrit racecourse because Galway races or some nonsense like that.

BonnieSituation

lucernarian wrote: »

I've been in that park. For the sake of this much-needed road, I'd be okay with it being built without a tunnel. We don't have the money to spend on vanity projects and so many projects are stifled by exorbitant costs and unnecessary engineering. E.g. the cut and cover proposed under some of Ballybrit racecourse because Galway races or some nonsense like that.

Or, we could have a cut and cover tunnel and not another noisy motorway in a scenic area.

Cost v Value as always in Ireland.

lucernarian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Or, we could have a cut and cover tunnel and not another noisy motorway in a scenic area.

Cost v Value as always in Ireland.

It's fine to have a cut and cover under a bloody racecourse or a very mediocre park, yet we're happy as a country to have trams to Dublin Airport, if we could get away with it?

The M4 is very noisy in Griffin Rath Hall near Maynooth for instance. But that didn't stop the housing being built near the M4 in the first place.

And it's not some unspoilt natural habitat, it's a man-made park. Some perspective here would be good.

BonnieSituation

lucernarian wrote: »

It's fine to have a cut and cover under a bloody racecourse or a very mediocre park, yet we're happy as a country to have trams to Dublin Airport, if we could get away with it?

So be cause we did it in Ballybrit we SHOULDN'T do it in Dublin? Where's the sense in that.

It's not that it's a mediocre park though, there's lots to consider in the general area including noise and general amenity value across the whole area. You should have an idea of how rural that part of Dublin is. Imagine driving a huge road through it? Madness!

Re trams to the airport; I never mentioned that in here but if you saw my posts over the while you would gather that I'm pretty pro-heavy rail and anti-tram for such long distances. A tram to the airport is insane. But what can you do when the rail options are never utilised. I'd sooner have metro north than nothing at all. But I'm outta here next year so tbh. I don't give a fiddlers.

The M4 is very noisy in Griffin Rath Hall near Maynooth for instance. But that didn't stop the housing being built near the M4 in the first place.

It did't stop those people buying them either. My ex owns a place in Kilcock and the road noise despite the distance to the M4 is absolutely atrocious. Again, just because it was done in an instance doesn't mean it should be done in this.

And it's not some unspoilt natural habitat, it's a man-made park. Some perspective here would be good.

My argument is that if the option to cut and cover could be taken in a sense under an amenity area then it should be taken. It will affect the WHOLE area. not just the extant footprint in the park.

---

There's no way this road will be built anyway tbf!

marno21

The Galway bypass tunnels aren't really relevant here. The bypass itself is a testament to woeful planning, a city with a population of 79,000 will have a motorway standard ring road and a 4 lane distributor ring road and it'll still probably have problems. Nuts doesn't even begin to describe that place.

Instead of building this bridge at Leixlip, I'd rather if it was done closer to the city, around the Lucan area. A viable alternative route to the Westlink is badly needed.

BonnieSituation

Closer to the city still funnels people too near congestion. West near Kilcock would be better imo. If it's near Lucan you still have everyone west of there coming in that direction and it will still be a bottle neck.

the_syco

lucernarian wrote: »

And it's not some unspoilt natural habitat, it's a man-made park. Some perspective here would be good.

Yes, made by man in the 1400's?

Pointless as it's close to the M50.

I think it should be built at around Milfarm.

lucernarian

the_syco wrote: »

Yes, made by man in the 1400's?

Yes, man-made. It is not an area of outstanding natural beauty or a unique habitat that I'm aware of.


I just don't see what's special about this park and this routing that would ever merit a cut and cover tunnel. It needn't be a "huge road" as some have claimed.

bmwguy

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Closer to the city still funnels people too near congestion. West near Kilcock would be better imo. If it's near Lucan you still have everyone west of there coming in that direction and it will still be a bottle neck.

It's to facilitate a big proposed housing development in Confey part of Leixlip. 2000 odd houses. Impossible to build without the new road as there aren't enough exits to the motorways in that part of Leixlip to facilitate the increased population

BonnieSituation

bmwguy wrote: »

It's to facilitate a big proposed housing development in Confey part of Leixlip. 2000 odd houses. Impossible to build without the new road as there aren't enough exits to the motorways in that part of Leixlip to facilitate the increased population

Well there ya have it. SO it's an access road rather than a true outer ring.

the_syco

bmwguy wrote: »

It's to facilitate a big proposed housing development in Confey part of Leixlip. 2000 odd houses. Impossible to build without the new road as there aren't enough exits to the motorways in that part of Leixlip to facilitate the increased population

So... we're losing part of the park because of the hillers? Gaddmit!

jmkennedyie

Actually once you get away from the pitches it is an important preserve for local biodiversity. It has important mature woodland that hasn't been interfered with in a long time - enough and dense enough to support populations of Jay and Treecreeper. Woodpeckers (recently colonising east coast) have been heard drumming in the area - don't know if they are in the park. Woodland area also contains some rare plants and wildflowers - some that only exist in a few sites in Ireland.
The scrub used to be fantastic for finches and warblers - might still be. Dippers, Kingfishers, etc regular on the Liffey. Meadows are critical for pollinators and ground nesting birds like skylark might even breed.
In general the Liffey Valley is a key widlife corridor. Connecting Strawberry Beds / Phoenix Park etc to the West.
A lot of people in Lucan and Leixlip find it a fabulous amenity.

I didn't see the route in current draft Leixlip Area Development Plan:
http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/DraftLeixlipLocalAreaPlan2017-2023/

Here is the route as per Fingal County Development Plan 2017-2023:
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Adopted_Sheet13.pdf

This route at least avoids the more environmentally sensitive area of the Park.



Any other routes documented?

the_syco

jmkennedyie wrote: »

This route at least avoids the more environmentally sensitive area of the Park.



Any other routes documented?

I can't see Confey liking he idea of M50 Part Deux being right next to their estates, although it's the better of the two. I don't think Lucan had much say about the N4 appearing where it did.

spacetweek

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'd sooner have metro north than nothing at all. But I'm outta here next year so tbh. I don't give a fiddlers.
<snip>
There's no way this road will be built anyway tbf!

Can you make more constructive posts please?

spacetweek

I think if the new road runs right alongside Glendale, only a small part of the park will be impacted. But then the Glendale residents won't be happy.

Either way I don't think a tunnel is needed. The park was created only about 15 years ago.

Banjoxed

Or just simply scrap the boondoggle. Are the roads between Clonsilla and Leixlip so congested that this is urgently needed, or are the wants of the aggregate industry and landowners driving this project?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

lucernarian

Banjoxed wrote: »

Or just simply scrap the boondoggle. Are the roads between Clonsilla and Leixlip so congested that this is urgently needed, or are the wants of the aggregate industry and landowners driving this project?

There are plans which will hopefully create segregated crossings at Coolmine for instance, over/under the railway. The road infrastructure isn't exactly great further west of Clonsilla either. And there's a bridge at Confey station that's too narrow for high traffic volume (like pretty much every single bridge that was built over the railway and canal before the 70s, the large majority of the total.

Even weekend afternoon traffic can be pretty bad in places, and simply unacceptable to cycle around. I've tried and I feel too at risk doing it tbh. So a proper road in the direction of Clonsilla/Clonee would be a godsend personally and would help a lot with the impact of big developments north of the canal.

All in all, there are worse places to spur housing development and growth, though higher densities and a plan beyond "semi-d blitz" is needed north of the canal there.

spacetweek

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This road is so badly needed it's not funny. If anything two new roads are needed: ORR-> Porterstown and Leixlip->Clonee.

marno21

Joan Burton brought this up in the Dail midweek: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017053000033?opendocument#GG00500