Pete_Cavan wrote: » Talk of a SDZ around HH station is also mad. Regardless of the train station, the area isn't suitable for high density housing and lacks infrastructure. There is a huge area around Kishogue station which is ideal for development which needs to be completed first plus huge scope to redevelop industrial areas east of that. HH may get developed in the future but we shouldn't be thinking about it now.
bk wrote: » Can I ask what infrastructure does it lack?
CatInABox wrote: » And even if it is lacking in infrastructure, it can be built into the SDZ, Cherrywood style.
bk wrote: » Can I ask what infrastructure does it lack? Right next to a rail station and in between two motorways, sounds ideal to me. Sure an extra bridge and some road upgrades needed, but that should be done anyway for the bus from Celbridge to the station. BTW I agree that the other closer in stations like Kishogue, Adamstown, etc. should of course be developed first. However HH should be zoned as a SDZ for future development, to stop any further stupid low density development happening around the station. It is too good of an opportunity for a proper high density commuter town to waste on more low density housing.
The Mulk wrote: Have any of the people advocating a SDZ in Hazelhatch ever been there? There would need to be millions spent on road projects to even facilitate the construction traffic, before even the flooding issue needs to be tackled. They can't even get a permanent secondary school in the area due to the flooding issue.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Everything bar a train station. It is between two motorways but no real access to either, already congested towns and poor roads on both sides. There is no shortage of green and brown field development land in and around Dublin, develop that to its fullest potential before we start thinking about putting thousands of apartments in isolated fields.
bk wrote: » Yes, that is why I asked the question. Generally, schools, creches, gyms, shops, restaurants, cafes, etc. are all part of a SDZ plan. Electricity, broadband, etc. are much more easily supplied to a single big SDZ, then spread out over a large area. Flooding can obviously be an issue, but a proper plan to fix the flooding can be included in a plan fro the SDZ and paid for by the new construction. Same with a new secondary school and roads. Non of that is anything new for a SDZ. The construction of thousands of new apartments can be exactly what is needed to help resolve infrastructure issues like this. Include them up front in the development and the development can help pay for them.
bk wrote: » New access roads to the motorways would easily be justified for a large SDZ. Just like Cherrywood. But I do agree with developing other areas first. Again I'm just saying this area should be marked down as a SDZ to stop the continued development of poor low density development in the meant time.
The Mulk wrote: » Thankfully there is more SDZ land available near Adamstown and Kishogue, with dual lane roads and schools already built. I think the devolpment of these sites and high rise closer to the current lines in Dublin, especially around Cabra( a new stop here) makes a lot more sense. A spur from HH into a stop at St. Raphaels School, would open up the train for all Celbridge Residents, including the new estates under construction on the Clane road and the sites on the Ardclough road. You may even see some construction on Donaghcumper then. Surely 3km of track could be paid for cheaper than the new roads to link HH to the N4 and N7, bypassing all the areas the current roads go through and a whole diversion of culverts etc .
LXFlyer wrote: » Has no one anything to say about the current consultation, which is on the Western Line?
roadmaster wrote: » I absolutely love me car and my jeep, but in saying that if you take somewhere like HH and had a high speed rail connection to the city center maybe roads would be the least of the issues. Build around the station your apartments and shops, Lidl are currently rolling out mini shopping centers. If familys have good access to the required shops, schools, parks and and good high speed public transport they may take the view that a car is an expense thats not needed. Besides if they a car they can use services like Gocar. The idea of using the brownfield sites within the city has a lot of merit. But there is two major problems which are NIMBYS and the cost of clearing the site and what the potential cost of what is beneath the surface
riddlinrussell wrote: » I think the idea would simply be to Zone it as an SDZ to stop current low density building, a bit of forward thinking in Ireland, while the other SDZs are built.
bk wrote: » The whole point of D+ is the open up the massive potential of West Dublin. In particular all those green fields between the M4 and M7, less then 20km from Dublin City Center. What a fantastic opportunity to house the next 400,000 people who are expected to come to Dublin in the next 20 years in towns built around high quality public transport, walking, cycling, etc. Proper mainland Europe style commuter towns. Of course places like Adamstown and other green and brownfield sites should be developed first. But 400,000 extra people is a MASSIVE challenge and you will be surprised at how quickly those closer locations will be filled in the next 20 years and then we will need to turn our attention to the likes of HH. I think people really underestimate just how large Dublins population is going to increase over the next 20 years and what will need to be built to house them. The CSO is estimating an extra 420,000 people in Dublin by 2036! To put that in context. Cherrywood SDZ will have 10,000 new homes, so will house about 25,000 people. In just 20 years we will thus need about 16 more Cherrywoods!!! We need to make sure that the area around HH is properly protected and then properly developed when the time comes.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Building high density development at HH leaving the existing bridges over the railway and canal in particular and roads would be the biggest of the issues! You can't have a large settlement without a proper roads network just because you have a single rail line there. Such a roads network would require bypassing Celbridge and Newcastle. It amazes me how people advocate for sustainable development and then talk about building over vast areas of isolated productive farmland! And there are plenty of NIMBYs at HH as well, and they have a far stronger case for opposing large scale development there than those in already built up urban areas do.
thomasj wrote: » In an interview on the day , Eamon Ryan said priority was being given to develop DART+ west first to help start building housing along the line.
donvito99 wrote: » Pete_Cavan wrote: » And there are plenty of NIMBYs at HH as well, and they have a far stronger case for opposing large scale development there than those in already built up urban areas do. Don't agree with the emboldened. As has been said already, if you are going to build thousands of homes at a relatively high density, the roads, schools, utilities, recreation, commercial will also be built. Building houses on top of high frequency, relatively high speed public transport on farmland is sustainable.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » And there are plenty of NIMBYs at HH as well, and they have a far stronger case for opposing large scale development there than those in already built up urban areas do.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » You can not agree if you choose but they do. Environmental legislation is constantly tightening up and such entirely rural development would be opposed and with a very strong case too.
There are plenty of places with the roads, schools, utilities, etc. in place or with capacity to expand them. The state needs to stop building roads in particular at huge cost to facilitate developers profit.
The new National Planning Framework and SHDs is already resulting in significant densification in Dublin and leading to redevelopment of lands without SHDs.
I don't know why people are so concerned with housing future populations when we can't even house our current population.
If the people of the future want to develop a town at HH they can do it themselves to their own standards, they will likely do a much better job than whatever we would do with it.
riddlinrussell wrote: » Pete, I think the point being made (potentially with the wrong 'specific planning designation') is to Let the people of the future develop a town at HH by preventing a low density build up happening by way of Celbridge slowly sprawling towards the station organically and instead blocking random low density development in favour of a bit of planning, I don't think anyone here is advocating for HH to be built up in the short or even medium term (out to maybe 15 years from now at least) but only to give it the breathing space of a plan for the eventual sensible idea of a town with a core focus on facilitating sustainable transit and public transit.
LXFlyer wrote: » There are already plans for a second bridge in Celbridge, with a consultation to come on the route options. Frankly all this talk about Celbridge, Hazelhatch and Naas is sort of putting the cart before the horse. We haven't even seen the proposals for the south west line as yet. Has no one anything to say about the current consultation, which is on the Western Line?
riddlinrussell wrote: » I imagine he meant both western lines given north west is getting done first. But definitely it should be the priority, much of the coastal work will be operational changes/signalling except whatever they end up doing with the Clontarf to Howth jct section of the northern line, so the bit with the bulk of the infra work getting rolling first is key. I'd assume Maynooth is top of the list as its probably the quickest win of the two.
Dunder Mifflin wrote: » What’s exactly is involved with electrifying an existing train line? Is there any major construction required on the tracks or surrounding areas? Are the electricity lines the only major things needed? If anyone has any details or links to IR documents/presentations on it I’d appreciate it.
Lord Glentoran wrote: » It’s all on the Irish Rail site, oddly enough. Follow the links here: https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-projects-and-investments/DART-Programme
Overhead electrification equipment along the full extent of the railway line. This will be similar in style to that currently used on the existing DART network Substations will be required at intervals along the rail line to provide power to the network Signalling upgrades and additional signalling will be required to the upgraded nfrastructure Interfaces with existing utilities, boundary treatments, drainage works, vegetation management and other ancillary works will be required along the length of the project Works required at existing rail overbridges. A number of options are being considered at existing rail overbridges that do not provide the necessary clearance/headroom for the provision of the overhead power lines [...]
