IE 222 wrote: » I don't know much about canals but that sounds like a massive undertaking. If I'm reading it correctly that would require a number of locks to lift the canal before the bridge on both sides or removing the previous drop lock(s) and raising the banks to achive the required height (not sure if that would even work) as it flowing towards Dublin. The canal there is a good 20-30ft below the road. The previous lock is Lexlip. That still doesn't resolve getting over the railway. IE priced a drop lock at Newcome Jct at €10million. I'd imagine raising the canal would be a colossal cost coming to multiples of that.
roddney wrote: » They seem to be suggesting raising the canal by adding a lock gate, so road can go under it. Given canals are only used for recreation these days it could make sense, depending on distance to next gate. You can only go up gates though, not up and down as water actually flows in one direction though. Question would be cost benefit then.
IE 222 wrote: » I assume they are trying to suggest running the road under the rail line and lower the canal to run over that.
Fiddle Castro wrote: » The issue with Coolmine crossing was raised in the Dail last nighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9uYSsDq4Kk He seems to suggest a drop lock to lower the canal, is this even possible there? The local NIMBYs are really working hard.
roddney wrote: » Sign of things to come. Would imagine south side will be the same, when they look to close those gates. Look what happened with Merrion gates. They just gave up in the end. It's all necessary though and will have a long term benefit to both road users and public transport users. They just need to plough ahead with railway order and factor in time for court cases. Kildare and Drogheda might need to be progressed first, if theirs delays.
GerardKeating wrote: » Not if they sucessfully fustrate the planning process..
Sam Russell wrote: » But it will not be like that because the frequency of trains will be such that the LC will be closed more than it will be open.
Rulmeq wrote: » Their alternatives are to keep things exactly as they are. That's the point of NIMBYism
Qrt wrote: » I love how they don’t give any sort of alternative options.
Glass Prison 1214 wrote: » I was handed this NIMBY letter in Coolmine over the weekend. Does anyone know if this is a widely held view in the area?
Zebra3 wrote: » PPT services don't interchange with Broombridge.
roddney wrote: » PPT service had limited usage as it was a very new service but patronage was gaining traction. Profile would change completely with new stop at Glasnevin Junction interchanging with Metro, and Luas at Broombridge on Maynooth line.
IE 222 wrote: » Or leave it there and close it for 3 minutes every 4 minutes. It will save the project multiple millions of euros.
Sam Russell wrote: » The choice is: 1. Close the level crossing and build the bridge. 2. Close the level crossing. Their choice.
SeanW wrote: » There are 3 problems at Kilcock that would make including it in the DART this time complicated: 1) Proximity to the canal. 2) An overbridge 3) The line is on a curve - modern safety regulations severely restrict if not prohibit new stations/platforms on a curve. So turning Kilcock into a DART terminus would require a large scale redesign and rebuilding of the station, possibly further from the town centre. There are other options like going to Enfield, but that would have its own benefits and drawbacks and be costly. Overall, I think the decision to focus on getting electrification and DART service to Maynooth as quickly as possible is justifiable, if somewhat risk-averse.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Fully agree that it is crazy to not replace Kilcock station with a new multi platform station slightly to the west but a Dunboyne style P&R would destroy the town. Looking at it on Google maps, Kilcock is actually quite a compact town by Irish standards and practically all of the population within walking/cycling distance of the station. A new station should be pedestrian/cyclist orientated, there is a route along the canal and a few pedestrian/cycle bridges over the canal/rail line could give most people easy access to the station. Retain the existing station parking and maybe add a small amount at the western end of the town. The land between the rail line and canal would make a great town park which, along with DART services, would make it a very attractive place to live.
tnegun wrote: » It seem crazy to me to exclude Kilcock. The current station is nothing more than a halt anyway so it would make sense to move the whole lot a little west towards the original station. Maynooth is very space constrained as it is with all the old rail land now housing and with an increase in services will create greater demand on the limited parking spaces available along with generating more traffic into the already congested town. West of Kilcock has plenty of room to better accommodate a terminus station which should be something like the Park and Ride in Dunboyne and if the depot is going out there it should be an easy win.
specialbyte wrote: » I personally would like to see the electrification expanded to Mullingar and then Sligo, though I recognise we are in a country that has underinvested in rail infrastructure for decades. I can completely understand why the NTA might be worried about scope creep. DART+ West is already a significant infrastructure project with enough problems to work through. The real danger with a project like DART+ West is that it doesn't move quickly enough through the design, planning, procurement and construction phases before the project funding is pulled because of another recession. The funding wheels are still on the track for now. That's not guaranteed into the future if recovery from COVID isn't reasonably quick and smooth. Adding more elements to the project adds more complexity and makes it more likely the whole project will be delayed and ultimately fail. I think not extending to Kilcock is probably the right choice for now.
