riddlinrussell wrote: » Is there an option to simply close the level crossing with no bridge? Will anyone end up stranded or just have to travel further?
liamog wrote: » It would fairly limit the connectivity with the rest of D15 for a large number of people. Between closing the other level crossings, it would mean there was only one road crossing of the railway for about 5.5km, that's pretty unheard of in a suburban area. It's akin to deliberate ghettoization.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I don't think sticking to thir guns is an option. From Leo's letter, it is clear some are already talking about judicial review, if that doesn't prevent the bridge it will draw out the process and ultimately nothing might get done. As you alluded to, it is a small number of militant locals pushing this, regardless of small their number is they still have the ability to frustrate the RO process and hold everything up. The only play here is to set the bridge aside for now and plough on with the rest of the project. The crossing should be closed permanently or, failing that, gates remain down for as long as necessary with increased trains. This will result in more problems for the local population and expose the opposition to the bridge for what it really is. Give the people what they want and let them own it and the problems which arise from it. The bridge can be added later as a standalone project once people see that the bridge is actually the lesser of two evils for the local community.
D15er wrote: » The problem with closing it completely is that the level crossing is also the pedestrian and cycle route. Closing it off to cars is one thing, making it impassable to other forms of transport won't fly, so you'd still need some class of a crossing.
D15er wrote: » Oh good. I was worried people would lose perspective on things.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Permeability is Dublin 15s major issue. Lack of permeability causes ghettoisation. Removing permeability will logically cause ghettoisation. Now, in this particular area, it's not gonna cause a breakdown to lawlessness, but be realistic that it will harm the area in many ways.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Permeability is Dublin 15s major issue. Lack of permeability causes ghettoisation. Removing permeability will logically cause ghettoisation. Now, in this particular area, it's not gonna cause a breakdown to lawlessness, but be realistic that it will harm the area in many ways. Footfall and increased vehicle usage of an area increases security and safety. Turning those roads into cul-de-sacs at a canal and a railway station is asking for trouble to increase over time.
riddlinrussell wrote: » I apologise if my thoughts were misinterpreted on this, the intention was not to drastically reduce permeability in the area. I suppose the thought experiment would be that I want IE to say to this group opposing "ok sure, if you don't want this bridge, we can put in a walking/cycling bridge at the crossing, the LC still getting closed" and see which they prefer to have.
D15er wrote: » I would say the residents of Riverwood and Stationcourt would say that turning their long-established cul-de-sacs into busy through roads is asking for trouble. I think the incredibly bad planning of housing development in D15 is a much bigger contributor to ghettoization than permeability tbh.
D15er wrote: » I don't think there is any misinformation going around. And it's a lot more than a handful of people who are concerned. But it's easy to bitch about NIMBYs when it's someone else's problem. I'm a local resident, we all know exactly what leaving the crossing open would mean in terms of closures and traffic. And to be honest, that's an acceptable trade-off for me. The whole objective of this line upgrade is to reduce our reliance on cars, yet here's a massive project dedicated solely to making sure people in cars actually have an easier time in getting around than they do today? Especially when there's already a bridge over the line less than a km away. That doesn't make sense. You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that? I know I've often been stuck there for ages with no train in sight. A better signaling system maybe, I don't know. But the current proposal is a sledgehammer cracking a nut.
BonnieSituation wrote: » From my POV tbh, I'm on the side of MANY > FEW. So like at Sydney Parade, keep the LC and let the locals live with it. There's people in Leixlip and Maynooth who deserve great PT without it being held up by NIMBYism. Eh, the permeability issue is a symptom of bad planning.
Zebra3 wrote: » Why are people opposed to a bridge? Looking at the satellite photos on Google, the area to the north consists of the canal, the canal greenway and then there is some distance before there is any housing. On the south of the proposed bridge would be a small apartment development to the west, and to the east is the train station and its' car park. There also seems to be plenty of mature trees around though hard to say how tall they are. So where do all the objectors live and what are they actually objecting about. Varadkar's letter makes no mention of why people are objecting to a bridge on Coolmine Road.
riddlinrussell wrote: » I thought that was the case! I remembered seeing a ped/cycle crossing in the documentation, wasn't sure if it was at this site. In that case simple offering to the people, plans as is or plans minus road bridge?
IE 222 wrote: » According to the campaign cul de sacs are the cause of anti social behaviour.
D15er wrote: » The main issue is that there would be a new bridge about 200m to the west of the current crossing. That would turn two residential areas into main roads. Since these areas were never designed as anything other than residential, the bridge would be very close to people's houses. I don't think it's unreasonable for people living in a cul-de-sac for 20 years to object to suddenly finding yourself on a main road with buses going past your window. Every single person on this thread would make the exact same objection, which is why the accusation of 'nimbyism' is such hollow bollocks.
MJohnston wrote: » This is incorrect — there's a separate pedestrian and cycle overpass proposed in the plans:
riddlinrussell wrote: » Isn't part of the issue with 'make it like sydney parade' that as part of this project Sydney parade is also being removed? The idea being to fully remove level crossings from the equation of train timetabling in the GDA?
MJohnston wrote: » I'd go as far as to just remove the road bridge from the table. The level crossing isn't used by any bus route afaik, and there's a perfectly fine road bridge less than 1km west of here. If pedestrians and cyclists can continue having permeability, just close the road to cars and that's that.
IE 222 wrote: » What buses??? Very convenient Coolmine road suddenly has a bus route. Misinformation you ask???????????
D15er wrote: » Well, the nice people at Iarnrod Eireann even put a little picture of a bus in their graphic;https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf But reason it out. You build a new bridge that is wide enough for cars and buses (which the current bridge is not). You spend billions on a brand new Dart line with massive capacity. And now you have tens of thousands of people in D15 who want access to the Dart but don't live in walking distance of the station. How do you get those people to the station? On the bus. You even have room at Coolmine for buses to park up which you don't have at Castleknock or Clonsilla. It would be very bad planning NOT to have bus connectivity to the Dart for people in west D15.
