DART+ (DART Expansion)

LXFlyer wrote: »

For clarity, here is the planned bus network in Dublin 15 under BusConnects.

https://busconnects.ie/media/2005/blanchardstown-area-map.pdf

I understand that. However, it would be unusual for BusConnects to plan a route across a bridge that doesn't yet exist to connect to a Dart line that hasn't yet been built so the current map doesn't mean anything for the future.

If the Dart line does get built, the next step will be to figure out how to get people to and from it as efficiently as possible

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.

Really, the graphic also suggests you will have some amazing floating trees and half cut ones.

Tens of thousands of people are now going to converge on Coolmine station by bus each day neglecting the bus routes already serving both Clonsilla and Castleknock stations. Sounds like IE need to redo their figures. Just as well the locals have noticed this short sightedness and are going to prevent such a catastrophe from happening.

Bus connects has taken into account the DART upgrade and there is still no bus routes proposed for Coolmine road.

D15er wrote: »

I understand that. However, it would be unusual for BusConnects to plan a route across a bridge that doesn't yet exist to connect to a Dart line that hasn't yet been built so the current map doesn't mean anything for the future.

If the Dart line does get built, the next step will be to figure out how to get people to and from it as efficiently as possible

Why would they need the bridge to be installed to bring mass numbers of buses to the station. It would be more convenient to run the buses straight down to the station avoiding the bridge altogether.

I also like the way you discredit bus connects map but take IE's stretch of a bridge to be gospel.

Forget it. I thought some people might want a local's perspective but it's easier to look at Google Maps, decide it's all nimbyism and roll out the stock clichés.

Pete_Cavan

D15er wrote: »

Forget it. I thought some people might want a local's perspective but it's easier to look at Google Maps, decide it's all nimbyism and roll out the stock clichés.

In fairness, you are the one introducing a non-existent bus route as an argument against the bridge.

D15er wrote: »

Forget it. I thought some people might want a local's perspective but it's easier to look at Google Maps, decide it's all nimbyism and roll out the stock clichés.

I am genuinely interested in a local perspective, if the LC is to close for a successful DART+, what would be your preferred solution?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's almost like they haven't a real notion of what they want other than "WE DON'T WANT A BRIDGE". It's the same in almost 100% of these cases that the local uproar is always led by the same sort of short-termist idiots.
There are valid concerns that should be addresses, but of course they are drowned out by the concerns of Joanna Murtagh of the Local Res. Assoc. who can't drive her Hyundai Tucson wherever she wants.

Yeah, it also screams eating and keeping cake.

LXFlyer

D15er wrote: »

I understand that. However, it would be unusual for BusConnects to plan a route across a bridge that doesn't yet exist to connect to a Dart line that hasn't yet been built so the current map doesn't mean anything for the future.

If the Dart line does get built, the next step will be to figure out how to get people to and from it as efficiently as possible

In any situation such as this, it’s best to fight one battle at a time.

Talking about an unplanned and hypothetical bus route isn’t really relevant.

Far better to focus on what the actual plans are and make a case either way based on facts and known plans.

D15er wrote: »

Forget it. I thought some people might want a local's perspective but it's easier to look at Google Maps, decide it's all nimbyism and roll out the stock clichés.

What people want is truthful facts and not people creating misinformation to gain personal agendas.

You seem to have either falling victim of these scaremongeriors or be the distributor of this information.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I am genuinely interested in a local perspective, if the LC is to close for a successful DART+, what would be your preferred solution?

Honestly, I don't know. I should say that I'm not living close enough to the station to be directly affected either by the new bridge, the closure of the crossing or anything else, and that I've been getting the train from Coolmine for 20 years, so an improved service would be fantastic. I just think the current plan stinks.

To me, it seems like adding a pedestrian and cycle bridge at the existing LC to allow constant flow of people is logical, then car traffic just has to take their lumps with the level crossing. Give trains full priority and people will eventually learn to avoid the crossing at peak time, then for the other 21 hours a day cars can use it with relative freedom. It costs less, will generate fewer objections, saves a few hundred trees and gets built quicker. It removes the Coolmine road as a route into town at peak time so maybe encourages a few more people to take the train.

I know IE are aiming for 15 trains per hour at peak, they'll never achieve that, but off-peak it will be a fraction of that. I think it's odd to design the entire system based on peak capacity.

D15er wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. I should say that I'm not living close enough to the station to be directly affected either by the new bridge, the closure of the crossing or anything else, and that I've been getting the train from Coolmine for 20 years, so an improved service would be fantastic. I just think the current plan stinks.

To me, it seems like adding a pedestrian and cycle bridge at the existing LC to allow constant flow of people is logical, then car traffic just has to take their lumps with the level crossing. Give trains full priority and people will eventually learn to avoid the crossing at peak time, then for the other 21 hours a day cars can use it with relative freedom. It costs less, will generate fewer objections, saves a few hundred trees and gets built quicker. It removes the Coolmine road as a route into town at peak time so maybe encourages a few more people to take the train.

I know IE are aiming for 15 trains per hour at peak, they'll never achieve that, but off-peak it will be a fraction of that. I think it's odd to design the entire system based on peak capacity.

I don't see why its odd to design the system for peak capacity, if you don't design for peak capacity you cant achieve your peak capacity...

Sam Russell

D15er wrote: »

I know IE are aiming for 15 trains per hour at peak, they'll never achieve that, but off-peak it will be a fraction of that. I think it's odd to design the entire system based on peak capacity.

If the plan is 15 trains per hour for each direction, that is two minutes between trains crossing the LC. Here in Sydney Parade, the gates close two minutes before a southbound train and three minutes before a northbound one. We currently hav a ten minute service for Darts plus the Wexford trains plus the diesel commuters serving Bray from Maynooth and Drogheda.

At peak times, the gates are closed more than 50% of the time - and that is half the frequency quoted for Coolmine.

Let the locals decide when they get the real facts - no bus route and frequent trains.

Rulmeq

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the plan is 15 trains per hour for each direction, that is two minutes between trains crossing the LC. Here in Sydney Parade, the gates close two minutes before a southbound train and three minutes before a northbound one. We currently hav a ten minute service for Darts plus the Wexford trains plus the diesel commuters serving Bray from Maynooth and Drogheda.

At peak times, the gates are closed more than 50% of the time - and that is half the frequency quoted for Coolmine.

Let the locals decide when they get the real facts - no bus route and frequent trains.

Would it be possible to "close" the road from 7am to 10am, and 4pm to 7pm, with warning signs and the like, and just have it as a normal level crossing the other times?

MJohnston

If the level crossing is to remain, it should be permanently closed during peak times and an hour before peak. Too many catastrophic failures of entire commuting peaks (and some entire days) are caused by vehicles striking level crossing gates on the existing DART lines.

Rulmeq wrote: »

Would it be possible to "close" the road from 7am to 10am, and 4pm to 7pm, with warning signs and the like, and just have it as a normal level crossing the other times?

You would want a very robust hard barrier that could be rolled across as far back from the LC as possible, I'm not sure operationally if they would be allowed to operate as if there wasn't an LC there at those times even so.

MJohnston wrote: »

If the level crossing is to remain, it should be permanently closed during peak times and an hour before peak. Too many catastrophic failures of entire commuting peaks (and some entire days) are caused by vehicles striking level crossing gates on the existing DART lines.

My fear would be how long it takes to clear an incident, if someone ploughs through an LC at 5.00 in the morning, how long is it going to take to clear it, and what knock on effect is that going to have on the schedule?

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I don't see why its odd to design the system for peak capacity, if you don't design for peak capacity you cant achieve your peak capacity...

What I mean is, you don't need to have the level crossing closed off permanently, if you close it at peak times.

If you build a new bridge, the bridge is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - but you only really need it for three or four hours, 5 days a week.

So you close the crossing at peak times. Motorists just have to suck it up and go elsewhere. You save millions of euro, you avoid lengthy legal rows with residents, you get your electric line built a lot more quickly.

D15er wrote: »

What I mean is, you don't need to have the level crossing closed off permanently, if you close it at peak times.

If you build a new bridge, the bridge is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - but you only really need it for three or four hours, 5 days a week.

So you close the crossing at peak times. Motorists just have to suck it up and go elsewhere. You save millions of euro, you avoid lengthy legal rows with residents, you get your electric line built a lot more quickly.

I think it might come down here to what happens operationally in that case, I don't know the safety thresholds involved etc, but you can see the two factors in my post above:

can they legally operate as if there isn't a level crossing when there is an additional barrier in place at those times, or will it always have to be treated as an active level crossing.
what times do you close the barriers to give yourself a safety window for the inevitable scenario of someone ploughing through the Level Crossing? Depending on the severity of the incident you could worst case be looking at several hours of work to clear the line. Does that mean barriers close at Midnight, Open at 10am, Close at Noon, open at 8pm?

D15er wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. I should say that I'm not living close enough to the station to be directly affected either by the new bridge, the closure of the crossing or anything else, and that I've been getting the train from Coolmine for 20 years, so an improved service would be fantastic. I just think the current plan stinks.

I know IE are aiming for 15 trains per hour at peak, they'll never achieve that, but off-peak it will be a fraction of that. I think it's odd to design the entire system based on peak capacity.

I think this sums up the problem here. Objecting to things you don't know anything about while not realizing your jeopardizing the very thing you seek from it.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let the locals decide when they get the real facts - no bus route and frequent trains.

It is a fact that it is a design requirement of whatever solution is put in place that it can accommodate a double-decker bus. That is fact. IE dismissed any design that could not do so.

It would be odd to be so prescriptive about buses if there was no way a bus would ever be travelling this route. No?

IE 222 wrote: »

I think this sums up the problem here. Objecting to things you don't know anything about while not realizing your jeopardizing the very thing you seek from it.

That's not very nice now.

<snip>.

Sam Russell

D15er wrote: »

It is a fact that it is a design requirement of whatever solution is put in place that it can accommodate a double-decker bus. That is fact. IE dismissed any design that could not do so.

It would be odd to be so prescriptive about buses if there was no way a bus would ever be travelling this route. No?

Not at all. The requirement to have 5 m clearance would be required for bin lorries, HGVs etc. Striking OH lines would be anything but funny.

All measures used by broadcasters is usually double decker buses or football pitches. They tend to have limited imaginations but maybe it is me. I have no idea how big a football pitch is, or even what type of football it applies to. I have an idea a double decker is able to pass at less than 5 m (4.6 m i believe).

If CIE specified an HVG, I would be surprised.

sdanseo

D15er wrote: »

I think it's odd to design the entire system based on peak capacity.

You have to design infrastructure for its peak capacity, and nothing less.

Important to distinguish between peak capacity (regular high loads)
and surge capacity (for example the Aviva or Croker emptying 80,000 people into a train station in just a few minutes)

Designing for anything less than the expected peak is planning to fail.

Sam Russell

D15er wrote: »

That's not very nice now.

<snip>.

Mod: Do not attack the poster.

D15er wrote: »

It is a fact that it is a design requirement of whatever solution is put in place that it can accommodate a double-decker bus. That is fact. IE dismissed any design that could not do so.

It would be odd to be so prescriptive about buses if there was no way a bus would ever be travelling this route. No?

If they were putting bus lanes on the bridge you'd have a point. The bridge needs to be accessible for all vehicular traffic as the current crossing is. It would be stupid to go to the expense and effort to construct a bridge with restricted access. I don't understand why someone who doesn't live in the vicinity would be so concerned about a bus traversing across a bridge.

Either way if the locals concerns were to be taken at face value surely having a bus would be more acceptable than a large increase in cars.

D15er wrote: »

That's not very nice now.

<snip>.

I don't work for IE and this comment just shows the complete lack of understanding and vision you have of these plans. It might be worth noting that it's not actually IE that draw up these plans. In saying that with the amount of holes you've been digging today you could built a tunnel under the line at this stage.

kdevitt

IE 222 wrote: »

Bus connects has taken into account the DART upgrade and there is still no bus routes proposed for Coolmine road.

Bus Connects has the Leixlip - Blanch route passing over the Clonsilla level crossing, which is being closed off - so I'm not sure there's been a whole lot of communication between Dublin Bus and Irish Rail here.

As a local, who lives in Coolmine, the suggested approach is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. The suggested bridge is 9 metres high on the Stationcourt side, and runs 5 metres from the houses in Kirkpatrick and directly in front of the Stationcourt apartments. Riverwood is already 3m below track level, resulting in an effective 12m high bridge into their cul de sac. Any bridge here runs contrary the the Fingal development plan where it was stated a bridge was not to be built at this point.

Regardless of whether you think people should have to put up with a bridge outside their house, the exit point for the road is one of the worst junctions in the areas and is currently set to allow 4 cars exit - which causes considerable traffic as it is. Increasing this will just exacerbate existing traffic problems in the area.

I think most locals are happy for the level crossing to be upgraded and to be closed at peak times if needs be. That should be the first step, if there are massive issues as a result, then IR should look into an approach which doesn't involve turning two cul de sacs into a main road.

D15er wrote: »

It is a fact that it is a design requirement of whatever solution is put in place that it can accommodate a double-decker bus. That is fact. IE dismissed any design that could not do so.

It would be odd to be so prescriptive about buses if there was no way a bus would ever be travelling this route. No?

I think a lot of people are countering your comment regarding people not wanting a bus ratting by their window by defending the design allowing for buses or showing that there are no planned bus routes along here.

Lets for a moment assume that the issue is not buses, but vehicular traffic along this route in general (Which I imagine was what you originally wanted to express?)

They wouldn't be rattling past anyone's bedroom window, as, having looked along the route on both sides on street-view, no houses directly back on to the actual proposed corridor, on one side there being a stepped back street between the houses and the corridor, on the other just a road with no houses on it directly at all.

In fact it almost looks as if they were intentionally designed that way to provide a corridor for a potential overbridge between them at some point in the future.

These sorts of corridors are quite common, A huge green space exists in my estate because a bypass was planned to go in there a few decades ago, which never ended up happening (at least in that exact location).

donvito99

kdevitt wrote: »

Bus Connects has the Leixlip - Blanch route passing over the Clonsilla level crossing, which is being closed off - so I'm not sure there's been a whole lot of communication between Dublin Bus and Irish Rail here.

Well it's the NTA running Bus Connects and Dart+.

And with the new bridge, wouldn't the bus just run over that rather than hitting a dead end former level crossing?