DART+ (DART Expansion)

kdevitt wrote: »

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

So can you shed some light on the drop lock proposal?

riddlinrussell wrote: »

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).

No, and this is an important point.

The green space on the north side of the canal was originally part of the same land that became Stationcourt Apartments. It was part of the planning permission that this land would be landscaped and made public open space. Without the creation of the green space, the apartments would not have gone ahead.

So the County Council thought it was important to ensure this green space was put in place when planning permission was granted.

Now IE want to build a road over this green space. That is the problem when you have different state bodies with differing powers I guess, but can you see why the residents would be annoyed? Their green space is gone and replaced with a busy road? I don't think anyone would roll over and just accept that.

Edit: I don't know the history of the landing of the bridge on the south side but I'd be shocked if IE had done any forward planning like what you're suggesting. That sort of foresight is just not in their DNA.

Zebra3

kdevitt wrote: »

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

Residents Associations tend to be utter abominations.

The committee find something to kick up about or one or two people complain, and regardless of what most locals think, the decision is already made.

I posted on here before about local RA who were bitterly opposed to a pub being built on some nearby wasteland. The opposition to the pub was sent out to people in the area without any consultation.

The pub got built and the RA now hold their AGMs in it.

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.

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.

That's because its planned to have the bus route running before the closure of the crossing. The bus will be rerouted and I think this goes against the narrative that's trying to be pulled here as it shows that everything is on the table and out in the open, there is no hidden or secret bus routes that are suddenly going to appear.

I don't think anyone is denying the fact there wont be any effect on locals if the bridge is built. The bridge been purposed is to REPLACE the crossing as to not leave the locals "stranded". If locals are willing to sacrifice road access across the railway to avoid the bridge then I believe that's a win for everyone involved.

kdevitt

Zebra3 wrote: »

You think? So you don't know?

Define local? Where's the cut off distance to be defined as a local on this matter?

All of these "locals" are happy for what type of upgrade to the LC?

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

MJohnston

donvito99 wrote: »

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?

The Clonsilla level crossing they're referring to is 2km away from Coolmine level crossing where the topic has been focused for a while.

If the L52 that is currently planned to use Clonsilla level crossing is rerouted, it will be via the Diswellstown Road bridge.

Zebra3

kdevitt wrote: »

I think most locals are happy for the level crossing to be upgraded

You think? So you don't know?

Define local? Where's the cut off distance to be defined as a local on this matter?

All of these "locals" are happy for what type of upgrade to the LC?

kdevitt

donvito99 wrote: »

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?

I think you're confusing Clonsilla with Coolmine?

Sam Russell wrote: »

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.

Hang on now. Fair is fair. You said provide facts and that's what I did. The IE report clearly states that the road must "achieve suitable clearance for double decker buses and other high vehicles".

So look at this from the residents' perspective. They're being asked not to object to a road bridge going past their houses. Now you want them to take it on faith that, even though the road is being designed to accommodate buses, there won't actually be buses going down it - even though once the road is built, there will be absolutely no guarantees that a bus route won't be introduced on day one?

Do you at least see why it would be a concern?

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?

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).

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: »

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.

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.

Sam Russell

D15er wrote: »

That's not very nice now.

<snip>.

Mod: Do not attack the poster.

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: »

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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...

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.