kdevitt wrote: » I think most locals are happy for the level crossing to be upgraded
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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
IE 222 wrote: » So can you shed some light on the drop lock proposal?
kdevitt wrote: » None, it sounds like nonsense.
D15er wrote: » 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.
IE 222 wrote: » Again it's not a case that IE have just pulled this idea out their arse. It's a team of professional engineers from world renowned companies such as Jacob's Engineering who've done extensive studies to create and design these plans. I find it somewhat odd that someone who hasn't looked into the full details whilst adding their own narrative which includes secret bus routes emerging ferrying 10s of thousands of people to be calling it flawed.
D15er wrote: » But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.
liamog wrote: » There wouldn't be an objective to not build a bridge, unless it made sense to build a bridge there. Do you think the engineers employed by Irish Rail coincidentally found some empty land either side of the railway.
D15er wrote: » I didn't say they pulled it out of their arse. They pulled it out of a drawer where it had been sitting since 2011. But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.
riddlinrussell wrote: » I apologise for making that assumption, I based it entirely on the character of the streets in question, regardless of it being planned that way they are remarkably well suited for such a scheme, although I fully grasp why residents would be incensed if it was supposed to be a landscaped communal space. I would propose that the LC be closed, and the Pedestrian and cycle link be made, as the best solution for both parties. I think the alternative would be a half assed solution that doesn't fully close the LC, slowing the frequency of trains, while effectively never being open for cars due to a need to minimise the risk of crossing strikes having a disastrous impact on high frequency services.
D15er wrote: » That is exactly what they did. Scroll up for details.
riddlinrussell wrote: » I apologise for making that assumption, I based it entirely on the character of the streets in question, regardless of it being planned that way they are remarkably well suited for such a scheme, although I fully grasp why residents would be incensed if it was supposed to be a landscaped communal space.
liamog wrote: » Ok so, by complete coincidence (and not a process of pre-planning consultation) two independent land owners happened to leave a bridge sized gap in their own development plans despite at no other point between the Porterstown Bridge and the Castleknock Station bridge their being any similar shaped gaps. What's evening more fortuitous about this coincidence is that they happen to be on opposite sides of the railway. Irish Rail should be playing the lotto with luck like that.
liamog wrote: » It's not complete nonsense, it was evaluated as one of the options, it didn't even make it to round 2 of the preliminary route options. 4 options made it to phase 2, Option 1, 3, 4 and 6https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8b669bab-7b1c-4ef6-9667-d2494faae813/Preliminary-Options-Selection-Report_Main-Report.pdf
IE 222 wrote: » https://www.riverwoodres.com/category/planning/# Anything but a fair and balanced provider of information. I can only imagine the number of submissions they have unaffected people making. Sounds like there against any crossing closures or replacements and of the opinion IE need to reduce the number of closures and duration.
Fiddle Castro wrote: » They are against closing the level crossing according to their leaflet.https://www.riverwoodres.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/STOP_THE_BRIDGE-2pp.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fCI27xGUfwqqZAaPHXrNUpLHvXsmmKa7oecUfZZFj7UfezUCcYk7Ryz4
Fiddle Castro wrote: » https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/tips-and-ideas-to-help-with-your-submission/https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/submissions-about-riverwood-bridge/
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour A cul-de-sac at Coolmine train station will introduce a risk of antisocial behaviour as there will be a lack of passing vehicular traffic.
Zebra3 wrote: » The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.
riddlinrussell wrote: » Passing 'Traffic' may impact on anti-social behaviour, but not specifically 'vehicular' traffic.
Zebra3 wrote: » Campaigners' claim, not mine.
