riddlinrussell wrote: » I know... anyway, is there any additional news on the project as a whole or is the scheme now entirely dedicated to the Coolmine level crossing? :P
Zebra3 wrote: » The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.
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/
D15er wrote: » From an infrastructural point of view, I'm very interested to see how they will deal with the bridges at Castleknock and Broombridge. The rail currently passes under these and the clearance isn't nearly high enough for electric lines. The bridge at Castleknock is a protected structure and there's no way to move the tracks... There was a proposal to lower the level of the tracks by a couple of metres to obtain the necessary clearance but I don't know if it's feasible. Makes the issues at Coolmine look like child's play.
tnegun wrote: » I submitted feedback regarding the missed opportunity that not including Kilcock would be a mistake and moving the station a few 100m west would solve the space constraints and issues around disruption disappointingly I got a stock answer that the current station was space constrained, the bridge posed issues and was pretty much a copy paste from the existing proposal.
MJohnston wrote: » Never mind that — this existing cul-de-sac they don't want spoiled by a road bridge must be a hive of criminal activity!
D15er wrote: » I'm sure I'll trigger a load of abuse for pointing this out, but they're two different things. The existing cul-de-sac, where the new bridge is proposed, is a residential area with houses fronting directly onto it and the only way to access it is via residential streets. The scope for anti-social behaviour is low. Closing off the level crossing will create a dead end to vehicles that won't have any houses overlooking it, and will be accessible on foot from four different directions.
MJohnston wrote: » I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this — in my experience 'houses fronting directly onto' an area is zero discouragement for anti-social behaviour, if it's even likely in an area. Regardless, the premise is completely false — the closed level crossing won't be a dead end, it'll be a pedestrian and cycling overpass.
D15er wrote: » This is important; I'm just pointing out the facts as a local who knows the area; I'm not arguing one way or the other - but I don't see a contradiction in what they're saying. At night (when anti-social behaviour is most likely to happen), pedestrian and cycle traffic over the overpass is likely to be minimal.
D15er wrote: » I'm sure I'll trigger a load of abuse for pointing this out, but they're two different things. The existing cul-de-sac, where the new bridge is proposed, is a residential area with houses fronting directly onto it. The scope for anti-social behaviour is low. Closing off the level crossing will create a dead end to vehicles that won't have any houses overlooking it, and will be accessible on foot from four different directions.
Zebra3 wrote: » How bad are the anti-social problems on the canal greenway?
MJohnston wrote: » So much of our perception of access is oriented around cars and it's so frustrating. "Road closed" when it's been pedestrianised, and more open than it ever was with cars. "Cul de sac" or "Dead end" when you can still continue onwards on foot or bicycle.
IE 222 wrote: » Its ridiculous not to extend it. The double track will run toughly 550m short of the station. The bridge can accommodate a second line. The bridge is the same design type purposed to replace any arch bridges to fit OHLE. There should be enough land within the railway boundary for a double turn back bay. The current platform doesn't even need to be touched. If the curve can't be realigned to fit it there is plenty of land to purchase. If cost is an issue, the non essential test track is 1.5km long and is more than adequate to provide for the extension. It will have 2 platforms built on it along with a 3rd unnecessary head shunt platform. They are also proposing to construct a siding west of Maynooth before the depot which I assume will be used to stable trains during tight turn arounds.
D15er wrote: » The existing cul-de-sac, where the new bridge is proposed, is a residential area with houses fronting directly onto it and the only way to access it is via residential streets. The scope for anti-social behaviour is low.
liamog wrote: » It's been pointed out before, but you seemed to have ignored the point. There are no houses directly fronting onto the planned new road for the replacement bridge.
Tomrota wrote: » Absolutely ridiculous to not extend it 32km from the city to primary commuter belt towns that are rapidly growing, like Kilcock, when they are extending it 50km up to Drogheda. I honestly don’t understand why these destinations were so arbitrarily chosen. Now people are talking about toilets on these trains just cause they’re extending it so far up to Drogheda. Drogheda isn’t in the metro area. Maynooth, 29km from the city. Hazelhatch, 21km from the city and then Drogheda 50km from the city? I don’t understand at all. It’s clearly political and not geographic.
liamog wrote: » The houses at the front of Riverwood are about 7m away from the main road, so it would seem this shouldn't really be an issue. The embankment leading up to the bridge in Stationcourt will be about 20m away from a retaining wall and the report does also mention than noise abatement measures will be required across the new bridge. It's better to work constructively to improve the options instead of some of the local claims which are demonstrably untrue.
IE 222 wrote: » In terms of planned infrastructure changes level crossings would be the main hotbed. Leo's letter suggests the rest of the closures are been warmly accepted by locals in them areas. Once details regarding the arch bridges is released it will surely ruffle a few feathers as not all will be resolved by track lowering and OHLE special clearance. I fully expect the exclusion of Kilcock to gather momentum. I've seen a couple of Facebook groups regarding this. Another major problem that doesn't seem to be getting much attention and going under the radar is Connolly station. The whole project and ultimately the number of trains per hour (44 with Spencer Dock & Connolly) relies on Connolly's ability to handle an increase to 30 tph and remove the conflict at North Strand with Newcome jct needing upgrade works. This seems to of been seriously curtailed and it looks like their taking a massive gamble with minimal improvements which will only be able to achieve 23 trains per hour at a push and Jacobs have expressed serious doubts of even achieving that. If Connolly fails the project as a whole will fail. Another potential issue that could arise unexpectedly now is from Rosslare users and understandably. Although Dart South isn't for another few years the details would suggest changes to Rosslare will need to be implemented with Maynooth as that requires terminating on platform 7. Connolly will effectively only have 2 through platforms, 5&6. I'm not sure it running them through is an option but terminating definitely won't be.
loyatemu wrote: » are we still talking about this damn bridge?
