Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Options
1…233234236238239…338

Comments

  • Options
    #7052
    tnegun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭tnegun


    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.


  • Options
    #7053
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    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

    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.


  • Options
    #7054
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.

    Never mind that — this existing cul-de-sac they don't want spoiled by a road bridge must be a hive of criminal activity!


  • Options
    #7055
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    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/

    Yeah, they seem to want it all. Closing the crossing with only a footbridge replacement is the only conclusion that meets the concerns they've raised. A upgraded DART service with increased frequency and capacity will best resolve the traffic chaos issues they've raised.


  • Options
    #7056
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.

    I wouldn't say it would be too difficult from a construction perspective to achieve, but doing it without impacting the service on the line would be some job...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7057
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.

    Mustn't be that bad if their objecting to opening cul de sacs into through roads.


  • Options
    #7058
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.

    While I think their excuses are weak, given the sheer scale of the project at present I can understand why they dont want to add any more to it. As you say it should be fairly trivial. I imagine the goal is eventual electrification to Sligo, or at least Mullingar, Kilcock would be a quick and easy first step towards that and could be a quick and easy commuter 'win' down the line separately.


  • Options
    #7059
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    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!

    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.


  • Options
    #7060
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #7061
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7062
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #7063
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    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.

    Well if the Canal, station carpark or the green areas surrounding these cul de sacs don't attract anti social behaviour now then there is zero hope the crossing will.


  • Options
    #7064
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    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.

    So is vehicular traffic! And cars don't really deter anti-social behaviour anyway.

    Also, the apartments overlooking the level crossing are much closer to it than the houses overlooking the residential cul-de-sac ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


  • Options
    #7065
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    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.

    How bad are the anti-social problems on the canal greenway?


  • Options
    #7066
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.

    On one side it will be essentially a turning circle beside a train station, on the other it wont be a cul de sac as much as a junction between the canal greenway and the coolmine road.

    If you can access it from four directions it probably isn't an actual cul-de-sac


  • Options
    #7067
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How bad are the anti-social problems on the canal greenway?

    The greenway isn't built yet but I don't think the current path is too bad.

    You hear often hear scrotes going up and down it on scrambler bikes, maybe the odd gang of teens with a bag of cans but nothing outrageous tbh.

    Edit: at the Coolmine area, that is. Stretches of the canal path closer to the city are pretty nasty.


  • Options
    #7068
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How bad are the anti-social problems on the canal greenway?

    More specifically 'at this point of the route', there are several well documented areas of anti-social behaviour on both the royal and grand canals, but its generally fairly localised.


  • Options
    #7069
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    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.


  • Options
    #7070
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.

    Unless they truly are dead ends, these should be rechristened 'quiet routes', 'car free routes' etc. Its frustrating to know that there are probably hundreds of these around cities in Ireland that are either disconnected from a cycling/ped network, or too narrow to be suitable for cycling, or simply barriered off to cyclists and limited mobility users for no good reason, when a little bit of work/expenditure, and some permeable barriers allowing limited mobility use and forcing cyclists to slow to appropriate speeds would open up some great potential routes around the place.

    Sorry getting a bit away from the topic at hand.


  • Options
    #7071
    Tomrota
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭Tomrota


    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.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7072
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #7073
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    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.

    <snip>

    But to answer your point - you're correct in saying that no house will front directly onto the road, but for houses in Stationcourt, the distance between their front door and the new road will be less than 20 metres with no trees or wall to screen them from the traffic. So there's a serious impact on those houses. Likewise the houses in Kirkpatrick do not 'front' onto it, but the gable end of those houses will be right on top of the road. It's similar on the south side.

    These are genuine and well-founded concerns for the residents. IE were deluding themselves if they thought it wouldn't generate a LOT of objections, just like it did in 2014.

    Cool it.


  • Options
    #7074
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    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.


  • Options
    #7075
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    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.

    Well it is been extended to Maynooth and falls just 550meters short of Kilcock. Toilets were already apart of the current fleet running the routes. The new fleet will replace both the current EMU & DMU fleet and in essence will offer the best of both.


  • Options
    #7076
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: Can we cool the responses. No attacking the poster - only the points being made.


  • Options
    #7077
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    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.

    Again you're answering a different point to the one I made. What I posted was accurate and correct. Thank you.


  • Options
    #7078
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,851 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    are we still talking about this damn bridge?


  • Options
    #7079
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    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

    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.


  • Options
    #7080
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.

    Given that Connolly will be worked on as part of the 'last' piece of the puzzle are they possibly getting the rest of the system to shovel ready and then hoping to present the more comprehensive rework as a fait-accompli to avoid wasting all the money already spent?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7081
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    loyatemu wrote: »
    are we still talking about this damn bridge?

    Given that Leo Varadkar has seen fit to interfere due to this bridge, it seems like it might become a fairly critical part of the project.


Advertisement