Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

Sam Russell · 10-10-2020 2:31pm #1

IE 222 wrote: »

It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

The train always takes precedence at a LC. If there is a train every 5 mins, and the gate closes for 3 mins before the train clears the LC then it will be closed more than 50% of the time - that is the way it is. The train must be able to stop before the LC under all circumstances.

What do the locals want?

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 2:46pm

D15er wrote: »

Whatever is planned, there's a lot more work needed that then has to go for two public consultations and an EIS. There are going to be thousands of observations to wade through given you're dealing with protected structures and environmentally sensitive areas.

There's no way they can stick to their timeline of a Railway Order in q2 2021.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

There is 3 protected structures along the line.

The vast majority of work will take place within the existing railway boundary. There is only 4 large construction proposals, Ashtown, Coolmine, Blakestown and the depot, all of which will have relatively minor impacts on people for such a project, the rest is installing footbridge's, altering bridge arches and OHLE.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 3:00pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The train always takes precedence at a LC. If there is a train every 5 mins, and the gate closes for 3 mins before the train clears the LC then it will be closed more than 50% of the time - that is the way it is. The train must be able to stop before the LC under all circumstances.

What do the locals want?

Yes but once a crossing reopens it must remain open for a short period before it can close again. This can force a train to stop if it enters a section before this time frame has lapsed. The other issue is crossing collisions or failures which brings the whole service to a stop.

Resident association wants it to remain open and with less closures and duration.

https://www.riverwoodres.com/#

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:02pm

IE 222 wrote: »

It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

The problem is similar to other local issues. People look for compromise, they are basically ignored and basically dictated to that the "option" will be chosen for them. So they dig their heels in and refuse any compromise after that. Stalemate.

There was no suggestion of leaving the crossing until recently. That seems to have appeared lately perhaps because of the above and the similarity of frequency between this and the Existing Dart, and also new developments like the closing of Clonsilla bridge and massive new Kellystown which will have no bridge. They seem to focusing all this traffic into a very small concentrated area already with traffic problems and mostly residential. You will have two massive bridges 500m apart.

In general thats taking traffic that is dispersed over a wider area and concentrating into a very small area.

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:07pm

IE 222 wrote: »

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

...all of which will have relatively minor impacts on people ....

More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:08pm

IE 222 wrote: »

. .and Leo ....

Can you link to (somewhere other than boards) to what Leo said.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 3:16pm

beauf wrote: »

Can you link to (somewhere other than boards) to what Leo said.

Well it's a personally written letter what more do you need.

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:31pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Well it's a personally written letter what more do you need.

That's a no then.

While not impossible I think its very uncharacteristic of Leo to be that visible on local issues. Very odd that two different posters have the same letter and with the same agenda. Not impossible either no.

That aside. It's very hard to argue that you can't get the frequency without closing it if you have that frequency and more on a different line that still has crossings. Personally I think it should be closed and there are many other reasons to do. The frequency aspect though on it's own is weak.

They could easily trial it for a couple of weeks. Close it at peak and see where the traffic goes or does it disperse.

They could change the lights at Dr Troy and improve the throughput there. Since most of the traffic flows in once direction in the morning and the opposite in the evening.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 3:34pm

beauf wrote: »

The problem is similar to other local issues. People look for compromise, they are basically ignored and basically dictated to that the "option" will be chosen for them. So they dig their heels in and refuse any compromise after that. Stalemate.

There was no suggestion of leaving the crossing until recently. That seems to have appeared lately perhaps because of the above and the similarity of frequency between this and the Existing Dart, and also new developments like the closing of Clonsilla bridge and massive new Kellystown which will have no bridge. They seem to focusing all this traffic into a very small concentrated area already with traffic problems and mostly residential. You will have two massive bridges 500m apart.

In general thats taking traffic that is dispersed over a wider area and concentrating into a very small area.

Comprising means your gain something and in this case the locals seem to be ignoring the benefits of having a Dart service with increased capacity and frequency. The local argument seems to only be valuing traffic with the crossing v bridge and failing to include the actual reason for this in first place.

Surely closing the crossing without a replacement puts a stop to any increased traffic concerns. Having a crossing with longer closures times and the extra traffic volumes you are predicting is a only going to be worse for the area. The other fact the locals fail to recognize is that the rail service itself is the best way of diverting road traffic. A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 3:37pm

beauf wrote: »

More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.

There is no bridges been closed. It's a level crossing. If it was a bridge already this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

You do understand the benefits of a bridge over a level crossing.

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:49pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Comprising means your gain something and in this case the locals seem to be ignoring the benefits of having a Dart service with increased capacity and frequency. The local argument seems to only be valuing traffic with the crossing v bridge and failing to include the actual reason for this in first place.

Surely closing the crossing without a replacement puts a stop to any increased traffic concerns. Having a crossing with longer closures times and the extra traffic volumes you are predicting is a only going to be worse for the area. The other fact the locals fail to recognize is that the rail service itself is the best way of diverting road traffic. A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.

I have yet to see any local representative staying they don't want DART+ so that's a strawman right there..

As is the argument valuing traffic. Since the reason for not wanting a bridge and no crossing, or even keeping the crossing. Is to not increase traffic. But at the minimum keep it the to existing levels. Which are bad enough.

It's noteworthy that most of the people arguing for the bridge aren't using the train. If you think it will increase use of the train. Great. But I'd say Irish Rail have driven people back into their cars due to overcrowding on the line. For example reducing the number of carriages on the docklands at a time when demand exploded. Most of the people arguing for the bridge are also not mentioning the train. It's not on their agenda.

I suspect those driving and those getting the train are mostly doing journeys not possible, or not viable using the train. We're all guessing since I'm not aware of any door to door journey statistics.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 3:51pm

beauf wrote: »

That's a no then.

While not impossible I think its very uncharacteristic of Leo to be that visible on local issues. Very odd that two different posters have the same letter and with the same agenda. Not impossible either no.

That aside. It's very hard to argue that you can't get the frequency without closing it if you have that frequency and more on a different line that still has crossings. Personally I think it should be closed and there are many other reasons to do. The frequency aspect though on it's own is weak.

They could easily trial it for a couple of weeks. Close it at peak and see where the traffic goes or does it disperse.

They could change the lights at Dr Troy and improve the throughput there. Since most of the traffic flows in once direction in the morning and the opposite in the evening.

Well it's his job to raise local concerns. I don't understand where your going with this one. There's no conspiracy theory here.

You can get the frequency just it's not the best way of doing it. The crossing is closed for 41mins between 8-9am currently. The increase frequency will see that rise to well over 45mins. As off peak services will be increased as well that 8-9am figure will likely become 7am-7pm which really knocks the idea of peak time openings on the head. There comes a point as to what's the point in having it operational at a cost when nobody can use it and anyone that is is complaining about it.

Personally as a tax payer I'd rather leave it open and save us in the region of €10 million or use that money in an area like Kilcock that actually wants a rail service.

beauf · 10-10-2020 3:55pm

IE 222 wrote: »

There is no bridges been closed. It's a level crossing. If it was a bridge already this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

You do understand the benefits of a bridge over a level crossing.

I understand it has pros and cons.

The level crossing are all also at bridges. Coolmine, porterstown, Clonsilla. All being closed.

beauf · 10-10-2020 4:06pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Well it's his job to raise local concerns. I don't understand where your going with this one. There's no conspiracy theory here.

You can get the frequency just it's not the best way of doing it. The crossing is closed for 41mins between 8-9am currently. The increase frequency will see that rise to well over 45mins. As off peak services will be increased as well that 8-9am figure will likely become 7am-7pm which really knocks the idea of peak time openings on the head. There comes a point as to what's the point in having it operational at a cost when nobody can use it and anyone that is is complaining about it.

Personally as a tax payer I'd rather leave it open and save us in the region of €10 million or use that money in an area like Kilcock that actually wants a rail service.

Just curious why Leo known for love of media keeping this one quiet. Usually when a politician does anything they have to tell the world about it..

Seems like you admitting the frequency argument is weak. It can be achieved and at a lower cost by just keeping the crossing. I don't agree with it but it seems it's not without some substance.

I'm not sure what throwing out another strawman about not wanting "a" rail service at all, achieves.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 5:17pm

beauf wrote: »

I have yet to see any local representative staying they don't want DART+ so that's a strawman right there..

As is the argument valuing traffic. Since the reason for not wanting a bridge and no crossing, or even keeping the crossing. Is to not increase traffic. But at the minimum keep it the to existing levels. Which are bad enough.

It's noteworthy that most of the people arguing for the bridge aren't using the train. If you think it will increase use of the train. Great. But I'd say Irish Rail have driven people back into their cars due to overcrowding on the line. For example reducing the number of carriages on the docklands at a time when demand exploded. Most of the people arguing for the bridge are also not mentioning the train. It's not on their agenda.

I suspect those driving and those getting the train are mostly doing journeys not possible, or not viable using the train. We're all guessing since I'm not aware of any door to door journey statistics.

Locals have openly supported electrification. What comes with this is what their opposing. The Dart upgrade resolves the capacity issues you have raised and will encourage more road users back to the train.

Failing to address the issue won't maintain existing traffic levels. How can you argue that doing nothing will maintain existing traffic levels while arguing that the bridge will increase traffic levels. The Kellystown development will be happening regardless of the bridge. You can't choose to apply the effect Kellystown will have on a bridge but not on the crossing and also ignoring the fact the crossing is going to see an increase in closures. If the main goal of rejecting the bridge is too divert traffic any from the area then closing the crossing is the best way of achieving this.

The money been spent here is to benefit the rail system and meeting local road users need should not be the priority.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 5:21pm

beauf wrote: »

I understand it has pros and cons.

The level crossing are all also at bridges. Coolmine, porterstown, Clonsilla. All being closed.

The bridges cross over the canal, I don't see why this is an issue, there will be no impact on the canal. The bridges will remain in place and footbridge's will be used to cross the canal and railway.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 5:38pm

beauf wrote: »

Just curious why Leo known for love of media keeping this one quiet. Usually when a politician does anything they have to tell the world about it..

Seems like you admitting the frequency argument is weak. It can be achieved and at a lower cost by just keeping the crossing. I don't agree with it but it seems it's not without some substance.

I'm not sure what throwing out another strawman about not wanting "a" rail service at all, achieves.

He's not keeping it quiet. He's public released a letter he personally sent as a TD to IE. Its up to be media if they think it warrants been published or questioned. What does he need to do in your book.

I'm not denying the frequency can't be achieved with keeping the crossing open but in doing so comes with unnecessary compromises for both road and rail. Likewise if your willing to close the crossing at peak times then why not completely. It would be cheaper again to just close it.

What it means is that the goal of this project is about increasing frequency and capacity of the line for the benefit of the locals and not about adding shiny new trains to maintain the existing service which what they seem to only want from it.

beauf · 10-10-2020 5:49pm

IE 222 wrote: »

... not about adding shiny new trains to maintain the existing service which what they seem to only want from it.

What is with you and strawman?

All you seem to what is to shut down the service entirely for some reason and make no changes.

beauf · 10-10-2020 5:50pm

IE 222 wrote: »

He's not keeping it quiet. ...

Where he publish it?

beauf · 10-10-2020 5:55pm

IE 222 wrote: »

The bridges cross over the canal, I don't see why this is an issue, there will be no impact on the canal. The bridges will remain in place and footbridge's will be used to cross the canal and railway.

You said no bridges will be closed. I just listed the ones closing.

I have no idea why you are talking about the canal.

If as you say, you don't understand the issues, you are probably not best placed to offer a solution.

beauf · 10-10-2020 6:00pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Locals have openly supported electrification. What comes with this is what their opposing. The Dart upgrade resolves the capacity issues you have raised and will encourage more road users back to the train.

Failing to address the issue won't maintain existing traffic levels. How can you argue that doing nothing will maintain existing traffic levels while arguing that the bridge will increase traffic levels. The Kellystown development will be happening regardless of the bridge. You can't choose to apply the effect Kellystown will have on a bridge but not on the crossing and also ignoring the fact the crossing is going to see an increase in closures. If the main goal of rejecting the bridge is too divert traffic any from the area then closing the crossing is the best way of achieving this.

The money been spent here is to benefit the rail system and meeting local road users need should not be the priority.

You've already said you can get the frequency without closing the crossing. Its not a perquisite.

You could simply close the crossing and not build the bridge. So spend no money on this issue and get the rail benefits.

beauf · 10-10-2020 6:02pm

IE 222 wrote: »

...A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.

Depends where the traffic is going.

That seems quite a basic thing to need to understand. Which seems missing in these proposals.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 6:09pm

What do you think the overall aim of the project is????

Where can you show me that residents are supportive of and talk positively about an increase in services or where to do mention anything regarding about the additional capacity benefits it will bring for the area. The only positive they've welcomed is electrification.

I don't know I didn't post it. Do you think it's a fake??? He is backing your side of the argument.

What bridge is been closed that's going to effect the crossing of road traffic over the railway?

beauf · 10-10-2020 6:18pm

The giant posters saying YES to Dart+

They have it on their Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/RiverwoodRes/

You see them as you drive around. Was on pretty much everything I've seen.

Closing the crossing is closing the bridge. If you think they can close the coolmine crossing but leave the bridge open please explain how?

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 6:26pm

beauf wrote: »

You've already said you can get the frequency without closing the crossing. Its not a perquisite.

You could simply close the crossing and not build the bridge. So spend no money on this issue and get the rail benefits.

How do maintain current traffic levels with a crossing closed for longer and a large new development in Kellystown????

Keeping the crossing is doable but not ideal for a whole host of reasons I've already outlined.

Well that's what myself and many others have been advocating for on here. The way I see it is that the locals objections to a bridge are a free pass and should be jumped on. Any inconvenience or traffic issues afterwards would be self inflicted as result of their objections. Close the crossing and put the footbridge in and it's a win win for everyone.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 6:36pm

beauf wrote: »

The giant posters saying YES to Dart+

They have it on their Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/RiverwoodRes/

You see them as you drive around. Was on pretty much everything I've seen.

Closing the crossing is closing the bridge. If you think they can close the coolmine crossing but leave the bridge open please explain how?

Ok and if you took the time to read through their webpage you'll see they are opposing the fundamental part of the project which reducing the number of crossing closures and the duration whilst also refusing a bridge to bypass this. How do you purpose services can be increased if they are restricted.

It's not closing the bridge. The bridge will remain but just becomes redundant. I still don't understand how the bridge over the canal has a part to play in this and why you insist on using this as reason to argue against the options. Maybe can you explain what exactly do you need the bridge for if the crossing is closed????

beauf · 10-10-2020 6:40pm

Well you've already said you don't need to close it to achieve the frequency. So they aren't opposing anything fundamental to the project.

beauf · 10-10-2020 6:42pm

Will if they are not closing the bridge, then they don't need to replace it...:)

I don't need the existing bridge or the new one. Happy not to have either. Don't need them, don't want them.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 6:52pm

beauf wrote: »

Well you've already said you don't need to close it to achieve the frequency. So they aren't opposing anything fundamental to the project.

Well the risk of gate collisions remains and the potential of delaying trains is not fully eliminated. The up keeping costs of crossing remains and speeds and signalling need to take account of the crossing.

No doubt it will be worse for the locals than rail users but it's easily avoidable and removes any future tensions or requirements to revisit it at a later date. If the locals feel the crossing can close for longer periods or completely at peak then there is no reason to keep it open at all.

gjim · 10-10-2020 6:55pm

beauf wrote: »

I understand it has pros and cons.

What are the pros of a level crossing exactly?

They are far less safe and act as a point of contention between rail and road traffic - both of which suffer in terms of constrained capacity. It's not just that road vehicles and trains have to "share" access to the crossing - the practical capacity is much worse than half of that when there's grade separation given the the "dead time" created by the fact that the barriers have to be lowered in advance of trains arriving.

In other words, replacing a level crossing with a bridge more than doubles the total capacity of the crossing road and the rail line.

You are also relying on a non-trivial electro-mechanical system to ensure safety for both trains and cars which carries costs for regular servicing and maintenance. A bridge is more or less fool-proof safe by providing complete physical separation.

I really can't think of any situation where a level crossing has any "pros" - they are a dangerous, inefficient, historic relic and outside of heritage have no redeeming features as part of a rail system.

CatInABox · 10-10-2020 7:04pm

I think some people don't know what the current service level is, and what it's going to be once the project is complete.

There's currently 12 trains per hour going through Coolmine crossing at the peak hour, with a closure of about 40 mins per hour. Once the project is complete, there'll be 30 trains going through Coolmine crossing. Even if IR reduce the closure time by 50% (this isn't going to happen, just FYI, impossible to do this safely), any reduction will be completely eaten up by the more than doubling of the number of trains.

Maybe off peak it'll be a little better, but if they're running a ten minute Dart service on that line (which they almost certainly will), that's at least 12 trains passing Coolmine crossing every hour. Add Sligo services on top of that.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 7:04pm

beauf wrote: »

Will if they are not closing the bridge, then they don't need to replace it...:)

I don't need the existing bridge or the new one. Happy not to have either. Don't need them, don't want them.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about or want.

There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.

I'm not sure if it's a Coolmine thing or if people are so easily misled but the second part of that comment along with many others you've posted is worrying.

D15er · 10-10-2020 7:31pm

gjim wrote: »

What are the pros of a level crossing exactly?

They are far less safe and act as a point of contention between rail and road traffic - both of which suffer in terms of constrained capacity. It's not just that road vehicles and trains have to "share" access to the crossing - the practical capacity is much worse than half of that when there's grade separation given the the "dead time" created by the fact that the barriers have to be lowered in advance of trains arriving.

In other words, replacing a level crossing with a bridge more than doubles the total capacity of the crossing road and the rail line.

You are also relying on a non-trivial electro-mechanical system to ensure safety for both trains and cars which carries costs for regular servicing and maintenance. A bridge is more or less fool-proof safe by providing complete physical separation.

I really can't think of any situation where a level crossing has any "pros" - they are a dangerous, inefficient, historic relic and outside of heritage have no redeeming features as part of a rail system.

The 'pro' is that it's already in place.

The 'con' of the alternatives is the cost, time, planning difficulties, visual and other impacts on the local area, environmental damage and conflict with other planned developments.

Now, it may be that on balance closing the LC is the best option but there are plenty of pros and cons on each side.

Zebra3 · 10-10-2020 8:04pm

D15er wrote: »

The 'pro' is that it's already in place.

It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:05pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I think some people don't know what the current service level is, and what it's going to be once the project is complete.

There's currently 12 trains per hour going through Coolmine crossing at the peak hour, with a closure of about 40 mins per hour. Once the project is complete, there'll be 30 trains going through Coolmine crossing. Even if IR reduce the closure time by 50% (this isn't going to happen, just FYI, impossible to do this safely), any reduction will be completely eaten up by the more than doubling of the number of trains.

Maybe off peak it'll be a little better, but if they're running a ten minute Dart service on that line (which they almost certainly will), that's at least 12 trains passing Coolmine crossing every hour. Add Sligo services on top of that.

How does that compare to merrion?

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:17pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I don't think you really know what you're talking about or want.

There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.

I'm not sure if it's a Coolmine thing or if people are so easily misled but the second part of that comment along with many others you've posted is worrying.

There is Dr Troy bridge it's a massive thing hard to miss. You're not aware of giant bridge 500m away from where you want to build a new one. There's another bridge over the railway not far away on Castleknock road.

A "Coolmine thing" what does that mean lol?

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:25pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.

I could be wrong but I think its there since the railway was built. Long before the estates. I'd be curious of the dates. I'm remember when much of this was still fields at least on the eastern side.

But certainly it's not fit for purpose. I'd argue the roads all around it aren't either. Not for the traffic using them.

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:28pm

gjim wrote: »

What are the pros of a level crossing exactly?..

Originally the context of this was the pros of a bridge Vs a crossing.

Which is a very different discussion.

D15er · 10-10-2020 8:31pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.

I know all that.

But people are massively underestimating the scale of getting this thing up and running. It looks like IE are too. If there's a way to get a stretch of track up and running without enormous hassle, it's worth exploring.

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:40pm

They closed the phoenix park main road when they dug it up and traffic just went a different way.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 8:40pm

beauf wrote: »

There is Dr Troy bridge it's a massive thing hard to miss. You're not aware of giant bridge 500m away from where you want to build a new one. There's another bridge over the railway not far away on Castleknock road.

A "Coolmine thing" what does that mean lol?

And whose been telling you that either of them bridges are to be closed ????

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:45pm

You literally said...

IE 222 wrote: »

...
There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.
..

I'm just pointing out there are currently bridges over the railway.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 8:47pm

D15er wrote: »

I know all that.

But people are massively underestimating the scale of getting this thing up and running. It looks like IE are too. If there's a way to get a stretch of track up and running without enormous hassle, it's worth exploring.

Do you think IE go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible. It rather simple and easier for IE to just offer option 7 and close the crossing with a footbridge.

Sam Russell · 10-10-2020 8:50pm

beauf wrote: »

How does that compare to merrion?

Merrion is a disaster. At peak hours, the evening traffic is backed up all the way back to the Sean More Road. Morning traffic is beyond Booterstown.

Locals opposed the solution because it impacted their parking. Those trapped in the traffic jams were never asked.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 8:53pm

beauf wrote: »

You literally said...

I'm just pointing out there are currently bridges over the railway.

Yeah I was responding to this comment that you made before hand. Can you clarify where you gained such information.

Maybe I should apply your movie comment here as well

Quote: beauf
More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.

beauf · 10-10-2020 8:56pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Merrion is a disaster. At peak hours, the evening traffic is backed up all the way back to the Sean More Road. Morning traffic is beyond Booterstown.

Locals opposed the solution because it impacted their parking. Those trapped in the traffic jams were never asked.

I didn't ask about the traffic I asked about the frequency of the rail.

Bit it's interesting that the issue doesn't seem to be about the trains. But about traffic.

beauf · 10-10-2020 9:02pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Yeah I was responding to this comment that you made before hand. Can you clarify where you gained such information.

Maybe I should apply your movie comment here as well

Quote: beauf
More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.

Perhaps it would be better not to keep tracking back to posts out of context. Quote exactly what you're replying to. Very hard to follow.

It's very simple most people want the Dart+. The rest of it is a separate issue.

BonnieSituation · 10-10-2020 9:14pm

beauf wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think its there since the railway was built. Long before the estates. I'd be curious of the dates. I'm remember when much of this was still fields at least on the eastern side.

But certainly it's not fit for purpose. I'd argue the roads all around it aren't either. Not for the traffic using them.

So bad planning in the past should preclude improving infrastructure in the future?

Sam Russell · 10-10-2020 9:15pm

beauf wrote: »

I didn't ask about the traffic I asked about the frequency of the rail.

Bit it's interesting that the issue doesn't seem to be about the trains. But about traffic.

The trains always win.

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 9:19pm

beauf wrote: »

Perhaps it would be better not to keep tracking back to posts out of context. Quote exactly what you're replying to. Very hard to follow.

It's very simple most people want the Dart+. The rest of it is a separate issue.

Why did you track back to my previous comment? I don't think you should be posting something if you can't stand by it.

Perhaps you could just explain to us as to who informed you that either of those bridges where been "closed" in preference of a new bridge been built. Its quite clear you haven't read the report or even misread it for that matter as there is absolutely nothing in them to even suggest either of them bridges were to be closed.

You are making false claims and im just trying to correct you before spread misinformation.

Unfortunately it ain't a separate issue and I believe this is the misconception you seem to have about the project. Its rail project and not a road upgrade programme for Coolmine.

beauf · 10-10-2020 9:40pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Why did you track back to my previous comment? I don't think you should be posting something if you can't stand by it.

Perhaps you could just explain to us as to who informed you that either of those bridges where been "closed" in preference of a new bridge been built. Its quite clear you haven't read the report or even misread it for that matter as there is absolutely nothing in them to even suggest either of them bridges were to be closed.

You are making false claims and im just trying to correct you before spread misinformation.

Actually you're just making stuff up then arguing against it.

Quote where I said "where been" or "them bridges"

IE 222 wrote: »

Unfortunately it ain't a separate issue and I believe this is the misconception you seem to have about the project. Its rail project and not a road upgrade programme for Coolmine.

Then only talk about the rail aspect.

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

Comments