Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

beauf · 10-10-2020 9:47pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trains always win.

Except perhaps when they were ripped up and disappeared...

Be interesting what happens post COVID...

https://www.thejournal.ie/impact-of-covid-19-on-rail-public-transport-traffic-5160807-Jul2020/

IE 222 · 10-10-2020 10:43pm

beauf wrote: »

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

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

Then only talk about the rail aspect.

Ok, here's the crap you've splurt out about bridges been closed. You even listed the "3" bridges Coolmine, Clonsilla and Porterstown which was later reduce to 2 and changed to Castleknock and Dr Tony bridges.

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

I think it's time for you to go and troll elsewhere.

1.
Quote: beaufI understand it has pros and cons.

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

2.
Quote: beaufYou 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

3.
Quote: beaufThe 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?

4.
Quote: beaufThere 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 · 11-10-2020 12:11am

IE 222 wrote: »

Ok, here's the crap you've splurt out about bridges been closed. You even listed the "3" bridges Coolmine, Clonsilla and Porterstown which was later reduce to 2 and changed to Castleknock and Dr Tony bridges. ...

Yeah, thats not what I asked you to quote and even it was its not quoting it's mis quoting and impressively out of context. Also its not Dr Tony.

beauf · 11-10-2020 12:21am

Sam Russell wrote: »

..
What do the locals want?

As you say the trains always win. I don't think it will matter what the locals want. They just keep at it until they override all the objections. So discussing it is largely pointless.

Are the funds for this ring fenced? Seems odd time to start such a project. I can't remember exactly what that said when asked. I think it was that funds are there for it, and such projects won't be effected by current events. Can't remember if anyone mentioned metro in reply.

BonnieSituation · 11-10-2020 1:12am

beauf wrote: »

As you say the trains always win. I don't think it will matter what the locals want. They just keep at it until they override all the objections. So discussing it is largely pointless.

Are the funds for this ring fenced? Seems odd time to start such a project. I can't remember exactly what that said when asked. I think it was that funds are there for it, and such projects won't be effected by current events. Can't remember if anyone mentioned metro in reply.

Forget the other locals, what do YOU want beauf?

liamog · 11-10-2020 2:56am

I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.

IE 222 · 11-10-2020 3:37am

beauf wrote: »

Yeah, thats not what I asked you to quote and even it was its not quoting it's mis quoting and impressively out of context. Also its not Dr Tony.

What is it you want me to quote you on. Have you not dug enough holes on this already.

Considering there is no railway bridges at the first 3 locations you mentioned it's very clear and obvious you have no understanding whatsoever on this. I'd nearly be of the opinion that you can't tell the difference between a bridge and level crossing.

I'll happy stand corrected if you would like to show and explain to me that your previous comments of bridge closures are indeed correct or if I've misquoted you.

Failing that, maybe you could start fresh and outline your views and reasons as to why a bridge should or shouldn't be built at Coolmine to give us a better understanding of what it is your suggesting or arguing and keeping in mind this time that there is no bridge closures as part of the project.

BonnieSituation · 11-10-2020 3:50am

liamog wrote: »

I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.

The suggestion to build a bridge at Stationcourt is to IMPROVE N/S connectivity and it's being argued AGAINST.

Any degradation in N/S connectivity will be as a direct result of interference from locals and local politicians.

You can't have it all.

beauf · 11-10-2020 4:16am

liamog wrote: »

I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.

I can't imagine anyone doesn't see that...but whatever.

IE 222 · 11-10-2020 4:46am

liamog wrote: »

I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.

Completely agree and so do the planners, however, the local residents association tell us they would rather cut off that link than have a bridge. As they rightly point out there is alternative routes to make such journeys.

If we are to accept their concerns and issues as the factual reasons to not build a bridge then we ought to apply these same reasons to the level crossing when deciding its future. We are only eliminating the visual impact concern by not building the bridge. In order to satisfy and meet their other concerns such as traffic chaos, emissions, environmental damage, road & rail safety, access to estates and better protection of pedestrian and cyclists we have to conclude that this can only be achieved by closing the crossing with a replacement footbridge. Other alternatives such as peak time closures do not meet these requirements and would likely aggravate them further.

D15er · 11-10-2020 11:21am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The suggestion to build a bridge at Stationcourt is to IMPROVE N/S connectivity and it's being argued AGAINST.

Any degradation in N/S connectivity will be as a direct result of interference from locals and local politicians.

You can't have it all.

But improving "connectivity" means sending much increased levels of traffic through residential areas that were never intended to accommodate them.

Anyone living in the affected area is going to object to that. You would too if it was your street that was going to become a main road.

Simply disregarding the objections as nimbyism is grand for an internet forum but IE should know better, they have made a horse's ass of this and ultimately it will cost all of us in the form of delays and cost overruns.

Zebra3 · 11-10-2020 11:35am

D15er wrote: »

But improving "connectivity" means sending much increased levels of traffic through residential areas that were never intended to accommodate them.

Anyone living in the affected area is going to object to that. You would too if it was your street that was going to become a main road.

Simply disregarding the objections as nimbyism is grand for an internet forum but IE should know better, they have made a horse's ass of this.

LC will be likely to be closed for hours on end.

Residents object to bridge replacing LC.

Residents object to traffic going into their estates.

Sounds like the residents have made a horse's ass of this.

LXFlyer · 11-10-2020 11:42am

beauf wrote: »

Which then returns to why do you need to close it anyway if the frequency is the same as the existing dart line which retained level crossing. Then a while bunch of smaller arguments about a bunch of issues with the process.

I think some clarification is needed here.

Service levels on the existing DART line south of Grand Canal Dock currently see a maximum number of trains across the level crossings of 16 an hour when you combine both directions.

Current service levels on the western line see a maximum of 13 trains an hour across the level crossings between Ashtown and Clonsilla.

This project is about delivering capacity of up to 30 trains an hour on the western line, when you combine both directions. That's pretty much incompatible with retaining any of the level crossings.

No one really has commented on the fact that retention of level crossings also complicates the signalling on the railway, as there has to be interlocking between the crossings and the signalling (and potentially additional signalling sections) built into it. Retention of the level crossings also creates the possibility of unreliable journey times if something goes wrong at any of the crossings.

Incidentally, the DART+ information brochure (linked below) on page 12 indicates that the scope of DART+ Coastal South includes elimination of level crossings on that line too, given that capacity will be increased significantly as well to similar levels as the Western line. We have yet to see the detailed proposals for the other lines.

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8e660496-c48a-4325-a735-014fc892d3a7/DART-Expansion-Brochure-17th-August,-2020-FA-WEB-DPS.pdf

Sam Russell · 11-10-2020 11:43am

Zebra3 wrote: »

LC will be likely to be closed for hours on end.

Residents object to bridge replacing LC.

Residents object to traffic going into their estates.

Sounds like the residents have made a horse's ass of this.

As is common is this type of situations, the locals that are affected make noise, organise protests, make submissions. Result is the plans get changed or junked. However, the reason for the plan is to improve other people's lives who are not local to the issue, and are not informed of the issues, and so do nothing.

That is the very essence of NIMBYism.

For example, a motorway construction affects the locals, but benefits the nation. Who wins?

Solution: - ask the locals how to solve the problem - in this case - bridge or no bridge, and/or LC closed permanently or closed mostly. Then let the planners decide, following discussions with the locals. Often, it is a few hotheads who drive the agenda, usually because they are the most affected.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:08pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

This project is about delivering capacity of up to 30 trains an hour on the western line, when you combine both directions. That's pretty much incompatible with retaining any of the level crossings.

Probably worth pointing out that we will never ever need that many trains, nor will IE ever provide them. That's a train in each direction every 4 minutes.

Obviously we need to factor in the growth of the area which will be pretty significant in the next few years (and the current service is crap), but we will never actually reach that frequency of service so I don't think it should necessarily be a prerequisite.

Pete_Cavan · 11-10-2020 12:17pm

D15er wrote: »

But improving "connectivity" means sending much increased levels of traffic through residential areas that were never intended to accommodate them.

Anyone living in the affected area is going to object to that. You would too if it was your street that was going to become a main road.

Simply disregarding the objections as nimbyism is grand for an internet forum but IE should know better, they have made a horse's ass of this and ultimately it will cost all of us in the form of delays and cost overruns.

But what is the solution? Not having a bridge and having the LC fully/almost entirely closed will create traffic problems too, probably more than having a bridge. There is no perfect solution which keeps everyone happy, no matter what is done someone would kick up. This is the vital piece missing which presents the the circular argument from moving on. Saying IE have made a horse's ass of it but is there any way for IE to not have made a horse's ass of it?

LXFlyer · 11-10-2020 12:19pm

D15er wrote: »

Probably worth pointing out that we will never ever need that many trains, nor will IE ever provide them. That's a train in each direction every 4 minutes.

Obviously we need to factor in the growth of the area which will be pretty significant in the next few years, but we will never actually reach that frequency of service so I don't think it should necessarily be a prerequisite.

You need to build the infrastructure along the line to deliver a certain capacity.

There may not be 30 trains going across in a particular hour, but the line needs to be built to deliver the 15 trains in either direction at some point during the day.

It is perfectly likely to have 15 trains in the peak direction flow and 8-10 in the other to balance the service out. That would still be 23-25 trains in an hour.

Incidentally the planned service levels are documented out in the detailed appendices and they clearly do indicate that level of service, i.e. 15 trains, including the Sligo.

The infrastructure is being designed to deliver a maximum service level for years to come - you don’t build it based on what you think might be ideal now.

The whole point of the project is to deliver a massive increase in capacity.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:29pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But what is the solution? Not having a bridge and having the LC fully/almost entirely closed will create traffic problems too, probably more than having a bridge. There is no perfect solution which keeps everyone happy, no matter what is done someone would kick up. This is the vital piece missing which presents the the circular argument from moving on. Saying IE have made a horse's ass of it but is there any way for IE to not have made a horse's ass of it?

I honestly don't know what the best solution is.

I know all the negatives of leaving the LC in place, all the negatives of not building a bridge, and they're perfectly valid.

However... IE drafted the plan for the new bridge in 2011. They sat on it for NINE YEARS, then released it for consultation giving people six weeks to comment.

They knew this would be incendiary for the locals. It seems to me that if they were really interested in engaging with people, they'd actually have engaged with people.

IE have put forward the best plan from their perspective. That doesn't make it the best plan.

liamog · 11-10-2020 12:35pm

D15er wrote: »

But improving "connectivity" means sending much increased levels of traffic through residential areas that were never intended to accommodate them.

The traffic is from the residential area and will be going down two distributor roads that currently lead to residential streets not the actual residential streets themselves. It's where the immediate residents represent the situation like this that I believe nimbyism rather than constructive feedback is at play.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:39pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

You need to build the infrastructure along the line to deliver a certain capacity.

There may not be 30 trains going across in a particular hour, but the line needs to be built to deliver the 15 trains in either direction at some point during the day.

It is perfectly likely to have 15 trains in the peak direction flow and 8-10 in the other to balance the service out. That would still be 23-25 trains in an hour.

Incidentally the planned service levels are documented out in the detailed appendices and they clearly do indicate that level of service, i.e. 15 trains, including the Sligo.

The infrastructure is being designed to deliver a maximum service level for years to come - you don’t build it based on what you think might be ideal now.

The whole point of the project is to deliver a massive increase in capacity.

Again, I understand all that. But we're never going to reach that level of service. Ever.

Your idea of different frequencies in each direction means you need far more rolling stock so that won't happen.

IE could massively increase capacity tomorrow BTW. When you're standing on a crowded platform at Coolmine in the morning rush hour and a 4-carriage train rolls in that's already packed, it doesn't fill you with confidence that these guys would be running a world beating service if it weren't for the pesky locals.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:42pm

liamog wrote: »

The traffic is from the residential area and will be going down two distributor roads that currently lead to residential streets not the actual residential streets themselves. It's where the immediate residents represent the situation like this that I believe nimbyism rather than constructive feedback is at play.

I'm not an immediate resident and I have represented the situation perfectly correctly. This proposal routes through traffic through residential areas that were never designed to accommodate it. What is inaccurate about that?

When people misrepresent the situation to be less impactful than it is, you would have to question what is driving that too.

Pete_Cavan · 11-10-2020 12:47pm

D15er wrote: »

I honestly don't know what the best solution is.

I know all the negatives of leaving the LC in place, all the negatives of not building a bridge, and they're perfectly valid.

However... IE drafted the plan for the new bridge in 2011. They sat on it for NINE YEARS, then released it for consultation giving people six weeks to comment.

They knew this would be incendiary for the locals. It seems to me that if they were really interested in engaging with people, they'd actually have engaged with people.

IE have put forward the best plan from their perspective. That doesn't make it the best plan.

If "they'd actually have engaged with people", what exactly would that have involved? How would it have been any different from what is happening now apart from drawing the whole process out longer? What compromises or better solutions would have come out which can't come out in the current consultation? I think the truth here is that all roads lead to (excuse the pun) this exact same flashpoint regardless of what solutions are put forward. It just seems to me to be another situation where people pretend that things could have been different if IE had done things differently. The truth is no matter what way they approached it, or what option they pushed for, it was going to enrage residents. And yet despite all this talking around the problem, nobody can put forward a viable alternative solution.

LXFlyer · 11-10-2020 12:49pm

D15er wrote: »

Again, I understand all that. But we're never going to reach that level of service. Ever.

Your idea of different frequencies in each direction means you need far more rolling stock so that won't happen.

IE could massively increase capacity tomorrow BTW. When you're standing on a crowded platform at Coolmine in the morning rush hour and a 4-carriage train rolls in that's already packed, it doesn't fill you with confidence that these guys would be running a world beating service if it weren't for the pesky locals.

Sorry but you cannot possibly say that it won’t happen. You have nothing other than supposition on your part.

The plan is that it WILL happen. Again I refer you to the detailed peak service plan in the appendices.

You do understand that there is a massive rolling stock order as part of this process.

They cannot increase capacity tomorrow as there is insufficient rolling stock to deliver it.

And it is perfectly normal that at times of peak flow you would have more trains in the peak direction - that’s nothing new and is how commuter railways work all across the world. Some would return empty to the depot to layover during the day.

If you’re basing all of your comments on a notion of yours, rather than the detailed plans which form the basis of the investment proposal then there is no point to this.

That’s frankly a daft way of assessing the project.

I think you need to start accepting that this project is about transforming the rail service around the city. It’s not a minor upgrade as you seem to be implying.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:55pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If "they'd actually have engaged with people", what exactly would that have involved? How would it have been any different from what is happening now apart from drawing the whole process out longer? What compromises or better solutions would have come out which can't come out in the current consultation? I think the truth here is that all roads lead to (excuse the pun) this exact same flashpoint regardless of what solutions are put forward. It just seems to me to be another situation where people pretend that things could have been different if IE had done things differently. The truth is no matter what way they approached it, or what option they pushed for, it was going to enrage residents. And yet despite all this talking around the problem, nobody can put forward a viable alternative solution.

Totally agree. 100%. It had to come to this.

However, we're now in a situation where this is potentially gating to the whole project. If we end up in some sort of appeal and judicial review scenario, then the impact is felt across the whole project.

They've known for nearly a decade that they'd be doing this. They knew in 2014 what the local reaction would be. They could have grasped the nettle a lot sooner.

To be clear, I want the upgrade to happen and I'm not deluding myself that it can happen without some trade off. I won't be directly impacted by the bridge anyway so I'll make my peace with it whatever happens.

But IE are not competent to pull this off. There is no question in my mind about that.

D15er · 11-10-2020 12:59pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Sorry but you cannot possibly say that it won’t happen. You have nothing other than supposition on your part.

The plan is that it WILL happen. Again I refer you to the detailed peak service plan in the appendices.

You do understand that there is a massive rolling stock order as part of this process.

They cannot increase capacity tomorrow as there is insufficient rolling stock to deliver it.

And it is perfectly normal that at times of peak flow you would have more trains in the peak direction - that’s nothing new and is how commuter railways work all across the world. Some would return empty to the depot to layover during the day.

If you’re basing all of your comments on a notion of yours, rather than the detailed plans which form the basis of the investment proposal then there is no point to this.

That’s frankly a daft way of assessing the project.

I think you need to start accepting that this project is about transforming the rail service around the city. It’s not a minor upgrade as you seem to be implying.

I'm not implying it's a minor upgrade at all. That's a very unfair characterisation.

LXFlyer · 11-10-2020 1:06pm

D15er wrote: »

I'm not implying it's a minor upgrade at all. That's a very unfair characterisation.

Well you don’t seem to be actually understanding that those levels of service are exactly what this plan is about delivering.

You seem to be saying, “ah yeah, but it’ll never happen”.

What I’m saying is that the infrastructure upgrade and the planned rolling stock orders are precisely about delivering that level of service.

Pete_Cavan · 11-10-2020 1:09pm

D15er wrote: »

Totally agree. 100%. It had to come to this.

However, we're now in a situation where this is potentially gating to the whole project. If we end up in some sort of appeal and judicial review scenario, then the impact is felt across the whole project.

They've known for nearly a decade that they'd be doing this. They knew in 2014 what the local reaction would be. They could have grasped the nettle a lot sooner.

To be clear, I want the upgrade to happen and I'm not deluding myself that it can happen without some trade off. I won't be directly impacted by the bridge anyway so I'll make my peace with it whatever happens.

But IE are not competent to pull this off. There is no question in my mind about that.

The most likely thing to happen now would be leaving the Coolmine bridge out of the RO to avoid having it delay everything, particularly since Leo weighed in.

When you say "they could have grasped the nettle a lot sooner", would you have preferred them to do so? Would you still agree with your last sentence (before editing to add more) if could was replaced with should? If so, it would be an unusual stance that it would have been fine to have this situation a few years ago but we can't have it now. As I said, if they pressed on with the previous plan, we would be in the same situation as present with all the same recriminations and lack of alternatives. Questioning IE's competence is just a childish insult, as we have already agreed, it was always going to boil down to the same problem and same lack of solutions not matter what they did.

liamog · 11-10-2020 1:18pm

D15er wrote: »

I'm not an immediate resident and I have represented the situation perfectly correctly. This proposal routes through traffic through residential areas that were never designed to accommodate it. What is inaccurate about that?

When people misrepresent the situation to be less impactful than it is, you would have to question what is driving that too.

When you look at the plans, that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, the replacement road involves about 50m at the Riverwood Ct entrance before the bridge, so presumably this isn't the bit you're talking about. Followed by about 350m using the existing distributor road at the northside of the bridge. The way you describe makes it sound like the traffic will be going down actual streets people live on, instead of the distributors into the two areas.

D15er · 11-10-2020 1:20pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The most likely thing to happen now would be leaving the Coolmine bridge out of the RO to avoid having it delay everything, particularly since Leo weighed in.

When you say "they could have grasped the nettle a lot sooner", would you have preferred them to do so? Would you still agree with your last sentence (before editing to add more) if could was replaced with should? If so, it would be an unusual stance that it would have been fine to have this situation a few years ago but we can't have it now. As I said, if they pressed on with the previous plan, we would be in the same situation as present with all the same recriminations and lack of alternatives. Questioning IE's competence is just a childish insult, as we have already agreed, it was always going to boil down to the same problem and same lack of solutions not matter what they did.

Yes I would have preferred them to do so sooner. At least then we would know that either the bridge was happening or it is not. If it is not, then IE could proceed with planning for the alternative scenario and there would be more certainty around the project as a whole.

I don't think it is childish to question IE's competency tbh. That goes beyond this precise issue, I'm saying that as someone who has been getting the train from Coolmine and watching developments for nearly 25 years.

The way they have presented the plan, it appears that the level crossings are the only key issue. We have yet to see any detail on how they're going to deal with overbridges, what the new station at Glasnevin will look like, what the environmental impact will be... And the Railway Order is happening in the first half of 2021?

D15er · 11-10-2020 1:36pm

liamog wrote: »

When you look at the plans, that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, the replacement road involves about 50m at the Riverwood Ct entrance before the bridge, so presumably this isn't the bit you're talking about. Followed by about 350m using the existing distributor road at the northside of the bridge. The way you describe makes it sound like the traffic will be going down actual streets people live on, instead of the distributors into the two areas.

I've described it as "through traffic through residential areas that were never designed to accommodate it"

There is nothing inaccurate, misleading or exaggerated about that. I honestly don't know what else to say.

Pete_Cavan · 11-10-2020 1:37pm

D15er wrote: »

Yes I would have preferred them to do so sooner. At least then we would know that either the bridge was happening or it is not. If it is not, then IE could proceed with planning for the alternative scenario and there would be more certainty around the project as a whole.

I don't think it is childish to question IE's competency tbh. That goes beyond this precise issue, I'm saying that as someone who has been getting the train from Coolmine and watching developments for nearly 25 years.

The way they have presented the plan, it appears that the level crossings are the only key issue. We have yet to see any detail on how they're going to deal with overbridges, what the new station at Glasnevin will look like, what the environmental impact will be... And the Railway Order is happening in the first half of 2021?

So they are incompetent because they didn't push through a bridge at Coolmine years ago in order to improve services and are still incompetent if they try to push it through now? I'm not commenting on their level of competence but it does seem like you want to have a go at them not matter what they do which would be childish.

Presumably the other elements of the project don't involve much or any impact on people or routes outside the railway. People can participate in the RO process and offer opinions there, not every detail needs a public consultation. The environmental impacts are likely being assess now and that has been ongoing for a while.

liamog · 11-10-2020 1:45pm

D15er wrote: »

I've described it as "through traffic through residential areas that were never designed to accommodate it"

There is nothing inaccurate, misleading or exaggerated about that. I honestly don't know what else to say.

The traffic will be travelling down 50m of road at the Riverwood side, which will be rebuilt as part of the junction works. Would you agree that this will now be designed to handle the level of traffic?

On the northside, the traffic will be two lanes of traffic down 350m of the existing two lane distributor road (St Mochtas Grove) towards the junction with Clonsilla Road, would you agree that the two lane road is in fact designed to carry two lane's of traffic. I'm trying to get down to the specifics of which bit you don't think will work to see if there is an alternative, but it's very difficult when you keep evading.

D15er · 11-10-2020 1:57pm

liamog wrote: »

The traffic will be travelling down 50m of road at the Riverwood side, which will be rebuilt as part of the junction works. Would you agree that this will now be designed to handle the level of traffic?

On the northside, the traffic will be two lanes of traffic down 350m of the existing two lane distributor road (St Mochtas Grove) towards the junction with Clonsilla Road, would you agree that the two lane road is in fact designed to carry two lane's of traffic. I'm trying to get down to the specifics of which bit you don't think will work to see if there is an alternative, but it's very difficult when you keep evading.

When you say the "existing two lane distributor road", you're aware that this road has to be extended through what is currently green space that was designated as such for the use of the residents? And will involve the demolition of a house? It will also have to be widened. It will also require a private road in the Stationcourt estate to be made into a public road. These are massive changes for the people impacted.

The existing road was designed as the entrance to a housing estate. It was never designed as a through route.

On the south side, the work isn't as big but the impact is the same. Of course I agree that it WILL be redesigned to handle the traffic, that's exactly the objection of the residents.

liamog · 11-10-2020 2:14pm

D15er wrote: »

When you say the "existing two lane distributor road", you're aware that this road has to be extended through what is currently green space that was designated as such for the use of the residents? And will involve the demolition of a house? It will also have to be widened. It will also require a private road in the Stationcourt estate to be made into a public road. These are massive changes for the people impacted.

Yes I'm aware the plans involve work in the area, this is why I'm questioning your constant statement "through traffic through residential areas that were never designed to accommodate it" the designs for the new crossing involve work to accommodate the changes.

The plan's do not indicate a widening of the road between Stationcourt Way and Clonsilla Road. The road is the same width as the existing roads in the area, so I'm not entirely sure why widening would be required. The road currently carries two lanes of traffic and is required to do so in the future.

Objecting to works designed to handle a new bridge on the grounds that the current situation pre works is not designed to handle a bridge seems to be counter intuitive. It's essentially saying don't do the thing because the thing needs to be done.

liamog · 11-10-2020 3:00pm

beauf wrote: »

By this logic. They should build a 4 lane road down the middle of the phoenix park. It would be able to handle the traffic then and no one would complain about it.

The analogy with Phoenix Park would be don't close the through road in Phoenix Park without providing alternatives for people who currently make the journey. A pretty reasonable approach.

liamog · 11-10-2020 3:21pm

To bring it back to the topic in hand.
What I want is close the level crossing at Coolmine so the Dart West+ project can go ahead and increase the capacity of the rail line for travel towards the city centre. Whilst doing so do not cut off travel in a North/South direction to account for the many people who live and work in D15.
I also want them to figure out some joined up thinking at Clonsilla between the Dart+ West plan and the Kellystown LAP. Where one relies on closing the level crossing and the other relies it on it for connectivity.

BonnieSituation · 11-10-2020 5:57pm

beauf wrote: »

What they should do is concentrate it all into one 500m stretch that's already congested. Rip up the mature trees and greens. Remove the parking and not provide any park and ride. Lots of room in those estates for parking.

Should all work out.

If they do build a new massive housing scheme on a green field site. Do not plan any bridge or separate access into that. Funnel all that into the same 500m as well.

That's the "plan". Sounds well thought out.

IE are building housing schemes now?

---

I've asked before, what are your solutions for this issue?

BonnieSituation · 11-10-2020 8:31pm

I can see you're definitely up for discussing this whole project in good faith.

Absolute waste of energy.

Fiddle Castro · 12-10-2020 9:23am

beauf wrote: »

I've already said close the crossing, don't build the bridge.

You think the only viable solution is one that facilitates driving every where.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/dublin-unveils-a-plan-to-banish-cars-from-its-city-center-by-2017

Not everyone agrees...

Where do you think the traffic would divert?

Through residential roads that were not designed for it like Roselawn Road, Glenville & Delwood.

I don't think those residents would be too happy having their roads turned into rat runs.

<snip>

Fiddle Castro · 12-10-2020 12:08pm

beauf wrote: »

Same thing in Riverwood.

It would be interesting to set up a camera on Coolmine crossing and Dr Troy and another one at Castleknock College, matching number plates, and see how much of this traffic just drives straight though.

Tbh honest because traffic is quieter these days you could run a number of test days, closing crossings and see what happens. Could do that all over the proposed Dart+ route.

But in riverwood there is the space to put in proper road, cycling & pedestrian infrastructure that is fit for purpose & will link directly to the Ongar distributor road.

Traffic going west down Coolmine Road currently cannot continue straight once it hits Clonsilla Road, the emerging prefered option would greatly improve traffic flow.

D15er · 12-10-2020 4:49pm

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

Where do you think the traffic would divert?

Through residential roads that were not designed for it like Roselawn Road, Glenville & Delwood.

I don't think those residents would be too happy having their roads turned into rat runs.

No, they won't like it.

But by the logic of this thread, all we need to do is cut down all their trees, build new roads through their green spaces, demolish a few houses and then the roads will be designed for it, and if anyone complains they're just NIMBYs.

This planning thing is a breeze actually.

BonnieSituation · 12-10-2020 4:59pm

D15er wrote: »

No, they won't like it.

But by the logic of this thread, all we need to do is cut down all their trees, build new roads through their green spaces, demolish a few houses and then the roads will be designed for it, and if anyone complains they're just NIMBYs.

This planning thing is a breeze actually.

That's exactly what's going on here. You've cracked it.

I mean, you're all for not planning for future expansion "to save money" sure.

liamog · 12-10-2020 5:58pm

D15er wrote: »

But by the logic of this thread, all we need to do is cut down all their trees, build new roads through their green spaces, demolish a few houses and then the roads will be designed for it, and if anyone complains they're just NIMBYs.

No, you only get accused of nimbyism when you turn the demolition of a single house into a few houses, report that a two lane distributor road into an estate is not designed to carry two lanes of traffic, and that a residential street in Riverwood will be carrying lot's of traffic when in fact it's just the entrance that will be reconfigured and the traffic will in fact not be going down the road which peoples houses are fronted onto.

D15er · 12-10-2020 6:15pm

Nimbyism is the most hypocritical thing anyone can say.

Look at how exercised people are about something that doesn't impact them directly. People who will never set eyes on this bridge have made it their life's mission to see it built. People who have never been down these streets in their lives claim to have forensic knowledge of them. The level of rage is incredible. Genuinely unsettling.

I shudder to think how the same people would react if the bridge was being built outside their house.

Or maybe people are going to claim they'd welcome the bulldozers with open arms?

IE 222 · 12-10-2020 6:18pm

D15er wrote: »

Nimbyism is the most hypocritical thing anyone can say.

Look at how exercised people are about something that doesn't impact them directly. People who will never set eyes on this bridge have made it their life's mission to see it built. People who have never been down these streets in their lives claim to have forensic knowledge of them. The level of rage is incredible. Genuinely unsettling.

I shudder to think how the same people would react if the bridge was being built outside their house.

Or maybe people are going to claim they'd welcome the bulldozers with open arms?

Did you not already tell us you don't live within the vicinity of the bridge and just merely a rail user who commutes via Coolmine station.

liamog · 12-10-2020 6:18pm

All I'm asking is that you realistically present the situation so potential improvements to the options can be found, I asked you a couple of question recently which got lost in the thread.

liamog wrote: »

The traffic will be travelling down 50m of road at the Riverwood side, which will be rebuilt as part of the junction works. Would you agree that this will now be designed to handle the level of traffic?

On the northside, the traffic will be two lanes of traffic down 350m of the existing two lane distributor road (St Mochtas Grove) towards the junction with Clonsilla Road, would you agree that the two lane road is in fact designed to carry two lane's of traffic.

Pete_Cavan · 12-10-2020 6:22pm

I think the local aspects of this should be left to the thread in the Dublin 15 subforum rather than constantly dragging this thread into the same circular argument.

blanch152 · 14-10-2020 8:24pm

D15er wrote: »

Nimbyism is the most hypocritical thing anyone can say.

Look at how exercised people are about something that doesn't impact them directly. People who will never set eyes on this bridge have made it their life's mission to see it built. People who have never been down these streets in their lives claim to have forensic knowledge of them. The level of rage is incredible. Genuinely unsettling.

I shudder to think how the same people would react if the bridge was being built outside their house.

Or maybe people are going to claim they'd welcome the bulldozers with open arms?

I am 12 minutes walk from Coolmine Train station and I know the area at least as well as you, if not better. I fully support the Irish Rail proposal.

I will be directly affected if the level crossing is kept open as I will see increased road traffic congestion plus the train service to the City centre will not be as good.

The majority of people in the area would be similarly affected and would agree with me if it was explained to them without the emotional blackmail and disingenuous implications.

D15er · 14-10-2020 10:27pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am 12 minutes walk from Coolmine Train station and I know the area at least as well as you, if not better. I fully support the Irish Rail proposal.

I will be directly affected if the level crossing is kept open as I will see increased road traffic congestion plus the train service to the City centre will not be as good.

The majority of people in the area would be similarly affected and would agree with me if it was explained to them without the emotional blackmail and disingenuous implications.

You've misread my post. In fact, you've completely agreed with it.

You're all for it because the changes are entirely positive for you. So of course you're on board, why wouldn't you be? A better train service, an easier path across the canal in your car, there's no downside for you.

My only point was that if you were living in Station Court or St Mochta's or Riverwood, you would have a totally different perspective. So I think it's unfair for people to be so dismissive about local objections because they're looking at it through a totally different lens.

I just think a little bit of understanding of the impact this will have on people directly affected wouldn't go amiss. Anyone living in these streets would react the exact same way. Of course they would.

The question is where that balance lies, between massive impact on a small number of people versus a decent benefit for a much larger number. My perspective is that it has swung too far in one direction with what IE are proposing - but there's no objective right or wrong here, only perspectives.

Edit: to re-emphasise. I don't live in an estate that will be directly affected.

Sam Russell · 15-10-2020 12:32pm

Mod: This thread is to be about the closure of the Coolmine and other level crossings on the Dart + project. Please restrict it to this.

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

Comments