DART+ (DART Expansion)

In a European context DART + Is massive, about 100km of electrification. In one programme. The problem is the time it takes to deliver. Hardly any electrification since 1984 and DART+ is really a 10 year project with no timelines for inter City electrification

Ashtown will be closed, the current revived arguments in the paper recently are driven by a one-woman campaign against the Coolmine closure.

The notion of part-time level crossings is just nuts, and is being put forward by people with zero understanding of the risks associated with level crossings - all across these islands they are slowly being eliminated where possible.

The second aspect is the cost as every level crossing adds unnecessary complexity to the signalling systems along the railway line e which pushes costs up further and reduces the capacity of the line.

Incidentally the level crossings along the DART+ Coastal South route are at capacity as it is at peak times.

You cannot increase peak frequency any more south of Grand Canal Dock without closing them.

That’s going to make the DART+ Coastal South plans very interesting reading.

Incidentally each part of DART+ is a separate project with separate design teams - it is not one single mega project. It has the umbrella of “DART+” over it, but they are being prepared separately.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the opposition to the Coolmine closure is a lot more than one person.

I think Putland Rd is the only bridge high enough for double deckers, and that's presently one way only (on top of the one way arrangement on the sea front).

You could signalise that underpass, get rid of a rake of parking to make the seafront two way again, and allow buses to get to the depot and trucks/coaches to the seafront.

The opposition started off opposing the new bridge, now they are opposing the closing of the level crossing.

One thing is clear, if we in Dublin 15 want a proper train service, the level crossings have to close. If every solution is then opposed, it is up to the local community to find one. So far, it mostly looks like NIMBYism.

Expect the DART+ coastal controversial issues to be leaked in advance of consultation. A new method of nimby tackling.

You're arguing the rights and wrongs.

My point is that you said it was a one-woman campaign. That's a lie.

Anyway, you go on to say that "the opposition started off opposing the new bridge, now they are opposing the closing of the level crossing" as though these are contradictory, they are not, in fact they are perfectly consistent. The opposition to the new bridge and the opposition to the closure both have the same solution - figure out a way to keep the crossings open.

That IE are not competent enough to figure this out is their problem, not the residents'.

The problem at the heart of all these level crossing debates is this; IE claim they need to close them permanently to increase service frequency.

On the surface, that sounds fair enough.

However, there is precisely zero commitment from IE that they will actually deliver that frequency of service.

My concern is that we'll get traffic chaos and very little in return in terms of improved train service.

Yes - a level crossing must be closed in advance of any train entering the signal section immediately prior to it.

Capital expenditure on a project means nothing in terms of future service delivery. Go down to the Docklands station between 10 am and 4 pm and tell me I'm wrong.

There is absolutely no commitment from IE to provide this frequency of trains. They could have increased off peak frequency to Maynooth at any time in the last 20 years and have not. Why do we think they'll do so in the future?

The fact that service frequency on the DART was increased while keeping LCs open would seem to undermine the argument for closing them on the Maynooth line.

Traffic chaos will always be here. Therefore we should try not to make it worse. And it's not just motorists. Anyone trying to leave the car at home and get the bus is going to be massively impacted. Why are we "handicapping" one form of public transport to benefit another?

And for what? To make IE's lives that little bit easier.

What "committment" do you require from IE? More trains have been bought and they can only be utilised for a greater frequency with the closure of these crossings.

The usual NIMBY nonsense.

More inaccuracy.

More trains have been bought and they will enter service later this year on the existing line with the existing crossings.

As incompetent as IE are, I would hope that not even they would be buying trains to run on a line for which an RO has not even been submitted let alone approved. Then again, you never know...

Maybe I'm a NIMBY but my NIMBYism is at least based in the reality of not wanting traffic jams all the time. What is the basis for your slavish conviction that IE are in the right?

Because they know how to run a railway and somebody concerned with an increase in traffic doesn't.

And on that point, I agree with specialbyte. The closure of this through route will likely see a reduction in congestion in the area thanks to all traffic being free flowing over bridges. It will just take you longer to drive to the shops.

And for this, IE are "incompetent" :D