Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

DART+ (DART Expansion)

1436437439441442446

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I think you're trying to misrepresent the situation. I'm just quoting what was promised and comparing it to the reality. There's a gap there. I'm not criticising Luas, I'm criticising the inflated promises that were made ahead of it being delivered and pointing out that there's potentially a bit of that happening with Dart+ now. I appreciate your input but it seems to me that every time there is a failing, there is an accompanying excuse peddled as an explanation. I think, given the history of false promises and false starts, posters have a right to call out the shortcomings of what we're being sold.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,794 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    will seek to deliver the infrastructure enhancements

    That's literally the point, "seeking to deliver infrastructure" is not "putting on more trains".

    In the absence of even a vague plan to address the level crossings, you're talking a minimum of ten years before they can be closed. If closing the crossings is critical to increasing frequency - as IE swore blind it is for Dart West - then five-minute trains are not going to happen any time soon on the current Dart line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,633 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Again, though you misinterpreted what was said in advance.

    You are not quoting what was promised beforehand, you’re stating what you thought you read or heard.

    It was very clearly stated that services would run up to every 3 minutes at peak times.

    They do just that.

    I’m calling your posts out because they are wrong and there are no excuses involved in my doing that.

    You misread what was stated at the time, and as such had an incorrect and inflated expectation of what could be delivered that you developed yourself.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    You know, when you are in a hole, stop digging! It is literally there written on the official project website what the goal of the project is!

    They obviously haven’t published the DART+South plans yet, when they do we will see what they are proposing.

    I fully suspect the D+S plan will propose closing the level crossings. It really is the whole purpose of the D+S project, otherwise there is no need for a project as what else is there to do on the line?

    One way or another those level crossings will need to close eventually, it isn’t like we are going to stay at this capacity for the next hundred years, we all know they will have to be closed eventually. The sooner the better.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,794 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    You know, when you are in a hole, stop digging!

    At least someone is digging. As highly as you might regard IE, they’ve had permission for Dart West for 18 months and we have yet to see a shovel hit the earth, or even award a tender to supply a shovel.

    It is literally there written on the official project website what the goal of the project is!

    You keep repeating exactly what I’m saying like it’s some kind of gotcha. My exact point is that IE are not promising more trains.

    One way or another those level crossings will need to close eventually

    “Eventually” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The chances of those crossings being closed in the next decade is very slim, because we’re years away from even starting to think about it.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    “Eventually” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The chances of those crossings being closed in the next decade is very slim, because we’re years away from even starting to think about it.

    Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a decade! I don’t necessarily see a major issue with that. The southern line seems to be relatively okay capacity wise for the moment and it will gain extra capacity with the new DART+ fleet, but given how long it takes to do major projects like this, good to start on the planning and build now so the capacity will be there when needed.

    When I talk about the DART+ network having incredible untapped potential, I’m talking long term, it isn’t going to happen overnight. But I think it it’s important to have a long term vision for the network and a continuous series of projects for teams to work on over the years, moving from project to project when one completes, rather then the stop go approach we have seen over the last 30 years.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    There has already been a design to close the Merrion Gates LC with an alterative to use the car parks next to Merrion Church and the old CTT building on Strand Road. If that design (which was part of a cycle way) had gone ahead, then one of the five LCs would have closed.

    If the above design had gone ahead, then the one at Sydney Parade could have closed, with a footbridge, ramp to provide for pedestrians and cyclists etc. So two of the five LCs would be closed. Could the Sandymount station be dealt with in the same way? If so, that is three of the five dealt with.

    That leaves Landsdowne Rd and Serpentine Ave.

    Serpentine Ave could be dealt with by raising the track by 3 metres (or so) as there is no station either side. This would allow an underpass for road traffic. (Perhaps restricted height could work, but 5 metres clearance needed for regular traffic.) This could be costly, and require closing of the line. Also, another possibility with the new signalling, perhaps the time for gate closing could be reduced to, say, one minute each direction.

    Lansdowne is more tricky. Pity the redevelopment of the stadium did not fix this. To have one tricky one might be tolerable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    There isn’t an easy answer on what to do there, despite the hammering of residents consistently over it.

    Putting in a cycle path and cutting Strand Road to one lane is bonkers stuff. There needs to be a plan on (1) improving connectivity from the port to the south east of the city and the country for vehicular traffic (yes, it is needed) (2) closing the level crossings and finally (3) adding in leisure cycles paths (because that is essentially what it was, there is limited use for this route for commuting). 1 and 2 are of equal importance imo. Leisure cycle paths that make any solution for 1 and 2 is absolute nonsense.

    Of course I have no doubt you’d have loads of residents fuming, someone will be somewhat inconvenienced. Some won’t like the “environmental impact”. Some won’t like that any solution solidifies cars running outside of their door all the time. CPOs need be considered and a big bang solution is needed. If we are going to do something that disrupts residents and ends up in court battles, make it worthwhile.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,598 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Sam Russell: you posted: "Serpentine Ave could be dealt with by raising the track by 3 metres (or so) as there is no station either side. This would allow an underpass for road traffic. (Perhaps restricted height could work, but 5 metres clearance needed for regular traffic.) "

    Raising the track by 3 metres would require a total of at least 600 metres for a gradient of about 1% on either side. And 3 metres would still require the road to be lowered by at least a metre. A proper underpass would be better (road gradients can be much steeper than for rail). Maybe Serpentine Ave crossing could be just closed?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭Consonata


    > there is limited use in this route for commuting

    Morning rush hour this route is dense with cyclists heading into town, if you wish to access the docklands it is by far the most straightforward route north.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Oh no doubt people use it, but it is primarily being proposed because it is a statement piece on the coast. There are more direct routes between the Strand Road and Ringsend still though.

    Most will pick when to cross it given the level crossings, which itself will cause issues for cyclists as more cars are shunted up the Merrion Road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,513 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Strand Road directly connects to the coastal Cycleway that is largely complete through the entirety of DLR and is a core component of S2S which is in no way a 'Leisure' cycle route

    Post edited by riddlinrussell on

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Rubbish. That is about creating a Bay cycle route and being a public amenity is the main goal. That it improves general mobility is obvious (including commuting locally and within Dublin) but that stretch is clearly driven by the public amenity aspect.

    It is in no way the most direct route to the Docklands, you have to firstly navigate a level crossing and then take a deliberate coastal route rather than a direct one.

    I am not against making a coastal route but it is utter nonsense to prioritise it over the closure of level crossings and figuring out a better way to funnel the the port traffic that needs to get to the south east to there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,513 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Look I'm not saying its a good thing that it's the primary commuting route into Dublin from the south side, but its definitely what they are planning, it also isn't (or wasnt) superseding sorting level crossings, one was planned to be closed by this route?

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,260 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I don't see how my posts this week about BusConnects on the Northside post DART+ are more off topic than discussing cycle lanes on the southside post DART+. We need more consistency here. I'd be happy too see more leeway so that discussion on broader aspects of DART+ like cycling and bus integration are allowed in this thread.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,761 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    We started this discussion because people were speculating what the frequency of trains on Dart+ South will be in future. That is entirely related to what happens to the level crossing closures and the historical record on that has not been good.

    I still remember when they tried to get the Merrion Gates closure through and at the public information meeting where they unveiled the plan, apparently there were “howls of dismay“. If this is how spoiled southside Dubliners respond to attempts to closing of the crossings (and Merrion Gates was a really good plan!), then I don’t know how we are ever gonna get all five of them closed without legislative change of some sort.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,273 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Just run at a high enough frequency that they close for very lengthy periods of time.

    Then let the well healed locals come up with a solution.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,603 ✭✭✭bikeman1


    It’s not that far off it at the moment!

    Then the locals might come looking for a “solution” to their problem!



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    The idea of offering to buy out houses of unhappy people is a tool that looks like the government is becoming increasingly comfortable with using. We’ve seen it with Metrolink, but interestingly this week we have also seen that they are planning to use it around Dublin Airport, offering market value + 30% to those unhappy.

    I think it is a very smart strategy, it helps removes the general publics sympathy for NIMBYs when said NIMBYs are being offered such attractive terms.

    I can see this approach being taken with the closures of these level crossings, CPO’s where necessary, but this wider approach also for nearby but not directly impacted properties.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    An older proposal did, this one didn’t.

    The primary way to commute will remain the N11 and Merrion Road for cyclists. It’s an understandable goal to have as much of the coasts covered with segregated cycle lanes but this was a silly scheme dreamed up during Covid when people started to believe everyone was going to be working from home forever more.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    The closure of the level crossings is part and parcel of the DART.

    There isn’t anyway that you can discuss them without considering Strand Road and connectivity of vehicular access to the East Link and Port Tunnel.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    The country will need to come up with a solution to where the vehicles go that head to the Port and Port Tunnel.

    As it is, the latest Dublin City traffic changes have funnelled far more cars towards Grand Canal Dock which has impacted on bus times and traffic generally.

    Those vehicles will inevitably end up on the N11 turning right down Angelsea Road and also impact the Merrion Road up to Shelbourne Road. More traffic will also converge around the Canals and clog the Beckett Bridge up further. Some might choose to use the M50.

    I don’t think a cynical approach that you’d suggest would even be preferable. I’d imagine if more limited windows to cross were proposed that you’d have more people hitting the level crossings as they are desperate to get across.

    The idea to CPO houses could work to solving the DART’s specific issues but imo we will never get a full solution through without solving the bigger picture problem of that stretch.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    Irish Rail don’t think that way. They block trains and open gates when there aren’t even cars there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,273 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭BestWestern


    Maybe the solution is to jusy close the merrion gates from 7am to 9am and 4pm to 7pm.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭spillit67


    And funnel more traffic towards the city centre, making certain areas impassable?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭BestWestern


    To speed up trains, allowing more people to be funneled into Dublin.

    A flyover from booterstown road onto the coast road beside where the ipas centre is would be far easier to build than rebuilding the rail line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,260 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    And the implications for buses post DART+ and ML are part and parcel of those projects too. I am in favour of being able to discuss everythuing holistically. It's totally arbitrary what is being considered on/off topic. That's the issue I have. Sure we even had a prolonged discussion about London Underground's ventilation system and that was deemed on-topic enough to leave in place!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭Consonata




Advertisement
Advertisement