DART+ (DART Expansion)

monument · 17-02-2026 01:30AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124235407#Comment_124235407

"Rubbish" is what I'm thinking of your points here, but given that you're not the one with such a view, I've detailed the reasons why that view is wrong here: https://irishcycle.com/2026/02/17/strand-road-is-useful-for-commuting-cycling-and-is-not-a-massive-detour-from-the-merrion-road/

The idea of the Strand Road cycle route (and the staff behind it) are not driven by the amenity aspect. You're way off the mark.

Nobody is prioritising the cycle route over the level crossing closure. One project is going to cost a few 100k vs the other costing at least tens of millions depening on what's done at once, it's different State bodies involved with each, and the level crossing closure hit a realpolitik brick wall.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124238418#Comment_124238418

All three are primary cycle routes in the GDA Cycle Network plan, and all three are needed as primary routes. From Merrion Gates, Strand Road will be the more direct route to Sir John Rogerson's Quay, the North Docklands, Eastpoint Business Park, etc.

You're not really backing up what you're saying, and you keep calling it things like a silly scheme, but it's far from that.

monument · 17-02-2026 01:58AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124234898#Comment_124234898

I don't know what you mean by a "proper" underpass.

You're talking about it as if it's a rural location rather than an already built environment with housing right up to one corner of the level crossing .

The design concept of both raising train tracks and somewhat lowering the road is a well used one and has benefits for more confined areas where provision for pedestrians and people cycling also need to be made.

Even something like two metres up for the railway and two down for the road will make it more practical to put in an underpass at such a location, once other factors allow it.

Pete_Cavan · 17-02-2026 07:31AM

They really fecked up with the Merrion Gates proposal by looking to use the church car park rather than CPOing a building or two immediately south-east of it. Going after the church car park was always going to be a red rag to a herd of bulls. The building adjacent to the car park would probably be enough and it would be no loss. I suspect that bringing the road down where that building sits will be the eventual solution.

Further north, I think only one more grade separated crossing of the rail line will be possible. Serpentine Ave being the best option although far from easy and being met with lots of resistance. Sydney Parade would be covered by the Merrion Gates solution above so it would just be permanently closed. If something could be done at Serpentine Ave, that would serve Sandymount and LR which would both be closed, albeit with permanent pedestrian/cycle provision.

spillit67 · 17-02-2026 09:59AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124241027#Comment_124241027

Beckett Bridge, Bath Avenue…for a start.

murphaph · 17-02-2026 10:58AM

Other countries would laugh at us for making such a big deal out of closing these level crossings. This is what CPO exists for. Just CPO the properties adjacent to the crossings and build underpasses. Redevelop the CPO'd land into higher density apartments and it will pay for the CPO multiple times over. We need to stop with the "but a handful of people will object" being a reason not to build infrastructure. Hopefully Dartmouth Sq. sets a precedent and shows that even leafy parts of south Dublin are not going to be immune to change for the greater good. On a map of Dublin we are talking about an insignificant number of affected parties. Underpasses that allow the traffic to move are better for the locals living on the approaches to the crossings too. Let everyone know that the alternative is to raise the entire railway onto a viaduct, taking many years of weekend closures and leaving an imposing structure looming over them all forever. I would CPO the land around Sydney Parade, Sandymount and Landsdowne Road DART stations and redevelop it over underpasses, creating high density, high value housing directly adjacent to the stations. The whole endeavour should easily pay for itself. Building bridges on CPO'd land just costs money and delivers a poorer solution for society. It all comes down to society's interest vs the interest of the individual.

JohnDoe2025 · 17-02-2026 10:58AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124241936#Comment_124241936

Would an underpass be vulnerable to flooding with a high tide and storm?

murphaph · 17-02-2026 11:57AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124242326#Comment_124242326

Merrion Gates especially would need special consideration because of their proximity to the sea for sure. I would just close those gates and build the underpasses at the three inland crossings that also happen to be right beside stations so the land can be redeveloped. If it is deemed critical to allow road traffc to take the route through Merrion gates we could look at a short tunnel that goes out under the bay and back in at Merrion Beach. Of course a bike and pedestrian bridge should be provided over the tracks to maintain active travel connectivity.

dublinman1990 · 17-02-2026 12:47PM

The East Coast Railway Investment Protection Project (ECRIPP) proposals from IÉ should cover protecting the sea walls beginning at Merrion Gates with solutions for potential wave overtopping onto adjacent houses and onto the Merrion Road from severe bursts of heavy rain with extremely strong high tides etc. That bad flooding we had in some parts of Dublin over the past two weeks or may have hit that part of the Dart line very heavily with so much water on the tracks & on the roads around the Merrion Gates; it would be crazy for IÉ to not include any proper solution to prevent a situation like that heavy flooding from happening again in the near future.

Sam Russell · 17-02-2026 01:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124242614#Comment_124242614

Flooding on Merrion Road or Rock Road would more likely come from Mount Merrion rather than the sea. All the rain draind down towards the sea and accumulates on the roads beside the sea.

Blackrock station flooded due to overtopping of the sea wall by spring tides and unfavourable winds rather than high rainfall. Flooding caused by high rainfall has nowhere to go when it falls on land whilst at sea it makes no difference.

spillit67 · 17-02-2026 01:44PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124241926#Comment_124241926

Delighted to have prompted an article on this.

It is rubbish as was proposed.

Your points are muddled - ones that improve cycling on the Merrion Road are underplayed whilst the ones that might improve things for the coastal route (not connected to the Strand Road proposal) are beefed up (ie the two way up to the Merrion Gates that would make turning right safer).

Let’s stick to this in standalone alone with the Bus Connects improvements which actually got to planning (new bridges around the Docklands aren’t relevant). If the trial proceeded, absolutely some commuters would turn right there, when the level crossing is open. Otherwise they’ll continue as is as it is simply not worth waiting for. You try to dismiss this but it can’t be dismissed.

If and when the cycle enhancements before the Merrion Gates are introduced, more will naturally use it too.

The facts are that this project would result in traffic being diverted elsewhere. Where exactly nobody cares about- they’ll lambaste motorists and NIMBYs but won’t talk about it rationally. It’s very easy to pretend that people aren’t snaking through Sandymount village right now to avoid the Merrion Gates. Remember this is where we had originally planned the Eastern Bypass, we are now suggesting that one lane of traffic in one direction will do. Whatever about the merits of the EBP, to suggest this is just delusional.

I am supportive of these initiatives 95 out of 100, it’s these instances where the cycling lobby let themselves down. Ultimately this will damage attempts to close the level crossings (which is a far bigger priority) as we will remove one huge flow of traffic and just put it elsewhere. It will go to the other level crossings (as well as heading forwards the Canals to avoid LCs) and cause bigger issues. The only way to deal with the Level Crossings is to tackle them together with one plan that makes long term coherent sense. You can delude yourself into it but the people looking to cross the East Link are not going to be replaced by cyclists. MetroLink will make a difference (as DART users can connect at Tara to the Airport), but it’s marginal stuff still.

And yes, I know there was a “traffic count” that claimed little impact in the immediate area when Irish Water conducted work. This conveniently ignored actual areas impacted- ie Ballsbridge and the Canals and was a fairly embarrassing effort by those pushing this. Nobody could seriously go to Strand Road on a Friday at lunchtime and claim stopping traffic going north wouldn’t have significant impacts elsewhere. It’s downright disingenuous.

So yeah, it’s a statement piece, not a serious piece of standalone infrastructure.

murphaph · 17-02-2026 01:55PM

The thing is, what is the high level purpose of closing these crossings to vehicular traffic (they will all presumably remain open to active travel)? The point is to develop our public transport network to a stage where we can say "don't drive, you have viable PT options and if you still choose to drive you can sit in traffic". In a post DART+, ML, N11 Luas, Luas to Poolbeg and fully implemented Busconnects plus the active travel improvements, there is little a car driver could tell me that would convince me of their "need" to be able to drive over the East Link bridge from south East Dublin. We should be actively seeking to reclaim the city from motorised traffic by then, with car parks being redeveloped into housing and congestion charging. The city would be much more pleasant and attractive to be in with fewer cars. The road network should by then largely be there for delivery vehicles.

BestWestern · 17-02-2026 03:57PM

The opus dei church car park is probably never full, and behind it from memory is the old enterprise Ireland building. It's an easy CPO.

Even better, knock down the church, move it to government owned hospital lands accross the road, build the road and Pay for it all by selling a few dozen multi million apartments.

Citizen Six · 17-02-2026 04:04PM

The new Ongar Barnhill road opened up at the weekend. It’s taken a lot of traffic away from Clonsilla Rd and from using the level crossing there.
It’s a pity some of the level crossing works can’t take place sooner, to speed up journey times before the bigger Dart+ works.

monument · 17-02-2026 05:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124242798#Comment_124242798

Much obliged on the article, but as I cover in it, the wrongheaded claim about Strand Road being mainly a leisure route has been repeated a few times and is clearly flawed. You say my points are muddled, but you have not clearly explained why and/or have not really responded to what I have said, and much of your reply is more muddled than anything I have said. Honestly, I don't really even know what you're talking about in your first two paragraphs. That's not a dig at you; you can rephrase it if you want.

But the overall point is that you do not deal with the fact that Strand Road is a primary cycle route in the GDA network and is not much of a detour or more direct for many people who could cycle towards the city, and you're not dealing with the reality of where the city is as opposed to an ideal situation, which the city is not in.

You say "Let’s stick to this in standalone alone with the Bus Connects improvements which actually got to planning" and then say "new bridges around the Docklands aren’t relevant" — bus one of the main new bridges in the Docklands has been approved as part of BusConnects.

You claim, "If the trial proceeded, absolutely some commuters would turn right there, when the level crossing is open. Otherwise they’ll continue as is as it is simply not worth waiting for. You try to dismiss this but it can’t be dismissed." But I can dismiss this because you're not actually dealing with how cycle routes work — but I will not dismiss it out of hand, there's reasons already given: There's overall almost no time delay going via Strand Road to places like Google's HQ or anywhere north of that, at 60 metres of a detour and with fewer major junctions it may be faster, and it will be significantly better in terms of comfort.

See the comments in the article for people giving their experience on that — people really value segregated routes.

You claim that "The facts are that this project would result in traffic being diverted elsewhere…" yet, there's a strong body of national and international examples and evidence that traffic does not just divert, it overall evaporates. This has been the case for much larger projects, including the removal of urban highways. Now, it would be delusional to think this would happen in the middle of nowhere, but a few km from the edge of the city centre, with Dart and bus options, and the cycleway being a new option, that's a different story. Here's a key paper from the 2000s, and the evidence and examples have only been mounting since: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf

And we don't just have international evidence to rely on, the trend with the canal traffic counts shows it: https://irishcycle.com/2022/08/30/stop-denying-it-in-the-last-two-decades-literally-48-of-cars-evaporated-from-dublin-city-centres-streets-at-peak-times/Error

"I am supportive of these initiatives 95 out of 100, it’s these instances where the cycling lobby let themselves down." — This kind of patronising muck flinging might work if it were the Evil Cycling Lobby being the ones behind the project, but it's Dublin City Council with NTA support. You seem to have a strong wish to keep flinging mud, but an inability to deal with how cycle routes work, including Strand Road being well within the distance people will detour for a better route, and how modal change works.

On modal shift, you add: "You can delude yourself into it but the people looking to cross the East Link are not going to be replaced by cyclists. MetroLink will make a difference (as DART users can connect at Tara to the Airport), but it’s marginal stuff still." …can you tell me what is the obsession with the airport? Dart users right now can get off at Tara, walk across to Custom House and get the Dublin Express, or to Aircoach on Westmoreland Street… or anybody on a budget can connect to one of Dublin Bus' options on Abbey Street, Travel 90 will pay for Dart and bus (a bargain).

But without even getting on the Dart, the Aircoach serves much of the Dart route catchment directly, including the Merrion Road, etc, so there's no need for southsiders to make a scary city centre connection. Aircoach also serve the N11 route. And if people south of the Merrion Gates/Blackrock still want to drive, off with them to the M50, which is what it was designed for.

You say you're "supportive of these initiatives 95 out of 100", but not only are you happy to dismiss the current (fairly reaosnable public transport connections from the South East area to the airport, but you're also think Dart and MetroLink combined (which has far higher passanger capacity city centre/East Link car routes to the airport) would only be "marginal stuff still".

You say that the traffic count for the Irish Water works "conveniently ignored actual areas impacted", yet it included the Merrion Road in Ballsbridge: https://irishcycle.com/2024/02/08/sandymount-traffic-remained-pretty-constant-while-irish-water-had-merrion-gates-blocked-off-northbound/Error

You don't really explain how you think Ballsbridge was blocked up any more than it is, and the idea that it affected the canal much is laughable. But at the end of the day, even if the city council's traffic counts were wrong somehow, the Irish Water works went on for months, and no big deal was made of it except one of two days where there were major issues, and those happen anytime (even with no Irish Water works or cycle route). People on the southside rush off to The Irish Times and RTE when they are even somewhat inconvenienced, but the sky did not fall in.

You say "Nobody could seriously go to Strand Road on a Friday at lunchtime and claim stopping traffic going north wouldn’t have significant impacts elsewhere. It’s downright disingenuous"… again: Unlike what you are saying, traffic evaporation is proven to happen. And this is the whole point of a proper trial — everything can be properly tested, where there are issues, people can report them, and they can be addressed, etc.

As for "So yeah, it’s a statement piece, not a serious piece of standalone infrastructure" …100% it's not "standalone infrastructure" — it will connect to DLRCC's Coastal Mobility Route to amount to 10km+ of a route, the weak point is the city centre side, but there will be some connections, including the Dodder Route improvements, and the Sean Moore Road / Pigeon House Rd etc link. Hopefully, the city council comes to its senses and also includes at least some provision on Grand Canal Street Upper, and some level of interventions linking to Beach Road via London Bridge Road, it does not have to be a continuous cycle track, even just some junction improvements and traffic calming.

You also say that the level crossing closure is a larger priority — but you're not dealing with what I've said about that already, or the reality that the city needs to change in the short-term to support extra housing and the disruption which is going to be caused by the level of works coming with MetroLink, BusConnects, ESB projects, etc. Even Copenhagen — which had higher levels of cycling to start with — pushed more cycling as a way to limit the impacts of their metro expansion in recent years.

The idea of reducing reliance on cars and improving alternatives to reduce disruption for the major projects is also a key reason for the City Centre Transport Plan… but I take it that's one of the 5 out of 100 projects you disagree with? Yet the results are clearly positive for moving more people.

Pete_Cavan · 17-02-2026 06:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124242322#Comment_124242322

The number of properties required to be CPO'd in order to build underpasses at each LC would extremely large and each would be very expressive. Then the underpasses themselves would be extremely expensive. It would not be good value for money and very few other countries would take that approach.

Building underpasses would also leave limited space for development so there would be little to be gained that way. CPOing otherwise not required properties for speculative property development would never be approved.

Dartmouth Square is a very different situation and certainly doesn't set a precedent for CPOs, the opposite in fact. The residents dug themselves into a hole with seeking a JR and apparently have agreed to being bought out (let's see what actually happens). The DART LCs would be very different given the number of properties and owners involved and the lack of unity between them.

Like I said, at most two grade separated solutions and simply closing the other LCs would be a better balance of society's interest vs the interest of the individual.

murphaph · 17-02-2026 07:23PM

I think you're underestimating the gradients that can work for road traffic tbh. You say few countries would build such underpasses. As it happens I live close to two of them. Here's one of them, which used to be a level crossing:

https://www.google.de/maps/@52 .5594295,13.0918238,3a,75y,171.7h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAZhfzbYXmWj4psNgVMEI1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.37531932617135055%26panoid%3DAZhfzbYXmWj4psNgVMEI1g%26yaw%3D171.70148817541926!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

By dropping the road down it means single houses directly adjacent to the crossing are no longer reachable by car, but if you CPO say 3 or 4 houses on the approaches and then build an apartment block on the site, you can build an underground carpark at the same time as the underpass and the apartment block main door can be located on the level, before the road begins to drop down into the underpass.

Citizen Six · 17-02-2026 11:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124243912#Comment_124243912

You see how long it takes to get anything done on the railway in this country, and now you want to add apartment blocks into that design. You are in the twilight zone. 🤣

Pete_Cavan · 18-02-2026 06:48AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124243912#Comment_124243912

That's an underpass but it doesn't look like it is comparable to the situation in Dublin 4 in any way. From what I can see, there is another grade separated crossing of the rail line 1km away on one side and 2km away on the other (a main access road to a motorway). In Dublin 4, there would be 5 underpasses within 3km to serve a small area of low density housing. I'm sure if you suggested to the German authorities there that another underpass should be added either side of the one you linked, they'd laugh at you.

It does show that you have to go at least 60m back from the rail line either side which would impact more than 3 or 4 houses at each location. Building underpasses at Sydney Parade or Serpentine Ave would block car access to dozens of properties on each side of the crossing, at each crossing. You have to consider the roads/estates/complexes off the main roads too. You could potentially add new access roads to these parallel to the underpass approaches but that would use up most of the land which the bought up houses sit on, leaving no room for redevelopment.

The cost of doing this at each LC would be enormous and absolutely not worth it. You do it once or twice and then simply close the other LCs. The returns very quickly diminish for each extra underpass (car access is maintained by the existence of another access route) but the cost of the underpass remains extremely high.

murphaph · 18-02-2026 09:46AM

I am pretty sure I named three underpasses and said the rest could be closed. If I suggested we build 5 underpasses anywhere then I withdraw that.

We are demolishing an entire apartment block with hundreds of occupants at Tara for metro. We can demolish a few houses with likely far fewer occupants for DART+ and at the same time create high density housing adjacent to existing stations. It's a win-win. The state would even make a profit out of the housing aspect. Because of that the CPO price should be above market value to be fair to the existing owners.

By the way there is an additional underpass under the railway in my German example and it's about 100m to the west. It's for pedestrians and cyclists but it's still a wide underpass.

We can't keep surrendering progress because of a fear of conflict with landowners. Hopefully the new legislation will make this less of an issue.

The majority of locals would prefab underpass too. It's only those immediately adjacent to the crossings that might suffer any loss. Everyone else in the area will be happy to see the traffic moving so they can get out of their own properties with their car if needs be.

In the grand scheme of things (ML, DU etc. this is not a big deal)

KrisW1001 · 18-02-2026 11:35AM

As I see it, the options are as listed below, in ascending order of cost and/or disruption:

do nothing: as frequencies increase, the streets become de-facto closed to traffic during morning and evening peak times as gates either stay down or only open briefly every 5 mins. Outside of peak, access is allowed as gates will be open more often. Cheapest option (i.e. zero euro), but this might actually be okay for Lansdowne Rd and Strand Rd.
permanently close the crossing, no through traffic on the streets. Cheap, but moves motor congestion to one of the other crossing points. Cannot be applied to all three of the middle crossings, as this would isolate a large chunk of Dublin.
lower the road under the railway - requires rebuilding of surrounding streets and/or unacceptably high gradients; not really practical in the confined streetscape; the resulting space becomes more pedestrian-hostile.
build bridges to raise the road over the railway - same problems as 3.
Build new distributor road over rail line, close all crossings, route traffic over new road. Horribly expensive due to land value in this part of Dublin; likely to spend a very, very long time in court, with a chance of being ruled against.
raise the rails over the streets - closes the railway for about two years, needs a rebuild of the stations, faces increased objections for visual intrusion.
lower the rails under the streets - closes the railway for about two years, rebuild the stations still needed, increases flooding risk on the railway.
raise the rails and lower the road - same closure times, among the most expensive of the realistic options, but preserves pedestrian/cycle permeability at ground level (only the motor traffic lanes need 4m+ clearance, so only the road need to be dropped down, not cycle or foot paths), reduces visual intrusion compared to rail bridge alone.
lower the rails and raise the road - more expensive than the previous and it brings back the problems of building road bridges in tight streets and rail flooding; also not as pedestrian friendly.
rail in a tunnel - enormous expense, questionable value, requires long-term severing of the existing line. Only advantage is that it would allow a new alignment with better catchment, but seriously, it’s only on the list for completeness - it’s not happening.

Honestly, I think 1~4 are the only likely options. Once you start changing the level of the railway, you basically commit to doing it for both Sandymount and Sydney Parade, and also closing the line for a couple of years.

JohnDoe2025 · 18-02-2026 12:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245235#Comment_124245235

Close all the level crossings and build one crossing as previously planned at Merrion Gates, this preserves access to/from the southside of Dublin which is the only thing that is lost by closing the level crossings. Sandymount becomes an even more exclusive enclave, which only increases property values.

Sam Russell · 18-02-2026 12:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245410#Comment_124245410

The plan to close Merrion Gates included an underpass for pedestrians at Merrion Gates just metres from the tidal waters with a huge risk of flooding - just daft. However, the plan to replace it with a route through the carparks at the Merrion church and the old CTT building was genius. Going with an underpass rather than a bridge would be a significant improvement, but still.

If that was done, then the LC at SP could be closed, so two of the five would be gone. Just close the Sandymount one (maybe for certain times of the day) and three would be gone.

JohnDoe2025 · 18-02-2026 12:45PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245436#Comment_124245436

I still think you can close them all if you have a solution at Merrion Gates.

The distance on the Maynooth Line between the bridges at Dr. Troy Bridge to the new Ongar/Barnhill link road is nearly 4km, while the distance between Merrion Gates to Beggars Bush is around 4.5 km, not a huge amount of difference and the former will have much more dense housing than the latter.

Pete_Cavan · 18-02-2026 12:54PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124244996#Comment_124244996

Well you started by stating "Other countries would laugh at us for making such a big deal out of closing these level crossings". That doesn't specifically say all 5 but it could certainly be taken as that, if only referring to a portion of them, that should be stated.

The existence of pedestrian/cyclist underpasses in your German example doesn't help your point. It is still one grade separated vehicle crossing of the rail line for 3km. If we are to follow that example, only one grade separated vehicle crossing would be provided in D4. Pedestrian/cyclist underpasses should be provided for LCs that all closed to traffic, that almost goes without saying (although I did previously say it).

The CPOing of apartments for Metrolink Tara stop isn't comparable to what you are proposing in D4. A Metrolink station at Tara is required for interchange with heavy rail services. Any other alternative to CPOing those apartments would impact even more properties, cost more and deliver worse integration. That is specifically why CPO legislation exists. The D4 situation is completely different and CPOing large numbers of homes isn't justified as there is significantly less benefit and almost certainly wouldn't be approved.

Your apartment development idea is not realistic. As I said, by the time you provide access to other areas affected, there is no land left to redevelope. Just looking at Serpentine Ave, after you have bought the houses needed just for an underpass, you still have Railway Cottages, Serpentine Terrace and Balls bridge Court where you need to accommodate access to (or you engage in years of legal battles in order to spend ridiculous money buying out all those homes which aren't actually needed). The same goes for Churchill Terrace, Wilfield and Holyrood at Sandymount Ave.

If you think new legislation could facilitate your idea here, you are going to be disappointed.

murphaph · 18-02-2026 01:28PM

Are you not proposing to grade separate at least some of these crossings yourself though? There has to be some solution. The crossings have to close.

loyatemu · 18-02-2026 01:40PM

I was having a look at the sort of "car/van only' underpasses you see in France and elsewhere on the continent. I think you could do this at Serpentine Avenue with a bit of land take from apartments on the east side and the carpark on the west side. They can have quite a steep approach so the distance needed is quite short (maybe only 50m either side of the underpass).

elsewhere the previously proposed bridge at the church carpark to replace Merrion Gates is an obvious option, the other crossings could just be left in place.

re: the proposed cycling underpass at Merrion Gates and flooding, both Irish Rail and DCC have flood defence plans in progress - they have to do something to protect the rail line and houses anyway.

murphaph · 18-02-2026 01:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245631#Comment_124245631

Yeah a combination of a full height bridge at the church and these car/van only underpasses at most of the other crossings would probably do the trick but we's definitely need overheight sensors and physical barriers on the approaches to prevent constant bridge strikes that require to the railway to close for inspection every time. We would need at least one full heaight crossing to be maintained, ideally closer to Merrion gates than further north. Trucks will still need reasonable access to Irishtown etc.

I don't think we can leave any of the crossings open because they will close so frequently that drivers will become even more impatient than now and people will chance their arm more and end up fouling the crossing and causing havoc on a 5 minute headway DART line. We can't keep any level crossings open if we are serious about turning DART into something metro like.

KrisW1001 · 18-02-2026 02:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245666#Comment_124245666

I think, paradoxically, that increased closures will actually reduce this behaviour.

The problems with drivers trying to race the gates at present is because drivers currently see these places as a normal road that has a periodic blockage - not much different to any city street, really. They have an expectation that they should be able to drive through, and so become impatient when it looks like they cannot. If you instead reframe the crossings as being a normally-closed roads that offer through access only in off-peak times, then driver expectations also change, and the stress and stupid behaviour reduces, as anyone taking that route has already factored a significant delay into their plans.

You still need a full-time vehicle crossing somewhere, of course, but long-duration gate closures may not be as bad as is thought.

murphaph · 18-02-2026 02:45PM

You're more optimistic than I am. I think they would be recipe for disaster and to be honest we can't just cut off a large part of the city to motorised traffic because we don't want to discomode a handful of property owners directly adjacent to the level crossings. People would still drive down these approach streets right before the gates went down for the morning rush and get caught out and have to u-turn en-masse and backtrack to the now only open crossing. The people living on the approaches would go nuts with that sort of morning madness every morning.

bk · 18-02-2026 04:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124245827#Comment_124245827

Ah now, people might do that the first few mornings, but they would quickly learn and stop going this route!

Just having Google Maps change the routing would have 70% of cars avoid this route as DCC discovered when they put in place the bus gates on the quays.

As for the NIMBYs who live on the approach, frankly who cares! We need to stop bending over backwards trying the placate NIMBY's!

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments