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)

1440441442444446

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    We already know the sky did not fall in when the Irish Water works were ongoing. The point of a trial is that it will take the guesswork out of how the combination of the lane closure and the cycle path will work (and how it won't).

    The brilliant thing about the new guidelines for trials is that the council will not have to address the level of abstract stuff you have been posting. Feedback will be on real-world issues during the trial.

    Post edited by monument on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    They would prefer to bridge the Redford crossing but they are having difficulties with local landowners to get access to even design a bridge

    Level crossing automation requires a ministerial order



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,438 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    same local landowners who are refusing to allow the cliff walk to be diverted presumably?

    For a pedestrian bridge, they could use the land to the south of the crossing which is in public ownership (or better, an underpass). There's only one field east of the line that needs vehicular access, I'd have thought some special access arrangement could be made for that (e.g. farmer calls the control room and they open the crossing remotely).

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Weeks later and late at night and you come out with this.

    To be clear, the “study” you posted on your website is the gaslighting. If serious, you are not credible on this topic (or any transport transport one quite frankly).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    Is that not what CPOs were designed for? Why are we always pandering to entitled people like this



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    I doubt the CRR would allow anything like that. Any barrier crossing being effectively permanently closed I bet would have a lot of pedestrians hopping the barriers, even if there is a proper pedestrian bridge. It's already a problem at some of the busier CCTV crossings.

    As much as I would have preferred it to be bridged (post D+ the only LCs left would be in Howth and south of Greystones), it's not the busiest section of track and well within what would be expected of a CCTV crossing. I just hope that the CCTV crossing doesn't become too permanent and/or that it doesn't cause any problems with 3tph to Greystones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    Yes. But to be fair the CPO process adds time and risk to the planning process when IÉ have decided to do D+S (or at least phase 1) as cheap and quick as possible. Not that it is a good reason, but it is a reason.



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


    I don’t think they have, they have broken it into two separate stages, Stage 1 being the Bray to Greystones capacity enhancements, while stage 2 is everything else including CPO’s.

    This makes sense as there isn’t really anything else to do between Bray and the city. The purpose of stage 2 is to double frequency on this section to a train every 5 minutes, while they haven’t said it yet, we all know this will require closing level crossings and likely CPO’s.

    Separating out the Bray to Greystones part makes sense as it derisks it from the rest of the project as it doesn’t require CPO’s.



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


    If they increase the frequency to 8 tph (one ever 7.5 minutes), and reduced the closing interval for LC gates to about 1 min in each direction, that could work.

    It would require the new signalling system to be viable to allow this. Currently they have a 2 to 3 min closing time. It would make sense to close Merrion Gates using the plan to pass through the church car park.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,314 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    This might be why they're pushing to remove the IC trains from that section, don't think the current ones work with the new signalling system, and I find think they're being replaced for a while.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I don't recall publishing any “study”, I reported on data the council released. The data is not surprising, especially given the volume of research and examples around the world showing traffic evaporation.

    For criticism to be credible, it needs to be at least somewhat detailed. Something you seem unable to do. But again: It's exactly why a full trial is a great idea — the city can look at all the claims in real-time, the changes can be given time to bed in, and it can be seen if traffic evaporation is evident and if people bother to even use the cycle track.

    I'll leave it at that unless you have something substantive to say, and not just vagueness and poor attempts at insults? As to your less substantive point: Sorry that I am not posting on boards.ie in your expected timeframe or the appropriate allowed time of day. I did not even realise that you were only allowed to post on boards at a certain time of the day. Can you let me know what hours are acceptable and what hours are not, and why? ;)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    I don’t think they have, they have broken it into two separate stages, Stage 1 being the Bray to Greystones capacity enhancements, while stage 2 is everything else including CPO’s.

    To clarify I think it's more stage 1 that they are doing as quickly/cheaply as possible, I was very surprised when they decided to move forward without the passing loop north of Greystones.

    There could be some good reasons for this, such as reducing the amount of CPOs, not needing a RO, or what I am suspecting is getting D+S under 200m to allow it to progress without having to go to government (If the only major structure/works is at Merrion Gates, the project can only be so expensive).

    I also do agree with IÉ's approach for exactly the reasons you say. Assuming they go to close all 6 LCs, they will have their work cut out for them to do that as smoothly and with as little resistance possible. Neither the Cork or Maynooth Line closures went smoothly, and I wouldn't really expect the D+S ones to be either



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭spillit67


    It was a “study”, which again ignored the fundamentals of the issue I’m citing.

    I have given you very detailed criticism. To cite a “win” from this data is monumentally thick and shows you don’t actually get the point. Citing the traffic within the cordon when said cordon has become more challenging to access is hilarious.

    There are many many stupid road projects our council pursued over the years, and the city shows the scars of them. There is some logic to them as well. The Eastern Bypass had logic. To go from that to the idea that we would put in a largely pleasure orientated cycle path is just delusional. It’s a critical access route and should be viewed as critical national infrastructure. You putting your hand over one eye while you redirect more of this traffic to Ballsbridge and the Canals is just incredibly studio.

    The worst thing about this is that by doing this piecemeal you’d make closing the other level crossings more challenging as residents become more resistant to more change. But you’d be happy out, justifying that Google is 26 mins from the old LC when the level crossing is open and so is Ballsbridge. What a win for the googlers…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭VeryOwl


    'People are keying cars and letting air out of tyres': The war over parking in new estates

    RESIDENTS IN NEW-build housing estates across Dublin and surrounding commuter belt towns say there is increasing tension in their communities over a lack of adequate car-parking facilities. 

    In some instances, residents have reported cars being keyed and air being let out of tyres due to the parking disputes, while some homeowners have opted to install cameras to monitor their assigned parking spots. 

    The tension is down to planning policy, which increasingly restricts the number of parking spaces allowed in new developments on the assumption that residents will rely more on public transport – but residents say transport services have not kept pace and are overcrowded and too infrequent. 

    Some parts of Dublin have just over half a car parking space designated for every new home. 

    In south-west Dublin, Seven Mills has been marketed as one of the country’s newest towns. The pretty rows of houses, apartment blocks and duplexes are a short walk from Clondalkin Fonthill train station, where trains can get residents to the city centre during rush hour in under 30 minutes. 

    But for many residents, capacity issues on the train and an infrequent service outside of core commuting times mean that a car is still a necessity. 

    Couldn't help reading this and thinking about Darragh O'Briens reckless decision to withdraw funding for DART+ South West, a shovel-ready project that could be started within months, if the political will was there. What's the point of all this public transport policy, planning policy, net zero etc. if when push comes to shove we refuse to fund basic capacity upgrades?

    The residents have every right to be furious. Half a million euro for half a parking space?

    It's all stick and no carrot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Thunder87


    Same story where I live, loads of new apartments been built in the past 5 or 6 years with seemingly nowhere near enough car parking spaces so the place has turned into a complete mess with cars dumped on every available space (and by "available" I'm including in cycle lanes, on footpaths etc).

    Its like the planners are designing this stuff purely based off ideology and what some utopian town planning guide told them instead of on the reality that suburban Dublin is primarily car dependant unless your lifestyle involves exclusively taking the bus/train into town and back.

    If there's going to be a directive that new developments have less car spaces then there should be an obligation to prove that there's adequate public transport to facilitate such a drop relative to average car ownership



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


    They could do that, but that currently isn’t the goal, the DART+ website specifically specifies 5 minutes frequency.

    The thing is, while 7.5 minutes might be sufficient for today, you would just be back in a decade looking to do do 5 minutes then. It isn’t like the busiest railway line in Ireland isn’t going to see continuing development and big demand increase over the year.

    One way or another we are going to have to close these level crossings eventually, it is unavoidable. And given how long major projects take to do, better to start now ahead of the demand. Nothing stopping you running the trains at 7.5 minute frequencies as they are building the over or under passes at the level crossings.

    Interestingly the DART+ plan actually has them operating at sub 5 minute frequencies. 15 trains an hour per direction will cross the loop line bridge, with 3 of the trains terminating at Grand Canal. Obviously we don’t need it now, but in future you could possibly see 4 or even 3 minute frequencies to Bray if demand calls for it (very long term).



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


    @bk

    If they could lose the diesels south of Grand Canal Dock as far as Bray, then the 7.5 min would work, providing they could trim the LC closing time.

    Now crucial to this would be closing Merrion Gates, and possibly the Sandymount one (the latter just closed).

    Currently, some diesels terminate at DL, but this has the return having to cross over both tracks. Now it would be possible to rearrange the platforms so terminating trains use a similar arrangement as at GCD, but that would be at a horrendous cost.

    The 7.5 min timing would be on the transition to 5 min timing, not the end result. It could be achieve simply by inconveniencing the motorists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,259 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Well, not just motorists, anything that needs to cross the railway including pedestrians, cyclists, delivery vans, ambulances, fire engines, buses etc. etc. We have to grade separate some of those crossings. There's no way around it. The cost to the wider economy will far exceed the cost of CPOing around the gates.



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


    If only there was some kind of train yard, maybe at Grand Canal Dock, where they could store those diesel trains, rather than having to run them out to Dun Laoghaire and Bray.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,438 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    New depot proposals

    https://www.dartplus.ie/en-ie/projects/dart-depot

    obvious suggestion - put a park&ride and extra station in at the same time, it's right beside the M4 junction.

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



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


    You mean like the one that was at GCD that CIE have just built over?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭JohnDoe2025


    We only have to grade separate Merrion Gates, the rest of the crossings aren't needed. The distance between crossings then is not much different to the distance between Dr. Troy Bridge and the Clonsilla replacement bridge.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    Consultation for the new depot (and associated double tracking and electrification) is open here: https://forms.office.com/e/rUFZGDenw0



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


    Looks promising. Great to have plans for double track services to Kilcock, with platforms realigned slightly east of the current platform. Puts paid to the idea that you can't fit two tracks under Shaw's bridge.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭jwm121


    When all the Dart+ lines are finished, will they be renamed in the future? Like how London's ''Overground'' was given named lines. Might it get more confusing if there are 3 or 4 separate lines all just called, Dart?



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


    West, South West, Coastal North, Coastal South. The names are already there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭MICKEYG


    I wish they used numbers, maybe in addition to the above. When I travel numbers are far easier to navigate. I go to London a lot and I still struggle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 94 ✭✭DrivingSouth


    I think it was known you couldn't fit 2 tracks and the existing platform



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,477 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Two tracks and two platforms under Shaws Bridge was/is the issue, despite some crayoning attempts to claim it was possible on here. I'm not even sure two tracks and one platform would have worked - e.g. an offset Eastbound platform.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,314 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Interesting that they're totally reconfiguring the area around Jackson Bridge, and putting in a brand new bridge a little bit further down. Even the train line itself is being moved inland a bit.



Advertisement
Advertisement