Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.pdf0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19028
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7681
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.0 -
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?0 -
I can see you're definitely up for discussing this whole project in good faith.
Absolute waste of energy.0 -
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>0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement