Phoenix Park Road Closed

beauf · 23-09-2016 4:27pm

Or a picnic even.... go to the zoo. etc.

AlanG · 26-09-2016 10:39am

Living in Dublin 15 I get impacted by this a lot but I think it is a good idea. It allows more recreational use of the park and has little impact on drivers. That said I do think they need to improve the signage.

Pat Dunne · 26-09-2016 11:08am

Chesterfield Avenue has developed (not by design) into a significent commuting route from Dublin 15 and further afield, into the City Centre. It's permanent closure would cause significant difficulties for commuters during weekdays. However I find the weekend closures do not cause major difficulties.

I do recall some years back, during the "Tiger" era that a number of D15 local residents put a proposal to the OPW to build a cut and cover tunnel from inside the Castleknock Gate, following Chesterfield Avenue and exiting at Park Gate Street.

To my mind a wonderfully simple solution providing commuters with an upgraded route to the City Centre and enabling the OPW to develope Chesterfield Avenue.

Mind you I seem to recall a plan from the OPW in the 1970's for the elimination of all vehicular traffic from the park and for a monorail to run along Chesterfield Avenue.

magicbastarder · 26-09-2016 11:11am

wonderfully simple, yet massively expensive and i can't see how it wouldn't cause the massive problems it was designed to alleviate.
i.e. a cut and cover tunnel would undoubtedly involve road closures; plus there's already the rail tunnel under the park which would further complicate things.

beauf · 26-09-2016 11:13am

The other routes are Navan road, Blackhorse Ave, Chapelizod. All of which have had their traffic capacity restricted over many years. Compared to the 90's its a lot less capacity on the roads. Though lane restrictions, traffic calming, and lights, so many lights.

The solution is to go somewhere else. Which is possible with shopping centres etc.
Also there's a lot of local parks now which many with better facilities than the phoenix park anyway. Especially for families.

Pat Dunne · 26-09-2016 11:19am

magicbastarder wrote: »

wonderfully simple, yet massively expensive and i can't see how it wouldn't cause the massive problems it was designed to alleviate.
i.e. a cut and cover tunnel would undoubtedly involve road closure; plus there's already the rail tunnel under the park which would further complicate things.

Any major road project in a city will be expensive.
It eliminates traffic from the Park in line with the OPW plans of the past.
Yes there would be temporary road closures during the construction, similar to all projects of this nature.
Easily overcome in the design process.

magicbastarder · 26-09-2016 11:26am

if they were to build a cut and cover tunnel under the park, i would certainly argue that a rail system should take precedence over road in an ideal world. that said, a rail system which began and ended just at the park gates would clearly be foolish.

Pat Dunne · 26-09-2016 11:32am

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they were to build a cut and cover tunnel under the park, i would certainly argue that a rail system should take precedence over road in an ideal world. that said, a rail system which began and ended just at the park gates would clearly be foolish.

In an ideal world, Connolly, Pearse and Hueston would be connected via the Circle Line, with connectivity from the Maynooth Line also running south through the PP Tunnel on to the Circle Line.

Meanwhile back in the real world D15 has the Maynooth line, with 4 stations, plus Ongar on the Dunboyne spur and a fairly decent service.

beauf · 26-09-2016 11:32am

If they electrify the line to Maynooth, then you could get that at the N3 parkway then switch to the Luas BXD.

Seve OB · 26-09-2016 11:34am

Pat Dunne wrote: »

D15 already has the Maynooth line, with 4 stations and a fairly decent pretty crappy service.

FYP

magicbastarder · 26-09-2016 11:43am

beauf wrote: »

If they electrify the line to Maynooth, then you could get that at the N3 parkway then switch to the Luas BXD.

true; but even with that, the bus and rail services tend to be packed. though the effect of the luas is yet to be seen.

markpb · 26-09-2016 11:43am

Pat Dunne wrote: »

D15 already has the Maynooth line, with 4 stations, plus Ongar on the Dunboyne spur and a fairly decent service.

Most people would not call a train every 25-30 minutes at rush hour a train every hour at weekends a "fairly decent" service. A high-frequency operation (like the green and red luas lines are currently offering) would be far more attractive to most passengers. The only things preventing that happening at reasonable cost are the Sligo trains.

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 11:51am

markpb wrote: »

Most people would not call a train every 25-30 minutes at rush hour a train every hour at weekends a "fairly decent" service. A high-frequency operation (like the green and red luas lines are currently offering) would be far more attractive to most passengers. The only things preventing that happening at reasonable cost are the Sligo trains.

Ah to be fair it is roughly every 10-15 minutes during the peak hours, when you combine Docklands and Connolly services. At some stages it is better than that. That's not unreasonable and is, I think, a decent service level. It does however need more commuter sets rather than ICRs.

The issue is the off-peak and weekend frequency, and the lack of a late service on Sunday evenings.

The principal issue preventing the operation of more services are the three remaining major level crossings at Clonsilla, Coolmine and Ashtown.

Pat Dunne · 26-09-2016 12:02pm

Seve OB wrote: »

FYP

I didn't say it was perfect, but as someone who has used it to commute from D15 at peak times to Pearse and Connolly for the last 10 years it has served my purposes.

Yes, the is always room for improvement, however I shudder to think what the commute would be like without it.

markpb · 26-09-2016 12:06pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Ah to be fair it is roughly every 10-15 minutes during the peak hours, when you combine Docklands and Connolly services.

Between 6am and 10am, Ashtown inbound has headways of 10, 14, 18, 18, 19, 24 and 30 minutes. Luas has a headway of 4-6 minutes at the same time.

The principal issue preventing the operation of more services are the three remaining major level crossings at Clonsilla, Coolmine and Ashtown.

Those can't be fixed at reasonable cost. Automating them won't help because of the impact on road traffic. Building road bridges over them is unlikely between the cost and the objections from neighbours. Level crossings don't cause the same problem for trams. You could run 8+ trams per direction per hour across those junctions and neither the tram operation nor the road traffic would suffer.

I don't think there's a good solution here. The line was let develop into a reasonably major line even though it's thoroughly unsuited to it. IC customers get a slow service, Maynooth residents get a okay-ish service and people living in Dublin get an awful service. Infrastructure spending to bring it up to scratch to suit everyone would be incredibly expensive. So people will keep driving through the Phoenix Park.

beauf · 26-09-2016 12:11pm

The Dockland and Connolly services are not interchangeable for most people.

For many if you miss one train and get the alternative, the extra walking means waiting for the next train is usually quicker. So in reality there really isn't a frequency of 10~15 mins.

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 12:32pm

markpb wrote: »

Between 6am and 10am, Ashtown inbound has headways of 10, 14, 18, 18, 19, 24 and 30 minutes. Luas has a headway of 4-6 minutes at the same time.

Those can't be fixed at reasonable cost. Automating them won't help because of the impact on road traffic. Building road bridges over them is unlikely between the cost and the objections from neighbours. Level crossings don't cause the same problem for trams. You could run 8+ trams per direction per hour across those junctions and neither the tram operation nor the road traffic would suffer.

I don't think there's a good solution here. The line was let develop into a reasonably major line even though it's thoroughly unsuited to it. IC customers get a slow service, Maynooth residents get a okay-ish service and people living in Dublin get an awful service. Infrastructure spending to bring it up to scratch to suit everyone would be incredibly expensive. So people will keep driving through the Phoenix Park.

You can't just compare a heavy rail frequency with the light rail - the heavy rail services will have greater capacity - an 8 car 29k will carry several tram loads. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I can also see headways of 5, 6 and 9 minutes from Ashtown when you look at departures to both Docklands and Connolly during that period.

Ultimately the LCs will have to be eliminated - that much is a given.

Seve OB · 26-09-2016 12:32pm

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I didn't say it was perfect, but as someone who has used it to commute from D15 at peak times to Pearse and Connolly for the last 10 years it has served my purposes.

Yes, the is always room for improvement, however I shudder to think what the commute would be like without it.

As someone who grew up on the Dart Line and has seen and used it a lot for most of the 90's through to the early 00's, I just can't understand that 20 years on, this side of the city has such a crappy inferior service still to the way the Dart was back then... let alone now!

I used to be happy walking around to get a Dart, now it is such a pain to get the Maynooth train that I don't really bother.

lxflyer wrote: »

The principal issue preventing the operation of more services are the three remaining major level crossings at Clonsilla, Coolmine and Ashtown.

That's just crap. Look at the Merion Gates, Lansdowne Road, Sandymount, Bray etc etc along the Dart Line. Train comes, gate drops, train passes, gates lift.

Tip along to Coolmine, train is coming.... it will get here... soon(ish) so you may as well turn off the engine and relax. But don't get excited when a train passes, cause there might be another along in about 10 minutes, so there is no point in lifting the barriers just yet!!!

So it's not about the level crossings, it's about how they operate them and that should be an easy fix

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 12:34pm

beauf wrote: »

The Dockland and Connolly services are not interchangeable for most people.

For many if you miss one train and get the alternative, the extra walking means waiting for the next train is usually quicker. So in reality there really isn't a frequency of 10~15 mins.

Ah come on - you have to look at the overall frequency on the line when you're talking about line capacity - claiming otherwise is daft.

I appreciate they won't all suit everyone but the numbers of people walking to the southside from Docklands is significant.

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 12:40pm

Seve OB wrote: »

As someone who grew up on the Dart Line and has seen and used it a lot for most of the 90's through to the early 00's, I just can't understand that 20 years on, this side of the city has such a crappy inferior service still to the way the Dart was back then... let alone now!

I used to be happy walking around to get a Dart, now it is such a pain to get the Maynooth train that I don't really bother.

That's just crap. Look at the Merion Gates, Lansdowne Road, Sandymount, Bray etc etc along the Dart Line. Train comes, gate drops, train passes, gates lift.

Tip along to Coolmine, train is coming.... it will get here... soon(ish) so you may as well turn off the engine and relax. But don't get excited when a train passes, cause there might be another along in about 10 minutes, so there is no point in lifting the barriers just yet!!!

So it's not about the level crossings, it's about how they operate them and that should be an easy fix

With respect it is not "crap". Frankly there is no need to be offensive about it - this isn't after hours and a little bit of respect for one another's posts doesn't cost much.

If you increase the service any more beyond the current (at times) 5 and 6 minutes, the barriers will have to stay down on a virtual permanent basis.

Because they are located beside stations, they have to be closed before the train arrives in the station towards the level crossing - that is a safety fail safe procedure lest the train fails to stop at the platform. Therefore they can't just close before the train arrives, they have to close in advance when the train is appx two signal sections away.

Changing the signalling is massively expensive. But in saying that the line needs resignalling.

The southeastern line has much shorter signalling sections which allows the barriers to be opened and closed more often.

Ultimately the plan is to eliminate the crossings altogether - this has been stated as an essential part of the electrification process.

Seve OB · 26-09-2016 12:52pm

lxflyer wrote: »

With respect it is not "crap". Frankly there is no need to be offensive about it - this isn't after hours and a little bit of respect for one another's posts doesn't cost much.

If you increase the service any more beyond the current (at times) 5 and 6 minutes, the barriers will have to stay down on a virtual permanent basis.

Because they are located beside stations, they have to be closed before the train arrives in the station towards the level crossing - that is a safety fail safe procedure lest the train fails to stop at the platform. Therefore they can't just close before the train arrives, they have to close in advance when the train is appx two signal sections away.

Changing the signalling is massively expensive. But in saying that the line needs resignalling.

The southeastern line has much shorter signalling sections which allows the barriers to be opened and closed more often.

Firstly, I wasn't being offensive, so calm down there. I was merely pointing out the flaws and comparing them to somewhere not to far away which has a system that works

And secondly, your defense is pretty much what I have pointed out.... they need to fix the signaling and way the gates work, because that is the nub of the problem.

They did it on the Dart line for a hell of a lot more gates (which incidentally are right beside stations also) eg, Lansdowne, Sydney parade, Sandymount & Bray on the Southside (I'm not as familiar with the Northside.

Carawaystick · 26-09-2016 12:55pm

lxflyer wrote: »

If you increase the service any more beyond the current (at times) 5 and 6 minutes, the barriers will have to stay down on a virtual permanent basis.

Because they are located beside stations, they have to be closed before the train arrives in the station towards the level crossing - that is a safety fail safe procedure lest the train fails to stop at the platform. Therefore they can't just close before the train arrives, they have to close in advance when the train is appx two signal sections away.

Changing the signalling is massively expensive. But in saying that the line needs resignalling.

The southeastern line has much shorter signalling sections which allows the barriers to be opened and closed more often.

And on the dart lne the barriers are opened by machines which open both gates at the same time,and are never busy chatting instead of opening the gates.

But at the times Chesterfield avenue is closed, the frequency of the trains is not an issue.

lxflyer wrote: »

Ultimately the plan is to eliminate the crossings altogether - this has been stated as an essential part of the electrification process.

I wonder what observations CIÉ or IÉ made to the planning dept about the recent construction at Ashtown, it's unbelievable they said nothing and allowed this highly developed area get built in the footprint of any overbridge.

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 1:01pm

Seve OB wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't being offensive, so calm down there. I was merely pointing out the flaws and comparing them to somewhere not to far away which has a system that works

And secondly, your defense is pretty much what I have pointed out.... they need to fix the signaling and way the gates work, because that is the nub of the problem.

They did it on the Dart line for a hell of a lot more gates (which incidentally are right beside stations also) eg, Lansdowne, Sydney parade, Sandymount & Bray on the Southside (I'm not as familiar with the Northside.

With respect - telling someone that what they posted is "crap" is rather offensive. It's utterly unnecessary. As I said above - a little bit of respect for one another isn't asking a lot.

Irrespective of upgrading the signalling (which is not an easy fix as you claimed - it's a very expensive and time consuming process), if frequency is to be increased even more at peak times on the Maynooth line, the LCs need to be removed altogether.

The existence of the gates on the DSE line precludes any higher frequency than a limited period of every 5 minutes.

trellheim · 26-09-2016 1:10pm

Removing Ashtown , Clonsilla and Coolmine LCs will all be massive jobs , for example Ashtown would be OK on one side but you'd be landing in between two blocks of flats on the north side

magicbastarder · 26-09-2016 1:38pm

is there scope anywhere near clonsilla to build an overpass nearby and close the current road?
i can't see this being an option with coolmine or ashtown.

LXFlyer · 26-09-2016 1:42pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there scope anywhere near clonsilla to build an overpass nearby and close the current road?
i can't see this being an option with coolmine or ashtown.

There is a plan for Coolmine - relocating to a bridge further west, but local residents aren't happy with it (redirecting traffic towards what is a residential area), so it may be back to the drawing board.

I'd imagine something similar would be needed for Clonsilla and Ashtown.

Being honest about it, none of the existing locations of all three LCs would facilitate bridges. Any bridge will have to be further away.

beauf · 26-09-2016 1:43pm

They should really have built it into the design of the Dr Troy Bridge. Opportunity missed there.

I know at the time, it was designed to facilitate Metro etc. But still.

Seve OB · 26-09-2016 2:20pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there scope anywhere near clonsilla to build an overpass nearby and close the current road?
i can't see this being an option with coolmine or ashtown.

lxflyer wrote: »

There is a plan for Coolmine - relocating to a bridge further west, but local residents aren't happy with it (redirecting traffic towards what is a residential area), so it may be back to the drawing board.

I'd imagine something similar would be needed for Clonsilla and Ashtown.

Being honest about it, none of the existing locations of all three LCs would facilitate bridges. Any bridge will have to be further away.

As lxflyer says, there is / was a plan for Coolmine, except it was actually directly into a housing estate on both sides of the bridge rather than just a residential area. It was lunacy. I haven't hears anything of it in a good while so I presume (hope) it has been put to bed.

beauf · 26-09-2016 2:25pm

Seve OB wrote: »

...It was lunacy....

+1

But that's what they'll probably do.

The plan seems to be to route as much of through traffic through every estate possible. Why there is so much through traffic can't be a surprise when they build massive commuter towns so far out.

beauf · 26-09-2016 2:37pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Ah come on - you have to look at the overall frequency on the line when you're talking about line capacity - claiming otherwise is daft.

I appreciate they won't all suit everyone but the numbers of people walking to the southside from Docklands is significant.

You are missing the point.

It actually quicker to wait for the next train than get one to the wrong station and walk between them. I would say its nicer to get the docklands as its shorter time crammed face to face with other passengers, and then any walking you do is less time on the packed train. But for most people it will make more sense to wait for the next train to the station they want. IR could make it more attractive by making the docklands trains longer, less packed and more facilities for mixed modal users (cyclists). Then cycling the rest of the journey become and option. Anyway. Its a bit disingenuous to combine two different routes as the same route for frequency.

Phoenix Park Road Closed

Comments