Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

D15er · 21-10-2020 11:42am

IE 222 wrote: »

Well they seem to focus their decision on the importance of closing the crossing to avoid the negative consequences that will come with an increased frequency and willing to accept additional capacity as positive rather than a negative.

They even make note to IE the importance of closing all crossings along the line.

Yes, because for them, closing the crossing is a good thing.

It could also make Rathborne Village more attractive if that street in front of the pharmacy and cafe could be pedestrianised.

blanch152 · 21-10-2020 11:48am

D15er wrote: »

Yes, because for them, closing the crossing is a good thing.

It could also make Rathborne Village more attractive if that street in front of the pharmacy and cafe could be pedestrianised.

It would make Coolmine Road more attractive if all the through traffic was taken off it, and pedestrians and cyclists had a quieter trip. Huge potential to upgrade the streetscape as well.

beauf · 21-10-2020 11:50am

it helps when you selectively ignore the difference between Ashtown in the that the level crossing is their only access across the railway/canal, as opposed to Coolmine where they are proposing a bridge 500m away from an identical one. They aren't negatively effected by the proposed changes.

blanch152 · 21-10-2020 11:52am

beauf wrote: »

it helps when you selectively ignore the difference between Ashtown in the that the level crossing is their only access across the railway/canal, as opposed to Coolmine where they are proposing a bridge 500m away from an identical one. They aren't negatively effected by the proposed changes.

Neither are the people on Coolmine Road, and they are objecting. Very strange behaviour.

Also, there are negative aspects to the Ashtown proposal that will affect some people, however they recognise that these are outweighed by the positives. The failure to apply this balance is one of the weakest parts of the objections.

beauf · 21-10-2020 11:54am

blanch152 wrote: »

It would make Coolmine Road more attractive if all the through traffic was taken off it, and pedestrians and cyclists had a quieter trip. Huge potential to upgrade the streetscape as well.

Same with all roads. But it interesting how you mention it will improve Coolmine road, but no mention how the reverse is true to wherever the traffic is pushed to.

IE 222 · 21-10-2020 11:54am

D15er wrote: »

Yes, because for them, closing the crossing is a good thing.

It could also make Rathborne Village more attractive if that street in front of the pharmacy and cafe could be pedestrianised.

And when applying the same criteria as they did how will keeping the crossing open be better in Coolmine.

beauf · 21-10-2020 11:55am

blanch152 wrote: »

Neither are the people on Coolmine Road, and they are objecting. Very strange behaviour.

Also, there are negative aspects to the Ashtown proposal that will affect some people, however they recognise that these are outweighed by the positives. The failure to apply this balance is one of the weakest parts of the objections.

There are more roads effect than Coolmine. Balance is subjective especially if you only look at through blinkers.

beauf · 21-10-2020 11:56am

IE 222 wrote: »

And when applying the same criteria as they did how will keeping the crossing open be better in Coolmine.

Wheres the shops in Coolmine you want pedestrianized.

Fiddle Castro · 21-10-2020 12:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Neither are the people on Coolmine Road, and they are objecting. Very strange behaviour.

Also, there are negative aspects to the Ashtown proposal that will affect some people, however they recognise that these are outweighed by the positives. The failure to apply this balance is one of the weakest parts of the objections.

Where are people on Coolmine Road objecting?

The objections are all coming from Riverwood / Stationcourt.

riddlinrussell · 21-10-2020 12:12pm

beauf wrote: »

Same with all roads. But it interesting how you mention it will improve Coolmine road, but no mention how the reverse is true to wherever the traffic is pushed to.

Isn't traffic evaporation a relatively well studied phenomenon at this stage? Why does the traffic have to be 'pushed' anywhere?

If there is a fear of rat running, campaigning for a filtered permeability setup would probably be better than trying to stop change elsewhere.

Fiddle Castro · 21-10-2020 12:20pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Isn't traffic evaporation a relatively well studied phenomenon at this stage? Why does the traffic have to be 'pushed' anywhere?

If there is a fear of rat running, campaigning for a filtered permeability setup would probably be better than trying to stop change elsewhere.

It will push traffic to the Riverwood distributor road which leads to the Ongar distributor road, which would be a much better flow than currently exists.

beauf · 21-10-2020 12:27pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Isn't traffic evaporation a relatively well studied phenomenon at this stage? Why does the traffic have to be 'pushed' anywhere?

If there is a fear of rat running, campaigning for a filtered permeability setup would probably be better than trying to stop change elsewhere.

If its anticipated to evaporate, then a new bridge isn't needed.

It easy to trial. Close it and see what happens. No cost either. That seems reasonable.

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 12:30pm

I'm local, live in Riverwood but I'm from the southside and remember the Dart being constructed in my back garden when I was a kid.

So to compare what I see @ Coolmine with what I've seen all along the Dart line is like comparing Rugby League to Rugby Union. They are both level crossings but operate in very different ways.

@ Coolmine it seems that there is a train coming.... it's gonna be a while, but it's coming.... so let's lower the gates. Train comes lets say heading for Maynooth, stops in the station then takes off. But there is another train coming from Maynooth direction.... it's gonna be here in about 5 minutes so no point in lifting the gates. Then that passes and low and behold there is another train coming. I've seen the gates stay down regularly for up to 15 minutes for maybe 3 trains..

No go to any level crossing on the Dart line, say Sydney Parade. Train coming towards town, pulls into the station. Then the gates go down, and once it leaves and passes the gates, they pop back up, unless another train coming within a minute or so. You will regularly see the gates go up and down like a yoyo. But it works and allows traffic to flow.

I can not for the life of me figure out why they can't do the same at Coolmine and the other level crossings. Maybe they just need to upgrade the technology and if they did that, then problem solved.

riddlinrussell · 21-10-2020 12:37pm

Seve OB wrote: »

I'm local, live in Riverwood but I'm from the southside and remember the Dart being constructed in my back garden when I was a kid.

So to compare what I see @ Coolmine with what I've seen all along the Dart line is like comparing Rugby League to Rugby Union. They are both level crossings but operate in very different ways.

@ Coolmine it seems that there is a train coming.... it's gonna be a while, but it's coming.... so let's lower the gates. Train comes lets say heading for Maynooth, stops in the station then takes off. But there is another train coming from Maynooth direction.... it's gonna be here in about 5 minutes so no point in lifting the gates. Then that passes and low and behold there is another train coming. I've seen the gates stay down regularly for up to 15 minutes for maybe 3 trains..

No go to any level crossing on the Dart line, say Sydney Parade. Train coming towards town, pulls into the station. Then the gates go down, and once it leaves and passes the gates, they pop back up, unless another train coming within a minute or so. You will regularly see the gates go up and down like a yoyo. But it works and allows traffic to flow.

I can not for the life of me figure out why they can't do the same at Coolmine and the other level crossings. Maybe they just need to upgrade the technology and if they did that, then problem solved.

Part of the issue is that they want to increase frequency across the entire planned dart network, the Sydney Parade model is not workable, this is evidenced by the plan to close that exact level crossing as part of DART+.

The change proposed is not to take Coolmine from its current service pattern to Sydney Parade level service, which could maybe be achieved by improvements in signalling section lengths etc (Although in this day and age they would still most likely want to close the crossing), but to bring both it and Sydney Parade to a new, higher level of service, which means both crossings need to be closed. If this was being done 15 years ago with the service level of 1 DART every 10 minutes (As Sydney Parade has) You'd be right, but one every 5 minutes is a massive increase in frequency.

As someone directly affected by this, just as a point of interest, if the crossing is closed, would you prefer it to be simply closed with a cycling pedestrian bridge, or the same, but with the road bridge at Riverwood?

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 12:39pm

IE 222 wrote: »

The vast majority of work will take place within the existing railway boundary. There is only 4 large construction proposals, Ashtown, Coolmine, Blakestown and the depot, all of which will have relatively minor impacts on people for such a project, the rest is installing footbridge's, altering bridge arches and OHLE.

haha, haven't a clue have you. have you ever even been to the location?

CatInABox wrote: »

There's currently 12 trains per hour going through Coolmine crossing at the peak hour, with a closure of about 40 mins per hour. Once the project is complete, there'll be 30 trains going through Coolmine crossing. Even if IR reduce the closure time by 50% (this isn't going to happen, just FYI, impossible to do this safely), any reduction will be completely eaten up by the more than doubling of the number of trains.

Maybe off peak it'll be a little better, but if they're running a ten minute Dart service on that line (which they almost certainly will), that's at least 12 trains passing Coolmine crossing every hour. Add Sligo services on top of that.

See my above post, they can do it on the existing Dart line.

blanch152 wrote: »

It would make Coolmine Road more attractive if all the through traffic was taken off it, and pedestrians and cyclists had a quieter trip. Huge potential to upgrade the streetscape as well.

You are clearly from the other side of the tracks. Have you ever even been in Riverwood where they propose to stick the bridge?

Beauf, you have made some weird statements regarding bridges being closed above, I'm not sure how well you actually know the area?

As for Dr Troy Bridge, they F£$%€d that up years ago when they took the roundabout out and stuck in traffic lights. The traffic there is terrible at rush hours now when it used to flow nicely.

Have you seen the pedestrian crossings they put in at the Carpenter roundabout? Well they have started that now at the Fernleigh/Riverwood roundabout which means more congestion.

liamog · 21-10-2020 12:44pm

Seve OB wrote: »

You are clearly from the other side of the tracks. Have you ever even been in Riverwood where they propose to stick the bridge?

As a resident of Riverwood, what changes do you think they could make, so that a bridge starting there could work?

Sam Russell · 21-10-2020 12:48pm

Seve OB wrote: »

I'm local, live in Riverwood but I'm from the southside and remember the Dart being constructed in my back garden when I was a kid.

So to compare what I see @ Coolmine with what I've seen all along the Dart line is like comparing Rugby League to Rugby Union. They are both level crossings but operate in very different ways.

@ Coolmine it seems that there is a train coming.... it's gonna be a while, but it's coming.... so let's lower the gates. Train comes lets say heading for Maynooth, stops in the station then takes off. But there is another train coming from Maynooth direction.... it's gonna be here in about 5 minutes so no point in lifting the gates. Then that passes and low and behold there is another train coming. I've seen the gates stay down regularly for up to 15 minutes for maybe 3 trains..

No go to any level crossing on the Dart line, say Sydney Parade. Train coming towards town, pulls into the station. Then the gates go down, and once it leaves and passes the gates, they pop back up, unless another train coming within a minute or so. You will regularly see the gates go up and down like a yoyo. But it works and allows traffic to flow.

I can not for the life of me figure out why they can't do the same at Coolmine and the other level crossings. Maybe they just need to upgrade the technology and if they did that, then problem solved.

I live close to Sydney Parade and know how the gates operate - south bound train is a two minute closure, north bound and it is a three minute closure. The gates do not remain closed for more than two trains. OK, that is how Coolmine will work - with variations.

My neighbour who has lived next door since before the Dart told me that before the Dart, the gates behaved exactly like you described, such was the delay that Sandymount was not a popular place to live as it was hard to cross the gates (not just the SP ones but all of them).

The Dart will be OK with the LC, but get rid of it now, because it may be the only chance the residents of Coolmine might get. There is no way to replace SP LC now, except to close it. There is a design and space to replace the Merrion Gates.

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 12:52pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Part of the issue is that they want to increase frequency across the entire planned dart network, the Sydney Parade model is not workable, this is evidenced by the plan to close that exact level crossing as part of DART+.

The change proposed is not to take Coolmine from its current service pattern to Sydney Parade level service, which could maybe be achieved by improvements in signalling section lengths etc (Although in this day and age they would still most likely want to close the crossing), but to bring both it and Sydney Parade to a new, higher level of service, which means both crossings need to be closed. If this was being done 15 years ago with the service level of 1 DART every 10 minutes (As Sydney Parade has) You'd be right, but one every 5 minutes is a massive increase in frequency.

As someone directly affected by this, just as a point of interest, if the crossing is closed, would you prefer it to be simply closed with a cycling pedestrian bridge, or the same, but with the road bridge at Riverwood?

Well if they plan to close Sydney Parade, do they also plan to close Merion Gates, Lansdowne, Sandymount etc? If not, I see no point in closing Sydney Parade as all you are doing is routing traffic to those other crossings.

What I would like to see is them to properly explore the option of a road bridge over the existing Coolmine crossing. There are actually plans for that, but seem to have been chucked in the bin in favour of building a bridge through a residential housing estate. Coolmine road has been a main thoroughfare road for a hell of a long time. I'm nearly 20 years living where I do and as it hapens, had an aunt who lived in Clonsilla so know the area most of my life.

Blanch above is happy that Coolmine road will become quieter as a cul de sac, but it makes more sense to upgrade an existing road than to build a new one through a kids play area.

I do realise that to do that will impact some people who live on Coolmine road, ie those who's houses back onto the road at the train station, but whatever is done will impact someone, so what is needed, is to see what will have the least impact all round, and IMO, a Coolmine road bridge is a no brainer.

liamog · 21-10-2020 12:55pm

Seve OB wrote: »

What I would like to see is them to properly explore the option of a road bridge over the existing Coolmine crossing. There are actually plans for that, but seem to have been chucked in the bin in favour of building a bridge through a residential housing estate. Coolmine road has been a main thoroughfare road for a hell of a long time. I'm nearly 20 years living where I do and as it hapens, had an aunt who lived in Clonsilla so know the area most of my life.

Blanch above is happy that Coolmine road will become quieter as a cul de sac, but it makes more sense to upgrade an existing road than to build a new one through a kids play area.

I do realise that to do that will impact some people who live on Coolmine road, ie those who's houses back onto the road at the train station, but whatever is done will impact someone, so what is needed, is to see what will have the least impact all round, and IMO, a Coolmine road bridge is a no brainer.

They explored that option in some detail in the report before it was rejected, it infringes on more property than the Stationcourt option, there is a problem with the canal bridge which is listed, and it was not possible to provide adequate space for active travel modes on the bridge.

LXFlyer · 21-10-2020 12:57pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I live close to Sydney Parade and know how the gates operate - south bound train is a two minute closure, north bound and it is a three minute closure. The gates do not remain closed for more than two trains. OK, that is how Coolmine will work - with variations.

My neighbour who has lived next door since before the Dart told me that before the Dart, the gates behaved exactly like you described, such was the delay that Sandymount was not a popular place to live as it was hard to cross the gates (not just the SP ones but all of them).

The Dart will be OK with the LC, but get rid of it now, because it may be the only chance the residents of Coolmine might get. There is no way to replace SP LC now, except to close it. There is a design and space to replace the Merrion Gates.

How an individual level crossing works will differ from one location to another.

It is entirely dependent on the signalling sections (distance between the signals) around the level crossing.

Longer signalling sections mean the gates are closed for longer periods of time.

You can’t really interpose the times from one location with another unless you know how long the signalling sections are.

LXFlyer · 21-10-2020 1:00pm

Seve OB wrote: »

See my above post, they can do it on the existing Dart line.

The crossings on the existing DART line can handle a maximum of 13 trains an hour.

LXFlyer · 21-10-2020 1:02pm

Seve OB wrote: »

Well if they plan to close Sydney Parade, do they also plan to close Merion Gates, Lansdowne, Sandymount etc? If not, I see no point in closing Sydney Parade as all you are doing is routing traffic to those other crossings.

What I would like to see is them to properly explore the option of a road bridge over the existing Coolmine crossing. There are actually plans for that, but seem to have been chucked in the bin in favour of building a bridge through a residential housing estate. Coolmine road has been a main thoroughfare road for a hell of a long time. I'm nearly 20 years living where I do and as it hapens, had an aunt who lived in Clonsilla so know the area most of my life.

Blanch above is happy that Coolmine road will become quieter as a cul de sac, but it makes more sense to upgrade an existing road than to build a new one through a kids play area.

I do realise that to do that will impact some people who live on Coolmine road, ie those who's houses back onto the road at the train station, but whatever is done will impact someone, so what is needed, is to see what will have the least impact all round, and IMO, a Coolmine road bridge is a no brainer.

Look at the overall DART+ brochure - it clearly states that the plan envisages closing the crossings on DART+ South - it’s not going to be possible to operate up to 30 trains an hour (or even mid-twenties) and retain level crossings.

riddlinrussell · 21-10-2020 1:03pm

Seve OB wrote: »

Well if they plan to close Sydney Parade, do they also plan to close Merion Gates, Lansdowne, Sandymount etc? If not, I see no point in closing Sydney Parade as all you are doing is routing traffic to those other crossings.

I believe that is indeed the plan, with various options of alternative routes and crossings/or straight closure.

The scheme has already looked at a Coolmine road bridge and found it wasn't feasible, as mentioned above.

So if the choice was close the LC and put in an active travel bridge, or also put in the riverwood bridge, which would you, as a local resident impacted by this, prefer?

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 1:04pm

liamog wrote: »

They explored that option in some detail in the report before it was rejected, it infringes on more property than the Stationcourt option, there is a problem with the canal bridge which is listed, and it was not possible to provide adequate space for active travel modes on the bridge.

fair enough. In that case to further answer your question, as a Riverwood Resident I'd like to see them upgrade the level crossing as best a possible. I'd further like to see them get rid of the unnecessary traffic lights at the bottom of Dr Troy bridge and re-instate the roundabout which would improve traffic flow there.

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 1:05pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I believe that is indeed the plan, with various options of alternative routes and crossings/or straight closure.

The scheme has already looked at a Coolmine road bridge and found it wasn't feasible, as mentioned above.

So if the choice was close the LC and put in an active travel bridge, or also put in the riverwood bridge, which would you, as a local resident impacted by this, prefer?

what do you mean by an active travel bridge?

riddlinrussell · 21-10-2020 1:06pm

Seve OB wrote: »

what do you mean by an active travel bridge?

The current plan is a bridge for Pedestrians and Cyclists at the Coolmine crossing, these are the main two forms of 'Active Travel' aka physical activity to get from A to B

Fiddle Castro · 21-10-2020 1:10pm

liamog wrote: »

They explored that option in some detail in the report before it was rejected, it infringes on more property than the Stationcourt option, there is a problem with the canal bridge which is listed, and it was not possible to provide adequate space for active travel modes on the bridge.

It also would require the opening of 2 cul de sacs at Kirkpatrick onto the green at Stationcourt as the ramp created to the bridge would not be accessible from the coolmine road side.

Traffic flow would also improve as the proposed route links directly with the Ongar distributor road.

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 1:14pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

The current plan is a bridge for Pedestrians and Cyclists at the Coolmine crossing, these are the main two forms of 'Active Travel' aka physical activity to get from A to B

As above, my preference is for them to upgrade the LC as best as possible.
If they can't do this, leave it as it is.
I've lived with the Sh1t crossing for years, I can continue to live with it.

I'd regular go for walks/runs around the block over Dr Troy and the LC. I'd either wait or go through the station and use the footbridge there. They could upgrade that bridge to accommodate bikes & prams, wheelchairs etc. No reason why it would have to be over the road, plenty of room to do that with the car park and route it over the station platform, even clean up the canal bank the other side and use that to facilitate the active bridge

Seve OB · 21-10-2020 1:17pm

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

Traffic flow would also improve as the proposed route links directly with the Ongar distributor road.

how so?
does the bridge go all the way over coolmine industrial estate?

Fiddle Castro · 21-10-2020 1:24pm

Seve OB wrote: »

how so?
does the bridge go all the way over coolmine industrial estate?

Maybe take a look at the map, the proposed road would connect the Riverwood Distributor Road to the Ongar Distributor Road via the Snugborough Road, in front of the fire station.

Currently, traffic on Coolmine Road hits Clonsilla Road.

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

Comments