DART+ (DART Expansion)

Sam Russell

roddney wrote: »

Sign of things to come. Would imagine south side will be the same, when they look to close those gates. Look what happened with Merrion gates. They just gave up in the end.

It's all necessary though and will have a long term benefit to both road users and public transport users.

They just need to plough ahead with railway order and factor in time for court cases. Kildare and Drogheda might need to be progressed first, if theirs delays.

The Merrion Gates was rejected, not because of the gates, but because of the loss of parking and front gardens suffered by local Irish Times readers.

This was because the Merrion Gates project was tacked onto a cycling and bus corridor project causing significant changes to the local area. The funding for the project was from a non-rail budget when the Merrion Gates should really be part of Dart Expansion.

A stand alone Merrion Gates project would actually improve things around the area. It was a clever solution to the traffic problem, and removed a significant cause of delay for the rail service as motorists, and in particular truck drivers, tried to beat the gates and lost, so smashing the gates.

Fiddle Castro

The issue with Coolmine crossing was raised in the Dail last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9uYSsDq4Kk

He seems to suggest a drop lock to lower the canal, is this even possible there?

The local NIMBYs are really working hard.

IE 222

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

The issue with Coolmine crossing was raised in the Dail last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9uYSsDq4Kk

He seems to suggest a drop lock to lower the canal, is this even possible there?

The local NIMBYs are really working hard.

I assume they are trying to suggest running the road under the rail line and lower the canal to run over that.

roddney

IE 222 wrote: »

I assume they are trying to suggest running the road under the rail line and lower the canal to run over that.

They seem to be suggesting raising the canal by adding a lock gate, so road can go under it. Given canals are only used for recreation these days it could make sense, depending on distance to next gate. You can only go up gates though, not up and down as water actually flows in one direction though. Question would be cost benefit then.

IE 222

roddney wrote: »

They seem to be suggesting raising the canal by adding a lock gate, so road can go under it. Given canals are only used for recreation these days it could make sense, depending on distance to next gate. You can only go up gates though, not up and down as water actually flows in one direction though. Question would be cost benefit then.

I don't know much about canals but that sounds like a massive undertaking. If I'm reading it correctly that would require a number of locks to lift the canal before the bridge on both sides or removing the previous drop lock(s) and raising the banks to achive the required height (not sure if that would even work) as it flowing towards Dublin. The canal there is a good 20-30ft below the road. The previous lock is Lexlip.

That still doesn't resolve getting over the railway.

IE priced a drop lock at Newcome Jct at €10million. I'd imagine raising the canal would be a colossal cost coming to multiples of that.

CatInABox

Everything that the NTA, TII, and IR are putting out these days emphasise simplicity, and the idea of dropping a road and raising a canal screams far more complex than is needed.

roddney

IE 222 wrote: »

I don't know much about canals but that sounds like a massive undertaking. If I'm reading it correctly that would require a number of locks to lift the canal before the bridge on both sides or removing the previous drop lock(s) and raising the banks to achive the required height (not sure if that would even work) as it flowing towards Dublin. The canal there is a good 20-30ft below the road. The previous lock is Lexlip.

That still doesn't resolve getting over the railway.

IE priced a drop lock at Newcome Jct at €10million. I'd imagine raising the canal would be a colossal cost coming to multiples of that.

Just had a look. Yeh Leixlip is a long long way away so it’s not feasible which is why Engineers haven’t looked at it. It’s not possible to go up and back down as a canal flows towards the sea like a river but very slowly. Unfortunately an Engineer will probably need to write a detailed report to appease the local complaints

Fiddle Castro

Leo has now called for the crossing @ Coolmine to remain open also....

Zebra3

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

Leo has now called for the crossing @ Coolmine to remain open also....

Give them what they want.

Sam Russell

Zebra3 wrote: »

Give them what they want.

I'd agree with that - save a few bob as well. They might regret it later but so.

Fiddle Castro

Coolmine crossing is currently closed for up to 41 mins per hour @ peak times, with the increased frequency I assume this would increase were it left in place even with electrification & signal upgrades?

Does anyone know what we could expect were it left open? Is it actually possible to leave it open & upgrade?

CatInABox

I could well imagine that IR would increase the length of time that the level crossings stay down as well, you know, for safety.

Pete_Cavan

I think the only real options are closing the level crossing without an alternative in the vicinity or closing the level crossing with the alternative route being the proposed bridge. That needs to be put to the people there. Leaving the crossing to open a couple of times when train scheduling allows is just going to force people to use other routes anyway, such will be the limited time the gates are open. You may as well just close it permanently instead of having people drive up to it expecting to get through and having to wait for a stupid length of time to get through. Locals will know not to go that way, instead all you will have is people whos satnav brought them there.

MJohnston

Well DART isn't going to be automated so I presume they could leave it open. It would probably affect speeds, which would therefore affect frequency. Reliability too will decrease due to inevitable strikes on the crossing gates or broken down vehicles.

spacetweek

I don't live anywhere near Coolmine but I made a submission anyway to urge them to either :
- Build the bridge
- Close the crossing
- Leave crossing open, close crossing at rush hour

IE 222

roddney wrote: »

Just had a look. Yeh Leixlip is a long long way away so it’s not feasible which is why Engineers haven’t looked at it. It’s not possible to go up and back down as a canal flows towards the sea like a river but very slowly. Unfortunately an Engineer will probably need to write a detailed report to appease the local complaints

Yeah it would turn out to be biggest job on the whole project. The more I think about it, it doesn't make sense as to why they are proposing this. Getting over the canal is not the issue.

IE 222

Unfortunately its probably only a handful of nimby's issuing misinformation that has kick started this reaction with locals. What they fail to tell those that they are preaching too is exactly what will happen if these plans don't go ahead. It's very easy to gain support when telling someone little Johnny's playing field will be taking away. I really hope IE stick to their guns with this and don't start agreeing to leaving the crossing open for x amount min per hour or constructing a footbridge for the inconvenience caused by the locals objecting.

I think IE/NTA and especially the local TDs should explain exactly what the outcome of objecting to this is going to involve. It should be easy to prepare a simulation showing the number and length of time the crossing will be closed along with effect on traffic flows. If still adamant that it remains open so be it and use the money to extend to Kilcock, I'm sure they would only be grateful for the funds.

As shown in the study during a period in 2019 during 8-9am the crossing was closed 9 times for a total of 41mins. Two of these closures was for over 7mins. Increasing the number of trains to 15 is easily going to leave the crossing closed for 45mins+. This seems to be the worst crossing for closure times on the line.

Pete_Cavan

IE 222 wrote: »

Unfortunately its probably only a handful of nimby's issuing misinformation that has kick started this reaction with locals. What they fail to tell those that they are preaching too is exactly what will happen if these plans don't go ahead. It's very easy to gain support when telling someone little Johnny's playing field will be taking away. I really hope IE stick to their guns with this and don't start agreeing to leaving the crossing open for x amount min per hour or constructing a footbridge for the inconvenience caused by the locals objecting.

I don't think sticking to thir guns is an option. From Leo's letter, it is clear some are already talking about judicial review, if that doesn't prevent the bridge it will draw out the process and ultimately nothing might get done. As you alluded to, it is a small number of militant locals pushing this, regardless of small their number is they still have the ability to frustrate the RO process and hold everything up.

The only play here is to set the bridge aside for now and plough on with the rest of the project. The crossing should be closed permanently or, failing that, gates remain down for as long as necessary with increased trains. This will result in more problems for the local population and expose the opposition to the bridge for what it really is. Give the people what they want and let them own it and the problems which arise from it. The bridge can be added later as a standalone project once people see that the bridge is actually the lesser of two evils for the local community.

D15er

IE 222 wrote: »

Unfortunately its probably only a handful of nimby's issuing misinformation that has kick started this reaction with locals. What they fail to tell those that they are preaching too is exactly what will happen if these plans don't go ahead. It's very easy to gain support when telling someone little Johnny's playing field will be taking away. I really hope IE stick to their guns with this and don't start agreeing to leaving the crossing open for x amount min per hour or constructing a footbridge for the inconvenience caused by the locals objecting.

I think IE/NTA and especially the local TDs should explain exactly what the outcome of objecting to this is going to involve. It should be easy to prepare a simulation showing the number and length of time the crossing will be closed along with effect on traffic flows. If still adamant that it remains open so be it and use the money to extend to Kilcock, I'm sure they would only be grateful for the funds.

As shown in the study during a period in 2019 during 8-9am the crossing was closed 9 times for a total of 41mins. Two of these closures was for over 7mins. Increasing the number of trains to 15 is easily going to leave the crossing closed for 45mins+. This seems to be the worst crossing for closure times on the line.

I don't think there is any misinformation going around. And it's a lot more than a handful of people who are concerned. But it's easy to bitch about NIMBYs when it's someone else's problem.

I'm a local resident, we all know exactly what leaving the crossing open would mean in terms of closures and traffic. And to be honest, that's an acceptable trade-off for me.

The whole objective of this line upgrade is to reduce our reliance on cars, yet here's a massive project dedicated solely to making sure people in cars actually have an easier time in getting around than they do today? Especially when there's already a bridge over the line less than a km away. That doesn't make sense.

You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that? I know I've often been stuck there for ages with no train in sight. A better signaling system maybe, I don't know.

But the current proposal is a sledgehammer cracking a nut.

loyatemu

D15er wrote: »

I'm a local resident, we all know exactly what leaving the crossing open would mean in terms of closures and traffic. And to be honest, that's an acceptable trade-off for me.

it's a trade off for the Dart as well, the level crossings between Pearse and Booterstown are a constant problem for the existing Dart line. Leaving crossings in place will result in a slower and less reliable service.

Zebra3

D15er wrote: »

You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that?

Timetables run on a whole host of factors, but one them is not how long a level crossing is closed for.

Other LCs may have a number of closing whereby trains on opposite sides pass at close times. This LC may have a number of closing where the timing of the trains are further apart and therefore the LC stays closed for longer.

There is nothing IÉ can do about that.

LXFlyer

D15er wrote: »

You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that? I know I've often been stuck there for ages with no train in sight. A better signaling system maybe, I don't know.

Right now, the lengthy closure times is down to a combination of longer signalling sections, which will be shorter as a result of this project, but also the fact that it is adjacent to a station, so the gates have to be shut before a westbound train enters the signalling section containing the station, lest the train not stop in time.

The bottom line, is however, that the planned peak frequency is so great that the gates will be closed constantly at peak times.

D15er

LXFlyer wrote: »

Right now, the lengthy closure times is down to a combination of longer signalling sections, which will be shorter as a result of this project, but also the fact that it is adjacent to a station, so the gates have to be shut before a westbound train enters the signalling section containing the station, lest the train not stop in time.

The bottom line, is however, that the planned peak frequency is so great that the gates will be closed constantly at peak times.

I was responding to the suggestion that Coolmine is the worst crossing on the line. I don't know if that's accurate, but Ashtown and Clonsilla crossings are likewise adjacent to stations and don't seem to be as bad?

When the line is electrified, the need for lengthy closures should reduce. Half the problem is the time needed for the diesel trains to slow down, stop and take off again. A DART should be able to do it more efficiently. That would obviously be more than cancelled out by the increased frequency of course.

So how about just close the gates at rush hour? You'd still need pedestrian and bike access I guess.

I just think IE have been incredibly lazy here. This EXACT proposal was floated five years ago and the residents went nuts. They didn't change a single thing in the "new" proposal. What did they think was going to happen this time?

LXFlyer

D15er wrote: »

I was responding to the suggestion that Coolmine is the worst crossing on the line. I don't know if that's accurate, but Ashtown and Clonsilla crossings are likewise adjacent to stations and don't seem to be as bad?

When the line is electrified, the need for lengthy closures should reduce. Half the problem is the time needed for the diesel trains to slow down, stop and take off again. That would obviously be more than cancelled out by the increased frequency.

So how about just close the gates at rush hour? You'd still need pedestrian and bike access I guess.

I just think IE have been incredibly lazy here. This EXACT proposal was floated five years ago and the residents went nuts. They didn't change a single thing in the "new" proposal. What did they think was going to happen this time?

I am not getting into the bridge -v- LC debate.

I am only explaining what dictates the length of gate closure.

There are two aspects as I said. The station is only one.

The length of closure is also dependent upon the length of the signalling section (i.e. where the previous signal is) which in Coolmine's case is presumably further than the other ones at present.

eguiney

LXFlyer wrote: »

I am not getting into the bridge -v- LC debate.

I am only explaining what dictates the length of gate closure.

There are two aspects as I said. The station is only one.

The length of closure is also dependent upon the length of the signalling section (i.e. where the previous signal is) which in Coolmine's case is presumably further than the other ones at present.

Probably a bigger traffic problem if the crossing is retained is that the other roads to the south become gridlocked when the crossing is closed for a significant period.

There are also safety issues with drivers using the wrong side of the road when the crossing is closed to get to the housing on that road and the station.

Zebra3

D15er wrote: »

I just think IE have been incredibly lazy here. This EXACT proposal was floated five years ago and the residents went nuts. They didn't change a single thing in the "new" proposal. What did they think was going to happen this time?

What do you think happens in other countries?

Do you think they have a magical solution that they are keeping hidden just to annoy people?

blanch152

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think the only real options are closing the level crossing without an alternative in the vicinity or closing the level crossing with the alternative route being the proposed bridge. That needs to be put to the people there. Leaving the crossing to open a couple of times when train scheduling allows is just going to force people to use other routes anyway, such will be the limited time the gates are open. You may as well just close it permanently instead of having people drive up to it expecting to get through and having to wait for a stupid length of time to get through. Locals will know not to go that way, instead all you will have is people whos satnav brought them there.

Agreed. Close the crossing, one way or the other.

If the local residents don't want the bridge, they can put up with the ensuing gridlock.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed. Close the crossing, one way or the other.

If the local residents don't want the bridge, they can put up with the ensuing gridlock.

Exactly.

I live near Sydney Parade and am very familiar with the LC and its timing. The train gets priority come what may. If it is inconvenient for motorists, then tough.

We do not have any possibility of a bridge, other than the one proposed for the Merrion Gates which would alleviate the problem slightly in that non-local traffic would use the alternative route, but there is no real alternative currently because locals are more interested in their parking and front drives.

But then locals are always more interested in their own locality than the overall public good - that is life.

riddlinrussell

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed. Close the crossing, one way or the other.

If the local residents don't want the bridge, they can put up with the ensuing gridlock.

Is there an option to simply close the level crossing with no bridge? Will anyone end up stranded or just have to travel further?

Present the two options people have as A) closed crossing and bridge replacement, or Closed Crossing because the third alternative would be C) crossing opens for 1 minute every hour (or something like that)

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Is there an option to simply close the level crossing with no bridge? Will anyone end up stranded or just have to travel further?

Present the two options people have as A) closed crossing and bridge replacement, or Closed Crossing because the third alternative would be C) crossing opens for 1 minute every hour (or something like that)

I think the third option might be to resignal the line to maximise the opening time.