DART+ (DART Expansion)

liamog

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?

It would fairly limit the connectivity with the rest of D15 for a large number of people. Between closing the other level crossings, it would mean there was only one road crossing of the railway for about 5.5km, that's pretty unheard of in a suburban area. It's akin to deliberate ghettoization.

riddlinrussell

liamog wrote: »

It would fairly limit the connectivity with the rest of D15 for a large number of people. Between closing the other level crossings, it would mean there was only one road crossing of the railway for about 5.5km, that's pretty unheard of in a suburban area. It's akin to deliberate ghettoization.

I wouldn't be keen on doing it, it seems the bridge would be the actual best option for the area, I suppose this stems more from my ideas that you should present people with the option you want and a WAY worse option if you want your desired option to be accepted...

IE 222

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

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.

What I mean by sticking to their guns is,

Offer them a bridge in return for crossing closure.
If crossing is to remain open then no new infrastructure.

With the increase in services and the extended closure times its highly likely they will still request a footbridge over the crossing to be built as a result of the inconvenience or campaign for a limited number of closures.

However I do think if the majority of locals where to be made aware and fully understand the full facts and not just a small number of personal agendas I think they would agree to the crossing been closed.

D15er

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?

The problem with closing it completely is that the level crossing is also the pedestrian and cycle route. Closing it off to cars is one thing, making it impassable to other forms of transport won't fly, so you'd still need some class of a crossing.

riddlinrussell

D15er wrote: »

The problem with closing it completely is that the level crossing is also the pedestrian and cycle route. Closing it off to cars is one thing, making it impassable to other forms of transport won't fly, so you'd still need some class of a crossing.

I would imagine a high quality Ped/Cycle bridge would be a reasonable bit cheaper than a full road bridge so maybe options should be Close + Road Bridge up the road and Close + Ped Bridge at the site

D15er

liamog wrote: »

It would fairly limit the connectivity with the rest of D15 for a large number of people. Between closing the other level crossings, it would mean there was only one road crossing of the railway for about 5.5km, that's pretty unheard of in a suburban area. It's akin to deliberate ghettoization.

Oh good. I was worried people would lose perspective on things.

BonnieSituation

D15er wrote: »

Oh good. I was worried people would lose perspective on things.

Permeability is Dublin 15s major issue. Lack of permeability causes ghettoisation.

Removing permeability will logically cause ghettoisation.

Now, in this particular area, it's not gonna cause a breakdown to lawlessness, but be realistic that it will harm the area in many ways.

Footfall and increased vehicle usage of an area increases security and safety. Turning those roads into cul-de-sacs at a canal and a railway station is asking for trouble to increase over time.

riddlinrussell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Permeability is Dublin 15s major issue. Lack of permeability causes ghettoisation.

Removing permeability will logically cause ghettoisation.

Now, in this particular area, it's not gonna cause a breakdown to lawlessness, but be realistic that it will harm the area in many ways.

I apologise if my thoughts were misinterpreted on this, the intention was not to drastically reduce permeability in the area.

I suppose the thought experiment would be that I want IE to say to this group opposing "ok sure, if you don't want this bridge, we can put in a walking/cycling bridge at the crossing, the LC still getting closed" and see which they prefer to have.

D15er

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Permeability is Dublin 15s major issue. Lack of permeability causes ghettoisation.

Removing permeability will logically cause ghettoisation.

Now, in this particular area, it's not gonna cause a breakdown to lawlessness, but be realistic that it will harm the area in many ways.

Footfall and increased vehicle usage of an area increases security and safety. Turning those roads into cul-de-sacs at a canal and a railway station is asking for trouble to increase over time.

I would say the residents of Riverwood and Stationcourt would say that turning their long-established cul-de-sacs into busy through roads is asking for trouble.

I think the incredibly bad planning of housing development in D15 is a much bigger contributor to ghettoization than permeability tbh.

Zebra3

Why are people opposed to a bridge?

Looking at the satellite photos on Google, the area to the north consists of the canal, the canal greenway and then there is some distance before there is any housing.

On the south of the proposed bridge would be a small apartment development to the west, and to the east is the train station and its' car park.

There also seems to be plenty of mature trees around though hard to say how tall they are.

So where do all the objectors live and what are they actually objecting about.

Varadkar's letter makes no mention of why people are objecting to a bridge on Coolmine Road.

BonnieSituation

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I apologise if my thoughts were misinterpreted on this, the intention was not to drastically reduce permeability in the area.

I suppose the thought experiment would be that I want IE to say to this group opposing "ok sure, if you don't want this bridge, we can put in a walking/cycling bridge at the crossing, the LC still getting closed" and see which they prefer to have.

From my POV tbh, I'm on the side of MANY > FEW. So like at Sydney Parade, keep the LC and let the locals live with it. There's people in Leixlip and Maynooth who deserve great PT without it being held up by NIMBYism.

D15er wrote: »

I would say the residents of Riverwood and Stationcourt would say that turning their long-established cul-de-sacs into busy through roads is asking for trouble.

I think the incredibly bad planning of housing development in D15 is a much bigger contributor to ghettoization than permeability tbh.

Eh, the permeability issue is a symptom of bad planning.

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

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.

Well judging by the flyers posted here and elsewhere it would seem misinformation is been supplied. They seem to suggest an increase in emissions, traffic congestion and the loss of large green areas. There is little to no mention of the benefits of such a bridge. The matter of the fact is, if the crossing remains open it's going to increase traffic congestion and emissions with cars idling waiting to cross the line. There is very little green space lost also.

If the objective of the locals is to divert traffic away from the area then maybe the locals should campaign to close the crossing without a replacement bridge if they feel adding a new bridge is contradictory of the purpose of Dart instead of proposing to build a drop lock in order to build a bridge over the crossing. This sounds like a win win option for everyone.

It's the worst crossing due to a number of facts. The signalling been one, the close proximity of the station, the close proximity of Castleknock, the close proximity of Porterstown crossing. The data shows that a lot of trains pass each other here also. It's also near the point where a Sligo train catches up with stopping services. Also to reduce conflict between Maynooth and M3 trains at Clonsilla trains would pass before Clonsilla.

riddlinrussell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

From my POV tbh, I'm on the side of MANY > FEW. So like at Sydney Parade, keep the LC and let the locals live with it. There's people in Leixlip and Maynooth who deserve great PT without it being held up by NIMBYism.



Eh, the permeability issue is a symptom of bad planning.

Isn't part of the issue with 'make it like sydney parade' that as part of this project Sydney parade is also being removed? The idea being to fully remove level crossings from the equation of train timetabling in the GDA?

MJohnston

D15er wrote: »

The problem with closing it completely is that the level crossing is also the pedestrian and cycle route. Closing it off to cars is one thing, making it impassable to other forms of transport won't fly, so you'd still need some class of a crossing.

This is incorrect — there's a separate pedestrian and cycle overpass proposed in the plans:

D15er

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why are people opposed to a bridge?

Looking at the satellite photos on Google, the area to the north consists of the canal, the canal greenway and then there is some distance before there is any housing.

On the south of the proposed bridge would be a small apartment development to the west, and to the east is the train station and its' car park.

There also seems to be plenty of mature trees around though hard to say how tall they are.

So where do all the objectors live and what are they actually objecting about.

Varadkar's letter makes no mention of why people are objecting to a bridge on Coolmine Road.

The main issue is that there would be a new bridge about 200m to the west of the current crossing. That would turn two residential areas into main roads. Since these areas were never designed as anything other than residential, the bridge would be very close to people's houses. I don't think it's unreasonable for people living in a cul-de-sac for 20 years to object to suddenly finding yourself on a main road with buses going past your window. Every single person on this thread would make the exact same objection, which is why the accusation of 'nimbyism' is such hollow bollocks.

riddlinrussell

I thought that was the case! I remembered seeing a ped/cycle crossing in the documentation, wasn't sure if it was at this site.

In that case simple offering to the people, plans as is or plans minus road bridge?

MJohnston

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I thought that was the case! I remembered seeing a ped/cycle crossing in the documentation, wasn't sure if it was at this site.

In that case simple offering to the people, plans as is or plans minus road bridge?

I'd go as far as to just remove the road bridge from the table. The level crossing isn't used by any bus route afaik, and there's a perfectly fine road bridge less than 1km west of here.

If pedestrians and cyclists can continue having permeability, just close the road to cars and that's that.

LXFlyer

There are no scheduled bus routes using Coolmine Level Crossing (apart from school / college services), nor are there any planned under BusConnects.

liamog

Just to clarify the area that D15er is complaining about, here's where the screenshots from either side of where the new bridge is intended to be built.

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

I would say the residents of Riverwood and Stationcourt would say that turning their long-established cul-de-sacs into busy through roads is asking for trouble.

I think the incredibly bad planning of housing development in D15 is a much bigger contributor to ghettoization than permeability tbh.

According to the campaign cul de sacs are the cause of anti social behaviour.

liamog

The new bridge would see approx 60m of Riverwood Ct at the South end turned into a "main road" and about 350m of the road on the Northside.
It's notable that the roads which will carry increased traffic at either end are not fronted by any residential property.

riddlinrussell

IE 222 wrote: »

According to the campaign cul de sacs are the cause of anti social behaviour.

Does distributing deliberate misinformation about planned works count as anti-social behaviour? They might be on to something there....

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

The main issue is that there would be a new bridge about 200m to the west of the current crossing. That would turn two residential areas into main roads. Since these areas were never designed as anything other than residential, the bridge would be very close to people's houses. I don't think it's unreasonable for people living in a cul-de-sac for 20 years to object to suddenly finding yourself on a main road with buses going past your window. Every single person on this thread would make the exact same objection, which is why the accusation of 'nimbyism' is such hollow bollocks.

What buses??? Very convenient Coolmine road suddenly has a bus route. What misinformation you ask???????????

D15er

MJohnston wrote: »

This is incorrect — there's a separate pedestrian and cycle overpass proposed in the plans:

Yeah, that was my point, that even closing Coolmine to traffic still requires construction of the new pedestrian bridge

BonnieSituation

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Isn't part of the issue with 'make it like sydney parade' that as part of this project Sydney parade is also being removed? The idea being to fully remove level crossings from the equation of train timetabling in the GDA?

Well, the phrase used "make it like Sydney Parade" is just shorthand to say let them live with the consequences of their NIMBYism.

IE 222

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd go as far as to just remove the road bridge from the table. The level crossing isn't used by any bus route afaik, and there's a perfectly fine road bridge less than 1km west of here.

If pedestrians and cyclists can continue having permeability, just close the road to cars and that's that.

This is the best solution for everyone. Close the crossing and put the footbridge in. Forces traffic onto alternative routes while also avoiding cul de sacs apart from the ones they approve off. Saves the project millions of euro while meeting the concerns of the local residents.

D15er

IE 222 wrote: »

What buses??? Very convenient Coolmine road suddenly has a bus route. Misinformation you ask???????????

Well, the nice people at Iarnrod Eireann even put a little picture of a bus in their graphic;
https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

But reason it out. You build a new bridge that is wide enough for cars and buses (which the current bridge is not). You spend billions on a brand new Dart line with massive capacity. And now you have tens of thousands of people in D15 who want access to the Dart but don't live in walking distance of the station. How do you get those people to the station? On the bus. You even have room at Coolmine for buses to park up which you don't have at Castleknock or Clonsilla.

It would be very bad planning NOT to have bus connectivity to the Dart for people in west D15.

BonnieSituation

IE 222 wrote: »

According to the campaign cul de sacs are the cause of anti social behaviour.

It's almost like they haven't a real notion of what they want other than "WE DON'T WANT A BRIDGE". It's the same in almost 100% of these cases that the local uproar is always led by the same sort of short-termist idiots.
There are valid concerns that should be addresses, but of course they are drowned out by the concerns of Joanna Murtagh of the Local Res. Assoc. who can't drive her Hyundai Tucson wherever she wants.

LXFlyer

D15er wrote: »

Well, the nice people at Iarnrod Eireann even put a little picture of a bus in their graphic;
https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

But reason it out. You build a new bridge that is wide enough for cars and buses (which the current bridge is not). You spend billions on a brand new Dart line with massive capacity. And now you have tens of thousands of people in D15 who want access to the Dart but don't live in walking distance of the station. How do you get those people to the station? On the bus. You even have room at Coolmine for buses to park up which you don't have at Castleknock or Clonsilla.

It would be very bad planning NOT to have bus connectivity to the Dart for people in west D15.

For clarity, here is the planned bus network in Dublin 15 under BusConnects.

https://busconnects.ie/media/2005/blanchardstown-area-map.pdf

riddlinrussell

D15er wrote: »

Well, the nice people at Iarnrod Eireann even put a little picture of a bus in their graphic;
https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

But reason it out. You build a new bridge that is wide enough for cars and buses (which the current bridge is not). You spend billions on a brand new Dart line with massive capacity. And now you have tens of thousands of people in D15 who want access to the Dart but don't live in walking distance of the station. How do you get those people to the station? On the bus. You even have room at Coolmine for buses to park up which you don't have at Castleknock or Clonsilla.

It would be very bad planning NOT to have bus connectivity to the Dart for people in west D15.

Busconnects explicitly shows routes directly passing both Clonsilla and Castleknock stations and not one going to Coolmine, seems they already think the line is well served by buses in the D15 area?