DART coming to Maynooth line in 2024

BonnieSituation

D15er wrote: »

Let's be honest here.

The experts employed by Iarnród Éireann came up with the best solution for Iarnród Éireann. Any option that did not deliver everything IE wanted was immediately disregarded.

So it's a stretch to call any of it the best option

Stop

D15er

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

So what would be your preferred option / solution?

Honestly, I don't know. There is no perfect solution.

To me, closing the LC for two hours morning and evening seems a good compromise. This gives you :

- free reign to run peak capacity at the only time it might actually be needed.
- minimises local objections
- least impact on environment
- crossing closed at morning peak might induce people not to drive at all so might reduce overall traffic rather than simply moving it.
- quickest to implement

You'd need some sort of pedestrian crossing and a robust barrier to minimise strikes, but they're a lot less of a challenge than a brand new bridge.

I just think people are completely underestimating the impact the proposal has on residents. Or maybe they don't care. Either way, that's fine, but it won't take much for either ABP or a judge to decide that IE got the balance wrong.

Edit : I'm aware of the many drawbacks of the above plan.

BonnieSituation

Minimise strikes?

All strikes will shut the railway. The robust nature of the barrier will just minimise the length of closure, in theory.

The best solution for the GDA and the railway and Dublin's PT is what has been suggested by IÉ.

Now your job is to work it back from there from the assumption that the capacity increases are not changing, because that's the whole point of these works.

So if you can come up with a solution that enable the capacity of the rail line to be at the proposed level that doesn't involve the bridge into Stationcourt/St Mochtas, then I'm all ears.

D15er

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Minimise strikes?

All strikes will shut the railway. The robust nature of the barrier will just minimise the length of closure, in theory.

The best solution for the GDA and the railway and Dublin's PT is what has been suggested by IÉ.

Now your job is to work it back from there from the assumption that the capacity increases are not changing, because that's the whole point of these works.

So if you can come up with a solution that enable the capacity of the rail line to be at the proposed level that doesn't involve the bridge into Stationcourt/St Mochtas, then I'm all ears.

As you say, any strike closes the railway. But that's a weakness of the design of the crossing, not of crossings per se.

So you put another barrier 10 metres further back. It comes down first, then the actual crossing barrier comes down. If anyone wants to crash into the first barrier, let them at it.

My proposal does allow the line to run at the capacity proposed. It won't allow it to run at full capacity off peak but then that will never actually be needed.

BonnieSituation

D15er wrote: »

As you say, any strike closes the railway. But that's a weakness of the design of the crossing, not of crossings per se.

So you put another barrier 10 metres further back. It comes down first, then the actual crossing barrier comes down. If anyone wants to crash into the first barrier, let them at it.

My proposal does allow the line to run at the capacity proposed. It won't allow it to run at full capacity off peak but then that will never actually be needed.

That is literally the weakness of ALL crossings. This is why IÉ want rid of them in the GDA.

I'm not even gonna get into the rest of that post.

D15er

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That is literally the weakness of ALL crossings. This is why IÉ want rid of them in the GDA.

I'm not even gonna get into the rest of that post.

Sure look. There's no point getting so angry. If the IE plans are as watertight as all that, then the RO will sail through. Be grand.

liamog

D15er wrote: »

Sure look. There's no point getting so angry. If the IE plans are as watertight as all that, then the RO will sail through. Be grand.

This is the stage 1 consultation to gather feedback, there will then be a stage 2 where they take on board the feedback provided. So for instance if someone provided the feedback that a bridge wouldn't work because the lights at the junction with Clonsilla Road only allow 4 cars out, they will be able to update the plan to account for this. This is why it's important to provide constructive feedback during the consultation.

BonnieSituation

D15er wrote: »

Sure look. There's no point getting so angry. If the IE plans are as watertight as all that, then the RO will sail through. Be grand.

Ah jaysus. The old "Relax" card.

Honestly, read the report, figure out why things are being done or being suggested being done the way they are and then form an informed opinion on the project.

BonnieSituation

liamog wrote: »

This is the stage 1 consultation to gather feedback, there will then be a stage 2 where they take on board the feedback provided. So for instance if someone provided the feedback that a bridge wouldn't work because the lights at the junction with Clonsilla Road only allow 4 cars out, they will be able to update the plan to account for this. This is why it's important to provide constructive feedback during the consultation.

And this being Ireland, there will be local Stage 1a, 1b, 1c etc; locals will get imo too many chances to share their opinions and still complain that they weren't consulted.

D15er

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah jaysus. The old "Relax" card.

Honestly, read the report, figure out why things are being done or being suggested being done the way they are and then form an informed opinion on the project.

I've read it many times over. I know exactly why things are being done and suggested. I know exactly why other things aren't being done.

I just don't agree with all of it. I agree with lots of it but not all of it. The changes at Porterstown will probably affect me more directly but I think they're reasonable enough (but I would like to see if the pedestrian crossing could be made smaller).

I think that's why you're so angry. If I'm not 100% with you, I must be 100% against you? I know that's how a lot of people see things on social media but it's not the reality.

It's possible to be in favour of the overall scheme but still be able to see where the major issues are, no?

BonnieSituation

D15er wrote: »

I've read it many times over. I know exactly why things are being done and suggested. I know exactly why other things aren't being done.

I just don't agree with all of it. I agree with lots of it but not all of it. The changes at Porterstown will probably affect me more directly but I think they're reasonable enough (but I would like to see if the pedestrian crossing could be made smaller).

I think that's why you're so angry. If I'm not 100% with you, I must be 100% against you? I know that's how a lot of people see things on social media but it's not the reality.

It's possible to be in favour of the overall scheme but still be able to see where the major issues are, no?

I'm not angry. I'm exasperated reading your nonsense. You keep coming up with hair-brained solutions and making statements like "we'll never need that capacity" or "IÉ got the report they wanted from the consultants".

Such statements and quality of posting indicated that you didn't read it or if ya did, that you didn't really understand the point of it.

beauf

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And this being Ireland, there will be local Stage 1a, 1b, 1c etc; locals will get imo too many chances to share their opinions and still complain that they weren't consulted.

... and the consultants will ignore and/or override those opinions and when problems arise will claim no one mentioned anything...But that check box of "consulted" will have been ticked...

BonnieSituation

beauf wrote: »

... and the consultants will ignore and/or override those opinions and when problems arise will claim no one mentioned anything...

But that check box of "consulted" will have been ticked.

Is that how it works?

I mean, that flies in the face of the experience of almost all major infrastructure projects in Ireland.

Personally, I would prefer minimal consultation because Irish people can't be trusted.

BonnieSituation

beauf wrote: »

Normally they go in like bull in a China shop get peoples back up. So the people disengage with the process and use politicial pressure to block things. Then it becomes a political football. Though in truth these things always are. You'd think people would approach them with more tact and diplomacy.

Ah jaysus.

There's no talking to the likes of yourself really.

beauf

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah jaysus.

There's no talking to the likes of yourself really.

You pretty much said you'd be happy to bypass any input from the locals and the public at large, basically any kind of democratic process to get what suits you. You can hardly be surprised if they respond in kind.

BonnieSituation

beauf wrote: »

You pretty much said you'd be happy to bypass any input from the locals and the public at large, basically any kind of democratic process to get what suits you. You can hardly be surprised if they respond in kind.

I said I'd personally prefer "minimal consultation" but one must compromise so that the likes of yourself can stick the oar in to tell us about their lack of solutions to the problem at hand.

Local consultation does have a place, it's just that in Ireland we do way too much of it and we do it way too long and we give it too much weight.

So forgive me if I'm a bit jaded listening to local opinions which essentially boil down to "I don't like the thing".

beauf

BonnieSituation wrote: »

....
So forgive me if I'm a bit jaded listening to local opinions which essentially boil down to "I don't like the thing".

If you want to be ridiculous about it they might say people who want it just want to waste money on a cool looking bridge. It's not really needed.

BonnieSituation

beauf wrote: »

If you want to be ridiculous about it they might say people who want it just want to waste money on a cool looking bridge. It's not really needed.

We can add that to the pile of your ridiculous posts on the subject so.

I hope your submissions to the consult are as thorough.

MayoSalmon

What is the real push back from the Riverwood residents here over the bridge? I understand the grievance from the stationcourt/Mochtas side alright but not seeing why Riverwood residents are so incensed by this bridge proposal.

IngazZagni

MayoSalmon wrote: »

What is the real push back from the Riverwood residents here over the bridge? I understand the grievance from the stationcourt/Mochtas side alright but not seeing why Riverwood residents are so incensed by this bridge proposal.

I saw a few "save our homes" posters there today which I dont understand because their homes will be fine with the current proposals.
There are the usual save our wildlife posters with pictures of foxes, rabbits and birds etc.

I did find the "No to bridge and traffic chaos" posters quite interesting. No bridge will equal traffic chaos with the crossing closed more than open.

D15er

MayoSalmon wrote: »

What is the real push back from the Riverwood residents here over the bridge? I understand the grievance from the stationcourt/Mochtas side alright but not seeing why Riverwood residents are so incensed by this bridge proposal.

More traffic coming through their estate. A small number will be heavily impacted directly by the bridge but for most I'd say it's the traffic.

daymobrew

liamog wrote: »

For someone living in Diswellstown Green who works in the Centre, you'd be adding an extra 1km to their route down a road which will see increased traffic due to lack of an alternative.
if you think it's already broken, actively making it worse is not a solution.

What would you do instead to avoid the scenario?

I'd tell the person in Diswellstown Green to cycle over Coolmine level crossing. Coolmine Road (the worst stretch from a cyclist's perspective) can be avoided by going via Sheepmoor Lane/Station Court. Very peaceful. This is how I get from Riverwood to the Centre.

liamog

D15er wrote: »

More traffic coming through their estate. A small number will be heavily impacted directly by the bridge but for most I'd say it's the traffic.

Where's the new traffic through their estate coming from, the entrance to Riverwood is changed as part of the plan, so it's only 50m of the current entrance road that will be shared with the bridge. The estate still won't be a through route to anywhere.

daymobrew

liamog wrote: »

Where's the new traffic through their estate coming from, the entrance to Riverwood is changed as part of the plan, so it's only 50m of the current entrance road that will be shared with the bridge. The estate still won't be a through route to anywhere.

No extra traffic coming into Riverwood Court but a big bridge in front of the windows of a number of houses along with the associated noise etc.

D15er

daymobrew wrote: »

No extra traffic coming into Riverwood Court but a big bridge in front of the windows of a number of houses along with the associated noise etc.

A new entrance into Riverwood Court from the distributor road will be created. This will allow traffic to go down Riverwood Ct and over the bridge. Could be a tempting rat run if there's a queue at the new roundabout. It's just above the P4 symbol on this diagram.

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

BonnieSituation

But you want Coolmine closed and no bridge at Riverwood/Stationcourt, that would mean almost all traffic will head to Porterstown/Troy.

So now you have all car users from the east clogging up the Riverwood Distributor to get to the Troy bridge or to head west and those heading to the centre will only be able to go that route or around the houses via Castleknock.

What could possibly go wrong.

I guess the lack of a bridge won't spoil the view of Riverwood residents now that they'll be stuck in their homes due to traffic.

liamog

D15er wrote: »

A new entrance into Riverwood Court from the distributor road will be created. This will allow traffic to go down Riverwood Ct and over the bridge. Could be a tempting rat run if there's a queue at the new roundabout. It's just above the P4 symbol on this diagram.

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

It would make more sense to just move the entrance to Riverwood to the new location to prevent rat running.
That way you could also plant some greenery alongside the new road to help with noise abatement.

daymobrew

D15er wrote: »

A new entrance into Riverwood Court from the distributor road will be created. This will allow traffic to go down Riverwood Ct and over the bridge. Could be a tempting rat run if there's a queue at the new roundabout. It's just above the P4 symbol on this diagram.

In a webinar they said that they were not in favour of that option, instead they are looking at an extra leg off the roundabout that would go across the green space at the entrance to Riverwood Court. I expect that this would be instead of the T junction shown beside P5 on that map.

daymobrew

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I guess the lack of a bridge won't spoil the view of Riverwood residents now that they'll be stuck in their homes due to traffic.

Ignoring Riverwood Court side of the bridge for a moment, I oppose the bridge because it removes the only open space area on the StationCourt side. That's an offensive proposal.

Fiddle Castro

daymobrew wrote: »

Ignoring Riverwood Court side of the bridge for a moment, I opposite the bridge because it removes the only open space area on the StationCourt side. That's an offensive proposal.

Capture.JPG

Genuine question, is this a public open space or private?