DART coming to Maynooth line in 2024

beauf

Well IR want to close it because the traffic volumes are not significant.

So will this traffic double back on itself to R149 or will it continue down to the Dr Troy Bridge.

Brock Turnpike

beauf wrote: »

Well IR want to close it because the traffic volumes are not significant.

So will this traffic double back on itself to R149 or will it continue down to the Dr Troy Bridge.

If that's IR reason for closing it, then they haven't researched it very well. I actually would be happy for it to be closed if they can find a workable solution, but that's going to be very difficult.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

I don't see why such traffic to go anywhere near coolmine, or clonsilla crossing.

It's the most direct route back to the Northside M50 from the Laraghcon side of Lucan, the N3 tailbacks to Clonee anyway, so you may as well go a more direct route. There's probably a similar amount of traffic doing the reverse to head out to the R136 or Leixlip. The M50 toll is counter productive/

beauf

You'd think the R149 would be more direct. But what you're saying suggests the new bridge will indeed be a traffic magnet. Though I would have thought that going via coolmine and out to the M50 is bringing you through even worse traffic around the Blanch SC. I go northbound on the M50 myself, but only occasionally.

But I think this is the minor part of it. The vast majority of traffic is heading towards town via Castleknock village or College. All the locals see is gridlock, and this will add to it. I think it's hard to argue otherwise. Can't imagine the effect for those right beside this bridge.

liamog

Coming off the R149 towards Littlepace, the route is pretty bad, far too much local traffic having to share roads thanks for the layout of the area. It would be difficult to absorb any traffic from a Clonsilla crossing closure. The new Hansfield bridge would basically dump traffic onto the Ongar distributor and probably split 50/50 both ways being a bad option.
I can't see a Coolmine bridge drawing much cross river traffic, it's just a bit too awkward to get to.

beauf

Already does.


Since they opened up Dr Troy to Porterstown road, the traffic has increased exponentially.
Most obviously in the evenings with a traffic going over Dr Troy bridge to porterstown road all waiting to turn right towards Luttrelstown Castle.
I assume most of this is heading Lucan/Leixlip direction.

liamog

So closing Clonsilla would probably just split trafffic between a new Hansfield bridge and Dr Troy. I wonder what the numbers going over the Clonsilla level crossing actually are, it's a road we always avoided during rush hour, as you were so likely to get stuck waiting on trains.
It could be a case of there's lot's of traffic, but not many actual crossings.

beauf

Could be. Thats IR take on it anyway.

Maybe there's not so many using it because it often closed.

kdevitt

The designs being suggested for the road bridge at Coolmine are essentially a decade old - its come up as a question for election candidates several times, and in general they all committed to fighting any such proposal. Just sounds like IR have their mind made up on this approach and that's it. From being on the call with Irish Rail last week or the week before, it was immediately obvious that they literally don't have a clue about the area. They could provide peak time closures for the level crossing, but no data on off peak times. They thought one entrance to Riverwood didn't even exist, and really struggled with providing any detail.

The route for the bridge at Coolmine turns two very quiet residential cul de sacs into a main road - wiping out some nice lovely green space and mature trees in the process, and sticking a 9 meter high bridge right in front of peoples houses. The exit point at Coolmine Cross allows 4 cars to exit currently on green - and the traffic still backs up to Roselawn every evening. Any extension to that traffic light sequence will see people like me not actually being able to get into our housing estates. It also has the effect of forcing any traffic for Carpenterstown from turning left at the top of Delwood, in turn driving it all up the Coolmine Road back up toward Coolmine Cross. As it stands, that road backs up every day - and thats with the level crossing still open. I've been getting the train from Coolmine for the guts of 30 years now - so appreciate the need for upgrades, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of those who live nearby.

Brock Turnpike

kdevitt wrote: »

The designs being suggested for the road bridge at Coolmine are essentially a decade old - its come up as a question for election candidates several times, and in general they all committed to fighting any such proposal. Just sounds like IR have their mind made up on this approach and that's it. From being on the call with Irish Rail last week or the week before, it was immediately obvious that they literally don't have a clue about the area. They could provide peak time closures for the level crossing, but no data on off peak times. They thought one entrance to Riverwood didn't even exist, and really struggled with providing any detail.

The route for the bridge at Coolmine turns two very quiet residential cul de sacs into a main road - wiping out some nice lovely green space and mature trees in the process, and sticking a 9 meter high bridge right in front of peoples houses. The exit point at Coolmine Cross allows 4 cars to exit currently on green - and the traffic still backs up to Roselawn every evening. Any extension to that traffic light sequence will see people like me not actually being able to get into our housing estates. It also has the effect of forcing any traffic for Carpenterstown from turning left at the top of Delwood, in turn driving it all up the Coolmine Road back up toward Coolmine Cross. As it stands, that road backs up every day - and thats with the level crossing still open. I've been getting the train from Coolmine for the guts of 30 years now - so appreciate the need for upgrades, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of those who live nearby.

This post is a perfect example of the lack of planning that has (and continues to) gone into D15 in general. Planning permission continually being granted for developments with no future planning or sufficient infrastructure available to support the developments.

You're now left with the scenario you described above whereby the logical locations for a bridge to replace a level crossing has already been developed as housing estates.

liamog

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

You're now left with the scenario you described above whereby the logical locations for a bridge to replace a level crossing has already been developed as housing estates.

The reason there are two cul de sacs with green space available near to Coolmine station where a bridge can be built, is due to the council holding back house building for a future route. Do people really think it's an accident that there just happens to be space to extend the road over the railway in a straight line from where the fire station is?

kdevitt

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

This post is a perfect example of the lack of planning that has (and continues to) gone into D15 in general. Planning permission continually being granted for developments with no future planning or sufficient infrastructure available to support the developments.

You're now left with the scenario you described above whereby the logical locations for a bridge to replace a level crossing has already been developed as housing estates.

Hard to see it changing anytime soon either. Just keep lumping houses out here, allow the occasional Lidl - bobs your uncle. The shared living complex that was granted PP (before being overturned - temporarily at least) at Bradys included 2 parking spots in their submission - to be shared amongst the 200 odd residents. They also indicated there would be no issue with parking in nearby roads and housing estates because of the under utilisation of the local trains, which will allow all residents to fully rely on public transport. Furthermore, no visitors will ever drive there either for the same reason. It's pure fantasy stuff which is getting through.

kdevitt

liamog wrote: »

The reason there are two cul de sacs with green space available near to Coolmine station where a bridge can be built, is due to the council holding back house building for a future route. Do people really think it's an accident that there just happens to be space to extend the road over the railway in a straight line from where the fire station is?

Apart from the fact that they're demolishing houses, it sounds like you've literally no idea of the layout of this area if you think house building has been held back on the land which is now going to be used.

beauf

liamog wrote: »

The reason there are two cul de sacs with green space available near to Coolmine station where a bridge can be built, is due to the council holding back house building for a future route. Do people really think it's an accident that there just happens to be space to extend the road over the railway in a straight line from where the fire station is?

You reckon that in that long stretch from Clonsilla to Blanchardstown the plan all along was to close all the crossings and replace with two giant bridges beside each other into a tiny estate.

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

You reckon that in that long stretch from Clonsilla to Blanchardstown the plan all along was to close all the crossings and replace with two giant bridges beside each other into a tiny estate.

What tiny estate is getting two huge bridges?

Riverwood is far from tiny, and as the poster points out, there was space reserved for this bridge from a long time back.

kdevitt

blanch152 wrote: »

What tiny estate is getting two huge bridges?

Riverwood is far from tiny, and as the poster points out, there was space reserved for this bridge from a long time back.

There was never space 'reserved' for a bridge, the land is quite clearly zoned as open space only.

blanch152

kdevitt wrote: »

There was never space 'reserved' for a bridge, the land is quite clearly zoned as open space only.

Zoned as open space so that it couldn't be developed and available for potential alternative use at a future date for a bridge. That is a common enough tactic for county councils.

The councillors did try to prevent it.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/draft-fingal-development-plan-2017-%E2%80%93-2023-stage-2/chapter/appendix-6-map-based-local


https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/draft-fingal-development-plan-2017-%E2%80%93-2023-stage-2/chapter/map-13-blanchardstown-south


126 Prohibit any road bridge at this location" was included in the current Fingal Development Plan, but the seeds were sown at an earlier stage. That amendment wouldn't have been needed if the bridge was not technically possible and if a bridge had not been envisaged at an earlier stage.

beauf

The suggestion being when they panned the estates. They knowingly built roads that would completely cut off when the came back to build the planned bridge. Makes perfect sense.

The logic behind this bridge is that traffic will fan out in both directions once it enters Riverwood allowing the traffic to "disperse"
If it goes right it immediately hits the tailback trying to get Dr Troy bridge/Porterstown Rd. So it can only go left. Which it will then hit the tail back from Castleknock College, or down in Laurel Lodge.
Dr Troy bridge is like a traffic magnet, so obviously so will this new bridge. Especially as it was constrained by the level crossing up to now. So you're increasing the traffic hitting all these bottlenecks.

That will only do one thing.

Polar101

I've only seen the bits about level crossings, but are there any plans for more park & ride spaces? It's great to get more capacity to the train line, but they'd also need to add more park & ride spaces ,in order to get people out of their cars and on to the trains.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

The suggestion being when they panned the estates. They knowingly built roads that would completely cut off when the came back to build the planned bridge. Makes perfect sense.

It's quite normal to build roads in this manner as it's relatively straightforward to rework roads, whereas it's complex to go down the CPO route to demolish peoples homes. You can see clearly on a map where the reservation is. If you draw the line where the bridge is planned, you can see that the area has been kept free of property development, it's not a coincidence that only North/South aligned gaps in development happen to be across the railway/canal from each other. The only building "in the way" appears to be one on Sheepmore Lane, that appears to have been built before at least 1995.

ongarboy

Polar101 wrote: »

I've only seen the bits about level crossings, but are there any plans for more park & ride spaces? It's great to get more capacity to the train line, but they'd also need to add more park & ride spaces ,in order to get people out of their cars and on to the trains.

Park and Ride car parks only really work in easily accessible uncongested areas with lots of available space such as the M3 Parkway car park and Dunboyne to a lesser extent. I can't see rail commuters driving to any of the stations further in where they will have to endure local car commuter and schools traffic gridlock during peak time rush hours before they even parked and hopped on a train. There's simply no available landbanks that I can picture apart from the undeveloped fields south of both Hansfield and Navan Road Parkway but I think those sites are earmarked for future housing too.

liamog

There's definitely no room around Hansfield. That all comes under the Barnhill Local Area Plan, which is a smaller extension of Hansfield https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/barnhill-local-area-plan.
Navan Road Parkway would probably be a good site, but would need more expensive multi story car parks to be workable.

Talking of reserved roadways and Navan Road Parkway, does anyone know why they built the overpass with such a large gap to one side, I've always wondered what this was potentially intended for.

beauf

liamog wrote: »

It's quite normal to build roads in this manner as it's relatively straightforward to rework roads, whereas it's complex to go down the CPO route to demolish peoples homes. You can see clearly on a map where the reservation is. If you draw the line where the bridge is planned, you can see that the area has been kept free of property development, it's not a coincidence that only North/South aligned gaps in development happen to be across the railway/canal from each other. The only building "in the way" appears to be one on Sheepmore Lane, that appears to have been built before at least 1995.

They left the roads ready place for the future Dr Troy bridge. But not this one. Its just not credible.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

They left the roads ready place for the future Dr Troy bridge. But not this one. Its just not credible.

So to be clear this gap in development on either side of the canal, which is perfectly sized to replace the road that goes other the Coolmine crossing is a coincidence? Presumably caused by developers who just felt like they didn't want to make quite as much money from their sites, but only in these couple of spots?

beauf

Polar101 wrote: »

I've only seen the bits about level crossings, but are there any plans for more park & ride spaces? It's great to get more capacity to the train line, but they'd also need to add more park & ride spaces ,in order to get people out of their cars and on to the trains.

The current park was almost but never quite 100% full even before the lock down. A lot choose to park in Riverwood instead

They could build a park and ride and bridge into Kellystown. Its not even built yet. I thought a new bridge was part of that.

beauf

liamog wrote: »

So to be clear this gap in development on either side of the canal, which is perfectly sized to replace the road that goes other the Coolmine crossing is a coincidence? Presumably caused by developers who just felt like they didn't want to make quite as much money from their sites, but only in these couple of spots?

...

So just be clear. They left this space. But then filled all around it with houses and an estate. Leaving no space for traffic to exit the bridge, or enough room to have a reasonable gradient. This road is covered in ramps because of the traffic rat running through it. So the perfect place to double the volume of traffic passing through it.

beauf

I have no doubt they will force this through in time.

But the only reason they need this bridge, which I assume Dr Troy bridge should have replaced. Was that Dr Troy bridge hasn't been able to take the traffic volumes it attracts. Pretty predictable.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

So just be clear. They left this space. But then filled all around it with houses and an estate. Leaving no space for traffic to exit the bridge, or enough room to have a reasonable gradient. This road is covered in ramps because of the traffic rat running through it. So the perfect place to double the volume of traffic passing through it.

The volume of traffic here shouldn't change, it's essentially a same capacity replacement for the current Coolmine crossing, It's a like for like replacement but with a bridge instead of a level crossing. Which road are you referring to as the rat run, both ends of the proposed bridge are currently cul de sacs, so not sure why they'd be used in such a manner.

I'm not following your logic re the gradient's, did you see the indicative plan's from Irish Rail, it's not the first time they've investigated a crossing here, at one point they even looked at a railway underbridge / lifting canal bridge combo.

Here's the PDF, clearly showing there is room for either end, and the indicative route https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/ac1a6a02-3b1a-43f8-a427-d52ff04c7d26/Coolmine-Overbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

beauf

Building Dr Troy increased the traffic. Building the Porterstown link road increased traffic.

Third times a charm?

I like the way they "planned" it not to be straight.

liamog

What's that a 10 degree kink in the road, hardly earth shattering. I think turns were invented just after the fall of the Romans, so we'll probably manage.
I won't disagree with you that better roads result in increased traffic, but I think given the situation with regard to Coolmine, some kind of replacement is necessary to ensure permeability across the railway, and the route for this bridge seems to be about the only practical option.

What would you do instead, turn the railway into a Belfast style peace line?

beauf

Well if it was planned before before the estates were built they wouldn't have designed a kink in it.
They could have also left space for long exit direct to Carpenterstown road and have it all in place before the estates were built.

There is permeability across the railway. There is Dr Troy and Castleknock road bridge.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

Well if it was planned before before the estates were built they wouldn't have designed a kink in it.
They could have also left space for long exit direct to Carpenterstown road and have it all in place before the estates were built.

There is permeability across the railway. There is Dr Troy and Castleknock road bridge.

That's quite a long gap (around 5km) by road if you remove the Coolmine crossing. The "kink" is a 20m offset, by engineering standards it's basically meaningless, bridges do not have to cross at right angles.

You've not delved into what you would do instead, am I to understand you're preferred option is to cut off vehicular traffic across a 2.5km stretch of railway, that was previously connected at Coolmine?

beauf

Yeah. Don't need it. Walk cycle get the train.

The way to avoid traffic is not be traffic.

liamog

kdevitt wrote: »

Apart from the fact that they're demolishing houses, it sounds like you've literally no idea of the layout of this area if you think house building has been held back on the land which is now going to be used.

It's a single property, from the aerial maps on the OSI site, it looks to have been there before 1995. Which other houses need to be demolished for the proposed bridge?

liamog

beauf wrote: »

Yeah. Don't need it. Walk cycle get the train.

The way to avoid traffic is not be traffic.

The bridge isn't about relieving traffic, it's an alternative crossing to replace the current one at Coolmine. Are your objections to proving an alternative route really more grounded in a anti car position where you believe making residents lives more awkward is what will push them into giving up cars in a very car dependant area of Dublin?

beauf

If traffic isn't the issue, then people can simply use the access at Dr Troy bridge. Is 2.5k too far in a car or something?

beauf

liamog wrote: »

It's a single property, from the aerial maps on the OSI site, it looks to have been there before 1995. Which other houses need to be demolished for the proposed bridge?

Don't need to demolish anything if you build it up in clonsilla into kellystown.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

Don't need to demolish anything if you build it up in clonsilla into kellystown.

The question was in response to the poster who claimed "Apart from the fact that they're demolishing houses, it sounds like you've literally no idea of the layout of this area if you think house building has been held back on the land which is now going to be used."

To address the reduced permeability in Coolmine, your proposal is a bridge in Clonsllla?
A bridge from Clonsilla to Kellystown is also a good idea to increase permeability into Kellystown, far too much of D15 is islanded into estates.

beauf

Dr Troy bridge is the permeability option for closing Clonsilla crossing.
Coolmine is a lot closer. So if its ok for Clonsilla it must be ok for Coolmine.

Unless the issue isn't permeability but volume of traffic. But you said the issue isn't " relieving traffic".

liamog

beauf wrote: »

Dr Troy bridge is the permeability option for closing Clonsilla crossing.
Coolmine is a lot closer. So if its ok for Clonsilla it must be ok for Coolmine.

Unless the issue isn't permeability but volume of traffic. But you said the issue isn't " relieving traffic".

There's a huge distinction between permeability between housing areas on either side of the rail line (Coolmine) and an area that's currently fields (Clonsilla) as you suggested, I agree with the concept of another bridge over the line as the lands at Kellystown are developed.
In fact, it was raised in the local area plan for Kellystown

Prepare a feasibility study on the location of a road bridge, crossing the Royal Canal and the Dublin-Maynooth railway, connecting north to the Ongar road. This location shall be determined in advance of, or part of, the adoption of the Local Area Plan for lands at Kellystown.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/kellystown-issues-paper-draft-local-area-plan/chapter/introduction

Out of interest, what would your thoughts be if a bridge at Coolmine was made public transport only?

lucernarian

D15 suffers from enough permeability issues without introducing another Berlin wall style "solution" a la Snugborough road beside the shopping centre. This is only to sustain existing road capacity, not expand it. Even if this crossing was some magical 2+2 design, it would make no difference as the existing roads all around in all directions can't even bring enough traffic to take advantage of the grade separation using one lane each direction. There's simply no basis in this case to say this will encourage meaningfully more traffic to take this route.

beauf

If you mean a bus I would say it's going to pointlessly stuck in traffic on all roads to and from the bridge.

Its interesting how in a grand plan to improve the train network. All most people are concerned about is how they can keep using their cars.

beauf

lucernarian wrote: »

...There's simply no basis in this case to say this will encourage meaningfully more traffic to take this route.

Except common sense and years of experience, and a bridge right beside it. But yeah if you ignore all that no basis what so ever.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

If you mean a bus I would say it's going to pointlessly stuck in traffic on all roads to and from the bridge.

Its interesting how in a grand plan to improve the train network. All most people are concerned about is how they can keep using their cars.

The two are extremely tied together, the primary blocker to improvement to improving the service in D15 is removal of the level crossings, doing so in a way that creates the least disruption for people who live in D15 should be a goal of the project. Not everybody benefits from the Maynooth line, if you want to artificially increase
the separation between sides of the railway because of an anti car agenda at least be honest about it instead of making claims about lack of planning, bridge gradients, shallow bends, and plans to cut off roads.

lucernarian

beauf wrote: »

If you mean a bus I would say it's going to pointlessly stuck in traffic on all roads to and from the bridge.

Its interesting how in a grand plan to improve the train network. All most people are concerned about is how they can keep using their cars.

This is honestly not the hill, or bridge, to die on for advocating more non-motorised travel in D15. This inherently cannot allow more motor traffic to use the route than is already the case, as you've indirectly implied above. Reducing permeability of any kind, even motor traffic, should be a last resort, and to meaningfully diversify modal share, it is not helpful to use basically NIMBY arguments when the benefits to rail transport, safety, and pedestrians and moreso cyclists all benefit from grade separation.

lucernarian

beauf wrote: »

Except common sense and years of experience, and a bridge right beside it. But yeah if you ignore all that no basis what so ever.

Bridge right beside it... Yeah right. As someone who cycled through Coolmine regularly, that is a disingenuous claim. No one in their right mind would cycle from coolmine to the shopping centre or millennium park via the Luttrelstown bridge.

beauf

lucernarian wrote: »

Bridge right beside it... Yeah right. As someone who cycled through Coolmine regularly, that is a disingenuous claim. No one in their right mind would cycle from coolmine to the shopping centre or millennium park via the Luttrelstown bridge.

Considering there will be a cycle bridge at coolmine, what are you talking about?

Even if there wasn't. It's such a tiny diversion. Especially so on a bicycle where traffic has no effect on your journey time.

beauf

liamog wrote: »

The two are extremely tied together, the primary blocker to improvement to improving the service in D15 is removal of the level crossings, doing so in a way that creates the least disruption for people who live in D15 should be a goal of the project. Not everybody benefits from the Maynooth line, if you want to artificially increase
the separation between sides of the railway because of an anti car agenda at least be honest about it instead of making claims about lack of planning, bridge gradients, shallow bends, and plans to cut off roads.

The vast majority of the traffic crossing at coolmine at peak are heading to the city centre. The train goes to the city center.

Few here are using the train hence the lack of interest in a park and ride or knowledge about parking at the stations. It's very obvious.

Off peak there is no issue using the Dr Troy bridge. A lot people would use it (or Castleknock bridge) to avoid getting caught at the level crossing anyway. Have done for decades.

beauf

lucernarian wrote: »

This is honestly not the hill, or bridge, to die on for advocating more non-motorised travel in D15. This inherently cannot allow more motor traffic to use the route than is already the case, as you've indirectly implied above. Reducing permeability of any kind, even motor traffic, should be a last resort, and to meaningfully diversify modal share, it is not helpful to use basically NIMBY arguments when the benefits to rail transport, safety, and pedestrians and moreso cyclists all benefit from grade separation.

I've not implied it. I've said it will increase traffic and given examples that did the same.

Pedestrians and cyclists will have a bridge at coolmine and porterstown. Their route will be unchanged. What issues of permeability?

This only effects cars, and then only at peak, which is mostly commuter traffic. Since off peak its a negligible division for cars.

beauf

Makes little difference to me. I avoided both Coolmine and Dr Troy at peak for years. I will continue to do so if this bridge is built.