Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

I told ya

I've lived in the area for almost 30 years now and use Coolmine station regularly.

I can't remember the exact sequence of building in the area of the LC but I wrote to the Council at the times of the various planning applications and asked them to leave sufficient space around the LC. I think I described it as a critical infrastructure choke point and provision needed to be made for a bridge crossing. Of course nothing came of it.

This goes on all over the place. Off topic i know, but look at the M50/N3 junction. Build a junction that clearly won't work, then given planning permission to build all around it eg Total Fitness, Travellodge, various housing developments. Then when you come to rework the junction..........

The policy was and still is, give planning permission, collect the planning levies and get the 20% social housing.

And I don't blame IR in this matter. IR had no say in what got built over the years. A classic case of deflection. There is no way IR get to spent €2.6Bn without it being approved by gov. The fault lies with the Co Co, Bord Planala, Dept of Finance. All staffed by false economy disciples.

People need to direct their anger and opposition at the real culprits. (And neither have I or any of my family any connection with IR)

On a personal level I have every sympathy for the people in RW and on the other side of the rail/canal. I would not want a busy bridge outside my house.

riddlinrussell

Seve OB wrote: »

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

I am aware your preference is for the LC to remain open, given that it would not be possible without basically invalidating the aimed for throughput of trains, I didn't include it in the choices I offered.

In a world where the Level crossing is going to be closed no matter what, would you want it:

A) Closed, both sides full cul de sac, no bridge at all

Closed, Ped and Cycle bridge over canal and railway

C) Closed, Ped and Cycle bridge over canal and railway, road bridge through riverwood (As a road bridge at the crossing has been looked at and proved to be impossible)

Seve OB

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

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.

Don't need to look at the map, I live in the area and know the roads very well

So it is not a direct link as you previously claimed, it goes Via another road.

Seve OB

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I am aware your preference is for the LC to remain open, given that it would not be possible without basically invalidating the aimed for throughput of trains, I didn't include it in the choices I offered.

In a world where the Level crossing is going to be closed no matter what, would you want it:

A) Closed, both sides full cul de sac, no bridge at all

Closed, Ped and Cycle bridge over canal and railway

C) Closed, Ped and Cycle bridge over canal and railway, road bridge through riverwood (As a road bridge at the crossing has been looked at and proved to be impossible)

Ever see a movie called Brewsters Millions?

None of the Above


But if I had to choose one...... just leave the gates down and we will find our own way around

riddlinrussell

Seve OB wrote: »

Ever see a movie called Brewsters Millions?

None of the Above


But if I had to choose one...... just leave the gates down and we will find our own way around

The reason I am so insistent is I cant see any arguments about keeping the LC open being a go-er, the desired train throughput, and considerable expense to achieve it, would not be possible with an open LC, if all other level crossings on the line are closed its very hard to justify keeping one open, and would open the door for those in less opposed areas to ask for theirs to be kept open too.

My personal view is that the riverwood bridge should be dropped, close the LC and just put in the cycling/ped bridge, and make the surrounding area more cycleable/walkable.


EDIT:

Just saw an Irishcycle article raising several issues with provision at the level crossings. I have to say, underpasses would be a great alternative to long ramped bridges, I'm sure there would be plenty of 'anti-social behaviour!' opposition to them however.

https://irishcycle.com/2020/10/21/dart-project-highly-welcomed-but-level-crossing-treatments-need-rethink/

beauf

I told ya wrote: »

I've lived in the area for almost 30 years now and use Coolmine station regularly.

I can't remember the exact sequence of building in the area of the LC but I wrote to the Council at the times of the various planning applications and asked them to leave sufficient space around the LC. I think I described it as a critical infrastructure choke point and provision needed to be made for a bridge crossing. Of course nothing came of it.

This goes on all over the place. Off topic i know, but look at the M50/N3 junction. Build a junction that clearly won't work, then given planning permission to build all around it eg Total Fitness, Travellodge, various housing developments. Then when you come to rework the junction..........

The policy was and still is, give planning permission, collect the planning levies and get the 20% social housing.

And I don't blame IR in this matter. IR had no say in what got built over the years. A classic case of deflection. There is no way IR get to spent €2.6Bn without it being approved by gov. The fault lies with the Co Co, Bord Planala, Dept of Finance. All staffed by false economy disciples.

People need to direct their anger and opposition at the real culprits. (And neither have I or any of my family any connection with IR)

On a personal level I have every sympathy for the people in RW and on the other side of the rail/canal. I would not want a busy bridge outside my house.

Agreed. These crossings have been a bottleneck since before all these estates were built and coolmine road to community schools was still open as a road. They created all these misaligned junctions and bottlenecks.

Sam Russell

beauf wrote: »

Agreed. These crossings have been a bottleneck since before all these estates were built and coolmine road to community schools was still open as a road. They created all these misaligned junctions and bottlenecks.

That was considered good design in the seventies and eighties. No cross roads which could cause accidents, no pedestrian permeability to stop nasty strangers and also because people would drive everywhere. Isn't that 'modern living' of the time.

Fiddle Castro

Seve OB wrote: »

Don't need to look at the map, I live in the area and know the roads very well

So it is not a direct link as you previously claimed, it goes Via another road.

Directly means without changing direction. The proposed road would run directly from one distributor road to the other and clearly offers an improved traffic flow.

beauf

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was considered good design in the seventies and eighties. No cross roads which could cause accidents, no pedestrian permeability to stop nasty strangers and also because people would drive everywhere. Isn't that 'modern living' of the time.

I don't think that was the reason they never leave space. They also built crossroad and stuff. So they weren't avoiding those features. They just never built expansion or future planning in what they do.

They are still doing it. Building into already congested areas, without improving the infrastructure first.

beauf

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

Directly means without changing direction. The proposed road would run directly from one distributor road to the other and clearly offers an improved traffic flow.

Well it will get to the next bottleneck quicker.

liamog

Seve OB wrote: »

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.

Going back to my question, if they have to build a bridge at Riverwood. What possible mitigation measures can be implemented to improve the proposal. Upgrading the level crossing was not in the question.

Fiddle Castro

beauf wrote: »

Well it will get to the next bottleneck quicker.

Insightful response as usual.

Seve OB

liamog wrote: »

Going back to my question, if they have to build a bridge at Riverwood. What possible mitigation measures can be implemented to improve the proposal. Upgrading the level crossing was not in the question.

they don't have to build anything.

You know what they should have done though is instead of those very basic maps they should have produced some decent 3D imagery so that we can get a better idea of how this will all look and change the landscape.

maybe then I would be better placed to comment on possible mitigation measures

Victor

Seve OB wrote: »

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.

It's not just about you. It's about everyone else as well.

Level crossings are a hazard to safety, hurt punctuality, mean fewer and slower services and have higher ongoing costs.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Just saw an Irishcycle article raising several issues with provision at the level crossings. I have to say, underpasses would be a great alternative to long ramped bridges, I'm sure there would be plenty of 'anti-social behaviour!' opposition to them however.

Underpasses aren't practical everywhere, especially where the canal is substantially below the railway, as you need to maintain both draught and air draught for the canal.

liamog wrote: »

Going back to my question, if they have to build a bridge at Riverwood. What possible mitigation measures can be implemented to improve the proposal.

There are various things that could be done:
* Screen the bridge to minimise noise and intrusion.
* Use retaining walls instead of an embankment to maximise space at the existing ground level.
* Green those retaining walls.
* Provide alternative green space, e.g. using the field at the rear of Stationcourt Park.
* Provide enhancements to that green space - a playground, multi-use games area, allotments, etc.

beauf

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

Insightful response as usual.

Traffic doesn't work in isolation. It could be the slow throughput at Coolmine keeps the volume sustainable at the next junction downstream. Increase the throughput and it could overload the next junction.

Its why they Synchronize Traffic lights.

liamog

In my feedback submission I brought up two areas the lack of joined up thinking between the Clonsilla LC changes and the Kellystown LAP, and for the Coolmine Crossing I welcomed the overall option, but included feedback re the need for artists impressions and the works of the retaining wall as it pertains to planting to screen off the area and improve the visual acuity for residents in immediate vicinity. I didn't think of the replacement green space. I also suggested a review of the junction with Clonsilla Road to account for the change in traffic patterns.

D15er

Victor wrote: »

There are various things that could be done:
* Screen the bridge to minimise noise and intrusion.
* Use retaining walls instead of an embankment to maximise space at the existing ground level.
* Green those retaining walls.
* Provide alternative green space, e.g. using the field at the rear of Stationcourt Park.
* Provide enhancements to that green space - a playground, multi-use games area, allotments, etc.

I think the plan is for retaining walls?

The field behind Stationcourt isn't that big. Certainly not large enough for multi use sports or allotments. It's also private property so IE can't do anything with it.

Victor

D15er wrote: »

IE can't do anything with it.

They could buy it.

Sam Russell

beauf wrote: »

I don't think that was the reason they never leave space. They also built crossroad and stuff. So they weren't avoiding those features. They just never built expansion or future planning in what they do.

They are still doing it. Building into already congested areas, without improving the infrastructure first.

The planning is proposed by the developer/builder and not by the local authority planning dept. Now they have zoning but that did not exist in the 70s.

Builders/developers want more houses per acre to maximise profits, and open space is the minimum they can get away with.

Sam Russell

Victor wrote: »

They could buy it.

The local authority parks dept. would be responsible, not CIE.

D15er

Victor wrote: »

They could buy it.

To what end?

They're going to buy a piece of land that belongs to the residents of Stationcourt, to provide space for... the residents of Stationcourt??

I'm not sure you've worked out all the kinks in this plan

beauf

Sam Russell wrote: »

The planning is proposed by the developer/builder and not by the local authority planning dept. Now they have zoning but that did not exist in the 70s.

Builders/developers want more houses per acre to maximise profits, and open space is the minimum they can get away with.

I don't know why you keep referring to the 70's. They are still doing it today,. they did in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Look at St Patricks NS. When built it lots of space around it to leave a playing/sports field. Pretty much built right to the school door on every side. Almost no consideration for the traffic that it draws to it and requires parking. They keep repeating this over and over again.

But I guess if thats what society wants, that what it getts.

Sam Russell

beauf wrote: »

I don't know why you keep referring to the 70's. They are still doing it today,. they did in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Look at St Patricks NS. When built it lots of space around it to leave a playing/sports field. Pretty much built right to the school door on every side. Almost no consideration for the traffic that it draws to it and requires parking. They keep repeating this over and over again.

But I guess if thats what society wants, that what it getts.

I mean from the 70s on. That was when the social housing build by local authorities stopped. As you say, builders still propose whatever they consider the best to maximise their profits, but zoning has come in which does cause some input by the local planning authority.

What society wants is decent housing at an affordable cost. The Gov has yet to cop onto this, particularly with regard to affordable/ social housing.

beauf

I think your starting down an entirely different conversation. Perhaps more than one. While interesting isn't really on topic here. So I'll bug out.

Sam Russell

beauf wrote: »

I think your starting down an entirely different conversation. Perhaps more than one. While interesting isn't really on topic here. So I'll bug out.

Sorry, this thread is drifting off topic so I'll try to get it back.

The level crossing must be closed to allow adequate train frequency and safety so the question reverts back to what exactly the locals want, and how much of that can be provided.

The bridge proposal would appear to be OK, with a foot/cycle bridge at the LC itself. Those who are very local might like a different result, but their only real choice is - bridge or no bridge.

Seve OB

Sam Russell wrote: »

their only real choice is - bridge or no bridge.

No bridge so thanks

BonnieSituation

Seve OB wrote: »

No bridge so thanks

Enjoy the the Coolmine carpark.

The shortsightedness on show here is breathtaking.

beauf

Sam Russell wrote: »

...
The level crossing must be closed to allow adequate train frequency ....

This is like the strawman used to justify the children's hospital location at the Mater and then at James. End result the worlds most expensive hospital for a tiny country.

Ok make building the bridge a prerequisite for closing the crossing. By doing so you make any objection to the bridge also block the crossing. By implication pandering to car users who don't use the train are then blocking the train.

Should end well. I'm glad I can avoid using either.

BonnieSituation

beauf wrote: »

This is like the strawman used to justify the children's hospital location at the Mater and then at James. End result the worlds most expensive hospital for a tiny country.

Ok make building the bridge a prerequisite for closing the crossing. By doing so you make any objection to the bridge also block the crossing. By implication pandering to car users who don't use the train are then blocking the train.

Should end well. I'm glad I can avoid using either.

You keep this "pandering to the car user" nonsense going.

It's bizarre.

Seve OB

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.

Do you know what, I was just around at the station waiting on trains to pass and again on my return journey.
I find it very hard to believe that they explored that option properly.

There is loads of room there to build a bridge. I can’t see more than a couple of properties on the coolmine side which would be affected. The canal bridge wouldn’t have to be touched. Active bridge could very easily be built as I said above over the station platforms and come down along the canal.