Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Options
1…6768707273…336

Comments

  • Options
    #2072
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    cgcsb wrote: »
    re: platform length, I'd agree 100%
    Re: fewer stops: I disagree, it's one less stop, nothing major, and it's one of the most difficult/expensive stations to build. If I were in Stephen's Green and wanted to travel to Trinners/westmoreland st, I'd either walk or take the luas taking the metro would mean lost of escalators just to go one stop.

    Thats time consuming for commuters coming into town though, making a luas transfer. Also this will make the luas unneccesarily full. Its a messy strategy IMO. A station mid way should be planned even if not initially built, doesn't have to be OCB.

    Either we build a functional metro which takes people where they want to go, or shelve it until we can afford to do it right. A few of the optimised features I agree with such as ballymun surface running, but cutting out the most central station is going too far.


  • Options
    #2073
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,115 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MICKEYG wrote: »
    Why are we going through this whole evaluation process again?
    Was everything not agreed but stopped due to funding issues? My understanding was both DU and MN have very positive cost benefit analysis figures.
    What has changed? Seems to be just an excuse to spend more money on consultants.

    Nearly right. Its an excuse to spend more money on consultants to avoid spending lots of money on actual infrastructure.


  • Options
    #2074
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Thats time consuming for commuters coming into town though, making a luas transfer. Also this will make the luas unneccesarily full. Its a messy strategy IMO. A station mid way should be planned even if not initially built, doesn't have to be OCB.

    Either we build a functional metro which takes people where they want to go, or shelve it until we can afford to do it right. A few of the optimised features I agree with such as ballymun surface running, but cutting out the most central station is going too far.

    It's only time consuming if your destination is College Green or you want to change between metro and DART, i.e. between Tara st and O'Connell Bridge, which is an important interchange so I'd say you have me convinced on that front.


  • Options
    #2075
    xper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭xper


    I presume the Optimised Metro North proposal in the report is the planners' desperate next best attempt having conceeded that the funding for MN Classic will not be forthcoming before they retire.

    Overground in Ballymun I'd have little problem with. The single station on O'Connell St might work provided it had multiple well placed entrances linking to Luas stops as closely as possible. But the suggestion of shortening the platforms would really worry me. I presume that it actually means shorter station boxes in order to achieve the savings, not just the platforms. If so, it would make future expansion a logistical and financial nightmare that would make the decision to initially build the Luas lines unlinked pale in significance. Really short term thinking.


  • Options
    #2076
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    xper wrote: »
    I presume the Optimised Metro North proposal in the report is the planners' desperate next best attempt having conceeded that the funding for MN Classic will not be forthcoming before they retire.

    Overground in Ballymun I'd have little problem with. The single station on O'Connell St might work provided it had multiple well placed entrances linking to Luas stops as closely as possible. But the suggestion of shortening the platforms would really worry me. I presume that it actually means shorter station boxes in order to achieve the savings, not just the platforms. If so, it would make future expansion a logistical and financial nightmare that would make the decision to initially build the Luas lines unlinked pale in significance. Really short term thinking.

    agree 100% no need for tunneling through Ballymun really. Shortening of platforms is painting yourself into a corner. Especially if the line is extended to Rathmines/Terenure and then you'll have plans for spur lines etc. say from Drumcondra to Clongriffen via Beaumont or western parts of Swords, or from Swords to Malahide DART. etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2077
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    cgcsb wrote: »
    agree 100% no need for tunneling through Ballymun really. Shortening of platforms is painting yourself into a corner. Especially if the line is extended to Rathmines/Terenure and then you'll have plans for spur lines etc. say from Drumcondra to Clongriffen via Beaumont or western parts of Swords, or from Swords to Malahide DART. etc.

    If they're not going to run 90m trains then, at the very least, the underground stations should be built to 90m length so that it's future proof.

    Speaking of which, does anyone know if it is intended for underground platforms to be installed with platform doors?


  • Options
    #2078
    Andru93
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭Andru93


    AngryLips wrote: »
    If they're not going to run 90m trains then, at the very least, the underground stations should be built to 90m length so that it's future proof.

    Speaking of which, does anyone know if it is intended for underground platforms to be installed with platform doors?

    From a look at the promotional videos it doesn't seem like they are at the moment pulling platform doors on the underground stations.


  • Options
    #2079
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    AngryLips wrote: »
    If they're not going to run 90m trains then, at the very least, the underground stations should be built to 90m length so that it's future proof.

    Agreed, short platforms under ground are short sighted.
    AngryLips wrote: »
    Speaking of which, does anyone know if it is intended for underground platforms to be installed with platform doors?

    Not initially anyway, put technically no reason why they can't be retrofitted at a later date without any significant disruption or excessive cost. It could take a few suicides to get any interest in them though.


  • Options
    #2080
    NZ_2014
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭NZ_2014


    Build the proper metro, make Dublin a city to attract investment.

    impose a €100 per year in a "metro tax" on two million people for ten years that's two billion in funding.


  • Options
    #2081
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,115 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    NZ_2014 wrote: »
    Build the proper metro, make Dublin a city to attract investment.

    impose a €100 per year in a "metro tax" on two million people for ten years that's two billion in funding.

    But when 3 quid a week for water is an issue.......enough said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2082
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,432 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    NZ_2014 wrote: »
    Build the proper metro, make Dublin a city to attract investment.

    impose a €100 per year in a "metro tax" on two million people for ten years that's two billion in funding.

    Look to the multinations to pay a small amount of the tax they avoided with the 'double-Irish' into the kitty to fund the Metro North and the Dart Undergrond, and if there is any with what is left, the Luas projects.


  • Options
    #2083
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    NZ_2014 wrote: »
    Build the proper metro, make Dublin a city to attract investment.

    impose a €100 per year in a "metro tax" on two million people for ten years that's two billion in funding.

    Even if you build a house close to the Metro now. You have to pay a contribution fee to it, even through its been shelved at the moment.


  • Options
    #2084
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    hfallada wrote: »
    Even if you build a house close to the Metro now. You have to pay a contribution fee to it, even through its been shelved at the moment.

    I wonder how much has been collected? Anyone know?


  • Options
    #2085
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I don't know but it's the same along the Metro West corridor, where development levies also apply. You'd be pretty annoyed in fairness if you'd been forced to contribute a sum of money to project that is anything but certain and look at what's happening now...more reports to decide what to do, but many people will have already paid significant developments and presumably are not particularly happy about that. I posted about this some years back on here...I believe that development levies are fine in principle but there should be a deadline...pay your levy but if the project hasn't been delivered within x years you should get a full refund with interest.


  • Options
    #2086
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    At least the levy for the Green Line extension (to Cherrywood) was actually eventually spent to build the extension.

    I wonder is the cash collected for other projects on a very long finger (Metro West for example) being protected?


  • Options
    #2087
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I wonder how much has been collected? Anyone know?

    I don't know about the total money collected so far but most planning documents on the DCC website will have a MN levy document.

    This is how much DCU is paying for a 3180sq m development: http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00473098.pdf

    Edit: This is probably way off topic for this thread, apologies.


  • Options
    #2088
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    in relation to the DU, will it either go ahead or be delayed or is there a danger of some half assed proposal cheaper proposal being put forward i.e. a luas going out to the airport instead of MN?


  • Options
    #2089
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I think that DU fills a function specific enough that it is relatively immune to significant alteration. It's to increase capacity on the heavy rail network while bringing the line into Heuston onto the network too. The only way it might be watered down is to have a station removed or by changing the route slightly.


  • Options
    #2090
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    in relation to the DU, will it either go ahead or be delayed or is there a danger of some half assed proposal cheaper proposal being put forward i.e. a luas going out to the airport instead of MN?
    I don't think there's any scope for half assed options on DARTu. There isnt really for metro either but I suppose that didn't stop anyone crayoning around built up areas.


  • Options
    #2091
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I would be concerned about attempts to remove the Christchurch stop. It is the only non interchange stop and could be targeted for termination without too much protest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2092
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,857 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I would be concerned about attempts to remove the Christchurch stop. It is the only non interchange stop and could be targeted for termination without too much protest.

    How much would it even save?

    Also would it not be an interchange stop with the proposed Luas F?


  • Options
    #2093
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How much would it even save?

    Also would it not be an interchange stop with the proposed Luas F?

    It wouldn't be the most direct interchange, besides I don't see Lucan Luas being a runner. The end to end journey time for the proposed route would greatly exceed that of existing bus services. Over 55 minutes was the last I heard. While the existing 25a/b/ routes can get you into the quays in under half an hour.


  • Options
    #2094
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Christchurch will underpin the regeneration of the Liberties and old city, which is already underway.

    Hopefully planners realise that leaving out key central stations is ultimately not worth saving a few quid over. That goes for Metro North too.


  • Options
    #2095
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I can't see any of the DU stations being omitted, even Christchurch.


  • Options
    #2096
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,115 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Some talk of levies etc. to contribute towards building stuff.

    In 2005, the T21 launch talked about funds for it being "ringfenced". This was absolute bull****. For years afterwards people innocently asked about the ringfenced funds. They never existed. Navan town got walloped to pay for a railway that was and never will be built. Other areas along proposed infrastructure got the same treatment. The money has disappeared into the great big black hole that is local Government. Long since spent on other stuff.

    Nothing has been ringfenced and I very much doubt any local authority has levy money stashed away for any transport project.


  • Options
    #2097
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Some talk of levies etc. to contribute towards building stuff.

    In 2005, the T21 launch talked about funds for it being "ringfenced". This was absolute bull****. For years afterwards people innocently asked about the ringfenced funds. They never existed. Navan town got walloped to pay for a railway that was and never will be built. Other areas along proposed infrastructure got the same treatment. The money has disappeared into the great big black hole that is local Government. Long since spent on other stuff.

    Nothing has been ringfenced and I very much doubt any local authority has levy money stashed away for any transport project.

    The levy money has to be paid back if the projects do not proceed. Councils may be able to keep the interest, but the levy money cannot be sunk into the black hole -- it must be repaid or used.


  • Options
    #2098
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,552 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    monument wrote: »
    The levy money has to be paid back if the projects do not proceed. Councils may be able to keep the interest, but the levy money cannot be sunk into the black hole -- it must be repaid or used.

    Galway was made pay back a levy for a Barna by-pass that was never completed.


  • Options
    #2099
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Does DCC currently have a DU levy? I thought it was just MN and Luas Docklands.


  • Options
    #2100
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Aard wrote: »
    Does DCC currently have a DU levy? I thought it was just MN and Luas Docklands.
    MW has one for sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2101
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,115 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    monument wrote: »
    The levy money has to be paid back if the projects do not proceed. Councils may be able to keep the interest, but the levy money cannot be sunk into the black hole -- it must be repaid or used.

    Believe it when I see it so we can agree to disagree.


Advertisement