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 Underground - Alternative Routes

1246717

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Donvito and Alias, you may both very well be right.

    There was, of course, considerable trimming of front gardens for construction of the early stages of the Stillorgan dual carriageway, between Nutley and Belfield. For example.

    However it happens, one basic point being made here is that if the metro north is built, it is almost certainly going to be extended to the south of St. Stephen's Green. How that happens we don't know, but we can pretty much take it that it will be extended.

    For the reason mentioned in my post on the previous page, I think it would be a very significant error if it were to be extended along the current green line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    This is going way off topic, but let's be honest there is NO space between Dublin city centre and Rathfarnham for on-street LUAS, or overground metro.

    In fact I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of BRT on the proposed Rathfarnham route due to the width restrictions of the roads en route. There are far too many locations where road space is insufficient to allow for even one bus lane let alone two.

    If Metro North were ever to be extended southwards, the obvious option would be south through Rathmines, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Templeogue and Firhouse given the severe traffic in those areas rather than joining with the existing green line.

    Any such metro line would have to run underground until it reached either Rathfarnham or Templeogue. There is nowhere for it to run overground before then, full stop. Anyone who thinks there is, is frankly in la-la land.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Branching is the way forward to maximise these tunnel projects long term. Single corridors outside the core are actually a waste of capacity.

    The Dublin Metro could feasibly split in two on both sides of the city, if we could ever get the funding for it.

    The Dart Underground likewise would open up that possibility on the Kildare line.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    On that point, wasn't there a poster previously why was very animated about turning Metro West into mainline DART, as a branch off KRP to feed the DART Underground tunnel section?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    On that point, wasn't there a poster previously why was very animated about turning Metro West into mainline DART, as a branch off KRP to feed the DART Underground tunnel section?

    Don't know, but for me that would make more sense than a circuitous luas-max meandering slowly around the city.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Where the hell do you propose a Metro go overground to reach Terenure, Rathgar Rd and Terenure Rd East?

    This is more ill thought out crayola nonsense.

    I'm not saying it would have to go overground along there, and if the money is available - as it might be after the much more expensive interconnector and initial metro phase are built - it could make sense to build this section underground.

    But we are looking at a very optimistic 5-6 years for those major initial projects to be built. So around 10 years before the metro is extended south to these locations. In all probability a world of difference in terms of driverless cars, sharing cars by calling them up on demand, etc.

    Firstly, the bus lanes on Rathgar Road and Terenure Road East. You wouldn't eventually need to have those on the route to and from town, because you would have a metro instead. Google Earth can also show you the size of those front gardens on those roads. Several of them have 5 or more cars parked there. Obviously these are buildings which are divided into flats, and the different dwellers need to get to different places, and the relatively poor public transport in that area (I stress, relative to other, developed European cities, not other areas of Dublin) currently necessitates all these cars.

    With a metro on the route, leading into a developing transport network, plus the inevitable development of on-demand cars, those "gardens" (mostly car parks) won't need to be so big.

    It may be that when the time comes there could be considerable shaving of those gardens, in order to build an overground metro line. Probably not a heavy duty metro, if it's partly overground, but something which could provide a very decent service to areas along its route, even if it has to share some road space along its route.

    It may also not be the case that this happens. It may be that it will have to go underground, for example if the compulsory purchase of sections of those "gardens" is more expensive than a simple cut-and-cover operation, or if it would make more sense to build underground through the junctions at Rathgar and Terenure.

    But, we know that the Dublin City Council area has a population density which is around that of Munich's. It's not "crayola nonsense" to suggest that areas like Terenure, Rathgar and Walkinstown - areas which have comparable density to suburbs of Munich or other developed cities - will be served by a metro in the future. And it's not "crayola nonsense" to discuss how this might happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    But, we know that the Dublin City Council area has a population density which is around that of Munich's. It's not "crayola nonsense" to suggest that areas like Terenure, Rathgar and Walkinstown - areas which have comparable density to suburbs of Munich or other developed cities - will be served by a metro in the future. And it's not "crayola nonsense" to discuss how this might happen.

    An overground Metro that dips under Rathgar and Terenure is a ridiculous solution to the problem you've raised. If Dublin has a similar population density to Munich then, why not doo it like Munich's and build, ya know, an underground Metro and avoid all these shenanigans?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    donvito99 wrote: »
    An overground Metro that dips under Rathgar and Terenure is a ridiculous solution to the problem you've raised. If Dublin has a similar population density to Munich then, why not doo it like Munich's and build, ya know, an underground Metro and avoid all these shenanigans?

    I don't recall suggesting that it would dip under Rathgar and Terenure.

    But certainly if the money is there, as it indeed might be after the big-ticket projects through the city are built, build it underground, like in Munich.

    I'd like to see these things come out of the ground as quickly as possible. I think this generally makes for a more enjoyable journey for the passenger. But if it makes more sense for it to go underground, and if the money is eventually there, I certainly wouldn't be opposed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Jack Noble wrote: »
    I will over the next few days. Just got new laptop and don't have photoshop yet. Should have it soon and will sort images then.

    No sign yet of any of this. Those photoshop deliverers are a bugger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    I understand this has now also become the thread where one should post questions about the reasons for the St. Stephen's Green route.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I can see that a number of people are quite touchy when it comes to explaining why the country should pay for a looping route via St. Stephen's Green.

    Its been pretty comprehensively shown here that you have zero proof that SSG is any dearer than your (unbuildable, but lets suspend reality for a second - again) crayon route - your constant reversion to previously dealt with points really shows how contentless your argument is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its been pretty comprehensively shown here that you have zero proof that SSG is any dearer than your (unbuildable, but lets suspend reality for a second - again) crayon route - your constant reversion to previously dealt with points really shows how contentless your argument is.

    No, let's not suspend reality.

    We are, after all, dealing with a real project which Dublin could greatly benefit from.

    The project, as planned, will be built under two buildings of national importance, viz Dublin Castle and Government Buildings on Merrion Street.

    The project which is currently being discussed on this thread - and there may be others which emerge - is to build it via College Green. Going under just one building of national importance. And shorter.

    Not to mention the fact that it would directly serve more people.

    I am not in a position to produce exact costs. I would welcome a summary of the costs involved with all the routes which were examined.

    Obviously this will be difficult, as the public consultations only ever involved three routes going via St. Stephen's Green. Because the LUAS was there.

    But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

    One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

    One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.
    You would, but that's only because you either don't understand or choose not to understand that geology plays the biggest role in tunnel building.

    Tunnel length is not necessarily proportional to cost and it is certainly not linearly proportional to cost!

    Simple example for you:
    A 1km tunnel through solid granite WILL cost MUCH more than a 2km through (for example) clay. The TBM will cut through the clay like butter with barely any need to stop to exchange cutter heads. The same TBM will stop several times in the granite for this and will take much longer. The cost of the TBM and manpower will far outstrip the extra costs in fitting out a longer tunnel.

    You haven't mentioned geology in any of your posts, so I assume you basically have no clue as to what's down there at the depths we need to consider, so your entire argument is built on sand, pun intended.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    murphaph wrote: »
    You would, but that's only because you either don't understand or choose not to understand that geology plays the biggest role in tunnel building.

    Tunnel length is not necessarily proportional to cost and it is certainly not linearly proportional to cost!

    Simple example for you:
    A 1km tunnel through solid granite WILL cost MUCH more than a 2km through (for example) clay. The TBM will cut through the clay like butter with barely any need to stop to exchange cutter heads. The same TBM will stop several times in the granite for this and will take much longer. The cost of the TBM and manpower will far outstrip the extra costs in fitting out a longer tunnel.

    You haven't mentioned geology in any of your posts, so I assume you basically have no clue as to what's down there at the depths we need to consider, so your entire argument is built on sand, pun intended.

    A very good and informative post, Murphaph.

    Indeed I haven't mentioned geology in any of my posts. But in all our discussions, neither has anyone else. It has never been produced as a reason for not building via College Green.

    You are entirely right, I certainly have no clue what material lies beneath College Green or St. Stephen's Green. But I think if the geology in those areas were a factor, this would have already been mentioned. And it hasn't.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    No, let's not suspend reality.

    We are, after all, dealing with a real project which Dublin could greatly benefit from.

    The project, as planned, will be built under two buildings of national importance, viz Dublin Castle and Government Buildings on Merrion Street.

    The project which is currently being discussed on this thread - and there may be others which emerge - is to build it via College Green. Going under just one building of national importance. And shorter.

    Not to mention the fact that it would directly serve more people.

    I am not in a position to produce exact costs. I would welcome a summary of the costs involved with all the routes which were examined.

    Obviously this will be difficult, as the public consultations only ever involved three routes going via St. Stephen's Green. Because the LUAS was there.

    But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

    One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.

    Once again - the curves required for your crayon route are not possible.

    We know well you're not in a position to produce exact costs - as every attempt you've made so far has been laughable. But for some reason that hasn't stopped you repeatedly asserting that SSG is an exact amount dearer, for some reason.

    As for the "buildings of national importance" diversion you've only recently latched on to - that was shown to be a red herring too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    L1011 wrote: »
    Once again - the curves required for your crayon route are not possible.

    On the currently proposed route, via St. Stephen's Green, there are two notable curves:a major one between St. Stephen's Green and Pearse Station, and a smaller one between Pearse Station and Pearse Street, heading towards Spencer Dock.

    Any route between Heuston and Spencer Dock via College Green would require only one major curve, ie the bit between Pearse Station and Spencer Dock.

    It's very hard to see that the curve involved with the College Green route being discussed on this thread would be more difficult than any of the curves involved on a route via St. Stephen's Green.
    L1011 wrote: »
    We know well you're not in a position to produce exact costs - as every attempt you've made so far has been laughable. But for some reason that hasn't stopped you repeatedly asserting that SSG is an exact amount dearer, for some reason.

    Of course I'm not in a position to produce exact costs. But when I first visited this website, back in 2004-2005, the lobby group Platform 11 were on here almost every hour, quoting a figure of 1.2 billion for the interconnector. These were informed people who the Government at the time invited to make submissions for future transport projects. Now, apparently, it's 2 billion for the interconnector.

    That's 800 million extra in around a decade.

    I can understand that you poo-poo my attempts at costing this project. They are indeed feeble.

    But in the light of what we've seen on this project, from people whose main job it is to cost these projects, are they laughable?
    L1011 wrote: »
    As for the "buildings of national importance" diversion you've only recently latched on to - that was shown to be a red herring too.

    As I understand it, the major blockage for any route via College Green is the north side of Trinity. If you want to build a direct route between Christchurch and Spencer Dock, you have to build under one building of very significant national importance.

    If you want to build an indirect route, via St. Stephen's Green, you have to build under two buildings of significant national importance: Dublin Castle and Government Buildings.

    It's not a choice I'd like in my inbox, but if this project is to be built, it's one which it seems will have to be made.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    On the currently proposed route, via St. Stephen's Green, there are two notable curves:a major one between St. Stephen's Green and Pearse Station, and a smaller one between Pearse Station and Pearse Street, heading towards Spencer Dock.

    Any route between Heuston and Spencer Dock via College Green would require only one major curve, ie the bit between Pearse Station and Spencer Dock.

    It's very hard to see that the curve involved with the College Green route being discussed on this thread would be more difficult than any of the curves involved on a route via St. Stephen's Green.

    On your crayon-scratchings, its too tight to be navigable. The number of curves isn't the issue.
    Of course I'm not in a position to produce exact costs. But when I first visited this website, back in 2004-2005, the lobby group Platform 11 were on here almost every hour, quoting a figure of 1.2 billion for the interconnector. These were informed people who the Government at the time invited to make submissions for future transport projects. Now, apparently, it's 2 billion for the interconnector.

    That's 800 million extra in around a decade.

    Whats the relevance of this?
    I can understand that you poo-poo my attempts at costing this project. They are indeed feeble.

    But in the light of what we've seen on this project, from people whose main job it is to cost these projects, are they laughable?

    Have you not heard of inflation?

    Additionally, I believe you are (again!) deliberately "confusing" the costs of the tunnel with the costs of the entire scheme - including rolling stock, etc. You were corrected for doing this when trying to use it for a fantastical cost-per-KM of tunneling, many pages of circular arguments ago.
    As I understand it, the major blockage for any route via College Green is the north side of Trinity. If you want to build a direct route between Christchurch and Spencer Dock, you have to build under one building of very significant national importance.

    If you want to build an indirect route, via St. Stephen's Green, you have to build under two buildings of significant national importance: Dublin Castle and Government Buildings.

    It's not a choice I'd like in my inbox, but if this project is to be built, it's one which it seems will have to be made.

    There is zero relevance to how many "buildings of national importance" you tunnel under - none at all. Another pointless discretionary chord to your argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    The current route is fine, it's one of the few times a state agency has actually gotten something right. Though personally I'm somewhat concerned about all these different projects not being centrally coordinated and run by one body. DART is run by Irish Rail, Metro North and Luas by the RPA. Time to sort it out, create a central Dublin Transit Authority and place ALL public transportation (DB, Luas, DART, Dublin Bikes, and BRT/Swiftway) under its remit.

    DARTu and Metro North should be amalgamated into a single Dublin Metro, with current DART lines being gradually moved underground, freeing up existing overland lines for IE overland commuter and intercity services. Though that would obviously be a long term, decades long project.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Ren, remember this is the 'Alternative Routes' thread.

    You're saying that the St. Stephen's Green route is fine. But that belongs in the 'DART Underground' thread.

    I've no doubt there'll be a moderator on your case shortly, for posting in the wrong thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Ren, remember this is the 'Alternative Routes' thread.

    You're saying that the St. Stephen's Green route is fine. But that belongs in the 'DART Underground' thread.

    I've no doubt there'll be a moderator on your case shortly, for posting in the wrong thread.

    I understand perfectly what thread this is. And I mentioned I'd like to see the lines moved underground. See, an alternative "route", of sorts. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Dear oh dear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Murphaph, with regard to your earlier very good post, I want to make it clear that I don't understand the geology involved here. Which person on this board does?

    It's also not that I choose not to understand the geology. I certainly would never go against insurmountable or irrefutable geological evidence. If such geology was available, it would have been produced, and in almost a decade it hasn't been.

    I think we can thus discount geological factors here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    I guess we will have to wait until the LUAS link-up opens.

    Then we will see which is the busiest stop. That is, where demand is greatest.

    I expect it to be the Westmoreland Street stop.

    On a north-south line, going through both St. Stephen's Green and College Green.

    Why should the East-West demand be any different?

    We shall see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,260 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    Murphaph, with regard to your earlier very good post, I want to make it clear that I don't understand the geology involved here. Which person on this board does?

    It's also not that I choose not to understand the geology. I certainly would never go against insurmountable or irrefutable geological evidence. If such geology was available, it would have been produced, and in almost a decade it hasn't been.

    I think we can thus discount geological factors here.

    To be honest we can discount just about everything. The most important thing is that the bloody thing is built, a route has been selected, get over it.
    You as the proposer of change must make a convincing argument for change, to date you have singularly failed to convince a single person.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    alias no.9 wrote: »
    To be honest we can discount just about everything. The most important thing is that the bloody thing is built, a route has been selected, get over it.
    You as the proposer of charge must make a convincing argument for change, to date you have singularly failed to convince a single person.

    Quite. The whole thing is ready to go, just dependent on funding from the government. To start messing around with route changes now would likely delay this critical piece of infrastructure by about 10 years, if not more. The designs are complete, engineers have signed off on the plans, as has ABP. Let's get moving already! :cool:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

    The likely scenario is that, in relation to this project, those planners will be sitting on their asses for the next few years. (They will of course be busy doing other stuff). But they could be put to work on a redesign of the city centre bit for a year or two. The project isn't going to happen until we see how the whole loop line resignalling project works, to assess how that affects demand.

    Going by their record on this project, you'd think ABP could be brought on board pretty easily with any change the government chooses to make.

    So there's plenty of time before it happens.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I always assumed much of detailed design work was actually tendered out or the positions were on a contract basis with IE. I doubt even IE have an army of salaried engineers hanging around waiting to design such a large project all in-house. I stand to be corrected on that if anyone knows better.

    In any case, most people (here at least) actually believe the route via Stephen's Green actually makes most sense. You are in a distinct minority on this remember.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

    The likely scenario is that, in relation to this project, those planners will be sitting on their asses for the next few years. (They will of course be busy doing other stuff). But they could be put to work on a redesign of the city centre bit for a year or two. The project isn't going to happen until we see how the whole loop line resignalling project works, to assess how that affects demand.

    Going by their record on this project, you'd think ABP could be brought on board pretty easily with any change the government chooses to make.

    So there's plenty of time before it happens.

    Why would they bother doing any of this work when there hasn't been a single coherent argument to change it in the first place?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

    The likely scenario is that, in relation to this project, those planners will be sitting on their asses for the next few years. (They will of course be busy doing other stuff). But they could be put to work on a redesign of the city centre bit for a year or two. The project isn't going to happen until we see how the whole loop line resignalling project works, to assess how that affects demand.

    Going by their record on this project, you'd think ABP could be brought on board pretty easily with any change the government chooses to make.

    So there's plenty of time before it happens.

    It would be quite difficult to make changes at this stage. We're not merely talking about architects and planners getting out AutoCAD and plotting a few new lines, there would have to be completely new studies done involving consultants and designers physically going out to new locations in Dublin, taking readings, doing geological survey's etc....

    THEN once the revised plans have been completed, the whole thing would have to go through the public planning process (public consultations, endless meetings with residents groups, CPO process) before ABP makes a ruling. It would be a) costly and b) time consuming. The route is NOT going to change, thankfully.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,260 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

    Yes, yes it would, it would be akin to starting again, from scratch.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement