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

Options
24567…17

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Chun the Unavoidable
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭Chun the Unavoidable


    would want to be one hell of a bomb when you think of the re-inforcement needed to surround a tunnel, the amount of earth between the tunnel and the ground, the weight and strength of the foundations of the buildings and the undoubted strength of the rooms/buildings themselves.

    and anyway, what of someone wants to blow up a building in the college green area?

    I think we should scrap all such underground things, and indeed close the DPT in case someone wants to blow up fairvew park.


  • Options
    #33
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MYOB wrote: »
    The problems which only exist in your mind.

    MYOB. It's Friday. If you've nothing else on tomorrow, try and find a cafe near the junction of Earlsfort Terrace and Leeson Street - ie if there's one open - and report back about the numbers of people walking past or entering this cafe. This should give you an idea of the numbers visiting that side of the proposed line at the weekend.

    It's also worth looking at the southside of the St. Stephen's Green area on a weekday. After 0930, maybe 1000, the place dies a death. It livens up again around lunch, when the office workers come out for a sambo, but they're not using public transport to do that, and practically nobody is using public transport to get there for that or any other reason.

    Between about 1600 and 1900 it is busy, with people trying to get home. After that, there is effectively nothing.

    You have enormous numbers of hours in the week when the area on the southside of the proposed line generates effectively no passengers.

    Then, if you have a chance, MYOB, compare this with the constant flow of people into, across and around College Green.

    This is not just in my head. It's obvious for all to see if they take the time to compare the two locations and the efficiency of uptake from their respective catchment areas.

    The interconnector links rail lines on both sides of the city, and I hope that Dublin will eventually have this backbone around which to develop a comprehensive rail network on a par with cities of a comparable size in Europe. It's not a short-term solution.


  • Options
    #34
    Avada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭Avada


    Or, how about checking out the constant flow of people on the North side of Stephens Green, Grafton Street, The shopping centre, the Gaiety, The Green line Luas going to Dundrum and all along that line and the soon to be in existence BXD. Hardly quiet.


  • Options
    #35
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Random_Name wrote: »
    Or, how about checking out the constant flow of people on the North side of Stephens Green, Grafton Street, The shopping centre, the Gaiety, The Green line Luas going to Dundrum and all along that line and the soon to be in existence BXD. Hardly quiet.

    Yes, very busy. Nicely catered for by an interconnector station at College Green and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green.


  • Options
    #36
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MYOB wrote: »
    You are aware that GPS doesn't work underground, right?

    I wasn't. I've no idea how the GPS stuff works.

    And is that going to be the same for the next, say, 100 years?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Chun the Unavoidable wrote: »
    would want to be one hell of a bomb when you think of the re-inforcement needed to surround a tunnel, the amount of earth between the tunnel and the ground, the weight and strength of the foundations of the buildings and the undoubted strength of the rooms/buildings themselves.

    and anyway, what of someone wants to blow up a building in the college green area?

    I think we should scrap all such underground things, and indeed close the DPT in case someone wants to blow up fairvew park.

    I think it would want to be big to inflict havoc, as mentioned on this thread by the poster Jack Noble, even though I never said it.

    It would want to be big to cause casualties outside the train, but it wouldn't need to be very big for people above the route to be seriously discommoded, which I did say.

    Why would anyone want to attempt to blow up a bank teller, even a bank manager, or somebody working in the front part of TCD, like a cashier at the students' union office or even a professor? What would be the point of any of that?

    You can't legislate for everything, and we've seen other cities which have built effective underground lines and networks. There just aren't that many, that I can find, which go directly under such sensitive buildings.


  • Options
    #38
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    MYOB. It's Friday. If you've nothing else on tomorrow, try and find a cafe near the junction of Earlsfort Terrace and Leeson Street - ie if there's one open - and report back about the numbers of people walking past or entering this cafe. This should give you an idea of the numbers visiting that side of the proposed line at the weekend.

    It's also worth looking at the southside of the St. Stephen's Green area on a weekday. After 0930, maybe 1000, the place dies a death. It livens up again around lunch, when the office workers come out for a sambo, but they're not using public transport to do that, and practically nobody is using public transport to get there for that or any other reason.

    Between about 1600 and 1900 it is busy, with people trying to get home. After that, there is effectively nothing.

    You have enormous numbers of hours in the week when the area on the southside of the proposed line generates effectively no passengers.

    Then, if you have a chance, MYOB, compare this with the constant flow of people into, across and around College Green.

    This is not just in my head. It's obvious for all to see if they take the time to compare the two locations and the efficiency of uptake from their respective catchment areas.

    The interconnector links rail lines on both sides of the city, and I hope that Dublin will eventually have this backbone around which to develop a comprehensive rail network on a par with cities of a comparable size in Europe. It's not a short-term solution.

    You do realise that this is a mainly commuter driven project, that much of the traffic around the city centre on weekends originated in the city centre to begin with (hotels, hostels) and that we've already comprehensively proven that there is absolutely no disadvantage in terms of office worker density - actually, I think you have realised that as you're now going on about tourists.

    The people around the city centre at lunchtime are already there - no matter whether you're trying to isolate them as buying sandwiches or trying to believe they've just arrived in as you're doing for College Green. Just look at the lack of people on buses/trains at that time of day. Another red herring from you here.

    You are imaging demand issues just as you are imagining financial issues - every single one of them has been completely and utterly unpicked on here. Coming back every few weeks to try present them as new and valid does not work.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    I wasn't. I've no idea how the GPS stuff works.

    And is that going to be the same for the next, say, 100 years?

    Pretty much yes.


    When are you going to contact the decision makers on this, as you've so steadfastly refused to do to date? Or do you just intend to let your obsession / hidden vested interest or whatever the hell it is out on us for all eternity?


  • Options
    #39
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    poteen o hooley wrote: »
    Pity barrell scraping is not an olympic sport. We've a world class performer there in strasswoolf.

    Poteen, almost all of your posts on this board have involved you pointing out that I'm an eejit.

    You have produced nothing constructive.

    Are you sure that this is the best use of your time?


  • Options
    #40
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    They're a zillion times more constructive than the donkey ordure you pretend to be relevant issue. As distinct from the narcissistic pseudo earnestness you posture to hide the silliness of your neurotic racket from yourself my posts are simple honesty.


  • Options
    #41
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    They're a zillion times more constructive than the donkey ordure you pretend to be relevant issue. As distinct from the narcissistic pseudo earnestness you posture to hide the silliness of your neurotic racket from yourself my posts are simple honesty.
    Your proposals are undoubtably undoable in dublinia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    MYOB. It's Friday. If you've nothing else on tomorrow, try and find a cafe near the junction of Earlsfort Terrace and Leeson Street - ie if there's one open - and report back about the numbers of people walking past or entering this cafe. This should give you an idea of the numbers visiting that side of the proposed line at the weekend.

    It's also worth looking at the southside of the St. Stephen's Green area on a weekday. After 0930, maybe 1000, the place dies a death. It livens up again around lunch, when the office workers come out for a sambo, but they're not using public transport to do that, and practically nobody is using public transport to get there for that or any other reason.

    Between about 1600 and 1900 it is busy, with people trying to get home. After that, there is effectively nothing.

    You have enormous numbers of hours in the week when the area on the southside of the proposed line generates effectively no passengers.

    Then, if you have a chance, MYOB, compare this with the constant flow of people into, across and around College Green.

    This is not just in my head. It's obvious for all to see if they take the time to compare the two locations and the efficiency of uptake from their respective catchment areas.

    The interconnector links rail lines on both sides of the city, and I hope that Dublin will eventually have this backbone around which to develop a comprehensive rail network on a par with cities of a comparable size in Europe. It's not a short-term solution.

    Given that around two-thirds of Dart usage is commuters during the morning and evening peaks, Monday to Friday, and that SSG will still be busy off-peak due to Grafton Street and surrounding areas, while the Concert Hall and Harcourt St/Camden St clubs and pubs will also provide Dart users, your concern about the southside of Stephen's Green being quiet at night really isn't an issue for the NTA or IE or DCC.

    I'm heading for the area south and west of SSG this evening for a few jars -- I'll let you know how busy it is around 8pm.


  • Options
    #43
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    As I understand it, the aim of the DART Underground project is to connect all the rail-based modes of transport in the city and to massively increase the potential capacity of one of those modes, namely the DART.

    Building it via a very central location like College Green, even with all the architecturally sensitive buildings there, would achieve both of these aims.

    The route via St. Stephen's Green would also do this. My worry is that it doesn't do so very efficiently, mainly because of the St. Stephen's Green catchment issues.

    One also has to bear in mind the likely development of Dublin's rail-based transport network.

    The aim of Dart U is to link up the rail lines AND provide rail access is to the busiest area in the country, that area of D2 stretching from the Liffey to the Grand Canal and from Merrion St to Camden/Wexford/Aungier/George's streets -- which is the single busiest area in the country in terms of employment, retail, leisure and tourism. SSG/GS/KS junction is the epicentre of that area.

    But you keeping ignoring that bit with your 'longer detour' bollox.
    Is this stupidity?

    Your obsession with College Green and deliberately ignoring the reason SSG was selected is stupidity, IMHO.



    Jack, I've no idea how this would be done. I know that the woman who runs the GPS system in my car is able to tell where I am and which direction I'm going, even if I switch her on when I'm on the outside lane (ie beside the middle hedge) in a traffic jam on a dual carriageway, a mere metre away from a car on the other side of the hedge going in the opposite direction.

    I don't know how she does it. (I don't even know where she is.:D)

    But I imagine that she would also be able to detonate a bomb in my car at a specific location, if she was asked. Even if she can't actually do it now, she's probably getting there.[/QUOTE]

    WTF has your GPS got to do with anything?

    My point is that your 'security' concern is totally unfounded because such risks will have been assessed and catered for during the design phase.

    FFS, can you point to one such incident anywhere where a giant bomb was placed in a busy working rail tunnel under a building where VVIPs were meeting?

    The Reichstag has a U-bahn line directly beneath it and a station beside it -- has it happened in Berlin yet?

    The Palace of Westminster in London and the Hungarian Parliament in Budapest have lines and stations within less than 100 metres.

    The Jubilee line in London passes under part of Buckingham Palace.

    The White House in Washington has the same within 200 metres.

    Such security concerns are dealt with as a routine because security agencies have assessed the risks and taken precautions.

    And as someone who has seen security for big VVIP visits in Dublin up close as a reporter -- Clinton in 95, EU Presidency in 2004 and 2013, Queen Elizabeth and Obama in 2011, EPP congress in April 2014 -- I can tell you the Garda/DF operation involves a tad more than a few hundred cops in yellow jackets and barriers at key points.

    If the day comes when there are rail tunnels and station under Dublin, then the Gardai and DF will deal with the security risks involving them in the same way they deal with the current security risks in the city.

    Your original post raising your 'security concerns' re Dublin Castle smacks to me of you having wracked your brain to come up with some reason to put your College Green fantasy back on this board given that your other arguments for CG and against SSG have been comprehensively demolished my many posters.

    That is why your latest musings are 42-carat nonsense, IMHO.


  • Options
    #44
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    But, it's absolutely not beyond the realms of possibility that a meeting of foreign ministers, or a tribunal, or some other major banquet with a foreign head of state might at the least be seriously discommoded by a well-timed bomb on an underground train travelling directly beneath such an event.

    On a more parochial level, you also don't want a situation where there is a railway line under Government Buildings, so that a well-timed bomb could go off pretty much directly under a cabinet meeting, for example.
    U55 in Berlin runs under the front portico of the Paul Löbe Haus of the Bundestag...the building that houses all German MPs:
    u55p1.jpg

    If a bomb is a concern I'm sure the tunnel's concrete lining can get some sort of Kevlar blanket at that spot, if you believe for even 1 second that any type of HANDHELD explosive device could destroy a building on the surface above a tunnel that's 20m underground.


  • Options
    #45
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    In case anybody is interested, the CBD as defined by DTZ (Sherry Fitzgerald) is as follows (from Nama Wine Lake):

    cbddtz.jpg


  • Options
    #46
    spillit67
    Registered Users Posts: 642 ✭✭✭spillit67


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    MYOB. It's Friday. If you've nothing else on tomorrow, try and find a cafe near the junction of Earlsfort Terrace and Leeson Street - ie if there's one open - and report back about the numbers of people walking past or entering this cafe. This should give you an idea of the numbers visiting that side of the proposed line at the weekend.

    It's also worth looking at the southside of the St. Stephen's Green area on a weekday. After 0930, maybe 1000, the place dies a death. It livens up again around lunch, when the office workers come out for a sambo, but they're not using public transport to do that, and practically nobody is using public transport to get there for that or any other reason.

    Between about 1600 and 1900 it is busy, with people trying to get home. After that, there is effectively nothing.

    You have enormous numbers of hours in the week when the area on the southside of the proposed line generates effectively no passengers.

    Then, if you have a chance, MYOB, compare this with the constant flow of people into, across and around College Green.

    This is not just in my head. It's obvious for all to see if they take the time to compare the two locations and the efficiency of uptake from their respective catchment areas.

    The interconnector links rail lines on both sides of the city, and I hope that Dublin will eventually have this backbone around which to develop a comprehensive rail network on a par with cities of a comparable size in Europe. It's not a short-term solution.

    :rolleyes:

    Yes so the huge commuter traffic means nothing then?

    Apparently it dies a death after 7, sorry what?

    The National Concert Hall, the Gaiety, Harcourt Street, the numerous entertainment establishments surrounding SSG?

    Have you ever actually been to Dublin?


  • Options
    #47
    Avada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭Avada


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Yes, very busy. Nicely catered for by an interconnector station at College Green and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green.

    So people wishing to switch between Metro and Interconnector should have to walk between the two rather than change at the same, already planned station, because you (and seemingly nobody else) thinks its a good idea. Get real


  • Options
    #48
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Random_Name wrote: »
    So people wishing to switch between Metro and Interconnector should have to walk between the two rather than change at the same, already planned station, because you (and seemingly nobody else) thinks its a good idea. Get real

    :D I don't think anybody has suggested that!

    No, Random_Name, what we've established on the board is that the area in Dublin in which there is the highest density of workers is directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

    This high density area could be served by the currently proposed curvy route between Heuston and the Docklands, travelling along one side of this high density area, with a metro/DART interchange at St. Stephen's Green (and the O'Connell Bridge metro stations).

    Or it could be served by a more direct route, travelling broadly along the other side of this high density area, involving a metro/DART interchange at College Green (or some nearby location) and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green. This direct route would obviously involve fewer curves, it would be shorter, and it would thus almost certainly be cheaper, probably considerably so.

    I'm afraid you seem to have got an army of thankers for poo-pooing a suggestion which was never made.


  • Options
    #49
    alias no.9
    Registered Users Posts: 6,266 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    We need to get Dustin the Turkey on the case, his Presidential Election Manifesto way back when included extending the DART to Dingle. Now everybody knows that Kerry people only travel for finals and before games they always meet either outside Clereys (not inside, it's fierce pricey, Boyers around the corner have much better value) or at the Gresham for a toasted sandwich. They just won't be well served by a SSG interchange, College Green is the only way forward.
    Similarly, since the closure of the Athlone Mullingar line to passenger traffic, trains coming from Galway terminate in Heuston so the good Galway folk need direct access to Supermacs on O'Connell St as it's the only conceivable place they could meet their brethren, again SSG offers them nothing, they may as well just use the Luas but that just teases them as they pass Supermacs on the corner of middle abbey street but doesn't let them get out until lower abbey street.


  • Options
    #50
    spillit67
    Registered Users Posts: 642 ✭✭✭spillit67


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    :D I don't think anybody has suggested that!

    No, Random_Name, what we've established on the board is that the area in Dublin in which there is the highest density of workers is directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

    This high density area could be served by the currently proposed curvy route between Heuston and the Docklands, travelling along one side of this high density area, with a metro/DART interchange at St. Stephen's Green (and the O'Connell Bridge metro stations).

    Or it could be served by a more direct route, travelling broadly along the other side of this high density area, involving a metro/DART interchange at College Green (or some nearby location) and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green. This direct route would obviously involve fewer curves, it would be shorter, and it would thus almost certainly be cheaper, probably considerably so.

    I'm afraid you seem to have got an army of thankers for poo-pooing a suggestion which was never made.

    I would question that from working in the city.


  • Options
    #51
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    :D I don't think anybody has suggested that!



    Or it could be served by a more direct route, travelling broadly along the other side of this high density area, involving a metro/DART interchange at College Green (or some nearby location) and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green. This direct route would obviously involve fewer curves, it would be shorter, and it would thus almost certainly be cheaper, probably considerably so.

    I'm afraid you seem to have got an army of thankers for poo-pooing a suggestion which was never made.

    Can you give us your sums again setting out why money would be saved if your alternative plan was decided.
    Just to help you, in case it slips your prognostications, I'll point out that the number of stations on DU would remain the same and given that underground stations are the really expensive bit you are really talking of a max of 300m of non station build tunnelling.
    With respect to MN you propose abandoning the O'Connell Bge station and in that scenario the RPA have stated a CG station would be replaced with 2 smaller stations at CG and the GPO. The Parnell Sq/Dorset S lobby would be watching like hawks and fully expecting their own station somewhere between the GPO and Drumcondra.

    What would you consider to be the saving by tunnelling the shorter route to CG?
    What would be the cost differential of replacing OCS station with 2 stations at CG and the GPO?
    What would be the cost of redesigning both DU and MN along with the scenic ride through the planning process? Such cost has to be set against any other savings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    :D I don't think anybody has suggested that!



    Or it could be served by a more direct route, travelling broadly along the other side of this high density area, involving a metro/DART interchange at College Green (or some nearby location) and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green. This direct route would obviously involve fewer curves, it would be shorter, and it would thus almost certainly be cheaper, probably considerably so.

    I'm afraid you seem to have got an army of thankers for poo-pooing a suggestion which was never made.

    Can you give us your sums again setting out why money would be saved if your alternative plan was decided.
    Just to help you, in case it slips your prognostications, I'll point out that the number of stations on DU would remain the same and given that underground stations are the really expensive bit you are really talking of a max of 300m of non station build tunnelling.
    With respect to MN you propose abandoning the O'Connell Bge station and in that scenario the RPA have stated a CG station would be replaced with 2 smaller stations at CG and the GPO. The Parnell Sq/Dorset S lobby would be watching like hawks and fully expecting their own station somewhere between the GPO and Drumcondra.

    What would you consider to be the saving by tunnelling the shorter route to CG?
    What would be the cost differential of replacing OCS Bge. station with 2 stations at CG and the GPO?
    What would be the cost of redesigning both DU and MN along with the scenic ride through the planning process? Such cost has to be set against any other savings.


  • Options
    #53
    kc56
    Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭kc56


    Apart for the very impractical location of College Green for constructing two stations, there is another issue.

    If the route goes to the North of Trinity and there is a station just to the North of Pearse, then there will be a very tight curve to get from there to Spencer Dock. Ultimatly DU may also take intercity trains to Dublin airport and very tight curves may not be suitable. Going via SSG sets up DU for gentler curves from there to SD via Pearse.


  • Options
    #54
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    No, Random_Name, what we've established on the board is that the area in Dublin in which there is the highest density of workers is directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

    No, we haven't.



    Separately, have you completely forgotten that you actually accepted the curves were impractical and would likely lead to cutting off Pearse on the previous thread?


  • Options
    #55
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    kc56 wrote: »
    Apart for the very impractical location of College Green for constructing two stations, there is another issue.

    Of course, you wouldn't be building two stations at College Green - you'd be building just one, with two different lines through it.

    (ie quite different to the RPA's O'Connell Bridge idea, where they are proposing to build two stations, but on just one line).
    kc56 wrote: »
    If the route goes to the North of Trinity and there is a station just to the North of Pearse, then there will be a very tight curve to get from there to Spencer Dock. Ultimatly DU may also take intercity trains to Dublin airport and very tight curves may not be suitable. Going via SSG sets up DU for gentler curves from there to SD via Pearse.

    Couple of things here. Apart from the other curves, there's a pretty tight curve between St. Stephen's Green and Pearse on the currently proposed route. The Pearse - Spencer Dock curve on any route via College Green certainly wouldn't be any tighter.

    It has been suggested that intercity trains might travel through the interconnector (either to/from Belfast and/or to/from the airport). I don't think this is a particularly good idea, as I feel it would make better sense to fill it with commuter trains by developing one or more commuter lines in the west of the city. In this way, you make a huge difference to people who would use the tunnel every weekday, rather than a bit of a difference to people who might end up using the tunnel at most a few times a year.

    But be that as it may, if Dublin does end up running intercity trains through the tunnel, it would make sense for these trains to have at least one stop in the city - and Pearse would be one obvious location. In such an event, those trains would not be travelling at full speed through the curved sections of tunnel approaching Pearse (whichever route is built).

    Obviously you wouldn't want such curves out in open country when an intercity train is going flat out, but that will almost certainly not be the case with the tunnel.


  • Options
    #56
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The curves on the current route are buildable. Your crayons ones are not.


  • Options
    #57
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    Or it could be served by a more direct route, travelling broadly along the other side of this high density area, involving a metro/DART interchange at College Green (or some nearby location) and a metro station at St. Stephen's Green. This direct route would obviously involve fewer curves, it would be shorter, and it would thus almost certainly be cheaper, probably considerably so.

    I'm afraid you seem to have got an army of thankers for poo-pooing a suggestion which was never made.

    Asking the question again:


    Can you give us your sums again setting out why money would be saved if your alternative plan was decided.
    Just to help you, in case it slips your prognostications, I'll point out that the number of stations on DU would remain the same and given that underground stations are the really expensive bit you are really talking of a max of 300m of non station build tunnelling.
    With respect to MN you propose abandoning the O'Connell Bge station and in that scenario the RPA have stated the OCS Bge station would be replaced with 2 smaller stations at CG and the GPO. The Parnell Sq/Dorset S lobby would be watching like hawks and fully expecting their own station somewhere between the GPO and Drumcondra.

    What would you consider to be the saving by tunnelling the shorter route to CG?
    What would be the cost differential of replacing OCS Bge. station with 2 stations at CG and the GPO?
    What would be the cost of redesigning both DU and MN along with the scenic ride through the planning process? Such cost has to be set against any other savings.


  • Options
    #58
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, we haven't.

    Yes we have. Here's the map:
    287934.jpg

    The map above shows that different areas of the city have different densities of employment. Of the areas with the highest density of employment, the largest of those areas is directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

    It really should be clear enough.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Separately, have you completely forgotten that you actually accepted the curves were impractical and would likely lead to cutting off Pearse on the previous thread?

    I very sincerely doubt that I said anything of the sort. Could you direct me to the post in question.


  • Options
    #59
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Yes we have. Here's the map:
    287934.jpg

    The map above shows that different areas of the city have different densities of employment. Of the areas with the highest density of employment, the largest of those areas is directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

    It really should be clear enough.

    Out of date (visibly so, due to the low density around the south docks in particular), and it doesn't actually say what you claimed it said. Largest mark != highest density.

    However, if you do want to keep going down this path, note that SSG is much nearer to another large area red area on the map than CG is.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    I very sincerely doubt that I said anything of the sort. Could you direct me to the post in question.

    You repeat yourself so often it is very hard to keep track of exactly where in rotation you are, but here.

    You would be well served by reading that thread again as every single claim you make has been dismantled, comprehensively and repeatedly and your tactic of stating things as agreed facts when they're nothing of the sort has been discussed too.


  • Options
    #60
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    poteen o hooley wrote: »
    Asking the question again:


    Can you give us your sums again setting out why money would be saved if your alternative plan was decided.
    Just to help you, in case it slips your prognostications, I'll point out that the number of stations on DU would remain the same and given that underground stations are the really expensive bit you are really talking of a max of 300m of non station build tunnelling.
    With respect to MN you propose abandoning the O'Connell Bge station and in that scenario the RPA have stated the OCS Bge station would be replaced with 2 smaller stations at CG and the GPO. The Parnell Sq/Dorset S lobby would be watching like hawks and fully expecting their own station somewhere between the GPO and Drumcondra.

    What would you consider to be the saving by tunnelling the shorter route to CG?
    What would be the cost differential of replacing OCS Bge. station with 2 stations at CG and the GPO?
    What would be the cost of redesigning both DU and MN along with the scenic ride through the planning process? Such cost has to be set against any other savings.

    Sorry Poteen, I saw your post earlier on, but I didn't bother to read it. It did seem quite long for one of your posts, but I just assumed it was simply a longer version, a sort of 12-inch remix, of your usual 'strassenwo!f is an eejit' post.

    I now see that you have finally got around to making a constructive contribution to the board, by asking pertinent questions.

    I will do my best to answer them.

    In the event of the OCB stations not being built, and the RPA building stations at College Green and the GPO instead - a situation I favour - I think it would probably make sense to do the following: scrap the Parnell Square Station and scrap the Mater station. I would favour building a station at somewhere like Temple Street instead of those two.

    It's very nicely located between the GPO and Drumcondra. It's a quiet location which, like St. Stephen's Green should make construction pretty easy, but very centrally located between the Mater hospital, Parnell Square and Mountjoy Square.

    Although I'm aware that some money has been spent on the proposed station at the Mater it would probably make more sense just to write this off. A Mater stop would be more remote from Mountjoy Square, where there are an increasing number of workers. So anybody watching the Parnell Square area like hawks could consider a GPO station serving the southside of Parnell Square, and a station at Temple Street serving the northside of the Square, North Fred, etc.

    I'm going to go through your costs questions in reverse order, to make things clearer.

    Firstly the redesign costs. The figure given recently in the papers that the entire cost of design of both the metro north and DART Underground was 44 milion euro, and railway order application process, was 44 milion euro.

    Given that we're not talking about a complete redesign, but only a redesign of the city centre bit (albeit in many ways the most important), it's hard to see it topping 25 milion euro. So let's say 30.

    Secondly, the cost of building a station at College Green and a station at the GPO, instead of the two stations at O'Connell Bridge with the mined platforms linking them. Obviously there'd be a saving, as the new stations wouldn't need to be as deep as the O'Connell Bridge stations, and the platforms could be incorporated directly into the station. It's hard to say, but you're probably looking at savings of at least a couple of million.

    You also wouldn't need to build the Parnell Square station, but you would build a station at somewhere like Temple Street instead, replacing the Parnell Square and Mater stations.

    Taking into account that money has already been spent on the Mater stop, unfortunately, I think that the cost of changing the currently proposed four stations between St. Stephen's Green and Drumcondra (ie OCB1-tunnelled platforms under the river-OCB2, Parnell Square, Mater) to three (College Green, O'Connell Street, Temple Street(say)) would be about neutral.

    Overall cost: the last time I looked at it, the route via St. Stephen's Green involved about 700 metres longer than any route via College Green. You might be able to squeeze it down to 600 metres. It really isn't entirely clear how great the difference would be.

    You can't take out non-station tunnelling, because your machine still has to tunnel an extra 600 to 700 metres to go via St. Stephen's Green, over what it would have to do via College Green.

    At around 200 milion euro per kilometre, which is I think a reasonable figure, you are certainly looking at extra tunnelling costs of at least 100 milion euro to build via St. Stephen's Green. And I think I'm being generous.

    Take away the redesign costs, and we have savings of 70 million euro.

    I hope that broadly answers your questions, Poteen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I know this is a windup but anyway...you advocate against ssg because it's near a park and advocate for temple street because it's near 2 parks. Lolz.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement