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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DART Underground - Alternative Routes

24567…10

Comments

  • #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.


  • #53
    kc56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭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.


  • #54
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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.


  • #56
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


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


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #59
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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
  • #61
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #62
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    murphaph wrote: »
    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.

    Murphaph, why would anybody spend so much time on a windup?

    I live in a city in Continental Europe which already has a pretty good public transport system appropriate to its size.

    I'm from Dublin, and I'm interested in seeing that Dublin can eventually have the same thing.

    I advocate against building via St. Stephen's Green partly because it involves an expensive diversion to get to a park, when there may be a better option available. I believe that Dublin may have a better option for the highest capacity line, ie building through very built-up areas to ensure maximum passenger uptake.

    Parks like St. Stephen's Green, Parnell Square and Mountjoy Square are very suitable locations for stations on considerably lower capacity lines, like the metro.


  • #63
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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.

    You can't try use this argument when your main argument against SSG is "its quiet, and I'm going to ignore that its central".
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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.

    No, it is a complete redesign of DU due to needing to completely alter every part of the route to make it fit; and would require writing off current investment at various sites including Pearse and the Mater - so try 50.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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.

    Assumptions. Likely wouldn't be any cheaper at all sub-surface and you appear to have forgotten something, namely that stations require surface works and CPOs. Reality is that this will cost more, not less.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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.

    It was comprehensively proven that it was significantly shorter than that. Stop trying to pretend the last thread didn't happen.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    At around 200 milion euro per kilometre, which is I think a reasonable figure,

    No, its fantasyland numbers that you're clinging to in the hope it makes your fantasyland proposal work. Its far less than that.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Take away the redesign costs, and we have savings of 70 million euro.

    Well, we don't as your figures are fantasy, but you appear to have left out something critical - traffic management and reinstatement costs for College Green which are going to be orders of magnitude higher than Stephens Green would be.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    I advocate against building via St. Stephen's Green partly because it involves an expensive diversion to get to a park, when there may be a better option available. I believe that Dublin may have a better option for the highest capacity line, ie building through very built-up areas to ensure maximum passenger uptake.

    Its not a diversion - as has been comprehensively shown. It is going through a very built up area, as has been comprehensively shown.

    When are you going to bring something new here rather than spinning around in circles and going back to your old, destroyed arguments?


  • #64
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Lads, I have to admit that this thread is one of my guilty pleasures. Any time I need to destress, I come in here, read all the updates, laugh at the fact that the "discussion" has gone in a circle, and then go off feeling better about myself.

    The fact that it's got it's own thread is even better now, now every post continues the cycle!

    Sorry for the totally unhelpful post, but just thought I should say thanks for the massive amount of entertainment you guys give me.


  • #65
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    Oddly strasselwolf is the main protagonist in forcing the debate into a huge diversion away from the most popular central route.


  • #66
    BowWow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,777 ✭✭✭BowWow


    I'd just like to say that I too think the centre of Dublin is more College Green that SSG.:o


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,566 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    BowWow wrote: »
    I'd just like to say that I too think the centre of Dublin is more College Green that SSG.:o

    Could that be part of the issue ... It's already packed, and the whole point of SSG is room to build the lines and stations.. And use them , and cross over with Luas ect...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #68
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    but but but...............think of the cost, sending the poor DORT around de bend and the criminal secrecy re the figgers. How can you compare the olympian 8th wunder of the world CG with the wastes of StSG. Wait, wait lissen........


  • #69
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MYOB wrote: »
    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.

    It's a 2011 map. I'm not sure if there's anything more recent.
    MYOB wrote: »
    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.

    This is the key point in this whole discussion: the large red area south of St. Stephen's Green.

    This is a very important area, with very high employment density, on a par with the area between College Green and St. Stephen's Green. Adelaide Road, the Harcourt Centre, Hatch Street, etc.

    Massive employment. Vitally important to the city.

    But those offices are in or around one kilometre from the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green. The proposed interconnector does not serve this area, in the meaning understood in most public transport systems.

    This area needs eventually to be served by one or more metro or LUAS stops/stations on lines which feed into the interconnector, ie by extensions of Dublin's proposed network.

    Building the main route via St. Stephen's Green in the pretence that it serves this vitally important area is, in my view, a sham.


  • #70
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Building the main route via St. Stephen's Green in the pretence that it serves this vitally important area is, in my view, a sham.

    The only pretence on here is your fantasyland figures, the ones where you keep reverting to your old debunked imaginings as your figures just don't add up otherwise.


  • #71
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    It's a 2011 map. I'm not sure if there's anything more recent.



    This is the key point in this whole discussion: the large red area south of St. Stephen's Green.

    This is a very important area, with very high employment density, on a par with the area between College Green and St. Stephen's Green. Adelaide Road, the Harcourt Centre, Hatch Street, etc.

    Massive employment. Vitally important to the city.

    But those offices are in or around one kilometre from the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green. The proposed interconnector does not serve this area, in the meaning understood in most public transport systems.

    This area needs eventually to be served by one or more metro or LUAS stops/stations on lines which feed into the interconnector, ie by extensions of Dublin's proposed network.

    Building the main route via St. Stephen's Green in the pretence that it serves this vitally important area is, in my view, a sham.

    The SSG/Grafton St junction is the epicentre of the area stretching from the Liffey to the Grand Canal and that is the catchment area the SSG Dart station is designed to serve. What part of that can you not understand?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    My previous post was about the large high-density area south of St. Stephen's Green. The part around the Harcourt Centre, Hatch Street and Adelaide Road, which I believe is not served by the interconnector, but will need to be properly served by extensions of the metro/LUAS network.

    However, there are people who believe that St. Stephen's Green covers everything:
    Jack Noble wrote: »
    The SSG/Grafton St junction is the epicentre of the area stretching from the Liffey to the Grand Canal and that is the catchment area the SSG Dart station is designed to serve. What part of that can you not understand?

    The Liffey to the Grand Canal?

    How can that be the catchment area for just one station?

    In a city centre, on what Martin Cullen promised would be a 'world-class transport system'?


  • #73
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    In a city centre, on what Martin Cullen promised would be a 'world-class transport system'?

    Who is Martin Cullen? Only joking.


    Seriously, how soon will this thread have more posts than the real Dart Underground Thread. Next month? The end of the year?


  • #74
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    My previous post was about the large high-density area south of St. Stephen's Green. The part around the Harcourt Centre, Hatch Street and Adelaide Road, which I believe is not served by the interconnector, but will need to be properly served by extensions of the metro/LUAS network.

    All of that and lots more is just ~10min walking:

    323210.PNG

    In what city do commuters refuse to walk around 10mins to a suburban / commuter train station?

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    The Liffey to the Grand Canal?

    How can that be the catchment area for just one station?

    You misread what he said or you're playing silly bugger? Which one is it?

    He said:
    • SSG/Grafton St junction is the epicentre of the area between the river and the canal
    • SSG Dart station is designed to serve that epicentre

    As you should know: On the Dart network post-DU, Heuston, Christchurch, Tara, and Docklands are well positioned to serve along the river, and Luas, buses, and DublinBikes fill in the gaps.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    In a city centre, on what Martin Cullen promised would be a 'world-class transport system'?

    Why should anybody care what Cullen said?


  • #75
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    In fact because quality rail based public transport in Dublin is sparse, commuters will happily walk much further than 10 minutes to get to it!

    I'll wager there are thousands walking from those places as far as Pearse Station now.


  • #76
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    There certainly are many doing that. Not sure how happy they are about it.

    They'll walk such large distances because there's simply no alternative.

    But where in Frankfurt or Munich, two cities of a broadly similar size to Dublin, could you now hide yourself in the city centre more than 5 minutes walk from an underground station?

    I think that's what Dublin should be aiming for. They are competitors.


  • #77
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    There certainly are many doing that. Not sure how happy they are about it.

    They'll walk such large distances because there's simply no alternative.

    10 minutes. That's not a large walking distance.

    As already said it people don't want to walk from the area in question, they can get a tram just one stop.

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    But where in Frankfurt or Munich, two cities of a broadly similar size to Dublin, could you now hide yourself in the city centre more than 5 minutes walk from an underground station?

    I think that's what Dublin should be aiming for. They are competitors.

    Frankfurt has a metropolitan area population notably larger than that of all of the republic combined. It's not at all comparable to Dublin.

    Munich is far closer to Dublin but the official greater area of the city is still notably larger (at least 30% larger). My reading is that the actual reach of the Uban and Sban network extends outside of the recorded greater area (for example, Holzkirchen does not seem to be a part of the Munich area).

    But all of that is academic, because it takes about one minute to figure out that there are locations around central Munich which are 10 minutes from a Uban or Sban station, and it takes around 15 seconds more to find places 15 minutes + from a station..


  • #78
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Let me get this right, Monument. Are you actually telling the board that there are places in the city centre of Munich which are 15 minutes walk from an underground station?


  • #79
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Let me get this right, Monument. Are you actually telling the board that there are places in the city centre of Munich which are 15 minutes walk from an underground station?

    Yes: https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/48.1224041,11.5624901/48.1292869,11.5577655/@48.1321004,11.5638469,2742m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2 (next guess is that you're going to claim that the city centre is much smaller than this)

    But more to the point ~10mins is common in even more central areas.


  • #80
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Let me get this right, Monument. Are you actually telling the board that there are places in the city centre of Munich which are 15 minutes walk from an underground station?

    Marienplatz is one of the busiest and most important stations on the Munich network - draw a 1km radius from there and you will see exactly where in Munich city centre is 10-15 minutes walk from that station.

    As regards SSG in Dublin, have a look at page 119, post 1785, of the Dart Underground thread where I have gone into considerable detail and posted a map showing where various walking distances and times from SSG will take you.

    313841.jpg

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055630770&page=119

    Or are you simply ignoring those facts too?


  • #81
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    Facts smacts, the strasswolf laughs at your facts.
    What have facts got to do with it?
    Was it facts that Cortez was worrying about on the peak in Darien?
    Maybe he was weighing up.......... tomato tom-ay-to? butter or marge? College Green or St. Stephen's Green?
    Just what have facts got to do with engineering..................oh wait..........


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    BonkeyDonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭BonkeyDonker


    Jack Noble wrote: »

    313841.jpg

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055630770&page=119

    Or are you simply ignoring those facts too?

    Nice graphics Jack. Could you add in the other DU stops as planned to give us an idea of the overlap?


  • #83
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    BonkeyDonker wrote: »
    Nice graphics Jack. Could you add in the other DU stops as planned to give us an idea of the overlap?

    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.


  • #84
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    I understand this is obviously not an exhaustive list of the security implications, LeinsterDub.

    Wheren't/aren't metro stations used as bomb shelters as they are so deep and bomb proof?

    Wouldn't it be easier to park a massive truck of explosives on Kildare St?


  • #85
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    Yes: https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/48.1224041,11.5624901/48.1292869,11.5577655/@48.1321004,11.5638469,2742m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2 (next guess is that you're going to claim that the city centre is much smaller than this)
    But more to the point ~10mins is common in even more central areas.

    Well done, Monument. You found a place 15 minutes walk from a station. It's some years since I've been in the city, but Goetheplatz U-Bahn station is certainly not far from the city centre. I wouldn't have thought it was possible so close to the centre of a city with such a comprehensive public transport system. Probably the best and most efficient I've ever seen.

    Hats off. Really.

    Now back to the main discussion.

    Do you feel it is likely that, after building the interconnector, and building the metro north to its proposed terminus at St. Stephen's Green, that Dublin will stop there?

    Or is it more likely that Dublin will do as Munich (and many, many other cities) have done, and gradually extend its rail network?

    I think the latter scenario is much more likely, and the most obvious route to be extended is the metro north, to the south, towards the big red area around a kilometre south of St. Stephen's Green.

    If this were to happen, would the main body of potential interconnector passengers from that big red area use the metro to get them to the interconnector, or would they walk to their nearest interconnector station?


  • #86
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Now back to the main discussion.

    Do you feel it is likely that, after building the interconnector, and building the metro north to its proposed terminus at St. Stephen's Green, that Dublin will stop there?

    Or is it more likely that Dublin will do as Munich (and many, many other cities) have done, and gradually extend its rail network?

    I think the latter scenario is much more likely, and the most obvious route to be extended is the metro north, to the south, towards the big red area around a kilometre south of St. Stephen's Green.

    If this were to happen, would the main body of potential interconnector passengers from that big red area use the metro to get them to the interconnector, or would they walk to their nearest interconnector station?

    "Metro North" had a cousin, "Metro South" which extend it to Tallaght, long disappered on the RPA site, I posted the map here a while back.


  • #87
    Cinephille1888
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭Cinephille1888


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    "Metro North" had a cousin, "Metro South" which extend it to Tallaght, long disappered on the RPA site, I posted the map here a while back.


    It has still been appearing periodically as a Luas potential corridor along the River Poddle, and most recently the BRT to Rathfarnham.

    The river Poddle plan appears to have been abandoned for a greenway for a cycle path from Kimmage/Crumlin.

    The Tymon Park stretch, and how it entered Tallaght was also never fully settled. As Luas, BRT, and even "Metro South".


    The N81 is the old Blessington Tramway, but even then it was a notoriously narrow, winding, and dangerous route. It's too busy a circulator for dedicated right of way for a surface Rapid Transit Corridor. The density of those parts of South Dublin are also not the same as further east. Although I would welcome it, I don't foresee large amounts of mixed use being squeezed into Kimmage/Terenure/Rathfarnham/Templeogue to justify it.


    To drag the idea of a "metro south" back to alternate Dart Underground routes, the 1970s plan led to reserve land that the Red Line used to get into Kilnamanagh/Tallaght. The branch options were ploughed over by the usual Irish development, and a significant portion of South West Dublin left likely to be remote from sufficient transport into the future.

    Luas Line "E" and the BRT may be feasible at the end of a long list of other projects more important for the region, like Dart Underground as planned, Metro North (as Planed), and Lucan Luas (finalised, hopefully with Inchicore Dart stop)


  • #88
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Cinephille1888 wrote: »
    It has still been appearing periodically as a Luas potential corridor along the River Poddle, and most recently the BRT to Rathfarnham.

    The river Poddle plan appears to have been abandoned for a greenway for a cycle path from Kimmage/Crumlin.

    The Tymon Park stretch, and how it entered Tallaght was also never fully settled. As Luas, BRT, and even "Metro South".


    The N81 is the old Blessington Tramway, but even then it was a notoriously narrow, winding, and dangerous route. It's too busy a circulator for dedicated right of way for a surface Rapid Transit Corridor. The density of those parts of South Dublin are also not the same as further east. Although I would welcome it, I don't foresee large amounts of mixed use being squeezed into Kimmage/Terenure/Rathfarnham/Templeogue to justify it.


    To drag the idea of a "metro south" back to alternate Dart Underground routes, the 1970s plan led to reserve land that the Red Line used to get into Kilnamanagh/Tallaght. The branch options were ploughed over by the usual Irish development, and a significant portion of South West Dublin left likely to be remote from sufficient transport into the future.

    Luas Line "E" and the BRT may be feasible at the end of a long list of other projects more important for the region, like Dart Underground as planned, Metro North (as Planed), and Lucan Luas (finalised, hopefully with Inchicore Dart stop)

    The problem with Metro South is that the best and most obvious route is now part of the Green line, and plans for its future conversion seem very wishy washy.


  • #89
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    The problem with Metro South is that the best and most obvious route is now part of the Green line, and plans for its future conversion seem very wishy washy.

    I think that would be a significant error.

    Dublin has a public transport deficit compared to many other European cities of a similar size. Dublin has not reached the stage where it should be upgrading existing LUAS/Metro lines before even providing such facilities to other parts of the city

    If the metro north is actually built, between the airport and St. Stephen's Green, I think it would make sense to effectively copy what Munich did with its direct north-south metro line. That is, to extend it gradually to the south-west of the city. This leaves the possibility for a north-west to/from south-east metro line to be built in the future, integrating with the DART and the other metro quite conveniently, when the money and the demand is there.

    The main problem with extending the metro north to the south-east, along the current green line, is that it is short-sighted, and it would render it almost impossible for Dublin to eventually have metro lines serving the south-west and the north-west which would provide Dublin with the (largely) one-change system which other cities enjoy.

    I would favour extending the metro north to a stop somewhere around The Bleeding Horse. The line would split there, with the first route to be built going to Harold's Cross, then onto Kimmage, The KCR, and then overground to Walkinstown. The second line would go to Rathmines, then probably overground to Rathgar, Terenure, etc. Since this would be overground, it might make sense to eventually extend it to Rathfarnham and Knocklyon, but of course it depends on many things: there's obviously large demand along the Tallaght-Clondalkin-Hazelhatch line - around 100,000 people last time I looked - but that route may well have been squandered by the planners. If it has been, it might make more sense to extend it from Terenure to Tallaght. We shall have to see.

    Given that we're on a thread about alternative routes to the currently proposed DART underground, I think there would be considerable sense to having a metro-metro interchange at St. Stephen's Green. I don't know how the LUAS BXD line is going to pan out, but my guess is that it will eventually lead to calls for an upgrade to a metro. In any case, it would probably make sense for Dublin to plan for a north-west to south-east metro in the future.

    I think this might initially take the form of a Broadstone-UCD metro, with stations at Church Street, Christchurch (DART), St. Stephen's Green (other metro, and where the station would be designed for this line to be split into two), Lower Baggot Street, then overground to Upper Baggot Street/Waterloo Road, Waterloo Road/Upper Leeson Street, then either underground or overground through Donnybrook and on along the N11, overground, to a stop around RTE and then Belfield. To be extended along the N11, if the demand is there.

    The other branch from St. Stephen's Green on this line would then be developed, and itwould head around the Green to a station in or around Earlsfort Terrace, then on towards Ranelagh to eventually connect with the upgraded, metro-standard Green LUAS.

    There's probably 30-40 years work in there.

    About the time that it took Munich to develop its network.


  • #90
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    The second line would go to Rathmines, then probably overground to Rathgar, Terenure, etc. Since this would be overground, it might make sense to eventually extend it to Rathfarnham and Knocklyon, but of course it depends on many things: there's obviously large demand along the Tallaght-Clondalkin-Hazelhatch line - around 100,000 people last time I looked - but that route may well have been squandered by the planners. If it has been, it might make more sense to extend it from Terenure to Tallaght. We shall have to see.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    alias no.9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,337 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    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.

    There'll be a lot of gardens being CPO'd on the overground stretch from KCR to Walkinstown too


  • #92
    strassenwo!f
    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.


  • #93
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #94
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭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.


  • #95
    TheBandicoot
    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?


  • #96
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    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
  • #97
    strassenwo!f
    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.


  • #98
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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?


  • #99
    strassenwo!f
    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.


  • #100
    strassenwo!f
    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.


  • #101
    strassenwo!f
    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
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement