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

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

1…5455575960…189

Comments

  • #2802
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    iopener wrote: »
    I was on the ballymun road yesterday, just at the junction with Collins avenue there was 5/6 global rail services vans and a Spanish registered van with similar translated name on the side. They were there for atleast 3 hours. Probably to do with surveying of the route

    They've had to stop working pending an archaeological dig, they've found the treasure trove of ancient documents early indications shows they are entitled "Transport 21" , "Dublin 2020" and a "Platform for change" among others


  • #2803
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    cgcsb wrote: »
    No I mean their big logistics warehousey thing

    http://www.dbschenker.ie/log-ie-en/start/

    I assumed DB meant Dublin Bus


  • #2804
    iopener
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 186 ✭✭iopener


    Sorry I don't follow you, Dublin bus or dbschenker what's the connection with global rail services lads on the side of the ballymun road.


  • #2805
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Monument, I didn't have time to address this point the other day, but I would like to do so now:
    monument wrote: »
    How on earth is what was planned at O'Connell Bridge "colossal"? It's nearly conservative to the Nørreport station on the Copenhagen Metro and other stations like it on different cities' systems.

    It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

    But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

    The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

    Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end, and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

    In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.


  • #2806
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,562 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Monument, I didn't have time to address this point the other day, but I would like to do so now:



    It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

    But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

    The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

    Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end, and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

    In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.

    The physical number of *platforms* in Norreport is not particularly large, though. Most operate over the same tracks. The station structure is large due to the multiple entrances, much like the OCB station plan.

    And the old station, built to a more conservative space usage, was absolutely disgusting.


  • #2807
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

    But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

    The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

    Only because Copenhagen Central Station doesn't have a metro stop. I was, in any case, only referring to the Nørreport metro stop -- not the rest of the interchange (which includes buses).

    This is just the metro stop:


    396586.jpg

    VIA: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwcasellini/3382929845/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end,

    Your view on this is ridiculous. Even besides when the 300m figure is from, have you never seen an underground stop where the entrance tunnels extend beyond the sttaion platforms? Exactly what metro or other underground systems have you used?
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

    In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.

    396592.JPG

    Yes, because within around 300m or less of the O'Connell Bridge metro portals you have two modern light rail lines, a Dart and Commuter station, and a ton of bus stops serving most bus routes in the city.


  • #2808
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems - based on recent posts on this thread - to have been superseded by an idea for an O'Connell Street station.

    To briefly answer your questions:

    (i) the 300 metre figure is based on diagrams produced by the RPA to illustrate their plan for O'Connell Bridge - these are readily available and appeared earlier on this thread;

    (ii) I can't put an exact figure on the number of underground systems I have used, and it's certainly paltry compared to a well-travelled person like you - but it still includes everything in Germany (bar Hamburg), London (extensively) and occasional use in other European cities (including Copenhagen); and

    (iii) the overground DART and tram lines 'within 300 metres' of the RPA's O'Connell Bridge proposal do not constitute part of the cost of bringing that proposal to fruition.


  • #2809
    Van.Bosch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,933 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems.

    I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.


  • #2810
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    It's amazing how much discussion vaporware can generate :).


  • #2811
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.

    Surely that's a bit harsh.


  • Advertisement
  • #2812
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    L1011 wrote: »
    The physical number of *platforms* in Norreport is not particularly large, though. Most operate over the same tracks. The station structure is large due to the multiple entrances, much like the OCB station plan.

    L1011, in a matter of minutes it should be possible to namecheck dozens of underground stations which are larger than the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. Can you give us one station of comparable size which serves just a single metro line?


  • #2813
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.
    That's hardly a shining example of contributing to a thread either...

    In the context of what is a comparatively expensive station and with some opposition to Metro North as a whole, what's wrong with a discussion on whether it should be built?


  • #2814
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    lucernarian wrote: »
    That's hardly a shining example of contributing to a thread either...

    In the context of what is a comparatively expensive station and with some opposition to Metro North as a whole, what's wrong with a discussion on whether it should be built?

    There's no discussion on whether it will be built, because it won't be built.

    But I'd like to see it built. Imagine the difference to North side Dublin and I mean the non coastal part of North side Dublin, that central spine through thousands of people and an airport!:eek:


  • #2815
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Lads, on topic please.

    Metro North talk and Metro North talk only. No need for the other stuff.


  • #2816
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    There's no discussion on whether it will be built, because it won't be built.

    But I'd like to see it built. Imagine the difference to North side Dublin and I mean the non coastal part of North side Dublin, that central spine through thousands of people and an airport!:eek:

    Indeed!

    And yet the transport lobby group Platform11 argued against the metro for so long.


  • #2817
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Indeed!

    And yet the transport lobby group Platform11 argued against the metro for so long.

    Wrong.

    They argued about connectivity with the Maynooth line. Get your facts right.

    The O'Reilly report is the first example of where Platform 11 pointed out Glasnevin junction as a point of interchange at a time when the original MN route was going under/close to it and the old Smurfit factory with no interchange. The route subsequently moved east and interchanged with the Maynooth line in Drumcondra station area.


  • #2818
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Well that's obviously how you remember it.

    But the first item in my google search on this issue throws up this post, in which the communications officer of P11 writes with apparent satisfaction that P11 had 'already taken the RPA's Airport Metro out of the equation (thanks to Irish Times supporting our campaign)...'


  • #2819
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Well that's obviously how you remember it.

    But the first item in my google search on this issue throws up this post, in which the communications officer of P11 writes with apparent satisfaction that P11 had 'already taken the RPA's Airport Metro out of the equation (thanks to Irish Times supporting our campaign)...'

    No its not how I remember it. Its fact.

    Your evidence is based on a post on boards that you have decided to take out of context.


  • #2820
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    L1011, in a matter of minutes it should be possible to namecheck dozens of underground stations which are larger than the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. Can you give us one station of comparable size which serves just a single metro line?

    There isn't just a single metro line, it's effectively an interchange location with two tram lines, a Dart and Commuter station, and a ton of city buses, and also regional and intercity buses stopping around 300 metres or less of the planned O'Connell Bridge station exits.

    You can talk down buses or trams all you like but buses will remain a large percentage of Dublin's public transport mix for some time to come, and the extension of the green line will extend the reach and connectivity of the Luas lines, which already carry seriously impressive numbers of passengers for a surface light rail line with at grade crossings and some mixed street running.

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems - based on recent posts on this thread - to have been superseded by an idea for an O'Connell Street station.
    • Metro North -- still has a valid railway order.
    • New Metro North -- has no planning permission of any kind.
    • Metro North -- Luas Cross City built to accommodate this by order of ABP.
    • New Metro North -- Luas Cross City NOT built to accommodate this.

    The fact is ABP can reject New Metro North in part or full. They could for example reject a stop, just like they rejected a half of a stop with Luas Cross City. And then they let the TII / the NTA re-apply for a station in a different location, such as O'Connell Bridge.

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    (i) the 300 metre figure is based on diagrams produced by the RPA to illustrate their plan for O'Connell Bridge - these are readily available and appeared earlier on this thread;

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, link to the document which says 300m or stop making that bs claim.

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    (ii) I can't put an exact figure on the number of underground systems I have used, and it's certainly paltry compared to a well-travelled person like you - but it still includes everything in Germany (bar Hamburg), London (extensively) and occasional use in other European cities (including Copenhagen);

    Maybe you're looking at this the wrong with with your experience of mostly of London (mostly historic, crapped stations) and maybe too many utilitarian stations in Germany?

    More modern metro stations (even with serving single lines) are built with larger spaces open spaces and the O'Connell Bridge station is overall comparable to many metro systems I've seen in person or photographed.

    And the exits on each side of the river are comparable to stations with two exits on historic or more modern metro stops at key locations.

    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    (iii) the overground DART and tram lines 'within 300 metres' of the RPA's O'Connell Bridge proposal do not constitute part of the cost of bringing that proposal to fruition.

    Yes, they and other locations / trip generators on both sides of the river have everything to do with why two station exits are provided for.


  • Advertisement
  • #2821
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Monument, I will hopefully address your other points in the next few days, but the one below has to be answered right away.
    monument wrote: »
    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, link to the document which says 300m or stop making that bs claim.

    This is an image produced by the RPA to show their plans for O'Connell Bridge.

    As you can see, it shows the proposed station stretching all the way from Fleet Street on the southside to Abbey Street on the northside. 300 metres. No bs claim.


  • #2822
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    Ho ho ho. Stitched yourself up loike a Kipper there Monument. Der Stressenvolf vas korrect. Heil!

    A small step towards the real goal of diverting every topic to the logic that College Green is the true Valhalla of Dublinplatz.
    Die Götter demand that an underground banhof be built there sofort!

    So what that it's already decided to scrap the O'Connell Bridge station while yiz were looking away?

    Facts smacts! pffff, who needs dem.


  • #2823
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    Ho ho ho. Stitched yourself up loike a Kipper there Monument. Der Stressenvolf vas korrect. Heil!

    A small step towards the real goal of diverting every topic to the logic that College Green is the true Valhalla of Dublinplatz.
    Die Götter demand that an underground banhof be built there sofort!

    So what that it's already decided to scrap the O'Connell Bridge station while yiz were looking away?

    Facts smacts! pffff, who needs dem?
    It's worth remembering that the currently-active railway order is granted for precisely such a station.

    That Aecom report was such a damaging exercise...


  • #2824
    newcar2016
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭newcar2016


    If only we had started construction on the original Metro North and interconnector when it was first shovel ready.

    It would probably be done by now. Might have been down a few billion but probably could have stimulated the economy more to the same value or more.


  • #2825
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,757 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Indeed and you'd realistically be able to get from most northern suburbs to the City Centre in under a half hour via a quick spin on feeder bus. Hundreds of thousands of people would be saving over an hour of their time every day.


  • #2826
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Indeed and you'd realistically be able to get from most northern suburbs to the City Centre in under a half hour via a quick spin on feeder bus. Hundreds of thousands of people would be saving over an hour of their time every day.

    But sure you can't measure time in monetary value.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #2827
    Reuben1210
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Indeed and you'd realistically be able to get from most northern suburbs to the City Centre in under a half hour via a quick spin on feeder bus. Hundreds of thousands of people would be saving over an hour of their time every day.

    Yes, and it's not a big city, so this infrastructure would instantly make vast swathes of it very livable and shoot Dublin up livability rankings!


  • #2828
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    They've had to stop working pending an archaeological dig, they've found the treasure trove of ancient documents early indications shows they are entitled "Transport 21" , "Dublin 2020" and a "Platform for change" among others

    A few of the greatest works of fiction ever written on this island.


  • #2829
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Monument, I will hopefully address your other points in the next few days, but the one below has to be answered right away.



    This is an image produced by the RPA to show their plans for O'Connell Bridge.

    As you can see, it shows the proposed station stretching all the way from Fleet Street on the southside to Abbey Street on the northside. 300 metres. No bs claim.

    So, basically, you're guessing 300 metres? The drawings don't support you.


  • #2830
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    monument wrote: »
    So, basically, you're guessing 300 metres? The drawings don't support you.
    It's more than 300m from Abbey St to Fleet St.

    When you're in a hole....................stop digging.

    Unless it's College Green. You can dig there according to Die Strassenvolf.


  • #2831
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    It's more than 300m from Abbey St to Fleet St.

    If we're being pedantic, its not actually, as its 280m walking between the two, and that's not straight line ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #2832
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    I was wondering who'd be the first person to spot that


  • #2833
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    Still a behemoth of a banhof mind.


  • #2834
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    Still a behemoth of a banhof mind.

    ...for a project that actually may not be built.

    While it pains me to say it, Strassenwolf's position regarding MN and DU is generally an acceptable position when one considers that both projects have gone back to the drawing board. We can quote all we like, but the reality is that Strassenwolf is perfectly entitled to express opinions on routes, stations. plaza's, College Green or whatever, because we are back at square one anyway.

    I don't agree with his opinions, but considering the State's total and absolute failure (as usual) to even come close to any form of consistency, I say let him at it.


  • #2835
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    No underground station will be built at CG because PP will be impossible - this is the conclusion of the MN team. The main problem is Trinity who have vowed to fight it tooth and nail. There's also the issue of shutting the corridor down for perhaps 2 years - so this will not be revisited. Forests of trees have been used up arguing this but a simple call to the IR engineers office will find somebody to confirm this. All Die Strassenvolf's calculations are defunct on this reality.
    The new MN is certain to scrap the O'Connell Bridge Behmoth and Parnell Sq Stn for 1 station close to the GPO.


  • #2836
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    The new MN is certain to scrap the O'Connell Bridge Behmoth and Parnell Sq Stn for 1 station close to the GPO.

    The "new" MN is certain to be yet another load of crap talk that won't be built.

    As for College Green? Who knows? You can talk all day about PP and Trinity, but considering the utter incompetence of the state to deliver anything with an actual hole dug, I'm increasingly reluctant to accept any continued redicule of an opinion by a poster, when we are literally in a free for all situation again.

    I don't agree with Strassenwolf, but I'm astounded that so many are clinging to a project that is dead in the water, despite any "new" version, while lambasting someone who dares suggest a different view. If MN or DU were under construction or very close to it, I'd be the first in line to tell Strassenwolf to **** right off. But they aren't.

    I've been around the block with all this "underground" stuff. DU was originally on the northside. The central hub was originally in Temple Bar and not Stephens Green. Things change a lot when it takes you 40 plus years to reach a point where you are still talking about it. Absolutely anything can happen in the next reincarnation.

    But it won't be built anyway.


  • #2837
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    Things do get built. The Port Tunnel, the M50 etc. The nature of democracies and the election cycle make the go ahead for big infrastructural projects which often have no votes in them but eat up a lot of funds in one locality, complicated. This happens everywhere not only Ireland - if I remember correctly a metro line in Poland started in the 1920s only got finished in recent years. DU and MN will get built not because they'd look nice but because a time will come when not building becomes more damaging than building. The cynic outlook bordering on conspiracy theory is a sort of self flagellation and not a realistic appraisal of the situation.


  • #2838
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    DU and MN will get built not because they'd look nice but because a time will come when not building becomes more damaging than building.

    Aka 2006?


  • #2839
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Deedsie wrote: »
    You consistently say this will never ever be built... why do you continue posting the same point on a discussion forum on how it is going to be built? It's as off topic as some of Strassenwolf's bizarre comparisons with random German cities public transport systems.

    Ireland have an embarrassingly poor track record on public transport but we did go through the most extreme financial crash in the history of the state recently. I think your pessimism is a bit excessive. The port tunnel, Jack Lynch tunnel and the Shannon tunnel are all projects where a hole was dug...

    My concern is not whether or not it will be built, its whether or not they will make a balls of it. Platform length, station locations, link up with other public transport infrastructure etc

    Your examples quoted are an attempt to discredit my opinion, but they are all road based. Give me examples of major railway based projects. You won't. because you can't, because there aren't any.


  • #2840
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    I rest my case


  • #2841
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,211 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    The cynic has the psychology of the coward.
    He tries to have it every way.
    If nothing happens...............he can trumpet: "I TOLD you so!"

    It it gets built he can play big and weasel: "Well done, I never thought you'd manage it"

    That's not how I play and never was. My opinions are based on precedent. You are entitled to think these things will be built. But I am entitled to think that they won't.

    And less of the "Coward" stuff. If you want to get personal take it to PM or face to face. I really don't mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #2842
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Your 3 examples disdredit nothing, because I was referring to major rail infrastructure in a thread about rail infrastructure.

    I'm not trolling in any way, because 40 plus years of history and in particular the last 10 years of more intense history fully backs up my opinion.

    But to say that something will never be built is a bit ridiculous don't you think? Like never ever ever? Not even before the sun burns out and humans go extinct? Of course it'll happen eventually. Maybe a more realistic superlative would be never in our lifetime, but even that I doubt.


  • #2843
    richardmoyes
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭richardmoyes


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    That's not how I play and never was. My opinions are based on precedent. You are entitled to think these things will be built. But I am entitled to think that they won't.

    And less of the "Coward" stuff. If you want to get personal take it to PM or face to face. I really don't mind.

    :-)


  • #2844
    newcar2016
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭newcar2016


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Yes this is a discussion and I disagree with your opinion that Metro North won't be built. You said Ireland have "never delivered anything with an actual hole dug"

    My 3 examples perfectly discredit your comment quoted.

    Metro North and DART Underground will of course be eventually built. Borderline trolling to keep banging on that it will never be built.

    What about Metro West? Which should by the way be extended to link with Metro South at Dundrum!


  • #2845
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,757 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    richardmoyes wrote: »
    Things do get built. The Port Tunnel, the M50 etc. The nature of democracies and the election cycle make the go ahead for big infrastructural projects which often have no votes in them but eat up a lot of funds in one locality, complicated. This happens everywhere not only Ireland - if I remember correctly a metro line in Poland started in the 1920s only got finished in recent years. DU and MN will get built not because they'd look nice but because a time will come when not building becomes more damaging than building. The cynic outlook bordering on conspiracy theory is a sort of self flagellation and not a realistic appraisal of the situation.

    In fairness to Warsaw Metro, it was planned in 1920, the depression struck and ended those plans. Construction began in 1938 after a recovery and then Warsaw was all but levelled by intense fighting between German and Soviet tanks. Then Warsaw was forced by the Soviet Union into a brutal socialist regime without a pot to piss in for decades. Somehow they managed to start building in 1983 even with no resources, frequent cave ins, antiquated equipment and little/no outside expertise allowed. They finished in 1995.

    In Dublin we planned a straight forward 3 line system in 1973. Since then we've had 2 recessions, a couple of strikes and unprecedented economic growth in the western world and complete social and industrial modernisation. And nothing but stability.


  • #2846
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,757 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I think before metro west happens there should be a new public transport only bridge, with a reservation for a future surface metro/luas connecting The N4/R113 junction with the diswellstown road. Start running 3 or 4 new bus routes connecting various parts of Tallaght sprawl to various parts of Blanch sprawl via the R113, and R136. Widen the road to include bus lanes where needed. Make sure each route is every 15 minutes, provide a real alternative to driving on the M50


  • #2847
    Bray Head
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 896 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I think before metro west happens there should be a new public transport only bridge, with a reservation for a future surface metro/luas connecting The N4/R113 junction with the diswellstown road. Start running 3 or 4 new bus routes connecting various parts of Tallaght sprawl to various parts of Blanch sprawl via the R113, and R136. Widen the road to include bus lanes where needed. Make sure each route is every 15 minutes, provide a real alternative to driving on the M50

    This is a super idea but is inconsistent with where DB's depots are located, specifically, none west of Heuston station.

    And as we all know the location of depots tends to influence route provision to a very large extent.


  • #2848
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Bray Head wrote: »
    This is a super idea but is inconsistent with where DB's depots are located, specifically, none west of Heuston station.

    And as we all know the location of depots tends to influence route provision to a very large extent.

    I suppose you could have routes from Harristown , so you could have services getting people almost but not quite to the airport, like other Harristown services...


  • #2849
    Bray Head
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 896 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    Apart from general management inertia, is there any reason why DB has never set up a depot on the west side of the city?

    If you draw a line west of Heuston you would have at least half of the increase in population in the city over the last half century. Likewise employment.

    This could have been funded at any point by the sale of its city centre depots which are a pretty bizarre use of scarce land.


  • #2850
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Bray Head wrote: »
    Apart from general management inertia, is there any reason why DB has never set up a depot on the west side of the city?

    If you draw a line west of Heuston you would have at least half of the increase in population in the city over the last half century. Likewise employment.

    This could have been funded at any point by the sale of its city centre depots which are a pretty bizarre use of scarce land.

    The land of their old Abbey St depot still remains unused.

    Remember the hotel and transport hub plan?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055149488


    As for Conyngham Road I think they should keep it. Because you just know it's proximity to Heuston means it will be need for something to do with DU when it comes on stream.

    A new green field site between Tallaght and Lucan wouldn't be too hard to acquire I would wager.

    But moving on... Metro North eh?


  • Advertisement
  • #2851
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Bray Head wrote: »
    This could have been funded at any point by the sale of its city centre depots which are a pretty bizarre use of scarce land.

    Ringsend in particular must be worth a huge amount of money now.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement