DART Underground - Alternative Routes

L1011 · 17-11-2014 10:16am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 12:52pm

L1011 wrote: »

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

No, let's not suspend reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.

murphaph · 17-11-2014 12:54pm

strassenwo!f wrote:

But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.

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

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

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

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

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 1:12pm

murphaph wrote: »

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

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

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

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

A very good and informative post, Murphaph.

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

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

L1011 · 17-11-2014 1:27pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, let's not suspend reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a College Green route would unquestionably be shorter.

One would expect it consequently to be cheaper.

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

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

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

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 3:51pm

L1011 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

L1011 wrote: »

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

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

That's 800 million extra in around a decade.

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

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

L1011 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

L1011 · 17-11-2014 4:10pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

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

On your crayon-scratchings, its too tight to be navigable. The number of curves isn't the issue.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

That's 800 million extra in around a decade.

Whats the relevance of this?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

Have you not heard of inflation?

Additionally, I believe you are (again!) deliberately "confusing" the costs of the tunnel with the costs of the entire scheme - including rolling stock, etc. You were corrected for doing this when trying to use it for a fantastical cost-per-KM of tunneling, many pages of circular arguments ago.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Ren2k7 · 17-11-2014 6:24pm

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

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

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 6:54pm

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

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

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

Ren2k7 · 17-11-2014 8:27pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

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

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

murphaph · 17-11-2014 8:31pm

Dear oh dear.

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 10:55pm

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

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

I think we can thus discount geological factors here.

strassenwo!f · 17-11-2014 11:13pm

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

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

I expect it to be the Westmoreland Street stop.

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

Why should the East-West demand be any different?

We shall see.

alias no.9 · 17-11-2014 11:22pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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

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

I think we can thus discount geological factors here.

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

Ren2k7 · 18-11-2014 12:26am

alias no.9 wrote: »

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

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

strassenwo!f · 18-11-2014 8:44am

It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

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

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

So there's plenty of time before it happens.

murphaph · 18-11-2014 1:36pm

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

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

L1011 · 18-11-2014 1:41pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

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

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

So there's plenty of time before it happens.

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

Ren2k7 · 18-11-2014 4:00pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

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

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

So there's plenty of time before it happens.

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

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

alias no.9 · 18-11-2014 11:28pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

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

GerardKeating · 20-11-2014 2:35am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It wouldn't be difficult to change it.

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

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

So there's plenty of time before it happens.

Did you ever get the Train or DART between Tara and Pearse and notice a lit of track noise, with wheels make a lot of noise because the curve is a bit tight, and trains cannot really go that fast on that section of track.

The curve needed to make your Station at College Green would be even tighter. The only way this would work, would be if DU continued out to Pearse, Grand Canal Dock, and onward to Bray.

Sam Russell · 20-11-2014 3:12pm

Maybe it could continue on to Holyhead.:)

strassenwo!f · 24-11-2014 2:44am

murphaph wrote: »

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

Yes, you are right. But the American General 'Blood and Guts' Patton once said that if everyone's thinking the same, somebody's not thinking right. The minority view at any moment may not always stay that way.

Costs. Passenger uptake figures.

These are serious flaws with a route via St. Stephen's Green when it faces the inevitable scrutiny from the country cousins.

liamog · 24-11-2014 3:37am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, you are right. But the American General 'Blood and Guts' Patton once said that if everyone's thinking the same, somebody's not thinking right. The minority view at any moment may not always stay that way.

Costs. Passenger uptake figures.

These are serious flaws with a route via St. Stephen's Green when it faces the inevitable scrutiny from the country cousins.

But for the fact we've pointed out that your extra costs don't stand up to scrutiny and that Stephen's Green Station is quite well located with regards to employment density.

The only way the country cousins would see these as flaws is if they were incapable of mathematics and geography.

Ren2k7 · 24-11-2014 4:05am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, you are right. But the American General 'Blood and Guts' Patton once said that if everyone's thinking the same, somebody's not thinking right. The minority view at any moment may not always stay that way.

Costs. Passenger uptake figures.

These are serious flaws with a route via St. Stephen's Green when it faces the inevitable scrutiny from the country cousins.

There really aren't. It's a good route.

L1011 · 24-11-2014 10:24am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

These are serious flaws with a route via St. Stephen's Green when it faces the inevitable scrutiny from the country cousins.

Prove it. Or otherwise, please stop with the circular argument insanity you've subjected us to for months (or is it years?) now.

strassenwo!f · 24-11-2014 10:17pm

L1011 wrote:

Prove it. Or otherwise, please stop with the circular argument insanity you've subjected us to for months (or is it years?) now.

Sorry, where's the circular argument?

alias no.9 · 25-11-2014 12:46am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, you are right. But the American General 'Blood and Guts' Patton once said that if everyone's thinking the same, somebody's not thinking right. The minority view at any moment may not always stay that way.

Costs. Passenger uptake figures.

These are serious flaws with a route via St. Stephen's Green when it faces the inevitable scrutiny from the country cousins.

I'm a country cousin, what I want is continuity to the city center, I'm covered to the north city center by luas, what I'd really like is something to take me conveniently to St Stephen's Green, the 145 bus just doesn't cut it.

strassenwo!f · 25-11-2014 1:50am

alias no.9 wrote: »

I'm a country cousin, what I want is continuity to the city center, I'm covered to the north city center by luas, what I'd really like is something to take me conveniently to St Stephen's Green, the 145 bus just doesn't cut it.

And you'd have a direct route right into the centre of the Bright Lights/Big Smoke, if the interconnector were built through College Green. We've seen on this thread from our study of the employment density maps that Dublin's largest area in the highest employment density category lies directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

In your particular case the journey to St. Stephen's Green would involve changing onto the metro or LUAS at College Green. But for every one of you, there's at least another person coming into the city for whom College Green is the last stop (ie no change required).

I say 'at least', because there is also considerable demand on the north side of College Green which can be directly served by a station at College Green. This is not the case to anything like the same extent at St. Stephen's Green, because of the 22 acre park on the southside of the park (with no commuters) and the relative remoteness of areas of high employment density to the south of the park.

The route through St. Stephen's Green would suit you better, but clearly wouldn't be as good for the other passengers mentioned above, who would have to change. And it would almost certainly cost more.

L1011 · 25-11-2014 8:47am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sorry, where's the circular argument?

All of your 'contributions', returned from the grave in a cycle as another one gets debunked. Such as your desperate attempt above on costs - sneaking it in as if you've not been shown to have no clue many times over.

The only cost increases we know of are what your redesign would cost, and the knock on disruption to trade

D.L.R. · 25-11-2014 2:34pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

We've seen on this thread from our study of the employment density maps that Dublin's largest area in the highest employment density category lies directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

This thread is about an alt. route for DU, yet there are no drawings of said route.

Please post a drawing of your proposed route so that we have something concrete to analyse.

Ren2k7 · 26-11-2014 3:46pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And you'd have a direct route right into the centre of the Bright Lights/Big Smoke, if the interconnector were built through College Green. We've seen on this thread from our study of the employment density maps that Dublin's largest area in the highest employment density category lies directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

In your particular case the journey to St. Stephen's Green would involve changing onto the metro or LUAS at College Green. But for every one of you, there's at least another person coming into the city for whom College Green is the last stop (ie no change required).

I say 'at least', because there is also considerable demand on the north side of College Green which can be directly served by a station at College Green. This is not the case to anything like the same extent at St. Stephen's Green, because of the 22 acre park on the southside of the park (with no commuters) and the relative remoteness of areas of high employment density to the south of the park.

The route through St. Stephen's Green would suit you better, but clearly wouldn't be as good for the other passengers mentioned above, who would have to change. And it would almost certainly cost more.

There is already significant employment density in the St. Stephen's Green area.

GerardKeating · 26-11-2014 6:23pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And you'd have a direct route right into the centre of the Bright Lights/Big Smoke, if the interconnector were built through College Green. We've seen on this thread from our study of the employment density maps that Dublin's largest area in the highest employment density category lies directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green.

So if the "highest employment density category lies directly between College Green and St. Stephen's Green", would the SSG stop not be just as good a the CG stop ?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I say 'at least', because there is also considerable demand on the north side of College Green which can be directly served by a station at College Green.

Which would be just as easily severed from the O'Connell Street stop.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And it would almost certainly cost more.

You keep ignoring comments which point out that if you route via College Green, it won't be able make the turn to Pearse and Docklands. Trains do not handle corners will, they need wide bends/loops to change direction.

strassenwo!f · 27-11-2014 12:29am

D.L.R. wrote: »

This thread is about an alt. route for DU, yet there are no drawings of said route.

Please post a drawing of your proposed route so that we have something concrete to analyse.

I'm rather busy at the moment, but the best rendering I've seen so far was very kindly posted by the poster Telchak, shown below. Unfortunately he originally posted just the map, then came back later and bastardized it with some comments. But hopefully you can get the idea of what is being suggested.

Now, I think Telchaks's got it mostly right with the route, though I would like to see a somewhat tighter curve at the Pearse/Spencer Dock end, which would help to ensure straight platforms at the Spencer Dock station.

There does seem to be some worry about the tightness of that curve, but it is very hard to see that it would be tighter than the curve on the currently proposed route between Pearse and St. Stephen's Green. The bit going under Government Buildings.

Obviously that latter curve is doable, and such curves exist on commuter rail routes all over the place, so a curve similar to that shown on the above route should also be. There is no proposal to run trains at very high speeds here, so it's hard to see it being a problem.

In fact the major issue I would see here, engineering-wise, is the gradients encountered in or around Spencer Dock. In the case of the circuitous St. Stephen's Green route, and the one shown above, you are probably looking at a track level at Spencer Dock of at least 10 metres below street level, possibly more, because of the river. This has to then join the northern line track which is around 4 metres above street level. Assuming that the platforms are level, this involves a considerable climb (of at least 14 metres) from around 120 (or so) metres north of the river and the junction with the northern line. Obviously it can be done, but the issue of how to do this safely over many years of service, in all weathers, will exercise the engineers' minds more than any curves in that area.

L1011 · 27-11-2014 12:38pm

The existing route has been proven to be possible, engineering-wise, something your one has not been - and now you're trying to cast aspersions on it.

Pull the other one... Just not the costs, passenger density or "buildings of national importance" other ones, as we've heard - and dealt with - those already.

D.L.R. · 27-11-2014 7:18pm

Thanks for the map. You're right CG is more or less the heart of Dublin. But routing DU through here is not necessarily better just for its own sake. Here's why:

1. Access to College Green
Tara St is only 500m east of College Green. Christchurch will be 600m west. So there's not a huge need for a station directly in between. SSG will add a third access point 400m away. College Green will be extremely well covered.

2. Expanding rail access in Central Dublin
By routing DU directly under CG, you'd miss a massive opportunity to open up more of Central Dublin to the Dart franchise. SSG does this for the south city, and it will yield huge dividend for a large area. A CG station wouldn't have as expansive an impact, being closer to existing stations.

3. Business adapts to infrastructure
Consider Dublin in the 18th century. The city centre was further west. When the railways were developed, the centre of gravity shifted east. Railways/Subways bring activity and investment to areas, and business grows up around them. In that context, 400m from CG is not a big deal.

4. Cost
If you went with College Green, not only would it cause more disruption than SSG, but its a tougher engineering prospect. A tight build on a major junction. Your route goes directly under Trinity too. Sure, its possible, but I think its clear it would be more expensive than SSG. Saving on 1km of tunneling would not make up this difference.

5. DU is ready to go!
This project is getting close to happening, why not support it. Going back to the drawing board for no real reason? No thanks, its already taken far too long. Personally I think Metro North is more in need of a rethink than DU, but that's for another thread. Out of all our planned rail projects, DU is easily the most well thought out. No project is perfect, and you have to make the best choices you can with limited resources. I think they've done a great job in that regard.

Cheers!

strassenwo!f · 29-11-2014 12:35am

There are a number of issues in this post which need to be dealt with.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Thanks for the map. You're right CG is more or less the heart of Dublin. But routing DU through here is not necessarily better just for its own sake.

You wouldn't be building it through College Green for its own sake. I am suggesting that it should be built through there because it would have greater and more efficient passenger uptake, primarily, and because it would almost certainly be cheaper.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Here's why:

1. Access to College Green
Tara St is only 500m east of College Green. Christchurch will be 600m west. So there's not a huge need for a station directly in between. SSG will add a third access point 400m away. College Green will be extremely well covered.

Tara Street would be on a different line under the new DART arrangement, so its proximity to another station, on a different line, is not relevant. People on the Hazelhatch - Balbriggan line can't go directly to or from Tara Street, and nor can people on the Maynooth - Greystones line go directly to or from a station at either College Green or St. Stephen's Green. The fact that stations at College Green and Tara Street would be geographically close should have zero impact on these plans, as the customers going through these stations are not the same.

D.L.R. wrote: »

2. Expanding rail access in Central Dublin
By routing DU directly under CG, you'd miss a massive opportunity to open up more of Central Dublin to the Dart franchise. SSG does this for the south city, and it will yield huge dividend for a large area. A CG station wouldn't have as expansive an impact, being closer to existing stations.

The current plans are for a metro line linking Swords with St. Stephen's Green (this will almost certainly be continued southward in the future) and the DART underground linking the Hazelhatch and Northern lines. It is irrelevant what name you put on these lines, what matters is that the plan is for the city to have proper rail network, and part of this will be underground. Thus, the metro station at St. Stephen's Green opens up the rail network to that area.

Building the interconnector through there doesn't, and can't, open it up any more to that rail network.

St. Stephen's Green would be very well served by the metro and LUAS, Especially if you consider that the potential immediate catchment area is significantly compromised by the existence of the park, and the obvious restrictions which there will always be on many of the properties in the vicinity of that metro station.

D.L.R. wrote: »

3. Business adapts to infrastructure
Consider Dublin in the 18th century. The city centre was further west. When the railways were developed, the centre of gravity shifted east. Railways/Subways bring activity and investment to areas, and business grows up around them. In that context, 400m from CG is not a big deal.

One problem with both St. Stephen's Green and College Green is that there is very limited scope for investment in buildings which could allow significant growth in space for businesses to operate. You can't do much at College Green, because that neighbourhood is already almost entirely built up, and you also can't do much around St. Stephen's Green because of the park and the buildings in the vicinity.

In the case of the DART Underground route, any serious extra activity and investment is going to come in other areas along it, like Kilmainham or the Docks.

D.L.R. wrote: »

4. Cost
If you went with College Green, not only would it cause more disruption than SSG, but its a tougher engineering prospect. A tight build on a major junction. Your route goes directly under Trinity too. Sure, its possible, but I think its clear it would be more expensive than SSG. Saving on 1km of tunneling would not make up this difference.

First of all, College Green really shouldn't be a tight build. It is very large - though it can actually be difficult to see this with all the clutter there - currently with space for 6 (six) lanes of traffic (some of them currently being used for taxis, loading bays, etc) and a central median through much of it. It can't be that tight an engineering prospect.

Secondly, a line through College Green would almost certainly go under part of TCD, probably the northern part of the Front Square buildings. But the line via St. Stephen's Green is proposed to go directly under both Dublin Castle and Government Buildings, so it's hard to see how that's any better, in terms of buildings which need to be protected.

If you look at the city as it is now, with College Green continuously snarled with buses, and St. Stephen's Green a relative oasis of calm, then I certainly wouldn't even attempt to disagree with you that College Green would cause more disruption. But there are at least a couple of things which should be borne in mind.

If the DART Underground, the metro and the associated work on the Maynooth line, are done right, this would unquestionably result in a major reduction in the number of buses travelling through the city centre.

Building the interconnector - metro interchange at College Green would involve rerouting the current College Green buses for about 4 years, after which most of those routes could be completely realigned to serve the various rail lines at suburban locations. The final product would be a rail interchange in probably the most central location possible, with efficient uptake of passengers from all sides of the station, at all hours of the day, over the entire lifetime of the tunnel.

Because of the neighbouring park and the impossibility of doing very much with the neighbouring properties, building the interconnector - metro interchange at St. Stephen's Green would also cause some disruption, though probably not all that much, but the final product would be rather inefficient uptake of passengers at that station, at all hours of the day, over the entire lifetime of the tunnel.

And it is most certainly not clear that College Green would cost more, as you say. In terms of cost to the city and city centre businesses, I think it is beyond doubt that it would cost more during the construction phase, but after that there would be a considerable benefit to the city from having the highest capacity line ever to be built in Ireland going through the area in the city with the most efficient passenger uptake. People from North, South, East and West of the station, right in the centre of the city, readily able to access it.

With a St. Stephen's Green route, you would have a lower cost to the city during construction, but you would end up with a line which has, in comparison to College Green, relatively inefficient passenger uptake (because of the park and the buildings in its neighbourhood)

On the bald costs of construction, I don't accept that a College Green route would cost more. We know that a route via St. Stephen's Green should cost more, because it is longer. I obviously accept that the cost difference between the routes could be reduced or even eliminated if it were shown that there were major differences in, for example, the geological conditions which would be encountered by a College Green route.

These haven't been presented, so for the moment I think we should work on the basis that a St. Stephen's Green route would be more expensive, probably around 100 million euro more expensive.

D.L.R. wrote: »

5. DU is ready to go!
This project is getting close to happening, why not support it. Going back to the drawing board for no real reason? No thanks, its already taken far too long. Personally I think Metro North is more in need of a rethink than DU, but that's for another thread. Out of all our planned rail projects, DU is easily the most well thought out. No project is perfect, and you have to make the best choices you can with limited resources. I think they've done a great job in that regard.

It should surely be clear to you that I think this is a project of enormous significance and potential for the city. I am not convinced that it has received the scrutiny it should have: ABP effectively waved both it and the metro north plans through the planning process without, apparently, questioning quite glaring discrepancies in their respective railway orders.

I don't believe it is close to happening, because of the country's finances, and I think there is time, and savings to be made, by looking again at this project.

L1011 · 29-11-2014 11:34am

Come on, prove the "savings" or stop making completely unsubstantiated claims

murphaph · 29-11-2014 2:17pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You wouldn't be building it through College Green for its own sake. I am suggesting that it should be built through there because it would have greater and more efficient passenger uptake, primarily, and because it would almost certainly be cheaper.

This is getting really tedious now. Stop repeating something you cannot even hope to prove. It is not a linear relationship between tunnel length and cost.

You have no idea of the geology and choose to totally ignore the cost to the economy of closing College Green completely to traffic for a couple of years.

You also harp on about 22 acres of grass that have "no commuters" but hey, have you looked at a map in the last 200 years? TCD has at least the same acreage of playing fields and squares and green areas-also with no "commuters" and you want to build a station outside the front door of this place. It's a non-argument.

Here!!

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 6:43am

L1011 wrote:

Come on, prove the "savings" or stop making completely unsubstantiated claims

murphaph wrote: »

This is getting really tedious now. Stop repeating something you cannot even hope to prove. It is not a linear relationship between tunnel length and cost.

I thought I had dealt with this in the previous post.

There is generally a relationship between tunnel length and cost: the further you tunnel, the more it's going to cost.

These costs obviously depend on the conditions in which you are operating, and I don't know if there is some major geological fault line between St. Stephen's Green and College Green which would render the costs on one side of this line significantly higher than on the other.

But, presumably, neither do either Murphaph or L1011.

It may be that the conditions via St. Stephen's Green are better, in which case the costs of the extra length could even be negated. Equally, it could be that the conditions of tunnelling via College Green are better, in which case the costs of building through St. Stephen's Green would be even greater, relative to the shorter alternative via College Green.

The fact is, it seems none of us know, and analysis of Iarnrod Eireann's study of alternatives to the St. Stephen's Green route - if such a document exists - would be required to help us in this regard.

Thus, for the moment I am working on the basis that geological conditions are not a major factor. The St. Stephen's Green route is longer, therefore in terms of tunnelling costs it would cost more, and a College Green route would cost less.

If you have any information otherwise, please present it to the board.

murphaph wrote: »

You have no idea of the geology and choose to totally ignore the cost to the economy of closing College Green completely to traffic for a couple of years.

If you had read my previous post you would have seen that this issue was not ignored:

strassenwo!f wrote:

And it is most certainly not clear that College Green would cost more, as you say. In terms of cost to the city and city centre businesses, I think it is beyond doubt that it would cost more during the construction phase, but after that there would be a considerable benefit to the city from having the highest capacity line ever to be built in Ireland going through the area in the city with the most efficient passenger uptake. People from North, South, East and West of the station, right in the centre of the city, readily able to access it.

With a St. Stephen's Green route, you would have a lower cost to the
city during construction, but you would end up with a line which has, in
comparison to College Green, relatively inefficient passenger uptake (because of the park and the buildings in its neighbourhood)

It is clear that it would not be easy for anybody to make the hard decision. I want to make it hard for that person to make the easy decision, knowing what opportunities the city would be leaving behind.

murphaph wrote: »

You also harp on about 22 acres of grass that have "no commuters" but hey, have you looked at a map in the last 200 years? TCD has at least the same acreage of playing fields and squares and green areas-also with no "commuters" and you want to build a station outside the front door of this place. It's a non-argument.

Here!!

Indeed it is a non-argument. Behind the railings of St. Stephen's Green you have perhaps 20-30 people working (and doing a great job). Behind the railings of TCD you have at least a few thousand people working there, the majority of them working at the College Green end, before we even get to the students who need to travel to and from there.

TCD is quite possibly the biggest single employer in Dublin 2. All happening behind those railings. (With regard to the large playing pitches down near the science end, I see that as more of a problem for the Pearse Station catchment.:p)

donvito99 · 30-11-2014 1:44pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I thought I had dealt with this in the previous post.

You've "thought" you've "dealt" with a lot of issues.

L1011 · 30-11-2014 3:19pm

That's not proof, or anything even approximating it.

You keep treating it as if it's fact when you haven't a notion of the reality

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 3:45pm

Okay, L1011, the board is yours.

Please go ahead and prove that the route via St. Stephen's Green will only cost 2 billion euro (or whatever the latest figure is).

L1011 · 30-11-2014 4:30pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Okay, L1011, the board is yours.

Please go ahead and prove that the route via St. Stephen's Green will only cost 2 billion euro (or whatever the latest figure is).

The tender price agreed will be the cost of the project, that's the way it goes. Its completely irrelevant to your Crayola argument with no figures to support any element of it.

You are the one making (ridiculous) claims as fact, you are the one who needs to prove them before you can rely on them in an argument.

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 4:46pm

L1011 wrote: »

The tender price agreed will be the cost of the project, that's the way it goes. Its completely irrelevant to your Crayola argument with no figures to support any element of it.

You are the one making (ridiculous) claims as fact, you are the one who needs to prove them before you can rely on them in an argument.

Precise costs, please.

(That's what you're asking me to provide).

L1011 · 30-11-2014 4:49pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Precise costs, please.

(That's what you're asking me to provide).

The tender costs won't be known until the tender is awarded - end of story. This is of absolutely zero relevance anyway. Nobody is making an argument based on the entire cost of the project but you are making an argument based on the costs of the central section.

However, the additional costs required in design work, a new railway order, more station boxes and closing the entire city centre for a prolonged period of time *are* quantifiable and yet you won't do it; even though its the crux of you're entire argument that it'd apparently be cheaper.

If you can't actually prove that it is any cheaper, that element of your argument is a busted flush and you could spare us the hassle of dealing with it repeatedly by not continuing to spout it.

alias no.9 · 30-11-2014 4:51pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Precise costs, please.

(That's what you're asking me to provide).

Nobody else is making claims about having cheaper alternatives to the planned route. Those who make claims should substantiate them.

L1011 · 30-11-2014 4:58pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You're fudging.

Precise costs, please, L1011.

(That's what you're asking me to provide).

Erm. No, I'm not.

You are asking for an unknown and completely irrelevant cost as an evasion tactic. Nobody at all is falling for it.

Now, come along and show us your costings that prove that College Green would be cheaper. You're so certain it is that you must have some idea. They don't need to be precise - nobody has asked for precise - but they do need to be realistic. Your last attempt was fantasyland in every element - tunnel length, tunnelling costs, station box digging costs and ignored the cost of planning and engineering. I do hope you've actually recalculated as you're still banging the same drum claiming it'll be cheaper when your previous figures were demolished as inaccurate.

(and I see now you've deleted this post for some reason...)

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 5:09pm

Okay, so I guess we're not going to get any precise figures from these guys.

L1011 · 30-11-2014 5:13pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Okay, so I guess we're not going to get any precise figures from these guys.

Distraction techniques don't work on adults, usually.

Nobody at all has asked you for precise figures - just not fantasyland fag packet scratchings like you gave us before and had comprehensively rubbished. If you're absolutely certain that CG will be cheaper you must have some figures to work from.

DART Underground - Alternative Routes

Comments