DART Underground - Alternative Routes

strassenwo!f · 14-12-2014 8:41pm

L1011 wrote: »

You're not going to make it under the river, or indeed basements in some cases with your comically close to the surface station boxes.

They're deep for a reason - reasons clearly beyond a crayon-wangler. You can't just pull them up to the surface in a desperate attempt to pretend that adding more stations - the most expensive element of the build - doesn't increase the cost vastly

First of all, having the metro at the base of a three-level station box in College Green is hardly comically close to the surface.

Secondly, you would be adding another station to the system map, but you would not be adding more station boxes. Instead of the RPA's plan to build two stations at one location (O'Connell Bridge), you would separate them and give greater coverage of the city by the metro.

strassenwo!f · 14-12-2014 8:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

And agreed that as a result the station box at CG would be more expensive than one at St. Stephen's Green, possibly significantly more expensive?

Agreed again.

I can't put an actual figure on it, but you would have to spend a lot of money supporting neighbouring buildings (like the front of TCD) during construction. This is something which would not be required at all in St. Stephen's Green, because you'd be building next to a park. Even though it would have essentially the same layout as the currently proposed St. Stephen's Green interchange, it would be much more expensive to build, for the reason given.

Against that, you wouldn't be building the two four-level stations at O'Connell Bridge, but would instead be building much smaller (and much cheaper) metro stations at O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

L1011 · 14-12-2014 9:01pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

First of all, having the metro at the base of a three-level station box in College Green is hardly comically close to the surface.

When it has to make it under the river in a very short distance (and then come back up to your other effectively cut-n-cover depth station on OCS), yes, it is comical.

Your suggested station moves are going to require far more work in extracting station boxes - that is not actual arguable, as your idea that we can just pull them closer to the surface is unworkable.

murphaph · 14-12-2014 9:13pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Against that, you wouldn't be building the two four-level stations at O'Connell Bridge, but would instead be building much smaller (and much cheaper) metro stations at O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

The extravagant station at O'Connell Bridge can (and IMO will) be scrapped and replaced with a "standard" station or even 2 standard stations. MN is likely to see many changes if it is ever built.

Your claim has been all along that your proposed route would be cheaper, but now you readily accept that your proposed station box would be more expensive than the one at St. Stephen's Green and you claim your savings would actually come from the ability to modify another project altogether (MN), but that modification is simply not dependent on MN having an interchange station with DU at CG.

So you accept that your proposed route does not make DU itself cheaper but in fact more expensive (because the 100m or so of extra tunnel is negligible when compared to the extra engineering complexity at CG, never mind cost to wider economy due to prolonged closure) and that any theoretical savings your route might deliver would actually come from redesigning another project that could be redesigned anyway (eg, MN station on the wide Westmoreland St. and one at Upper O'Connell St, instead of the massive one under the river that will never see the light of day)?

strassenwo!f · 14-12-2014 10:36pm

murphaph wrote: »

The extravagant station at O'Connell Bridge can (and IMO will) be scrapped and replaced with a "standard" station or even 2 standard stations. MN is likely to see many changes if it is ever built.

Your claim has been all along that your proposed route would be cheaper, but now you readily accept that your proposed station box would be more expensive than the one at St. Stephen's Green and you claim your savings would actually come from the ability to modify another project altogether (MN), but that modification is simply not dependent on MN having an interchange station with DU at CG.

So you accept that your proposed route does not make DU itself cheaper but in fact more expensive (because the 100m or so of extra tunnel is negligible when compared to the extra engineering complexity at CG, never mind cost to wider economy due to prolonged closure) and that any theoretical savings your route might deliver would actually come from redesigning another project that could be redesigned anyway (eg, MN station on the wide Westmoreland St. and one at Upper O'Connell St, instead of the massive one under the river that will never see the light of day)?

I don't know how you are managing to come up with '100 metres or so' extra tunnelling. It appears the St. Stephen's Green route would be somewhere over 500 metres longer. Thus, you've got extra tunnelling costs, based on the information we have, of somewhere in the 100 million euro ballpark.

There are really two scenarios: one where the metro isn't built, and one where it is.

I would think that much of the extra cost of a College Green interchange would be accounted for by the metro part of the station, ie the bit right up against TCD. If the metro isn't built, then you would just be building the interconnector bit, and there's no reason for that to be much more expensive than the proposed St. Stephen's Green station. College Green is a nice wide location, so it shouldn't be difficult to build a station there without spending a lot of money on supporting buildings.

You certainly wouldn't be eating much into the 100 million you'd save by building a shorter route.

If the metro is built, I am suggesting that it would have a two-level station at St. Stephen's Green, a three-level station at College Green and let's say a three-level station on O'Connell Street. These latter two should allow the metro to pass comfortably under the river and should be considerably cheaper (in terms of manpower and construction materials) than what is currently proposed for O'Connell Bridge. Savings here, though, would probably be eaten up by the extra measures which would be needed to protect buildings like the front of TCD, but I'm afraid I can't put a specific figure on what the costs of such protective measures might be.

With regard to the costs to the wider economy of closing College Green for the construction period, I have already stated that I cannot say what they would be. All I can say is that there would certainly be a greater cost to the economy during construction, compared to St. Stephen's Green where construction of such a station should cause hardly any disruption.

Nor can I put a figure on the eventual benefit which would accrue to the economy from having a station with much more efficient passenger uptake and delivery (compared to building at St. Stephen's Green), at all hours of the day.

L1011 · 14-12-2014 10:52pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thus, you've got extra tunnelling costs, based on the information we have, of somewhere in the 100 million euro ballpark.

No, we don't. There we are with your division of total project cost (including rolling stock, station boxes, etc, etc) by tunnel length. That isn't what the tunnelling costs.

Why do you keep trying to bring back comprehensively destroyed arguments as if they're fresh and valid? Like that, and the entire rest of your post

murphaph · 14-12-2014 11:24pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If the metro is built, I am suggesting that it would have a two-level station at St. Stephen's Green, a three-level station at College Green and let's say a three-level station on O'Connell Street. These latter two should allow the metro to pass comfortably under the river and should be considerably cheaper (in terms of manpower and construction materials) than what is currently proposed for O'Connell Bridge. Savings here, though, would probably be eaten up by the extra measures which would be needed to protect buildings like the front of TCD, but I'm afraid I can't put a specific figure on what the costs of such protective measures might be.

You're doing it again.

The extravagant OCB station design will not go ahead, believe me. That part of MN is dead and they will come up with a simplified design. You don't have to route DU through CG for that OCB station to be rethought. It is not a saving therefore based on routing DU through CG. Can you accept that?

The advantage of SSG is that you can quite easily excavate the ground and build the large station boxes using standard construction techniques. I don't even think a station box would fit in CG. I think you'd have to mine the DU station and possibly the MN station, if you want to achieve straight platforms. Could you please sketch the 2 station boxes (DU and MN) on a google maps image of CG from above. You can't excavate right up to the foundations of those historic buildings without incurring horrendous costs in underpinning etc. So leave a little wiggle room please.

strassenwo!f · 15-12-2014 12:18am

murphaph wrote: »

You're doing it again.

Doing what again? Are you talking about L1011's comment above?

If so, he's been on about this for ages, and doesn't appear to be able to use a calculator. If you were simply to divide project cost (2 billion) by tunnel length (7.6 km), you would come up with a figure of 263 million per kilometre. I have always been working on a basis of 200 million per kilometre for tunnelling costs, ie way below what you'd get by simple division.

If you've got a more accurate figure of what Irish Rail think the actual tunnelling costs will be per kilometre, let's use that.

murphaph wrote: »

The extravagant OCB station design will not go ahead, believe me. That part of MN is dead and they will come up with a simplified design. You don't have to route DU through CG for that OCB station to be rethought. It is not a saving therefore based on routing DU through CG. Can you accept that?

An Bord Pleanala didn't appear to have any problem with that station, but of course their appraisal of both projects does seem to have been quite gentle. And the RPA appear to still believe that it's going to happen. You, apparently, know better.

In any case, if it is redesigned, and you still have to have stations at St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street, and Trinity itself has been ruled out, surely routing via College Green is an obvious option?

murphaph wrote: »

The advantage of SSG is that you can quite easily excavate the ground and build the large station boxes using standard construction techniques. I don't even think a station box would fit in CG. I think you'd have to mine the DU station and possibly the MN station, if you want to achieve straight platforms. Could you please sketch the 2 station boxes (DU and MN) on a google maps image of CG from above. You can't excavate right up to the foundations of those historic buildings without incurring horrendous costs in underpinning etc. So leave a little wiggle room please.

I shall certainly do this, but I'm afraid I don't currently know how.:o Any advice would be welcome.

In the meantime, as I said above, the easy part of a College Green would be the Dart station, as you would have plenty of room (6 lanes of road, in parts, plus a central median, in parts) to work with. A north-south metro box would be unquestionably a much tighter proposition.

murphaph · 15-12-2014 12:32am

But they have to at least allow for MN at some future point in time, so any station at CG must accommodate both.

strassenwo!f · 20-12-2014 2:38pm

I have a picture for the board, in answer to recent questions, but I'm having difficulty uploading it. What's the best way to upload it to the thread?

(I've tried things like imageshack and stuff, but it still comes up as a sort of an icon, rather than a picture)

strassenwo!f · 20-12-2014 5:25pm

There are moderators here who have posted images on this very thread. Maybe they could help me in my predicament?

strassenwo!f · 20-12-2014 7:16pm

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Van.Bosch · 20-12-2014 7:58pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Why don't you PM him rather than hoping he sees your post? Or would that deprive you of an opportunity to imply things?

strassenwo!f · 21-12-2014 1:36am

It certainly would. I'm still unconvinced that an estate agent's vision of the city is especially relevant when we are talking about moving masses of people.

Maybe one of your thankers, Murphaph, who specificically asked for this to be posted on the board, might be persuaded. He's read my recent pleas, he's posted images on the board before, he's asked for this image.

murphaph · 21-12-2014 11:19am

If you are computer literate enough to create the image and post on these forums including copious use of the quoting, italicising and bolding functions, then you are more than capable of finding out how to add an image to a post.

Victor · 22-12-2014 3:48am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Trolling and snide remarks not welcome.

Moderator

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It certainly would. I'm still unconvinced that an estate agent's vision of the city is especially relevant when we are talking about moving masses of people.

Maybe one of your thankers, Murphaph, who specificically asked for this to be posted on the board, might be persuaded. He's read my recent pleas, he's posted images on the board before, he's asked for this image.

It is not your place to call into question who does or doesn't thank posts.

Take a week off.

Moderator

GerardKeating · 24-12-2014 1:18pm

This is CIE's Rail plan from the 70's, I many way I think this is "nicer" that the current DU plan

D.L.R. · 24-12-2014 4:15pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

This is CIE's Rail plan from the 70's, I many way I think this is "nicer" that the current DU plan

The dept of transport may as well be called the dept of perpetual map drawing.

murphaph · 24-12-2014 4:58pm

Interesting that they completely ignored the Harcourt Street alignment as part of that plan. Almost embarrassed perhaps to admit that closing it was a mistake.

GerardKeating · 26-12-2014 3:11pm

murphaph wrote: »

Interesting that they completely ignored the Harcourt Street alignment as part of that plan. Almost embarrassed perhaps to admit that closing it was a mistake.

Or incredibly foresight in leaving the alignment free for the Luas?

noelfirl · 26-12-2014 8:14pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or incredibly foresight in leaving the alignment free for the Luas?

Nah. Pretty sure an earlier or later iteration of that had Harcourt St. as a bus way. Probably more lucky that that didn't happen.

murphaph · 26-12-2014 8:25pm

I suspect Gerard was being sarcastic. They did indeed propose using a heavy rail alignment as a bloody busway.

GerardKeating · 26-12-2014 8:44pm

murphaph wrote: »

I suspect Gerard was being sarcastic. They did indeed propose using a heavy rail alignment as a bloody busway.

I was...

I do remember the version with the Busway.

strassenwo!f · 31-12-2014 1:27pm

The image below is an indication of how a College Green interchange might be done. Sorry that the image is so big.

pbV2KOZ4j

The yellow bit would be the metro part of the station. I am intending to show here a section which would be about 100 metres long and 15-16 metres wide, to accomodate either an island platform or two side platforms (with escalators to the interconnector level and the concourse level).

The blue bit would be the interconnector, and the picture is intended to show a station section which is 125 metres long and 22-24 metres wide. I think this should be enough to allow the interconnector part to have a 'Spanish-style' arrangement with two side platforms and an island platform. College Green is a very busy area, and even if you don't actually need such an arrangement at the beginning of the interconnector's life, it might be useful to have it for the future.

The red bits are intended to show what might be concourse areas, with your ticket machines, shops, flower sellers, shoe shiners, etc. I've drawn two such areas, but it might just be more sensible to build it all as one.

L1011 · 31-12-2014 3:04pm

More unbuildable crayons - the available space to gain access to mine your metro platforms is going to be too small. Foundations and an active Luas line in play

Just because you can squash some lines in a space doesn't mean it can be built

murphaph · 31-12-2014 6:28pm

Those station boxes abut the walls of several buildings of immense cultural importance and you've left absolutely no room to work with. You'd have to drive piles there to hold the ground beneath tge shallow foundations in place and you'd be driving those piles about 2 feet from the walls.

I don't believe that can be built without mining the hole lot and mining the stations out immediately makes the hole thing significantly more expensive than the cut and cover approach that is planned for St Stephen's Green.

Aard · 31-12-2014 6:35pm

Stephen's Green is 7 meters higher than College Green. College Green would have to contend with greater flood risk. In addition the tunnel would have to decend these 7 meters over a shorter distance from the relatively high Christchurch station.

strassenwo!f · 01-01-2015 10:41pm

Aard wrote:

Stephen's Green is 7 meters higher than College Green. College Green would have to contend with greater flood risk. In addition the tunnel would have to decend these 7 meters over a shorter distance from the relatively high Christchurch station.

Firstly, in relation to the flood risk.

The RPA designed the proposed O'Connell Bridge station, the one with the two big stations either side of the river, and with the platforms directly under the river. No word from them about flood risk at that location, which must be at the very bottom of the river valley. They presumably passed it by the Department of Transport before applying for a railway order, and it got over that hurdle without, as far as we know, any mention of flood risk. The railway order application then went before An Bord Pleanala, who approved it, and then the RPA announced that they were delighted to have received a railway order for the project.

What did we hear about flood risk at any of those stages?

As far as I'm aware, not a sausage.

If it wasn't a factor at O'Connell Bridge, it's very hard to see how it's going to be a factor at a (slightly) uphill location like College Green.

If you've got more information about the flood risk at that location, perhaps you'd share it with the board.

For the moment, it looks like a red herring.

The bit about the Christchurch station is also very questionable.

The highest point in the city centre is in Christchurch Place, to the south of the Cathedral. 13.5 metres above sea level, if I remember correctly. The location which is presently proposed for the interconnector station at Christchurch is on the north side of the Cathedral, where the surface is considerably lower, and on a significant slope.

(I've seen maps with the altitudes above sea level around that area, but I don't currently have access to one).

From our knowledge of that area, and the importance of the cathedral, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the surface at the top of the area of the proposed station is around 10 metres above sea level, but I am obviously open to being corrected by someone with the exact figures.

You probably don't want a concourse (for your ticket machines, etc.) in which the floor slopes down towards the river. Thus, I think it would also not be unreasonable to suggest that the eventual concourse which is built will have a floor at or around sea level (ie around the normal river level). The interconnector level would have a floor around 3-4 metres below that.

That should be comfortably able to reach an interconnector station at College Green which is just below the level of the main concourse in the picture above, without any serious gradient issues.

strassenwo!f · 01-01-2015 10:50pm

murphaph wrote: »

Those station boxes abut the walls of several buildings of immense cultural importance and you've left absolutely no room to work with. You'd have to drive piles there to hold the ground beneath tge shallow foundations in place and you'd be driving those piles about 2 feet from the walls.

I don't believe that can be built without mining the hole lot and mining the stations out immediately makes the hole thing significantly more expensive than the cut and cover approach that is planned for St Stephen's Green.

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

monument · 01-01-2015 11:34pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

L1011 · 02-01-2015 12:19am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

What, precisely, do you mean by this?

strassenwo!f · 02-01-2015 1:02am

monument wrote: »

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

Yes Monument. I thought the RPA would try and build the metro as far as possible under roads. Like Grafton Street. The yellow bit on the image I posted above might have involved some tight turns for the metro if they had done that (heading north from St. Stephen's Green). But if you look at their plans, it seems they were planning to build their metro directly under quite a number of the protected buildings you show.

I still don't know why.

For example, there's an enormous amount of undeveloped space in the TCD Provost's garden which could be used for a metro station, with access to Nassau Street, Grafton Street, College Green, etc. without causing any major inconvenience.

And without going under any buildings of national importance.

murphaph · 02-01-2015 1:14am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

So you accept you'd have to mine your proposed stations rather than use cut and cover as at St. Stephen's Green?

strassenwo!f · 02-01-2015 7:55am

Sorry, cultural importance.

strassenwo!f · 02-01-2015 12:15pm

L1011 wrote: »

More unbuildable crayons - the available space to gain access to mine your metro platforms is going to be too small. Foundations and an active Luas line in play

Just because you can squash some lines in a space doesn't mean it can be built

Yes, of course, there'd be no squashing or squeezing at St. Stephen's Green, because you'd have a whole 22-acre park right beside the station to play with, a very large area with no commuters. And there'd be almost no disruption.

College Green, as far as I can see, would certainly involve considerable squashing and/or squeezing.

alias no.9 · 02-01-2015 12:31pm

monument wrote: »

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

Looks to me that Starbucks on the corner of Foster Place is the only structure on College Green without a red dot. It might give a more interesting view if the full footprint of protected structures were colour coded so you don't lose density as buildings get bigger.
That's going to be massively problematic for digging and that's before you give a passing thought to the utilities buried under the street, water, sewage, gas, electricity, phone, fiber optic, then there's the Luas which will pass through before any work on this would commence, not to mention the total disruption to most of the Dublin Bus network.

L1011 · 02-01-2015 12:54pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

a very large area with no commuters.

Unproven assertion. Again.

Your fantasyland costings for College Green are falling ever more in to hilarity now, as you finally admit that you'll need to mine the station boxes. Care to whack another eight figures in there?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

College Green, as far as I can see, would certainly involve considerable squashing and/or squeezing.

Yes, so much so that any sane person wouldn't bother drawing lines on a map and saying its buildable.

The engineering cost of *designing* a station at CG, as well as the time it'll take, is immense. That's before you even try build it.

murphaph · 02-01-2015 8:45pm

Strange how 20 acres of playing fields and squares in TCD doesn't seem to bother you.

monument · 02-01-2015 11:32pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes Monument. I thought the RPA would try and build the metro as far as possible under roads. Like Grafton Street. The yellow bit on the image I posted above might have involved some tight turns for the metro if they had done that (heading north from St. Stephen's Green). But if you look at their plans, it seems they were planning to build their metro directly under quite a number of the protected buildings you show.

I still don't know why.

Because you don't have a clue how these things are built. Metro North as planned can go under the protected buildings because it will be well under them.

Station boxes which are built by cut and cover are far different stories. Are you still claiming you could do full cut and cover on College Green without massive disruption?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

For example, there's an enormous amount of undeveloped space in the TCD Provost's garden which could be used for a metro station, with access to Nassau Street, Grafton Street, College Green, etc. without causing any major inconvenience.

And without going under any buildings of national importance.

How long is the space in the garden? How long were Metro North trams planned to be?

On what streets would be the exits be? Exactly where?

The answer to those questions are the answer to your question.

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 12:23am

monument wrote: »

Because you don't have a clue how these things are built. Metro North as planned can go under the protected buildings because it will be well under them.

Station boxes which are built by cut and cover are far different stories. Are you still claiming you could do full cut and cover on College Green without massive disruption?

I have never claimed that an interchange could be built at College Green without massive disruption. If you can show one place where I have done, please do so.

As far as I remember, I have said all along that the disruption involved in building an underground interchange at College Green would be massive. Just off the top of my head I'd imagine you'd have to close the LUAS link-up for at least 6 months, while you dig up what would be the metro station and the front of the interconnector part of the interchange.

You'd probably have to close the whole of College Green for at least two years to buses and other traffic.

The disruption would be massive, no question.

But, as discussed earlier in the thread, it seems that the end product would be better for the city, in terms of delivering passengers directly to where they want to go, and taking them home.

You could certainly built the interchange much more easily in St. Stephen's Green. Almost no disruption. But would the end product be anywhere near as good, in terms of delivery and uptake of passengers?

monument wrote: »

How long is the space in the garden? How long were Metro North trams planned to be?

On what streets would be the exits be? Exactly where?

The answer to those questions are the answer to your question.

I haven't given it a huge amount of thought because as far as I can see, the best location for the metro stop seems to be as shown in the above picture, between College Green and the junction of Westmoreland Street and College Street. You could fit in a metro station there quite comfortably. (it would probably be easier with an island platform)

I still can't grasp how the RPA came up with the O'Connell Bridge idea as a way of saving money, when you've got a pretty obvious location like that show in the above picture. How were they going to save money?

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 7:28am

The original interconnector plan was for it to be built via St. Stephen's Green so that it could interchange with the LUAS. But I was in Dublin last week for Christmas, and there were a few places around the city where you could see work on the LUAS link-up, so it won't be necessary to have the big St. Stephen's Green loop in a couple of years. You could just have a cheaper, more direct route, serving more people.

mohammadbyrne · 03-01-2015 9:29am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The original interconnector plan was for it to be built via St. Stephen's Green so that it could interchange with the LUAS. But I was in Dublin last week for Christmas, and there were a few places around the city where you could see work on the LUAS link-up, so it won't be necessary to have the big St. Stephen's Green loop in a couple of years. You could just have a cheaper, more direct route, serving more people.

This is entirely incorrect. It has been pointed out to you several times and for whatever reason you've ignored it but DU was NOT routed via SSG to link up with the Luas.
It was routed there because of the absolute certainty that planning permission for a station at College Green was unobtainable. Trinity College stated that they would oppose it to the bitter end.
There are a plethora of other issues but the clinching factor was the acceptance that PP was impossible.

You could actually have this confirmed in 5 minutes of you made a call to the DU planning team at IR, even the office cat is aware of this.
I doubt you'll do that though as it would make clear the unmitigated fantasy of your obsession with this issue.

murphaph · 03-01-2015 12:22pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You could just have a cheaper, more direct route

Ok. Now I know you're trolling. You admit that CG would be much more disruptive and much more expensive than SSG but maintain that it would be cheaper because the tunnel is a couple of hundred metres shorter.

alias no.9 · 03-01-2015 12:44pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ok. Now I know you're trolling. You admit that CG would be much more disruptive and much more expensive than SSG but maintain that it would be cheaper because the tunnel is a couple of hundred metres shorter.

Clearly the monetary costs of such massive disruption would be trivial or at least should be entirely ignored on the basis that they may be inconvenient.
I'm starting to think that the only real agenda for pursuing such a ludicrous objective would be to have nothing built at all, why else would you pursue the unbuildable? Why or who would want the interconnector project enter an infinite loop of torture?

L1011 · 03-01-2015 12:57pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You could just have a cheaper, more direct route, serving more people.

Unproven (after a number of years of circular arguments, fantasyland numbers and crayons on maps, at this stage) assertion alert!

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 2:37pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ok. Now I know you're trolling. You admit that CG would be much more disruptive and much more expensive than SSG but maintain that it would be cheaper because the tunnel is a couple of hundred metres shorter.

A route via St. Stephen's Green to meet up with the LUAS would be several hundred metres longer, not a couple. Probably costing at least 100 million euro more than a direct route without the loop, based on the figures we have.

A route via College Green should obviously be cheaper, because the route would be shorter, but construction of a station there should be more expensive than building at St. Stephen's Green, because there'd be disruption and you wouldn't be building beside a park.

That would eat a bit into the savings you'd make by building a shorter route, but driving a few piles into the ground to protect important buildings isn't going to cost an extra 100 million euro.

And, as discussed above, it would directly serve more people.

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 2:54pm

mohammadbyrne wrote: »

This is entirely incorrect. It has been pointed out to you several times and for whatever reason you've ignored it but DU was NOT routed via SSG to link up with the Luas.
It was routed there because of the absolute certainty that planning permission for a station at College Green was unobtainable. Trinity College stated that they would oppose it to the bitter end.
There are a plethora of other issues but the clinching factor was the acceptance that PP was impossible.

You could actually have this confirmed in 5 minutes of you made a call to the DU planning team at IR, even the office cat is aware of this.
I doubt you'll do that though as it would make clear the unmitigated fantasy of your obsession with this issue.

Welcome to the board, Mohammed.

You'll need to provide some further information about TCD's objections to the interconnector. We know that TCD objected strongly to the metro, as it would have gone under buildings with deep basements, wine cellars, and such. As far as I'm aware they have made no statement about the interconnector.

We do know, from their presentation to An Bord Pleanala in their successful pursuit of a railway order for the interconnector, that Iarnrod Eireann looked at just two routes for the line.

One was the currently proposed route, via St. Stephen's Green. The other was a route via Tara Street, but one of the main problems there was that such a route would not be able to go via St. Stephen's Green! (Apparently IE considered it a disadvantage not being able to build the route via a station beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, in the centre of the city).

As far as we are aware from IE's presentation to ABP, they never even looked at College Green.

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 4:00pm

alias no.9 wrote: »

Clearly the monetary costs of such massive disruption would be trivial or at least should be entirely ignored on the basis that they may be inconvenient.
I'm starting to think that the only real agenda for pursuing such a ludicrous objective would be to have nothing built at all, why else would you pursue the unbuildable? Why or who would want the interconnector project enter an infinite loop of torture?

I certainly want to see the interconnector built, and I think its construction would be a wonderful basis for creating a unified city with a proper transport system. It becomes clearer to me evey time I visit Dublin (my home town) that the city is a mess, with growing disparity between the east of the city (along the DART line) and the west (broadly surviving on buses into the city). I think the interconnector, if developed properly, with at least a couple of spurs to the north or south of the Hazelhatch route, could be the key to reducing that disparity and creating a pretty unified city. I absolutely want to see this thing built.

mohammadbyrne · 03-01-2015 4:18pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Welcome to the board, Mohammed.

You'll need to provide some further information about TCD's objections to the interconnector. We know that TCD objected strongly to the metro, as it would have gone under buildings with deep basements, wine cellars, and such. As far as I'm aware they have made no statement about the interconnector.

We do know, from their presentation to An Bord Pleanala in their successful pursuit of a railway order for the interconnector, that Iarnrod Eireann looked at just two routes for the line.

One was the currently proposed route, via St. Stephen's Green. The other was a route via Tara Street, but one of the main problems there was that such a route would not be able to go via St. Stephen's Green! (Apparently IE considered it a disadvantage not being able to build the route via a station beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, in the centre of the city).

As far as we are aware from IE's presentation to ABP, they never even looked at College Green.

Utter delusional nonsense.
You were given the correct information. Phone IR and check if you want.
No ifs or buts.

strassenwo!f · 03-01-2015 4:27pm

If they had looked at College Green, why would they not have explained that to ABP, along with their reasons for rejecting it?

DART Underground - Alternative Routes

Comments