No likely not if those stations were further from one or both quays.
Good question, but you can plan ahead even when you don't know when you might need that future planning.
For when / if ever Metro North is being built network redundancy is likely more important.
It was just one of many points and just one example where network redundancy is a good idea.
Also: Like the O2, music events are staged at week days, at diffrent times of the year. Even if also a limited amount of them.
....I still think your arguments against an O'Connell Bridge stop isn't as firm as you think, but I'm not sure Metro North is still the best solution for Dublin (not just talking about the short term) so I think I'll exit this debate about just one station.
Really? I never knew that. Did they give an indication of the likely direction southwards?
I'd imagine since the proposed SSG stop points south-east that the metro would head down the N11, and replace the (highly successful) 46a/145 routes. Politically, however, that may be a no-no, as the south-east of the city would then have three rail lines compared to none in the Terenure/Kimmage/Templeogue direction.
If 'A Platform for Change' is anything to go by, it would swing southwest and go to Tallaght via Harold's Cross and Kimmage. I'd guess the current southeast direction probably has something to do with wanting to keep the entire station under the Green for construction purposes.
Ah, right! Actually, all I remember of it is that it was presented in map-format only... Don't remember reading anything about it. I wish they (whoever "they" are... RPA, DoT, CIE...) would just make a plan and stick to it. It's the uncertainty and ever-changing proposals that give people little confidence in the future of PT for Dublin.
Yes, that's correct. It was dictated by the station box location too.
The turning loop will be underneath the two sidings allowing them to be extended in the future.
This map also gives a good indication for those proposing a stop at College Green of how little room there is for a station box and how close it would be to the surrounding structures.
An extension south westwards would make sense. the Camden st - Rathmines -Rathgar -Terenure -Harold's cross corridor is always extremely congested, and the QBC there just isn't comparable to that of the N11.
I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.
Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.
The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.
Light rail to Rathfarnham wouldn't work because of the amount of surface disruption, and lack of space for the alignment made it expensive and slow. The area itself is probably more densely populated than that along any of the current DART or Luas lines.
If Metro North was built, it would make perfect sense to extend it south-west. Not all the way to Tallaght at first, but in stages, adding 3 more stops serving Rathmines, Harolds Cross Road and between Terenure and Kimmage Cross would only serve densely populated suburbs, that are extremely congested as the road network is too narrow to support proper QBC services.
AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.
The route is actually quite densely populated, especially around Rathmines and Harold's X, perhaps not as far out as Rathfarnam.
Indeed it is quite densely populated. As was discussed on this board some time ago, the density of areas like Harold's Cross, Terenure and Kimmage is on a par with similar suburban areas of, for example, Munich, where there is a pretty good suburban rail network through similar suburbs, and the city is considered to have a very good transport network overall.
The alleged density issue in Dublin's inner suburbs (like Harold's X, Terenure, Finglas) was surely put to bed on this board a long time ago. I am surprised that it has emerged again.
Line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed for a myriad of reasons, all I was saying was that the business case didn't stack up either. This would have been down to its viability due to the reasons you mentioned among others.
"Alignment falls short of covering Operating & Maintenance costs by approx €1.5 million per annum" - RPA Line E Feasibility Study.
Its fine saying the DART line (1984) has the same density or that Munich's S-Bahn (1972) and U-Bahn (1971) serve similar densities, all im saying is that I cant see it being built in MY lifetime. The density issue only arises as nowadays it is required to justify the high cost of tunneling in the CBA.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but I can understand why it is not a stated priority for Dublin transport at this time.
I think there's no doubt that a College Green station would present a considerable challenge.
But the alternatives, insofar as they have been outlined on this thread, appear to be the considerably more expensive O'Connell Bridge option (favoured by the RPA), or the long city centre gap option of just having a station at St. Stephen's Green and a station at O'Connell Street. Neither of which is perfect, either.
I imagine there will be a considerable amount of time before the city centre section of the metro is built.
Now would seem to be a good time for a reappraisal of the various options for the city centre section.
Doesn't the OCB stop mean one less stop on the line? Wouldn't that make it cheaper compared to two stops?