Integration chaos

Victor

Note that Tara Street Station is likely to be rebuilt anyway, whether as a "great leap forward" or not.

Metrobest wrote:

We deserve cool things.

Screw "cool", make it work first.

Metrobest

I would not like to say what is planned because it's all up for grabs.

Well Philip is it or is it not what I suggested in my previous post? Let's assume it is. Would you then acknowledge that the Tara/Trinty travelator is an equal, if not superior, form of integration as it flows more seamlessly?

The platforms at Drumcondra are more spacious than Tara Street by the way!! There's also more room to widen them, there are various buildings constraining Tara

I think there's room to extend Tara's platforms. Victor says it's being redeveloped. Does anyone know the nature of the plans? In the context of Tara being redeveloped and a metro station being build at Hawkins Street, wouldn't it would be sheer madness not to connect the two and create one of the world's funkiest transport hubs?

Travelators are a second best solution! You only provide them when you cannot provide vertical integration!

When I get around to it, I'll post up some pictures I took of the Bilbao metro when I was there last year. Bilbao has Europe's newest metro system and it's like a work of art contributing to the urban and economic regeneration of the city. The pictures will include a travelator. It's one of the coolest things you've ever seen... the locosexuals will be getting excited .

I'd want the south eastern entrance to the metroNorth station to surface directly adjacent to the Luas at Abbey

I would have imagined that the best chances of such an exit alignment would be if metro is routed via the Tara interchange at Hawkins Street as its approach to O'Connell Street will be from an easterly direction.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Well Philip is it or is it not what I suggested in my previous post? Let's assume it is. Would you then acknowledge that the Tara/Trinty travelator is an equal, if not superior, form of integration as it flows more seamlessly?

No I don't agree it does flow more seemlessly. Travelators are a second best solution. They are a means of providing what's known as 'horizontal integration', which is universally acknowledged as being a poor relation to vertical integration (provided by escalators or lifts alone).

Metrobest wrote:

I think there's room to extend Tara's platforms. Victor says it's being redeveloped. Does anyone know the nature of the plans? In the context of Tara being redeveloped and a metro station being build at Hawkins Street, wouldn't it would be sheer madness not to connect the two and create one of the world's funkiest transport hubs?

I couldn't give a fiddler's curse about what's funky. I want a solution that serves the most people at the best cost. I simply don't believe enough DART1<->metroNorth changes would be made at Tara (in the event of no interchange at Drumcondra) to justify the loss of interconnection at Abbey and the added cost and longer overall journey time caused by all the added bends. In any case, redevopling Tara is a separate project that may or may not happen. Integration at Drumcondra relies very little on CIE to do anything as the platforms are wide enough as is and could be widened very cheaply if needs be (cantilever extensions). The escalators would be installed by the RPA contractors. Tara would require major surgery to make it safe and it's platforms are also curved making them that bit more unsafe than Drumcondra which has nice straight ones. All in all, you couldn't pick a worse station than Tara to add passengers to. And for what? A very few journeys that can't be made more easily using Drumcondra as an interchange point.

Metrobest wrote:

When I get around to it, I'll post up some pictures I took of the Bilbao metro when I was there last year. Bilbao has Europe's newest metro system and it's like a work of art contributing to the urban and economic regeneration of the city. The pictures will include a travelator. It's one of the coolest things you've ever seen... the locosexuals will be getting excited .

Travelators are not cool. They are provided in addition to escalators because vertical integration couldn't be provided for whatever reason. They are not included because they are better than good old fashioned escalators.

Metrobest wrote:

I would have imagined that the best chances of such an exit alignment would be if metro is routed via the Tara interchange at Hawkins Street as its approach to O'Connell Street will be from an easterly direction.

No no no! You have this all wrong. To get the southeastern exit from the metroNorth station box to surface at Abbey you need to have the station box located between Abbey St and Princes Lane/GPO. To achieve this you have to appoach directly up Westmoreland St/O'Connell St. This deviation to Tara is the reason that Abbey St Luas wouldn't get interchange with metro because the minimum radius of curvature would not allow the line to make it back over to the O'Connell/Abbey st junction-causing a much more northerly location for the metro box on O'Connell St. No other reason according to the RPA. That's one of the reasons they'd like to ditch Tara.

dowlingm

The one thing about vertical connections rather than horizontal is that from an accessibility standpoint they are probably easier/better than escalators/stairs because you will also almost certainly have to provide elevators.

As for travelators not being cool - Toronto Pearson is full of the things, as is Heathrow. Sometimes vertical integration is just not practical. Also - horizontal corridors do give opportunity to site retail arcades along it to help fund the project and make the corridors safer due to more continuous presence.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

I think there's room to extend Tara's platforms. Victor says it's being redeveloped. Does anyone know the nature of the plans?

there are various proposals, from simply adding stairs and an exit concourse at Townsends Street right up to a 14(?) storey office building over the platforms (probably a CIE, as opposed to IE, project). Would require closing the station for an extended period

dowlingm wrote:

As for travelators not being cool

Cool doesn't get people from A to B. Yes it might be important for persuading some parts of society, but look at many a German station - not the prettiest, full of graffitti and grime (but not litter!), but people still use it because the trains work, on time.

extragon

found this when googling Frank McDonald's article, here in integrated Paris...

You're all missing the point. Dublin is small. It should be possible to travel from anywhere to anywhere with one change. Usually possible, in Paris ( pop. 10 million ) and with a much shorter walk than at the Chatelet-les-Halles, mentioned above, if you know the system.
So, in Dublin, let's say you live somewhere like Raheny and get a job in Leopardstown or Dundrum - 2 changes, and I suspect the interconnector services will not be very frequent and it will be as quick to walk Pearse to Stephens green. There are many other examples.

In the end it's about economic efficiency. In a city like Dublin this would mean, initially, a single "hub" where everything meets. The nearest Dublin has to a hub is Connolly station - Busarus area which is to be ignored on the grounds, I believe, that it's capacity cannot be increased - which seems like total nonsense - instead they're building a new "Docklands hub" a kilometer away, in the middle of nowhere.

re. the Metro.
Airports worldwide, including LHR and CDG, do not have metros expensively burrowed out to them, under low density suburbs, but are connected by surface lines ( like the DART ) which only go underground in the city centre.
But, without any real consideration, the option of a DART extension has been dropped. And does anyone know of a metro system, anywhere, that doesn't serve the city's main rail station? ( I can only think of Calcutta. )
And what happens if the economy declines and the interconnector is never built and the metro is left permanently disconnected - passengers to be forever dumped in Stephen's green to catch a bus or a taxi in the rain?

This whole "plan" is absurdly complicated and has corruption written all over it - property development in docklands, political appeasement of north Dublin, RPA wishing to secure it's long term existence etc.
You'll be sorry when it's half built.

MarkoP11

extragon wrote:

So, in Dublin, let's say you live somewhere like Raheny and get a job in Leopardstown or Dundrum - 2 changes, and I suspect the interconnector services will not be very frequent and it will be as quick to walk Pearse to Stephens green. There are many other examples.

Board Raheny, direct train to St Stephens Green 12 times an hour, walk up to ground level, board Luas, done, it actually works

extragon

This assumes that the interconnector will be built.
Even if it is, and if most northern DART services are routed through it, it will only be at the expense of inconveniencing people who want to go to Connolly or Tara street, and leave longer distance rail/bus travellers disconnected. Also, what is the purpose of the Docklands station diversion apart from increasing the value of government owned property?

Better examples of complicated connections: anywhere on the DART south of Pearse to Luas green line. And of course, the various long walk connections as discussed above. Ridiculous, in such a small city, after spending so much money.

Build a surface DART to the airport. Enlarge Connolly. Bring Kildare trains through Phoenix park tunnel. Connect LUAS green line to Connolly.
Save a billion. ( Then decide if a metro is needed. )

mackerski

extragon wrote:

re. the Metro.
Airports worldwide, including LHR and CDG, do not have metros expensively burrowed out to them, under low density suburbs, but are connected by surface lines ( like the DART ) which only go underground in the city centre.

LHR had a tube line running to it long before the standard rail connection. Yes, the additional section was partly on the surface, just like Metro North is due to be from DCU northwards, but that's certainly what you'd call a Metro-class connection.

extragon wrote:

This assumes that the interconnector will be built.
Even if it is, and if most northern DART services are routed through it, it will only be at the expense of inconveniencing people who want to go to Connolly or Tara street, and leave longer distance rail/bus travellers disconnected.

Who are these commuters that utterly need to be in Connolly or Tara St? Is there no chance that Spencer Dock, Stephen's Green or an onward Luas from either of those might work? For my money, the requirement to make a change to get to the two stations you named is a small price to pay for the rest of the interconnector dividend.

Dermot

dowlingm

extragon

whatever the inconvenience and I don't wish to downplay it, the increased convenience interconnector will bring with Stephen's Green Station (LUAS), High Street and of course the direct link to the Cork line is not to be sneezed at. London is already doing this exercise with Crossrail.

extragon

The Piccadilly line runs above ground to Hammersmith, about 75% of the way in. The RER B runs above ground all the way to the Gare du Nord. Only in Dublin is it necessary to burrow beneath the teeming masses, in places like Glasnevin.
( clew. If you want a tunnel you build it in the city centre, as in connecting the Luas lines )
And then it all comes to a halt in St Stephens green, ( dubbed by the Minister Grand Central Terminus! )
This has been hobbled together by a crowd of chancers trying to make an impression. Sure it might all work in the end, but expensively, and ONLY if it's all built. An incremental approach, starting off by extending the DART, would serve the tax payer much better.

mackerski

extragon wrote:

The Piccadilly line runs above ground to Hammersmith, about 75% of the way in. The RER B runs above ground all the way to the Gare du Nord.

Is there any news here? railways can be built on the surface where space is available. In other cases, you tunnel. London was fortunate enough to have built its airport close enough to an existing surface rail alignment. Clearly, we could have gone for the DART spur that would have exploited an existing surface line, though the Metro North theory is that the new corridor adds value of its own, enough to justify tunnelling from Glasnevin - over a distance far shorter than the distance from Hammersmith to Picadilly Circus.

Dermot

murphaph

Exactly Dermot. Extragon-you're forgetting just how close DUB is to the city centre. 6 miles or so is nothing compared to other major airports including LHR etc. That's why the tunnel section is proportionately longer.

There's nothing stopping a DART spur in future btw. IE may well (when everything else is built) opt to build it themselves as it may provide lucrative "airport express" possibilities. The land is securely reserved as it's under the approach.

bk

murphaph wrote:

There's nothing stopping a DART spur in future btw. IE may well (when everything else is built) opt to build it themselves as it may provide lucrative "airport express" possibilities. The land is securely reserved as it's under the approach.

But I thought DART's can't go fast as they share track with trains and that the Metro will be faster.

However it might make sense to connect people who live along the DART line, specially once the connector goes in.

murphaph

bk wrote:

But I thought DART's can't go fast as they share track with trains and that the Metro will be faster.

You're partly right bk. The DART will continue to share trackage with other trains following T21 BUT IE could in theory add a track (or two) along the northern line out as far as the airport spur, along which dedicated service could be provided. Remember because the DART would run from the airport to Heuston Station (via the Interconnector-IE's original plan, not to be funded under T21 sadly) it would allow many more 0 and 1 change rides to the airport, especially capturing ALL intercity train arrivals into Dublin, whereas to access metroNorth from Heuston/Pearse/Connolly will all require one change, so it's a slightly different target market, certainly a possibility in the future. Of course, metroWest MAY allow 1 change to the airport from certain IC trains arriving into Heuston.

bk

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. However I still believe that the Metro is very important, it is much more then just a train to the airport, it is a modern rapid transport system for a large part of the North side of the city. Something we desperately need.

I fell very sorry for people who get the train to Dublin for the airport. In the last 5 times I've travelled Cork to Dublin, the train has broken down twice, causing a one hour to one and a half hour delay. Not nice.

Victor

extragon wrote:

Also, what is the purpose of the Docklands station diversion apart from increasing the value of government owned property?

The sole purpose of the Docklands station diversion is to increase the value of privately owned property?[/

extragon

Victor, I thought Spencer dock was all owned by then govt. Anyway, it's a poor enough reason for building a station there. Last time in Dublin I walked down there and I don't believe the majority of commuters know how remote the place is. I predict a massive collective WTF when the first train pulls in.

re. the metro. Build the damned thing. But do not depend on the govt. to build the interconnector in any reasonable timeframe. Therefore - let it at least end someplace sensible, like a railway station. ( Am I right in assuming that the reason it ends in St Stephens green is to evade the problem of connecting the LUAS lines? )
One final point. The metro will not serve the future terminal 3, which may end up as 50% of the airport in the medium term - and because of it's alignment towards Swords it's not likely to either.
So maybe that DART extension will get built as well. Great the country is so rich.

mysterious

dermo88 wrote:

In Ireland we have an old city, and its hard to modernise with so many constraints. Dublin is 800 years old. Many buildings are between 200 and 300 years old. Thats why its taking so long to get anything done. There are so many competing authorities, such as county councils, city councils, transport authorities. The rights of the individual are respected over the rights of the greater good, which is the way I like it, and the way you like

I know I'm probably a twat for saying this but, where did you get the idea that Dublin is 800 years old. And getting anything done in this city is difficult, that is a load of bollox just because building's are 200 and 300 hundred years old dosn't mean we can't have reasonable public transport... and I mean bloody plain and intergrated. ffs.. Take a look at Paris and London.. better still Madrid a city that nearly 20km of new metro planned or built in the last few years.... Better again, Amsterdam a city simular in comparison in size and age as Dublin... should I explain... No..

Our problem is we have a government who are laid back about our transport needs.... it's hideous full stop Cullen get your finger out... crooked man. who just cuts ribbons, fear of him

dowlingm

extragon - much of the docklands near spencer dock is former IE land which Treasury Holdings have the right to develop.

extragon

Yes, thanks for that, dowlingm.
So the development by the Spencer Dock Development Company ( incl Treasury Holdings and CIE ) is linked to the building of the Docklands station. So, to make some sense of this, someone came up with the interconnector.
But, if you want a metro the obvious route is Airport, Connolly, Pearse, St Stephen's Green, Heuston - built as one line. It couldn't be simpler or more effective.
Whatever the merits of the dockland development it shouldn't be allowed to permanently distort the city's infrastructure.

murphaph

extragon wrote:

Yes, thanks for that, dowlingm.
So the development by the Spencer Dock Development Company ( incl Treasury Holdings and CIE ) is linked to the building of the Docklands station. So, to make some sense of this, someone came up with the interconnector.
But, if you want a metro the obvious route is Airport, Connolly, Pearse, St Stephen's Green, Heuston - built as one line. It couldn't be simpler or more effective.
Whatever the merits of the dockland development it shouldn't be allowed to permanently distort the city's infrastructure.

Arrrgh, sorry, no. The interconnector does much more than you seem to realise. It eliminates conflicting movements in and around Connolly Station. It creates two distinct DART routes and opens up metro quality rail commuting to the likes of Adamstown in west Dublin. Indeed, if I had to choose between metroNorth or Interconnector alone, I would choose the latter as it does much more.

dowlingm

extragon - it needs distorting. Dublin badly needs intensification of its city core to absorb population increase, and because so much of the existing Parnell Square-St Stephen's Green axis is unlikely to be redevelopable in such a way as to produce density - the docklands are the only place it can happen because there are fewer heritage issues. Obviously it can't happen any old way but it has to happen and that should mean Dublin Port become Balbriggan Port.

Interconnector takes terminating trains out of Heuston to free up Intercity platform slots in the main station and creates a second through route rather than the single one at the moment, and also reducing terminating Connolly services. Unlike the Park Tunnel, which should already be in use as a stop gap, it has no impact on Maynooth line service because it is completely new line.

It would have been nice if the history of Irish railways hadn't involved competing rail lines and terminals like Heuston and Connolly and Broadstone (a lesson for Dublin airport there) but a central through station but that's not what we got.

I think the principle was actually right - IE to relocate freight yards and make the most of their property assets the way the army sold off the barracks to get APCs and planes. The problem is IE sold rather than relocated freight yards and they were babes in the wood compared to the savvy guys at Treasury who got a great deal. That of itself invalidates neither interconnector which was originally supposed to connect to Connolly before someone figured out how hard that would be, or developing Spencer Dock as a concept.
(edit for spelling)

spacetweek

extragon wrote:

Yes, thanks for that, dowlingm.
So the development by the Spencer Dock Development Company ( incl Treasury Holdings and CIE ) is linked to the building of the Docklands station. So, to make some sense of this, someone came up with the interconnector.
But, if you want a metro the obvious route is Airport, Connolly, Pearse, St Stephen's Green, Heuston - built as one line. It couldn't be simpler or more effective.
Whatever the merits of the dockland development it shouldn't be allowed to permanently distort the city's infrastructure.

The Interconnector is such an essential piece of infrastructure that I didn't think it needed to be justified, but here's a shortlist:

- Takes pressure off Heuston: Kildare Commuter trains pass straight through
- Takes pressure off Connolly: Maynooth trains pass straight through
- Takes pressure off Luas Red line overcrowded section Heuston-Connolly - no one has picked up on this benefit yet, but it's very important - I live in Smithfield and this section of the line is practically unusable at this stage at peak, and often off peak too.
- Complete e/w cross city route for the first time
- Joins two mainline train stations
- Opens up rail access to High St and Spencer Dock
- Creates connections between Green Line, Red Line, Metro
- Simplifies and rationalises Dublin Area rail network, and greatly increases efficiency and capacity

Murphaph, you're on the money. Seriously, if it came down to Interconnector or Metro instead of And, Interconnector is actually far more essential.

extragon

Thanks for the clarifications. However, what you ignore is - funding is not currently provided for an Interconnector, and that it carries fewer obvious political benefits than the metro. Who can be certain how govt. finances will stand in five or ten years time and if it will ever be built?
The govt. will be happy to have Spencer Dock development and a metro under way, and may delay indefinitely any further development. There will always be more votes in hospitals than in underground rail lines, in a country like Ireland.
They won't even pay to have the metro go via Tara Street, or run it southwards on the LUAS line - and you think they'll fork up for the Interconnector?
It seems to me that the Interconnector carrot is being used by the Dept. to sell the idea of a cut-price inadequate metro and divert the attention of those who might otherwise campaign to have the job done properly.

I like the vision of an RER style project linking Adamstown with Artane in the style that Versailles is linked to Gare d'Austerlitz and Orly. But that's Paris. In London they haven't got round to deciding to pay for Crossrail, and whenever I'm in Heuston or Connolly I am not reminded of Paddington and Liverpool Street but of someplace very small. What congestion? Last time in Dublin I waited 10 minutes for a DART at about 5 pm. I am not a transport specialist, obviously, but neither are politicians and most voters - who might quickly remember that Dublin is smaller than Greater Manchester, and that maybe an extra platform or two is needed, and better bus lanes, and some nice tax cuts.
I think the metro should be regarded as a one off loosening on the purse strings and if it is to be built more should be made of it.

Victor

extragon wrote:

I am not a transport specialist, obviously, but neither are politicians and most voters - who might quickly remember that Dublin is smaller than Greater Manchester, and that maybe an extra platform or two is needed, and better bus lanes, and some nice tax cuts.

Realise that people need to get to work and that businesses are willing to pay a little bit more to ensure people get to work. After all, they would much prefer you to work for 10 hours and commute for one than commute for 3 and then do degraded work for 8 and to pay you a little more, because you don't "have to" have a car.

Winters

extragon wrote:

However, what you ignore is - funding is not currently provided for an Interconnector, and that it carries fewer obvious political benefits than the metro.

The Interconnector is fully provided for in the current Transport 21 funding envelope. It is not a once off payment but rather an incremental increase in subvention respective to the timescale.

MarkoP11

The funding for all projects within T21 is ring fenced, the interconnector is funded, if there is a project to worry about in funding terms its the metro as the consortium that wins will have to finance its construction itself and not recieve any government funds until it opens sometime after 2012

extragon

I realise that funding has been promised and "ring fenced" - on the strength of the public finances that we know will be fantastic in five or ten years time. What I failed to realize was that "promised" is the same thing as "provided."
I was misled, also, by the new surface station they're building in Spencer Dock, and by the fact that they'll build a new underground station in St Stephens green - and then come back a few years later and build another underground station in the same place.
They do things differently in Ireland

monument

spacetweek wrote:

The Interconnector is such an essential piece of infrastructure that I didn't think it needed to be justified, but here's a shortlist...

Yes, anyone with the slimiest knowledge of integration should know most of this, it’s why I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time Olivia Mitchell questions the project… is she still at it or just taking a break?