RPA publish hybrid route proposals...

murphaph

Well, we've discussed this ad nauseum on here already and here it is in print (scan taken from today's IT);

Note the dropping of Tara/Trinity Metrobest We all told ya that's what they'd do now didn't we? Ah I'm only messin with ya man. I am happy we're seeing it materialise anyway.

bk

Is it just me or does anyone think it would have been better to put the Griffith Avenue stop at the corner of Griffith Avenue and Swords road, which is a very busy junction, where many of the north side buses stop, a hotel close by, a little village center and many new apartments going up, rather then in the middle of Griffith Avenue which is a quiet, residential street.

murphaph

bk wrote:

Is it just me or does anyone think it would have been better to put the Griffith Avenue stop at the corner of Griffith Avenue and Swords road, which is a very busy junction, where many of the north side buses stop, a hotel close by, a little village center and many new apartments going up, rather then in the middle of Griffith Avenue which is a quiet, residential street.

There's a vast land bank in the form of that convalescent home and grounds (so much so that cut and cover might be used under it), $$$$$$$$$ for someone if they develop it into high density dwelling.

maxheadroom

murphaph wrote:

Note the dropping of Tara/Trinity Metrobest We all told ya that's what they'd do now didn't we? Ah I'm only messin with ya man. I am happy we're seeing it materialise anyway.

Not wanting to fan the flames here, but the wording of that combined with the image would suggest they're going for either the original central route via Glasnevin but altering the stops in the city centre or going via the east route to Drumcondra (including the original city centre stops at Tara and O'Connell) and swinging around to DCU to rejoin the original central option.

bk

murphaph wrote:

There's a vast land bank in the form of that convalescent home and grounds (so much so that cut and cover might be used under it), $$$$$$$$$ for someone if they develop it into high density dwelling.

And on the corner of Griffith Avenue/Swords road there is massive area where the port tunnel works are being built. It would be easy to drop the station into the same place and I'm certain lots of apartments are going to be built over it, certainly as many as the place down further.

SeanW

I can't see the map.

Edit: just saw you'd exceeded your 4MB hourly bandwidth limit ...
[img]http://big_red_x/[/img]
"Friends don't let friends use GeoSh*ties"

Might want to try Image Shack instead.

murphaph

Cheers Sean, done and done.

Transport21 Fan

Oh wow, I have not had time to follow the the metro stuff recently and did not get the Times today, but this alternative/hybrid line is just sweet! I love it. Cheers for scanning it in and posting it.

It's been a fantastic week for rail development in Ireland. Between this, the mouth-watering Midleton plans, and that business to do with a jar of tippex and some useless light railway running through Galway, Mayo and Sligo. It just goes to show you that if enough people make honest and logical arguments and couple this with power of numbers, you do get what really needed in the end.

A big push on Navan now. That's the next goal.

Airmail

I would have concerns about "replacing the Trinity and Upper O'Connell Street stations on the Central route with a single Lower O'Connell Street station, close to the red luas line as the article puts it. I have read the other discussions on this subject on these boards and was in favour of the Abbey St. interchange at first but I think one point in particular hasn't been paid adequate attention.

Quite frankly there are too few metro stations planned in the city centre. In the first RPA map there were four stations within the canals. Now they are proposing three. A distance of 1.2km from Stephens Green to Abbey St. and from there onto the Mater is ridiculously long in the city centre. These figures don't compare favourably with the Dart in the centre. ok its 1.2km from Connolly to tara but only 400m from tara to Pearse. In fact the two pproposed ballymun stations are only 950m apart.

The following point has come up before. Possibly in the context of T21 metro integration with Red Luas comes out on top against integration with the Dart. However in the context of continuing on to build the completing section of the orbital metro too many people boarding stations south of pearse and traveeling to destinations on this section would be inconvenienced to the scale of an extra change or an extra 15mins to a Drumcondra interchange.

I would like to propose a compromise integrate horizontally with both Tara St station and Abbey st Luas. A tara metro station on Hawkins Street would be approximately 200m from Tara st dart station and Abbey St luas, as the crow flies (or as the tunnel is dug). To dig a pedestrian tunnel under the liffey would be difficult but not impossible, eg. the Tyne pedestrian Tunnel.

Give it some thought, mainly the station spacing dilemma.
Airmail

dowlingm

Airmail

you're not suggesting the RPA are prioritising linking RPA metro with RPA luas over linking it with non-RPA DART? What a disgraceful suggestion, ahem...

As for station distance, when you've got a river in the middle distance and a quay road either side it's not the same as the distance between stations without - the river has no catchment unless you're counting water taxis.

Also - are the quoted distances from mid-station to mid-station? Depending on which end the entrance or entrances would be that could make a difference of up to 100m I would think.

Using google maps, the Toronto downtown Yonge line stations are spaced:
King-Queen 400m, Queen-Dundas 500m, Dundas-College 600m, College-Wellesley 400m, Wellesley-Bloor 600m. However, the first four stations have streetcar lines crossing laterally, the fifth a bus route and the last has a lateral subway connection so there's no shortage of punters.

Airmail

Even at 1.1km between stations thats longer than Dart station spacing . Blackrock-Seapoint1050m Seapoint-Salthill925m Salthill-Dunlaoighre1050m
The most important points are that these stations are both halved in catchment area and suburban. The porto metro example has stations 575m apart approx. in its main central underground section. I cant seem to find any other metro with such widely spaced central stations.

The arguement that "As for station distance, when you've got a river in the middle distance and a quay road either side it's not the same as the distance between stations without - the river has no catchment unless you're counting water taxis" dowlingm makes about the river being a barrier should mean there should be stations put exceptionally close on either side.

The upper O'Connell street stop was supposed to integrate with broadstone/DIT luas how would it integrate without a stop there?

I still think my proposal for a Hawkins St. station should be considered.

mackerski

Is anybody else puzzled that the Drumcondra station is to be so far north? Why not position it between the two Irish Rail lines?

Dermot

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

Is anybody else puzzled that the Drumcondra station is to be so far north? Why not position it between the two Irish Rail lines?

Dermot

The exact station locations will be the subject of the next stage of the public enquiry. It's all to play for. Anyone with a remote interest in furure proofing this should write a brief submission indicating your preference for a station between the IE lines, and send it to the RPA.

The point about the station spacing in the city centre is valid. I disagree that the 1100m spacing is a problem however. I believe that anybody who is physically unable to walk that distance then they can use the tram above which will have much tighter station spacing. The entire Parnell Square-Stephen's Green axis is due to be pedestrianised. That's the City Council's plan. In this context, it's a pleasant walk in a pedestrian friendly environment. I don't see a problem. People readily walk from Henry St. to Stepen's Green today, so walking half as far isn't going to raise many eyebrows. I know we won;t sort this one as it has been the subject of many disagreements on here.

अधिनायक

Anyone know why the metro stops in the middle of the city instead of continuing the tunnel on to the southside? It seems crazy to run the tunneling machine halfway across the city and then turn it off.

The metro lines in Paris and London all continue through the city rather than terminating in the centre. Are they copying the Dublin Bus route map or something?

aliveandkicking

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Anyone know why the metro stops in the middle of the city instead of continuing the tunnel on to the southside?

€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

The point about the station spacing in the city centre is valid. I disagree that the 1100m spacing is a problem however. I believe that anybody who is physically unable to walk that distance then they can use the tram above which will have much tighter station spacing. The entire Parnell Square-Stephen's Green axis is due to be pedestrianised. That's the City Council's plan. In this context, it's a pleasant walk in a pedestrian friendly environment. I don't see a problem. People readily walk from Henry St. to Stepen's Green today, so walking half as far isn't going to raise many eyebrows.

By international standards a gap of 1100 metres would be considered quite large. I'd be interested to hear examples of other cities where such a large gap exists between city centre stations.

I am not a very well travelled man but, outside of Dublin, the city which I know best is London. The city of a similar size to Dublin which I know best is Frankfurt - population of about 600,000, rising to about 1.2 million during the day. In both of those cities (London and Frankfurt), the standard procedure would be to have a city centre underground station every 500-600 metres.

Frankfurt has the usual German thing of an East-West S-Bahn line with all East-West (DART style) trains travelling through the centre of the city, and a number of U-Bahn lines travelling approximately North-South, also through the cente. In the centre, along any one line, it would never be necessary to walk more than about 300 metres to get into the underground system.

Of course it is possible to walk from the Green to O'Connell Street, and we all have, the advantage of building an underground line is that it may finally be possible to actually bring people to where they want to go. So although, as you correctly point out, there is, for most people, no problem walking from St. Stephen's Green to O'Connell Street, it would undoubtedly be better (from the point of view of public transport) if there were a station between these two points, so that they do not have to walk so far.

I can therefore understand your viewpoint that you "don't see a problem". There is no problem. The alternative just might be better

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

I can therefore understand your viewpoint that you "don't see a problem". There is no problem. The alternative just might be better

The problem I have with an intermediate station is that it would have to be located on Westmoreland St to realistaically get a straight run up O'Connell St (required to get integration with Luas at Abbey/Lwr. O'Connell St, and integration is key in any network). In this scenario I think it's just too close to Abbey Street to justify it on both cost grounds and the resultant benefit. That benefit is obvious and I'm not denying it would be handier to have an additional station, however adding this station would also increase the overall journey time. This argument could run and run of course.

Winters

The RPA are also limited, on cost grounds, to six underground stations. Adding in the Griffith Avenue station requires omitting the 'intermediate' station.

Remember also that the Luas line from Liffey Junction to Bray will fill in all the gaps between Upper O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green during the life of T21.

Bill McH

Winters, I don't know if you if you are a member of Platform 11 or not. But I do realise that the members of Platform 11 have an issue with underground train stations in the centre of the city, having spent so many years hearing that "An Lárism" is a bad thing.

The fact remains that, on any one train going through the city, the largest group of people (though not, in most cases, the majority) want to go to the centre.

I am in favour of public transport which brings people to where they want to go. I am in favour of building a world class transport system in Dublin. The German way, which usually works pretty well, would put the main East-West line through the centre and the main North-South line also through the centre, thus facilitating the largest group of people.

We are in danger of missing the opportunity to put a really central station in our North-South metro. This would, I imagine, mean that our biggest people carrier (the interconnector) would have to avoid the city centre.

Not good practise.

But maybe you want that.

Winters

Bill McH wrote:

Winters, I don't know if you if you are a member of Platform 11 or not. But I do realise that the members of Platform 11 have an issue with underground train stations in the centre of the city, having spent so many years hearing that "An Lárism" is a bad thing.

The fact remains that, on any one train going through the city, the largest group of people (though not, in most cases, the majority) want to go to the centre.

I am in favour of public transport which brings people to where they want to go. I am in favour of building a world class transport system in Dublin. The German way, which usually works pretty well, would put the main East-West line through the centre and the main North-South line also through the centre, thus facilitating the largest group of people.

We are in danger of missing the opportunity to put a really central station in our North-South metro. This would, I imagine, mean that our biggest people carrier (the interconnector) would have to avoid the city centre.

Not good practise.

But maybe you want that.

Im not quite sure what you are trying to say Bill.

The 'north south' metro line you talk about, Metro North, runs under the O'Connell Street - College Green - Grafton Street axis and the 'east west' line, Balriggan/Howth to Hazelhatch DART, runs via Docklands, Pearse, St. Stephens Green, Christchurch and Heuston etc. Both these lines integrate at the Green.

Sounds like the German model you are talking about.

MarkoP11

The problem is the question of integration vs station location

Without question the best location for the metro station on O'Connell Street is between Abbey Street and the Spire, note the Luas stop for the St Stephen's Green Liffey Junction Luas will be outside Penny's thus forming a three wise connection, under the original proposals the Metro station was at the Gresham which left things messy

Depending on who you listen too there is a budget restriction which says a limit of 6 stations, given the RPA are going with the station box model there are only three sites the Hawkins House/Screen cinema, Dolier Street and Westmorland Street. The box is 110m long and 20 m wide, that would leave a gap of only 250 m between stations not big enough basically.

The problem is the city centre Luas link up which duplicates the Metro route the whole way from the Green to O'Connell Street, so if you are coming from the Dundrum direction you won't need metro to reach anywhere in the core city centre area and indeed have a direct rail connection into the Maynooth line at Liffey Junction. You don't need an interchange with Tara Street

The an lárismh thing is mainly a shot at Dublin Bus who are obsessed with running as many routes as possible up O'Connell Street as well as the poor service provided to cross Dublin services afterall not everyone works in the city centre, suburb to suburb commuting is still tricky. Metro West somewhat address the Tallaght Blanchardstown belt which is the third largest destination in Dublin

bk

I've got mixed feelings about it, it would be nice to have a stop at Trinity, however it probably isn't a big deal.

Having a stop at Abbey street is much more important then Trinity IMO.

Typically there are 5 destination for people heading into town.
- Grafton Street (shopping)
- Stephens Green Area (work)
- TCD and Temple Bar (students and drinking, there is a shocking mix!!)
- Henry Street (Shopping)
- IFSC area (work)

The new alignment makes much more sense now for the last two. While it disadvantages TCD and Temple Bar, it isn't a major deal. Those heading to TCD can take a nice stroll up Grafton St (I'm sure that will please business on Grafton St) and those heading to Temple Bar can take a short stroll across from Abbey St. And if your really lazy you could always get the LUAS.

I would like it if the RPA continued the new Luas connection up the length of O'Connell St with a stop near Parnell St. I think it would greatly help revitalise O'Connell Street and Parnell St and it would make sense with DB now terminating some bus routes at that end of O'Connell St.

In fact DB could then stop all North to South bus routes, instead have them loop at the top of Parnell St and Stephens Green and instead have people transfer between the two sides of the city via LUAS, you could almost pedestrianise the entire city centre. That would be very nice.

Perhaps this will happen under the new DTA.

BTW the owners of Arnotts have spent €500 million buying up the entire block of buildings behind the GPO and between Henry Street and Middle Abbey St / Upper Abbey St. They plan on spending about another €400 million turning it into the biggest shopping block in Britain and Ireland, similar to New York. It will be massive (nearly the entire length of Henry St) and it will make the Abbey St, O'Connell St, Henry St area by far the busiest shopping are in the city, far dwarfing Grafton St. So it makes sense putting the Metro right on the Corner of this at Abbey Street, as it it likely to become the number one destination in the city.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000258.html

MarkoP11

bk wrote:

I would like it if the RPA continued the new Luas connection up the length of O'Connell St with a stop near Parnell St. I think it would greatly help revitalise O'Connell Street and Parnell St and it would make sense with DB now terminating some bus routes at that end of O'Connell St.

Luas will continue up O'Connell Street and I can see no other choice but to continue onto Parnell Street/Back of Rotunda, Parnell Square West then Western Way Broadstone to reach Liffey Junction, thats in the plans and is referred to as Luas line D

Bill McH

Winters wrote:

Im not quite sure what you are trying to say Bill.

The 'north south' metro line you talk about, Metro North, runs under the O'Connell Street - College Green - Grafton Street axis and the 'east west' line, Balriggan/Howth to Hazelhatch DART, runs via Docklands, Pearse, St. Stephens Green, Christchurch and Heuston etc. Both these lines integrate at the Green.

Sounds like the German model you are talking about.

No it doesn't sound like it at all.

Nothing like it, in fact. If the metro were built from St. Stephen's Green to Swords, via Trinity and O'Connell Street, with stations at both locations, do you think that St. Stephen's Green would be the busiest station?

I tried the last time to get an answer to that question, from yourself and people that I know are members of Platform 11, to no avail. I'll try again this time.

In such a scenario, do you think it would be the busiest station?

The German model would be to start off construction of an underground system by building an East-West (or North-South) line through the centre. With Stations. In the centre. They would then build a North-South (or East-West) line through the centre. With stations.

We are proposing to build a North-South line through the centre, without a station in the very heart of the city. We are proposing to drop what would probably be the busiest station on the metro line. In other words, the station which is most suitable for the largest group of people.

We then propose to build an East-West line, our biggest people carrier, which does not even go through the heart of the city at all.

So, Winters, altogether quite, quite different from the German model.

bk

Bill McH wrote:

Nothing like it, in fact. If the metro were built from St. Stephen's Green to Swords, via Trinity and O'Connell Street, with stations at both locations, do you think that St. Stephen's Green would be the busiest station?

I'm not a member of any group, but as I said above, Abbey St is likely to become the busiest stop given:

1) The massive shopping complex to be built there, thus making this area the main shopping area.

2) All the workers heading for the IFSC and all the new apartments going up along the North Quays toward the Point.

Stephens Green will likely be very busy because of it connecting with the DART.

Therefore a Trinity stop would likely be the quietest stop, only serving TCD and Temple Bar.

MarkoP11 wrote:

Luas will continue up O'Connell Street and I can see no other choice but to continue onto Parnell Street/Back of Rotunda, Parnell Square West then Western Way Broadstone to reach Liffey Junction, thats in the plans and is referred to as Luas line D

I didn't know that, that is great news. I thought is just stopped at Easons, which just sounded like another balls up due to short term thinking like the first idea of not connecting the LUAS.

Winters

Bill McH wrote:

We are proposing to drop what would probably be the busiest station on the metro line. In other words, the station which is most suitable for the largest group of people.

We? Do you work for the RPA?...

In the latest plans the RPA are not dropping the Trinity stop altogether, they are replacing both it and the Upper O'Connell Street stations with a single Lower O'Connell Street station, close to the Luas red line.

If the metro were built from St. Stephen's Green to Swords, via Trinity and O'Connell Street, with stations at both locations, do you think that St. Stephen's Green would be the busiest station?

As a stand alone project - No, possibly not but with all the other pieces of Transport 21 in place yes I would. With two lines converging, logic and the DTO 'Platform For Change' document would indicate so.

The original RPA figures, released in the O'Reilly Report, that showed the Trinity stop to be the busiest did not take into account any other piece of infrastructure being built. Subsequent to Transport 21, which made the respective transport bodies plan collaboratively, latest figures have not been released. However if the latest additional options are anything to go by then the RPA are confident that the Trinity patronage can be suitably served by the proposed Lower O'Connell Street station and the Luas line D.

We then propose to build an East-West line, our biggest people carrier, which does not even go through the heart of the city at all.

The routes of both the north-south line and the east-west line are massively dependant on suitable locations for stations (See MarkoP11 post above) and the DTOs demand model.

The two routes currently proposed have been subjected to years of scrutiny, study and design changes. Both myself and MarkoP11 have told you how the current routes came about and why they are deemed the best option.

We are proposing to build a North-South line through the centre, without a station in the very heart of the city.

Where is the heart of Dublin City? Dublin city has many 'hearts' unlike say Munich or Cologne or Leipzig. Rather than the 'hearts' it would be the high trip generators' that I would like to see served although most of the time they are the same but in the scenario of building a metro line the design process uses station locations/constructability and demand models among other factors to determine routes. Metro North is no different.

I personally would like to see a stop outside Trinity/Dame Street but if it is at the expense of integration with the Maynooth line and Luas red line then it is not worth it. There is also an issue with the number of underground stations that can be included in the project.

A key into all this is the second line running above the metro. It will have stops at Dawson and Westmoreland, both of these will serve Trinity with metro connections at O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

Of course any new piece of infrastructure isn't going to serve everybody but given financial, geotechnical, engineering etc constraints the two routes as they are now will serve as many people as possible.

Bill McH

Winters wrote:

We? Do you work for the RPA?...

No I don't. I am not involved in public transport in any way. I do not work for any transport organisation and am not a member of any transport lobby group. I am, however, interested in seeing international best practise applied to public transport in Ireland.

To that end, I am particularly interested in the way the Germans do things. Public transport is something which they do fairly well. They also have well over 100 cities with a population of over 100,000, and a handful with a population of over a million. There are therefore plenty of cities from which we can learn, not only for public transport in Dublin but also for our other cities like Cork, Limerick, etc.

In the latest plans the RPA are not dropping the Trinity stop altogether, they are replacing both it and the Upper O'Connell Street stations with a single Lower O'Connell Street station, close to the Luas red line.

The original arrangement would leave us with three underground stations, each separated by approximately 500 metres. Standard practice for central stations on most metros. In the centre of the city this would mean that, along that line, nobody would have to walk more than 250 metres to get to a station.

This new plan would leave us with two stations, separated by more than a kilometre. The max walk is now up to 500 metres. This would be quite a bit higher than the international norm.

It is true that there would be an advantage from the point of view of integration with the LUAS. This would reduce the walk for passengers wishing to change between metro and LUAS. In other words it would reduce the walk for people who are already in the public transport system. But it would increase the walk for many people who wish to get into the public transport system.

As a stand alone project - No, possibly not but with all the other pieces of Transport 21 in place yes I would. With two lines converging, logic and the DTO 'Platform For Change' document would indicate so.

As a stand alone project, I would say that St. Stephen's Green would definitely not be the busiest station. I feel sure that the Trinity stop will be the busiest, certainly the busiest on the Southside. Of course St. Stephen's Green will be the busiest station if there are two lines running through and it is, for passengers on the proposed DART line, the closest station to the city centre.

The routes of both the north-south line and the east-west line are massively dependant on suitable locations for stations (See MarkoP11 post above) and the DTOs demand model.

The two routes currently proposed have been subjected to years of scrutiny, study and design changes. Both myself and MarkoP11 have told you how the current routes came about and why they are deemed the best option.

It would have been quite unthinkable for anybody to suggest building an East-West line across the city without integrating with the LUAS.

Unthinkable.

To that extent, the proposed DART line had to go through St. Stephen's Green, as an ass-covering exercise for Mary O'Rourke. The 1975 plan for the city had the main East-West line going through the centre of the city, pretty much under Dame Street/Temple Bar. Much better, to my mind.

Where is the heart of Dublin City? Dublin city has many 'hearts' unlike say Munich or Cologne or Leipzig. Rather than the 'hearts' it would be the high trip generators' that I would like to see served although most of the time they are the same but in the scenario of building a metro line the design process uses station locations/constructability and demand models among other factors to determine routes. Metro North is no different.

Where is the heart of Dublin City? It's a good question. And I don't know the answer. I do know that Dame Street is a much busier street than South King Street or York street, under which (approximately) we are proposing
to build our new DART line. As such I would say that Dame Street is more "the heart of the city" than either of the other two. Given that choice, the Germans would build under Dame Street.

I do understand that there are financial constraints and so forth. However, we still need to do the thing properly. If finances are a concern, I would prefer to see the city centre section built first, and built properly, and gradually extended out to Swords over the years. This would, in my opinion, be better than building it all in one go but not building it properly because of a shortage of cash.

The Germans would absolutely not be paying so much attention to a tram line. We, unfortunately, have previous in this matter, with the routing of the interconnector through St. Stephen's Green because the LUAS is there. Now we're proposing to diverge from international norms in the matter of station separations so that we can integrate with the LUAS.

Tail utterly wagging the dog. Once again.:(

Winters

It is true that there would be an advantage from the point of view of integration with the LUAS. This would reduce the walk for passengers wishing to change between metro and LUAS. In other words it would reduce the walk for people who are already in the public transport system. But it would increase the walk for many people who wish to get into the public transport system.

Between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street there shall be stops at Dawson Street and Westmoreland Street.

Where is the heart of Dublin City? It's a good question. And I don't know the answer. I do know that Dame Street is a much busier street than South King Street or York street, under which (approximately) we are proposing
to build our new DART line. As such I would say that Dame Street is more "the heart of the city" than either of the other two. Given that choice, the Germans would build under Dame Street.

As I have explained to you before, 'trip generators' determine where stations and lines go. Being a busy street does not necessarily make somewhere a 'trip destination'. I think you'll find in most cases that the high footfall in the College Green area is either down to students, BOI or people walking to and from the O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green areas. Dont forget that the Baggot Street area will be served by the interconnector and metro.

It would have been quite unthinkable for anybody to suggest building an East-West line across the city without integrating with the LUAS.

And equally unthinkable for anybody to suggest building a North-South line through the city without integrating with the Luas red line?

As far as I can see you are questioning two things here, the omission of the Trinity/Tara stop, and the routing of the DART interconnector through St. Stephen's Green and not under Dame Street.

Both of these have been analysed to death here. Perhaps just tell me what type of trip patterns you think would be inconvenienced by the current plans.

Victor

Who is to say that the Interconnector will cross the Green Line / Metro at St. Stephen's Green North, it could just as easily be at Stephen's Green South.

Speaking to one of the CIÉ heads, I bemoaned the fact that current practice is to show train stations. He blames Harry Beck, the original designer of the London Underground map. Before that stations were often shown as rectangles, indicating the platform layout.

Metro stations will have 90m+ platforms, IÉ 180m+, add in the horizontal distance travelled while using stairs and escalators (slope 70%) and stations are no longer little dots.

IIRC one New York station actually has a walkway to the next station along the line.

Winters

Victor wrote:

Who is to say that the Interconnector will cross the Green Line / Metro at St. Stephen's Green North, it could just as easily be at Stephen's Green South.

Iarnrod Eireann's latest alignment study by Parson's Binkeroff showed St. Stephen's Green north as the best location for the station.

Bill McH

Winters wrote:

Between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street there shall be stops at Dawson Street and Westmoreland Street.

There shall be these stations if we do get around to building the link-up, and if we go along that route (which we probably will). Even if we do it would still involve more inconvenience. Let's take an example. A journey from Swords to Dame Street. Metro to O'Connell Street, up out of the station, wait for the tram, tram to Westmoreland Street, then around the corner to College Green and Dame Street. The metro directly to a Trinity stop would undoubtedly be quicker. Under your arrangement the reverse journey would also be more complicated. Much more likely that people would walk from Dame Street (or wherever in the vicinity) rather than go through all that palaver. But they would be walking up to 500 metres, rather than the maximum of about 250 which would be the international norm.

As I have explained to you before, 'trip generators' determine where stations and lines go. Being a busy street does not necessarily make somewhere a 'trip destination'. I think you'll find in most cases that the high footfall in the College Green area is either down to students, BOI or people walking to and from the O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green areas. Dont forget that the Baggot Street area will be served by the interconnector and metro.

I know you have explained it to me before and I'm very grateful:D I just don't quite understand one aspect of it. And that is, as you pointed out above, the original RPA figures for the stand alone metro would, I believe, have indicated that the Trinity stop would be the busiest city centre station.

If the Trinity area is not a "trip destination", why would so many people want to use the station? If they wanted to go to the O'Connell Street or St. Stephen's Green areas, why would they not use those stations?

I would suggest that the reason so many people would want to use the Trinity stop would be because it's convenient for them. More convenient than any other station. And those RPA figures would indicate that it would be more convenient for more people than any other station. The RPA now propose not to give all of these people that convenience.

And equally unthinkable for anybody to suggest building a North-South line through the city without integrating with the Luas red line?

I'm not so sure. The metro will be able to carry lots more people than the Red Line. The amount of people who could be "convenienced" by having three stations in the city centre would, I would say, be quite a bit larger than the numbers who would be "inconvenienced" by having to walk a bit (about 220 metres) between metro station and LUAS station. We'll have to see. But I would say it is shorter than the distance between the DART lines and the LUAS lines at Connolly. And that is, supposedly, "integrated".

As far as I can see you are questioning two things here, the omission of the Trinity/Tara stop, and the routing of the DART interconnector through St. Stephen's Green and not under Dame Street.

Both of these have been analysed to death here. Perhaps just tell me what type of trip patterns you think would be inconvenienced by the current plans.

Actually the amount of analysis of the route of the interconnector has not received an awful lot of attention on this board, that I have seen. There has been plenty of discussion of the merits of the project vis-a-vis the metro, and so forth. Not much discussion of the route.

I have always questioned the route of the interconnector. Firstly I feel that it will have a distortive effect on the city, shifting things a to the south, unnecessarily. You ask for examples of trip patterns which would be inconvenienced by the current plans. Well, let's say journeys to/from locations on the Northern DART line. People can currently travel along this line to Tara Street. The spire is 7 minutes walk away. The current proposals would require people, in order to get to the spire, to change at Docklands onto the LUAS. Or they could go to St. Stephen's Green and change onto the metro. Both of those options would undoubtedly be longer and more inconvenient than the current arrangement, and make it more unattractive to go to the spire. (I'm using the spire as an example, but you realise that I am talking about the busiest parts of the north city centre generally)

Secondly, however, I firmly believe that it makes more sense to have the interconnector crossing with the metro at the Trinity stop. It is more efficient. This would probably mean that it would go under Dame Street or somewhere around the Temple Bar area. As I have explained before, this is based on my belief that the Trinity stop will be the busiest station on the metro. In other words, the most convenient station for the largest group of passengers on each train - more passengers preferring the Trinity stop to the St. Stephen's Green stop. And there will be lots of trains.

If that's true on a North-South metro, you would expect that the same thing would be true on our East-West line. I can't see why it should be any different. In other words, on each DART train through the interconnector, there are more passengers who want to go to the Trinity stop than the St. Stephen's Green stop. So why not bring them to the Trinity stop directly, by building the interconnector such that it crosses the metro at the Trinity stop.

Much more efficient. And it is a very serious issue when one considers the numbers of people that could potentially travel through the interconnector.

Not having a Trinity metro stop then precludes building the interconnector through there, so we end up not being able to bring the largest group of people on each train to the station which is most convenient for them.

The point I am trying to make will become clearer if the LUAS link-up is built. We can then make a direct comparison between demand for travel to or from the "Trinity" area and the St. Stephen's Green area. But by then it may be too late.

murphaph

Remember Bill that College Green is treated like the Holy Grail by Dublin Bus, who insist on routing just about as many buses as possible through it (not always their fault, they have lost a lot of terminal space to Luas etc.). For example, I sometimes use the 39 bus, a northside service, yet it trundles across the river to College Green before terminating at Hawkins St. This sort of nonsense means you see a lot more people milling about College Green waiting for and departing from buses that don't actually need to be there in the first place. The 39 used to remain entirely north of the river, terminating in a busy Abbey St Middle..............

Look at Abbey St Middle these days-dead in comparison. It used to be an incredibly busy street which took some negotiation to walk along it's southern pavement (the Scientologists don't even prowl outside their shop anymore!). This was purely due to the bus stops which used to line it (many of which now line College Green/Dame St). If an alien had looked at Abbey St Middle a decade ago and used your logic, they'd have assumed it was an incredibly popular part of the city centre, that same alien visiting today would see the complete opposite! The bus stops can grossly mislead you into believing a particular street is a trip generator when it isn't.

The RPA figures undoubtedly take account for bus passenger interchange at College Green (many times the number of buses of Stephen's Green). Worth bearing that in mind.

mackerski

Bill McH wrote:

You ask for examples of trip patterns which would be inconvenienced by the current plans. Well, let's say journeys to/from locations on the Northern DART line. People can currently travel along this line to Tara Street. The spire is 7 minutes walk away. The current proposals would require people, in order to get to the spire, to change at Docklands onto the LUAS. Or they could go to St. Stephen's Green and change onto the metro.

A change for Luas at Docklands sounds sane to me. Or Pearse and travel the one stop to Tara St. if you really hate trams.

Bill McH wrote:

Both of those options would undoubtedly be longer and more inconvenient than the current arrangement

The thing about networks is that you can't always get everywhere point-to-point. So if you're telling me that it may take an extra 8 minutes (walking time from Pearse to Tara St.) to get from Baldoyle to the Spire (for anybody that actually wants to be there), then I reckon that's a fair price to pay for the fact that a big wodge of Dublin 15 will now be able to halve their journey time to just about any city-centre location. I'm sure those that need to get to the spire will keep their Schadenfreude to themselves, since Tara St. will be directly served on that DART line...

Bill McH wrote:

Secondly, however, I firmly believe that it makes more sense to have the interconnector crossing with the metro at the Trinity stop. It is more efficient. This would probably mean that it would go under Dame Street or somewhere around the Temple Bar area.

There's a snag involved there. Two, if you count the fact that such an alignment would leave the canal zone less well served. But to run the interconnector on an east-west alignment under Dame St. has you tunnelling right under Trinity College, and I'm not sure you could avoid some of the older buildings.

Dermot

Winters

http://www.dto.ie/web2006/images/abbey.pdf

http://www.dto.ie/web2006/images/stephens.pdf

Bill McH

Winters, I for one am feeling a bit slow today. What are we to learn from the maps?

Philip, you make some excellent points about the buses in Dublin. It is a real pity that so many of them pass through College Green. I suppose in the absence of an underground system, this is perhaps inevitable. Hopefully we'll move away from that when we have an underground line or three. In Frankfurt, probably the busiest U/S-Bahn station is Konstablerwache, right on the main drag. Above ground there's a tram line but only two bus routes travel anywhere near the station. (Interestingly enough, they share a stretch of road with the trams and the expected arrival times of both the next trams and the next buses are shown on the "monitor" (can't think of the word) at the tram/bus stop. It works well, though they are of course dealing with smaller numbers of trams/buses then we would be with the LUAS link-up).

Middle Abbey Street is definitely a ghost street now, as you say. Maybe the same thing will happen with the College Green when the buses leave. Maybe. I suspect that there is enough going on within a couple of minutes walk of the Trinity stop to keep people wanting to go there. And wanting to go there in greater numbers than want to go to St. Stephen's Green. Although the LUAS link-up will not allow a perfectly fair comparison to be made between the two locations, because of the greater numbers of buses in the "Trinity" area (as you say), it may start to give some indications.

It will though more than likely be too late. That bloody woman.:(

Bill McH

mackerski wrote:

A change for Luas at Docklands sounds sane to me. Or Pearse and travel the one stop to Tara St. if you really hate trams.

The thing about networks is that you can't always get everywhere point-to-point. So if you're telling me that it may take an extra 8 minutes (walking time from Pearse to Tara St.) to get from Baldoyle to the Spire (for anybody that actually wants to be there), then I reckon that's a fair price to pay for the fact that a big wodge of Dublin 15 will now be able to halve their journey time to just about any city-centre location. I'm sure those that need to get to the spire will keep their Schadenfreude to themselves, since Tara St. will be directly served on that DART line...

Mackerski, I had been asked to give examples of journeys which would be more difficult than they currently are. That was one example. It's quite true that continuing with the current arrangements would continue to inconvenience people in D15, Hazelhatch and a whole load of other places. That is why I am in favour of projects like the interconnector. (The interconnector through the "Trinity" area would leave northside DART passengers about 6 minutes from the spire and D15 passengers with loads of trains every hour to get to within 7 minutes of the spire. Everybody wins:p )

There's a snag involved there. Two, if you count the fact that such an alignment would leave the canal zone less well served. But to run the interconnector on an east-west alignment under Dame St. has you tunnelling right under Trinity College, and I'm not sure you could avoid some of the older buildings.

I would argue that the St. Stephen's Green route would leave the north city centre less well served. The metro will be going to St. Stephen's Green. It will eventually be extended, or at least, one would imagine that it will be extended. In that respect it should mean that the canal zone would be very well served. These things do take time. Unless you're Dubai, you can't just put in an underground rail network overnight. But the canal zone will, eventually be very well served, if we do things right.

I'm not sure I get the point about the old buildings in Trinity. What's wrong with going under the road?

mackerski

Bill McH wrote:

I'm not sure I get the point about the old buildings in Trinity. What's wrong with going under the road?

If you go under the road, you'll (probably) have to go under the buildings. We've already seen posts suggesting that the college authorities think ill of that idea and might fight it.

Dermot

Bill McH

Oh yes, just to clarify. By "canal zone" I was working on the basis that Mackerski meant the area between, let's say, St. Stephen's Green and the grand canal. Rather than the whole area between the two canals. I hope this was correct.

Pearse Street, College Street, College Green and Dame Street are all pretty wide streets. If the RPA man was correct in saying, effectively, that nothing is impossible with tunnelling, then these streets would hardly represent a problem.

I don't know. Was he correct?

Victor

Winters wrote:

http://www.dto.ie/web2006/images/abbey.pdf

http://www.dto.ie/web2006/images/stephens.pdf

Is there a navigation to these maps?

murphaph

Victor wrote:

Is there a navigation to these maps?

Go to dto.ie, navigate using the box on the left.

travel information>>local area maps

Then select what you need.

mackerski

Bill McH wrote:

Oh yes, just to clarify. By "canal zone" I was working on the basis that Mackerski meant the area between, let's say, St. Stephen's Green and the grand canal. Rather than the whole area between the two canals. I hope this was correct.

That was the correct reading of my intentions. I had in mind the self-serving meaning of "those areas whose passengers would rather get off at Stephen's Green than College Green".

Dermot

Bill McH

I mulled over this whole thing last night, as I do regularly.

We've discussed the issue of "trip destinations", "trip generators" and so forth, and I think I'm slowly getting the hang of it. It may indeed be true that the "Trinity" area is projected to be so popular because of the number of busses which pass through there, and the connections which can therefore be made.

What I'm missing, I think, is any statistical or other evidence that, on an East-West line through the city, that St. Stephen's Green would be a more popular "destination" than the "Trinity" area, thus justifying the diversion.

I have never seen any such evidence.

Perhaps one of the members of Platform 11, who I'm sure have discussed this, would be able to point me to such evidence. Or indeed Winters, who also seems to be well informed about the interconnector.

Winters

"The south-east inner city remains a primary and growing destination."

DTO: Platform for Change, Page 14.

The route of the interconnector has been evaluated numerous times and I believe the current alignment has been chosen with factors such as constructability, catchment coverage, geotechnical, tunnelling restrictions, traffic disruption and trip demand as reasons.

To mine out a station 180m long underground with buildings above would be very complex and expensive. There are not that many areas where it can be done with empty space above but Dame Street and St. Stephen's Green North are two such places that would make sense.

St. Stephen's Green North is on higher ground (Dame Street is built where the Liffey walls used to be), work on St. Stephen's Green North would not cause as much traffic disruption as Dame Street, the DTO demand model shows St. Stephen's Green North to be better placed to serve the south-east inner city catchment and tunnelling radii would make it difficult to integrate with Pearse Station AND Dame Street.

These are just some of the reasons however should you have any further questions and/or objections about this important project I suggest you contact the project office at Iarnrod Eireann.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

Note the dropping of Tara/Trinity Metrobest We all told ya that's what they'd do now didn't we? Ah I'm only messin with ya man. I am happy we're seeing it materialise anyway.

Don't count your chickens until the RPA hatches them Philip!

The East/Central combination could involve Drumcondra and Hawkins Street as we've already learned that the central route's tunnel alignment under Trinity is problematic, while the East route via Hawkins Street was much less so.

I quite like the public consultation process that's been happening with MetroNorth; it makes the general public feel that its view is important. One thing I hope isn't happening, however, is that groups such as Platform 11, "West on Track", or "Glasnevin on Craic" could be making submissions en bloc passing themselves off as genuine, impartial observers.

If the metro is routed via Drumcondra along the hyrid route shown, I'd be quite happy, though a little disappointed for the people of Glasnevin who'll be deprived of their metro at Botanic.

Metrobest

Winters wrote:

These are just some of the reasons however should you have any further questions and/or objections about this important project I suggest you contact the project office at Iarnrod Eireann.

Does anyone else find this statement condescending? It implies that Bill, or other people for that matter, who don't favour the interconnector's route are somehow ill-informed and, reallly, if only they knew better, they'd be in favour of it too, just like you.

The "cult" of the interconnector lives on. :rolleyes:

अधिनायक

How each of the three routes would pass under Trinity.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Don't count your chickens until the RPA hatches them Philip!

Fair point. I'll believe all this when I'm travelling on it!

Metrobest wrote:

The East/Central combination could involve Drumcondra and Hawkins Street as we've already learned that the central route's tunnel alignment under Trinity is problematic, while the East route via Hawkins Street was much less so.

The bendy lines will be straightened. I have no doubt about that. The route in the central area will likely (IMO) be almost directly under Grafton street, under College Green and Westmoreland St and onwards.

Metrobest wrote:

I quite like the public consultation process that's been happening with MetroNorth; it makes the general public feel that its view is important. One thing I hope isn't happening, however, is that groups such as Platform 11 could be making submissions en bloc passing themselves off as genuine, impartial observers.

Well not all of us P11 members agree on every little detail of this project either! We're not Borg metrobest I'm sure my submission focused more on things I'm personally interested in than others'. The RPA know I'm a member of P11 however. Agree that the consultation has been impressive so far.

Metrobest wrote:

If the metro is routed via Drumcondra along the hyrid route shown, I'd be quite happy, though a little disappointed for the people of Glasnevin who'll be deprived of their metro at Botanic.

You can't keep everybody happy I suppose. I too would have prefered Glasnevin as it would have provided faster interchange for me personally (arriving from the Maynooth direction), but it appears to be technically/financially not feasible. Ho hum, Drumcondra will benefit.

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote:

One thing I hope isn't happening, however, is that groups such as Platform 11 could be making submissions en bloc passing themselves off as genuine, impartial observers.

I take great offence to that comment. How dare you incinuate that my concerns are not genuine.

popebenny16

Yes, P11 votes early and often. I have just invested in a new photocopier and scanner and we'll be having a secret meeting at the weekend to show off our new bugging devices.

Jesus wept.

Metrobest

If I had dropped the "Platform 11" part would your sensitivity threshold have been lower? It seems like you were sitting on this board just waiting to be offended. Don't take offence.

I note that Platform 11 in the past ran campaigns such as emailing TDs a template email to lobby for interconnector.

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote:

If I had dropped the "Platform 11" part would your sensitivity threshold have been lower? It seems like you were sitting on this board just waiting to be offended. Don't take offence.

You imply that I have some agenda for supporting Platfrom 11 and that giving my free time some how benefits me other than trying to get decent rail services? Care to explain how my opinion is not genuine or impartial and yours is?