[Article] The tearing of the Green

Victor

OK, Frank is spinning the money factor, but destroying the north side of the Green will not gain friends for Metro North.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/12706965?view=Eircomnet&cat=Top Stories

The tearing of the Green
From ireland.comSaturday, 26th April, 2008

Plans for the Metro North line entail excavating a large section of St Stephen's Green at huge cost. But some are questioning the wisdom of using the Green as a transport hub, and worry that the work will forever alter the character of the park. Frank McDonald Environment Editor reports

ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2005, at the Government's fanfare launch of its €34 billion Transport 21 investment programme, then minister for transport Martin Cullen announced that St Stephen's Green would become the capital's key transport hub. "It will be to Dublin what Grand Central is to New York," he said.

A discreet veil was drawn over the environmental impact of this radical proposal, particularly on the much-loved park that was given to the people of Dublin in 1880 by Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, Lord Ardilaun, under an Act of Parliament entrusting its long-term care to the Commissioners of Public Works.

Although the route of Metro North - the proposed line linking St Stephen's Green with Dublin Airport and Swords - is shown on maps that are publicly available on the Railway Procurement Agency's website (www.rpa.ie), the detail of what is being planned in and around the Green is not immediately evident.

However, design drawings seen by The Irish Times clearly show that at least a quarter of the park would be devastated by the scheme. It would, in effect, be turned into a vast construction site, requiring the removal of the landmark Fusiliers' Arch at its northwestern corner, dozens of mature trees and a large part of the lake.

In order to create the underground concourse and platforms for the proposed "Grand Central" station, a huge hole more than 20 metres deep and 160 metres long would be excavated at this location, extending beyond the railings from a point opposite the Fitzwilliam Hotel to a point opposite the St Stephen's Green Club.

This "cut-and-cover" project would take at least three years to complete, requiring some traffic diversions in the area. Excavated material would be removed by trucks using an access point on the north side of the Green and running down Dawson Street. Operation of the Sandyford Luas line would be unaffected.

To facilitate the movement of Metro North trains at their terminus station, the twin tracks would be burrowed under the middle of the park towards its southeastern corner and there would also be a large turnback loop, which is apparently to be tunnelled using the same "drill and blast" technique common in coal mining.

The St Stephen's Green station on CIÉ's planned rail interconnector, or "Dart Underground", linking Heuston Station with Spencer Dock, would also have a negative impact at ground level. A 200-metre stretch along the northern side of the Green would be turned into a construction site, with the loss of more trees.

Its station would be constructed on a transverse axis, partly beneath the Metro North station, using more "drill and blast" excavation underground, requiring the removal of some 8,000 truckloads of material. However, it is unclear at this stage whether these two projects by rival agencies will proceed in tandem.

Even after the park is restored with replacement trees and the Fusiliers' Arch and lake are reinstated, the character of St Stephen's Green would be permanently altered by visible - and discordant - elements of the two stations above-ground, including ventilation ducts, emergency escape stairs and other accoutrements.

For example, the drawings prepared by the RPA and consultant engineers Jacobs International show a cluster of air vents on the island in the park's lake which is a refuge for ducks and waterhens.

No wonder the Office of Public Works (OPW) was "aghast" when it was first shown the plans, according to a source.

When the Sandyford Luas line and its current terminus on the west side of St Stephen's Green was under construction, the OPW was so protective of the park and its curtilage that it wouldn't even permit any encroachment on the footpath outside. Now, it is faced with the prospect of much of the Green becoming a building site.

"It beggars belief that four decades after the battle to save Hume Street they're now planning to demolish St Stephen's Green," said one engineer who examined the detailed drawings. "But it's clear that the Green was selected [ for construction of the station] because it's a wonderful works site, a big open space."

IN 2006, THE Green was shortlisted for the Academy of Urbanism's Great Place award. The academy's poet in residence, Ian McMillan, wrote that "every city needs a green like this/To pause for a moment in the city's throng/This green is a smile and this green is a kiss/ And Dublin is the city where St Stephen's Green belongs".

An OPW spokesman said it was liaising with both the RPA and CIÉ to mitigate the environmental impact of the metro and rail interconnector works. He also pointed out that, technically, the park is now vested in the Minister for the Environment and said an amendment to the 1877 St Stephen's Green Act would probably be needed.

John Costigan, managing director of the Gaiety Theatre, has also expressed concern that one of the twin-bore metro tunnels would come perilously close to its fly-tower, which was rebuilt in recent years on steel piles with a depth of 10 or 11 metres, and that the theatre could be affected by vibrations from the metro.

It is clear that the "Grand Central" plan was driven by the Sandyford Luas line terminating on the west side of St Stephen's Green. But since the Luas line is to be extended northwards, via Dawson Street and College Green - as originally planned, until the Government ditched it in 1998 - it would be duplicating Metro North.

THE COST OF the 17km metro line was estimated at €4.58 billion in 2004, though this was never publicly admitted by the RPA. With construction cost inflation since then, plus the addition of a new station at Parnell Square and agreement to put the line underground in Ballymun, the figure could now be as high as €6 billion. That would work out at €353 million per kilometre for a single line which, the RPA admits, would carry elongated Luas-type trams rather than heavy rail metro trains. This contrasts with €60 million per kilometre for the extension of the Tallaght Luas line in Docklands - the most expensive Luas project to date.

Even on the basis of that high figure, the RPA could build more than 100 kilometres of street-running Luas lines for the price of Metro North - and a lot more at a lower cost per kilometre. Such a change of plan would give Dublin a light rail network, serving many more areas than the limited Swords-St Stephen's Green corridor.

Given Metro North's price tag, which the RPA has been trying to reduce by cutting back on station design, it would make more sense to terminate it at O'Connell Bridge or, better still, underneath Tara Street station. If this was done, the rail interconnector's cost could also be cut because it wouldn't have to swing south to Stephen's Green.

The cost of Metro North could also be reduced by substituting a surface-running Luas line between Dublin Airport and Swords. Another obvious cost-cutting measure would involve boring a single tunnel wide enough to carry trains in both directions, rather than the separate tunnels for each track currently proposed.

The RPA is in the process of selecting a "preferred bidder" for the Metro North project from a shortlist of four consortiums and preparing an environmental impact statement, with a view to making a formal application for a railway order in August. By then, the design of the project will be set, sealing the fate of St Stephen's Green.

WHO CALLS THE SHOTS THE MAYOR, THE MINISTER OR THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY?
THE PROPOSAL in this week's Green Paper on local government that the Dublin Transport Authority (DTA) is to be chaired by whoever becomes the capital's first directly-elected mayor will compensate only partly for a significant democratic deficit in the authority's composition.

The Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, said he had got the agreement of his colleague, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, that the mayor would chair the DTA - in 2011; as currently framed, this powerful new body would be headed by a ministerial appointee.

The Dublin Transport Authority Bill, published last week, provides that none of the 10 members of the authority would be elected representatives, and that only four of the 12 on its advisory council would be members of the Dublin and Mid-East regional authorities. The rest would all be appointees of the Minister for Transport - chosen, the Bill says, on the basis of their expertise in "relevant disciplines", such as finance, transport or planning - as well as ex-officio members such as Dublin city manager John Tierney.

Lest there be any impression that the DTA is not a creature of central government, there are no less than 230 direct references to the Minister in its 78 pages - mainly dealing with his powers to order the affairs of the authority; in this respect, it is par for the course. Establishment of the DTA, according to the explanatory memorandum, "will ensure, for the first time, that there is a single, properly accountable body with overall responsibility for surface transport in the Greater Dublin Area" (GDA), which includes Meath, Kildare and Wicklow.

Its general functions will include strategic transport planning, provision of public transport services and infrastructure and traffic management. It will also take over responsibility from the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for the thorny issue of introducing integrated ticketing. But the RPA will stay in business, with continuing responsibility for the delivery of Luas and metro projects. Indeed, the agency fought an evidently successful bureaucratic battle against an earlier, apparently firm proposal that it would simply be subsumed into the DTA.

The only body that is to be dissolved under the legislation is the Dublin Transportation Office, which has performed a co-ordinating role for transport in the region and was also the originator of the metro plan - now causing "wigs on the Green" as details of its design emerge.

The DTA's first duty will be to prepare a six-year transport strategy for the GDA - in consultation with the local authorities as well as the wider community - covering investment in infrastructure, and the procurement and integration of public transport services. In preparing its integrated implementation plan, the DTA will get written guidance from the Minister on "multi-annual funding arrangements", though it will be obliged to have "due regard" for "the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of Exchequer resources". Where possible, the DTA is required to secure the provision of public transport infrastructure through existing agencies, such as the National Roads Authority, the local authorities, Iarnród Éireann and the RPA - though it will have "step-in" powers, if any of these fail. However, the Bill does nothing to liberalise or open up the Dublin bus market. The "exclusive rights" of Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann to operate the services they currently provide are reaffirmed, and the DTA is obliged to award them direct contracts.

One of the most significant provisions of the Bill is the land use planning powers it gives the new agency. In future, there will be an onus on the GDA's seven local authorities to ensure that their development plans are consistent with the DTA's transport strategy. The Dublin and Mid-East regional authorities, though largely powerless, will also be required to include a statement in their regional planning guidelines "explaining how there will be effective integration of transport and land use planning", the memorandum says.

Furthermore, the 2000 Planning Act is being amended to give the Minister for the Environment power to direct any of the GDA's local authorities to review or vary their draft development plan to ensure that its objectives are consistent with the DTA's transport strategy.

Another amendment to the Planning Act will make it easier for the local authorities to refuse planning permission for any development that would be inconsistent with the transport strategy, because they wouldn't risk having to pay compensation to disappointed developers.

markf909

Its far too easy for Frank to get the crayons out when he has to walk from Temple bar to Tara street each day :rolleyes:

Frank mentions cutbacks 3 times in paragraph in that article.

When people question why we can't build adequate infrastructure take a long look at the article.

Frank's playing with the crayons, long after Metro North has gone beyond route selection and station design, causes the kind of interference that leads to the red and green lines not being joined up.

The north city deserves a fully segregated and fast metro service and Frank is losing any shred of credibility he had by opposing new public transport.

ardmacha

McDonald has lot the plot. He is obsessed by street running trams. The Sandyford line will have a reserved line running to Bray eventually. This can be a high capacity service and must not be limited by the capacity of the on street component. Digging up the green for a couple of years is worth it, although every effort must be made to keep damage to minimum. Contractors will grab space and use it for parking trucks, so there needs to be good planning to minimise the take.

Nostradamus

I think that Frank McDonald has finally exposed himself as a typical 'chatering class' Irish Times bubble-inhabitant he always was.

Maybe the Dublin Cycling Campaign aren't praying to icons of him as much as they used to and he craves the attention.

Nostradamus

ardmacha wrote: »

McDonald has lot the plot. He is obsessed by street running trams.

He was anti Luas when construction began. He demanded it be built underground, now we are building an underground metro and he wants trams on streets again.

I agree with Markf909, this latest manifestion from Frank is a classic reason why nothing gets done on this island.

Chris_533976

Heres a pic from Archiseek

Nostradamus

That graphic just reinforces what a pathetic NIMBY McDonald has become. For starters the "destruction" is really modest, and secondly, it'll all be replaced and restored when completed.

The disruption is so minor compared to the pay off. He's become a total joke. I don't know why he just doesn't move to Dalkey, buy a semi-detached with 4 SUVs parked in the driveway and start a non bus lane outraged residents action group - because that is the level he has sunk too.

lostexpectation

what bit will be dug up, around the yellow lines?

ah i dunno i think he is just giving due consideration to the 'damage' that will occur

L1011

The yellow lines bit should be bored mostly, its the bit outside the pink that'll be dug up or used for storage during.

murphaph

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Heres a pic from Archiseek

This reveals how little the green will be affected by what are huge works beneath! The Fusilier's Arch is made of stone blocks-take it apart and put it back together and nobody will ever be able to tell. Most of the 'damage' will be to the bloody lakes, which is irrelevant as when refilled with water will hide any works forever.

I dare say we're not even talking a lot of trees and I'm sure they can save some small-medium ones by deep excavating around them and moving them for the duration of the works before replanting.

The main recreational area in the middle of the green looks to be completely unaffected (the drill and blast will not be noticable from the surface!).

McDonald should hang his head in shame.

Metrobest

A disgraceful piece of journalism, riddled with errors.

I predicted he would adopt this Save Our Park strategy many months ago when his battle to stop Metro North failed. As I said before, this is a matter of pride for Frank McDonald. He cannot be seen to be wrong about anything. The problem is many people will not recognise the bias and the urban legend will emerge that the park is to be destroyed - even though the drawings clearly show it will be very well preserved given the engineering neccessary to create the transport system Dublin requires in the south city centre.

Every metro system has to adapt to the geography of the city it serves. There is always going to be disruption but the long term benefit to future generations is what counts. Amsterdams North-South metro line, for example, is running under the oldest medieval city centre in Europe, a complex terrein of Canals, subsiding houses built in 1680, underneath Cuypers masterpiece central station, the statiion´s island and a harbour.

Barcelona is digging a high speed rail tunnel within metres of Gaudi´s world famous Sagrada Familia.

The Dublin metro is a doddle by comparison.

All Frank McDonald has to worry about is the welfare of a couple of ducks in a city park. Do not worry, Frank, surely they will take the ducks to a safe place before they begin construction.

RuggieBear

those ducks are AGHAST!!!!!!:D

BrianD

Fair play to Frank for once again exposing the farce the RPA are and their complete lack ability to do anything right.

The RPA have kept quiet about the amount disruption and destruction that terminating the metro is Stephens Green will bring. I would say that given the nature of the project, the usable part of the park that is indicated in the diagram is very generous.

All he's doing is drawing attention to another badly thought out part of this pretty dreadful project.

As I said before, I don't see the RPA's fascination in terminating Metro NOrth at a duck pond. With the extension of the green line north, Stephens Green will no longer be the end of the green line so why go south to stephens green? I assume the reason is that they need a 'cut and cover' opportunity that the park provides.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that Stephens Green is a good location for the type of hub that is being proposed (DART/Metro/Tram). How was the decision arrived at to put all these services in this location?

ardmacha

All over Europe there are piazzas, parks, and squares with metro stations, carparking and other facilities below. These had to be built at some stage. The subways in New York or London involved massive disruption while they were being built, millions of people use them each day and have benefitted in the long term from this disruption. Stephen's Green has long been designated as a hub in part because you can dig under the lake and flood it again so that it is as good as new. The metro needs to reach Stephen's green because it needs eventually to carry along the green line.

John_C

Another obvious cost-cutting measure would involve boring a single tunnel wide enough to carry trains in both directions, rather than the separate tunnels for each track currently proposed.

Can someone explain this one to me? My understanding is that the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its diameter so a tunnel wide enough to take 2 trains will have twice the cross sectional area of two separate tunnels, making it roughly twice as expensive to dig.

Have I missed something here?

L1011

John_C wrote: »

Can someone explain this one to me? My understanding is that the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its diameter so a tunnel wide enough to take 2 trains will have twice the cross sectional area of two separate tunnels, making it roughly twice as expensive to dig.

Have I missed something here?

Nope, you're entirely right, however they could in theory dig a non-circular tunnel... it'd just lose all natural structural integrity that comes with the shape and need huge shoring up, etc. And still be more expensive than two tunnels of the right shape.

markpb

John_C wrote: »

Can someone explain this one to me? My understanding is that the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its diameter so a tunnel wide enough to take 2 trains will have twice the cross sectional area of two separate tunnels, making it roughly twice as expensive to dig.

Whatever about the cost, rail tunnels are twin bored for a reason - safety. Frank's missing the point with this one.

I suspect it would be cheaper because you'd need one big TBM instead of two medium TBMs or one TBM for a longer time.

murphaph

MYOB wrote: »

Nope, you're entirely right, however they could in theory dig a non-circular tunnel... it'd just lose all natural structural integrity that comes with the shape and need huge shoring up, etc. And still be more expensive than two tunnels of the right shape.

Building a non-circular tunnel is not possible with a tunnel boring machine of course.

BrianD wrote:

Fair play to Frank for once again exposing the farce the RPA are and their complete lack ability to do anything right.

They operate within a (tight) budget and can only deliver so much with it. You must look higher up the food chain to find the real cause. The RPA have made mistakes-doesn't make them incompetent.

BrianD wrote:

The RPA have kept quiet about the amount disruption and destruction that terminating the metro is Stephens Green will bring. I would say that given the nature of the project, the usable part of the park that is indicated in the diagram is very generous.

Even if the have kept it quiet, do you blame them Brian? This country has a tendency to become hysteric about any disruption during anything! Even minor roadworks are regularly lambasted for causing "loss of business" or somesuch-the powers that be can't win sometimes. Other countries seem to understand the concept of "the greater good".

BrianD wrote:

All he's doing is drawing attention to another badly thought out part of this pretty dreadful project.

As I said before, I don't see the RPA's fascination in terminating Metro NOrth at a duck pond. With the extension of the green line north, Stephens Green will no longer be the end of the green line so why go south to stephens green? I assume the reason is that they need a 'cut and cover' opportunity that the park provides.

Personally I can see why the green is being used. The design of the Interconnector and metro are closely linked and there is probably nowhere else that two large staion boxes and mezzanine level can be provided at reasonable cost in Dublin city cente. D2 is also the primary destination in the country. You call the no. 1 travel destination (south city centre) a "duck pond" and think it does you any favours?

I'm afraid you really let yourself down with this "Stephens Green will no longer be the end of the green line so why go south to stephens green?". The primary purpose of this location will be to deliver passengers to the central business district and also of course to allow INTERCHANGE with the INTERCONNECTOR which would not be possible any further north without changing the path of the interconnector itself and then mining out both stations (€€€€) and for what benefit?

BrianD wrote:

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that Stephens Green is a good location for the type of hub that is being proposed (DART/Metro/Tram). How was the decision arrived at to put all these services in this location?

Because the CBD is the primary destination any given workday. People work around there. Can you name an alternative location where you could interchange so many modes at reasonable cost?

This is Munich, Marienplatz: The central square in the city centre. It was dug up almost completely for 3 years and their version of the interconnector (Stammstrecke) with interchange to U-Bahn opened in 1971. Munich's functioning would be inconceivable without it today.

murphaph

markpb wrote: »

Whatever about the cost, rail tunnels are twin bored for a reason - safety. Frank's missing the point with this one.

I suspect it would be cheaper because you'd need one big TBM instead of two medium TBMs or one TBM for a longer time.

There's a lot more spoil to remove from a large single bore than 2 seperate tunnels. The spoil removal is extremely expensive as it all has to be removed by lorry to a defunct quarry/land reclamaton site etc. Cutting down the spoil significantly reduces cost. TBMs are expensive to you and me but are actually disposable in some instances, you buy it and bury it underground rather than recover it.

AlekSmart

Oh Murphaph,I love it when you talk dirty....

"Even if the have kept it quiet, do you blame them Brian? This country has a tendency to become hysteric about any disruption during anything! Even minor roadworks are regularly lambasted for causing "loss of business" or somesuch-the powers that be can't win sometimes. Other countries seem to understand the concept of "the greater good".......Sez You,and you win the $64,000 !

Even after 30+ years of being "European" (Well...taking their money anyway) we simply refuse to release our cold,dead grasp on the rifle of catholic self-primacy.

Perhaps it`s one of the things that makes us,as a race,so good at working abroad for other people.....our need to be TOLD forcefully what to do and then MADE to do it....?

If we are left to our own devices we (like the Italians) tend to wander around the shop knocking over boxes and spilling drink,the resultant mess is then left for somebody else to clean up whilst we end up sleeping out on the verandah....again.

Time and time again I see this stultifying principle at work.
In public transport terms (Bus) any proposal to increase the frequency or make a route more efficient is greeted by howls of derision and protest`s from disenfranchised individuals who want that Bus route to pass THEIR door irrespective of whether or not the modification will considerably enhance the situation for a 1,000 others.

Take a look at the 46A rambling around Stillorgan or the very existance of the 48A still rambling (Largely empty) through Balinteer in deference to a couple of well heeled and articulate (politically connected) objectors...

...never mind Ulster,we Free Staters are well versed in saying NO !!! too :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

you can cut rectangular tunnels by turning the cutting wheel through 90 degrees.

but no one does as circular tunnels are far stronger, because the force generated by the weight isn't concentrated at the corners.

paulm17781

Well done Frank, this could get the ball rolling in delaying a much needed project. :mad:

darkman2

paulm17781 wrote: »

Well done Frank, this could get the ball rolling in delaying a much needed project. :mad:

Yep - the D4 cranks (with their armies of solicitors) will be coming out in force now upon hearing the rallying call from Frank McDonald. On one level he is right to let people know obviously the green will have to dug up but on another level I think this article is primarilly to stir up **** to suit his own agenda. If he was in charge there would be no luas and no port tunnel.

OTK

John_C wrote: »

Can someone explain this one to me? My understanding is that the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its diameter so a tunnel wide enough to take 2 trains will have twice the cross sectional area of two separate tunnels, making it roughly twice as expensive to dig.

Have I missed something here?

I think you have missed something. If the diameter is doubled then the cross-sectional area will quadruple.

I believe the Railway Safety Commission require that all rail tunnels be built as twin bore in Ireland.

John_C

OTK wrote: »

I think you have missed something. If the diameter is doubled then the cross-sectional area will quadruple.

True but it would be quadruple the area of one tunnel, double the area of 2 parallel tunnels.

is_that_so

I have to confess that Frank McDonald articles have the same effect on me as Fintan O'Toole, swift page turning stuff. It has all the pomposity of something he read out to himself. He seems to have that journalistic disease of wanting to show how relevant he is.

Victor

Actually, talking to the RPA, they say a single tunnel would be marginally cheaper over all, but they feel the functional benefits of twin tunnels better suits their needs. Sure the quantity of spoil removed is more, but the tunnel doesn't need to be double because the vehicle doesn't use the whole tunnel. It uses the same amount of tunnel lining or less, the same amount of track, same amount or less of cabling. However, a bigger tunnel is much easier to work in. During construction you can have two working tracks, one removing spoil, the other delivering materials, rather than shuttle working on a single track or using (very) narrow gauge equipment.

My concern is that they are just going to cut down a load of 100-200 year old trees instead of getting rid of some car parking. Trees like that take 100-200 years to grow and I don't know any precedents for moving tress of that size or age. Essentially they plan to clear everything from St. Stephen's Green north to the ponds.

Metrobest

Victor wrote: »

My concern is that they are just going to cut down a load of 100-200 year old trees instead of getting rid of some car parking. Trees like that take 100-200 years to grow and I don't know any precedents for moving tress of that size or age. Essentially they plan to clear everything from St. Stephen's Green north to the ponds.

All trees die eventually. New ones can be planted in their place. Look what happened to O´Connell Street where some old plane trees were chopped to make way for the new street. Now that street is better. And by the way, I never saw an article from Frank McDonald attempting to save the O´Connell Street trees.

Most of the city circle stations in Sydney CBD were built by cut and cover under parks like Hyde Park and Wynyard Park and you would never guess it to look at these parks today. I am confident that with the latest technology at hand, nobody will feel the park is any less a great public space after the metro and interconnector are in place beneath it.

The plan, as it stands, looks like the best option to preserve the three quarters of the park that contain the oldest trees. And because it´s going to be disruptive, its far better to have the work going on in the centre of the park where disruption to the functions of the city can be kept to a minimum.

Once construction finishes, the park will be reinstated and the opportunity could even arise to mprove it with the addition of an open air cafe, a badly needed facility in this park. I also personally dislike the fact that it it railed off, parks like Amsterdams Vondelpark with their cafes and so on function 24 hours per day and the addition of a cafe in the middle of the park, built at the same time as the metro, would introduce the safety element neccessary to have 24 hour opening.

Another issue I would like to raise is Fitzwillian Square. If Frank McDonald really cared about the public´s right to its space, he would be campaigning to have Fitzwilliam Sq made a public park, as it surely would be in any other European city.

markf909

Victor wrote: »

My concern is that they are just going to cut down a load of 100-200 year old trees instead of getting rid of some car parking. Trees like that take 100-200 years to grow and I don't know any precedents for moving tress of that size or age. Essentially they plan to clear everything from St. Stephen's Green north to the ponds.

In 100 hundred years our grandkids will have 100 year old trees and a metro.

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote: »

All trees die eventually. New ones can be planted in their place. Look what happened to O´Connell Street where some old plane trees were chopped to make way for the new street. Now that street is better. And by the way, I never saw an article from Frank McDonald attempting to save the O´Connell Street trees.

There were people trying to save them, I'm not certain if Frank was one.

Parks and streets are different. The new trees on O'Connell st. brightened up the street and gave more space in the median. While I like the trees in the park, I think if it will give us our metro then fair enough.

New trees can grow etc. In the end, it's only a park.

markpb

paulm17781 wrote: »

New trees can grow etc. In the end, it's only a park.

If the guys over on archiseek saw that comment, they'd have heart failure

Calina

markf909 wrote: »

The north city deserves a fully segregated and fast metro service and Frank is losing any shred of credibility he had by opposing new public transport.

uhem, just on this I'd venture to say that the north city doesn't so much deserve it as desperately need it. It's not alone in this. The city as a whole desperately needs a functional integrated public transport system of which this would be just one part.

paulm17781

markpb wrote: »

If the guys over on archiseek saw that comment, they'd have heart failure

If a little fact like that would cause heart failure, they deserve it, point them this way.

dRNk SAnTA

Hi, I have a couple of questions about the station:

Do we know how the stephens green station will be laid out? will the escalators from street level bring you straight to track? or will there be a concourse type area which gives access to the interconnector and metro lines?

is anyone on here concerned about the quality of station design?

I don't mind the use of the park as long as an effort is at least made to save as many trees as possible. only clear what is neccessary - i.e. no clearing just to park trucks. The road shouldn't be spared.

trellheim

Hold on, there's nothing new here, we've been talking about this for a long time.

There's [ and correct me if I'm wrong ]

4 transport lines that matter in this context.

Metro North
Interconnector
a pie in the Sky Green Line Metro
and a theoretical Metro out to Tallaght

Now, RPA are harping on about Metro N while IE get to play with the Interconnector crayons

Are they digging them up together ? Not at this time perhaps the DTA will help

Also, Iveagh Gardens will need to go as well since you need places to drop the TBMs etc

Now, although you may rubbish the last two proposals [ Green line and tallaght ] - if you don't plan for them now and put in infrastructure

we'll have to dig it all up again at truly enormous cost . Alternatively definitively trash them all except the Metro [ even the Interconnector, don't string IE along ]

this is the real debate, not turning circles of TBMs

As someone did say, this is being kept extremely quiet, people remember the chaos of building LUAS

Chris_533976

markpb wrote: »

If the guys over on archiseek saw that comment, they'd have heart failure

Love the difference between here and Archi.

Here everyones saying "BUILD IT NOW"

Archiseek is saying "OMG DONT BUILD IT"

markpb

trellheim wrote: »

There's [ and correct me if I'm wrong ]

4 transport lines that matter in this context.

Metro North
Interconnector
a pie in the Sky Green Line Metro
and a theoretical Metro out to Tallaght

I don't think there's any talk of upgrading Luas Green to metro, that's a myth that has been put down time and time again. Likewise, I've never heard of any talk of a metro to Tallaght?

Now, RPA are harping on about Metro N while IE get to play with the Interconnector crayons. Are they digging them up together ? Not at this time perhaps the DTA will help

They've been working together to ensure co-operation and minimise disruption - apparently - although it's likely they'll use two different construction companies so the work will happen at the same time but in different compounds.

bryanw

Hi, I have a couple of questions about the station:

Do we know how the stephens green station will be laid out? will the escalators from street level bring you straight to track? or will there be a concourse type area which gives access to the interconnector and metro lines?

is anyone on here concerned about the quality of station design?

I don't mind the use of the park as long as an effort is at least made to save as many trees as possible. only clear what is neccessary - i.e. no clearing just to park trucks. The road shouldn't be spared.

I'm pretty sure there will be a concourse. I would imagine the to DART and Metro platforms will have a good difference in depth. I also think that the metro and interconnector will have their own separate entrances/exits as well as the main one common to both.

All I would be concerned about would be that the station is functional. That is the most important thing. If it has enough space and IE and the RPA aren't involved in bickering over the running of the station - it should be ok.

---

It is a valid point to bring up protection of the green, and should be done with minimal interference, but we need this Metro, it's important we get the metro right at the expense of a few trees.

Victor

Metrobest wrote: »

All trees die eventually. New ones can be planted in their place.

But we will all be dead before those trees. If they can spend a bit of money to save trees at Griffith Avenue, they can do the same at the Green.

Look what happened to O´Connell Street where some old plane trees were chopped to make way for the new street.

O´Connell Street has been acknowledged by many as a mistake, a half thought our solution. While the wide footpaths are lovely, the median is no longer used as a north-south route, the place is windswept and a lot of people have safety and accessibility issues with the paving.

trellheim wrote: »

Also, Iveagh Gardens will need to go as well since you need places to drop the TBMs etc

The TBMS will start at DCU and head south. They will then be abandoned underground or cut up either as sections or scrap, no huge pit needed.

bryanw wrote: »

It is a valid point to bring up protection of the green, and should be done with minimal interference, but we need this Metro, it's important we get the metro right at the expense of a few trees.

Do it at the expense of as few trees as possible. Note there are big open green spaces with only grass with the Green, Iveagh Gardens and Trinity.

lostexpectation

oconnel streets is crap a bit of cover would be still welcome...

yeah why can't they put the works on the car aprking space, (get rid of the railings and you'll have access), how a big of tree can they move these days?

how close will the new interconnector trainline to stephens green?

could they not have dug down in the plain iveagh lawn?

El Stuntman

bryanw wrote: »

All I would be concerned about would be that the station is functional. That is the most important thing. If it has enough space and IE and the RPA aren't involved in bickering over the running of the station - it should be ok.
.

will the new DTA not take responsibility?

trellheim

So : wishing doesn't make it so,

is it the case that the green line tunnel hooking to Bx underground os gone out the window now ?

paulm17781

trellheim wrote: »

is it the case that the green line tunnel hooking to Bx underground os gone out the window now ?

Of course it is. Sense doesn't matter in Irish planning. Winning (Dail) seats is the driver.