Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
DWCommuter wrote: »Funnily enough, this was true in the 70s/80s when the Government directed CIE to borrow for DART instead of using EEC funding allocated to it. (it went elsewhere) However we are in very different times now. We can't borrow from international markets due to the prohibitive interest rate. We are already over extended. Our borrowings from the IMF/EU are under a spotlight and earmarked for other causes. There is no viable financial route for MN as things stand. Bidders are already struggling to raise money under the PPP concept and our Government is questioning our ability to repay any debt incurred under a PPP.
This is actually worse than the 80s.
There are always solutions and not building infrastructure is never one of them.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »
There are always solutions and not building infrastructure is never one of them.
Show me the money.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
But where are we going?
I think we should go right back to letting people talk about MNs chances of having the station boxes built as part of Luas BXD. Apologies for being so passionate about the likely demise of MN and subsequent reaction to discussion here. I'll explain in another post.
It looks likely that BXD is a potentially Government backed goer, but my main concern is that MN related work wouldn't be carried out. Can any of you agree that BXD could possibly be built with no major regard to future proofing MN?:eek:0 -
DWCommuter wrote: »Can any of you agree that BXD could possibly be built with no major regard to future proofing MN?:eek:
With regard to f**king up public transport in this country, anything is possible.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
We guessed correctly once he renamed BXD to the grandiose "Luas Interconnector"
0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »We guessed correctly once he renamed BXD to the grandiose "Luas Interconnector"
Whatever about postponing Metro and Dart until better times as the railway orders have 10-year life spans, building Luas BXD them is insanity.
Luas doesn't have the capacity or growth potential. We know that now - why repeat the same expensive mistake?
Apart from for the classic FF reason of 'doing something'! Madness.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Finally, thanks to Easter, I've a bit of time to reply to this one.Not to be smart here, again, but how many metro stations have you seen?
I've seen stations in Berlin, LA, DC, Paris, London, Budapest, Vienna, Shanghai, Warsaw, Prague etc.... Even taken into account that most of these are much larger than Dublin, the proposed station at O'Connell Bridge does not seem like a big deal. It seems somewhere between modest and middle of the road for a main central station.
Well, I can say for certain that I'm not as well travelled as you, but I've seen and used quite a number of stations on different metro systems over the years. Enough, I hope, for me to be allowed make a comment on boards.ie on the plans for Dublin.
The O'Connell Bridge station is not a "main central station" in the sense that one might understand it in other cities, i.e., a central station where there is an interchange with other underground lines and perhaps with mainline rail. At this station there is no interchange with anything, unless you're counting the Red LUAS.
For example, the "main central station" - in my understanding of the term - with which I am most familiar is Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof, which combines Germany's busiest mainline station at ground level with an S-Bahn level and a U-Bahn level. Three levels in total. It is commonplace for interchange stations to have multiple levels. As you undoubtedly know, one doesn't have to go far from Dublin to see other good examples of interchange stations with multiple levels- Euston, King's Cross, Victoria, etc., in London.
What I think one would have to go farther to see is a non-interchange station of the scale of the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. I'm sure I've never seen one, and I strongly doubt if you have either, despite your extensive travels.
"Modest" and "middle of the road", eh? - Are you sure?
No, I don’t, it seems normal. You’re making a mountain out of nothing.
With any kind of context the entrance boxes aren’t "an awful lot of construction". The contents of these cut and cover boxes are normal – ticket halls, escalators, elevators, vents, services etc.
Multi-level entrances are quite normal in underground -- and even in elevated -- metro stations.
Underground stations obviously need all these things. However, the standard arrangement which I've seen for non-interchange stations has been a level below street level for the stuff you mention (ticket machines, maps of the area, timetables, a few shops, etc.) and a level beneath that again for the platforms, i.e. a two-level station. (Occasionally I've come across non-interchange stations where there is another level, for example to accomodate a situation like the one that Cormac Rabbitte was talking about on this thread - i.e. where trains on the same "line" are stacked: Frankfurt's U4 would be a good example). For a non-interchange station, the station at O'Connell Bridge does seem to be quite different.It really does not seem like a "colossal" station, it’s small compared to some far more minor stations on some of the metros mentioned at the top of the post. Multi-level entrances are quite normal in underground -- and even in elevated -- metro stations.
No, it's not small, at all. There are two 4-level station boxes, each in or around 80 metres long. Either one of these boxes would certainly be deeper and probably (in terms of overall construction area) also bigger than any other underground station on this planned Dublin metro, bar the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green. (but indeed certainly deeper and probably overall much larger than the "metro" part of that station).
Yet the RPA are planning to build two (yes, that's right - 2) such boxes and, instead of the platforms being part of these boxes (as they usually are in other cities) they are to be an additional cost. I fully understand that this is of necessity, in order to link the two boxes, but it is a considerable extra cost, nonetheless.
In terms of the amount of construction materials and construction manpower required, what is effectively being proposed for O'Connell Bridge is (i) an eight(8)-level non-interchange station and (ii) a mined section to produce a pair of platforms which, as you pointed out, also take up a considerable area (and will thus consume a lot of manpower and construction materials). And all of this to provide just one stop on Dublin's proposed metro.
I think it is frankly absurd for you to suggest that this is a small station, by any measure, and I very, very sincerely doubt you can provide an example of apparently "minor" stations which are actually larger.One of the stations is at O'Connell Street, you’ve yet to demonstrate how a station at College Green / Trinity would limit impacts.
It seems like two stations would increases impacts.
A station as you’re suggestion "directly under" the Luas line would cause lots of needless disruptions. And any closer to the Spire would be worse again.
Blocking up the areas around College Green would also most likely increase, not decrease, impacts.
The metro routes presented in the original consultation included two stations in the relevant area (at Trinity and O'Connell Street). I've seen plenty of statements that the advantages of the later O'Connell Bridge idea were primarily related to cost, but none to the effect that the advantages were related to impact on the city.
(However, all of that was of course before the cold light of day....before it came around to what is actually involved in designing a station either side of a river...)
Whatever is done, when a station is built in the centre of a city, there will be an impact. If you don't want any impact, don't go around putting in underground stations, or LUAS lines, or in fact anything.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "impact", as there would be positive eventual impacts associated with two stations over just one (e.g. by improving catchment efficiency when the project is complete), and negative impacts (on traffic, local businesses, etc.) during construction of station boxes.
For my part, I really don't know if the negative impact would be greater or smaller, or about the same, with: (a) a station box on O'Connell Street and a station box on Westmoreland Street, to provide the city with one metro station, versus (b) the earlier idea of a station box on O'Connell Street and a station box in or around College Green, to provide the city with two. These are all very busy areas, and the city is certainly going to see a few tears shed along the way, before the metro comes into operation. Perhaps the RPA documentation might throw some light on this?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement