Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

handlemaster

At a time of high unemployment , low cost of property and low interest rates now would be the perfect time to build.

Grandeeod

NiallSparky wrote: »

What percentage of stops on Metro North are going to be on the Southside? What percentage of stops on LUAS BXD are going to be on the Southside?

Simple fact of the matter is - St Stephen's Green is probably the most suitable location for a large City Centre terminus, particularly as it's going to need both underground and overground connectivity. Instead of dreaming up some sort of conspiracy, perhaps you could suggest an alternative location for such a terminus?

I answered a straight forward question with a straight forward and credible reply. I was not advocating another location. I was merely referring to the historic development of the southside of the city centre and why SSG has become the focal point for such a large underground interchange.

In fact, while monument attacked me and not my post, he inadvertently justified what I said with this.

You mean besides being being between a large office district and a major retail district / overlapping a food and drink / nightlight district? Plus the Dail, loads of government departments, museums, venues, a major park etc?

All of those things do indeed exist around SSG, but I was referring to how and why they got there. As usual any semblance of negativity is immediately construed as an attack on the project.

mgavenda

Regarding where a transport hub would be other than Stephen's Green, how about Hawkins House by the Screen Cinema? Someone has put up this website and it's actually very interesting.

I hope this gets done, it'll put more life into that area!

ardmacha

Presumably this is a 1600mm gauge project?

The key piece in the puzzle is the Interconnector.

exactly.

D.L.R.

This seems to be a great development with tons of potential. It retains the major touchstones of Metro North & Interconnector:

- mass transit connection from Central Dublin to the Airport/Swords via Ballymun
- tunnel from Heuston to Docklands under the south city
- general integration of all modes

The only major difference is the more western routing of the Metro North line. The dupication of Luas Cross City / Metro North is removed, which is a big positive, imo. And Dublin would effectively get an orbital service utilising existing infrastructure, negating the need for Metro West, another bonus.

A few quibbles though
- Not sure about the 3 Metro services, 2 would cover it. Also keeping the Dart unchanged.. hmm.
- Don't agree with flat fare - zones would be better - encourages short hops. Flat fares work better on buses and other modes where you only touch in and not out.

But this could all be debated with the infrastructure in place.

Basically this is a leaner MN/DU with the FF Tiger era fat trimmed away. Exciting.

handlemaster

Any political reply to this from the government

Jack Noble

I don't think I'm going out on a limb to state that this plan is going to get as far as the other three 'Dublin Metro' plans Cormac Rabbitt has put forward over the last 20 years - ie, nowhere beyond a filing cabinet in the Department of Transport.

The Irish state cannot get private sector or PPP funding in the current climate for either Dart Underground or Metro North - yet Mr Rabbitt believes he can for his plan. Has anyone stopped to ask how? From whom? Under what terms?

Aside from those minor details, three other flaws in this plan that stand out to me are the the following:

1. CR is proposing single-bore tunnels - simply put, one large bore 12m diameter tunnel with the two tracks stacked in double deck manner. One of the main reasons for the delays in both DU and MN is that IE and RPA originally proposed single-bore tunnels containing both two tracks but were forced to go back and redesign both systems with twin-bore tunnels containing a single track each - which obviously pushed up the construction cost. That's current best practice and it's what complies with current Irish rail safety regulations. I cannot see this being allowed by the powers that be for safety reasons - despite what Mr Rabbitt says about Line 9 in Barcelona being constructed in this manner.

From Mr Rabbitt's website:

Advances in tunnel machine technology make it safer, faster and cheaper to both build and operate a metro with a single large tunnel, 12-metre diameter (the same size as the Dublin Port Tunnel), hosting all the lines, platforms and walkways within it, in a stacked configuration (see Photos). This is an alternative to the traditional method as proposed by the shelved plans for Metro North & DART Underground, i.e. twin tunnels built by boring machine, 6.7 metres in diameter, and in addition by slow drill-and-blast techniques large station chambers and cross-passages.

The new technology facilitates the use of ‘drum’ structures for city stations. This, for example, compared to the shelved plans, reduces the build site area at St. Stephen’s Green/Grafton Street by 80 percent, significantly reduces disruption to local streets and avoids interference to the Fusiliers’ Arch.

This large tunnel advanced construction technology is now tested and in operation. The first section of the Metro Line 9 project in Barcelona, opened in 2009, has pioneered this new method. A similar tunnel will be able to accommodate Irish rolling stock.

http://www.metrodublin.ie/index_files/MetroDublinDesign.htm

2. The section from Griffith Avenue to connect with the existing tracks at Liffey junction requires a tunnel - anyone care to guess under where that tunnel must run? I'll save you the trouble - Glasnevin Cemetery. Does anyone really believe that politicians will allow, or An Bord Pleanala will approve, a tunnel under the biggest and historically most important graveyard in the country?

3. The Rabbitt plan require a tunnel linking the Phoenix Park Tunnel to the Interconnector (DU) tunnel - under Heuston railyard. Again, part of the delay in the DU plan was the decision to extend the tunnel to surface at Inchicore instead of Heuston yard was because of the disruption it would cause to services into and out of Heuston. I can't see how this Metro Dublin plan can get around that.

Maybe Cormac Rabbitt has thought all this through and has answers to all these points. But I see nothing on his website that suggest he has.

robd

Jack Noble wrote: »

I don't think I'm going out on a limb to state that this plan is going to get as far as the other three 'Dublin Metro' plans Cormac Rabbitt has put forward over the last 20 years - ie, nowhere beyond a filing cabinet in the Department of Transport.

The Irish state cannot get private sector or PPP funding in the current climate for either Dart Underground or Metro North - yet Mr Rabbitt believes he can for his plan. Has anyone stopped to ask how? From whom? Under what terms?

Aside from those minor details, three other flaws in this plan that stand out to me are the the following:

1. CR is proposing single-bore tunnels - simply put, one large bore 12m diameter tunnel with the two tracks stacked in double deck manner. One of the main reasons for the delays in both DU and MN is that IE and RPA originally proposed single-bore tunnels containing both two tracks but were forced to go back and redesign both systems with twin-bore tunnels containing a single track each - which obviously pushed up the construction cost. That's current best practice and it's what complies with current Irish rail safety regulations. I cannot see this being allowed by the powers that be for safety reasons - despite what Mr Rabbitt says about Line 9 in Barcelona being constructed in this manner.

From Mr Rabbitt's website:



2. The section from Griffith Avenue to connect with the existing tracks at Liffey junction requires a tunnel - anyone care to guess under where that tunnel must run? I'll save you the trouble - Glasnevin Cemetery. Does anyone really believe that politicians will allow, or An Bord Pleanala will approve, a tunnel under the biggest and historically most important graveyard in the country?

3. The Rabbitt plan require a tunnel linking the Phoenix Park Tunnel to the Interconnector (DU) tunnel - under Heuston railyard. Again, part of the delay in the DU plan was the decision to extend the tunnel to surface at Inchicore instead of Heuston yard was because of the disruption it would cause to services into and out of Heuston. I can't see how this Metro Dublin plan can get around that.

Maybe Cormac Rabbitt has thought all this through and has answers to all these points. But I see nothing on his website that suggest he has.

It would need interest from China as they have a huge surplus that they need to invest somewhere. If he get's enough media attention he might just get a bite. Worth pimping around.

I'm not a civil engineer and I don't know your background. Certainly cheaper alternatives vs safety should be debated in recessionary times. Also, it's a marketing proposal not a definitive plan. Give the guy some slack. A marketing proposal needs to punch points to drum interest. Reality isn't always 100% required.

I don't see any issue with Glasnevin Cemetery. Bodies are buried 6-8ft under which should cause no worries for a tunnel. Also, the dead can't complain.

robd

murphaph wrote: »

Stephen's Green makes sense on logistical grounds. It's a park, in a city, so it's one of the few places you can sink a starting pit for a TBM without massive CPO. There's no conspiracy theory for heaven's sake.

It does make sense for lots of reasons.

Just to point out through, TBM was to enter there for Metro North. That wouldn't be the case for this proposal as line would just run through here. It's just the Dart Underground or Interconnector part that would be getting built. Big advantage would be less mess in there area during construction. All construction mess should be kept out of city centre.

Victor

Shedite27 wrote: »

All the main offices, government departments, shopping, nightlife are around there. Northside is for museums/statues/croker/train stations/airport - nothing "real".

That is loading it in the other direction. Henry Street has higher sales than Grafton street.

robd wrote: »

I don't see any issue with Glasnevin Cemetery. Bodies are buried 6-8ft under which should cause no worries for a tunnel. Also, the dead can't complain.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1079

Jack Noble

robd wrote: »

It would need interest from China as they have a huge surplus that they need to invest somewhere. If he get's enough media attention he might just get a bite. Worth pimping around.

I'm not a civil engineer and I don't know your background. Certainly cheaper alternatives vs safety should be debated in recessionary times. Also, it's a marketing proposal not a definitive plan. Give the guy some slack. A marketing proposal needs to punch points to drum interest. Reality isn't always 100% required.

I don't see any issue with Glasnevin Cemetery. Bodies are buried 6-8ft under which should cause no worries for a tunnel. Also, the dead can't complain.

1. If the State cannot get interest in PPP, how can CR?

If he has backers willing to pony up the cash, wouldn't it make more sense for the State to simply go to them and sign them up for Dart and/or Metro?

2. So modern safety regulations and best practice should be ignored simply to save money?

3. Tunnelling under Glasnevin Cemetery does not pose an engineering problem but a political problem. Such a suggestion would generate fierce objections from all over the place. Imagine the headlines:

MICHAEL COLLINS WILL BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE...

Or Dev, Parnell, O'Connell, Casement, Behan, Larkin - even Dargan himself!

robd

Jack Noble wrote: »

1. If the State cannot get interest in PPP, how can CR?

If he has backers willing to pony up the cash, wouldn't it make more sense for the State to simply go to them and sign them up for Dart and/or Metro?

2. So modern safety regulations and best practice should be ignored simply to save money?

3. Tunnelling under Glasnevin Cemetery does not pose an engineering problem but a political problem. Such a suggestion would generate fierce objections from all over the place. Imagine the headlines:

MICHAEL COLLINS WILL BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE...

Or Dev, Parnell, O'Connell, Casement, Behan, Larkin - even Dargan himself!

You seem to be very riled over this. I'm not really saying anything. This is one guys marketing proposal on how to re-ignite 2 very large dormant projects. I say given him a chance. You're worried about nitty gritty low level engineering details which are irrelevant to a marketing/sales proposal. It's not an engineering proposal and sales guys say whatever they want to get interest in a project (and ignore the issues). There's actually quite a few more issues, then even you've pointed out.

Ireland has just exited a bailout successfully so the situation is different with regard to looking for a PPP than when both projects were parked.
Oh and don't rule out inaction by state due to politics.

Also, Metro North was scrapped (silently) based on it being way bottom of the cost benefit analysis versus Dart Underground and Luas extension. So it was never getting built PPP or otherwise.

Just to point out I agree with the original Dart Underground and Metro North proposals in full (even with low current cost benefit analysis of Metro North). I'd love to see them both implemented. However, reality check, Ireland's deficit.

I'd accept this as a compromise any day. An alternative Metro North city link could be added later to cover original routing.

Jack Noble

robd wrote: »

You seem to be very riled over this. I'm not really saying anything. This is one guys marketing proposal on how to re-ignite 2 very large dormant projects. I say given him a chance. You're worried about nitty gritty low level engineering details which are irrelevant to a marketing/sales proposal. It's not an engineering proposal and sales guys say whatever they want to get interest in a project (and ignore the issues). There's actually quite a few more issues, then even you've pointed out.

Ireland has just exited a bailout successfully so the situation is different with regard to looking for a PPP than when both projects were parked.
Oh and don't rule out inaction by state due to politics.

Also, Metro North was scrapped (silently) based on it being way bottom of the cost benefit analysis versus Dart Underground and Luas extension. So it was never getting built PPP or otherwise.

Just to point out I agree with the original Dart Underground and Metro North proposals in full (even with low current cost benefit analysis of Metro North). I'd love to see them both implemented. However, reality check, Ireland's deficit.

I'd accept this as a compromise any day. An alternative Metro North city link could be added later to cover original routing.

I'm not riled - I'm pointing out some realities which wishful-thinkers appear to be ignoring.

CR has presented at least three similar plans to the State over the last 20 years and all three have been rejected.

The big question I keep asking is - How come one man in Galway can get international funding for his metro projects when the State can't get money its projects?

Victor

Jack Noble wrote: »

1. CR is proposing single-bore tunnels - simply put, one large bore 12m diameter tunnel with the two tracks stacked in double deck manner. One of the main reasons for the delays in both DU and MN is that IE and RPA originally proposed single-bore tunnels containing both two tracks but were forced to go back and redesign both systems with twin-bore tunnels containing a single track each - which obviously pushed up the construction cost. That's current best practice and it's what complies with current Irish rail safety regulations. I cannot see this being allowed by the powers that be for safety reasons - despite what Mr Rabbitt says about Line 9 in Barcelona being constructed in this manner.

The requirement is to have a safe place to go - that can be accomplished by having a vertical separation wall within the tunnel. One problem with his station arrangement is the need to have a maximum distance to the nearest fire escape and provide alternative routes (if there was a fire / incident at the main exit), which would still mean two station access shafts.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

You mean besides being being between a large office district and a major retail district / overlapping a food and drink / nightlight district? Plus the Dail, loads of government departments, museums, venues, a major park etc?

I was trying to clarify why everything needs to go through St. Stephen's Green. If we could start at the back:

Is it a priority for Dublin to provide public transport to a major park? Does the city not have bigger priorities at the moment?

What 'venues" (presumably you mean musical/theatrical venues) are there in St. Stephen's Green? As far as I know, there are none (apart from the occasional use of the Unitarian Church as a venue). The Gaiety is close by, and the NCH, but is getting people to these venues a priority for public transport planning at the moment?

Are there any museums in St. Stephen's Green? Maybe the Unitarian Church has one. But most of the major museums in or around that area of Dublin are pretty much equidistant between the proposed St. Stephen's Green station and Pearse Station (or very much closer to Pearse if you think of the National Gallery, etc). So hard to see any major advantage there.

Government Departments and the Dail? Well, I remember the Department of Foreign Affairs and a bit of the Dept of Justice were in St. Stephen's Green, and there may have been a few bits of flotsam and jetsam of other departments, but most of the serious stuff is about as close to Pearse as it would be to a station at St. Stephen's Green.

Not quite sure what you mean when you talk about a nightlight district (is this perhaps something to do with the Hare Krishnas?). And is St. Stephen's Green the main area for food and drink? What about George's Street, Dame Street, Temple Bar, etc?

You also mention a large office district. This can't be St. Stephen's Green itself, as most of that is a park. Where is this office district? The only one I can think of is all of that stuff on Adelaide Road and Harcourt Road, but that's ages away. What relevance does that have to St. Stephen's Green?

monument wrote: »

Well, besides all of that there's the space for nice and wide tram stops, space for buses, and space to dig a large underground station more cheaply. The latter is likely more important than the former, at least for MN and DU.

I'm not quite sure which is the latter and which is the former here, it really isn't terribly clear. But I don't think it takes a genius to work out the following: if the major interchange is built away from the city centre (eg in somewhere not particularly central like St. Stephen's Green), it will be cheaper and easier to build, because there will be less disruption. if the major interchange is built right in the city centre, it will be more expensive and probably more difficult to build the interchange, but the lines which are built through it will, overall, be cheaper (in particular, because the east-west interconnector line would be shorter). Some studies of likely patronage at different locations are also very important, and these have been conspicuous by their absence in many of Dublin's proposed major infrastructure projects so far.

Shedite27

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was trying to clarify why everything needs to go through St. Stephen's Green. If we could start at the back:

Is it a priority for Dublin to provide public transport to a major park? Does the city not have bigger priorities at the moment?

What 'venues" (presumably you mean musical/theatrical venues) are there in St. Stephen's Green? As far as I know, there are none (apart from the occasional use of the Unitarian Church as a venue). The Gaiety is close by, and the NCH, but is getting people to these venues a priority for public transport planning at the moment?

Are there any museums in St. Stephen's Green? Maybe the Unitarian Church has one. But most of the major museums in or around that area of Dublin are pretty much equidistant between the proposed St. Stephen's Green station and Pearse Station (or very much closer to Pearse if you think of the National Gallery, etc). So hard to see any major advantage there.

Government Departments and the Dail? Well, I remember the Department of Foreign Affairs and a bit of the Dept of Justice were in St. Stephen's Green, and there may have been a few bits of flotsam and jetsam of other departments, but most of the serious stuff is about as close to Pearse as it would be to a station at St. Stephen's Green.

Not quite sure what you mean when you talk about a nightlight district (is this perhaps something to do with the Hare Krishnas?). And is St. Stephen's Green the main area for food and drink? What about George's Street, Dame Street, Temple Bar, etc?

You also mention a large office district. This can't be St. Stephen's Green itself, as most of that is a park. Where is this office district? The only one I can think of is all of that stuff on Adelaide Road and Harcourt Road, but that's ages away. What relevance does that have to St. Stephen's Green?

Harcourt Street (which is bout 200m from Stephens Green) is one of the main office areas of Dublin; Grafton Street Dawson Street, Baggot Street, Camden Street, South William are some of the main nightlife/eating areas are all a stones throw away; Lots of Gorenment Buildings around Kildare Street. Top of Grafton St makes the most sense as the "centre" of town on all counts.

I take previous posters point about Henry St also being a large shopping district, but for all round, you would have to say Grafton/Stephens Gr

maninasia

I don't understand why the Irish government cannot get outside funding for Metro North. Countries like China and Japan could easily fund and help build the infrastructure. The two countries are now competing for a high speed project in Thailand. Both of them also have amassed huge experience in the building of subways (if their contractors are part of the deal). I think a metro project in Dublin, a capital city with good economic fundamentals and demographics, is an excellent project to finance for international groups.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/824719.shtml#.UodN78Snpio

What's the problem? It's a finance problem. Where's the money? China, Japan and the Middle East. Go get the finance. No need to change the plans.

handlemaster

I think there is 'issues' in Ireland with foreign coming in and doing work with their own employees from their own countries. We Irish would rather see the work never done that done with works not from our own country. Personally I think build what needs to be builth it will be for the benefit of generations of Irish to come.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was trying to clarify why everything needs to go through St. Stephen's Green. If we could start at the back:

Everything does not need to go through St Stephen's Green, but the principal of central hubs is well established.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Is it a priority for Dublin to provide public transport to a major park? Does the city not have bigger priorities at the moment?

A city centre park alone, no. Nobody suggesting it should be a priority to serve a park alone. It's the last item I listed.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What 'venues" (presumably you mean musical/theatrical venues) are there in St. Stephen's Green? As far as I know, there are none (apart from the occasional use of the Unitarian Church as a venue). The Gaiety is close by, and the NCH, but is getting people to these venues a priority for public transport planning at the moment?

The Gaiety
National Concert Hall
The Village / Whelan's
The Pod
The Suger Club
Iveagh Gardens
International Bar
etc

Again, it was one item on a list, off-peak trips are great for public transport and re "at the moment" public transport should not be planned in the current moment thinking

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Are there any museums in St. Stephen's Green? Maybe the Unitarian Church has one. But most of the major museums in or around that area of Dublin are pretty much equidistant between the proposed St. Stephen's Green station and Pearse Station (or very much closer to Pearse if you think of the National Gallery, etc). So hard to see any major advantage there.

Government Departments and the Dail? Well, I remember the Department of Foreign Affairs and a bit of the Dept of Justice were in St. Stephen's Green, and there may have been a few bits of flotsam and jetsam of other departments, but most of the serious stuff is about as close to Pearse as it would be to a station at St. Stephen's Green.

It would be great to have two interchanges serve a fairly compact central area with so much around it -- the green of course being more central and planned to be more important.

Some departments (justice, finance) and museums (including major ones) are within the golden 500m of the green but outside of that for Pearse. People do walk much further than 500m to hubs/interchanges but when you're so central, pack them in.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean when you talk about a nightlight district (is this perhaps something to do with the Hare Krishnas?).

You're unaware of the night life around the Green? Or the Grafton Street area? Baggot Street? Leason Street? Harcourt Street? Wexford Street?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And is St. Stephen's Green the main area for food and drink? What about George's Street, Dame Street, Temple Bar, etc?

The area in reach of the green is the prime restaurant and cafe area -- including the green its self, the the Grafton Street Quarter, Wexford Street, Baggot Street etc

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You also mention a large office district. This can't be St. Stephen's Green itself, as most of that is a park. Where is this office district? The only one I can think of is all of that stuff on Adelaide Road and Harcourt Road, but that's ages away. What relevance does that have to St. Stephen's Green?

You're unaware of the large amount of offices stretched across the south inner city?

Loads of offices around and well within reach of the green from smaller offices all over the place to large office buildings on the Green, Kevin Street, Golden Lane, Digges Lane, Harcourt Street, Earlsfort Terrace, Merrion Row/Baggot Street, Leason Street, Stephens Street Upper etc.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm not quite sure which is the latter and which is the former here, it really isn't terribly clear. But I don't think it takes a genius to work out the following: if the major interchange is built away from the city centre (eg in somewhere not particularly central like St. Stephen's Green), it will be cheaper and easier to build, because there will be less disruption. if the major interchange is built right in the city centre, it will be more expensive and probably more difficult to build the interchange, but the lines which are built through it will, overall, be cheaper (in particular, because the east-west interconnector line would be shorter). Some studies of likely patronage at different locations are also very important, and these have been conspicuous by their absence in many of Dublin's proposed major infrastructure projects so far.

Less central interchanges are far less useful.

If the east-west interconnector was shorter it would result in (a) a more expensive station in a location like College Green or at O'Connell Street or (b) less city centre stations.

maninasia wrote: »

I don't understand why the Irish government cannot get outside funding for Metro North. Countries like China and Japan could easily fund and help build the infrastructure. The two countries are now competing for a high speed project in Thailand. Both of them also have amassed huge experience in the building of subways (if their contractors are part of the deal). I think a metro project in Dublin, a capital city with good economic fundamentals and demographics, is an excellent project to finance for international groups.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/824719.shtml#.UodN78Snpio

What's the problem? It's a finance problem. Where's the money? China, Japan and the Middle East. Go get the finance. No need to change the plans.

The long term problem is political -- including priorities (Dublin doesn't get its fair share) and we have a bunch of top economists, media and others who are set against rail. With a mix of those things -- it does not help that Metro North has such as high price tag and mainly serves just one corridor on one side of the city.

I'm not sure if Metro North is the best way to spend our transport budget for years on end, but there's lots of issues going against rail which can't be just laughed off or dismissed.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I answered a straight forward question with a straight forward and credible reply. I was not advocating another location. I was merely referring to the historic development of the southside of the city centre and why SSG has become the focal point for such a large underground interchange.

In fact, while monument attacked me and not my post, he inadvertently justified what I said with this.

All of those things do indeed exist around SSG, but I was referring to how and why they got there. As usual any semblance of negativity is immediately construed as an attack on the project.

You were ranting, I was "attacking" your rant, not you personally. I don't know or nor am I bother much by who posters are, including your self.

Grandeeod

monument wrote: »

You were ranting, I was "attacking" your rant, not you personally. I don't know or nor am I bother much by who posters are, including your self.

It wasn't a rant. Everything I said is verifiable. The dogs in the street know all about the bias shown towards the development of the south city centre. A predominately residential Georgian Dublin partly demolished and completely over run with commercial development. Office blocks built and leased back to the state. I could go on an on. However my point (not rant) was this is what made the area it is today. So its understandable that its a focal point in MN.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

If the east-west interconnector was shorter it would result in (a) a more expensive station in a location like College Green or at O'Connell Street or (b) less city centre stations.

I would like to reply to your other comments, but for the moment I would like to focus on this one.

Certainly, if the east-west interconnector was shorter it would result in a more expensive station in a location like O'Connell Street or College Green. I imagine that it requires more care and expense to build in busy, built-up environments like those two, compared to St. Stephen's Green.

But, as I pointed out above, the line itself would also be shorter, and thus tunnelling costs would be reduced. And not, as far as I can see, with any necessary reduction in the number of stations.

Yet neither of the locations you mention above received any attention by the authorities as a potential interchange location, at least if one is to go by the presentations to An Bord Pleanala by the RPA and Irish Rail.

For a combined 4 billion euro project (metro and Dart), doesn't it seem a bit sloppy not to have a look at all the options?

markpb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

For a combined 4 billion euro project (metro and Dart), doesn't it seem a bit sloppy not to have a look at all the options?

Maybe they did and choose what they believe to be the best option(s) before making their recommendation public and going to ABP? It's not up to you, the public or ABP to decide on the best route - that's what the RPA, their Irish Rail counterparts and an army of consultants are paid to do.

strassenwo!f

Hang on Mark, The Department of Transport. Where are they in this decision making?

markpb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Hang on Mark, The Department of Transport. Where are they in this decision making?

The DoT are policy makers so, other than assisting the Minister when making a funding decision, I can't see why they'd be overly involved. Would you expect the Dept of Health to be involved in selecting the location for new hospitals?

TheBandicoot

markpb wrote: »

Would you expect the Dept of Health to be involved in selecting the location for new hospitals?

Um, yes.

strassenwo!f

markpb wrote: »

The DoT are policy makers so, other than assisting the Minister when making a funding decision, I can't see why they'd be overly involved. Would you expect the Dept of Health to be involved in selecting the location for new hospitals?

Are you, perchance, taking the piss?


Even if you're not, according to Wikipedia ABP stated that it is a national transport policy requirement that the interconnector be built through St. Stephen's Green, and hence (effectively) that the metro/DART interchange be there. That, according to you, would have been the DOT's job. Any evidence at all that they looked at other options?

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You also mention a large office district. This can't be St. Stephen's Green itself, as most of that is a park.

Stop being so facetious. The vast majority of Dublin 2 is commercial, much more so than surrounding areas.

Moderator

---

Take a look at this zoning map. www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/MapsetE.pdf

Adjusting it for actual current use shows that (a) D2 is more commercial than D1/7/8. and (b) it lacks a strong east west transport route (not including the quays or the Grand Canal). Further, it makes little sense for DART Underground to directly compete with the Luas Red Line, so it makes sense to move the line somewhat south.

strassenwo!f

Victor wrote: »

Stop being so facetious. The vast majority of Dublin 2 is commercial, much more so than surrounding areas.

Moderator

Sorry, Victor. Does St. Stephen's Green equal Dublin 2?

I don't live in Dublin at the moment, but anytime I visit the city I see several places which are consistently a lot busier than St. Stephen's Green. In fact, the two places which Monument mentioned (Colllege Green and O'Connell Street) are always busier than St. Stephen's Green. I think it is legitimate to ask why Monument's locations, and in particular the other Dublin 2 location (College Green - also in D2, believe it or not) were not considered as potential interchange locations. I await the figures from the LUAS link-up with interest. Do you reckon St. Stephen's Green will be the busiest stop?

dubhthach

Question is what's the geographic center of Dublin 2? St. Stephen's Green comes close enough, though given the fact that Dublin 2 extends right out to end of St John Rogerson's Quay, the centerpoint is probably drag more over Merrion Square direction.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sorry, Victor. Does St. Stephen's Green equal Dublin 2?

I don't live in Dublin at the moment, but anytime I visit the city I see several places which are consistently a lot busier than St. Stephen's Green. In fact, the two places which Monument mentioned (Colllege Green and O'Connell Street) are always busier than St. Stephen's Green. I think it is legitimate to ask why Monument's locations, and in particular the other Dublin 2 location (College Green - also in D2, believe it or not) were not considered as potential interchange locations. I await the figures from the LUAS link-up with interest. Do you reckon St. Stephen's Green will be the busiest stop?

Stephen's Green is the epicentre of Dublin 2.

The Luas/Metro/Dart interchange is at the northern corner of the Green at the top of Grafton Steet.

Draw two radii from that point - one of 500m and one of 1,000m/1km.

500m takes you to College Green (north), Harcourt Street (south), Merrion Street (east) and South Great Georges Street/Dublin Castle (west).

1km takes you to Lower O'Connell Street/Henry Street and the quays (north), Grand Canal at Portobello/Ranelagh (south), Pearse Station/Lower Baggot St/Mount streets (east), Liberties/Coombe/Christ Church (west).

Now look what falls within those two areas.

That is why SSG has been chosen as the major interchange on the southside of the city centre.

As for looking at other locations/alignments - how many times does this have to be explained to you?

These alignements and locations were not simply chosen by someone drawing coloured lines and stabbing in the dark at a point on a map.

They are the result of FIVE DECADES of study and refinement of each plan that has gone before and not been implemented - refinements that take into account the changes to the city and the living/travel/work/shopping/leisure patterns of the population since the early 1970s.

All those plans are available to look at and study - Transportation for Dublin (1972), DRRTS (1975), Dublin Light Rail Study (1995), Platform for Change (2001), Strategic Rail Review (2003), Transport 21 (2005), 2030Vision (2011).

The original city centre interchange in DRRTS was Temple Bar - for obvious reasons now that is no longer an option.

College Green was/is never an option for another obvious reason.

SSG is an option because, apart from the really obvious reason of being at the very heart, in ever respect, of the southside of Dublin city centre, there is also plenty of space to build the required deep underground interchange station without causing too much disruption to the commercial life of the city. And that is also why it was selected.

This latest train of (no) thought you've posted certainly puts the rest of your posts on Metro and Dart into context.