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
-
strassenwo!f wrote: »It would be hard to expect that any civil service department would get it right first time with a major departure into underground projects such as this, in particular questions like the whether (we should build it) and how.
If the projects get built, it won't be money wasted, and if they don't then at least some amount of the allegedly "wasted" money will have been well spent as a learning process for the DOT (and its various offshoots), and at least most of the remainder should not be lain at the door of the DOT: the Government of the time and the Dept of Finance had given the DOT the go-ahead to proceed with these projects in the belief that they would be built.
I know things have got a bit heated over the last page or two on this thread, and I just want to make a couple of comments on this without, hopefully, getting up anyone's nose.
Firstly, it is very relevant to have discussion of the routes of the metro and interconnector projects, and not just the funding aspects of these. A lot may change before these are built.
Secondly, it's clear to me that one only has to make a comment to the effect that "the plans are already there, and approved by ABP, so why is there any need for anything else" to receive a whole load of "thanks" from the board.
In the context of both of these points, it is relevant to look at the environment in which the interconnector was originally planned (basically a join-the-dots exercise linking all the rail lines then present in Dublin), back in the early parts of this century: "It goes via St. Stephen's Green to connect with the LUAS."
The metro was planned to fit in with all of that.
That environment has now changed, because St. Stephen's Green isn't the only place where the LUAS could link up with the DART Underground project. And the metro plans would be able to slot in there too.
Despite the ABP approval, after what many would say was a fairly gentle appraisal of the metro and DART underground plans, one thing is clear. Now that the necessity for the proposed DART project to go via St. Stephen's Green to meet up with the LUAS has been removed, there will need to be very good reasons produced, figures, etc., to explain why it is taking a more expensive route across the city.
Nobody on this board, (and some here are well acquainted with the ins and out of the project), has yet taken the opportunity to produce the needed figures. I'd like to know why, and when the time comes for these projects to be built, I'd imagine that the country brethren will too.
Strassenwolf, in the immortal words of Dr Frasier Crane to Cliff Clavin: "What colour is the sky in your world?"
The route and station plans for Dart Underground and Metro North are not going to be changed - no matter how many times you suggest it here.
And they are especially not going to be changed at the behest of an anonymous randomer on the internet who does not have the first clue about transportation, engineering and politics.
Dart and Metro both have Railway Orders lasting 10 years which have 9 and 8 years to run respectively.
There is a now a serious effort under way to progress Dart Underground in the next Capital Spending Plan post-2015 - and Leo Varadkar would not have stated that publicly on two occasions if that was not the case.
So, rather than posting your utter nonsense crayonomic fantasies here, your time would be better spent attempting to understand why the approved Dart and Metro routes and station locations were selected and accept those realities.
For the record, those realities are:
The route alignments were selected after decades of detailed study and consultations based on study of demographic, work and travel patterns and the development of the city over the last four decades since DRRTS was published in 1975;
Stephen's Green was chosen as an interchange station because (a) it is the epicentre on the south Dublin city CBD, (b) it's where the majority of people want to go in terms of work, commerce, shopping, education, leisure and tourism on the southside as it puts them with in a short walk of major office, government, shopping, education, enterntainment and tourism site in the area, and (c) that station can be constructed with the minimum disruption to business and transport in the busiest area of Dublin city centre for both;
College Green as the interchange was not selected because (a) it is not the epicentre of the CBD (b) it's not where the majority of people want to go (c) the disruption to business and transport caused by 4 to 5 years of construction, (d) the potential risk to historic buildings in the area caused by tunneling and excavation, (e) the concern that archaelogical discoveries under CG could disupt or even halt construction and (f), the public would not accept such a project given (c) and (d). Also, CG is less than 500m and 5 mins walk from SSG and OCB which makes the need for a station there redundant, while CG will be served by Luas BXD/Cross City;
There will be no spur off Dart to serve Clondalkin and Tallaght because (a) there is no need for it given that Metro West will be doing the same thing via intersections with the existing and planned radial rail routes, (b) there is nowhere to put your fantasy Dart spur through Clondalkin and Tallaght as the once reserved route has either been built upon* or is now part of the Red Luas line, (and (c) Irish Rail now have medium to longer-term plans to use the Dart Underground tunnel to run electrified intercity mainline and Dart services to the airport via a spur from the Northern line at Clongriffin, which will take up any spare capacity on the tunnel section.
*The former reserved route under DRRTS for a Dart line serving Tallaght via Clondalkin was lost to more than 'bad planning'. Where have you been for the last 20 years - it was lost to no planning, stroke-pulling and, in certain cases, outright corruption - or have you missed the Flood/Mahon Tribunal?
That's the reality - and no amount of internet dreaming on your part is going to change that. So get over yourself and quit wasting your own time and that of everyone else on this thread with your ignorant ramblings.0 -
Jack, could you highlight those figures, about the greater demand to get to St. Stephen's Green?
I know you say that nothing's going to be changed, but nobody's going to lightly allow the government of the country to build a much longer, more expensive route unless they can see that it's serving more people.
Give us the figures, Jack0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »Jack, could you highlight those figures, about the greater demand to get to St. Stephen's Green?
I know you say that nothing's going to be changed, but nobody's going to lightly allow the government of the country to build a much longer, more expensive route unless they can see that it's serving more people.
Give us the figures, Jack
The figures are available in the various studies and business cases that have been published over the last four decades.
Go and dig them out yourself - people are not here to do your research for you.
If you can't be bothered doing that - or don't know how to - ask the NTA.
Or contact your local TDs and ask them to put in Dail Questions to the Minister for Transport asking for the figures and reasoning you seek.
The information is there if you are prepared to look for it.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »The figures are available in the various studies and business cases that have been published over the last four decades.
Go and dig them out yourself - people are not here to do your research for you.
If you can't be bothered doing that - or don't know how to - ask the NTA.
Or contact your local TDs and ask them to put in Dail Questions to the Minister for Transport asking for the figures and reasoning you seek.
The information is there if you are prepared to look for it.
I haven't these figures to hand.
But I thought that someone like you, Jack, who is trying to persuade the country that your counter-intuitive suggestion of building a longer route around a busy city, rather than a direct route through it, which would suit more people, would have these to hand. Evidently you don't.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »I haven't these figures to hand.
But I thought that someone like you, Jack, who is trying to persuade the country that your counter-intuitive suggestion of building a longer route around a busy city, rather than a direct route through it, which would suit more people, would have these to hand. Evidently you don't.
You are the person with the obsessions about SSG and CG - if you believe that the RPA, IE, NTA, DCC and DOT are wrong, then it is up to you to prove it and show us exactly how and why.
Have you ever asked anyone in any of the above organisations these questions? If not, why not?
If you believe all the experts are so wrong, bring it to your local TDs and have them raise your questions with the Minsister and the PAC - that's what they are there for, after all.
And the route is not going 'around' the city centre - it is going through the part of the south city centre that has the highest demand and serves the needs of the maximum number of people, SSG.
The crazy thing here is that I'm even arguing it with someone who doesn't live in Dublin and seldom visits the area, while I'm in the city centre most days, peak and off-peak, and see the movement of people with my own eyes - and which backs up the passenger demand and projection figures produced in the various studies over the last four decades.
My wife has worked in the SSG area since 1998 and sees the exact same thing. In fact, she's given up getting the bus to work because it's impossible to get one at morning peak to get her to the office for 9am. So now she either drives (when she knows parking is available), walks or I give her a lift in on my way to my own office.
That's more reality for you to attempt to grasp.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jack Noble wrote: »You are the person with the obsessions about SSG and CG - if you believe that the RPA, IE, NTA, DCC and DOT are wrong, then it is up to you to prove it and show us exactly how and why.
No, Jack, I don't believe that they're wrong. I believe that their original project was to integrate Dublin's transport, and they did that well. But that has now changed, because there is now the possiblility to integrate all of Dublin's transport with a very high-capacity railway line which will be able to go through what is probably the very centre of the city, rather than through a loop around the south city centre.Jack Noble wrote: »Have you ever asked anyone in any of the above organisations these questions? If not, why not?
I know that the DOT, specifically their Public Transport Planning Division, received a document from me back in 2005 or so, based on my experience in other countries and cities with underground networks, and while I know they received it, they didn't seem to be all that interested. I was never sure why, possibly because I was advocating that they build the highest capacity line they were ever going to build through Dublin through somewhere central like College Green, when at that time they were all in favour of building a circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green.
I do remember thinking, after a couple of years, when they were still going with that whole St. Stephen's Green thing (as they still are). "I'm a bit surprised those people in the Department of Transport never got in touch".Jack Noble wrote: »If you believe all the experts are so wrong, bring it to your local TDs andave them raise your questions with the Minsister and the PAC - that's what they are there for, after all.
And the route is not going 'around' the city centre - it is going through the part of the south city centre that has the highest demand and serves the needs of the maximum number of people, SSG.
The crazy thing here is that I'm even arguing it with someone who doesn't live in Dublin and seldom visits the area, while I'm in the city centre most days, peak and off-peak, and see the movement of people with my own eyes - and which backs up the passenger demand and projection figures produced in the various studies over the last four decades.
My wife has worked in the SSG area since 1998 and sees the exact same thing. In fact, she's given up getting the bus to work because it's impossible to get one at morning peak to get her to the office for 9am. So now she either drives (when she knows parking is available), walks or I give her a lift in on my way to my own office.
That's more reality for you to attempt to grasp.
Jack, you're going into the city, and your wife is going into the city. The city is a big place. We need to get the figures for the best underground route across the city, which will suit the largest group of people, and as a starting point from which Dublin can build.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »No, Jack, I don't believe that they're wrong. I believe that their original project was to integrate Dublin's transport, and they did that well. But that has now changed, because there is now the possiblility to integrate all of Dublin's transport with a very high-capacity railway line which will be able to go through what is probably the very centre of the city, rather than through a loop around the south city centre.
That paragraph is, to put it kindly, nonsense.
DartU does integrate Dublin transport at the busiest nodes - Docklands, Pearse, SSG and Heuston.I know that the DOT, specifically their Public Transport Planning Division, received a document from me back in 2005 or so, based on my experience in other countries and cities with underground networks, and while I know they received it, they didn't seem to be all that interested. I was never sure why, possibly because I was advocating that they build the highest capacity line they were ever going to build through Dublin through somewhere central like College Green, when at that time they were all in favour of building a circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green.
I do remember thinking, after a couple of years, when they were still going with that whole St. Stephen's Green thing (as they still are). "I'm often surprised those people in the Department of Transport never got in touch".
Sounds to me like they filed it under 'Crank' - in the bin.Jack, you're going into the city, and your wife is going into the city. The city is a big place. We need to get the figures for the best underground route across the city, which will suit the largest group of people, and as a starting point from which Dublin can build.
And that is what the Parnell-OCB-SSG and Pearse-SSG-Christchurch-Heuston axes do - only you refuse to accept that because you have an obsession about the one place where there is absolutely no chance an underground interchange will ever be built for reasons myself and others have outlined.
No matter how many times you deny it or attempt to ignore it, SSG is the epicentre of the south Dublin city centre CBD - and that is why it has been selected as a key interchange station.0 -
No, Jack, I don't believe that they're wrong. I believe that their original project was to integrate Dublin's transport, and they did that well. But that has now changed, because there is now the possiblility to integrate all of Dublin's transport with a very high-capacity railway line which will be able to go through what is probably the very centre of the city, rather than through a loop around the south city centre.Jack Noble wrote: »That paragraph is, to put it kindly, nonsense.
Effectively, Jack Noble's got nothing useful to add, or take away, so it's written off as rubbish.Jack Noble wrote: »DartU does integrate Dublin transport at the busiest nodes - Docklands, Pearse, SSG and Heuston.
Well, there we need some figures. Couldn't Dart U integrate also at Docklands, Pearse, College Green and Heuston?
I'm sure. In the days of the Ahern Government, anything like what I suggested were rubbished. There was that chap who suggested that the National Childrens Hospital shouldn't be built at the Mater. He was ridiculed relentlessly, I remember. And then that bloke who said that he didn't think the Thornton Hall prison out in north County Dublin would be built in his lifetime. What a tosser he was.Jack Noble wrote: »Sounds to me like they filed it under 'Crank' - in the bin.Jack Noble wrote: »And that is what the Parnell-OCB-SSG and Pearse-SSG-Christchurch-Heuston axes do - only you refuse to accept that because you have an obsession about the one place where there is absolutely no chance an underground interchange will ever be built for reasons myself and others have outlined.
The figures Jack.
The figures Jack.Jack Noble wrote: »No matter how many times you deny it or attempt to ignore it, SSG is the epicentre of the south Dublin city centre CBD - and that is why it has been selected as a key interchange station.0 -
On the note of whether or not DU will go through or around the CBD:
1) The *retail* centrepoint of the city is probably around College Green.
2) The *office* centrepoint of the city essentially encompasses all of Dublin 2, a crescent of Dublin 4 to about Ballsbridge, and a sliver of Dublin 1 by the river. This means that the office centrepoint is, fittingly, somewhere around Leinster House.
3) The *entertainment* centrepoint is probably more difficult to determine. Obviously Temple Bar would be better served by College Green, however evening and night-time entertainment extends much further south than it does north -- all the way down Camden St, Harcourt St, Baggot St, etc.
A map of employment density was posted earlier in the thread, which shows that Stephen's Green is more central in terms of where people are employed.0 -
An U Bahn station, Hermannplatz, not too far from where I live that was completed about 90 years ago. The station was co-funded by a large department store who have their own direct access to the station. That sort of thing should be on the table in Dublin too.
It's very common in Japan, almost all Japanese train stations have been rebuilt with major shopping and office and residential complexes on top and underground. You can get billions from private investors, therefore many metro companies make profits from associated real estate development rather than metro operations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed. I stayed in Shinjuku in Tokyo once and the station there is an excellent example of that.It's very common in Japan, almost all Japanese train stations have been rebuilt with major shopping and office and residential complexes on top and underground. You can get billions from private investors, therefore many metro companies make profits from associated real estate development rather than metro operations.0 -
TheBandicoot wrote: »Any comment? This seems at odds with what I have read on this thread and intuitively agreed with- that these projects are shoe-ins for attracting foreign investment from the likes of China and are almost guaranteed to be massive successes, scoring highly on every cost benefit analysis done on them. Is the government just wrong here?
Yes, they are pretty much wrong to be honest. Maybe they would have to restructure the projects to give more profit to private partners, maybe they could give redevelopment rights at stations, and perhaps look outside the EU for more funding, but the money is out there to fund these blue chip projects. Sovereign funds, insurance companies, large industrial conglomerates...who wouldn't like to get a bit of this.
All the trends are for it to make money and be a guaranteed earner over decades (population growth/promotions of public transport and network effect/carbon reduction/move to urban centres/fuel cost increases), as long as as build costs are controlled, and the recession means that the projects can be done for a lot less than during the tiger period.
I think the government (and maybe the planners too) are not being proactive on getting it done.0 -
-
I think I see where the key problem is here.
It's the difference between the "city" and the "south city".0 -
The geographic centre of the urban expanse of Dublin is even further south than St. Stephen's Green though. The river isn't the city centre to many people.0
-
I think trying to define what the city centre is (and I think defining Dublin city centre at somewhere halfway between the two canals is just fine) won't get us anywhere in this thread. There will always be someone who will feel differently on the subject, though for cartography purposes I believe the GPO is the point at which distances are measured for Dublin.The geographic centre of the urban expanse of Dublin is even further south than St. Stephen's Green though. The river isn't the city centre to many people.
I would be more concerned about ensuring that Metro North (and indeed most modes of transport within Dublin) serves the highest numbers of people most effectively. It's hard to identify that within the constrains of any one project and the placing of stops needs to be looked at as part of a larger transport system but then again Dublin is not a very large city...0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »No, Jack, I don't believe that they're wrong. I believe that their original project was to integrate Dublin's transport, and they did that well. But that has now changed, because there is now the possiblility to integrate all of Dublin's transport with a very high-capacity railway line which will be able to go through what is probably the very centre of the city, rather than through a loop around the south city centre.
Again, WTF are you talking about?
Dart Underground and Metro North do integrate Dublin transport - and they are the plans still being promoted by the NTA, RPA, IE and DTO. To those you can also add Dublin City and Fingal County councils.
And the Govt is intensively pursuing options to proceed with Dart Underground in the next capital funding envelope post-2015. Leo Varadkar stated that publicly twice in the week before Christmas.Effectively, Jack Noble's got nothing useful to add, or take away, so it's written off as rubbish.
I'm writing off what you are saying as rubbish because it is rubbish and it has been demonstrated to be rubbish in this thread by myself and others.Well, there we need some figures. Couldn't Dart U integrate also at Docklands, Pearse, College Green and Heuston?
The figures are there in DRRTS, PFC and in the CSO Census data - go and read them for yourself.I'm sure. In the days of the Ahern Government, anything like what I suggested were rubbished. There was that chap who suggested that the National Childrens Hospital shouldn't be built at the Mater. He was ridiculed relentlessly, I remember. And then that bloke who said that he didn't think the Thornton Hall prison out in north County Dublin would be built in his lifetime. What a tosser he was.
The Mater was and remains a rational choice for the NCH given the requirement for trilocation of the children's facility with an adult teaching hospital and a maternity hospital - two sets of international experts selected the Mater as the best option based on best international practice, the facilities on offer and the location of the facility. But that rational decision was overturned on objections based on emotion and politics.
For the record, the now chosen site at St James's faces exactly the same constraints as were used to object to the Mater and that will become clear in the planning process before An Bord Pleanala. If anything, the transport and access constraints at James's are much tighter than the Mater.
But then politics and Politics trumped what was best for sick children.
As for Thornton Hall, what exactly is wrong with a greenfield site outside the city for a large, modern prison complex?
But those are digressions from what we are discussing here.
Regarding the argument about where city centre is, Dublin essentially has two major city centre focal points in terms of where people want to go to and where the majority go to every day in terms of work, shopping and leisure - the GPO and the SSG/Grafton Street junction. College Green is exactly half way between those two points but it is not of the same importance as either GPO/OCS or SSG/GS in terms of demand.
Two 500m radii drawn from GPO/OCS and SSG/GS respectively will show you that in terms of the number of offices, shops, bars, restaurants, etc that fall into those two areas ie, places where people want to go to on a daily basis.
However, all that aside, you keep ignoring the most important issue concerning a line/stop serving College Green - that it will never make it past a drawing on a map and the public consultation phase for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.
You only have to look at the original route and stop options put out to public consultation for Metro North and the final route and stop chosen for Metro North on the back of those public consultations.
Route options:
http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20Letters/February%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.pdf
Final route:
http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/October%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.map.pdf
The three suggested routes all went under the Trinity campus with suggested stops at either D'Olier St or Tara St, north of Trinity.
The chosen route does not go under the main Trinity campus and essentially skirts the front of the building under College Green.
I would suggest this submission from TCD played some part in the RPA's thinking when it selected the final route.
http://www.tcd.ie/Buildings/projectsmetro.phpIssues of Concern
The routes described above all have issues associated with them that are causing TCD extreme concern. In particular the matter of safety of the students, staff and visitors to the campus during the tunneling operations and during the operation of the Metro service is a concern. It is clear that the campus has a complex water regime underneath it. The soils and rock on which the buildings are founded have been the subject of some studies in the past and will no doubt be tested again as part of the RPA detail design stage. However, the localized nature of the artesian springs that affected the Ussher building and the historic evidence of streams, rivers and estuarine materials within the boundary of the campus lead us to recommend that great care be given to the concept of tunneling under the campus. Thus we will require to be convinced that no settlement likely to cause structural damage or collapse is possible with any of these options. In addition, over the life of the system, no fatigue issues should arise in the buildings due to noise, vibration or dynamic railway loading of the tunnel or the rock and soils into which it is constructed.All three routes proposed travel under important, historic and priceless buildings. The contents of many of these buildings are also priceless. As many date from a time when no 'as constructed' records were kept then the RPA will be required to ensure that these buildings and their contents are not damaged physically by the tunneling operations or by the operation of the transit system.
Any attempt to run a Dart line under the TCD campus with a stop on CG in front of the main building would be met with a similar submission and would, I suggest, meet a similar fate - hence why it was not and will never be suggested.
And that is before you consider the opposition to such a scheme from other affected and interested bodies, such as Bank of Ireland, An Taisce, Dublin City Council, and the general public - and the media headlines and opposition that would generate.
Facts and realities have a way of trumping fantasies every time.0 -
murphaph wrote:The geographic centre of the urban expanse of Dublin is even further south than St. Stephen's Green though. The river isn't the city centre to many people.
That's probably true, especially if you look at the map given below, but I suppose what we're talking here is mostly about the most efficient way to get people to and from employment. As the interconnector will be the highest capacity line ever built in Ireland (and I hope that its high theoretical capacity will one day become real high capacity use of this tunnel), I think long-term the most efficient way to build it would be right through the centre of the area of highest employment in Dublin, i.e., right through the centre of Dublin, pretty much College Green.
Others feel that building it through the centre of the south city, which probably is St. Stephen's Green, would be better.
Some people may feel that this is a finicky difference, but it is very much not when overall passenger movements are taken into account over many decades.
Victor's map is helpful:From this document: www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/profile/workpoptowns.pdf - there doesn't seem to be a 2011 equivalent. Ther ewill have been changes in the north and south docklands, at East Point and Heuston. I've marked SSG in green.
In the area of highest employment, St. Stephen's Green is very much not the centre. Probably somewhere like College Green or O'Connell Bridge would be.
So, I feel there is some explanation required for this extra cost involved in building a longer route via St. Stephen's Green, rather than a more direct route via (probably) College Green, when other things like integration of public transport would appear to be equal.0 -
Look more carefully. The river clearly doesn't split the area of most employment in half. Most jobs lie south of the river, I'd estimate two thirds of that dark brown area is south of the river in fact, so the geographic centre of the area of most employment MUST also be south of the river, which means O'Connell Bridge could not be the "sweet spot". I really don't think they're far off the sweet spot (which must be somewhere you can practically build a station box) with the northern flank of the Green.strassenwo!f wrote: »In the area of highest employment, St. Stephen's Green is very much not the centre. Probably somewhere like College Green or O'Connell Bridge would be.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19123
As long as I can remember, (well over thirty years) the distance a house was from the centre of the city was dependant on whether the house was north of the river or south of it.
For those on the north-side it was the distance to O'Connell bridge. For those south of the river, it was how far it was from St Stephen's Green. Perhaps this is the cause of the confusion.
Also, most bus routes terminated on the quays, so most people were left with no choice but change bus on the quays - hence the idea it is the centre of the universe.
The Luas red-line should have taken a more direct route, but it didn't. People still use it. The lines should have been linked up, but they weren't, so we will have to live with the extra expense of joining them. (And the extra amount of hot air as people discuss the how and the what of it).0 -
Advertisement
-
Jack Noble wrote: »Again, WTF are you talking about?
Dart Underground and Metro North do integrate Dublin transport - and they are the plans still being promoted by the NTA, RPA, IE and DTO. To those you can also add Dublin City and Fingal County councils.
And the Govt is intensively pursuing options to proceed with Dart Underground in the next capital funding envelope post-2015. Leo Varadkar stated that publicly twice in the week before Christmas.
At the time the DTO and Martin Cullen came up with theirplans, what other location were they going to suggest as a metro/DART/LUASinterchange? It had to be St. Stephen’sGreen.
They hadn’t decided on the cross-city LUAS at that stage(after Mammy left it stuck at St. Stephen’s Green), so there was no questionthat any of those lot were going to stick their head up and talk about anydifferent interchange location.
And I’ve also no doubt that those are the plans which are being activelypursued by all of those bodies. Whichof them is going to now say: “Actually, it might, in retrospect, have been agood idea to look at other locations...” None of them.
Jack Noble wrote: »The figures are there in DRRTS,PFC and in the CSO Census data - go and read them for yourself.
Jack, you didn’t answer the original question. Which was, couldn’t DART Undergroundintegrate with everything (rail-based) at Spencer Dock, Pearse Station, CollegeGreen and Heuston?
(I have to say, though, I don’t know why you persist withthis DRRTS stuff, pretending that this is basically what Dublin is attmeptingto implement now. I read it, and Ithought it was a great plan, but for you to now pretend that it is the templatefor Dublin into the future is risible. The major suburban line, linking what are now the two biggest populationcentres in Dublin (Dublin and Tallaght) has probably been irrevocably lost. The major city interchange between theeast-west and north-south lines is in a very distant location to the original plan, The ConnollyStation bit is gone – I could go on,Jack...)
Jack Noble wrote: »Regarding the argument aboutwhere city centre is, Dublin essentially has two major city centre focal pointsin terms of where people want to go to and where the majority go to every dayin terms of work, shopping and leisure - the GPO and the SSG/Grafton Streetjunction. College Green is exactly half way between those two points but it isnot of the same importance as either GPO/OCS or SSG/GS in terms of demand.
I think that is a very good assessment of the situation inDublin, Jack.Jack Noble wrote: »Two 500m radii drawn from GPO/OCS and SSG/GS respectivelywill show you that in terms of the number of offices, shops, bars, restaurants,etc that fall into those two areas ie, places where people want to go to on adaily basis.
However, I think you are downplaying the importance ofCollege Green, in terms of its busyness throughout the day. There is no other location which is socontinually busy, with a good catchment area for that whole time. As a central node for processing Dubliners onthe highest capacity line ever built in Ireland, and then delivering them toother high-demand locations (like St. Stephen’s Green or O’Connell Street, bothwith just one stop), or elsewhere, onthe metro or LUAS, it seems to me to bethe best place.
Jack Noble wrote: »However, all that aside, you keepignoring the most important issue concerning a line/stop serving College Green- that it will never make it past a drawing on a map and the publicconsultation phase for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.
I think what would be needed at College Green would be athree-level interchange station: a mezzanine level with all your shops andticket machines, etc., then below that the interconnecter level (goingwest-east/east-west), and then below that again (probably largely under thegrassy bit with the statues in front of TCD) the metro level.Jack Noble wrote: »You only have to look at the original route and stop optionsput out to public consultation for Metro North and the final route and stopchosen for Metro North on the back of those public consultations.
Route options:
http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20Letters/February%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.pdf
Final route:
http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/October%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.map.pdf
The three suggested routes all went under the Trinity campuswith suggested stops at either D'Olier St or Tara St, north of Trinity.
The chosen route does not go under the main Trinity campusand essentially skirts the front of the building under College Green.
I would suggest this submission from TCD played some part inthe RPA's thinking when it selected the final route.
http://www.tcd.ie/Buildings/projectsmetro.php
Any attempt to run a Dart line under the TCD campus with astop on CG in front of the main building would be met with a similar submissionand would, I suggest, meet a similar fate - hence why it was not and will neverbe suggested.
In that situation, the metro wouldn’t actually be goingunder TCD, so there shouldn’t be any problem there. The interconnector might well go under partof TCD, but I don’t think the problems would be as severe as with the originalmetro plan. While I think it might bepossible to align the interchange, and the interconnector route, such that theinterconnector doesn’t have to go under any of the buildings on Front Square, beforeheading along Pearse Street towards Pearse Station, I think it is more likelythat it would have to be built to some extent under TCD’s Front Square buildings, or buildingsadjacent to TCD’s Front Square. I really don’t see the problem here. Underground lines are built under buildingsall the time. It’s certainly not biggerthan the the secuity threat involved inthe current underground proposals going under (or very near to) Government Buildings.
The problem with theoriginal metro idea was that it would have been going wholesale under TCD. The interconnector, if it were built throughCollege Green, wouldn’t be.
Jack Noble wrote: »And that is before you considerthe opposition to such a scheme from other affected and interested bodies, suchas Bank of Ireland, An Taisce, Dublin City Council, and the general public -and the media headlines and opposition that would generate.
What would be the problem from the bank? One of theirbranches is disrupted because of construction works?
An Taisce are legally obliged to make a comment on prettywell everything, and they would certainly have to have a comment on this. Butthey’d also have to have a comment on all the trees being cut down in St.Stephen’s Green. (If you planned tobuild the interchange in the middle of Dublin Bay, they’d be legally obliged tomake a comment).
The City Council would also have to comment. What objectionswould they raise that wouldn’t be broadly the same as the objections they’draise at St. Stephen’s Green? (In thecase of the city council, wouldn’t they welcome a glorious opportunity topedestrianise College Green?))
Ditto for the general public.
At St. Stephen’s Green, you’d have the treehuggers. At College Green, you’d have thearchaeologists, most of whom would also find something interesting up at St.Stephen’s Green. I can’t imagine thatthey’re going to find anything in College Green that they wouldn’t find at thestation location in Christchurch.
There are going to be problems wherever you build it. But, you look at many cities, and they areable to build underground lines through sensitive areas. Rome is building its metro line C, whichincludes (i) an interchange at the Coliseum and (ii) an underground station atPiazza Venezia (which would make College Green at its busiest look like someroundabout in Ballina). Munich is planning to build its second major cross-cityline within a couple of metres of its city symbol, the Frauenkirche.
I was surprised in your earlier posts that you felt therewere no major engineering issues, or disruption issues. I can’t see any major engineering issues, butI do think that disruption will be a perceived issue, initially. But, with goodmanagment, it really needn’t be.
This is really nonsense that Dublin is not able to build astraightforward line directly through the most appropriate locations in the city. Nothing has been produced to show thatintegration would be better at St. Stephen’s Green, nor to show that there’sgreater demand to go to St. Stephen’s Green, nor to show that objections wouldbe less voluble. The only thing we knowabout St. Stephen’s Green is that it would be considerably more expensive.
Facts and realities have a way of trumping fantasies everytime.
You’re probably right, Jack. Martin Cullen’s fantasy was torecreate NY with Grand Central Station at St. Stephen’s Green and the MetroNorth, another NY copy, heading off into the distance. Hasn’t happened yet.
The reason I’m here is because I have a fantasy aboutDublin.0 -
Members of the board, I did my best to try and presnt my answers in a proper way. The questions which were asked by Jack and others were answers which needed to be answered in an proper fashion, and needed to be worked on at home. I just couldn't get the font right on this occasion. Hope you understand. Happy New Year, All.0
-
The Shanghai metro looks pretty good to me. They don't hang around debating these things for decades over there.
0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »At the time the DTO and Martin Cullen came up with theirplans, what other location were they going to suggest as a metro/DART/LUASinterchange? It had to be St. Stephen’sGreen.
They hadn’t decided on the cross-city LUAS at that stage(after Mammy left it stuck at St. Stephen’s Green), so there was no questionthat any of those lot were going to stick their head up and talk about anydifferent interchange location.
And I’ve also no doubt that those are the plans which are being activelypursued by all of those bodies. Whichof them is going to now say: “Actually, it might, in retrospect, have been agood idea to look at other locations...” None of them.
Given the North-South and East-West axes involved and the need to serve the areas where the largest number of commuters possible want to go to and from, Stephen's Green was and remains the obvious location. You are fixated on College Green - for a reason I cannot fathom - despite the fact that it is next to impossible, politically, to put two underground lines and a massive underground station there - for real and practical reasons you insist on ignoring, nor is the best location to serve the busiest and most important areas of the city centre.Jack, you didn’t answer the original question. Which was, couldn’t DART Undergroundintegrate with everything (rail-based) at Spencer Dock, Pearse Station, CollegeGreen and Heuston?
It could - but it would not best serve the areas where people most want to go to and from. The current plans do do that.(I have to say, though, I don’t know why you persist withthis DRRTS stuff, pretending that this is basically what Dublin is attmeptingto implement now. I read it, and Ithought it was a great plan, but for you to now pretend that it is the templatefor Dublin into the future is risible. The major suburban line, linking what are now the two biggest populationcentres in Dublin (Dublin and Tallaght) has probably been irrevocably lost. The major city interchange between theeast-west and north-south lines is in a very distant location to the original plan, The ConnollyStation bit is gone – I could go on,Jack...)
DRRTS was the first major study of the modern era which attempted to plan a transport system which would serve the existing city and its commerce and also allow for future development and growth of Dublin, it's suburbs and economy through the 1980s, 1990s and beyond.
DRRTS was not developed as planned - with the exception of the coastal Dart line - and Dublin has developed very differently to the vision outlined in 1975, particularly the city centre and the outer suburbs such as Blanchardstown, Lucan-Clondalkin and Tallaght.
It was a great plan for its time and would have been great for Dublin if it had been implemented - but it was not. However, that does not mean it should be ignored today.
When the next major study was carried out in 2000-2001, resulting in Platform for Change, it had to take into account how much Dublin had changed since DRRTS in 1975 and plan for the future based on the Dublin of 2000 and how the DTO expected it to develop towards 2016 and beyond based on the strategies of the government and local authorities.
DTO took the key element of DRRTS - two high capacity underground rail lines on north-south and east-west axes, intersecting at a major node in the city centre. In DRRTS, that was 'Central' (Temple Bar) - in PFC it was St Stephen's Green. That relocation of about 600m simply acknowledges the massive changes that have taken place in Dublin since 1975 - Temple Bar is now a major commercial hub and tourist attraction, and SSG is the centre of the commerical, government, retail and leisure area south of the Liffey.
As for Connolly, PFC/T21 simply acknowledges the development of the IFSC and the growing importance of the Docklands area by routing one of the Dart line through there before crossing the river to Pearse and the interchange for the two Dart lines. Connolly is still served by a single change to the other Dart line - thw way it is done in other cities.I think that is a very good assessment of the situation inDublin, Jack.
However, I think you are downplaying the importance ofCollege Green, in terms of its busyness throughout the day. There is no other location which is socontinually busy, with a good catchment area for that whole time. As a central node for processing Dubliners onthe highest capacity line ever built in Ireland, and then delivering them toother high-demand locations (like St. Stephen’s Green or O’Connell Street, bothwith just one stop), or elsewhere, onthe metro or LUAS, it seems to me to bethe best place.
I'm not playing down the importance of College Green but in the terms of commercial activity, it simply does not rank up there with SSG/GS and OCS/GPO. But CG is still very will served by the current plan - it is a 2-minute walk from OCB Metro station and 5 or 6 min walk from SSG Dart-Metro-Luas interchange. It is also one stop away from SSG on Metro and 2 stops on Luas.I think what would be needed at College Green would be athree-level interchange station: a mezzanine level with all your shops andticket machines, etc., then below that the interconnecter level (goingwest-east/east-west), and then below that again (probably largely under thegrassy bit with the statues in front of TCD) the metro level.
In that situation, the metro wouldn’t actually be goingunder TCD, so there shouldn’t be any problem there. The interconnector might well go under partof TCD, but I don’t think the problems would be as severe as with the originalmetro plan. While I think it might bepossible to align the interchange, and the interconnector route, such that theinterconnector doesn’t have to go under any of the buildings on Front Square, beforeheading along Pearse Street towards Pearse Station, I think it is more likelythat it would have to be built to some extent under TCD’s Front Square buildings, or buildingsadjacent to TCD’s Front Square. I really don’t see the problem here. Underground lines are built under buildingsall the time. It’s certainly not biggerthan the the secuity threat involved inthe current underground proposals going under (or very near to) Government Buildings.
The problem with theoriginal metro idea was that it would have been going wholesale under TCD. The interconnector, if it were built throughCollege Green, wouldn’t be.
Such a station would not even get to planning stage because the levels of objections would be so large, no government would allow it to get that far - you keep ignoring this very important point.
Also, such a station leaves a vast swath of the south city centre that needs served by such a line entirely without it.What would be the problem from the bank? One of theirbranches is disrupted because of construction works?
One of it's branches? Are you serious?
The BoI branch on College Green just happens to be in one of the most important historical buildings on the entire island - the former Parliament Buildings of the pre Act of Union Irish parliament of Grattan whose statues stands opposite. The exact same objections to tunnelling under and excavating next to TCD apply to Parliament Buildings.
Why would you simply ignore something as important as that?An Taisce are legally obliged to make a comment on prettywell everything, and they would certainly have to have a comment on this. Butthey’d also have to have a comment on all the trees being cut down in St.Stephen’s Green. (If you planned tobuild the interchange in the middle of Dublin Bay, they’d be legally obliged tomake a comment).
There's a very big difference between chopping down a few trees - less than three dozen, according to RPA and IE - and risking damage to some of the most important historical buildings in the State.The City Council would also have to comment. What objectionswould they raise that wouldn’t be broadly the same as the objections they’draise at St. Stephen’s Green? (In thecase of the city council, wouldn’t they welcome a glorious opportunity topedestrianise College Green?))
Ditto for the general public.
The council has a lot more than the heritage concerns - it is responsible for the management and economic development of the city centre. Any transport plans for the city must be compatible with DCC's strategies - that's why DCC was so heavily involved in the process that led to DRRTS, PFC and T21.At St. Stephen’s Green, you’d have the treehuggers. At College Green, you’d have thearchaeologists, most of whom would also find something interesting up at St.Stephen’s Green. I can’t imagine thatthey’re going to find anything in College Green that they wouldn’t find at thestation location in Christchurch.
There are going to be problems wherever you build it. But, you look at many cities, and they areable to build underground lines through sensitive areas.
Given that College Green, formerly Hoggen Green, has been the historical city centre of Dublin of more than 1,000 years, there is much more likely to items of signficant historical interest under CG than SSG.
Rome is building its metro line C, whichincludes (i) an interchange at the Coliseum and (ii) an underground station atPiazza Venezia (which would make College Green at its busiest look like someroundabout in Ballina). Munich is planning to build its second major cross-cityline within a couple of metres of its city symbol, the Frauenkirche.
Rome's Line C has encountered major delays due to signficant archeaological discoveries during excavations for the station at Venezia and at other sites and the city has abandoned altogether plans to build one station on the line due to the level of discoveries during excations for under the square at Largo di Torre Argentina.
Line B in Rome, with a stop beside the Colosseum, was started in the 1930s, interupted by WW2 and completed in the mid-1950s. The tunnel under the Colesseum was built before the war.
Work on the first section of Line A started in the early-1960s and it opened in 1980 - much of the delay was caused by the archaeology along the route.
And that was before EU laws and EIS requirements.
Given the delays to Line C due archaeological discoveries, now exacerbated by the financial crisis, the planned but now long-fingered Line D may not now go ahead due to the potential delays and cost increases from archaeology along parts of the route, even if finance becomes available in the future.
As I've already pointed out earlier in this thread, the combination of archaeogical factors and public opinion killed off the Amsterdam Metro project, as planned, in the 1970s and it was not until the early-2000s that work began on the North-South line through the historic city centre - and that too is years behind schedule due to, among seveal issues, delays resulting archaeogical digs and discoveries and subsequent cost increases.I was surprised in your earlier posts that you felt therewere no major engineering issues, or disruption issues. I can’t see any major engineering issues, butI do think that disruption will be a perceived issue, initially. But, with goodmanagment, it really needn’t be.
If there is an engineering problem, there is an engineering solution - but that will always have costs in terms of finance, delays and disruption. Given what would be needed to put two rail lines and a major interchange station under CG - which would not do what the current plans will do - the costs involved would be unjustifiable for service it would provide.This is really nonsense that Dublin is not able to build astraightforward line directly through the most appropriate locations in the city. Nothing has been produced to show thatintegration would be better at St. Stephen’s Green, nor to show that there’sgreater demand to go to St. Stephen’s Green, nor to show that objections wouldbe less voluble. The only thing we knowabout St. Stephen’s Green is that it would be considerably more expensive.
But Dublin is planning to build rail lines under the most appropriate locations in the city centre - you simply don't agree with those locations.You’re probably right, Jack. Martin Cullen’s fantasy was torecreate NY with Grand Central Station at St. Stephen’s Green and the MetroNorth, another NY copy, heading off into the distance. Hasn’t happened yet.
Martin Cullen used a daft soundbite with his 'Grand Central Station' guff - in the same way Eamon Gilmore did with his ludicrous 'Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way'.
But T21 was not Cullen's plan - it was a 'government' plan. Cullen was replaced as Minister two years later and T21 survived him under Noel Dempsey and Metro North, Dart Underground and Luas BXD/Cross City all went through public consultation and detailed planning to secure Railway Orders under another Minister (Varadkar) from a differnent government. The projects may be delayed due to the economic crisis but they are still the preferred strategy of the NTA and will remain unless (a) this govt or the next formally cancels them and revokes the ROs or (b) the ROs lapse in 2021/22 because the govt of the day declines to or cannot fund them.
Until then, Metro North and Dart Underground remain at the core of future transport strategy for Dublin.The reason I’m here is because I have a fantasy aboutDublin.
DOT, NTA, IE, RPA, DCC, FCC, SDCC and DLRCC all have a strategy and vision for Dublin - that trumps random internet poster's fantasy every time.0 -
Jack, I only really have time this evening to ask about one point you make, but I hope to return to your other points later in the week.Jack Noble wrote:One of it's branches? Are you serious?
The BoI branch on College Green just happens to be in one of the most important historical buildings on the entire island - the former Parliament Buildings of the pre Act of Union Irish parliament of Grattan whose statues stands opposite. The exact same objections to tunnelling under and excavating next to TCD apply to Parliament Buildings.
Why would you simply ignore something as important as that?
The current metro plans show the south-north metro route going directly under a part of the bank building.
Have the bank said how they feel about that? What with all the possible damage to this historic place, etc., etc.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »Given the North-South and East-West axes involved and the need to serve the areas where the largest number of commuters possible want to go to and from, Stephen's Green was and remains the obvious location. You are fixated on College Green - for a reason I cannot fathom - despite the fact that it is next to impossible, politically, to put two underground lines and a massive underground station there - for real and practical reasons you insist on ignoring, nor is the best location to serve the busiest and most important areas of the city centre.
It could - but it would not best serve the areas where people most want to go to and from. The current plans do do that.
DRRTS was the first major study of the modern era which attempted to plan a transport system which would serve the existing city and its commerce and also allow for future development and growth of Dublin, it's suburbs and economy through the 1980s, 1990s and beyond.
DRRTS was not developed as planned - with the exception of the coastal Dart line - and Dublin has developed very differently to the vision outlined in 1975, particularly the city centre and the outer suburbs such as Blanchardstown, Lucan-Clondalkin and Tallaght.
It was a great plan for its time and would have been great for Dublin if it had been implemented - but it was not. However, that does not mean it should be ignored today.
When the next major study was carried out in 2000-2001, resulting in Platform for Change, it had to take into account how much Dublin had changed since DRRTS in 1975 and plan for the future based on the Dublin of 2000 and how the DTO expected it to develop towards 2016 and beyond based on the strategies of the government and local authorities.
DTO took the key element of DRRTS - two high capacity underground rail lines on north-south and east-west axes, intersecting at a major node in the city centre. In DRRTS, that was 'Central' (Temple Bar) - in PFC it was St Stephen's Green. That relocation of about 600m simply acknowledges the massive changes that have taken place in Dublin since 1975 - Temple Bar is now a major commercial hub and tourist attraction, and SSG is the centre of the commerical, government, retail and leisure area south of the Liffey.
As for Connolly, PFC/T21 simply acknowledges the development of the IFSC and the growing importance of the Docklands area by routing one of the Dart line through there before crossing the river to Pearse and the interchange for the two Dart lines. Connolly is still served by a single change to the other Dart line - thw way it is done in other cities.
I'm not playing down the importance of College Green but in the terms of commercial activity, it simply does not rank up there with SSG/GS and OCS/GPO. But CG is still very will served by the current plan - it is a 2-minute walk from OCB Metro station and 5 or 6 min walk from SSG Dart-Metro-Luas interchange. It is also one stop away from SSG on Metro and 2 stops on Luas.
Such a station would not even get to planning stage because the levels of objections would be so large, no government would allow it to get that far - you keep ignoring this very important point.
Also, such a station leaves a vast swath of the south city centre that needs served by such a line entirely without it.
One of it's branches? Are you serious?
The BoI branch on College Green just happens to be in one of the most important historical buildings on the entire island - the former Parliament Buildings of the pre Act of Union Irish parliament of Grattan whose statues stands opposite. The exact same objections to tunnelling under and excavating next to TCD apply to Parliament Buildings.
Why would you simply ignore something as important as that?
There's a very big difference between chopping down a few trees - less than three dozen, according to RPA and IE - and risking damage to some of the most important historical buildings in the State.
The council has a lot more than the heritage concerns - it is responsible for the management and economic development of the city centre. Any transport plans for the city must be compatible with DCC's strategies - that's why DCC was so heavily involved in the process that led to DRRTS, PFC and T21.
Given that College Green, formerly Hoggen Green, has been the historical city centre of Dublin of more than 1,000 years, there is much more likely to items of signficant historical interest under CG than SSG.
Rome's Line C has encountered major delays due to signficant archeaological discoveries during excavations for the station at Venezia and at other sites and the city has abandoned altogether plans to build one station on the line due to the level of discoveries during excations for under the square at Largo di Torre Argentina.
Line B in Rome, with a stop beside the Colosseum, was started in the 1930s, interupted by WW2 and completed in the mid-1950s. The tunnel under the Colesseum was built before the war.
Work on the first section of Line A started in the early-1960s and it opened in 1980 - much of the delay was caused by the archaeology along the route.
And that was before EU laws and EIS requirements.
Given the delays to Line C due archaeological discoveries, now exacerbated by the financial crisis, the planned but now long-fingered Line D may not now go ahead due to the potential delays and cost increases from archaeology along parts of the route, even if finance becomes available in the future.
As I've already pointed out earlier in this thread, the combination of archaeogical factors and public opinion killed off the Amsterdam Metro project, as planned, in the 1970s and it was not until the early-2000s that work began on the North-South line through the historic city centre - and that too is years behind schedule due to, among seveal issues, delays resulting archaeogical digs and discoveries and subsequent cost increases.
If there is an engineering problem, there is an engineering solution - but that will always have costs in terms of finance, delays and disruption. Given what would be needed to put two rail lines and a major interchange station under CG - which would not do what the current plans will do - the costs involved would be unjustifiable for service it would provide.
But Dublin is planning to build rail lines under the most appropriate locations in the city centre - you simply don't agree with those locations.
Martin Cullen used a daft soundbite with his 'Grand Central Station' guff - in the same way Eamon Gilmore did with his ludicrous 'Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way'.
But T21 was not Cullen's plan - it was a 'government' plan. Cullen was replaced as Minister two years later and T21 survived him under Noel Dempsey and Metro North, Dart Underground and Luas BXD/Cross City all went through public consultation and detailed planning to secure Railway Orders under another Minister (Varadkar) from a differnent government. The projects may be delayed due to the economic crisis but they are still the preferred strategy of the NTA and will remain unless (a) this govt or the next formally cancels them and revokes the ROs or (b) the ROs lapse in 2021/22 because the govt of the day declines to or cannot fund them.
Until then, Metro North and Dart Underground remain at the core of future transport strategy for Dublin.
DOT, NTA, IE, RPA, DCC, FCC, SDCC and DLRCC all have a strategy and vision for Dublin - that trumps random internet poster's fantasy every time.
While I'm not too inclined to get into your mad debate with SW, some of the stuff you have posted above is like an airbrush of history.0 -
Strassenwo!f did mention a line in Munich that comes very close to Marienplatz and nothing was written in response to that. Refuting only one of the two examples doesn't change the validity of the original point. I'm curious as to the other example and whether it is a good example of large underground transport construction right beside historically sensitive areas.0
-
strassenwo!f wrote: »Jack, I only really have time this evening to ask about one point you make, but I hope to return to your other points later in the week.
The current metro plans show the south-north metro route going directly under a part of the bank building.
Have the bank said how they feel about that? What with all the possible damage to this historic place, etc., etc.
You are being more than a little disengenuous here.
Like the Trinity Campus, one bore of Metro North skirts under the edge of the BoI building on College Green for a matter of metres as this image from the RPA clearly shows.
http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf
That is very different to what you are proposing which is two deep bores passing under either the entire structure of the Parliament Building/BoI 'branch' and/or under the heart of the Trinity campus, along with a deep excavation covering a large area in front of both PB and TCD to accommodate a massive interchange station incorporating perpendicular platforms of circa 100m (Metro) and 170m (Dart).
Strassenwolf, in this debate I have tried to lay out to you the facts and practical realities of the situation but I realise now I am wasting my time as you simply do not want to hear anything that contradicts the fantasy you have in your head.
I'm not going to bother any further because it's clearly an exercise in futility.
As I suggested earlier in the thread, if you want the answers you seek here then ask the NTA, RPA, IE and DoT - and if you can't get what you want there then ask your TDs to request the information from them by way of a PQ in the Dail.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Strassenwo!f did mention a line in Munich that comes very close to Marienplatz and nothing was written in response to that. Refuting only one of the two examples doesn't change the validity of the original point. I'm curious as to the other example and whether it is a good example of large underground transport construction right beside historically sensitive areas.
I'm not familiar enough with the new S-Bahn tunnel in Munich to comment on it so will have to research it further.
I have followed the development of Rome Line C and that is why I commented on it. The same with Amsterdam.
However, the whole debate is moot because Dart Underground is not going anywhere near College Green for other well-documented reasons - the most important of which is that St Stephen's Green is the location which will serve the demand for the south city CBD much better than CG.
People need to deal with that reality rather than indulging the fantasy crayonomics of one poster here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough. I haven't read into it much so I'm mainly interested for that reason. It may be a moot discussion but I guess it's up to mods to decide on whether the posts are in keeping with the forum and thread!Jack Noble wrote: »I'm not familiar enough with the new S-Bahn tunnel in Munich to comment on it so will have to research it further.
I have followed the development of Rome Line C and that is why I commented on it. The same with Amsterdam.
However, the whole debate is moot because Dart Underground is not going anywhere near College Green for other well-documented reasons - the most important of which is that St Stephen's Green is the location which will serve the demand for the south city CBD much better than CG.
People need to deal with that reality rather than indulging the fantasy crayonomics of one poster here.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement