DART Underground - Alternative Routes

strassenwo!f

Idbatterim wrote: »

could they run DU via Westmoreland Street or Connell St instead, which would probably not only cut the length of the line. It would take a few hundred meters off MN or MN revised (or could they even simply have one combined stop at either college green that would serve the O'Connell Street and Grafton Street areas? Seeing as the Green line will shortly connect with O'Connell street or very close to it...

I think the problem you'd have at Westmoreland Street or O'Connell Street is that, with a major East-West line, the streets either side wouldn't obviously lend themselves to the major work involved in building an underground station, or there might be problems connecting such a route with the Northern line. For example, Fleet Street (Upper and lower) on the southside are both pretty narrow, and are not obvious locations for major construction works. North of the river you've got the Abbey Street (Lower and Middle) pair or the Henry Street/North Earl Street pair, which might be suitable for a station, though it could be quite tight, and it could be very difficult getting the right approach to/from the Northern line.

Clearly St. Stephen's is ideal if you want to avoid disruption, as it's right beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, and the whole traffic situation there has been calmed by the LUAS and associated measures. Unfortunately, it's probably not ideal if you'd like to maximise passenger uptake over the years, for reasons discussed earlier in the thread.

College Green is also not ideal, as there'd almost certainly be considerable disruption during construction, but it would allow good access to the Northern line (which the potential locations north of the river might not) and would not suffer from the obvious passenger uptake problems associated with St. Stephen's Green. That last issue is one which it is very important to bear in mind for a project with a lifespan of 100 years or more.

And, as has also been shown earlier on this thread, it seems that there should be ample space to build such an interchange in College Green. Other southside locations in the centre, like the two bits of Fleet Street, might not be so amenable to construction of an underground interchange.

I certainly think the metro should continue to St. Stephen's Green as early as possible. The above scenario illustrates an interchange between the DART and metro at College Green, but I feel it is important to have the metro continue southward, to St. Stephen's Green and beyond, as soon as possible, to help to maximise passenger uptake. It would make little sense to terminate the metro in the centre of the city.

G_R

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Clearly St. Stephen's is ideal if you want to avoid disruption, as it's right beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, and the whole traffic situation there has been calmed by the LUAS and associated measures. Unfortunately, it's probably not ideal if you'd like to maximise passenger uptake over the years, for reasons discussed earlier in the thread.

Please, dear god please, stop harping on about there being no commuters. I honestly can't count how many times its been pointed out to you that there is one of the highest concentrations of employment in the city within walking distance of the proposed stop.

Are you wilfully ignoring the proof of this that was posted both in this thread and the other one, or have you just missed it?

strassenwo!f

G_R wrote: »

Please, dear god please, stop harping on about there being no commuters. I honestly can't count how many times its been pointed out to you that there is one of the highest concentrations of employment in the city within walking distance of the proposed stop.

Are you wilfully ignoring the proof of this that was posted both in this thread and the other one, or have you just missed it?

I hope the board can see that I haven't missed the fact that St. Stephen's Green is an important area of the city, and I'm certainly not wilfully ignoring it.

But while St. Stephen's Green is indeed busy, at times, as you point out, College Green is busi-er all the time.

To reiterate, from the density map shown earlier in the thread, the largest area of the highest level of employment density lies directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green, so trains through either College Green or St. Stephen's Green would hit that area perfectly.

The rest of the immediate College Green catchment area is filled with offices, shops, restaurants and a large university - possibly Dublin's single biggest employer.

A large chunk of the remaining St. Stephen's Green catchment area, on the other hand, is filled with a 22 acre park, which reduces the commuter density. And, as if that wasn't enough, there's the Iveagh Gardens practically adjacent - yet another 8.5 acres of no commuters! Over 30 acres of entirely commuter-free area within the most important first few minutes walk of the proposed station?

The commuter density of an area with such a layout might be able to compete with the density of the area around College Green if the rest of the catchment area was filled with high-rise or high density buildings. But it isn't and, because of (for example) the protected Georgian buildings which make up much of the area, it also almost certainly never will be.

strassenwo!f

St. Stephen's Green already has the LUAS, and it will hopefully have the metro. Indeed, as I mentioned above it might be very suitable as the location for an eventual metro-metro interchange, when Dublin really starts building.

I just can't get why it's necessary to build the interconnector through there. Probably spending more money. Almost certainly serving fewer people.

D Trent

strassenwo!f wrote: »

St. Stephen's Green already has the LUAS, and it will hopefully have the metro. Indeed, as I mentioned it would be very suitable as the location for an eventual metro-metro interchange.

I just can't get why it's necessary to build the interconnector through there. Probably spending more money. Almost certainly serving fewer people.

Don't be posting two-in-row.

Wait for a reply to your initial post

L1011

Have I just walked in to a timewarp here?

Every Single One of your arguments has been comprehensively dismantled. There is nothing to be gained by trying to run them again.

Have you gone and learned what the functions of ABP are yet? Before you try bring that chestnut up again, as you completely failed to understand them before.

Banjoxed

It's the same old reason why the wheel gets constantly reinvented regarding Dublin and rail transport projects: make noise, distract and therefore little or nothing gets done.

Look at the hand!

Don't look at the hand!

McAlban

strassenwo!f wrote: »

St. Stephen's Green already has the LUAS, and it will hopefully have the metro. Indeed, as I mentioned above it might be very suitable as the location for an eventual metro-metro interchange, when Dublin really starts building.

But not suitable for DART/LUAS/METRO interchange?? Some great joined up thinking there.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I just can't get why it's necessary to build the interconnector [SIC] through there. Probably spending more money. Almost certainly serving fewer people.

Absolute horsesh!t. More money than what? Where are you're detailed costings? Almost is not a degree of certainty. As pointed out many times It is one of the busiest areas in the country. I'm sure the team of expert city planners, transport planners and engineers that CIE hired to prepare this project knew what they were doing. Unlike you who try to divert the subject away every time you are proven wrong!

As for the "No Commuter" Beside a "22 Acre Park" crap you have repeated time and time (and time) again. Plenty of Major Urban Stations are located right beside parks, some even benefit from increased traffic from people travelling TO the Park. Look at Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen (25 Acres), Kungsparken in Gothenburg (32 Acres). I've been to both and used Public transport to get there.

Why don't you come to SSG and stand at the top of Grafton Street from 7AM to 9AM some day and see how many commuters that don't exist pass you by in any direction. Then get yourself a coffee somewhere and watch all the tourists and retail customers that walk by. (Hint: Tourists have Luggage, Shoppers; Shopping Bags).

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think the problem you'd have at Westmoreland Street….is that, with a major East-West line, the streets either side wouldn't obviously lend themselves to the major work involved in building an underground station…. or there might be problems connecting such a route with the Northern line. For example, Fleet Street (Upper and lower) on the southside are both pretty narrow, and are not obvious locations for major construction works.

You have just lost your entire CG argument with this single paragraph. College Street and CG itself have the same issues as many have pointed out to you previously. Even after your Crayonism proved it too!!

You have continually trolled this thread with your nonsense arguments. It makes me wonder if you have a vested interest in CG is there some reason you want footfall to increase in CG?

McAlban

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There was an article in the Irish Times earlier this week about a review which is to be carried out of ABP's work. I think we've touched on this in this thread.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/organisational-review-of-bord-plean%C3%A1la-announced-1.2297600

Are you sure you are not a politician? because this is the work of Spin master.

"We" have not touched on this subject in this thread. You have cast aspersions on ABP for not reviewing a hypothetical plan that seems to exist only in your head and they have never seen or heard of. Perhaps you should read the article it summarises what they actually do.

The Linked article is about an organisational review of the organisation to see how it will operate in the future. Not of it's current or previous work.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

To reiterate, from the density map shown earlier in the thread, the largest area of the highest level of employment density lies directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green, so trains through either College Green or St. Stephen's Green would hit that area perfectly.

Here's another perspective for you:



Yellow = College Green
Dark green = Dart Underground route
Blue = other Dart route
Lime = Luas green line
Red = Luas red line

Source: http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/external-content/travel2work

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The rest of the immediate College Green catchment area is filled with offices, shops, restaurants and a large university - possibly Dublin's single biggest employer.

A large chunk of the remaining St. Stephen's Green catchment area, on the other hand, is filled with a 22 acre park, which reduces the commuter density. And, as if that wasn't enough, there's the Iveagh Gardens practically adjacent - yet another 8.5 acres of no commuters! Over 30 acres of entirely commuter-free area within the most important first few minutes walk of the proposed station?

The commuter density of an area with such a layout might be able to compete with the density of the area around College Green if the rest of the catchment area was filled with high-rise or high density buildings. But it isn't and, because of (for example) the protected Georgian buildings which make up much of the area, it also almost certainly never will be.

BS!

Even with the park, Stephen's Green has a higher density of employment than the areas around College Green.

Note that this is not always done by area (which is best), but in this map the area south of Stephen's Green is smaller than TCD and more, but yet has more employment than TCD.



Source: http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/external-content/travel2work

strassenwo!f

The above is certainly a very useful contribution.

So, firstly, thanks to Monument for finding it, and posting it.

It obviously needs more perusal, and I'm not going to quote it directly in this post because the whole thing might become unwieldy for readers, but there are a couple of general points/questions which should be mentioned, before getting onto the actual content.

The areas are of significantly different size, so even though, for example, some of the areas to the east of the proposed Christchurch station have a yellow background, which might give the impression that they are not so filled with workers, they do still seem to have 100-500 workers in a very small area.

It could also have been good to separate major green areas, like St. Stephen's Green, Merrion Square, the Iveagh Gardens and Fitzwilliam Square, from the areas surrounding them. These green areas would then be shown in white or one of the lighter shades of blue, to give us a better picture of the worker density in the parks and in the areas surrounding them. In St. Stephen's Green itself, for example, it is quite a large area but the number of workers who maintain the park in such excellent condition is probably quite small - one of the light blues, you'd think.

But, to get to more specific issues relevant to this thread, this study pretty much confirms what I've been saying about the DART Underground issue.

In the key area (268097001, Mansion House B in the above map), with the highest number of workers, once you take out the park in St. Stephen's Green itself, you're largely left with an area which can be equally well served by a St. Stephen's Green - Pearse Station route or a College Green - Pearse Station route. The vast majority of that important area is between those two possibilities.

In the map, the other two big red areas on the southside (268096001, around TCD, and 268142009, around Hatch Street/Earlsfort Terrace) have very similar worker numbers - a difference of around 600 in favour of the latter. With the number of students (even if they're not paying the full fare) and other visitors to that area - which would be very efficiently covered by a station at College Green - you'd certainly bridge that gap on a daily basis.

in the Hatch Street/Earlsfort Terrace area - which wouldn't be so efficiently served by the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green - footfall from people who aren't actually working there would be, in fairness, effectively negligible. That area might be, as I have said, better served by extensions of the network of metro and LUAS lines.

murphaph

TCD has at least 15 acres of playing fields and public squares which are in the same category as SSG. You can't ignore that empty space in TCD Strassenwolf if you want to cite the "empty 22 acres" of SSG as a reason to avoid the area.

strassenwo!f

You're quite right Murphaph, those games pitches are another area which should be in white or light blue.

L1011

"taking out" bits to try force your deranged model on to the real numbers isn't scientifically valid.

strassenwo!f

As an aside, it would certainly be interesting to know why the authors of the study didn't break that large area in the key position (ie between St. Stephen's Green South and Nassau Street, approximately) into blocks. It does seem to be a lot larger than any other 'small area' on the map, yet it would seem to be no less amenable to such division than other parts of the city. A lot of the other areas on the map are quite small, so why was it not possible to break this area down into blocks, like for example the block between Duke Street and South Anne Street, or the block between Dawson Street and South Fred?

Given that this area has one of the highest footfalls in the country - perhaps even the highest? - and, as shown in the above map, the highest working population of any, you would think that more detailed information would be very useful in many ways.

Carawaystick

If it's a cso small area, it's probably determined by the population staying there on census night.
Like every other small area in the country.

strassenwo!f

Carawaystick wrote: »

If it's a cso small area, it's probably determined by the population staying there on census night.
Like every other small area in the country.

That would figure. The number actually staying overnight in the key areas being discussed on this thread would be quite small, and it would explain why the most important area in terms of workers is the largest of the 'small areas' - because there are so many workplaces and so few residents.

The worker figures quoted also appear to be from the census. All I've ever seen is a form where you put in the overnight stayers in your abode. Workplaces must have something different, to get the above figures.

Carawaystick

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The worker figures quoted also appear to be from the census. All I've ever seen is a form where you put in the overnight stayers in your abode. Workplaces must have something different, to get the above figures.

You might have missed the address of where you work question...

strassenwo!f

Carawaystick wrote: »

You might have missed the address of where you work question...

It seems improbable, as I always filled out the census form very thoroughly. It's most likely that I had forgotten the question existed.

I'd guess that Carawaystick is correct that the census is used in this way to give a representation of both residential and worker numbers in a particular area. It does then go back to the original question which I posed: why not break the large key area down into smaller areas, akin to those in other parts of the city?

(And also, perhaps, show the proposed St. Stephen's Green station right beside a 22-acre blue area which is, in reality, where it is proposed to be located?)

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It seems improbable, as I always filled out the census form very thoroughly. It's most likely that I had forgotten the question existed.

Question 34 of the latest census, which you can find here.

Were you still in Ireland for the last census?

strassenwo!f

No, I've lived outside of Ireland since early 2006. I think the last census I was part of was 2001.

L1011

Broken record still locked I see - you can say 22 acres over and over again but it won't change the figures to support you

strassenwo!f

We had a brief look at the worker figures above, and there is much to ponder.

For example, there are red areas (ie. greater than 5,000 workers per small area) just across the river from College Green with large working populations. If the DART-metro interchange were to be be built at College Green, you'd certainly expect that a considerable number of interconnector passengers would change onto the metro or LUAS to get to those areas, if (for example) they worked in the Gresham or in an office near Cathal Brugha Street or the top of Marlborough Street, or in or near the Rotunda.

On the other hand, if they were working closer to O'Connell Bridge, they might decide to get out at College Green and walk the 5 minutes or so to Bachelor's Walk, Eden Quay or the major office and retail locations on O'Connell Street itself.

It's not easy to see that there's an advantage, in terms of delivering workers to their workplace, by building the big loop via St. Stephen's Green.

Then, in the hours when the DART Underground still needs to run but probably isn't carrying too many workers to work, you've got all the shoppers, the pub- and restaurant-goers, and the sundry other visitors to town, using the service. The demand for most of that trade would be pretty much concentrated within 1 km either side (north or south) of the Christchurch - College Green stretch, where attractions for those passengers are densely packed.

Certainly more packed than any other such rectangle you could create along the various options for this route.

Carawaystick

strassenwo!f wrote: »

We had a brief look at the worker figures above, and there is much to ponder.

For example, there are red areas (ie. greater than 5,000 workers per small area) just across the river from College Green with large working populations. If the DART-metro interchange were to be be built at College Green, you'd certainly expect that a considerable number of interconnector passengers would change onto the metro or LUAS to get to those areas, if (for example) they worked in the Gresham or in an office near Cathal Brugha Street or the top of Marlborough Street, or in or near the Rotunda.

On the other hand, if they were working closer to O'Connell Bridge, they might decide to get out at College Green and walk the 5 minutes or so to Bachelor's Walk, Eden Quay or the major office and retail locations on O'Connell Street itself.

It's not easy to see that there's an advantage, in terms of delivering workers to their workplace, by building the big loop via St. Stephen's Green.

Then, in the hours when the DART Underground still needs to run but probably isn't carrying too many workers to work, you've got all the shoppers, the pub- and restaurant-goers, and the sundry other visitors to town, using the service. The demand for most of that trade would be pretty much concentrated within 1 km either side (north or south) of the Christchurch - College Green stretch, where attractions for those passengers are densely packed.

Certainly more packed than any other such rectangle you could create along the various options for this route.

But those people going north side or immediately off the south quay can get a tram from Heuston

There's a large gap from church st down to O Connell street with no public transit

Also. Who is We? A select group of emigrants?

strassenwo!f

Carawaystick wrote: »

But those people going north side or immediately off the south quay can get a tram from Heuston

What is basically being suggested here is that those passengers who want to get to different parts of the city would just get delivered in to the centre quickly. This suits most passengers. Then, if they want to go somewhere else, they do that, and they will be better able to to that as the network is developed. So, for example, if somebody wants to go to the Harcourt Centre, they just take a train from Hazelhatch to College Green, then they change onto the metro or the LUAS for the Harcourt Centre. Somebody else who wants to go from the same place to the Rotunda just takes a train from Hazelhatch to College Green and changes to the LUAS or metro for the Rotunda.

This seems like a good solution for both. And for those who don't need to change at all, it would cover most of the area between the College Green and Pearse Station axis and the Pearse Station and St. Stephen's Green axis, along with a number of areas with high working populations on both the north and southside. The metro and LUAS should be able to cover the rest.

Indeed, as you say, passengers could take a tram from Heuston. Why not just travel quicker into College Green, and then change to the LUAS. I'm sure it would save time, rather than trundling all the way from Heuston along the city streets for, what is it, 10-12 minutes? As far as I recall, Heuston to St. Stephen's Green would be 3-4 minutes. I'd imagine Heuston to College Green would be around that, perhaps shorter - because it is shorter.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Also. Who is We? A select group of emigrants?

I think the 'we' used on my post above referred to the group of people who have been involved in the discussion on this thread. I know I'm an emigrant, I'm not sure if there are many others.

strassenwo!f

McAlban wrote: »

But not suitable for DART/LUAS/METRO interchange?? Some great joined up thinking there.

I'd guess, at this stage, that everybody on this board (very much including me) is aware that St. Stephen's is a suitable location for building a DART/Metro/LUAS interchange. It should be a doddle: Almost no traffic in the consruction area, and a whole park right beside the constuction area.

Yes, there might be a few complaints about noise or whatever from the people in the St. Stephen's Green Club or The United Services Club, or the Fitzwilliam Hotel, but overall, if we're dealing with ease of construction, it is unquestionably the best location in the city for a DART/Metro/LUAS interchange.

Is it the best for the city in the longer term?

murphaph

Yes

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Yes

Fine, I wouldn't expect everybody to agree with me.

I think an interchange at College Green would be a quite stupendous addition to the city. You'd take out all the extra curves needed for Irish Rail's plan for a rather circuitous route, and almost certainly save money by doing so. You'd get integration of all rail modes at one location and you'd allow the DART capacity to increase to 100 million per annum (or more) - the two things which the DART Underground is required to do if it is to happen.

Plus, instead of needing to churn up large sections of a glorious park, the city would get to rebuild a tremendous city centre showcase, which is currently being used pretty much as a 6-lane highway. And hopefully pedestrianise it.

I think there should be scope for construction of a station at College Green to include numerous exits at, for example, Westmoreland Street, College Street, Grafton Street/Nassau Street, near to George's Street/Temple Bar, College Green itself. All entrances/exits being used pretty much all the time.

Imagine getting out of your train from Hazelhatch or Kilbarrack and walking out into the splendour of a pedestrianised College Green, picking up a coffee and then walking to your job in, for example, Molesworth Street or Bachelor's Walk. What a tremendous way to start your day.

alias no.9

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Fine, I wouldn't expect everybody to agree with me.

Have you to date found anyone to agree with you?

I think an interchange at College Green would be a quite stupendous addition to the city.

Perhaps, but no more so than at SSG

You'd take out all the extra curves on needed for Irish Rail's plan for a rather circuitous route,

How do you propose to change from a west to east alignment to a south to north alignment without curves, trains don't do sharp corners very well. You have of course been told this before but continue to ignore the point.

and almost certainly save money by doing so.

Another point you've been pulled up on repeatedly and have failed spectacularly to produce a single piece of evidence to support. You seem to think repeating it as nauseum will make it fact, it doesn't.

You'd get integration of all rail modes at one location and you'd allow the DART capacity to increase to 100 million per annum (or more) - the two things which the DART Underground is required to do if it is to happen.

There's just no benefit to integrating all rail modes at one point, if you exit one you can only join one other, what matters is that each individual element connects to each other element. What you're proposing is to make a single station a choke point in the system, by design.

Plus, instead of needing to churn up large sections of a glorious park, the city would get to rebuild a tremendous city centre showcase, which is currently being used pretty much as a 6-lane highway. And hopefully pedestrianise it.

It would be fantastic to have college green turned into a more open public space but its clearly been a while since you've been there. The only traffic permitted through it during its busiest hours is public transport and there's proposals to exclude reduce that to just busses, excluding taxis. Shutting it down before DU is up and running as would be required to deliver your proposal would have a huge economic cost, it would strangle the city. If anything the SSG interchange is far more likely to enable your pedestrian plaza vision for College Green than your interchange.

I think there should be scope for construction of a station at College Green to include numerous exits at, for example, Westmoreland Street, College Street, Grafton Street/Nassau Street, near to George's Street/Temple Bar, College Green itself. All entrances/exits being used pretty much all the time.

Imagine getting out of your train from Hazelhatch or Kilbarrack and walking out into the splendour of a pedestrianised College Green. What a good way to start your day.

Insert SSG in place of CG in that statement and its equally applicable.

strassenwo!f

alias no.9 wrote: »

Have you to date found anyone to agree with you?

I never expected there'd be much support - people want to see the interconnector built, as I do, and the circuitous route has planning permission.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Perhaps, but no more so than at SSG

Oh, come, come. There is surely a difference between creating a major public space in a magnificent showcase, and building an underground station in an area between a few nice 4-storey buildings and a park?

alias no.9 wrote: »

How do you propose to change from a west to east alignment to a south to north alignment without curves, trains don't do sharp corners very well. You have of course been told this before but continue to ignore the point.

The currently proposed route for the DART Underground project involves (going from West to East) a curve from Christchurch to St. Stephen's Green, then a sharp turn to get to a north-south aligned station at Pearse, then another sharp turn to the right and then a curve into the proposed Spencer Dock station.

The suggestion here is that there would be a direct route from Heuston to an East-West station at Pearse Station (probably under Pearse Street), via College Green, thus cutting out most of the curves without having a negative impact on passenger uptake - indeed very probably having a positive impact on passenger uptake - before the inevitable curve into Spencer Dock.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Another point you've been pulled up on repeatedly and have failed spectacularly to produce a single piece of evidence to support. You seem to think repeating it as nauseum will make it fact, it doesn't.

Well, the direct route via College Green would be shorter. In the absence of any information about ground conditions at St. Stephen's Green or College Green, it does seem sensible to work on the basis that tunnelling would be cheaper.

alias no.9 wrote: »

There's just no benefit to integrating all rail modes at one point, if you exit one you can only join one other, what matters is that each individual element connects to each other element. What you're proposing is to make a single station a choke point in the system, by design.

I was working on the basis that the DART Underground project has to do two things. It has to achieve integration of all rail modes - which St. Stephen's Green would do (DART, LUAS and Metro), and College Green could do - and to enable the DART network to carry up to (or more than) 100 million passengers per annum. The current proposal is for your choke point to be at St. Stephen's Green. I'm suggesting it should be at College Green.

alias no.9 wrote: »

It would be fantastic to have college green turned into a more open public space but its clearly been a while since you've been there. The only traffic permitted through it during its busiest hours is public transport and there's proposals to exclude reduce that to just busses, excluding taxis. Shutting it down before DU is up and running as would be required to deliver your proposal would have a huge economic cost, it would strangle the city. If anything the SSG interchange is far more likely to enable your pedestrian plaza vision for College Green than your interchange.

Insert SSG in place of CG in that statement and its equally applicable.

I was in Dublin in July. I think we all know it would be difficult to build in College Green - much more difficult that just building the easy, circuitous St. Stephen's Green route, where there's pretty much no traffic in the proposed construction area. It's already effectively pedestrianised.

I'm surprised that Irish Rail never bothered to look at College Green, which is effectively a 6-lane highway, in their plans for the DART Underground project. The DRRTS plan had an interchange between North-South and East-
West lines at Temple Bar, just metres away from College Green. I'm not convinced that their proposed interchange really needed to be moved several hundred metres to the south.