DART Underground - Alternative Routes

Aard · 30-11-2014 5:27pm

L1011 wrote: »

[...]tunnel length, tunnelling costs, station box digging costs and ignored the cost of planning and engineering[...]

Not to mention the inevitable JR...

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 5:28pm

L1011 wrote: »

Erm. No, I'm not.

You are asking for an unknown and completely irrelevant cost as an evasion tactic. Nobody at all is falling for it.

Now, come along and show us your costings that prove that College Green would be cheaper. You're so certain it is that you must have some idea. They don't need to be precise - nobody has asked for precise - but they do need to be realistic. Your last attempt was fantasyland in every element - tunnel length, tunnelling costs, station box digging costs and ignored the cost of planning and engineering. I do hope you've actually recalculated as you're still banging the same drum claiming it'll be cheaper when your previous figures were demolished as inaccurate.

(and I see now you've deleted this post for some reason...)

I deleted the post because it was effectively a double post.

There is no evasion involved.

I am working on the basis that there are no major geological issues which would make a route via College Green more difficult than a route via St. Stephen's Green. If there are, let's see them.

There would be no extra station boxes involved. Basically, it's the interconnector without the big loop. Substitute College Green for St. Stephen's and you've pretty much got it.

Based on the information we have, shorter and cheaper.

Even including the redesign costs, I have estimated (either on this or the other thread) that you would save at least 70 million euro on tunnelling costs and station fit-out. Building via St. Stephen's Green, without any redesign, would cost about an extra 100 million.

Add to that the cost of not building the Lucan LUAS via College Green, an idea which was introduced as a sop to the busiest parts of the city, and you'd save another whole load of cash.

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 5:43pm

Aard wrote: »

Not to mention the inevitable JR...

There's going to be a judicial review anyway. ABP's laxity when analysing the glaring discrepancies in the railway order applications is certain to feature.

Aard · 30-11-2014 5:59pm

The previous JR didn't conclude that.

BonkeyDonker · 30-11-2014 8:04pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I am working on the basis that there are no major geological issues which would make a route via College Green more difficult than a route via St. Stephen's Green. If there are, let's see them.

There would be no extra station boxes involved. Basically, it's the interconnector without the big loop. Substitute College Green for St. Stephen's and you've pretty much got it.

Maybe not a natural geographic issue - but where in CG would you put the access to this station. SSG has a nice big park with little built on it that could be used, then reinstated at minimal cost. CG not so much.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Based on the information we have, shorter and cheaper.

Even including the redesign costs, I have estimated (either on this or the other thread) that you would save at least 70 million euro on tunnelling costs and station fit-out. Building via St. Stephen's Green, without any redesign, would cost about an extra 100 million.

I worked out that SSG would be cheaper by about 50/75 million euro.

L1011 · 30-11-2014 8:39pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There would be no extra station boxes involved. Basically, it's the interconnector without the big loop. Substitute College Green for St. Stephen's and you've pretty much got it.

Have you lost the ability to count? Your proposal involves requiring more station boxes as you're moving Metro stations. The two things do not exist in isolation. Saying that Metro North "won't happen" is wildly short-sighted and considering your entire argument is based on whataboutery along the lines of "we'll look back and regret this..." its not even worth you going down that road.

You haven't made any allowance for the vastly dearer extraction of a station box under College Green versus a park either, again.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Even including the redesign costs, I have estimated (either on this or the other thread) that you would save at least 70 million euro on tunnelling costs and station fit-out.

This is based on you dividing the total project cost by kilometres to get a tunnelling cost and using your original, out by a factor of 2, difference in tunnel length. You're still using your fantasyland figures.

You have no credibility here - these very same figures you've spouted before were demolished comprehensively and now you're acting as if they're valid.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Add to that the cost of not building the Lucan LUAS via College Green, an idea which was introduced as a sop to the busiest parts of the city, and you'd save another whole load of cash.

You're now trying to pull in changes to entirely unrelated projects yet you haven't counted a cent for the disruption to business that digging up one of the main areas of the city for years would entail.

Once again, this is your standard circular argument technique - drag back up what was rubbished longest ago as if something's changed. Nothing has changed. Your argument makes no sense.

L1011 · 30-11-2014 8:40pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There's going to be a judicial review anyway. ABP's laxity when analysing the glaring discrepancies in the railway order applications is certain to feature.

How exactly do you propose this happens, considering the Order is now in place and valid?

Now, can you give us some prior warning as to what previously demolished argument you'll be back with in two weeks - I'm going for "important buildings" again as a guess!

murphaph · 30-11-2014 9:02pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Indeed it is a non-argument. Behind the railings of St. Stephen's Green you have perhaps 20-30 people working (and doing a great job). Behind the railings of TCD you have at least a few thousand people working there, the majority of them working at the College Green end, before we even get to the students who need to travel to and from there.

TCD is quite possibly the biggest single employer in Dublin 2. All happening behind those railings. (With regard to the large playing pitches down near the science end, I see that as more of a problem for the Pearse Station catchment.:p)

Woah!

You're kind of digging a bigger hole (pardon the pun) for your argument by highlighting how close TCD already is to a DART station by the way.

The fact that TCD is a big trip generator doesn't detract from the fact that it has about as much green space as St. Stephen's Green. You've always argued that this is a reason not to build a station adjacent to it, so logic dictates that the similar amount of green space adjacent to your proposed station location should also have a negative impact on passenger numbers.

In reality it doesn't make any difference as in TCD's case the green areas are compensated for by the non-green areas and in St. Stephen's Green's case the very same applies, except to you, who has made it part of your case against the green.

The playing fields aren't the only green space inside TCD by the way. There are several squares within tens of metres of your proposed station location and I reiterate, this is not an argument against your proposed location. I'm just raising it to highlight the folly of your argument against St. Stephen's Green based on the amount of green space it occupies.

Most of the people heading to TCD by the way are heading to the more recent buildings at the Westland Row end by the way, so are and will remain better served by Pearse Station and/or Tara Street Stations. TCD doesn't have much property (if any) west of the main entrance, whereas they have loads or property outside their railings all around Pearse Station.

strassenwo!f · 30-11-2014 10:39pm

There are a number of posts here which I really want to answer, but I have a very busy few days coming up. I will be back to the board on Friday, I hope, or Saturday. Sorry I can't answer them now.

D.L.R. · 01-12-2014 7:32pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You wouldn't be building it through College Green for its own sake. I am suggesting that it should be built through there because it would have greater and more efficient passenger uptake, primarily, and because it would almost certainly be cheaper.

I've expanded on the cost issue below - its far from the certainty you imagine.

Regards uptake, CG is busy because its a major junction near the Dart line. We're getting into the Chicken and Egg argument here.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Tara Street would be on a different line under the new DART arrangement, so its proximity to another station, on a different line, is not relevant.

It is relevent - let me illustrate: in your plan, a hypothetical customer going from Maynooth to CG would go through Tara, change at Pearse, and alight at CG. But in reality, it would be quicker for them to get out at Tara.

Same with Bray to CG - quicker to go direct to Tara than transferring at Pearse for CG.

Therefore a station at CG is kind of redundant when you factor in the existing network.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

People on the Hazelhatch - Balbriggan line can't go directly to or from Tara Street, and nor can people on the Maynooth - Greystones line go directly to or from a station at either College Green or St. Stephen's Green.

They don't need to transfer to reach CG. They simply use Tara or SSG.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The fact that stations at College Green and Tara Street would be geographically close should have zero impact on these plans, as the customers going through these stations are not the same.

The drawback here is that the south city loses Dart access, just to double-cover College Green. That's a bad tradeoff.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The current plans are for a metro line linking Swords with St. Stephen's Green (this will almost certainly be continued southward in the future) and the DART underground linking the Hazelhatch and Northern lines. It is irrelevant what name you put on these lines, what matters is that the plan is for the city to have proper rail network, and part of this will be underground. Thus, the metro station at St. Stephen's Green opens up the rail network to that area. Building the interconnector through there doesn't, and can't, open it up any more to that rail network.

You're ignoring the impact of a Dart line. The route is weighted very well in this respect - serving CG, but also the south city.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

St. Stephen's Green would be very well served by the metro and LUAS, Especially if you consider that the potential immediate catchment area is significantly compromised by the existence of the park, and the obvious restrictions which there will always be on many of the properties in the vicinity of that metro station.

The luas will equally serve CG under existing plans so the tram network is a bit of a red herring in this discussion.

SG is a high density area. Lots of busy subway stations are beside parks.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

One problem with both St. Stephen's Green and College Green is that there is very limited scope for investment in buildings which could allow significant growth in space for businesses to operate. You can't do much at College Green, because that neighbourhood is already almost entirely built up, and you also can't do much around St. Stephen's Green because of the park and the buildings in the vicinity.

In the case of the DART Underground route, any serious extra activity and investment is going to come in other areas along it, like Kilmainham or the Docks.

This is where your argument falls down. There is SO MUCH potential to improve the area around SSG with a Dart station, primarily to the south and west. This part of the city is relatively isolated, and its where SSG station will deliver that massive impact I mentioned.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

First of all, College Green really shouldn't be a tight build. It is very large - though it can actually be difficult to see this with all the clutter there - currently with space for 6 (six) lanes of traffic (some of them currently being used for taxis, loading bays, etc) and a central median through much of it. It can't be that tight an engineering prospect.

The point here is cost. When you consider CG is a major junction, it will not be a cheaper alternative just because the tunnel is a bit shorter. Your numbers here aren't adding up.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Secondly, a line through College Green would almost certainly go under part of TCD, probably the northern part of the Front Square buildings. But the line via St. Stephen's Green is proposed to go directly under both Dublin Castle and Government Buildings, so it's hard to see how that's any better, in terms of buildings which need to be protected.

Trinity is a 16th century college on reclaimed swamp land, it would be an absolute bitch. The Castle is on more solid ground. Yes I agree the planned route is a challenge, but any route through Dublin city will be. Again, the onus is on you to prove your plan is clearly better; you've not done that in this area of the debate.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If you look at the city as it is now, with College Green continuously snarled with buses, and St. Stephen's Green a relative oasis of calm, then I certainly wouldn't even attempt to disagree with you that College Green would cause more disruption. But there are at least a couple of things which should be borne in mind.

If the DART Underground, the metro and the associated work on the Maynooth line, are done right, this would unquestionably result in a major reduction in the number of buses travelling through the city centre.

Building the interconnector - metro interchange at College Green would involve rerouting the current College Green buses for about 4 years, after which most of those routes could be completely realigned to serve the various rail lines at suburban locations. The final product would be a rail interchange in probably the most central location possible, with efficient uptake of passengers from all sides of the station, at all hours of the day, over the entire lifetime of the tunnel.

Because of the neighbouring park and the impossibility of doing very much with the neighbouring properties, building the interconnector - metro interchange at St. Stephen's Green would also cause some disruption, though probably not all that much, but the final product would be rather inefficient uptake of passengers at that station, at all hours of the day, over the entire lifetime of the tunnel.

Again, the centre of a city evolves with time, and infrastructure is a huge influence on that. You say yourself that CG as a junction may change over time. DU is not for Dublin 2014, its for the next century.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And it is most certainly not clear that College Green would cost more, as you say. In terms of cost to the city and city centre businesses, I think it is beyond doubt that it would cost more during the construction phase, but after that there would be a considerable benefit to the city from having the highest capacity line ever to be built in Ireland going through the area in the city with the most efficient passenger uptake. People from North, South, East and West of the station, right in the centre of the city, readily able to access it.

With a St. Stephen's Green route, you would have a lower cost to the city during construction, but you would end up with a line which has, in comparison to College Green, relatively inefficient passenger uptake (because of the park and the buildings in its neighbourhood)

A lot of hyperbole here I have to say, we can all engage in that but it doesn't really advance the debate. Lets stick to the key points. SSG would not be in any way inefficient - its at the top of fuppin Grafton Street. If anything, a CG station is more inefficient due to station proximities.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

On the bald costs of construction, I don't accept that a College Green route would cost more. We know that a route via St. Stephen's Green should cost more, because it is longer. I obviously accept that the cost difference between the routes could be reduced or even eliminated if it were shown that there were major differences in, for example, the geological conditions which would be encountered by a College Green route.

These haven't been presented, so for the moment I think we should work on the basis that a St. Stephen's Green route would be more expensive, probably around 100 million euro more expensive.

See above. Trinity is a reclaimed swamp.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It should surely be clear to you that I think this is a project of enormous significance and potential for the city. I am not convinced that it has received the scrutiny it should have: ABP effectively waved both it and the metro north plans through the planning process without, apparently, questioning quite glaring discrepancies in their respective railway orders.

I don't believe it is close to happening, because of the country's finances, and I think there is time, and savings to be made, by looking again at this project.

I'm sure everyone posting here knows this project is hugely significant, and their opinions deserve as much respect as yours.

I'm hopeful it will be built soon enough. Regardless, you've not proved your case for CG.

strassenwo!f · 06-12-2014 6:12pm

L1011 wrote: »

Have you lost the ability to count? Your proposal involves requiring more station boxes as you're moving Metro stations. The two things do not exist in isolation. Saying that Metro North "won't happen" is wildly short-sighted and considering your entire argument is based on whataboutery along the lines of "we'll look back and regret this..." its not even worth you going down that road.

You haven't made any allowance for the vastly dearer extraction of a station box under College Green versus a park either, again.

I would like you to point out where I said that metro north 'won't happen'. I'd be very surprised if I did, as I have been discussing an alternative DART-metro interchange for some time.

With regard to your 'we'll look back and regret this' comment above, I didn't say that, but I accept that it is my feeling in relation to St. Stephen's Green. I think you should bear in mind that when the interconnector was originally planned, the St. Stephen's Green station was seen (and still is by some) as a catch-all for the Green itself and the entire area east and south of there as far as the canal. A huge area, which one station simply cannot serve if Dublin is serious about having a proper transport network. I think it is probable that these areas will be served by LUAS and/or metro extensions in the future, with these extensions feeding the interconnector. Thus, this is one reason I think there is no need to build an expensive loop on the interconnector to serve these areas, but it may take a couple of decades of LUAS/metro development for station/stop uptake figures in that area to really bring this point home.

Now, with regard to station boxes, routing the interconnector through College Green and having the metro-DART interchange there would not involve increasing the number of station boxes.

The current plan in the central area (O'Connell Street to St. Stephen's Green) is as follows: two station boxes at St. Stephen's Green, and two station boxes at O'Connell Bridge. Four boxes in total. The arrangement at St. Stephen's Green would be, as I understand it, a two-level box and a three-level box, to allow one line to pass over the other. Perfectly sensible.

The arrangement at O'Connell Bridge is for two four-level boxes, each around 80-100 metres long, with the platforms adding an additional cost, because it is planned that they will be mined out under the river. In terms of manpower and materials, what is effectively being planned at O'Connell Bridge is an eight(8)-level station, before you even get to the cost of constructing any platforms.

In other words, a total absurdity.

What I am suggesting would effectively involve: (i) at St. Stephen's Green, a two-level station box for the metro; (ii) at College Green, a three-level station box for the metro and a two-level station box for the DART; and (iii) at O'Connell Street, a two- or three-level station box, depending on where on the street it is located.

Also a total of four station boxes.

I don't think one needs to be a quantity surveyor to see which of these options should cost more, in terms of manpower and cost of construction materials.

There's also no reason why other construction costs should be vastly greater at College Green than at St. Stephen's Green. Once the hoardings go up, it's basically a building site, at either location.

L1011 wrote: »

This is based on you dividing the total project cost by kilometres to get a tunnelling cost and using your original, out by a factor of 2, difference in tunnel length. You're still using your fantasyland figures.

We don't know the exact difference in tunnel length, but it is certainly somewhere between 500 metres and a kilometre. We don't, as yet, seem to know which (if any) location would have more favourable geology for tunnelling, so it seems reasonable to work on the basis that a route via St. Stephen's Green would cost around an extra 100 million euro in tunnelling costs (based on a general figure of 200 million per km, once you've got your machines into the ground).

If you've got a better figure, let's see it. For example, BonkeyDonker posted above that he estimates a route via St. Stephen's Green would be 50-75 million euro cheaper than a route via College Green.

So, yes, I'd like to see your figures, L1011. (But I'd be especially interested to read how BonkeyDonker reached his!)

L1011 wrote: »

You have no credibility here - these very same figures you've spouted before were demolished comprehensively and now you're acting as if they're valid.

Sorry, could you remind me where this demolition happened?

L1011 wrote: »

You're now trying to pull in changes to entirely unrelated projects yet you haven't counted a cent for the disruption to business that digging up one of the main areas of the city for years would entail.

Surely the Lucan LUAS is not an entirely unrelated project? Isn't it part of the plan to build a DART/Metro/LUAS network in Dublin?

If you don't have to build this project to College Green, because you'd have already covered much of that route with the DART, would that not be a further saving?

I FULLY accept your second charge though. I haven't attempted to quantify how much construction of an interchange at College Green would cost the city.

Because, frankly, I can't carry out such a task. I can look at the night sky and pick out any star, but I don't have the knowledge or the skills to calculate how far away it is. This is the case here too.

I can see that the city's largest area of highest employment density lies directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green.

And I can see that if you build this line via St. Stephen's Green you hit this area very well, but the problem is on the other side of the line where there is a major park right beside the station with no commuters, and where there is (i) minimal demand to get to that side of the line after 10 in the morning at the latest on weekdays, (at weekends there's basically no demand at any time) and (ii) minimal demand to get from that side of the line before 4 in the afternoon on weekdays. Really, there isn't, and what demand there is can be well catered for the metro or LUAS station at St. Stephen's Green and by future metro or LUAS extensions.

I can see that a station via College Green would also hit this high density employment area equally well, but I can also see that there would be a very high number of people visiting locations on the other side of this line, at that location, at all hours of the day, all week, for lots of reasons.

I can't put a figure on how much the city would lose by the disruption of building this interchange at College Green, and I have said before on this thread that it would be a lot more than doing so at St. Stephen's Green, where disruption would be relatively small - even, in fact, small.

I also can't quantify how much the city would gain by having its highest capacity line going, over its entire lifetime, through what is probably the location in the city with the greatest demand for passenger uptake and delivery, versus what it would lose by having this line going through an area with very inefficient passenger uptake, over the same period.

I don't have the knowledge or skills to produce such figures. These are figures which even a professional firm specialising in such matters would, I imagine, not find it easy to produce.

But I think Dublin could do worse than employ such a firm to produce them.

L1011 · 06-12-2014 6:23pm

So, you're admitting your figures are baseless and ignore huge and critical elements of the equation. That's a start, at least. Are you going to stop making baseless claims of fantasy numbers?

Now, let's start on the passenger take up bit... You've one outdated employment density map as your justification here, a map which supports SSG just as strongly. You have zero real evidence to rvrb begin thst argument. Its not as pathetic as the "important buildings" one, but it's damn close.

Your station box guesswork doesn't take the depth of the metro line in to account - it's not magically going to be closer to the surface just because you moved a station. Moving the OCS stop will also require changes to where further stops are and - yet again - massive planning costs and a new railway order. Another huge cost you ignore

strassenwo!f · 06-12-2014 10:14pm

L1011 wrote: »

You have zero real evidence to rvrb begin thst argument.

Maybe not. Or maybe. It's hard to know what exactly your argument is.

BonkeyDonker · 06-12-2014 10:31pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If you've got a better figure, let's see it. For example, BonkeyDonker posted above that he estimates a route via St. Stephen's Green would be 50-75 million euro cheaper than a route via College Green.

So, yes, I'd like to see your figures, L1011. (But I'd be especially interested to read how BonkeyDonker reached his!)

We have to show our homework now???

Ok- well I will show you mine when you show us yours.

L1011 · 06-12-2014 10:58pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Maybe not. Or maybe. It's hard to know what exactly your argument is.

My argument is that you haven't proven a single point of yours. That's pretty much it.

Your costings are fantasyland, completely and utterly. You don't have the vaguest notion on passenger uptake. You go on diversions about "important buildings" when they aren't a concern anywhere else in the world.

Coming back a few weeks later with the same argument and making claims of "agreements" as you were doing in the past doesn't make the points any more valid either.

strassenwo!f · 06-12-2014 10:59pm

Bonkeydonker, I've already shown what mine is based on. You don't have to, obviously, I just thought you might like to.

strassenwo!f · 07-12-2014 2:18pm

This is another post which I have been trying to find the time to answer, and I will try to answer as many of these points as I can.

D.L.R. wrote: »

I've expanded on the cost issue below - its far from the certainty you imagine.

Regards uptake, CG is busy because its a major junction near the Dart line. We're getting into the Chicken and Egg argument here.

No. College Green is busy because on one side of it you have the city's largest area of highest density employment (according to the CSO), and on the other you've got very important business areas like D'Olier Street, Westmoreland Street, etc., and a large fun area in Temple Bar. You've also got Dame Street itself and TCD. That's why it's busy.

D.L.R. wrote: »

It is relevent - let me illustrate: in your plan, a hypothetical customer going from Maynooth to CG would go through Tara, change at Pearse, and alight at CG. But in reality, it would be quicker for them to get out at Tara.

Same with Bray to CG - quicker to go direct to Tara than transferring at Pearse for CG.

Therefore a station at CG is kind of redundant when you factor in the existing network.

We're not talking about the existing network. Obviously under the new arrangement, Maynooth line and current southside DART line passengers would get out at Tara Street rather than changing at Pearse. We should be talking about passengers on the new Hazelhatch to Balbriggan line, which will be without question the highest capacity line ever built in the country: where is the best location in the city for them? Well, given the CSO figures and what we know about Dublin, it appears that on balance College Green would be better, because it serves that big high density area and it also serves areas north of that location which are busy all the time. A St. Stephen's Green would serve that big high density area and an area which has very patchy passenger demand.

Obviously the important business area around Adelaide Road and the Harcourt Centre would be served from either location by changing onto the LUAS (as currently arranged) or metro (when it is extended south, as it almost inevitably will be).

It is worth reminding readers that it is foolish to consider this particular area as being 'served' directly by a station at St. Stephen's Green.

D.L.R. wrote: »

They don't need to transfer to reach CG. They simply use Tara or SSG.

I hope this has been dealt with above.

D.L.R. wrote: »

The drawback here is that the south city loses Dart access, just to double-cover College Green. That's a bad tradeoff.

No it doesn't, and it isn't. The busiest location in the south city (College Green) gets direct access to the country's highest capacity line, and passengers on that highest capacity line get direct access to the busiest location in the (south) city. A quieter area (St. Stephen's Green) doesn't. To me, that seems like a better arrangement, in terms of passenger delivery and uptake.

D.L.R. wrote: »

You're ignoring the impact of a Dart line. The route is weighted very well in this respect - serving CG, but also the south city.

Obviously, College Green, because of it's location in the south city, serves the south city. It can't directly serve the whole of the south city, but neither can a station at St. Stephen's Green. At least, not if we're talking about development of a proper DART/Metro/LUAS network.

D.L.R. wrote: »

The luas will equally serve CG under existing plans so the tram network is a bit of a red herring in this discussion.

SG is a high density area. Lots of busy subway stations are beside parks.

St. Stephen's Green is obviously right beside the big high density area mentioned above. But on the other side of the line, within around 600 metres of the proposed station, it hasn't nearly as high a density as the northern side of a line via College Green would have. The park itself and the Iveagh Gardens are large green areas which will remain so forever, you can't build high rise near there, and many of the existing buildings will never be able to accommodate high density employment. You do, of course, have buildings which have or could have high density employment, like Stokes Place, the Eircom building, or the office buildings on the south side of the Green, but by the same token north of College Green has Hawkins House and its environs, the office buildings on Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, the Central Bank building, etc.

I reiterate. If Dublin is serious about building a proper transport network, the important office areas around Adelaide Road, Hatch Street and the Harcourt Centre will not be directly served by DART Underground going through St. Stephen's Green. People working in those areas will, in the main, be using other public transport, like the LUAS or a metro extension, to get to the DART.

D.L.R. wrote: »

This is where your argument falls down. There is SO MUCH potential to improve the area around SSG with a Dart station, primarily to the south and west. This part of the city is relatively isolated, and its where SSG station will deliver that massive impact I mentioned.

Where is this potential? What sites can be developed in that area which will deliver this improvement, and make it as busy an area as College Green already is. Not many, I'd venture. The arrival of the metro at St. Stephen's Green will have an effect on the area, of that there is surely little doubt, but what can anybody do to turn this area into the real centre of the city. Relatively little.

Can you open a new bar in the basement of the Department of Foreign Affairs? A new disco in the Unitarian Church, perhaps? A department store in the old Harcourt Street Hospital? A theatre in the Loreto School?

What can happen in the direct St. Stephen's Green catchment which is going to utterly change the place, and make it eventually worthy of having the country's highest capacity line built through there?

D.L.R. wrote: »

The point here is cost. When you consider CG is a major junction, it will not be a cheaper alternative just because the tunnel is a bit shorter. Your numbers here aren't adding up.

I addressed this issue in my post yesterday in reply to L1011. There are basically two costs involved: construction cost, and cost to the city during and after construction.

On construction cost, based on the information we currently have, building via College Green should certainly be considerably cheaper, because the tunnel would be shorter, and there would be associated changes to the proposed metro arrangement which would also save money. And, yes, as part of the development of a transport network in Dublin, you also wouldn't need to build the proposed Lucan LUAS to College Green. There should, overall, be considerable savings

I think there should be a broader assessment of the costs and eventual benefits to the city of (i) building a more difficult station at College Green but ending up with a station with much more effective passenger delivery and uptake, and (ii) building an much much easier station at St. Stephen's Green but ending up with a station with relatively inefficient passenger delivery and uptake.

As I said in my earlier post, I cannot provide such an assessment.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Trinity is a 16th century college on reclaimed swamp land, it would be an absolute bitch. The Castle is on more solid ground. Yes I agree the planned route is a challenge, but any route through Dublin city will be. Again, the onus is on you to prove your plan is clearly better; you've not done that in this area of the debate.

There is at least one large building in TCD which is around 400 years old, and it still shows no sign of sinking into the ground. Nor do any of the more recent ones.

The current plan for the interconnector has a section between St. Stephen's Green and Pearse (the bit going under Government Buildings) which is intended to go through exactly the same swamp.

This really shouldn't be an issue with either route.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Again, the centre of a city evolves with time, and infrastructure is a huge influence on that. You say yourself that CG as a junction may change over time. DU is not for Dublin 2014, its for the next century.

I agree with these sentiments. But, as I asked above, what developments can occur within the direct St. Stephen's Green catchment which will eventually make it as busy a location as College Green already is?

D.L.R. · 07-12-2014 4:49pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This is another post which I have been trying to find the time to answer, and I will try to answer as many of these points as I can.

Well strassenwolf I've trawled through that post, and you've not really advanced the debate. All I'm seeing is repetition of the same wishy washy arguments.

"No it doesn't no it isn't" does not constitute debate. Feel free to address the points I've raised at any time.

Regards

L1011 · 07-12-2014 4:50pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

On construction cost, based on the information we currently have, building via College Green should certainly be considerably cheaper,

Back to unproven speculation I see.

You haven't proven it'll be a penny cheaper - all we know is that there would be considerable extra costs from revising the planning process, a much more expensive remediation process and vast disruption to business.

Until such a time as you can actual prove it'll be cheaper at all - let alone "considerably" or "significantly" cheaper as you claim, or the fantasyland figures you've given before - you need to stop relying on it as an argument.

strassenwo!f · 07-12-2014 5:08pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Well strassenwolf I've trawled through that post, and you've not really advanced the debate. All I'm seeing is repetition of the same wishy washy arguments.

"No it doesn't no it isn't" does not constitute debate. Feel free to address the points I've raised at any time.

Regards

As most readers of the board should see, I attempted to address the points you made in your earlier post as best I can. Sorry if it's not good enough.

D.L.R. · 07-12-2014 5:32pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As most readers of the board should see, I attempted to address the points you made in your earlier post as best I can. Sorry if it's not good enough.

Ultimately, my view is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this whole CG/SSG comparison, and its just not worth umpteen pages of repetitive, hair-splitting debate. I've given my tuppence worth.

murphaph · 07-12-2014 6:27pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Ultimately, my view is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this whole CG/SSG comparison, and its just not worth umpteen pages of repetitive, hair-splitting debate. I've given my tuppence worth.

Agreed. I'd take either or solution to be honest.

strassenwo!f · 07-12-2014 6:39pm

Would it affect you personally, D.L.R.?

(I know I have to be careful here, as I asked another poster, Aard, pretty much the same question, and I got banned by a moderator).

D.L.R. · 07-12-2014 7:15pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Would it affect you personally, D.L.R.?

(I know I have to be careful here, as I asked another poster, Aard, pretty much the same question, and I got banned by a moderator).

Not especially.

monument · 08-12-2014 2:00am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

...and it also serves areas north of that location which are busy all the time.

We've been over this already -- but lets do it again to show how clueless you are about the St Stephen's Green area: Within walking distance of the planned St Stephen's Green you have:

At least 10 hotels within a 5 min walk (including fairly large ones)
A huge range of bars within a 5-10 min walk*
A massive range of restaurants within a 10 min walk*
A large amount of venues**
A large amount of museums and galleries etc ***

* Around Camden St, Harcourt St, Baggot Street, Dawson St, St William St, on the Green itself etc
** The Gaiety Theatre, the Mansion House, The National Concert Hall, Whelans, The Village, Carnival, The Sugar Club, Iveagh Gardens etc
*** The Little Museum of Dublin, National Museum of Ireland Archaeology, National Library of Ireland, Royal Hibernian Academy Gallery, National Archives of Ireland,

The above has been pointed out before: You seem to be in denial and you really don't seem to know much about this area of Dublin.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Obviously the important business area around Adelaide Road and the Harcourt Centre would be served from either location by changing onto the LUAS (as currently arranged) or metro (when it is extended south, as it almost inevitably will be).

It is worth reminding readers that it is foolish to consider this particular area as being 'served' directly by a station at St. Stephen's Green.

......

I reiterate. If Dublin is serious about building a proper transport network, the important office areas around Adelaide Road, Hatch Street and the Harcourt Centre will not be directly served by DART Underground going through St. Stephen's Green. People working in those areas will, in the main, be using other public transport, like the LUAS or a metro extension, to get to the DART.

Foolish? Really?...

The above has been pointed out before: You seems to be trying to say that 10 mins is not a reasonable walking distance?! And as already stated, for those who can't walk there is a direct interchange with a one-stop Luas link in both directions (which can't be said for College Green).

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Obviously, College Green, because of it's location in the south city, serves the south city. It can't directly serve the whole of the south city, but neither can a station at St. Stephen's Green. At least, not if we're talking about development of a proper DART/Metro/LUAS network.

With the current Dart Underground plan: A large chunk of the area around College Green is already served by Tara and another chunk will be served by Christ Church, and another chunk will be served by SSG. The overlap is kept small.

If you build a station on College Green you have large overlapping catchment areas between College Green, Christ Church and Tara, and you leave a huge area of employment outside the direct catchment of Dart.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The park itself and the Iveagh Gardens are large green areas which will remain so forever

The park and the Iveagh Gardens are trip generators in their own right, with the latter holding large events and the former currently holding a popular Christmas market, and, as has been said been said before, there's around an equal amount of green space around College Green.

The above has been pointed out before: For some reason the less-used, less popular green space of TCD can be ignored because it's hidden behind the walls of the college!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

you can't build high rise near there, and many of the existing buildings will never be able to accommodate high density employment.

You don't know what you're talking about! 1,001-2,500 employment places per 250m grid is high density employment.

The above has been pointed out before: You're getting obsessed by the red areas which show the highest level of employment, but such areas could just on average represent marginally higher employment levels.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You do, of course, have buildings which have or could have high density employment, like Stokes Place, the Eircom building, or the office buildings on the south side of the Green, but by the same token north of College Green has Hawkins House and its environs, the office buildings on Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, the Central Bank building, etc.

Now you're getting confused by landmark office buildings and employment density.

Have you ever heard of Bishops Square? Or Beaux Lane House? The Permanent TSB HQ? The Department of Transport's Coast Guard Building? Marconi House? The point is most people have not and there's lots of offices tucked away around SSG.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Where is this potential? What sites can be developed in that area which will deliver this improvement, and make it as busy an area as College Green already is. Not many, I'd venture. The arrival of the metro at St. Stephen's Green will have an effect on the area, of that there is surely little doubt, but what can anybody do to turn this area into the real centre of the city. Relatively little.

The city centre is not one point or area, it's a wide area and office core of the city centre is firmly grounded towards to south of the river.

There's also quite a few site prime for redevelopment within 600 meters of the west side of the SSG -- you don't know this because you really don't know the area.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What can happen in the direct St. Stephen's Green catchment which is going to utterly change the place, and make it eventually worthy of having the country's highest capacity line built through there?

It's already there and this has already been pointed out to you. Any extra development is just a plus.

If St Stephen's Green can't support "country's highest capacity line" then Christchurch and Docklands have a fat chance of doing the same!

strassenwo!f · 09-12-2014 12:32am

Monument, I hope your logic above does not reflect that of the Department of Transport or Irish Rail in relation to this project.

It seems a really complicated way of filling those trains.

In College Green you've got a very central location, which is busy all the time and which is not compromised by having a major park right beside the station, and which has many thousands of people within a five minute walk of the station.

Your analysis above envisages those (if they wish to use the new DART line) walking up the hill to Christchurch in the evening, walking along pretty dreary Pearse Street, or battling their way up Grafton Street through the throngs to St. Stephen's Green, or taking the LUAS or the metro to get to St. Stephen's Green, if they want to use the interconnector.

The first three of those, at least, are hardly a particularly enticing long term prospect.

In your apparently better scenario, with a St. Stephen's Green route, all of the above would be happening, while people from our map's big red area around Hatch Street/Harcourt Street/Adelaide Road would mostly be walking* for at least ten minutes to get to the interconnector, and there'd be a big area right beside the station which is providing no commuters at all.

(* At least, according to you, they'd mostly be walking. I reckon they'll mostly be taking the LUAS or metro to get to the DART.)

Why not just keep it simple?

In other words, the people from the big red area, and from St. Stephen's Green, get on the extended metro, or the LUAS, and travel to College Green, where they simply join the many thousands of people within five minutes walk of that station in getting onto the interconnector.

Could it really be any simpler?

L1011 · 09-12-2014 11:36am

That argument doesn't support CG at all - you haven't shown that there will be any greater takeup at CG or less at SSG.

In fact, arguing that everyone will just use the Luas to SSG and the Luas passing through CG rather damages any claims for CG quite badly even before numbers are required

strassenwo!f · 14-12-2014 11:35am

L1011 wrote: »

That argument doesn't support CG at all - you haven't shown that there will be any greater takeup at CG or less at SSG.

In fact, arguing that everyone will just use the Luas to SSG and the Luas passing through CG rather damages any claims for CG quite badly even before numbers are required

What we are not seeing here are the reasons for what An Bord Pleanala stated was 'A national transport policy requirement' that this line be built through St. Stephen's Green.

A requirement, no less.

We've not seen the figures or the geology reports which should make it so.

Let's have them.

strassenwo!f · 14-12-2014 12:48pm

One thing which hasn't been seriously discussed on this thread is the overall impact which this DART Underground could eventually have on the city.

The people along the northside DART line would benefit from the interconnector (whatever route it takes), but they're also reasonably happy with the status quo; it's better public transport than the public tansport which most of the city has..

The most obvious beneficiaries of the interconnector would be people in the West of Dublin. I have long felt that it shouldn't be restricted to a Hazelhatch to Balbriggan line, as I think this line could open up a lot of opportunities for direct travel between several suburbs in West Dublin and the city

(Unfortunately, the opportunity to use this line for a rapid, direct link between Tallaght and the city, via Clondalkin, appears to have been squandered because of poor planning decisions). At least 100,000 people along that corridor could have used such a route).

But there are still many locations in West Dublin for which a direct rail connection to the city centre, via the interconnector, would be beneficial, and which could make real economic sense.

There are obviously problems expanding the interconnector's potential in the East of the city, because of the coast, but I think it should eventually be used for at least three lines from the West, directly into the city.

L1011 · 14-12-2014 2:38pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What we are not seeing here are the reasons for what An Bord Pleanala stated was 'A national transport policy requirement' that this line be built through St. Stephen's Green.

A requirement, no less.

We've not seen the figures or the geology reports which should make it so.

Let's have them.

You go ask for them.

Or are you still unable to actual write comments to the relevant people?

DART Underground - Alternative Routes

Comments