Fine Geals 10 year plan includes talk of infrastrucure

CatInABox · 19-09-2017 8:31am #1

Leo Varadkar has put out his "Vision for Ireland", and it includes a fair amount of talk about Infrastructure, in fact so much was touched on that I didn't know which thread to put it in, it literally name checks nearly every major infrastructure project we can think of. (If the mods can think of an appropriate thread, then please move!)

Infrastructure highlights include:

Looking into a joint project to connect Dublin and Belfast with high speed rail for a one hour journey.

As part of a ten year capital plan:
Dublin Metro
Cork Limerick motorway
Galway city bypass
New roads to Derry, Sligo, and Mayo
Dart Expansion to Leixlip, Drogheda(!), and Clonsilla (I'm assuming this is the Dart Underground expansion, just without the underground part.)

There's also talk of encouraging high rise development and living, specifically mentioned are creating new neighbourhoods in Waterford’s north quays, Galway’s inner harbour and Dublin’s Poolbeg.

Creation of Tech Universities are also on the menu.

So, all in all, it's great to see infrastructure is so prominent in a government plan, even if "plans" like these are easy to come out with, and are liable to all sorts of quick changes. I'd love to see even a quarter of all this done, and it's definitely got a good of urban and rural projects to get the votes on it.

I'd really like to see cross party support for an infrastructure plan as well, a commitment that it'd be followed even after a new (inevitable) election.

Wanderer78 · 19-09-2017 8:33am

He must be expecting a lot of wind before the next election!

AngryLips · 19-09-2017 8:46am

Jack of all trades, masters of none

nordydan · 19-09-2017 9:44am

Dart expansion to Drogheda and a new HS line to Belfast?? Going to need a new line then!

bk · 19-09-2017 10:29am

Of course we need to wait and see what actually comes of all of this, but as a person with an interest in infrastructure of all types, I have to say it all sounds fantastic. Almost literally everything I could wise for!

I was particularly impressed by this bit:

The next area is redeveloping our cities. We are currently tackling a serious housing shortage, and I suspect that a large part of the solution lies in redeveloping our cities for high-rise quality apartment living not further urban sprawl. We want vibrant new neighbourhoods all across the country

100%, I couldn't agree more. We really need to stop the insanity of building low density one off houses spread all over the country with no or little public transport and other services. We need to become a modern European country.

Though I'm surprised the Cork Harbour redevelopment didn't get a mention here! It will be the second biggest after Dublin Docks.

Dublin Metro and M20 aren't really a surprise, Leo specifically mentioned them in his manifesto before coming Taoiseach and he has mentioned them repeatedly since, so I think they are really serious about them, which is great news as they are badly needed.

Some will be disappointed that it looks like Dart Underground doesn't get a look in. I'm not surprised, as I mentioned in the Dart thread yesterday, it was never likely that both MN/DM and DU could go ahead at the same time, just too expensive. But electrifying the other lines will be a good cheaper compromise for now and hopefully we will then get the tunnel after DM is built.

Dublin to Belfast high speed rail is certainly a surprise! I suppose makes sense if they want to improve links with the North post Brexit and perhaps they think that they can get a lot of the money for it from the EU and UK. So makes sense that way. However I would think this is also the project that has most uncertainty surrounding it as it depends on how Brexit turns out.

Also delighted to see this about Broadband:

In terms of broadband, this Government will not be satisfied until we become the first country to connect every home to high-speed broadband sparking a revival of living and working from home in our market towns and rural areas.

So overall, all extremely positive, lets hope we get it all now. Time to roll up our sleeves and start digging.

Pete_Cavan · 19-09-2017 12:12pm

I don't get the DART extension along the northern line, does it mean that Drogheda trains would stop at every station along the way or do they just mean electrifying the line but still operate limited stop services similar to at present? I am assuming the latter as having trains stop at every station to Drogheda would be a disaster in terms of journey times, scheduling, etc?

Also, why do they say extension to Leixlip and not Maynooth, is there a logical reason for that?

AngryLips · 19-09-2017 12:15pm

Ideally it should be extended to Kilcock

thomasj · 19-09-2017 12:44pm

Pete_Cavan wrote:

Also, why do they say extension to Leixlip and not Maynooth, is there a logical reason for that?

It doesn't .

it says people in stations such as leixlip and Clonsilla will be able to board DART trains.

Just because maynooth isn't mentioned , doesn't mean it won't get the DART

lawred2 · 19-09-2017 1:17pm

nordydan wrote: »

Dart expansion to Drogheda and a new HS line to Belfast?? Going to need a new line then!

New lines were needed as it was

Pelvis · 19-09-2017 1:25pm

It all sounds great but who's going to pay for it?

veryangryman · 19-09-2017 1:47pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Ideally it should be extended to Kilcock

Ah now... that's pushing it. Traffic only really begins to slow at morning rush hour from Maynooth on. Kilcock not really a mass transit candidate

lawred2 · 19-09-2017 1:49pm

Pelvis wrote: »

It all sounds great but who's going to pay for it?

That's not a serious question is it?

L1011 · 19-09-2017 5:42pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Ideally it should be extended to Kilcock

Would need double track to make sense, the space is there for that as the line was double tracked before but it'd be dear. You need to go beyond the station to add stabling space. Station would also news rebuilding and it's possible some bridges would need replacing - bridges to Maynooth have been mostly done over the 20+ years electrification has been planned

bear1 · 19-09-2017 8:37pm

There is no point in them saying we should encourage high rises if the likes of an taisce can appeal against anything over 5 storeys.
Designate zones where no appeals can be lodged and as tall as they want.

Uriel. · 19-09-2017 9:08pm

bear1 wrote: »

There is no point in them saying we should encourage high rises if the likes of an taisce can appeal against anything over 5 storeys.
Designate zones where no appeals can be lodged and as tall as they want.

Appeals can only be brought in the context of existing legislation and planning policy etc.

bear1 · 19-09-2017 9:26pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Appeals can only be brought in the context of existing legislation and planning policy etc.

So why was Tara street appealed and rejected?
It conformed to all the rules necessary including that the land had permission for a 22 storey building only for it to be rejected with one reason being it's height..

Uriel. · 19-09-2017 9:33pm

bear1 wrote: »

So why was Tara street appealed and rejected?
It conformed to all the rules necessary including that the land had permission for a 22 storey building only for it to be rejected with one reason being it's height..

What was the rationale for the decision??

bear1 · 19-09-2017 9:35pm

Uriel. wrote: »

What was the rationale for the decision??

Something along the lines of you could see it from certain parts of the city, it cast a shadow over government buildings and it's height.

Uriel. · 19-09-2017 9:40pm

bear1 wrote: »

Something along the lines of you could see it from certain parts of the city, it cast a shadow over government buildings and it's height.

Yeah but that's not a sufficient decision in itself it needs to quote other matters including good planning principles etc etc

bear1 · 19-09-2017 9:44pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Yeah but that's not a sufficient decision in itself it needs to quote other matters including good planning principles etc etc

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/ronan-to-appeal-as-tower-bid-rejected-35892497.html

From my understanding the developers stuck to the rules the city themselves handed down back in 2012.
4 high rise areas in the city and that is one of them but it seems to me that they don't want anything high rise at all.
88m is not a massive tower but if the council would finally get off their Georgian this and that ****e then people would see that highrises don't need to be feared.
Especially don't properly.

bear1 · 19-09-2017 9:44pm

Anyway it's not really for this thread but I really think they need to fully review their guidelines for highrises

Uriel. · 19-09-2017 9:52pm

bear1 wrote: »

Anyway it's not really for this thread but I really think they need to fully review their guidelines for highrises

I agree.
There's a place and ability to do higher rise while also preserving the skyline

MayoSalmon · 19-09-2017 10:13pm

Uriel. wrote:

I agree. There's a place and ability to do higher rise while also preserving the skyline

Ha there's no skyline to preserve...

bk · 20-09-2017 10:32am

Uriel. wrote: »

I agree.
There's a place and ability to do higher rise while also preserving the skyline

Yes, in Dublin City Center. Because you know it is a city and it is perfectly normal to build high in a city.

veryangryman · 20-09-2017 10:46am

Just a devils advocate bit i was thinking about..

Blanch isn't really the city (albeit it's highly populated). Maybe the high-rise that Leo is after is central.

On the other hand, perhaps his constituents don't want it and thus get the gov they deserve.

lawred2 · 20-09-2017 10:48am

Uriel. wrote: »

I agree.
There's a place and ability to do higher rise while also preserving the skyline

what does that even mean?

Are you familiar with Dublin City Centre? I mean the exact site where this 'tower' was proposed?

Because the 'skyline' consists solely of some part occupied Soviet era inspired government aberrations.

There is nothing of any value down there worth preserving.

D.L.R. · 20-09-2017 11:54am

If by "Dart to Drogheda" they mean that they will electrify the line and provide longer distance "commuter" Dart services that will skip the inner stations... then that's fine.

But they should be clearer about what they mean.

The idea of a stopping Dart service all the way from Drogheda is patently ridiculous.

CatInABox · 20-09-2017 12:49pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

If by "Dart to Drogheda" they mean that they will electrify the line and provide longer distance "commuter" Dart services that will skip the inner stations... then that's fine.

But they should be clearer about what they mean.

The idea of a stopping Dart service all the way from Drogheda is patently ridiculous.

I'd expect the ten year capital plan to include more details, this was more of an outline than anything concrete.

Colonel Claptrap · 20-09-2017 1:55pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

If by "Dart to Drogheda" they mean that they will electrify the line and provide longer distance "commuter" Dart services that will skip the inner stations... then that's fine.

But they should be clearer about what they mean.

The idea of a stopping Dart service all the way from Drogheda is patently ridiculous.

Out of interest, what would be the benefit of a DART service compared to the existing diesel service? Assuming the current diesel stops are used.

veryangryman · 20-09-2017 1:57pm

I imagine it would allow said train to stop at other Dart stations e.g Killester

thomasj · 20-09-2017 2:07pm

Colonel Claptrap wrote:

Out of interest, what would be the benefit of a DART service compared to the existing diesel service? Assuming the current diesel stops are used.

Speeds up the train journey , DART has more capacity than commuter trains, quicker starts/stops

MayoSalmon · 20-09-2017 2:27pm

thomasj wrote: »

Speeds up the train journey , DART has more capacity than commuter trains, quicker starts/stops

Polar bears and Climate Change also:pac:

Idbatterim · 20-09-2017 3:50pm

if they were so serious about it, why knock back the original MN and DU, for inferior project that are going to end up costing more? :rolleyes:

bk · 20-09-2017 4:22pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

if they were so serious about it, why knock back the original MN and DU, for inferior project that are going to end up costing more? :rolleyes:

Well if the Dublin Metro includes also upgrading the Green Line to Metro standard, then it wouldn't necessarily be inferior, just different. We have to wait and see what is revealed.

Idbatterim · 20-09-2017 4:46pm

bk wrote: »

Well if the Dublin Metro includes also upgrading the Green Line to Metro standard, then it wouldn't necessarily be inferior, just different. We have to wait and see what is revealed.

one major advantage in my opinion, would be to have a driverless system! Will save the guaranteed strikes every few years, imagine the unions thinking they could shut down the airport / swords line i.e. how critical it is.. I dont see why a system, which wont even be in place until nearly the year 2025, in this country, wouldnt be automated as much as possible...

seeing as the line will operate nearly 24 hours I would expect, the taxi drivers and any car parking operators at dublin airport wont be happy!

donvito99 · 20-09-2017 5:03pm

Copenhagen operates a driverless Metro, must be open about 20 years now. Interestingly, the vehicles are only about 3 cars long, similar capacity to Luas. They run at about a 2 minute frequency and the night service is outstanding (possibly 24 hour, can't confirm). This I imagine is down to the absence of a driver.

Principally it is not difficult to have driverless trains on an underground line where passengers can be totally excluded from getting/falling onto the trackbed, but I'm not aware of driverless trains operating in Green line type scenarios (i.e. at grade crossings found between Ranelagh and Dundrum) anywhere.

I assume an upgrade to Metro would mean larger, non-tram like vehicles (requiring taller platforms, more akin to heavy rail) and as such total grade separation, and also the adoption of a third rail system as opposed to pantograph?

bk · 20-09-2017 6:16pm

donvito99 wrote: »

I assume an upgrade to Metro would mean larger, non-tram like vehicles (requiring taller platforms, more akin to heavy rail) and as such total grade separation, and also the adoption of a third rail system as opposed to pantograph?

The green line was designed with the idea that it will be upgraded to Metro in future from the start.

The planned Metro's actually aren't that different from the Luas. It is planned to be a "light rail" Metro. At least 60M, but hopefully 90M long trains, rather then 54M Luas, and maybe a little wider. But they will otherwise be very similar to Luas and use much the same tech, including tracks, same platforms and same overhead cables.

The advantage of the Metro will mostly come from longer trains and more importantly higher frequency and speed due to full segregation. Yes that means those at grade junctions will need to go on the Green line.

Middle Man · 20-09-2017 6:34pm

Yet more major delays on the rail system - this time on the Bray line. While other countries roll out numerous rail projects, we run our railways into the ground. OK, I'm being very hard on Ireland, but let's put things in perspective: London has Crossrail coming soon - its latest addition along with the Thameslink upgrade and recent London Overground upgrades. They're now planning Crossrail 2 and well as HS2 to Birmingham. Look at Rennes in France - much smaller city than Dublin and yet they have a new metro. Then there's Bilbao in Spain with its Metro. Newcastle in England has a Metro - a city no bigger than Dublin. Ireland has a dysfunctional political system that so badly needs radical modernisation - only then can we dream of having a world class country in infrastructural terms.

cgcsb · 20-09-2017 6:38pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Appeals can only be brought in the context of existing legislation and planning policy etc.

Well Dublin City Council refused planning for a high rise on Tara st a few months ago, despite the LAP making specific provision for one on that site

Uriel. · 20-09-2017 7:01pm

bk wrote: »

Yes, in Dublin City Center. Because you know it is a city and it is perfectly normal to build high in a city.

Don't tell that to me. Tell that to our elected officials and planners

Uriel. · 20-09-2017 7:04pm

lawred2 wrote: »

what does that even mean?

Are you familiar with Dublin City Centre? I mean the exact site where this 'tower' was proposed?

Because the 'skyline' consists solely of some part occupied Soviet era inspired government aberrations.

There is nothing of any value down there worth preserving.

Chill out pal. I'm not talking about any specific site and I'm not saying anything about what a skyline should or shouldn't look like, I'm talking about the well discussed issues that come up time and time again in dublin city planning. Opposing views exist out there, I'm not saying any of them are correct or incorrect

Uriel. · 20-09-2017 7:07pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Well Dublin City Council refused planning for a high rise on Tara st a few months ago, despite the LAP making specific provision for one on that site

Ok?
Perhaps study the decision and see if there's a justifiable rationale in it.

ricimaki · 20-09-2017 8:48pm

During leaders questions in the Dáil today, discussing the upcoming budget, Varadkar mentioned increased spending on infrastructure – to the tune of about €1.5 to €1.8bn. URL="http://www.thejournal.ie/leaders-questions-44-3606889-Sep2017/"]Link - scroll to 2.27pm[/URL

What infrastructure can be got for this amount?
Dublin Metro / Metro North?
Dart expansion / rail improvements such as removing level crossings?
Fund the design/planning of the M20?
Rural broadband?
Other road schemes?

Uriel. · 20-09-2017 9:39pm

ricimaki wrote: »

During leaders questions in the Dáil today, discussing the upcoming budget, Varadkar mentioned increased spending on infrastructure – to the tune of about €1.5 to €1.8bn. URL="http://www.thejournal.ie/leaders-questions-44-3606889-Sep2017/"]Link - scroll to 2.27pm[/URL

What infrastructure can be got for this amount?
Dublin Metro / Metro North?
Dart expansion / rail improvements such as removing level crossings?
Fund the design/planning of the M20?
Rural broadband?
Other road schemes?

The important question was what was the timeframe for such? It could get MN started easily for example with further funding coming through the 10 yr plan

marno21 · 21-09-2017 12:13am

We can't do much straight off the bat due to lack of schemes with planning.

I'd imagine money will be given to accelerate the planning of:
New Metro North
DART Underground tunnel redesign
DART expansion to Balbriggan
Merrion Gates scheme
Metro upgrade of Green Line south of Charlemont as part of Dublin Metro

On roads:
Money for planning for:
Cork-Limerick, N6 Galway ring, A5 to Derry, N2 in Monaghan, N4 Mullingar-Longford, N14/N15 upgrades in Donegal

Several schemes with planning will likely be accelerated:
N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin
N5 Westport-Turlough
Dunkettle Interchange
Macroom bypass

And if they can get through planning in 2017/18, money for CPO and tender for:
M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy
M21/69 Limerick-Foynes
Galway ring as above
N5 Ballaghaderreen-Longford

Realistically, some of this will also have to go towards the slight ballooning of costs of the National Broadband Plan

patrickbrophy18 · 21-09-2017 1:19am

D.L.R. wrote: »

If by "Dart to Drogheda" they mean that they will electrify the line and provide longer distance "commuter" Dart services that will skip the inner stations... then that's fine.

But they should be clearer about what they mean.

The idea of a stopping Dart service all the way from Drogheda is patently ridiculous.

If they are going to be running DARTs to Drogheda in the future, should they not invest in a fleet with on-board toilets and/or retro-fit the current fleet with them?

I say this because it opens up the possibility for journeys originating in Greystones and terminating in Drogheda which would be well over 2 hours.

Also, if it is going to be operating that far out, should it not be rebranded as the PART (Pale Area Rapid Transit) or EART (Eastern Area Rapid Transit)?

After all, there is a portion of the train line which is based in Meath (Gormanston and Laytown) before it arrives in Louth (Drogheda). So, it crosses two county borders.

The issue here is that if it becomes electrified, will that result in a reduction of frequency for trains operating to Dundalk?

The electrification of the DART as far as Greystones has put quite a large block on even modest increases in frequency to Gorey and Rosslare.

D.L.R. · 21-09-2017 12:29pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If they are going to be running DARTs to Drogheda in the future, should they not invest in a fleet with on-board toilets and/or retro-fit the current fleet with them?

I say this because it opens up the possibility for journeys originating in Greystones and terminating in Drogheda which would be well over 2 hours.

Also, if it is going to be operating that far out, should it not be rebranded as the PART (Pale Area Rapid Transit) or EART (Eastern Area Rapid Transit)?

After all, there is a portion of the train line which is based in Meath (Gormanston and Laytown) before it arrives in Louth (Drogheda). So, it crosses two county borders.

The issue here is that if it becomes electrified, will that result in a reduction of frequency for trains operating to Dundalk?

The electrification of the DART as far as Greystones has put quite a large block on even modest increases in frequency to Gorey and Rosslare.

Agree the branding should be different. Always thought the "Arrow" brand complimented Dart well, not sure why they changed it to the ultra boring "Commuter".

And so long as these mainlines remain 2 tracks, there will always be capacity problems.

Middle Man · 21-09-2017 1:04pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Agree the branding should be different. Always thought the "Arrow" brand complimented Dart well, not sure why they changed it to the ultra boring "Commuter".

And so long as these mainlines remain 2 tracks, there will always be capacity problems.

I don't think the powers that be could get their heads around the concept of slow and fast lines. Try telling them about having the Down Belfast Fast Line and watch their faces! :rolleyes: Of course, most here would know that I'm referring to a northbound fast track (Enterprise, Express DART/Commuter etc.) from Dublin towards Belfast. Then there's the 'Cross Platform Interchange' thing - I seriously don't think they know what that is either! :rolleyes:

Muahahaha · 21-09-2017 8:11pm

veryangryman wrote: »

Just a devils advocate bit i was thinking about..

Blanch isn't really the city (albeit it's highly populated). Maybe the high-rise that Leo is after is central.

On the other hand, perhaps his constituents don't want it and thus get the gov they deserve.

Well Leo certainly doesnt want it in his own constituency. He has objected strongly to a four storey apartment building in Castleknock. The council had already scaled it back for the ends of the building to be only two stories but Leo even objected to that. Shane Coleman wrote about it in yesterdays Indo about how he is talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to high rise. It is real NIMBY stuff.

Middle Man · 22-09-2017 8:59am

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well Leo certainly doesnt want it in his own constituency. He has objected strongly to a four storey apartment building in Castleknock. The council had already scaled it back for the ends of the building to be only two stories but Leo even objected to that. Shane Coleman wrote about it in yesterdays Indo about how he is talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to high rise. It is real NIMBY stuff.

For those who dislike high rise or even medium rise, I think we should extend Bunratty Folk Park... :rolleyes:

pigtown · 22-09-2017 10:44am

Middle Man wrote: »

For those who dislike high rise or even medium rise, I think we should extend Bunratty Folk Park... :rolleyes:

The castle there is too tall for some

Fine Geals 10 year plan includes talk of infrastrucure

Comments