Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dart planning

  • 15-11-2018 9:04pm
    #1
    Shedite27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,456 ✭✭✭


    With all the consultations around Dublin at the moment, it got me thinking, what was the scene like in the early 80's when the Dart was being planned? Was there much negotiations about the route, any controvercial CPOs or infrastructure? How much was new build at the time and how much was just putting the dart infrastructure on existing intercity train lines?


Comments

  • #2
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Well the DART was just an electrification project of existing rail line with some new stations added at the time there was no new rail infrastructure built.


  • #3
    XPS_Zero
    Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭XPS_Zero


    Public consultations were not as widespread back then,


    Like all new concepts, all progressive policy steps, this one has gone way too far and a rebalance needs to happen. All forward steps in society and policy usually end up going too far in the other direction before there is a re balance (witness how union power in PT, set up for good reason to protect workers T&Cs, went far too extreme and now is being corrected with competition plans for the bus system etc) Just as a worthy concern to prevent body shaming and bullying has caused absurd complaints against gym and fitness ads and a "need" for 'safe spaces', just as a need to compensate people financially for being injured by incompetent planning or management/building has taken the total p1ss now where you get a payout if you bang your knee tripping on the path - this has gone too far too.


    I think back then there was probably an element of: let people who have a specific objection go to their TD or sit down and write to us. Now they have these events which have the net effect of:
    1. Inviting every busy body with nothing better to do to take their professional moaning to the meeting
    2. Incentivizing every upstart aspiring politico to get their name in those crappy local papers (hence why the wicklow times now has the well deserved nick name the Simon Harris Times, an envelope opening was never missed in his case)
    3.Making people think that because a change personally affects them in a way they as an individual find inconvenient, thats reason enough for the project to be scrapped - I had to laugh at an angry incredulous woman on Liveline one day re the Ballybrophy line "they say nobody uses it well I use it!"
    4. Like the Brexit debate, if you ask people who are not remotely qualified and thin with their emotions instead of their brains (as most do) what they think of a highly technical topic, you will get a stupid answer


  • #4
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, I don't remember their being anywhere near the level of public consultation about Network Direct. I could be wrong, but I think there was just some info sessions about what was going to be done, but not really looking for feedback. Some folks kicked off and went to their TD's and some of the changes were delayed or changed, but most were simply pushed through no matter if people liked it or not.

    And that is keeping in mind that Network Direct was all about cutting back on services, buses, frequency, etc.

    I think the NTA may have made a mistake looking for public consultations, I wonder if they would have been better just pushing ahead with some of them.
    It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission


  • #5
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    XPS_Zero wrote: »
    Public consultations were not as widespread back then,

    But now we are participants in the Aarhus convention, and people have a right to be informed and take part in developments that affect the environment


  • #6
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    bk wrote: »
    Yes, I don't remember their being anywhere near the level of public consultation about Network Direct. I could be wrong, but I think there was just some info sessions about what was going to be done, but not really looking for feedback. Some folks kicked off and went to their TD's and some of the changes were delayed or changed, but most were simply pushed through no matter if people liked it or not.

    And that is keeping in mind that Network Direct was all about cutting back on services, buses, frequency, etc.

    I think the NTA may have made a mistake looking for public consultations, I wonder if they would have been better just pushing ahead with some of them.

    While having public consultations brings about the disadvantage of attracting whingers and NIMBYS it does bring about the benefit of people who may submit worthwhile submissions especially for area specification suggestions. It would be impossible for the NTA or consultants to have a complete knowledge of every area and what's needed in every single area aswell things like bus stops, traffic issues etc.

    The biggest problem I see with public consultations is the timely and costly process of filtering the worthwhile submissions which are of benefit to a project of this nature from the time wasters, whingers and NIMBYs.

    You have to remember Network Direct was a series of service cutbacks rather than improvements which BC is. It should tell the NTA how the public feel the service can improve and how the current service works for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    There was a load of nonsense in the papers that it was a ‘White Elephant’, that buses were more efficient, and it was unfair to rural Ireland.

    Not much has changed in nearly forty years.

    Imagine, however, if it wasn’t in place, and instead the coastal railway was ripped up and replaced with an eastern bypass. This was seriously canvassed at the time by anti rail wiseacres like Sean Barrett and allied nodding donkeys in the Sindo and Press like Hugh Munro.

    Dublin would have been truly forked. Sprawl and more sprawl.


  • #8
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Well the DART was just an electrification project of existing rail line with some new stations added at the time there was no new rail infrastructure built.


    There have been stations added subsequently but what stations were added when the DART was introduced?


  • #9
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    You have to remember Network Direct was a series of service cutbacks rather than improvements which BC is.

    You wouldn't think it from the way people are reacting. Network Directs cut backs was mostly meet by indifference. The government spending 2 billion on improving bus services and you'd think they were burning down Dublin from many peoples reactions.


  • #10
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,206 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    There have been stations added subsequently but what stations were added when the DART was introduced?

    Sandymount was one, I think Shankill dates from then as well.


  • #11
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    loyatemu wrote: »
    Sandymount was one, I think Shankill dates from then as well.


    Wasnt aware of sandymount. I think shankill was opened in the 70's though.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,206 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Wasnt aware of sandymount. I think shankill was opened in the 70's though.

    fair enough - according to Eiretrains, Sandymount was closed in 1960 and reopened for the Dart. No info on Booterstown there but it is also a fairly new building.

    Clontarf Rd, GCD and Clongriffen all opened since 1990 (reopened in the case of Clontarf)


  • #13
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    I think there is very little respect for public institutions in this country. If some new piece of infrastructure is announced, good, bad or indifferent, from whatever branch of the Government, it is often viewed with suspicion or generally attacked by the public, with opposition politicians being some of the main culprits for fanning the flames of discontent. And of course the media which love a good aul negative story.

    A piece of infrastructure that should be a massive boon for the population is often portrayed as big government trying to ride roughshod over the common man (often with the big developers and banks being the main priority) A lot of people love playing the victim it would seem.

    Having said that the NTA/TII often don't do themelves any favours when with some of their muddled and unclear communications, like the Bus Connect project.


  • #14
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,541 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    bk wrote: »
    Network Directs cut backs was mostly meet by indifference.

    Partly because there was a big recession on back then. It would have seemed churlish to be organising protests about the 38a being reduced in frequency and detoured onto marginally longer routes when a quarter of my street in Mulhuddart was unemployed.


  • #15
    goingnowhere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,250 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Well the DART was just an electrification project of existing rail line with some new stations added at the time there was no new rail infrastructure built.

    Nope
    Electrification
    Full resignalling
    20 miles of relaid track
    Complete refurbishment of most stations
    Extension and rebuild of Fairview depot
    Replacement of multiple bridges not actually impacted by electrification, e.g. Bath Avenue


    Little or no planning applications involved. There was local engagement and it was done old school the chief civil engineer met the locals. All the local groups and community groups got preview rides before opening


  • #16
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    goingnowhere wrote: »
    Little or no planning applications involved. There was local engagement and it was done old school the chief civil engineer met the locals. All the local groups and community groups got preview rides before opening

    The key difference though is all the land involved would mostly have been under CIE ownership and thus wouldn't have involved much or any CPO's and didn't need planning. That would have made it a whole different kettle of fish to Luas or a Metro through a new alignment.

    Though I'd wonder if electrification now would need at least Environmental Impact Study.

    Having said that, the Luas platform lengthening went through without much issues either. It is Metrolink and BusConnects that seem to be stirring up a hornets nest.


  • #17
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    goingnowhere wrote: »
    Nope
    Electrification
    Full resignalling
    20 miles of relaid track
    Complete refurbishment of most stations
    Extension and rebuild of Fairview depot
    Replacement of multiple bridges not actually impacted by electrification, e.g. Bath Avenue


    Little or no planning applications involved. There was local engagement and it was done old school the chief civil engineer met the locals. All the local groups and community groups got preview rides before opening

    Ok it was an upgrade project that included electrification but it didn't involve any CPOs or much new buildings etc.


  • #18
    deirdremf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    With all the consultations around Dublin at the moment, it got me thinking, what was the scene like in the early 80's when the Dart was being planned? Was there much negotiations about the route, any controvercial CPOs or infrastructure? How much was new build at the time and how much was just putting the dart infrastructure on existing intercity train lines?
    I think the work was carried out by Siemens, and they imported a Turkish workforce to carry out the upgrade (at a time of huge emigration!!!)


  • #19
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,812 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    bk wrote: »
    Yes, I don't remember their being anywhere near the level of public consultation about Network Direct. I could be wrong, but I think there was just some info sessions about what was going to be done, but not really looking for feedback. Some folks kicked off and went to their TD's and some of the changes were delayed or changed, but most were simply pushed through no matter if people liked it or not.

    And that is keeping in mind that Network Direct was all about cutting back on services, buses, frequency, etc.

    I think the NTA may have made a mistake looking for public consultations, I wonder if they would have been better just pushing ahead with some of them.

    Ironically, BusConnects, an increase in services meets more blowback than Network Direct, a series of cuts that didn't seek feedback.


  • #20
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,812 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    XPS_Zero wrote: »
    4. Like the Brexit debate, if you ask people who are not remotely qualified and thin with their emotions instead of their brains (as most do) what they think of a highly technical topic, you will get a stupid answer

    This is it in a nutshell, I find much of the public consultation process to be a massive waste of time. Sure it might highlight some issues that may not have been considered properly before, but running these consultations and inviting opinion is a waste of time. If someone has an intelligent contribution to make, they will make it, regardless of whether or not they are asked. The current public consultation process just offers eejits an additional avenue on which to send cyber-abuse to somebody they never met.


  • #21
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,812 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    bk wrote: »
    The key difference though is all the land involved would mostly have been under CIE ownership and thus wouldn't have involved much or any CPO's and didn't need planning. That would have made it a whole different kettle of fish to Luas or a Metro through a new alignment.

    Though I'd wonder if electrification now would need at least Environmental Impact Study.

    Having said that, the Luas platform lengthening went through without much issues either. It is Metrolink and BusConnects that seem to be stirring up a hornets nest.

    The hysteria over a school being located within walking distance to a construction site is quite amusing. My City Centre primary and secondary school education was carried out in area of massive regeneration and thus was surrounded by building work for many years. I survived though, and actually I can't recall any parents being 'concerned' at the time. The construction sites were controlled access of course, and sure why would we want access and what would be the worst if we gained it? Yet now there are women literally crying on call-in radio shows over it.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The hysteria over a school being located within walking distance to a construction site is quite amusing. My City Centre primary and secondary school education was carried out in area of massive regeneration and thus was surrounded by building work for many years. I survived though, and actually I can't recall any parents being 'concerned' at the time. The construction sites were controlled access of course, and sure why would we want access and what would be the worst if we gained it? Yet now there are women literally crying on call-in radio shows over it.

    While there was loads of totally over the top hysteria over it, they did have a point. It would have resulted in a truck heading down a one way residential road every 90 seconds or so, for around six years.

    I'd have no problem putting a construction site for a station there, none whatsoever, but the extraction site for all the soil? It was a bad choice to put it there in the first place, in fact, it was so bad that I have a feeling that the NTA wanted it to get turned down there.


  • #23
    Seanmk1
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Seanmk1


    Got some interesting pub graphics out of it at least :rolleyes:


    466928.png


Advertisement