Transport Package

murphaph · 06-11-2005 05:03PM

Metrobest wrote:

The whole of Stephen´s Green shouldn´t be closed off during construction. The metro station box will be parallel to St Stephen´s Green West - if it affects any of the park it should only be a thin sliver of grass beside the luas platforms which doesn´t have any historic trees or statues and so forth.

Depends on what the plans envisage, but your assumption is probably pretty accurate. If I was DCC, I'd do my best to exploit the land under the Green to build a shopping mall through which metro/DART passengers would pass through. It could be a great revenue generator-creating rental property from nothing in D2 is not easy! I doubt they'll do it though and the station box will be where you say metrobest, causing relatively little disruption to park users.

Even if they don't make any commercial use of the land under the green, I'd like to see an entrance in each corner of the park to the ticket hall so that passengers from all southern approaches can descend out of the weather asap. This is not a luxury, but standard design in most cities.

Metrobest wrote:

I think the government were unwise to talk of the Green becoming "grand central station" of Dublin - it makes it sound as if the whole Green will become a tree-less labyrinth of rail tracks!

I agree totally. I couldn't believe that idiot Cullen coming out with that. Dublin is actually lucky to have avoided becoming a motorway city, like many in the UK (including Belfast to some extent), and with the ommision of the Eastern Bypass from T21 it looks set to stay that way. We just need adequate public transport instead. There's a piece in today's Sindo basically perpetuating that "central station" nonsense, so any casual reader thinks the Green will indeed become a concrete jungle. Poor journalism of course.

murphaph · 06-11-2005 05:08PM

MarkoP11 wrote:

The real question is how the RPA intend to extract 2 tunnel boring machines in the city centre, at least IE have the cop to use a freight yard, logic would mean the metro tunnel continues beyond the canal

I'm betting the TBM shaft goes in here.

Metrobest · 06-11-2005 05:33PM

I agree the metro should have continued to beyond Stephen´s Green to Rathmines and Harolds Cross where the there would be a demand for such a service.

As a point of reference, the TBM for the Amsterdam metro line will be constructed and inserted in a very small section of water beside the Damrak and ancient Red Light District of Amsterdam. The actual TBMs (presuming two tunnels) will be much smaller than the Port Tunnel´s. They will probably be similar to Amsterdam´s with a diameter of 6,5 metre and a length of 40m. Wherever a TBM is assembled or disassembled there will be disruption - inevitable but neccessary for the future of the city and its citizens.

Here´s a picture I found of the area in which the Amsterdam TBM is being assembled, copied and pasted, sorry for the long gobbeldygook link but it might be of interest to some...

http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/ns_metro/images/7s_044-D10023-12-trillen-da.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/ns_metro/&h=153&w=150&sz=6&tbnid=EZ2YbulzVGYJ:&tbnh=91&tbnw=89&hl=de&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Damsterdam%2Bmetro%2BTBM%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D

murphaph · 06-11-2005 05:40PM

Bill McH wrote:

My understanding of transport is that the most efficient journey which a passenger can make is one which requires no changes. The next most efficient one is one where only one change is required, then two, and so on.

No, not true. The speed of the mode is also highly important-I can make a 0 change journey from my house in D15 on a 39 bus that will take me 1.5 hours to reach 'an lar'. That is not an efficient journey.

Bill, your focus has been predominantly on people who will use the interconnector to complete a 0 change journey. What about people on the existing DART, south of Pearse? With an interconnector running under College Green and if they work in the St. Stephen's Green area, particularly along the likes of Cuffe & Harcourt St, they'd have to either get off at Pearse and walk for 15 mins, change at Pearse for interconnector to College Green then change again to metro southbound, or get off at GLASNEVIN JUNCTION to board a metro southbound (ignoring Luas, which they may be able to take from Connolly following the link up). With the interconnecor under the Green, they can change at Pearse and get off at Stephen's green.

I think a fundamental difference etween yourself and most of us is that you believe south of Stephen's Green to be devoid of destinations. I disagree-the streets to the south are office territory and the likes of Harcourt & Leeson and Camden streets are recreational also, and for the time being, DIT is close by on Kevin Street.

The prime people we need the system to serve are commuters-they will use it probably 10 times a week. Shoppers and recreational users do not cause congestion and have plenty of time on their hands to make changes. If you're coming into town on the p!ss from Hazelhatch you can get off at High Street and walk the 600m to Temple Bar or stay on and get off at the Green and walk to Camden/Wexford Streets or Copperface Jacks (for the culchies). I think the Green is actually a better solution than College Green for more people.

Maskhadov · 06-11-2005 05:41PM

I wonder are there any post T-21 plans to make the metro line into a loop ? 9if its built that is.)

I would love to know what will be cut and cover and what will be pure tunnelling. There was relatvely little damage with the port tunnel but cut and cover would be a nightmare.

Bill McH · 06-11-2005 07:03PM

Philip, my original post stated:

Bill McH wrote:

My understanding of transport is that the most efficient journey which a passenger can make is one which requires no changes. The next most efficient one is one where only one change is required, then two, and so on.

Your answer to that was:

murphaph wrote:

No, not true. The speed of the mode is also highly important-I can make a 0 change journey from my house in D15 on a 39 bus that will take me 1.5 hours to reach 'an lar'. That is not an efficient journey

I think it is unfair to say that my statement was not true - but it would be fair to say that it is not complete enough. As you correctly point out, the speed of the mode is also highly important.

Clearly, a 1.5 hour journey from D15 on the bus to the centre of town is obviously not efficient, when compared with a train journey of, what, 20 minutes, to the city centre. Which is what will be possible, every 5-10 minutes from D15 when the interconnecter us built.

But, if you could imagine a transport system where we had only buses - this direct journey would be the most efficient one you could make.

(I am not, by the way suggesting that we construct such a transport system -buses only. Been there, done that.:rolleyes:)

But in such a scenario, a journey between D15 and, say, D14, would be most efficient for you if no change was required, regardless of how long it takes. It might not make sense for the entire city to have a bus or train route between D15 and D14. In this imaginary scenario, it probably makes more sense for everybody if there is a network (of buses or trains) in which a journey between D15 and D14 requires a change.

Bill McH · 06-11-2005 08:34PM

I was just looking at Mackerski's Google Earth project on another thread.

One thing that jumps out at me is the distance between St. Stephen's Green and Heuston. Any chance of a second station between the two? I think there was a station at Watling Street originally planned.

I know they're expensive to put in, but long term?

jlang · 06-11-2005 11:15PM

Bill McH wrote:

One thing that jumps out at me is the distance between St. Stephen's Green and Heuston. Any chance of a second station between the two? I think there was a station at Watling Street originally planned.

Fairly sure the plan includes a station at High St/Christ Church.

Bill McH · 06-11-2005 11:33PM

jlang wrote:

Fairly sure the plan includes a station at High St/Christ Church.

Yeah, I think that's the plan. It has been christened "Dart-Digital Hub" on the Google Earth thread. (I'm not in favour of that name - but I suppose one of the plus sides to the dithering and delay in building the interconnector is that we won't get a chance to call this station: "Dart-MediaLab Europe")

I was just wondering if we could get a second station in there, somewhere between Christchurch and Heuston. Watling Street was mentioned years ago. It just might be sensible. The interconnector could transform that neck of the woods.

BrianD · 06-11-2005 11:57PM

What's laughable about the whole plan is that Stephens Green is now becoming a transport terminal (although it will be neatly tucked underground) on an arbitary basis. There seems to be no reason why the this location was selected other than the fact that the Green line tram terminates there (RPA obsession with contining the green line one way or another). No studies have been carried out to see if this is an optimum location from a passenger point of view. Of course some passengers will want to go the environs of the green. No study has been carried out to establish how these passengers are going to exit the station into the confined area around the station.

Secondly, Metro West. We're all told how important it is to have a metro to the airport (though nobody seems to know anyone who will use it) yet the Tallagh-Airport Metro which in theory allows those on the western suburbs to reach the airport without going via the city. Why is this line starting in phases from TAllaght to the airport. Surely it makes economic sense to do the other way around?????? Plus this means that the nortnern suburbs can get to the airport and then to th centre.

Absolutely zero thought has gone into this plan. Plus I see a current member is going to oversee the whole lot. A recipe for disaster.

BrianD · 07-11-2005 12:04AM

murphaph wrote:

I'm betting the TBM shaft goes in here.

Where? The park to the south of the Green?

MarkoP11 · 07-11-2005 12:09AM

PFC had the interconnector under Stephens Green long before the Luas lines were split

There are sound engineering and technical reasons not to go under College Green, curvature, proximity of Liffey, TCD, Luas integration

And yes there have been studies to the optimum routing of interconnector and the one we have now is the actually the fourth refinement, options 3 and 4 (the chosen) where under Stephen's Green, option one was 1975 DRRTS route which could not be done given the changes since then

The metro being built backwards is a cunning ploy by the RPA (in my opinion) to get around cost overruns as starting in Tallaght means it has to be finished, start in Ballymun means a safe escape route if the budget goes out the window

As for Prof O'Mahony she was on the RPA board not the Metro project engineer (Rory O'Connor)

murphaph · 07-11-2005 12:18AM

BrianD wrote:

No study has been carried out to establish how these passengers are going to exit the station into the confined area around the station.

We don't know how many exits the station at the green will have. The simulation that was shown at T21 shows just 1 exit from the station, right up onto Grafton Street. This will probably be the busiest exit. I presume there will be an exit at the other side of the road roughly where the Luas stop is now and if this was any other city we'd get exits at the other end of the metro platforms (possibly one on each corner of Stephen's Green West/Cuffe Street, Cuffe Street/Harcourt Street and Stephen's Green South/Harcourt Street)

murphaph · 07-11-2005 12:19AM

BrianD wrote:

Where? The park to the south of the Green?

Yeah, the Iveagh Gardens.

mackerski · 07-11-2005 12:48AM

Bill McH wrote:

Yeah, I think that's the plan. It has been christened "Dart-Digital Hub" on the Google Earth thread. (I'm not in favour of that name - but I suppose one of the plus sides to the dithering and delay in building the interconnector is that we won't get a chance to call this station: "Dart-MediaLab Europe")

I want it known that I didn't make up that name

- I lifted it, along with its location, from a route map that I think I linked to from the Google Earth thread. There seems to be a body of opinion behind the notion that there will be a High St. station, and, if I'm hearing you all right, that there won't be any station where my Digital Hub one is shown. Once I can see the likeliest candidate, I'll update the map accordingly.

Dermot

Bill McH · 07-11-2005 01:39AM

MarkoP11 wrote:

There are sound engineering and technical reasons not to go under College Green

Marko, I'm sure there are. But there are sound engineering and technical reasons not to do loads of things. Not to build tunnels at all, for example.:D

curvature

Is this the curvature between the Docklands and Pearse? Now I admit that mine is an untrained eye, but it certainly doesn't look like we'd need to scour the globe to find a team who could engineer the following tunnel: Docklands, station parallel to current Pearse Station, Pearse Street, College Street.

proximity of Liffey

Is this really a major factor? We plan to go under the Liffey. Can we not also go parallel to it? I'm sure there must be examples around the world where a rail tunnel runs parallel to a river for a few hundred metres.

TCD

Why is this a factor?

Luas integration

Not, in my opinion, a factor to which any weight should be attached. At all. But, unfortunately, it is one which seems to have cemented the view of the interconnector route through St. Stephen's Green in a lot of people's minds. And I don't understand it.

As I pointed out above, I think College Green-not St. Stephen's Green-would have been the most efficient location for the largest group of passengers, had the interconnector been built there. This was based on the predicted figures for the metro which goes to both locations.

Our DART trains can carry 1400 people. Our trams about 300.

I think it would be a better solution to bring our most effective people carriers (DART) to the most effective location. Then you bring your trams along to meet up with these trains.

I think it would be correct to say that you should not do things upside down and bring your DART to a less effective location to meet up with your trams, for the purposes of "LUAS integration".

As Marko points out above, there have been plenty of studies done over the years about this project. And, of course they are not wrong.

It seems a pity to me that we can't go to College Green. But despite the College Green/St. Stephen's Green projected figures, I'll have to learn to believe that it could not be done.

But one thing is for certain. If I ever hear anyone suggest to me that "LUAS integration" was a factor in building the interconnector through St. Stephen's Green, well I will just be very, very disappointed.

Bill McH · 08-11-2005 02:45PM

One of the things which occurs to me about the orbital metro is that it's going to be traversing the Kildare line, which is going to be 4-tracked.

When it's 4 tracked it would be capable of carrying loads of trains - maybe a train every 3 or so minutes. This is a lot more than any other line we have, as I don't think there are any level crossings and there won't be any mainline trains on the suburban tracks.

Would it make sense to connect the orbital metro to the Hazelhatch DART line, so that Tallaght could be connected to both the orbital metro and the DART?

The journey from Tallaght to the city centre then becomes what, maybe 20 minutes? That's better than it is at the moment (about 45 minutes). And since we're not now planning to build the Tallaght-St. Stephen's Green branch of the metro, it might be a good replacement.

So, metro and DART on the Clondalkin-Tallaght section of the orbital metro. Is it a runner?

MarkoP11 · 08-11-2005 03:14PM

TCD is a big issue

Groundwater, major trouble on the site the foundations of the new Usher library are actually being forced upwards by the water pressure

Owning to planning constraints TCD have built downwards in recent years to maximise space. The 3 most recent projects, Usher, INS and North East Corner all go down about 3 floors. The three oldest buildings on the site, Long Room, Rubbics and Printing House were on top on the proposed metro alignment, TCD rejected it. There is the small matter of remains of monastery (and cemetery) underneath the TCD site and finally the massive wine cellar under Front Square, lots of nasty things in the way

If you tried to realign at the Spencer Dock end you end up with a body of water above the tunnel route nearly the whole way to Pearse again not advisable, one of the things you will see in many tunnel plans is to run under streets since there is less effect on buildings and the land is in public ownership. Tunnelling through wet ground is possible its called closed mode its slow, tunnelling through dry ground, open mode is much faster and requires simpler tunnelling equipment, time is money

Proximity to the Liffey is minor but there is a lot of water down there and the ground water table is fairly high making it difficult to build something on the scale needed, doable but slow

In fact if you look at PFC the interchange with Luas was not to be at Stephen's Green anyway it has become Stephen's Green

Yes the original plans of the 1970's had Tallaght to Clondalkin to Heuston, nice yes doable yes but not much good unless the interconnector is in place, would require some heavy engineering and alignment works to get grade separation. Of course the RPA are obsessed with not using the only legally approved gauge. However this would move the capacity problem to the northern line where would you put all these extra trains ? The Howth Tallaght idea is something I've looked at it could be done but limited to 6tph it wouldn't be stunning and would be swamped the day it opened as it would beat Luas and bus by a huge margin. Something to do absolutely but it only works if the RPA play ball on the gauge issue

Bill McH · 08-11-2005 04:05PM

Thanks Marko, points taken about TCD.

(I know well that they are building down below ground level - I recently had cause to do some reading on the first floor of the Ussher (I think it might actually be level 4). It's the first level with the windows looking out over the cricket pitch, but inside at the atrium it looks like a long way down to the map library level at the very bottom. Anyway, walking across the gangway at either end of the atrium in the middle gave me the willies every time I had to do it!)

I was thinking about along Pearse Street itself, then kinda under Pearse Square, if you can imagine that. Pearse Square would, I think, be slightly to the East of the proposed line.

But anyway. It's not going to happen.

I take your point about the capacity on the Northern Line in relation to capacity for trains in from Tallaght. They've got to go somewhere.

There is one obvious solution to this, which is to do something about the Northern Line. Unfortunately, in our 34 billion, we don't seem to be able to do anything about that.:rolleyes:

I may as well tell you my solution - and it is one which will finally allow you to brand me as a complete nutter.:o (EDIT:-And I know, if we don't have the money for option 1-the northern line, we certainly don't have the money for option 2-below, but anyway/EDIT)

That is to turn the (outer?) canal dock beside Grand Canal Dock station - not the (inner?) dock (between Ringsend Road and the Liffey) iinto a public park -with a canal running through it and an underground station underneath it.

Nutty? Easier to do if approaching Pearse Station from College Green, but surely still doable if approaching Pearse Station from St. Stephen's Green.

The dock doesn't get used - except for about 2 days in the year when there's the Grand Canal festival. There are no seats for anyone to sit beside it and enjoy the water. You could keep the Waterways Ireland "box" there. You could still use the other dock as a dock.

That way you'd have somewhere to store your trains, while waiting for them to run through the city to, say, Tallaght. I think in Munich there are a couple of West-East S-Bahn lines which terminate in the east of the city, because there are not enough locations for them to go to in the East.

So even if there are restrictions on the Northern line, this means three things.

(A) You get to use your interconnector to much greater capacity.

(B) You get to use your 4-tracked Hazelhatch line to much greater capacity.

(C) the city gets a new park.

Bill McH · 08-11-2005 05:00PM

Sorry, I forgot to mention option 3, the really simple (and cheaper) one.

extra platforms underground at either Pearse or the Docklands Station, allowing trains to reverse here and head back West.

Bill McH · 08-11-2005 11:58PM

MarkoP11 wrote:

Yes the original plans of the 1970's had Tallaght to Clondalkin to Heuston, nice yes doable yes but not much good unless the interconnector is in place, would require some heavy engineering and alignment works to get grade separation. Of course the RPA are obsessed with not using the only legally approved gauge. However this would move the capacity problem to the northern line where would you put all these extra trains ? The Howth Tallaght idea is something I've looked at it could be done but limited to 6tph it wouldn't be stunning and would be swamped the day it opened as it would beat Luas and bus by a huge margin. Something to do absolutely but it only works if the RPA play ball on the gauge issue

Good to note that a really rapid Tallaght-City connection is still being keenly looked at.

Victor · 09-11-2005 12:28AM

Grand Canal Dock is only one dock, although it could be split in two.

Bill McH · 23-11-2005 10:03PM

One of the things which puzzles me about T21 is the LUAS line to Liffey Junction. The old line into Broadstone was going to be used for a metro under the Platform for Change proposal. (I'm not sure if we'll ever get another chance to see those maps, as they've been replaced by the T21 plan on the DTO website)

The plan to use this line for a LUAS reminds me of the old Harcourt Street line, now used for LUAS and which may have difficulty being upgraded to Metro status. Upgrading wouldn't be a problem on the Broadstone line, but it does seem a pity not to build the short tunnel required to bring metro trains between St. Stephen's Green and Liffey Junction. O'Connell Street-Broadstone is easily less than a mile. And hopefully this line could be extended over the years to Finglas, etc, (as originally planned) as cash becomes available, just as we will (I presume) eventually extend the metro south from St. Stephen's Green.

(In other words St. Stephen's Green-Airport and St. Stephen's Green-Liffey Junction sharing tunnel between O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green, as originally planned by the DTO).

It seems a pity to waste a perfectly good alignment on low capacity LUAS when it could be used for the metro. Obviously more costly, as we'd have to build a tunnel rather than an on-street LUAS between O'Connell Street and Broadstone.

Assuming that the costs of putting tracks down along the old alignment are pretty much the same whether it be used for metro or LUAS, the net cost of building the metro to Liffey Junction rather than the LUAS becomes the cost of building the O'Connell Street-Broadstone tunnel minus the money saved by not building the on-street LUAS tracks.

With 34 billion to be spent, could this money not be found somewhere?

Transport Package

Comments