nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

New propoganda here but it really whets the appetite.....who knows if we'll have the nerve to do it though....

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

train

track

underground

rail

tunnel

interconnector

dart

suburban rail

transport 21

emu

electrification

ride me sideways

Quick Links

Comments

TheBandicoot

Strassenwolf, move to the other thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057213343

ianpresley

Self appointed internet watchdogs are quite rightly not noticed let alone disregarded by those tasked with making infrastructure plans.
Such forums are full of nuts.
Public open days are signalled and if you miss them then you weren't that interested.
These forums are hot air fantasy fiestas which no person who is actually doing anything serious would have the time or interest to engage with.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

For all our sakes Strassenwo!f, why don't you contact the Irish Rail project team directly and ask them why they chose the route they did over College Green?
From what I can tell, you took no active part in the planning process, have had no contact with any of the bodies involved, and are coming to conclusions in your own mind without actually discussing it with the people behind the scheme.
What could you possibly have to lose by doing that?

I haven't had a chance to look at this thread all week, so sorry for taking so long to reply to this sensible post.

What I think is not important. Whatever information I could get, as a non-resident, is not important, as I'm not somebody who will be paying for, or who will regularly benefit from, this proposed tunnel (and related schemes).

I think it is inherently a good plan, if properly implemented. But there is no way, when push comes to shove, that it will be implemented at all, if it can't be clearly shown that all the options were looked at, that all the impacts on movement of people into, out of and across the city were analysed at length, and that all the costs of all the options were properly considered.

It is, after all, a 2-4 bilion euro plan, depending on who you listen to. That is, in anybody's language, a considerable amouunt. "We spent 44 million on design" is not going to cut it if you can't, in the heel of the hunt, explain that you were designing the right route.

My comments on this issue over the last few weeks - which, until there is any evidence to the contrary, in my opinion represent something which should be better for Dublin than the currently proposed plan - should have been received with a deluge of posters linking or pointing me to documentation from the DOT, the RPA and IE, detailing these organisations' extensive deliberations over the last 10-15 years about the flaws of College Green (or other city centre locations) and further documentation about why St. Stephen's Green is the best location for an interchange, despite the extra costs involved in building DU through there, and the very unconvincing passenger figures which have been shown for that location.

This has not happened.

If it is all so obvious that St. Stephen's Green is so good, and people who question this are obtuse, clueless about public transport, etc., why has this documentation not been produced, or even mentioned on this thread?

Cinephille1888

I've followed this thread for years, and mostly am glad that sensible support of this plan has continued.

In fact, the idea that the debate here frequently sinks into the quagmire of Green vs Green show's a stubborn rejection of the facts that is just mind boggling.

I won't mention or repeat any of the many many valid reasons why College green is a terrible option. It's been done to death within here.

What I will say is that hopeful resurrection of these plans is not far away.

I can foresee Leo leaving a new business impact statement on his desk for the cabinet reshuffle. And then maybe the new victim passing on stacks of paper to civil servants who've handled it for years and asking more questions about it all in time for the 2015 budget.

With the bruh-ha-ha that will come with press releases, and spinning fan fare, We could have a program for stabling works from late 2015 onwards. With real tangible construction 2016-20.

With that we have to ask are the lines going to be read on the other end of the tunnels.

I can't place or refer to the posts which discuss this, but will the plan still go to Balbriggan, and Hazelhatch?

There was always short-sightedness in my opinion not going to Drogheda, but admittedly I live in Clogherhead so I've always supported a Dunleer and Drogheda North also.

Balbriggan is very close to the coast, parks and pitches are on either side of the track after the station.

A disused siding is on the coastal side. An old convent school and then pitches on the west.

With coastal erosion, I feel the turn back/stabling or even maintenance facilities should be on the land side of the tracks. What form will this take and how large will it be. Will there be provision for stabling northwards as well if the Dart is expanded again.

(Mosney "Station" could be added to post 2030 Northward expansions also.)

As for Hazelhatch end, is there going to be Inchicore facilities for Darts or will Clontarf be used.

Where is the Maynooth EMU depot going to be? Or will this be cut back to DMU services of higher frequency first before DU is completed?

I've also concerns that Howth branch services are too much of a conflict with Northern and Enterprise services still running through.

I am interested in the Railusers plan for a new tunnel from Clontarf too Airport/Swords, then re-joining in Skerries. At 2006 growth figures, and pure fantasy planning competency from Fingal, this could have been smart long term investment. Instead we are stuck with the Northern line as it is.

I would love a Howth shuttle or convert to branch of Metro West/North with an interchange. But considering recent investment in the footbridge, a shuttle is more likely.

Will Clongriffen and surrounding area's ever be developed fully to justify a bus and park and ride interchange on the east side? Current drop off zone and underground parking seem a bit of disjoint mess that isn't capable of serving future demand, let alone the ghost town feel of present.

I think i've other questions and ideas that may be neglected by the back and forth nature of this thread, but another time

monument

Can I suggest that this Green vs Green strand of discussion contuine on this new thread:

College Green vs St Stephen's Green as public transport interchanges

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057213343

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The task was to integrate all the rail-based forms of transport in the city and, until very recently (the last couple of years), that meant building via St. Stephen's Green. End of. It no longer does.

St. Stephen's Green was selected as the interchange with Luas BEFORE the link between the RED/Green was dropped by Mark O'Rourke, so it was never the only option.

St. Stephen's Green was chosen, in part (IMHO) because they wanted to go to Docklands and the large land bank that CIÉ had there.

LXFlyer

For all our sakes Strassenwo!f, why don't you contact the Irish Rail project team directly and ask them why they chose the route they did over College Green?

From what I can tell, you took no active part in the planning process, have had no contact with any of the bodies involved, and are coming to conclusions in your own mind without actually discussing it with the people behind the scheme.

What could you possibly have to lose by doing that?

Banjoxed

This "debate" reads curiously like the Rabbitte and Monahan mischief campaign against Luas. Who will ever forget who has read it the late Rudi Monahan's bizarre insistence that streets with Luas on them would have to be closed to pedestrians? Yet he was given the oxygen of publicity for whatever reason.

strassenwo!f

There it is again, Ian. That word. Undoable. I'll try to use it in the next forty or fifty years.

ianpresley

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Copyerselveson, I am emphatically not someone who thinks they know better than the people who are doing the planning.

.

After 100 pages of assuming that the planners cocked up big time in setting SSG as the major interchange location..............................?
Having missed the crucial detail that College Green was considered the better location but was UNDOABLE since PP would be impossible?

Olympic standard delusional.

Strassenwolf, you are a gold medal prospect at the World Fantasist Championships.

strassenwo!f

Copyerselveson, I am emphatically not someone who thinks they know better than the people who are doing the planning.

But it would have taken a very strong-willed, and probably foolish, individual in the DU design office, to pipe up and say that College Green would be a sensible place for the interchange. The task was to integrate all the rail-based forms of transport in the city and, until very recently (the last couple of years), that meant building via St. Stephen's Green. End of. It no longer does.

You might say that it could have been foreseen that the LUAS would be linked up, but this is to overestimate the importance of public transport in any Irish Government's psyche. Even the public consultations for the DU project, when the preferred LUAS link-up route had already been chosen, probably reflect the fact that nobody could be sure if the link-up would ever be built, so sticking with St. Stephen's Green was the only sure option.

The RPA's bizarre O'Connell Bridge idea was also born of the requirement from above that costs should be pared to the minimum. This meant reducing the number of stations on the route and it probably, at first sight, seemed a sensible option.

The reality, in terms of costs, of what would be involved in building such a station, is quite different, and I'd imagine the RPA would willingly walk away from it, if they could.

I certainly do not believe that I know more than these planners and designers. I am also not operating under the strictures that they are, and have been, in producing their work.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In the cases of both the metro and the interconnector, it has been shown above how costs would be saved by building an interchange at College Green

No, no it hasn't. Supposition and clearly incorrect guesswork is not proof.

What has been shown is that your proposal would require re-engineering pretty much the entire alignment, though.

Copyerselveson

Anyone remember the Unified Proposal or the Dargan plan or the Circle line? Every time a rail based infrastructure project starts in Dublin some person who thinks they know better than the actual people planning the work comes up with some "alternative" that is somehow better but on closer examination isn't.

These ideas for College Green are in exactly that category. I'll leave the rest of you to debate the idea but since this idea for College Green has emerged about 15 years too late I am not wasting anymore of my time on this. DU and Luas are interchanging at Stephen's Green, and as far as I am concerned that is the right decision.

strassenwo!f

Thanks Ian. Undoable. I hadn't heard it before.

strassenwo!f

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Have you read this page? If not, do so. https://www.tcd.ie/Buildings/projectsmetro.php

Also I cannot see how you can make a route that does not pass under the Arts Building(deep basements and even deeper piles and foundations), the Provost's House, the Public Theatre, or the Rubrics.

Ideally you would build the tunnel so that it infringes on TCD's space as little as possible, for reasons already discussed. This would probably best be achieved by building under the northern side of the Front Square buildings and the more modern buildings along College Street (the back of the dining areas, etc). Basically aiming to build the tunnel largely under Pearse Street.

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I am confused as to the route you envisage. Would there still be a stop at Pearse? if so. you are going to have either massive curves(to get back to a North/South axis) and/or extensive under-TCD tunneling.

The currently proposed station at Pearse is basically oriented North-South, as the line has to do the big St. Stephen's Green loop. A route through College Green would require this to be re-oriented in an East-West direction. I would think that an underground station directly under Pearse Street (at around the bit between Erne Street and Westland Row) would be a good choice, as it's very close to the current overground station.

This would iron out two of the major curves on the currently proposed route. It's also a nice, wide bit of road, so there shouldn't be any major compulsory purchase required, and there would be fairly small redesign costs involved.

ianpresley

Hard to know where to begin. Strassenwolf's prime thesis that SSG was selected for DU to interchange with the LUAS is actually invalid.
In fact the LUAS cross city was always planned anyway and MN was sent there for a later upgrade along the LUAS Green Line. SSG was selected for the DU link because it was recognised that building a station at College Green was undoable.

Satan help us :-). Strassenwolf's other assumption seems to be that the RPA planners and consultants are feckless wasters who while away the day on FB and surfing the net and then at 5:20pm, 10 mins before knocking off somebody says: "C'mon lads, what'll we do about this DU malarkey? - any preferences for the CC station?" "Shure, bejaney my mate is a porter in Trinity and he says a line there will destroy de place. Better put it in SSG". Clearly the RPA know nothing about transports issues and planning. How could they?

On the other hand I suspect a person of normal common sense can see that there is no chance whatsoever of a change of plans at this stage and Strassenwolf will end up like one of those old fogeys who never tires of telling all that if they'd done things his way all problems of the world would be avoided............not noticing how his audience raise their eyes to the heavens and wonder how long they'll have to listen to this stuck record farrago of unreality.

strassenwo!f

ianpresley wrote: »

Your costings contain schoolboy howler errors strassenwolf.

Let's examine that, shall we?

ianpresley wrote: »

Firstly, while the extra distance of the DU loop via SSG is about 1 Km, there will be no extra stations on that loop so tunneling itself would be in the order of 200 Euros extra.
But. Any College Green station would be at least twice the cost of the SSG station. Then with the associated new planning you won't have much change out of your 200.

There is absolutely no reason why an interchange station at College Green would be significantly more expensive than an interchange station at St. Stephen's Green. The cost of materials and labour should be about the same, as the station needn't be any bigger or deeper at College Green.

In fact, it might require less labour and materials, as you would probably put the interconnector on top with the metro down below (to enable it to get under the river). Thus the section with the really big platforms would not be as deep as is proposed for St. Stephen's Green and, therefore, less expensive to build.

I grant that there would probably be more cost involved in removing spoil from a really central location like College Green than a relatively quiet area like St. Stephen's Green, and there would have to be some extra measures taken to protect the important buildings in the neighbourhood, but those factors should not make a significant inroad into the 200 (or so) million saved by building a shorter route.

Even if they did, you would end up with a station which would serve more commuters (and others) directly, and would have much greater uptake and delivery efficiency than the proposed St. Stephen's Green route.

ianpresley wrote: »

Then, an extra station at College Green would be needed for Metro North. This again would be expensive both in construction and in planning.

There would not need to be an extra metro station at College Green. Instead of the proposed O'Connell Bridge "station" you would have metro stations at College Green and O'Connell Street (somewhere around the spire, maybe).

At present, the O'Connell Bridge plan is for two four-level station boxes linked by platforms under the river. This proposal, which is effectively to build an eight-level non-interchange station, is a hugely expensive solution.

If there were metro stations at College Green and O'Connell Street these would need to be no more than three levels deep (possibly two in the case of O'Connell Street, depending on where it is, as it wouldn't be an interchange station). The metro platforms could be incorporated into the station (as they are in pretty much every metro station around the world), so no need for the extra levels or expensive platforms under the river that are proposed for O'Connell Bridge. Considerable savings could thus be achieved and, in addition, metro stations become more accessible to more people because instead of one station you've got two (for a lower cost).

ianpresley wrote: »

So your overall costs would be higher,

In the cases of both the metro and the interconnector, it has been shown above how costs would be saved by building an interchange at College Green rather than by building the circuitous St. Stephen's Green loop and the absurd O'Connell Bridge metro station.

There would be costs involved in redesigning the plans, and going on the recent reports of 44 million euro for the design of the entire interconnector, you could say that around 30 million or so should cover all the redesign costs for the metro and interconnector in the city centre.

Again, not much in terms of the overall costs of the projects (or indeed the possible savings made by building a shorter interconnector route), and as I have shown earlier in these discussions, considerable improvement in efficiency of passenger uptake and delivery.

ianpresley wrote: »

In an ideal world there would be a station at College Green. But things don't work that way in reality.
You are also assuming that Dublin CC will remain largely unchanged for the next 100 years. Whereas in reality key development will drive changes to nubs and areas of popularity and that development will be moulded by what is feasible.

Far from making the assumptions you suggest, I'm sure it is highly likely that many changes will take place in Dublin over the coming century. But they're not mainly going to come in Georgian Dublin.

There are, simply, two things we can be pretty sure of. One is that the 22 acre St. Stephen's Green park is going to remain there, with no commuters, for ever. The other is that College Green is going to be a busy place, all day, every day.

ianpresley wrote: »

The RPA's legal advice is that PP will be impossible for a station at College Green.

Interesting one, this. The roads through College Green are owned by the State, the major player (TCD) is a branch of the State, and the companies which propose to build these underground lines are owned by the State.

Yet legal advice was apparently needed, and this advice was that it couldn't be done?

Sam Russell

As was said to an American visitor who asked why Irish railway stations were so far from the town, he was told that the railway companies liked them near the railwaylines.

[The 19th century landowners would not sell the land to the railway companies].

If the interchange station is at SSG, that is where the passengers will interchange or exit and walk. If it is in CG, likewise.

As I said in an earlier post, nobody would route a train to Galway through Portarlington, but that is what they did. Does not stop anyone going by train that way, but the motorway does not.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think it is important to stress that everybody knows it would be difficult to build this major line through College Green. But, the passenger numbers appear to be in favour of it.

On the other hand, St. Stephen's Green doesn't have the passenger figures in its favour, it doesn't solely have the LUAS, and building a line through there would involve considerable damage to a much-loved park and considerable extra expense.

Those who want to go to College Green will get the DART to SSG or O'Connell Street and walk.

Also the old adage "If you build it, they will come" will also apply, the existence of stations will alter the dynamic of the area.

antoinolachtnai

The curves on DART Underground are very tight as they are.

The obvious answer to your concern about the SSG catchment would be (a) to do a study (which I think would show a large working population Between the Green and the Canal) and (b) if justified to have a station at either end of the park, One catering for the Harcourt St side, the other catering for the Baggot Street side.

There is really a case for making the curve wider to serve somewhere like Liberties or the Coombe. There are a lot of people out there, and they are underserved.

College Green also has a problem in that it will be served with buses to a much lesser degree once Luas Cross-City goes in, and so will be less attractive as a location for changing from bus to rail.

TheBandicoot

BTW, is the http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/ site meant to be down? Without the plans and information there it makes it a lot more difficult for us to have meaningful discussion.

TheBandicoot

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Of course TCD are vehemently opposed to any tunnelling in their vicinity. This is the obvious starting point in negotiation. And I can understand why they would have used this with the metro, what with the libraries, etc. But an East-West line which might (but probably would) go under mainly residential and catering areas on the north side of the campus

Have you read this page? If not, do so. https://www.tcd.ie/Buildings/projectsmetro.php

Also I cannot see how you can make a route that does not pass under the Arts Building(deep basements and even deeper piles and foundations), the Provost's House, the Public Theatre, or the Rubrics.

TCD believes that the presence of cellars and vaults under the Provost's house and the Public Theatre make [the] route unattractive and will require intervention to the buildings in order to determine foundation depths and basement locations.

I am confused as to the route you envisage. Would there still be a stop at Pearse? if so. you are going to have either massive curves(to get back to a North/South axis) and/or extensive under-TCD tunneling.

ianpresley

Your costings contain schoolboy howler errors strassenwolf.
Firstly, while the extra distance of the DU loop via SSG is about 1 Km, there will be no extra stations on that loop so tunneling itself would be in the order of 200 Million Euros extra.
But. Any College Green station would be at least twice the cost of the SSG station. Then with the associated new planning you won't have much change out of your 200.
Then, an extra station at College Green would be needed for Metro North. This again would be expensive both in construction and in planning.
So your overall costs would be higher,
In an ideal world there would be a station at College Green. But things don't work that way in reality.
You are also assuming that Dublin CC will remain largely unchanged for the next 100 years. Whereas in reality key development will drive changes to nubs and areas of popularity and that development will be moulded by what is feasible.
The RPA's legal advice is that PP will be impossible for a station at College Green.

Now if DU went back to the drawing board what's to stop MN getting the nod ahead of it? That would complicate things further.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the design of DU will be changed at this point. Nor should there be.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Apologies to the board, but it is necessary to deal with MYOB's misunderstanding of what's involved.

Building the interconnector through College Green would not involve extra expense. It would be cheaper, because the route between Heuston and Pearse would be shorter.

You'd probably save a couple of hundred million, maybe more, in tunnelling costs because of the shorter route. Against that, you'd have to do a bit of redesign of the route, and an application for a revised planning order. (It's very hard to know how much this might come to, but the latest estimate from the press put the entire planning cost, including the railway order application, at 44 million euro. So you might be looking at at 10-20 milion euro. That is against savings on tunnelling of at least a couple of hundred milion euro.

It is hard to be definite, because the project has been variously costed at around 2, 3 and 4 bilion euro. Nobody seems to know for sure).

There's no doubt that construction of an interconnector station at College Green would cost more to the city, in the short term, than construction of a station at St. Stephen's Green, that "incredibly easy" location, as described on this board. The problem is what happens in years after construction.

So, to be clear, MYOB, a route via College Green would be shorter, and cheaper, than the St. Stephen's Green detour. It would be more difficult, that is for sure, but it would appear that it would bring more benefits for the Dublin commuter, overall, over the next 100 or so years.

I haven't misunderstood anything, thanks very much.

You are proposing a complete rework of the planning, a new railway order, construction that would be orders of magnitude more difficult and unimagineably destructive and claim this would be significantly cheaper due to it taking a small amount off the full tunnel length (which will not save "a couple of a hundred million" either).

I think the issue here is that you don't understand how to cost things. You have clearly inaccurate, back of a fag packet scratchings that you've convinced yourself "prove" that your obsession is cheaper; but they don't convince anyone else.

strassenwo!f

MYOB wrote: »

Really? What extra expense is there in building to what has been planned and granted a railway order versus the cost of a huge rework of plans, a new railway order, and digging up part of the core city centre road network with the resulting damage to all forms of transport (private, public, cycle and foot).

Your proposal is the one with considerable extra expense - how you've managed to convince yourself of the reverse astounds me.

Apologies to the board, but it is necessary to deal with MYOB's misunderstanding of what's involved.

Building the interconnector through College Green would not involve extra expense. It would be cheaper, because the route between Heuston and Pearse would be shorter.

You'd probably save a couple of hundred million, maybe more, in tunnelling costs because of the shorter route. Against that, you'd have to do a bit of redesign of the route, and an application for a revised planning order. (It's very hard to know how much this might come to, but the latest estimate from the press put the entire planning cost, including the railway order application, at 44 million euro. So you might be looking at at 10-20 milion euro. That is against savings on tunnelling of at least a couple of hundred milion euro.

It is hard to be definite, because the project has been variously costed at around 2, 3 and 4 bilion euro. Nobody seems to know for sure).

There's no doubt that construction of an interconnector station at College Green would cost more to the city, in the short term, than construction of a station at St. Stephen's Green, that "incredibly easy" location, as described on this board. The problem is what happens in years after construction.

So, to be clear, MYOB, a route via College Green would be shorter, and cheaper, than the St. Stephen's Green detour. It would be more difficult, that is for sure, but it would appear that it would bring more benefits for the Dublin commuter, overall, over the next 100 or so years.

strassenwo!f

No MYOB, no vested interest at all. I don't even live in the country, and own no property in Dublin or shares in any Ireland-based company.

Nor, as far as I know, do any of my relatives.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

On the other hand, St. Stephen's Green doesn't have the passenger figures in its favour

According to your guesswork.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

it doesn't solely have the LUAS,

As opposed to what?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

and building a line through there would involve considerable damage to a much-loved park

As opposed to paralysing the entire city centre by digging up College Green for years?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

considerable extra expense.

Really? What extra expense is there in building to what has been planned and granted a railway order versus the cost of a huge rework of plans, a new railway order, and digging up part of the core city centre road network with the resulting damage to all forms of transport (private, public, cycle and foot).

Your proposal is the one with considerable extra expense - how you've managed to convince yourself of the reverse astounds me.

At this stage you have me convinced you have a vested interest in having it at College Green. Do you own property there or are you upset at possibly having to walk five minutes from the train to work when its done?

strassenwo!f

I think it is important to stress that everybody knows it would be difficult to build this major line through College Green. But, the passenger numbers appear to be in favour of it.

On the other hand, St. Stephen's Green doesn't have the passenger figures in its favour, it doesn't solely have the LUAS, and building a line through there would involve considerable damage to a much-loved park and considerable extra expense.

Copyerselveson

At this late stage in the game with a Railway Order in place and detailed design complete I don't consider there's a cat's chance in hell the design will be re-done, a new railway order granted and the inevitable public enquiry completed and An Taisce placated in order to allow Dart Underground and LUAS to connect at College Green.

The interchange will be St Stephen's Green. Not a bad location at all - at the top of Grafton Street and in the heart of the City Centre business district and a stone's throw from Government Buildings.

strassenwo!f

I may not have made myself clear in the previous post.

Of course TCD are vehemently opposed to any tunnelling in their vicinity. This is the obvious starting point in negotiation. And I can understand why they would have used this with the metro, what with the libraries, etc. But an East-West line which might (but probably would) go under mainly residential and catering areas on the north side of the campus, it holds little water.

Anyway, Ian, any sources for your quotes?