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

sdanseo

lxflyer wrote: »

The opening/closing times of the gates are totally dependant upon the signalling and the signal locations.

Then new signal locations should be added.

It's not rocket science, although a new signal aspect or three, an extra hour's work for a couple of boffins and a man in CTC having to press a few extra buttons would probably make the unions have a wet dream so naturally it doesn't happen.

I can tell you from personal experience that trying to enforce change in a state run organisation like IÉ (even those that are no longer officially state run, but maintain the culture) is next to impossible.

As Lloyd-George once said, it's like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. As De Valera replied, we should be using spoons. :rolleyes:

LXFlyer

That's a multi-million euro job - at the moment the focus is on the city centre resignalling project from Malahide to Grand Canal Dock.

strassenwo!f

There are people on the board who believe the interconnector project should best be achieved by the currently propsed route, and that is fine. But I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no evidence available, seemingly, that a direct route across the city which would link up the Kildare line and the Northern line, and connect with the LUAS and, potentially, the metro, at somewhere (like College Green) which doesn't involve a big detour, was ever even looked at.

Certainly, the Irish Rail presentation to ABP about the interconnector doesn't inspire confidence that all options were considered. Apart from St. Stephen's Green, the only alternative which they looked at for a major city centre DART/Metro interchange, was Tara Street Station, and that location was flawed because an East-West line through there couldn't also go through St. Stephen's Green. (Clearly, IE believed that it was a flaw that they couldn't build a circuitous railway line to a location beside a 22 acre park with no commuters).

The RPA said, on the other hand, in their presentation to ABP, that a number of locations were suitable in the centre of Dublin for a metro/DART interchange.

That is, the RPA said there was at least more than one suitable location for a metro/DART interchange in the central area, yet IE said there was only one.

There is an obvious discrepancy here.

It's certainly something you'd expect the Department of Transport to have noticed, and to have ironed out donkeys' years ago. Yet still they allowed both proposals to go to the highest planning authority in the land, An Bord Pleanala (ABP), with all the large costs involved.

It is amazing that ABP didn't pick up on this quite obvious discrepancy, just as it is amazing that they had no questions for the RPA about their bizarre O'Connell Bridge plan.

I understand why the Strategic Infrastructure Act was enacted. But if you're going to have an ultimate planning body who make sure that things are done right, they've really got to be up to the task. It is certainly a worry if they fail to query glaring discrepancies, for example that outlined in the preceding two paragraphs, and fail to ask for and receive answers about specific parts of the project which will quite obviously be points of contention in the years to come.

Peregrine

Not this again..

Isn't there a thread for that?

murphaph

Yes there is and Straßenwolf was asked to keep such postings there and leave this thread to discuss the project as planned.

strassenwo!f

It has been proposed that Dublin will have an underground line built across the central parts of the city, linking the east and west parts of the city, integrating all the rail-based projects in the city and increasing the capacity of the DART system. This seems to be the most appropriate thread for my posts on this issue.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It has been proposed that Dublin will have an underground line built across the central parts of the city, linking the east and west parts of the city, integrating all the rail-based projects in the city and increasing the capacity of the DART system. This seems to be the most appropriate thread for my posts on this issue.

More appropriate than a thread called: College Green vs St Stephen's Green as public transport interchanges?

I'm not a mod on Infrastructure, so I can only welcome you over to the other thread.

strassenwo!f

Monument, no disrespect to Commuting and Transport, where I am sure you are an excellent moderator, but it is an infrastructure issue.

The approach by the Department of Transport and An Bord Pleanala to this is, as outlined above, a major concern. I believe that College Green is the one location in the city which will be able to withstand serious scrutiny, (and even then it'll be tough) if this DART underground project is to come to pass. As has been shown over the last few pages of this thread, St. Stephen's Green can't cut it, in terms of smaller passenger numbers, extra cost, etc.

Seriously.

College Green is probably the only place in the city which can fend off these quibbles, if the DART Underground project is actually to be built.

murphaph

Nothing of the sort has been shown over the course of this thread. These are just your personal assertions!

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There are people on the board who believe the interconnector project should best be achieved by the currently propsed route, and that is fine. But I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no evidence available, seemingly, that a direct route across the city which would link up the Kildare line and the Northern line, and connect with the LUAS and, potentially, the metro, at somewhere (like College Green) which doesn't involve a big detour, was ever even looked at.

Certainly, the Irish Rail presentation to ABP about the interconnector doesn't inspire confidence that all options were considered. Apart from St. Stephen's Green, the only alternative which they looked at for a major city centre DART/Metro interchange, was Tara Street Station, and that location was flawed because an East-West line through there couldn't also go through St. Stephen's Green. (Clearly, IE believed that it was a flaw that they couldn't build a circuitous railway line to a location beside a 22 acre park with no commuters).

The RPA said, on the other hand, in their presentation to ABP, that a number of locations were suitable in the centre of Dublin for a metro/DART interchange.

That is, the RPA said there was at least more than one suitable location for a metro/DART interchange in the central area, yet IE said there was only one.

There is an obvious discrepancy here.

It's certainly something you'd expect the Department of Transport to have noticed, and to have ironed out donkeys' years ago. Yet still they allowed both proposals to go to the highest planning authority in the land, An Bord Pleanala (ABP), with all the large costs involved.

It is amazing that ABP didn't pick up on this quite obvious discrepancy, just as it is amazing that they had no questions for the RPA about their bizarre O'Connell Bridge plan.

I understand why the Strategic Infrastructure Act was enacted. But if you're going to have an ultimate planning body who make sure that things are done right, they've really got to be up to the task. It is certainly a worry if they fail to query glaring discrepancies, for example that outlined in the preceding two paragraphs, and fail to ask for and receive answers about specific parts of the project which will quite obviously be points of contention in the years to come.

With respect, there is a difference between discussing something and flogging it to death. I don't for one minute doubt your sincerity, but there comes a time when this constant repetition gets tiresome for everyone.

You say it is reasonable to ask the question of the choice of route, yet when I suggested before that you contact them directly to ask, you came up with every excuse under the sun why you didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do it, yet you keep returning to ask the same damned question.

The only way you are going to get a straight answer is to ask the Irish Rail project team directly. Why don't you contact them, and then you can enlighten us all with their response, or are you just going to keep regurgitating the same posts again and again?

bonerjams03

Nobody cares.

This thread is for the discussion of the implementation of the DU as planned, not the background decisions which would have been considered with all their pros and cons, years ago. A decision was made, get over it.

strassenwo!f

Lxflyer, in 2005(almost ten years ago now) the Department of Transport received a document from me, outlining why I believed it would make sense to build the highest capacity line ever to be built in Dublin through the centre. That is, rather than their proposed more expensive and less efficient circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green.

I'd imagine lots of people also did the same, ie wrote to the Department of Transport, because it was so obvious that this was the incorrect thing for the city.

I never heard a word from the Department, but perhaps those others did.

What is needed now is an explanation of why the interconnector, as proposed, takes such an expensive, circuitous route around the city, rather than a direct route through it, which would directly serve more people and be considerably cheaper.

The An Bord Pleanala analysis didn't attempt to answer this question.

strassenwo!f

IRcolm wrote: »

Nobody cares.

This thread is for the discussion of the implementation of the DU as planned, not the background decisions which would have been considered with all their pros and cons, years ago. A decision was made, get over it.

That is exactly the attitude which means that there is almost certainly no possibility of ever having a direct rapid rail connection between the two largest population centres in the County of Dublin, ie Dublin city and Tallaght.

Squandered, due to the reality that lots of influential people had your attitude, ie "nobody cares".

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The An Bord Pleanala analysis didn't attempt to answer this question.

That's not ABP's job.

strassenwo!f

Is it not?

One state body says to ABP that there is only suitable location for a city centre metro/DART interchange. A second state body comes along and says there are a number (i.e more than one) of suitable locations for an interchange.

Given the amount of money involved and the likely disruption caused, if it's not ABP's job to sort out that discrepancy, whose is it?

Aard

The applicant. ABP does not make "either-or" decisions like that.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude which means that there is almost certainly no possibility of ever having a direct rapid rail connection between the two largest population centres in the County of Dublin, ie Dublin city and Tallaght.

Squandered, due to the reality that lots of influential people had your attitude, ie "nobody cares".

The choice of the current proposed routing for DU and your alternative of CG would have little or no impact on options for a link to Tallaght.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As has been shown over the last few pages of this thread, St. Stephen's Green can't cut it, in terms of smaller passenger numbers, extra cost, etc.

I'm not sure what thread you're reading as nothing of the sort has been shown on this, or the other threads where you keep running off on your Quixotic adventure.

1huge1

From Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/new-rail-projects-for-dublin-to-open-by-2017-1.1846101

New rail projects for Dublin to open by 2017

Irish people and visitors to Dublin will be able to take trains through the Phoenix Park tunnel from early 2016, travel on the new Luas cross-city line from October 2017, and possibly cycle on improved Liffeyside paths soon after.
The timeline emerged as the National Transport Authority briefed politicians on the impact of the new Luas line on the city’s commercial life and the future of its public transport.
Authority chief executive Gerry Murphy told the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications that “the most important factor” in the long-term planning of transport for Dublin would be the availability of State funding beyond 2020 and the feasibility of public-private partnerships.
He said just €16 million would be needed for trains from Co Kildare, which terminate at Heuston station, to run through the Phoenix Park tunnel to Drumcondra, Connolly, Pearse and Grand Canal Dock.

Phoenix Park tunnel
Mr Murphy said the tunnel offered the possibility of electrified services between Hazelhatch and Balbriggan in an expanded Dart network, which would also include services between Greystones and Maynooth.

Mr Murphy said the major Luas construction contract, for the route from St Stephen’s Green via Grangegorman to Cabra, was due to be awarded in December.
He said plans to reduce general traffic on the city quays to one lane while upgrading cycle facilities would not go ahead until the Luas was in place.
Post-2020, he said, funding was the key issue but a number of projects were being reassessed to bring the costs up to date. These included a Dart underground and a possible heavy rail link from Howth Junction to the airport, as well as Metro North.
In Cork city, investment over the coming years would focus on the city centre and some key bus and cycling corridors. In Galway, walking and cycling improvements were planned along with further development of bus prioritisation, Mr Murphy added.
Limerick city had been designated a Smarter Travel Demonstration Area and was receiving substantial funding for sustainable travel projects. In Waterford, there would be improvements to key bus corridors to the city centre, WIT and its surrounding employment area, and the hospital, he said.

Seems that Dart Underground is becoming more and more likely to be announced in the next capital spending budget.

They seem to be keen on the Dart to airport spur but also on metro north which I find confusing. I don't see the need for both (with preference for the mtro north).

While the Phoenix Park tunnel is a welcome short term solution.

Being from Limerick myself I found this very vague...

Limerick city had been designated a Smarter Travel Demonstration Area and was receiving substantial funding for sustainable travel projects.

AngryLips

1huge1 wrote: »

They seem to be keen on the Dart to airport spur but also on metro north which I find confusing. I don't see the need for both (with preference for the mtro north).

If they could offer a frequent and express service into the city, either as a standalone service or as part of the services to Droghenda or Enterprise services (or a combination of both) then it makes perfect sense, a large number of airport originating traffic would want an quick service into the city centre.

1huge1

Don't get me wrong, I think having both the option of a Dart spur from the airport and the Metro North would be great because as you say they would offer different benefits, its just in my experience with this country, when we try and do too much, we end up getting nothing at all.

BonkeyDonker

Both the Metro and a Spur would be viable, hell even throw in a Luas extension from Broombridge. Each would serve a different area, with little overlap.

Sam Russell

I would have thought a non-stop service from the Airport to Connolly via Howth Junction should have a frequency of at least 2 per hour if not 3 per hour, with a running time of 20 mins - electrified would be preferred. This would allow rolling stock to be designed for high numbers of luggage carrying passengers.

murphaph

Phoenix Park tunnel
Mr Murphy said the tunnel offered the possibility of electrified services between Hazelhatch and Balbriggan in an expanded Dart network, which would also include services between Greystones and Maynooth.

Article author hasn't got the faintest idea about transport plans in Dublin. Why are these amateurs let loose like this??!!

GerardKeating

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought a non-stop service from the Airport to Connolly via Howth Junction should have a frequency of at least 2 per hour if not 3 per hour, with a running time of 20 mins - electrified would be preferred. This would allow rolling stock to be designed for high numbers of luggage carrying passengers.

Or Make Metro-North a full DART service...

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

The applicant. ABP does not make "either-or" decisions like that.

But there were two applicants, at around the same time, looking for railway orders which required a common interchange.

Yet they had conflicting evidence about the interchange options. One said only one city centre location was suitable, the other said that there were a number of options.

And it's important, because the costs involved are large, and it potentially has a significant impact on very many public transport users.

The Strategic Infrastructure Act placed ABP at the very highest position in the planning process on these issues, except for situations where there were points of law in question.

In a situation such as the above, where there was such an obvious discrepancy in the material presented to ABP by these two state bodies, it would (in my humble opinion) have been proper for ABP to point out that one of the state bodies was obviously incorrect in the material which they had presented.

They didn't do this.

Instead, railway orders all round for anyone who wants them.

Aard

Are you suggesting that ABP did not carry out its statutory functions as it should have?

murphaph

Perhaps ABP did mention it to both applicants? If I and a neighbour in tge same type of house seek planning permission for 2 different kinds of extension and both of us claim in our applications that the position of each extension cannot be changed it doesn't really affect the planning authority's decisions. The proposal either satisfies planning law or it doesn't.

Sam Russell

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or Make Metro-North a full DART service...

A full Dart service would take more than 30 mins to get from the Airport to Connolly. The only purpose of such a link would that it be very quick and reliable.

Besides, a Dart service could not cope with so many suitcases.

loyatemu

the 747 bus runs every 15 mins and goes through the tunnel - how long does it take? (timetable says 30 mins from Busaras to the Airport, but I'd imagine its generally quicker than that). It also serves Heuston and O'Connell St.

I really can't see the justification in Dart spur that wouldn't be much quicker or serve any extra places - Metro North at least goes through various places that currently have poor public trasport and links up with other modes (though at an eye-wateringly high cost)