strassenwo!f wrote: » It could hardly have been outside ABP's remit to ask "well, we're impressed, X looks like a lovely option, but, since you're here, and you've spent at least a million euro preparing for this presentation, could you tell us about locations Y and Z. What were the pros and cons of locations Y and Z?"
strassenwo!f wrote: » And, I suppose, another query is how the RPA and IE didn't manage to get their story straight, after all those years working together.
The ABP response was to say that it "was a national transport policy requirement that the interchange be at St. Stephen's Green".
Jack Noble wrote: » What are you talking about? You clearly fail to grasp even the basics of the planning process and An Bord Pleanala's role in it -- and as a consequence are posting nonsense here on so many levels. Regarding the RPA and interchange 'options' for Metro North with Dart, all the options were examined within the constraints of the chosen route options for MN, the existing Maynooth-Connolly rail line, the current Dart line and the chosen DTO/NTA/IE alignment and stations for the Interconnector/Dart Underground. Lets call the planned Maynooth-Connolly-Bray line Dart A and the DartU section Dart B. MN could only interchange with Dart A at a number of existing locations, depending on the alignment chosen for Metro North. These were Liffey Junction, Drumcondra and Tara Street. All were examined as part of the public consultation on the route selection for Metro North. Given the alignment chosen for MN, Drumcondra was chosen and Tara St was rejected, specifically because it involved an alignment under Trinity and also because the chosen O'Connell Bridge stop with on Westmoreland Street put Tara St a short walk away.As for MN's interchange with Dart B, there was only ever one option there - St Stephen's Green - because MN was always going there to interchange with Luas and Dart B ran directly under that station since DTO/NTA/IE saw this as a key location to be served by Dart Undeground. It was a no brainer. Either you fail to understand the fundamentals of this -- or you are being utterly disingenuous with the line you are taking that the RPA and IE somehow 'didn't manage to get their story straight' before ABP. Which is it? Also, can you please put up a link for the following line you keep quoting: The only place I have ever seen this mentioned is on this board -- by YOU. And when I Google this line or sections of it, the only place the search shows is this thread. If it was said, I'm genuinely interested in seeing it and the context it was said in. If it was not said by ABP, then I'm curious to know why you keep posting it.
strassenwo!f wrote: » This is not about IE's presentation to ABP. It's about the RPA's. It has already been established that IE looked at only two options in the city for a metro/DART interchange. They said only one was suitable, and that was St. Stephen's Green. The RPA said, in their presentation to ABP, that a number of locations in the city were suitable for such an interchange. My query is, why did ABP not ask them about these other suitable locations.
Jack Noble wrote: » Dart Underground has a railway order (planning permission) and is ready to proceed as soon as the government can fund it. Currently, the govt is seeking to secure available EU funding, plus long-term private financing, alongside funding from its own future capital budgets. The cost of the entire project is in the region of €4billion. The project will be considered for the next Capital Programme post-2016 and a decision will be made next year on whether DartU will be included.
spacetweek wrote: » Just build Metro North and possibly a one-line DART spur. Nothing else is needed in North Dublin.
1huge1 wrote: » Just so I fully understand, we won't hear anything on this in this years budget, correct? Expect to hear it sometime in 2015 when they announce the next Capital Programme? One can't help but feel the old ''kicking the can down the road'' mentality. This really needs to be the country's next big infrastructure project. It clearly seems to have taken priority over Metro North anyway.
strassenwo!f wrote: » But Jack, the bit I have put in bold is the key point in the whole discussion over the last 50 or so pages of this thread. Ireland doesn't need to build a longer, more expensive route, for the interconnector to connect with the LUAS, because the LUAS could now connect with the interconnector at College Green. (And instead of building a massively expensive metro station at O'Connell Bridge, where it is proposed to build two stations at one location, the RPA could build two stations, one at College Green and one on O'Connell Street). College Green could then be the major interchange of the LUAS, metro and DART. I don't buy your idea, from the bold bit above, that Dublin has only one option. College Green, as a major city centre interchange, hopefully pedestrianized, I can see as progress for Dublin. I haven't seen any figures which show that there was only ever one option for Dublin. We know that the LUAS is going to be going through College Green; I think we all know that the RPA's Idea of the two stations at O'Connell Bridge is going to be revisited. A DART Underground through College Green could connect with both the LUAS and metro. So, no need for the interchange of all of these modes of transport to be connected at St. Stephen's Green. Cheaper, because it would be shorter for the DART Underground to be built through there. Just as well connected to the metro and LUAS. More efficient, because it would allow a larger number of people to readily access trains bringing them into and out of the city. Despite what you say in that bold bit above, I don't believe that Dublin has only one option.
Jack Noble wrote: » The DartU line is not 'shorter' because it's designed to serve certain areas, not simply link Docklands to Heuston. And how do you know it's 'cheaper'? Have you detailed costings for the two proposals? Can you tell us the difference in tunneling costs between your 'shorter' route via CG and NTA/IE's 'detour' route via SSG? Can you tell us the difference in construction costs between corresponding deep-level interchange stations at CG and SSG, or alternatives for the Pearse interchange necessitated by a CG routing? Have you allowed for the costs associated with any delays that would be enforced on any construction at CG given the inevitable court challenges and protests that would happen if such massive works at CG were given the go-ahead? And what about any CPO costs for properties in the CG area - have you factored those into your 'cheaper' route? I won't be holding my breath for detailed, fully costed answers. BTW, have you asked the NTA, IE and RPA yet why they ignored the obvious location of College Green?
strassenwo!f wrote: » And, that bit about the national tansport policy requirement, I haven't been able to find it either. I know they said it, and when I'm back in Ireland in August, I'll find it.
Jack Noble wrote: » .....I look forward to some answers to the above. And I hope other contributors to this thread will too. Over to you so, Strassenwolf...
strassenwo!f wrote: » Jack, I doubt if I could make that stuff up. I'll be back to you in August.
Aard wrote: » Anything ABP stated will be on their website in the relevant RO file. Anything not in the file is irrelevant.
MYOB wrote: » When are you going to actually show SSG to be more expensive? It's become a mantra but you've no proof. And now no source for a claimed quote too.
strassenwo!f wrote: » Clearly Heuston -Spencer Dock via College Green is shorter than Heuston-Spencer Dock via St. Stephen's Green. The costs of assembling the TBM and putting it into the ground are very large. But those costs are the same whether the TBM goes via College Green or St. Stephen's Green. The main difference in costs would be related to the fact that tunnelling via St. Stephen's Green would be considerably longer, the last time I looked around 1 kilometre. That's probably around an extra 200 million euro in tunnelling costs. The fact that a direct route via College Green would remove two of the three major curves on the proposed St. Stephen's Green route would probably also reduce costs a bit, but I doubt if it would be significant in the overall scheme. But we're probably looking at savings of around 200 million euro by building a shorter, more direct route via College Green. Now, obviously, there are a number of nice buildings in College Green, like the Bank of Ireland and the front of Trinity. We don't want them to collapse during or after tunnelling, so there'd have to be extra costs to ensure that doesn't happen. But by the same token, the proposed route via St. Stephen's Green goes (last time I looked) directly under Government Buildings on Merrion Street. It'd be important to ensure that that doesn't crumble into the dust either. So, on tunnelling costs, you're certainly looking at savings of between 100 million and 200 million euro.
strassenwo!f wrote: » Jack, can you look at the post of mine which you just quoted. Where is the difficulty in understanding that a route via College Green would be cheaper?
Telchak wrote: » It would likely cost as much to redesign the line and prepare a new railway order, so why bother?
strassenwo!f wrote: » The costs of assembling the TBM and putting it into the ground are very large. But those costs are the same whether the TBM goes via College Green or St. Stephen's Green. The main difference in costs would be related to the fact that tunnelling via St. Stephen's Green would be considerably longer, the last time I looked around 1 kilometre. That's probably around an extra 200 million euro in tunnelling costs.
Jack Noble wrote: » And how do you know it's 'cheaper'? Have you detailed costings for the two proposals? Can you tell us the difference in tunneling costs between your 'shorter' route via CG and NTA/IE's 'detour' route via SSG? Can you tell us the difference in construction costs between corresponding deep-level interchange stations at CG and SSG, or alternatives for the Pearse interchange necessitated by a CG routing? Have you allowed for the costs associated with any delays that would be enforced on any construction at CG given the inevitable court challenges and protests that would happen if such massive works at CG were given the go-ahead? And what about any CPO costs for properties in the CG area - have you factored those into your 'cheaper' route?
