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
Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study
Options
Comments
-
Second, regards penetration, well there's no magic bullet that will fix all of Dublin's shortcomings. Realistically I think 2 or 3 heavy rail tunnels are required if we're serious about giving this city a proper system. I think DU and HR8 would solve an awful lot, if not everything.
I agree, I think to get broad coverage of the city centre you would need three alignments, two on the north-south axis covering:
- O'Connell Street to Grafton Street (MN)
- Capel Street to Camden Street taking in George's Street
And a east-west alignment on the southside (DU)
There's very little point building out more radial routes without getting these parts of the city centre covered as well.0 -
The levies are a matter for Dublin City Council to decide, not the RPA or NTA or whoever else. Councillors can decide not to make a development contribution scheme. It's a separate decisionmaking body from the one that plans the infrastructure.
Do you not realise that by accepting this daft and stupid study, you are simply contributing to a further delay of offering anything whatsoever to North Dublin. Politicians are playing games here and the word "STOP" should be screamed from the rooftops!0 -
My comment that you quoted had to do with levies, so I'm not sure what you're on about.0
-
Metro North was pushed down the road a good while ago, it just took many of us a while to fully admit that. Mainly because of lack of support.
Look at the route in my post above -- spending Metro North -type funding on a project that links the airport to the rest of island is far more likely to get EU funding and wider support.
Well done you! All you have done is contribute to yet another contrived indulgence that will result in absolutely nothing. People on boards called all this crap years ago. Continue on with your crayonism.0 -
Metro North doesn't have the political will for funding. Engaging with the NTA will not change that. It is possible to engage with the NTA, while lobbying central politicians to keep MN on the agenda. It is also possible to submit your views to the NTA that you believe MN is the best solution. Not engaging, for whatever reason, is akin to not voting and then complaining after the fact.0
-
Advertisement
-
Metro North doesn't have the political will for funding. Engaging with the NTA will not change that. It is possible to engage with the NTA, while lobbying central politicians to keep MN on the agenda. It is also possible to submit your views to the NTA that you believe MN is the best solution. Not engaging, for whatever reason, is akin to not voting and then complaining after the fact.
Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?0 -
My comment that you quoted had to do with levies, so I'm not sure what you're on about.
He's getting annoyed that metro north isn't going to get built. Toys out of pram comes to mind.Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?
Things change.
While Dublin is behind EU cities of similar size in its rail provision, many of the most comparable cities are in countries which are not as car obsessed, don't have our rural-focused parliament, dysfunctional city government made that way by national government, and they were not as poor as us in the 70s and 80s.
Too many people in Dublin are unrealistic of what can be done for public transport in the city because they have their blinkers on to the above facts which hampers Dublin. Few Dubliners demand change and the issue is made worse by too many Dublin TDs acting as national politicians in a system where you have to look after your own area, at least to some extent. Acting as national politicians is what all TDs should be doing, but the system will punish areas where TDs can't see the benefits in pushing projects for their city. I did not like Bertie myself, but at least he had some vision for our capital city beyond more road building and a few small public transport projects.
Being a car obsessed country also does not help. Co Dublin and more-so the commuter belt around is also largely car obsessed. Large spending on public transport will be just as hard if not harder for many GDA-based car-only users (ie people who rarely use public transport) -- and there's many such people.
You don't like change so you're best to tell the NTA to stick with MN and then tell your TDs that and tell your councilors that etc. Speaking to consultants 10 years ago does not really cut it.
But HR8 modified to allow for IC is a far better idea whlch would have far wider appeal (to the city, the region and the country), far better connectivity, and better funding support.0 -
Until people vote in politicians who really care about public transport.Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?0 -
Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?
Let's not personalise thingsHe's getting annoyed that metro north isn't going to get built. Toys out of pram comes to mind.
Moderator0 -
He's getting annoyed that metro north isn't going to get built. Toys out of pram comes to mind.
Things change.
While Dublin is behind EU cities of similar size in its rail provision, many of the most comparable cities are in countries which are not as car obsessed, don't have our rural-focused parliament, dysfunctional city government made that way by national government, and they were not as poor as us in the 70s and 80s.
Too many people in Dublin are unrealistic of what can be done for public transport in the city because they have their blinkers on to the above facts which hampers Dublin. Few Dubliners demand change and the issue is made worse by too many Dublin TDs acting as national politicians in a system where you have to look after your own area, at least to some extent. Acting as national politicians is what all TDs should be doing, but the system will punish areas where TDs can't see the benefits in pushing projects for their city. I did not like Bertie myself, but at least he had some vision for our capital city beyond more road building and a few small public transport projects.
Being a car obsessed country also does not help. Co Dublin and more-so the commuter belt around is also largely car obsessed. Large spending on public transport will be just as hard if not harder for many GDA-based car-only users (ie people who rarely use public transport) -- and there's many such people.
You don't like change so you're best to tell the NTA to stick with MN and then tell your TDs that and tell your councilors that etc. Speaking to consultants 10 years ago does not really cut it.
But HR8 modified to allow for IC is a far better idea whlch would have far wider appeal (to the city, the region and the country), far better connectivity, and better funding support.
Yep, I'm getting annoyed that MN isn't going to be built. What's the problem with that?
You talk about things changing? You obviously like change and that changing will go on and on and on and deliver nothing while the likes of you invent yet more drawings that you havent the ability to bring beyond this forum or a free for all public consultation.
As for speaking to consultants 10 years ago and your disrespect for that....WTF are you on about? This was happening. It was engagement to try and make things better. But you think that your crayon fetish and acceptance of HR8 and any submission you make is better than face to face dealings 10 years ago? You are merely a lamb to the slaughter that will make no difference. Some people put in the work a decade ago that brought us to the brink of something tangible. Instead of bull****ting on an irrelevant forum , they were meeting people that had influence. Unfortunately they were victims of politics, the same way you will be.
Quite frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep, I'm getting annoyed that MN isn't going to be built. What's the problem with that?
You talk about things changing? You obviously like change and that changing will go on and on and on and deliver nothing while the likes of you invent yet more drawings that you havent the ability to bring beyond this forum or a free for all public consultation.
As for speaking to consultants 10 years ago and your disrespect for that....WTF are you on about? This was happening. It was engagement to try and make things better. But you think that your crayon fetish and acceptance of HR8 and any submission you make is better than face to face dealings 10 years ago? You are merely a lamb to the slaughter that will make no difference. Some people put in the work a decade ago that brought us to the brink of something tangible. Instead of bull****ting on an irrelevant forum , they were meeting people that had influence. Unfortunately they were victims of politics, the same way you will be.
Quite frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Jesus, wouldn't want to be stuck in front of you in traffic.0 -
Jesus, wouldn't want to be stuck in front of you in traffic.
Is that the best you have to offer? Or maybe you just accept all the BS that's being thrown out to you?
Anyone supporting this study is nothing more than misguided and I can't apologise for saying that. History repeats itself and if any of you care to consult history, you could educate yourselves.0 -
Yep, I'm getting annoyed that MN isn't going to be built. What's the problem with that?
You talk about things changing? You obviously like change and that changing will go on and on and on and deliver nothing while the likes of you invent yet more drawings that you havent the ability to bring beyond this forum or a free for all public consultation.
As for speaking to consultants 10 years ago and your disrespect for that....WTF are you on about? This was happening. It was engagement to try and make things better. But you think that your crayon fetish and acceptance of HR8 and any submission you make is better than face to face dealings 10 years ago? You are merely a lamb to the slaughter that will make no difference. Some people put in the work a decade ago that brought us to the brink of something tangible. Instead of bull****ting on an irrelevant forum , they were meeting people that had influence. Unfortunately they were victims of politics, the same way you will be.
Quite frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Calm down. You can make your point without getting personal.
- Moderator (Please do not reply to this message on-thread.)0 -
I'm not all that keen on a Metro North-Lite just because I've seen what spacing out stations and providing inadequate platform lengths or loading gagues does in other cities. It makes a lasting mess of things that can never be rectified. I'm not sure about at grade running either, especially at the junction for the road to Santry and also perhaps at Collins Ave. I would accept leaving out the O'Connell Bridge station with its engineering complexities in exchange for an O'Connell St. station but shortening the platforms by like 30% is just tempting fate.
I'd rather the completely new plan that monument and others outlined (similar to HR8) than the miserly haircuts to Metro North.
But... I have two salient points to make about HR8 itself.
In the report HR8 will apparently cost about €1950 million +/- €200 million. Metro North apparently will cost €2500 million +/- 800 million. Even optimised, they think it will cost around €2100 million +/- 700 million. It's under the light rail category while HR8 is well, heavy rail. Do those numbers sound convincing to other posters? Especially when an organisation like Irish Rail will be basically running it.
It also really heavily relies on Dart Underground being built to be of further benefit.
The other thing is that Metro Dublin's route is similar to what Monument drew but the report disingenuously throws it in the bin rather than simply proposing an alternative that drops the unnecessary tunnel to St. James' hospital. And brings the northern end away from the estuary and a bit more towards Donabate. Using their own rolling stock in the Phoenix Park tunnel is not a big deal if Dart Underground is also built.
And what's this about single bore tunnels being necessarily more dangerous? It's all about how they are built?? I doubt they can be built for as cheaply as the Metro Dublin crowd suggested.0 -
Yep, I'm getting annoyed that MN isn't going to be built. What's the problem with that
Nothing in principal. Expect the way you're going about it (trying to dictate others can't have different views).You talk about things changing? You obviously like change and that changing will go on and on and on and deliver nothing while the likes of you invent yet more drawings that you havent the ability to bring beyond this forum or a free for all public consultation.
I don't always like change but when there is change that you can't stop, you should try to adapt to that change.
It's your choice how you adapt -- from agreeing with another option or pushing stronger for MN. Sure getting annoyed with people, on an irrelevant forum, because they have a different view is an option, but it's not a very productive one.
You say "free for all public consultation", but that's just really what bog standard public consultation should be. Consultation only with people who have influence is not public consultation, it's selective consultation.As for speaking to consultants 10 years ago and your disrespect for that....WTF are you on about? This was happening. It was engagement to try and make things better. But you think that your crayon fetish and acceptance of HR8 and any submission you make is better than face to face dealings 10 years ago? You are merely a lamb to the slaughter that will make no difference. Some people put in the work a decade ago that brought us to the brink of something tangible.
I think you missunderstood me -- when I said the face-to-face 10 years ago would not cut it, I mean in the context of things moving on -- if you or others want MN to still go ahead you need to push for that now. That includes engaging with the NTA.
If you have given up that's fine. But in the time it takes to post here, you could email the NTA and your local TD etc.
If this forum is as irrelevant as you say, it's unclear why you're getting so worked up.Instead of bull****ting on an irrelevant forum , they were meeting people that had influence. Unfortunately they were victims of politics, the same way you will be.
Why get so worked up if this place is so irrelevant?0 -
lucernarian wrote: »I'm not all that keen on a Metro North-Lite just because I've seen what spacing out stations and providing inadequate platform lengths or loading gagues does in other cities.
Is this actually a problem in other cities and what cities are we talking about?0 -
In fairness to Grandeeod, Gerry Murphy (ex CEO of the NTA as of yesterday) pointed out that by 2011 Metro North had already cost €156,000,000. Of course since then, central government seem disinclined to fund the project -- as can be seen by MM's absence from the NTA's implementation plan. If MN dies, it won't be the NTA's fault.0
-
The biggest example I can think of was Shanghai Metro Line 6 (and to a certain extent Line 8) and the Kuala Lumpur Monorail.Is this actually a problem in other cities and what cities are we talking about?
As to whether this is actually problem in other cities, you can take it for granted that some city, somewhere in the world would have experienced this problem. I suppose the examples above are what springs to mind, I haven't looked through many examples yet. I thought I was stating the obvious to be honest!0 -
There's no hard and fast rules for metro station spacings. Paris has incredibly short distances between stations, which poses its own problems. London has quite long distances between stations, even in zone 1.
A paper I read on the matter (honestly can't find the reference) suggested that longer spacing in central areas could better serve passengers due to less slow-down-speed-up time wasted. I'd prefer to see two central station with many exits each, than three stations with just one exit, for example.0 -
Have a look at more than the first line of my earlier post again. I did say I would accept leaving out the O'Connell St. Bridge station and besides this is a revised proposal that has only recently reached the light of day. It's going to need further evaluation and debate. I said "what spacing out stations... does" in a post and that was all. A passing reference to a very material change to the plan.There's no hard and fast rules for metro station spacings. Paris has incredibly short distances between stations, which poses its own problems. London has quite long distances between stations, even in zone 1.
A paper I read on the matter (honestly can't find the reference) suggested that longer spacing in central areas could better serve passengers due to less slow-down-speed-up time wasted. I'd prefer to see two central station with many exits each, than three stations with just one exit, for example.
You haven't said anything about the reduction in platform lengths and the problems with HR8 etc. I.e. the vast bulk of what I wrote. One poster quotes a line from my whole post to enquire what we can all take for granted (that there are badly-planned metro lines in the world) and no comment on anything else said.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're absolutely right about the platform lengths, particularly in the underground stations which can't be easily modified after the fact.
I would be in favour of the at-grade stop in Ballymun. The at-grade running through Collins Ave would have to be handled well to succeed. I suppose this makes it more of a Luas with some underground sections. In fact were this option to go ahead, I would hope that the branding etc would be that of Luas. I digress... a matter for another thread.
---
Wrt costings... I can only take what the report says. MN is stated to have a more significant negative impact on the environment than Option HR8. I imagine that would add to its cost.
And yes, it completely relies on DU, imo. Can we take it for granted that DU will go ahead... I'm not 100% sure we can. However, the funding appears to have been more readily available for DU than MN in the recent past. The connection to the PPT (i.e. Option HR9 as I think you suggest) is poorly dealt with in the report. I think that if HR8 goes ahead, it should have a tie-in to the PPT at Liffey Junction, allowing suburban trains to bypass Heuston and the city and go straight to the Airport/Belfast.0 -
In fairness to Grandeeod, Gerry Murphy (ex CEO of the NTA as of yesterday) pointed out that by 2011 Metro North had already cost €156,000,000. Of course since then, central government seem disinclined to fund the project -- as can be seen by MM's absence from the NTA's implementation plan. If MN dies, it won't be the NTA's fault.
This a quote from Leo Varadkar when he was Minister for Transport. I don't recall him being reprimanded for saying it. He asserts that the money would be better spent on roads and presumedly on smaller public transport projects. Its my belief that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects. So whether its MN or a DART version of MN, I can't see it happening. Thats why I believe this study is a fudge. In relation to my anger and I make no apology for it, for many years this and other forums hotly debated MN and if memory serves me correctly the debate was about the spec rather than the idea. A lot of public consultation went into MN and its final route and spec was based on that. It now appears that a new Government has decided to ignore those public consultations, the money already spent and start from scratch all over again. There is no basis for it. Yep, that makes me angry and you'll have to forgive me for directing it at posters that eagerly engage with these new proposals.
This is typical of Irish Governments and their careless politicing. Constant interference and attempts to stamp their mark on proposals. It happened with the DART and more recently with the luas. Im sure we all remember the last FG lead Government bringing it to the brink of construction and then after an election in 1997, a FF lead Government delaying the whole thing while ordering more reports and studies about tunneling under the city. I recall Bertie Ahearn in opposition staunchly resisting any surface running of the luas green line in the Harcourt st/Stephens Green area.:rolleyes:"I don't think that was money well-spent, but it's not all lost because I do think that DART Underground will happen someday. In the case of Metro North, even if I had €3 billion or €4 billion, would you spend it that way? You'd get a lot of roads and public transport for that. Like a lot of things at the time, it was based on projections that the economy would grow fast forever, and there were plans to have 120,000 people in Swords, etc."0 -
London. Crossrail is getting full-sized 12-car trains. Passengers on some other lines might feel hard done by.Is this actually a problem in other cities and what cities are we talking about?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/London_Underground_Tube_SSL_Comparison.jpg0 -
There's no hard and fast rules for metro station spacings. Paris has incredibly short distances between stations, which poses its own problems. London has quite long distances between stations, even in zone 1.
A paper I read on the matter (honestly can't find the reference) suggested that longer spacing in central areas could better serve passengers due to less slow-down-speed-up time wasted. I'd prefer to see two central station with many exits each, than three stations with just one exit, for example.
What eejit gave that reason above? Sure lets close Tara Street station too, it will speed up the Dart.
That kind of mentality led to the M50 only having 2 lanes.
Its light rail, it'd get mobbed. If money is tight, scale down OCB. Defer one of the stations. But changing the spacing is a bad way to go about saving money.0 -
If you focus on the sentence after the one you've bolded, you will see my point.0
-
This a quote from Leo Varadkar when he was Minister for Transport. I don't recall him being reprimanded for saying it. He asserts that the money would be better spent on roads and presumedly on smaller public transport projects. Its my belief that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects. So whether its MN or a DART version of MN, I can't see it happening. Thats why I believe this study is a fudge.
You're selective reading of Leo's speech is telling. He said: "I do think that DART Underground will happen someday" and made it clear that his issue with Metro North was that it was based on massive other projects going ahead (north Swords city, airport city etc).
Dart Underground is such a large rail project and he said he sees that as a runner. He has said this on more than a few occasions and so has the current minister for transport!In relation to my anger and I make no apology for it, for many years this and other forums hotly debated MN and if memory serves me correctly the debate was about the spec rather than the idea. A lot of public consultation went into MN and its final route and spec was based on that. It now appears that a new Government has decided to ignore those public consultations, the money already spent and start from scratch all over again. There is no basis for it. Yep, that makes me angry and you'll have to forgive me for directing it at posters that eagerly engage with these new proposals.
"There is no basis for it" -- except for Realpolitik. There's not near enough support for Metro North at the moment -- the pressure for it is likely building again in the city but not far outside the confines of its route. But the feeling that it's dead and was just a boom project has also set in
An expanded version of HR8 would have far better connectivity, far greater benefits and wider appeal in the city, in the county, in the regional, across the country, over the border and with possibly EU lenders/funders (ie EIB/T-TEN).
Also you're not fully right about ignoring "the money already spent" -- HR8 and some of the LTR options might not be able to take advantage of all of the prep work done on Metro North, but it could take advantage of everything from geo surveys; drawings etc of what's there now (building, services etc); property already bought / CPOed etc.This is typical of Irish Governments and their careless politicing. Constant interference and attempts to stamp their mark on proposals. It happened with the DART and more recently with the luas. Im sure we all remember the last FG lead Government bringing it to the brink of construction and then after an election in 1997, a FF lead Government delaying the whole thing while ordering more reports and studies about tunneling under the city. I recall Bertie Ahearn in opposition staunchly resisting any surface running of the luas green line in the Harcourt st/Stephens Green area.:rolleyes:
What happened leading up to Luas is actually fairly typical of what happens in other motoring dominated cities which propose LRT/trams/BRT on surface which will displace space and priority away from cars. You'll find many US and UK case studies.
So, it's in no way just typical of Irish anything -- it's typical of a society so dependent on motoring.
The stuff about Dart was also crazy but also not that surprising given the context of the 70s, the decade where the car is the future craze really caught on* in the UK and by extension Ireland. This was a gem from the Sindo in 1979: "You and I — the taxpayers — would have to fork out less if instead of electrifying it the government bought a brand-new car for each of the line’s present adult passengers to do their suburban travel in; and in doing so they would use less fuel than the proposed system would." http://dublinobserver.com/2011/03/white-elephant-on-tracks/lucernarian wrote: »In the report HR8 will apparently cost about €1950 million +/- €200 million. Metro North apparently will cost €2500 million +/- 800 million. Even optimised, they think it will cost around €2100 million +/- 700 million. It's under the light rail category while HR8 is well, heavy rail. Do those numbers sound convincing to other posters? Especially when an organisation like Irish Rail will be basically running it.
HR8 would have less stops underground and you'd also expect cost savings if Irish Rail are starting it after Dart Underground is finished.lucernarian wrote: »It also really heavily relies on Dart Underground being built to be of further benefit.
That's a given, but DU is seen as a relatively safe bet and would now come before any MN type route.lucernarian wrote: »The other thing is that Metro Dublin's route is similar to what Monument drew but the report disingenuously throws it in the bin rather than simply proposing an alternative that drops the unnecessary tunnel to St. James' hospital. And brings the northern end away from the estuary and a bit more towards Donabate. Using their own rolling stock in the Phoenix Park tunnel is not a big deal if Dart Underground is also built.
And what's this about single bore tunnels being necessarily more dangerous? It's all about how they are built?? I doubt they can be built for as cheaply as the Metro Dublin crowd suggested.
The real failing point of trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" is that it requires a re-think / replacement of Dart Underground and there's few people who want to do that to a project which is so close to shovel ready and has relatively good political support. Without the full project it seems very unconnected of a route and possible services are limited.
Re unnecessary tunnel to St James' hospital: HR9 -- Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel -- is that, just without the northern line connection north of Swords.
The "Metro Dublin" as evaluated does go near to Donabate? See the map on page 40 of the report's PDF: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf0 -
-
London. Crossrail is getting full-sized 12-car trains. Passengers on some other lines might feel hard done by.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/London_Underground_Tube_SSL_Comparison.jpg
If your point is to compare crossrail to the tube then you're comparing a system that was built almost in its entirety 50-100 years ago. Although, I completely agree that the jubilee line extension was totally under-spec'd from the beginning for the sake of consistency with the rest of the network and that was a massive mistake.0 -
The second part of that is something I hadn't at all considered and could be significant, but it's not a point made in the report. My point about costs is more a criticism of methodology of the report than just the findings. The report's own description of the infrastructure considerations mentions a twin bore tunnel under Ballymun while the impact under construction mentions cut and cover tunnelling? I guess that doesn't change the maths they used as they simply offer a min and max cost per km for "tunnelled" but I presume that different methods of tunnelling would come with different costs? At least for Ballymun Road specifically.HR8 would have less stops underground and you'd also expect cost savings if Irish Rail are starting it after Dart Underground is finished.
I'm not sure if I understand the point here or if you were trying to make any when you replied to that specific part. It's a given, and.... Either way, to say what order these major projects will be developed in is really too speculative - even if I think you're right. At the end of the day the capital costs are larger for Dart Underground and nothing from govt or involved parties seems to suggest this is a done deal, beyond reading between the political lines. The Swiftway proposal is some evidence of a priority shift away from Metro North but perhaps the revamping of the Phoenix Park tunnel could be read in a similar way. The latter part is just my own opinion.That's a given, but DU is seen as a relatively safe bet and would now come before any MN type route.
Don't quite get what a "real failing point" is but I'm looking at the Metro Dublin proposal as if it were a CIE-developed scheme and how that would pan out. I'm not trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" as to me it's just a website with some crayons on a map and a few different and interesting ideas about tunnel and station construction and alternative stop locations. I was talking to a friend about this earlier today, the thing that struck us was there were some interesting nuggets in the proposal that could be adapted to existing plans but that wasn't really grasped in the AECOM report. Like they didn't explore whether their single bore method was truly cost-effective or if it was technically feasible in Dublin or not (The NTA certainly don't going by their refutals of Metro Dublin) and I would like to know more about the safety concerns the consultants mentioned. And could they have commented on the feasibility or otherwise of the short Swords tunnel section?The real failing point of trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" is that it requires a re-think / replacement of Dart Underground and there's few people who want to do that to a project which is so close to shovel ready and has relatively good political support. Without the full project it seems very unconnected of a route and possible services are limited.
It's similar but not the same? I don't see any underground tunnel under Swords for instance? Different possible stations also. Along with different cost expectations and interoperability with other modes of transport.Re unnecessary tunnel to St James' hospital: HR9 -- Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel -- is that, just without the northern line connection north of Swords.
"As evaluated". Have a look at the map you quickly drew up and compare it to Fig. 2.13 from the report. The tie-in with the northern line looks rather different wouldn't you say. Going by the AECOM report, they evaluated a map they generated themselves that showed some station and a junction with the northern line actually overlapping with the estuary bridge.The "Metro Dublin" as evaluated does go near to Donabate? See the map on page 40 of the report's PDF: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf
That aside, what are the thoughts here on the feasiblity of having an alignment and tunnel portal dug at Glasnevin junction that would allow for a twin bore tunnel going northwards/northeastwards? And allowing for a minimum bend radius for Irish Rail trains. Google Earth suggests quite a lot of houses and graveyards in the way.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing in principal. Expect the way you're going about it (trying to dictate others can't have different views).
I don't always like change but when there is change that you can't stop, you should try to adapt to that change.
It's your choice how you adapt -- from agreeing with another option or pushing stronger for MN. Sure getting annoyed with people, on an irrelevant forum, because they have a different view is an option, but it's not a very productive one.
You say "free for all public consultation", but that's just really what bog standard public consultation should be. Consultation only with people who have influence is not public consultation, it's selective consultation.
I think you missunderstood me -- when I said the face-to-face 10 years ago would not cut it, I mean in the context of things moving on -- if you or others want MN to still go ahead you need to push for that now. That includes engaging with the NTA.
If you have given up that's fine. But in the time it takes to post here, you could email the NTA and your local TD etc.
If this forum is as irrelevant as you say, it's unclear why you're getting so worked up.
Why get so worked up if this place is so irrelevant?
I'm dictating nothing. I am merely pointing out the reality. This forum discussed MN ad nauseum. Nobody disagreed with it in principle.
HR8 is untested in a public consultation scenario. You had never heard of it before this study.
Adapting to change we can't stop is capitulating to a political process that has proven itself of incapable of delivering. The evidence is overwhelming and I don't need to outline it for you.
Please don't insult me, my intellience or my posts by picking on my angry tone or my remarks about an irrelevant forum. My comments contain emotion that is justified.
The free for all public consultation I referred to was based on everyone having a say, so please don't twist it into something else.
As for "moving on", we are not moving on from anything. We are merely introducing tactics to delay building anything. If you really understood the history of rail transport since 1970, you would see this.
Please tell me why HR8 is better than MN? And tell me when you first heard of this HR8 idea.0
Advertisement