DART+ (DART Expansion)

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Interesting stuff Sam.

Any mention of a possible rerouting of the DART Underground project, which originally had to be built via St. Stephen's Green to achieve integration of all rail modes, but will soon have other potential routes - like, for example, via the pedestrianised plaza proposed by Dublin City Council for College Green - and the discussion is cut off in minutes.

A considerable amount of material about the failures of Irish planning to correctly apportion the available money to the various projects needed or in train, and it's allowed to ramble on, on the DART Underground thread, for several days, over several pages, with you yourself contributing to the discussion.

It's a puzzle.

The discussion was moved to a new thread.

D.L.R.

Looking at what the govt have broadly suggested for DU "lite", what do people think about these elements?

Tunnel to Heuston instead of Inchicore
I think this is reasonable (if its feasible). The tunnel to Inchicore just follows the existing surface line anyway. But would building a portal right in the throat of Heuston be any cheaper? I have my doubts.

Line from Heuston to Pearse only, with a turnback at Pearse
In the context of being a "first phase", this could be a viable strategy. As long as the Docklands connection is earmarked as a future second phase then splitting up DU seems logical in terms of financing it. A Heuston-Pearse line still delivers a lot of benefit. But would it deliver enough savings to be an economically sound strategy?

No station at Christchurch
Again as an interim measure it could work to get DU off the blocks. But future provision is the key, a station here would really open up this part of the city.

cgcsb

A tunnel portal at Heuston is a problem because there are only3 tracks between Heuston and Inchicore so you'd be creating bottleneck from day one. Nevermind the logistics of trying to get a tunnel portal into Heuston

Terminating at Pearse is ridiculous. The main point of the project is to provide a bypass of Connolly and the loop line. So this would defeat the purpose. Also the cost of building an underground turn around facillity would be prohibitive. You also have the logistical impossibility of digging a trench in or around Pearse station to extract/implant a TBM.

The station at Christchurch isnt all that essential but it would be a much needed boost for the south west of the city

Zebra3

Just do it and do it properly.

We build unnecessary motorways that cost a fortune and will continue to cost us a fortune for decades, lets just build DU up to standard.

marno21

Zebra3 wrote: »

Just do it and do it properly.

We build unnecessary motorways that cost a fortune and will continue to cost us a fortune for decades, lets just build DU up to standard.

MOD: No more discussion of motorways in this thread. There's a thread that Sam Russell created spawned from this thread regarding whether we should be building motorways or rail links

ricimaki

cgcsb wrote: »

A tunnel portal at Heuston is a problem because there are only3 tracks between Heuston and Inchicore so you'd be creating bottleneck from day one. Nevermind the logistics of trying to get a tunnel portal into Heuston

Terminating at Pearse is ridiculous. The main point of the project is to provide a bypass of Connolly and the loop line. So this would defeat the purpose. Also the cost of building an underground turn around facility would be prohibitive. You also have the logistical impossibility of digging a trench in or around Pearse station to extract/implant a TBM.

The station at Christchurch isn't all that essential but it would be a much needed boost for the south west of the city

The only was to resurface at Heuston would be like this:


The road would probably have to be changed, and the park would lose some area, but it is doable. The line to Park West would have to be four tracked for it to make any sense though.

There's no point in building it if it doesn't connect the existing lines at each end. The electrification of the lines out to Maynooth and Hazelhatch could be started now, along with the removal of at grade junctions, to at least get some of the systems infrastructure in place. A DART system from Maynooth to Docklands without the dart underground would still provide some much needed services.

BonkeyDonker

ricimaki wrote: »

The only was to resurface at Heuston would be like this:


The road would probably have to be changed, and the park would lose some area, but it is doable. The line to Park West would have to be four tracked for it to make any sense though.

There's no point in building it if it doesn't connect the existing lines at each end. The electrification of the lines out to Maynooth and Hazelhatch could be started now, along with the removal of at grade junctions, to at least get some of the systems infrastructure in place. A DART system from Maynooth to Docklands without the dart underground would still provide some much needed services.

Why does it need to surface at Heuston. An underground station with pedestrian access to the current concourse would serve the purpose and possibly cost a lot more.

D.L.R.

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Why does it need to surface at Heuston. An underground station with pedestrian access to the current concourse would serve the purpose and possibly cost a lot more.

Assuming the line would be underground by the time it reaches Heuston station.

Grandeeod

The original DU plans had the tunnel surfacing in the old Guinness sidings in Heuston station.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we drop this College Green nonsense. It has been discussed to death and relegated to a thread on its own which only had one contributor. It will be considered trolling to mention the CG stop on this thread.

Edit: I have deleted posts that are off topic as per above. If anyone has a problem with this, PM me, do not comment on thread.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

The original DU plans had the tunnel surfacing in the old Guinness sidings in Heuston station.

Why did they extend the tunnel to Inchicore? I get the sense it was thrown in as an "extra" at the height of the boom when money was cheap.

But if there's no reason to tunnel out to Inchicore other than convenience, why not revert to the original plan if its cheaper.

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

Why did they extend the tunnel to Inchicore? I get the sense it was thrown in as an "extra" at the height of the boom when money was cheap.

But if there's no reason to tunnel out to Inchicore other than convenience, why not revert to the original plan if its cheaper.

Quite the opposite in fact. When the plans were first drafted, it was a case of funds not being so available. When the ineviatable boom came, it made sense to draft a plan where the tunnel sufaces in Inchicore. Sufacing in Heuston would cause unnecessary congestion. Also remember that surfacing in Inchicore was also part of the KRP Phase two.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact. When the plans were first drafted, it was a case of funds not being so available. When the ineviatable boom came, it made sense to draft a plan where the tunnel sufaces in Inchicore. Sufacing in Heuston would cause unnecessary congestion. Also remember that surfacing in Inchicore was also part of the KRP Phase two.

Exactly my point - it was to avoid the disruption. Its still do-able though, right? Looking at the Heuston rail yard from above, it easily large enough to accomodate portal works. And the only real constraint to 4 tracking right into Heuston is Con Colbert roundabout. Which needs to be upgraded anyway.

Potential for a major overhaul of this area for the better.

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

Exactly my point - it was to avoid the disruption. Its still do-able though, right? Looking at the Heuston rail yard from above, it easily large enough to accomodate portal works. And the only real constraint to 4 tracking right into Heuston is Con Colbert roundabout. Which needs to be upgraded anyway.

Potential for a major overhaul of this area for the better.

It actually makes more sense to complete the four tracking from Park West to the Tunnel portal in Inchicore works. This completely seperates IC services from Heuston from DU services.

For the record the major constraint to four tracking into Heuston is the cutting from Con Colbert out to Inchicore along with bridges etc. Keep the TBM going into the works and its far easier and much more beneficial. I doubt there would be much difference in cost considering the additional work needed if the tunnel surfaces in Heuston.

MrMorooka

Yeah, I don't think there's any point redesigning the tunnel portal at the Heuston end. The plan was good, regenerating a lot of under used industrial land at Inchicore, a proper grade separated junction for DART-to-tunnel and Intercity-to-Heuston services, and a station to serve the local area(which probably wouldn't happen if the portal was at Heuston).

If they absolutely insist on cutting corners, removing the Christchurch stop might work. It would be a massive shame, having been in that area at the weekend with the Winetavern St closure, a station would really help there, lots of tourist demand. But I could live with removing it- I'm quite sure that, like Luas, DU would be so massively successful they will end up adding stuff (back) into it, like the expansions and BXD have happened.

Sam Russell

Mod: post re motorways moved to Does Dublin lose out on project spending to rural areas?

Posting in this thread about motorways will earn a holiday.

cgcsb

MrMorooka wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think there's any point redesigning the tunnel portal at the Heuston end. The plan was good, regenerating a lot of under used industrial land at Inchicore, a proper grade separated junction for DART-to-tunnel and Intercity-to-Heuston services, and a station to serve the local area(which probably wouldn't happen if the portal was at Heuston).

If they absolutely insist on cutting corners, removing the Christchurch stop might work. It would be a massive shame, having been in that area at the weekend with the Winetavern St closure, a station would really help there, lots of tourist demand. But I could live with removing it- I'm quite sure that, like Luas, DU would be so massively successful they will end up adding stuff (back) into it, like the expansions and BXD have happened.

I'm confident that a DU without a christchurch stop would still deliver most of the benefits and there would be no barrier to a future Christchurch stop at much the same cost. However the other 'cost saving' measures put forward by FG are not easy to engineer your way out of. The 60m platforms on metro for example will cost many multiples of the 'saving' to correct, and no doubt there will be significant disruption when they start closing metro stations due to crowd control concerns.

Idbatterim

the proposed 60m stops on revised metro north, are a joke, far beyond anything else I have heard, it makes the toll on the m50 and roundabouts look visionary!!!

How long does it take for the "experts" on these projects to cost alternatives and to see if the "savings" are worth bothering with...

for example, if you want to bring the headline cost in lower, ok order less rolling stock, simple. Reducing platforms lengths for 100,000,000? i.e. less than 5% of project cost a joke, that should immediately be struck off. Surface running in Ballymun, I am not sure of the logistics or claimed "savings" on this front...

I dont believe DU or MN were overengineered, that notion in this country is laughable. I believe they were werent compromise solutions for a change and now as usual here, the bloody powers that be are looking to do things on the cheap or fudge...

If they absolutely insist on cutting corners, removing the Christchurch stop might work

how much would that singular measure save? From a logical perspective and that is a very different one, than a politician has. IF you are going to kick these projects back 5 years minimum, you would want to be getting fairly major savings for minimal compromise. If that cant be achieved, why bother. I said this back in September, if there is nothing wrong with the projects and its the timing that is wrong, i.e. public finanaces "wont allow it" or the issue of perception outside of Dublin with the then imminent election. Why not simply say "they projects as designed are good, timing isnt" would there be a problem with those snakes being honest for a change?!

redfacedbear

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont believe DU or MN were overengineered, that notion in this country is laughable. I believe they were werent compromise solutions for a change and now as usual here, the bloody powers that be are looking to do things on the cheap or fudge...

If I remember rightly, I believe that the DU plan that Paschal torpedoed was actually a compromise on the original prior plan.

As I recall that plan was looking like a €5bn job - to which the government said 'no fcuken way'. So they simplified the design of the stations (removing multiple entrances/exits) etc to bring it down to the current projected cost.

I don't see how they can do much more without seriously compromising the whole point of the project.

Idbatterim

in relation to the above. Say you deem these projects necessary / worthwhile. 5 years of new planning and bull****? give me a break, we already have the original plans which the revised ones will broadly follow. How long does it take to see if a revised plan is worth actually going with? a year tops if there was any will!

Im not talking about putting it through planning etc, just having the revised cost reduction measures put out there and saying right this measure "this has some merit" - "this one isnt worth bothering with" etc. If you come to the conclusion, that only one of the options is worthwhile, say dropping a station, are you seriously going to delay a project years and go back through planning for small fry in the scheme of things and a compromised version?

I hope the councilors now dont rezone new land or give go ahead to Clonburris SDZ and extra housing in adamstown. Dont do anything until contracts are signed. They want these for their area, they have the politicians by the balls in a way, they wont get this chance again...

Ben D Bus

From today's IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/dublin-needs-to-invest-to-gain-from-brexit-fall-out-1.2734845

DU gets listed as a crucial transport project if Dublin is to benefit from any moves out of London.

It's only an opinion piece, but it's a voice in the property market.

That's two now - this one for commercial property and SDCC's comment on further development of Adamstown

Idbatterim

poor infrastructure, accommodation, taxation on higher incomes are mentioned as cons to Dublin in the article. If you have kids the cost of childcare is another big one...

cgcsb

Clonburris needs to stop, the bridge at forbes st is already shelved, Stop more development at Clongriffin and Hansfield until this is sorted. These are things the councils can do to add the pressure. Let the place grind to a halt. I'd even go as far to say that some sort of Dublin citizen's convention could be formed and get a general strike going. People power can get things done, if this state want's to continue to function then the capital city requires some basic provision for transport.

Idbatterim

say we live in a parallel universe and government decides to go with the originally designed scheme tomorrow, how long would it take to run through planning again?

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

say we live in a parallel universe and government decides to go with the originally designed scheme tomorrow, how long would it take to run through planning again?

Another railway order would take about 18 months.

Idbatterim

is that a best case scenario? could it be bumped up the priority list etc? get more staff into ABP temporarily etc. I mean it was approved before, shouldnt it be a formality? I appreciate it has to go through planning again...

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

is that a best case scenario? could it be bumped up the priority list etc? get more staff into ABP temporarily etc. I mean it was approved before, shouldnt it be a formality? I appreciate it has to go through planning again...

Its even more problematic that. I gave you the best case scenario. However the reality is it would probably take even longer. Why? Well the planning lapsed last September because the CPO process wasn't started. The September deadline was imposed because property owners and developers took a high court action. For example in Bridgefoot street a site had been earmarked for the building of an evacuation shaft. This site had originally got planning permission for 33 apartments. That planning permission lapsed during the DU planning process. Now that DUs planning has lapsed the owner of that site can apply for permission to build these apartments. Goodbye evacuation shaft! In fact the owners of property that was going to be CPO'd can now apply for PP to build what they want. So while DU spends the next 18 months being "redesigned", I really hope they are keeping an eye on these sites.

Its a mess.

Idbatterim

or example in Bridgefoot street a site had been earmarked for the building of an evacuation shaft. This site had originally got planning permission for 33 apartments. That planning permission lapsed during the DU planning process. Now that DUs planning has lapsed the owner of that site can apply for permission to build these apartments. Goodbye evacuation shaft! In fact the owners of property that was going to be CPO'd can now apply for PP to build what they want. So while DU spends the next 18 months being "redesigned", I really hope they are keeping an eye on these sites.

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

IE don't have the money to buy the sites, but they can object to PP being granted.

The original ABP Oral hearing is worth reading. It shows you how difficult it was to get the RO. And watch out for our Paschal's contribution on behalf of his East Wall constituents who are notoriously anti DU.

murphaph

Idbatterim wrote: »

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

The state needs to sh!t or get off the pot. Either they CPO the property or the current lawful owners do whatever they please with it. I am obviously in favour of DU but you can't keep a sword if Damocles hanging over people indefinitely.