DART+ (DART Expansion)

salmocab

murphaph wrote: »

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.

Your right its not right to stop people doing things with their land based on piece of infrastructure that will probably not be built and certainly not as designed now.

Grandeeod

murphaph wrote: »

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.

As you know already, the state jumped off the pot last September. With DU pushed back into a pointless two year redesign, lots of things will happen with a lot of the property earmarked for CPO. It was a combination of commercial and residential development. With the little upswing in financial terms, we can bet that the sites will be developed. 120 million would have kept plans going. A pittance in the scheme of things.

Once the NTA (another useless quango) come back with the redesign, I predict we will be looking at yet another set of CPO's and very definately a version of DU that we can all laugh at. That won't happen either. If we read some international publications about DU, they frequently mention the entire DART fiasco since 1972! Meanwhile we will get to hear Barry Kenny waxing lyrically about his paymasters decisions.

As for FG and Paschal Donohoe, they are worse than FF. Donohoe spent more time lick arsing the residents of East Wall about noise, disruption etc. He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU. He was politically/socially affiliated to making sure it never happened.

Nobody anymore publicises stuff like this nor sees the need to go beyond an internet forum or letter to the "department".

marno21

Grandeeod wrote: »

As you know already, the state jumped off the pot last September. With DU pushed back into a pointless two year redesign, lots of things will happen with a lot of the property earmarked for CPO. It was a combination of commercial and residential development. With the little upswing in financial terms, we can bet that the sites will be developed. 120 million would have kept plans going. A pittance in the scheme of things.

Once the NTA (another useless quango) come back with the redesign, I predict we will be looking at yet another set of CPO's and very definately a version of DU that we can all laugh at. That won't happen either. If we read some international publications about DU, they frequently mention the entire DART fiasco since 1972! Meanwhile we will get to hear Barry Kenny waxing lyrically about his paymasters decisions.

As for FG and Paschal Donohoe, they are worse than FF. Donohoe spent more time lick arsing the residents of East Wall about noise, disruption etc. He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU. He was politically/socially affiliated to making sure it never happened.

Nobody anymore publicises stuff like this nor sees the need to go beyond an internet forum or letter to the "department".

You are fairly on the ball here. Donohue and Varadkar are absolutely pathetic Ministers. All the fuss about things for now such as removing the USC and these water charges/bin charges messes but no planning for the future or investing in upgrading our 19th century infrastructure.

If these projects were under construction we would look a lot more attractive for Brexit relocators. "It's going to be built for 2027" isn't really that attractive.

Imagine talking to an attractive woman in a nightclub. "Well I am about 5 stone overweight - but I do plan on going to the gym in 2019."

cgcsb

Grandeeod wrote: »

He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU.

?? DARTu will put East wall smack bang halfway between Clontarf Road and Docklands station. With a train frequency of 1 DART per 10 mins, their property values will skyrocket, traditionally property is very cheap (for central Dublin) in Eastwall, DARTu will make these people millionaires, they have plenty to gain.

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

?? DARTu will put East wall smack bang halfway between Clontarf Road and Docklands station. With a train frequency of 1 DART per 10 mins, their property values will skyrocket, traditionally property is very cheap (for central Dublin) in Eastwall, DARTu will make these people millionaires, they have plenty to gain.

I know and I agree. However since the entire DU project was conceived, there have been rumblings of discontent in East Wall and surrounding areas. The phrase "all the pain for no gain" was coined by the East Wall residents. They are called the PROJECT EAST WALL ACTION GROUP. Here's a direct quote from Paschal Donohoe when he was a senator. Remember this is his constituency.

East Wall will not benefit directly from the DART Underground but construction of this project will have a huge impact upon the community.

Oul Paschal has played a great fudge here. Parish pump politics are alive and well in the capital.

Some more quotes.

Spokesperson of the East Wall Residents Association Angela Broderick has said the whole plan is "a waste of money".

Angela Broderick, spokesperson for the Protect East Wall action group, said the entire community has been galvanised in its opposition to the plan, which she believes shows a “blatant disregard” for the community.

antoinolachtnai

Going a bit further doesn't really cost that much when you're doing tunnelling works. The machinery is already in the ground. Tunnelling a bit further is worthwhile if it is going to avoid any sort of significant track works.

The real issue with Dart Underground is that as designed, it won't really attract that many extra people to public transport.

See table 2.5.6 of the Business Case (http://www.irishrail.ie/media/dart_underground_business_case1.pdf)

Unbelievably, the tunnel is expected to only add 1300 morning boardings per day to public transport in 2030. This is an unbelievably very small number given the cost and scale of the overall project.

The basic concept of a cross city tunnel is good, but the whole thing would need to be a lot more focused on the dense inland areas rather than the coastal areas which have light enough density and have capacity constraints. It really makes sense to revise the project to fix this fundamental issue.

I think the project has to be adjusted to have a lot more trains (up to every 2 minutes) going into the tunnel and so serving the big interconnecting points (especially St Stephen's Green) more directly for most users.

(I have asked the DoT for unredacted versions of the business case, since so much time has elapsed.)

murphaph

The only thing that makes sense is building it as currently planned. And that won't happen. And Ireland as a whole will suffer economic consequences but sure the Jackeens have enough already and that's the main thing.

Edit: I'm on my way home from work passing through Zoo Station and I'll be home in suburban Berlin in a few short minutes. It's not all about reducing car journeys. It should be about quality of life.

dublinman1990

Can I ask about the Project East Wall Action Group a few posts back.

What sort of "blantant disregard" for the community are this group talking about if they are against DU?

For example; would these residents have any connection to being against noise levels at the IE depot in Inchicore?

Grandeeod

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Can I ask about the Project East Wall Action Group a few posts back.

What sort of "blantant disregard" for the community are this group talking about if they are against DU?

For example; would these residents have any connection to being against noise levels at the IE depot in Inchicore?

My earliest dealings with the East Wall residents goes back to late 2003. For the record I didn't work for IE/CIE or any developer. Nor was I a politician. The blatant disregard that you refer to was based the following.

1. The TBMs were meant to run from Inchicore and Spencer Dock. This was scaled back on the grounds of cost so the TBMs started only in the Spencer Dock area. Therefore all the spoil has to be extracted via Spencer Dock and via the East Wall area by road. The residents and local politicians were against this.

2. They claimed that they weren't getting a DART station in East Wall, despite the project being a very big benefit to the general area.

That's the short and simple version.

I have no knowledge of any connection to noise issues in Inchicore. But East Wall residents did complain about noise on the North Wall lines and sound barriers were provided by IE. These days the line sees very little traffic anyway. Overall I would expect further dissent from East Wall residents when new DU plans are submitted (if they are similar) and I am disgusted by the fact that Paschal Donohoe as a Transport Minister wasn't exposed as having a conflict of interest when it came to his dept. and remit, bottling the entire project.

I honestly don't see how they can realistically redesign the DU project at a cheaper cost and maintain its effectiveness.

From Donohoe's perspective, one of the original cost saving measures in 2010, resulted in him backing his constituents. (TBMs from Spencer Dock in one direction only.)

cgcsb

Grandeeod wrote: »

My earliest dealings with the East Wall residents goes back to late 2003. For the record I didn't work for IE/CIE or any developer. Nor was I a politician. The blatant disregard that you refer to was based the following.

1. The TBMs were meant to run from Inchicore and Spencer Dock. This was scaled back on the grounds of cost so the TBMs started only in the Spencer Dock area. Therefore all the spoil has to be extracted via Spencer Dock and via the East Wall area by road. The residents and local politicians were against this.

2. They claimed that they weren't getting a DART station in East Wall, despite the project being a very big benefit to the general area.

That's the short and simple version.

I have no knowledge of any connection to noise issues in Inchicore. But East Wall residents did complain about noise on the North Wall lines and sound barriers were provided by IE. These days the line sees very little traffic anyway. Overall I would expect further dissent from East Wall residents when new DU plans are submitted (if they are similar) and I am disgusted by the fact that Paschal Donohoe as a Transport Minister wasn't exposed as having a conflict of interest when it came to his dept. and remit, bottling the entire project.

I honestly don't see how they can realistically redesign the DU project at a cheaper cost and maintain its effectiveness.

From Donohoe's perspective, one of the original cost saving measures in 2010, resulted in him backing his constituents. (TBMs from Spencer Dock in one direction only.)

The entire eastwall area is within 1km of either Spencer dock or Clontarf Raod. The catchment area for a frequent heavy rail service is well in excess of 1km. If they are concerned about connectivity they should insist on a pedestrian/cycling bridge/route between church avenue and Sherrif street. In fact that should be done anyway

MJohnston

Sometimes its really, really obvious when someone creates a second account to agree with themselves...

(edit: posts I was referring to got deleted)

annfield1978

Irish Rail will be seeking a consultant shortly to look at the western tie in of DART Underground between Heuston and Inchicore

BonnieSituation

annfield1978 wrote: »

Irish Rail will be seeking a consultant shortly to look at the western tie in of DART Underground between Heuston and Inchicore

What's that actually mean?

D.L.R.

Sounds like they're looking at the possibility of moving the portal from Inchicore to Heuston.

BonnieSituation

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sounds like they're looking at the possibility of moving the portal from Inchicore to Heuston.

I thought the whole point of moving it from Heuston to Inchicore was the logistics and the disruption would be better/reduced with the larger land bank available for works in Inchicore.

D.L.R.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I thought the whole point of moving it from Heuston to Inchicore was the logistics and the disruption would be better/reduced with the larger land bank available for works in Inchicore.

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

LeinsterDub

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

Why even bother with a 2 bore tunnel let's just have one bore and half ass it completely

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

I explained to you already why the Heuston portal idea is bonkers. 4 tracking from Heuston would be massively expensive.

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

If you really want to see DU happen, educate yourself more about the project and the politics around it.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Sometimes its really, really obvious when someone creates a second account to agree with themselves...

Looked at it briefly this morning before the delete button was hit. I often wonder if it's politically affiliated fanboys promoting an unheard of agenda. Now that we are in a period of "redesigning" DU, I often worry about what the future holds for this project.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I explained to you already why the Heuston portal idea is bonkers. 4 tracking from Heuston would be massively expensive.

Nah, we're only talking an extra mile of four tracking between Inchicore and Heuston. The cutting between Inchicore and Heuston is less than 1000m long, its not very deep, and there are only 3-4 bridges. We've built motorway projects on a far larger scale.

The question is whether its is cheaper than an extra 2km of tunnelling+tunnel lining materials and so on and it looks like a question that's being seriously asked.

monument

D.L.R. wrote: »

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

At what point in the future is it being safeguarded for?



And if employment alone does not cut it...



According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 161 Wood Quay A, was 2,669. With an approximate area of .17SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 15,700 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 119 Merchants Quay A, was 2,275. With an approximate area of .18SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 12,638.9 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 120 Merchants Quay B, was 3,822. With an approximate area of .24SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 15,925 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 144 Royal Exchange A, was 4,481. With an approximate area of .44SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 10,184.1 persons per SQKM.

brownbeard

I'm guessing they haven't published updated employment heat maps for the 2016 census yet but it'd be very interesting to see... anyone have any idea when we might be seeing these?

D.L.R.

monument wrote: »

At what point in the future is it being safeguarded for?

Preaching to the converted mate. But I'm arguing in the context of the state insisting on saving money, and how a phased delivery might be a viable budgetary solution. Christchurch in this context as being part of a second phase of works directly following phase 1.

BonnieSituation

D.L.R. wrote: »

Preaching to the converted mate. But I'm arguing in the context of the state insisting on saving money, and how a phased delivery might be a viable budgetary solution. Christchurch in this context as being part of a second phase of works directly following phase 1.

I can't sre how that could possibly be sanctioned as money saving.

It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough they were insisting on driving the tunnel in that direction (archaeologically speaking) as it is but to drive it that way not build the station and then immediately follow it up with works to integrate a station would be beyond mental. If cross city is seen as a missed opportunity right now (going back to FFs decision to not have a northern luas line on the 90s) DU going that option would be off the scale insane.

Talk of removing the Stephens Green stop and straightening the route is also beyond belief.

BonnieSituation

Also the cost of finance is at an all time low. We should be borrowing to beat the band or public transport infrastructure works. There should be tbms going under city all over the place to finally give us a integrated transport system.

A proper heavy rail transport system.

murphaph

They could build the station box but not fit out. At this stage I'd take any half baked scheme that delivered the bones of what DU is supposed to do because I know full well it'll be a victim of its own success and need upgrading in short order, but that's how we always do things in Ireland.

D.L.R.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I can't sre how that could possibly be sanctioned as money saving.

It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough they were insisting on driving the tunnel in that direction (archaeologically speaking) as it is but to drive it that way not build the station and then immediately follow it up with works to integrate a station would be beyond mental. If cross city is seen as a missed opportunity right now (going back to FFs decision to not have a northern luas line on the 90s) DU going that option would be off the scale insane.

Talk of removing the Stephens Green stop and straightening the route is also beyond belief.

Why is driving the tunnel in that direction a bad thing in your view? Geology? Heritage?

It could be sanctioned as money saving in the sense it would defer much of DU's cost into a phase 2, essentially a separate project to be sanctioned independently. But at the same time, politically inevitable.

markpb

D.L.R. wrote:

Why is driving the tunnel in that direction a bad thing in your view? Geology? Heritage?

Presumably because, in the unlikely/impossible event of DU ever being built, they would end up pulling the tunnel boring machines back and letting the men with toothbrushes in so they can dig the tunnel without damaging the historical artifacts down there.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

They could build the station box but not fit out. At this stage I'd take any half baked scheme that delivered the bones of what DU is supposed to do because I know full well it'll be a victim of its own success and need upgrading in short order, but that's how we always do things in Ireland.

Surely the cost of boring and building the station box is the bulk of the expense. Fitting it our wouldn't surely be much more on top in the grand scheme.