DART+ (DART Expansion)

GizAGoOfYerGee

In the absence of the Interconnector, how will they transport DARTs to the Kildare line? via PPT?

Also, I assume Inchicore will become a DART depot?

Roryhy

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

In the absence of the Interconnector, how will they transport DARTs to the Kildare line? via PPT?

Also, I assume Inchicore will become a DART depot?

Darts wont use Kildare line until interconnector is built, just regular commuter to the best of my knowledge.

Wild Bill

My own view is that the amount of bureaucratic ****e that IR or any other infrastructural developer has to go through is beyond belief.

Some back gardens trimmed?

Tough. Just do it. :cool:

ps - I hope that rescues you Sponge - if only by making you seem balanced and reasonable

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

My own view is that the amount of bureaucratic ****e that IR or any other infrastructural developer has to go through is beyond belief.

Some back gardens trimmed?

Tough. Just do it. :cool:

ps - I hope that rescues you Sponge - if only by making you seem balanced and reasonable

Sums up the deal in lil oul Ireland.

We just don't do public transport, do we?:D

Empire o de Sun

Will they be electrifying all 4 tracks, or just the two middle ones?

Sponge Bob

DWCommuter wrote: »

Sums up the deal in lil oul Ireland.
We just don't do public transport, do we?:D

We don't do design for sure.

IE, it were they, had the highly original idea of coming up in Heuston ( with the 'station' itself over in the brewery across the road) ....and promptly hitting a bottleneck in the Gullet that cannot reasonably be quad tracked or electrified, all that back in 2007. This completely inadequate configuration was envisaged all the way through 2007 and 2008.

It wasn't until 2009 that IE conceded, moved the Heuston station to Heuston itself and the tunnel mouth to Inchicore.

That was a vast improvement. It was nevertheless evident that in order to complete the quad track configuration/separation that some serious work would have to be done around Kylemore Road.

Shame they only released the final design in late 2010 or early 2011 ...the best part of 4 years after the first half baked plans were released in 2007

I would be perfectly happy to see demolition around Kylemore Drive and Landen Road for the Interconnector Project/KRP2,not least because we can also put Lucan Luas along that cleared stretch in future.

It is just that I somehow feel that the locals are entitled to be told straight up about all of this by IE and are entitled to make their feelings known at the public hearings :cool:

The only way one could avoid all that would be by extending the tunnel mouth to a point west of Le Fanu Road, a rather expensive alternative.

Wild Bill

I do agree the original plan to come up in the middle of Heuston Station was daft.

Perhaps they were trying to keep the cost down?

DWCommuter

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We don't do design for sure.

IE, it were they, had the highly original idea of coming up in Heuston ( with the 'station' itself over in the brewery across the road) ....and promptly hitting a bottleneck in the Gullet that cannot reasonably be quad tracked or electrified, all that back in 2007. This completely inadequate configuration was envisaged all the way through 2007 and 2008.

It wasn't until 2009 that IE conceded, moved the Heuston station to Heuston itself and the tunnel mouth to Inchicore.

I know. I wrote to them about it in September 2007.

Empire o de Sun

look what I found



http://www.macalester.edu/courses/geog261/ksachs/Transport%20planning.JPG

Wild Bill

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

look what I found

So - who said there was no planning?!

Uncanny how the current built-up area and transport links resemble what has actually happened! :cool:

Aard

There's three glaring omissions today, Wild Bill:
- eastern bypass
- Tallaght spur (Luas doesn't exactly cut it as "rapid")
- cross-city Dart routes.

Chris_5339762

God those motorway plans would have been almost as destructive as Ringway 1 in London.

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

So - who said there was no planning?!

Uncanny how the current built-up area and transport links resemble what has actually happened! :cool:

Resemble yes. But what actually happened...not really.

DWCommuter

That map posted by Empire is what should have happened in totality and I'd have no problem with it.(in the context of ****e planning anyway) For a city as small as Dublin, it would have delivered solutions as long as planned housing was incorporated. (Low density as it was) However as we all know and leaving transport plans aside, land for housing was held back in Dublin and pushed development into the country until the land price in Dublin reached such a price that it made many rich, killed banks and left us with warped transport plans made up as we went along and now the infamous empty and half finished emporiums that are dotted across the previously withheld land.

Remember this folks. People were buying houses in Westmeath and Longford before Belmayne even had a planning notice pinned to a post. Think about it.

Sponge Bob

Is that document lurking anywhere Empire, I do agree that it is an uncanny and prescient piece of work...even if a low density future projection given our deep love of th'oul semi back then

Wild Bill

I am aggressively and unapologetically in favour suburban semi-d housing. It is the most advanced and civilized best quality of life that the masses of humanity have ever experienced.

It isn't that our love of back gardens "is back" - it never went away. People moved to Longford to get semi-Ds rather than flats in Dublin.

As I would have, had I had to.

Endlessly repeating brain-dead mantras about "sustainability" doesn't make the mantras rational. :cool:

dubhthach

Well that map only shows the proposed motorway on the route of the Royal Canal (connecting with Eastern bypass). It had been proposed earlier to build a motorway/dual carriageway on the Grand Canal Circular line with a bridge connecting to "Royal Motorway" in and around where the Samuel Beckett bridge is now.

--Edit--
Here's a map that I've seen on archiseek for what was proposed in inner city.

Zebra3

Wild Bill wrote: »

I am aggressively and unapologetically in favour suburban semi-d housing. It is the most advanced and civilized best quality of life that the masses of humanity have ever experienced.

It isn't that our love of back gardens "is back" - it never went away. People moved to Longford to get semi-Ds rather than flats in Dublin.

As I would have, had I had to.

Endlessly repeating brain-dead mantras about "sustainability" doesn't make the mantras rational. :cool:

The biggest problems with apartments is that pre-bust they weren't that far off the price of a semi-d. People aren't thick. If you can get 5 or 10 apartments on top of each other where you'd fit 1 semi-d yet each apartment is 80% the price of the semi-d, something is seriously wrong.

Wild Bill

Now that's a mess!

Empire o de Sun

I just found that picture on the internet. Don't know where to find the document.

But I can tell you about the Motorways a bit.

The Royal Canal Motorway and South County/Eastern Motorway would have required very little demolition of inhabited or used industrial buildings at the time. 90% of the route of derelect or open ground or waste ground (brown field site)

The M4 was suppoed to have joined the M50 just south of blanchardstown, maybe that was why the original exit numbers were strange, starting at "2" at Leixlip

You can still see what is left of the road reserve for the intersection with the M50 here.

Some of it did get done, although very little. Parnell Street Dualling was done though they gave up linking both ends even though the buildings are all new where the westbound carriageway was supposed to have gone on the corner of gardner street. Pressure of developers not wanting to lose land I suppose.

Back to the Darts
Maybe the extra reserve besie the M50 between the Railway and the N7 was for the Tallaght Dart.

Wild Bill

Zebra3 wrote: »

The biggest problems with apartments is that pre-bust they weren't that far off the price of a semi-d. People aren't thick. If you can get 5 or 10 apartments on top of each other where you'd fit 1 semi-d yet each apartment is 80% the price of the semi-d, something is seriously wrong.

The mess was the canal motorway scheme - not your comment!

The squeeze on development land around Dublin pushed the price up and the semi-ds out. In Sandyford when basic apartments where over 400k semi-d's that sold for 60k in 1994 were costing a million.

No new semis were being built and little trading of existing ones was taking place; people moved into the apartments or to Mullingar; where you could get a semi-d for the price of an apartment in Dublin.

We should have forced the zoning of far more land around Dublin and far less in the country; but the former was poison to Nimbys, builders who'd paid a fortune for development land, Greens and all the crack ideologues who wanted "sustainable" development away from Dublin and the latter was poison to every local land-owner and developer and "de-centralizer" in rural Ireland.

All the vested interests got what they wanted; the re-zone and build lobby in the country and the Green anti-development clown in Dublin.

And we see the result - a horse designed by a committee and financial ruin :mad:

Wild Bill

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

You can still see what is left of the road reserve for the intersection with the M50 here.

Nice - they have planted a little forest there - all was not lost.

dubhthach

I could be wrong here but I think I recall hearing that Griffith avenue has a density of 24houses per acre and this is with semi-detached houses. Most of what was been built around Dublin in 80's/90's ends up with a density of 8-10 houses per acre. Ballymum which is often held up as a failed example of "high density" only worked out at 8 units/acre for example (all those empty windswept green fields).
There is no law stating you have to build apartments if you want medium/high density. The problem in Ireland is the actual lack of proper planning and the fact that most housing schemes were drawn up by someone whose architecture/design skills come from doing "Technical drawing" in the Leaving Cert.

Empire - Regarding the reservation beside the M50 this is indeed the one that was set aside for heavy rail.

Empire o de Sun

dubhthach wrote: »

Empire - Regarding the reservation beside the M50 this is indeed the one that was set aside for heavy rail.

I was looking for evidence of it going through tallaght, but can't seem to see it. Unless, it was the route used by luas.

Empire o de Sun

Wild Bill wrote: »

Nice - they have planted a little forest there - all was not lost.

well here is a smaller forest for the M7 that never came to be, though abandoned I think, the reserve is kept, by a forest

Sponge Bob

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

well here is a smaller forest for the M7 that never came to be, though abandoned I think, the reserve is kept, by a forest

The M4 'reservation' was abandoned in the early 1990s

Click http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,708296,737380,6 ( then press 4 on your keyboard for the 1995 overlay )

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

I am aggressively and unapologetically in favour suburban semi-d housing. It is the most advanced and civilized best quality of life that the masses of humanity have ever experienced.

It isn't that our love of back gardens "is back" - it never went away. People moved to Longford to get semi-Ds rather than flats in Dublin.

As I would have, had I had to.

Endlessly repeating brain-dead mantras about "sustainability" doesn't make the mantras rational. :cool:

I've no particular problem with Semi -Ds per say, but estates like that are extremely hard to serve with public transport. Even first phase housing areas like Crumlin, Drimnagh etc. despite being terrace housing still tended to be expansive.

As for the push for a Semi D in Longford being as a result of only flats being available in Dublin, that is correct, but only because land was not developed in Dublin quick enough and by the time it was, prices had been driven up by the carry on which still forced people out to the country as it was all they could afford.

From a public transport point of view this is really what DU is all about. It allows the poorer commuter rail services to the likes of Kildare, Louth, Longford, Westmeath, Carlow, Laois and Wicklow become far superior to what they actually are. When T21 was launched in 2005 the Kildare town and Drogheda aspects of the extended DART services were dropped. While Drogheda is back on the table, its worth pointing out that Sallins was originally the destination of the KRP quad tracking. But hollers of feeding sprawl put an end to that. The drawbridge mentality came into force but the sprawl was already created and at least the full DART plan was going some way towards providing it with public transport options.

I'm all for proper planning, but to get suburbia out of the car, effort has to be made and simply abandoning it in favour of what should have been done in the first place is a negative move.

monument

Wild Bill wrote: »

The squeeze on development land around Dublin pushed the price up and the semi-ds out. In Sandyford when basic apartments where over 400k semi-d's that sold for 60k in 1994 were costing a million.

No new semis were being built and little trading of existing ones was taking place; people moved into the apartments or to Mullingar; where you could get a semi-d for the price of an apartment in Dublin.

The problem was that few listened to those who warned that the price increases were not sustainable. International experience was clear that it would not last. But there was mass panic. Lots and lots of people knew better. The people who lied about their incomes to get mortgages for houses they could not afford were just as wrong as the banks which helped them do so.

A huge bulk of people did not want it to stop. Forget about developers, bankers and landlords for a second. Think more average people. Those who owned property for years felt they were getting rich. Those who had bought at the start of the boom were thinking something along the same lines. Those who bought a bit later on wanted prices to rise so they would also get rich. Those who bought from the middle to the end wanted price rises because they would be trapped. Half the country was a vested interest.

Denial of this will only allow it to happen again. Maybe not soon, but if we don't learn the lessons, mistakes are more likely to happen again.

Wild Bill wrote: »

We should have forced the zoning of far more land around Dublin and far less in the country;

Yes, central government should have stepped in over the zoning of lands in the country. But zoning wasn't the only problem around Dublin. Massive banks of land was been hoarded by developers and speculators to push up prices and they was happening for a long time.

Wild Bill wrote: »

...but the former was poison to Nimbys, builders who'd paid a fortune for development land, Greens and all the crack ideologues who wanted "sustainable" development away from Dublin and the latter was poison to every local land-owner and developer and "de-centralizer" in rural Ireland.

All the vested interests got what they wanted; the re-zone and build lobby in the country and the Green anti-development clown in Dublin.

And we see the result - a horse designed by a committee and financial ruin :mad:

How on earth are the results of the boom what any green, or anybody interested in sustainability, "wanted"?

L1011

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

well here is a smaller forest for the M7 that never came to be, though abandoned I think, the reserve is kept, by a forest

Around that area, we also have a linear park of sorts on the reserveration for the rail line to the Blanchardstown Town Centre that was planned in the 1980s

http://maps.google.de/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=53.378605,-6.393957&spn=0.00224,0.006899&z=17

Wild Bill

monument wrote: »

How on earth are the results of the boom what any green, or anybody interested in sustainability, "wanted"?

They "sustainable" lobby got what they wanted - tight zoning restrictions in Dublin.

The results may have been unintended consequences - but consequences nonetheless.

It was like squeezing a balloon - they pinched the building bubble in Dublin and it expanded somewhere else. Leaving a much worse situation when the balloon burst.

Nobody can calculate or define what "sustainable" means in terms of development - it is a trendy mantra rendered meaningless through mindless repetition.

The very word has itself become a form verbal and literary pollution.