DART+ (DART Expansion)

Cool Mo D

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There's a delay. Now might be a good time to look at all the aspects of this project.

Including the criteria.

There's a delay. So let's see if we can delay it even more, by going back to square one? Strange logic.

strassenwo!f

Cool Mo D wrote: »

There's a delay. So let's see if we can delay it even more, by going back to square one? Strange logic.

No, that's wrong, it's not about delaying the project. But, now that the project - with all its flaws - has been delayed, let's make sure that the right one is eventually built.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, that's wrong, it's not about delaying the project. But, now that the project - with all its flaws - has been delayed, let's make sure that the right one is eventually built.

What exactly do believe is 'wrong' with the Dart Underground plan that is now before An Bord Pleanala?

Wild Bill

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, that's wrong, it's not about delaying the project. But, now that the project - with all its flaws - has been delayed, let's make sure that the right one is eventually built.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Enough.:mad:

There has been way too much delay on this and numerous other projects in the past 20 years - result - we have ended up with only a fraction of the public transport infrastructure we could have had.

If the finance is available build DU; no more inquiries, reports, navel gazing, planning boards, fretting over detail, consultation: just do it.

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

What exactly do believe is 'wrong' with the Dart Underground plan that is now before An Bord Pleanala?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the underlying plan. Which is to link the highest capacity lines entering the city from the West and the North East via a tunnel, freeing up capacity on all the lines into the city, and increasing the capacity on all routes.

I fully understand the plan.

I just don't understand the implementation of the plan.

It does seem rather long for a project whose basic aim is to link the two lines.

runway16

The basic aim I would imagine is to link the two lines you mentioned with the Luas lines, metro line, and provide stations in parts of the city which would be in high demand by commuters.

Perhaps it needs to be necessarily longer to satisfy these additional criteria and provide the best possible solution.

I agree with others - enough reporting, navel gazing, analysis - JUST BUILD IT!

strassenwo!f

Wild Bill wrote: »

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Enough.:mad:

There has been way too much delay on this and numerous other projects in the past 20 years - result - we have ended up with only a fraction of the public transport infrastructure we could have had.

If the finance is available build DU; no more inquiries, reports, navel gazing, planning boards, fretting over detail, consultation: just do it.

And yet there was almost no delay on the projects over the last 5 years which did go ahead, or are going ahead, with little or effectively no public scrutiny, such as the LUAS extension to the point, the LUAS extension to Citywest, and the LUAS extension to Cherrywoood.

Monuments to good transport planning, I'm sure, the lot of them.:mad:

Any progress yet on rapid transport (e.g. LUAS) between the city and high density suburbs like Finglas and Harold's Cross/Terenure.

No?

I thought not.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And yet there was almost no delay on the projects over the last 5 years which did go ahead, or are going ahead, with little or effectively no public scrutiny, such as the LUAS extension to the point, the LUAS extension to Citywest, and the LUAS extension to Cherrywoood.

Monuments to good transport planning, I'm sure, the lot of them.:mad:

Any progress yet on rapid transport (e.g. LUAS) between the city and high density suburbs like Finglas and Harold's Cross/Terenure.

No?

I thought not.

Part of the delay of Dart Underground was due to CIE and government inertia while the the RPA ploughed ahead with Metro North.

The main reason was that the entire plan was changed and completely redesigned - twin tunnels instead of a single bore, station redesigns and surfacing at Inchicore to avoid causing chaos in and around Heuston by surfacing in the rail yard.

As regards the timeline, an IE engineers told me at the public consultation in the Dublin Civic Offices that the six-year construction period was down to costs. If more money was thrown into the budget, that could shortened but only by a matter of months, probably six, possibly eight or nine. The decision not to tunnel from Inchicore has also increased the construction period, he said.

And there was the exactly the same public scrutiny process on all the Luas projects as there is on Dart. I would simply contend that the RPA have been much more effective and efficient at managing their projects than IE have. Some of you will no doubt disagree with that but having had discussions with both, that's the opinion I've formed.

As for the Rathfarnham Luas, that is off the agenda until at least the initial T21 projects are completed. I wouldn't expect to see that line this side of 2030 - of at all. I would expect Finglas Luas will happen once BXD is completed to Broombridge at the same time as Metro North is done.

strassenwo!f

Thanks for that, Jack. But can we go back to the original bit. Why are we going for the longer route to connect the two highest capacity lines? What's that about?

runway16

I thought I'd just explained that.....

NuMarvel

runway16 wrote: »

I thought I'd just explained that.....

You did, and quite well, but I'll try again:

Assuming strassenwolf is referring to the length of the tunnel, as opposed to the time taken or the amount of work done/to be done, the chosen route creates interchanges with other light and heavy rail systems. Heuston will have Commuter, LUAS and Intercity, Stephen's Green will have LUAS and Metro, Pearse will be where the two DART lines interchange, and Docklands interchanges with Commuter and LUAS. Christchurch is about the only station that could be considered "superfluous" in the context of interchanges, but even then a Lucan LUAS is planned, so an interchange is possible in the future.

As well as that, the stations serve various retail and business districts.

It was never going to be simply a straight line from the northside to Heuston/Inchicore. It would have always had to have at least one interchange with an existing DART station on the southside to allow for the creation of two DART lines.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks for that, Jack. But can we go back to the original bit. Why are we going for the longer route to connect the two highest capacity lines? What's that about?

Connolly has to be bypassed by one of the lines -either the Northern or Maynooth - because there is a bottleneck at Connolly. The Northern line has been chosen and it will go into Docklands, the tunnel and on to Inchicore.

Why Docklands and Inchicore? Essentially, because IE own large sites at East Wall and Inchicore which means disruption during construction can be kept to a minimum. Also Docklands puts a Dart station smack bang in the middle of a very busy commericial, residential and leisure area with large numbers of residents, workers and others who can use the line.

The original plan had been for the tunnel to surface in the Heuston rail yard but this proved impractical for a number of reasons, including the massive disruption that would be caused to services into and out of Heuston for years during construction. There were also engineering issues surrounding the cutting into Heuston through Inchicore and Kilmainham and under the N4 flyover at Islandbridge which is too narrow to four-track. The cost in terms of resources and disruption to road and rail services would have been unacceptable.

So that's why it was decided to surface at Inchicore, which also allows for a station that will serve Inchicore and Lower Ballyfermot.

The route chosen is actually the shortest possible route that proves practical and affordable. But the redesign has delayed the project by at least three years and probably five or six.

Cool Mo D

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks for that, Jack. But can we go back to the original bit. Why are we going for the longer route to connect the two highest capacity lines? What's that about?

What exactly about it is too long?

The interconnector diverges from the DART line north of Connolly, to avoid the current bottleneck at the junction there. It naturally heads south then and there is a station at the Docklands.

It needs to interchange with the existing DART line, so Tara street or Pearse are the logical options. Pearse is chosen, as it means that it is going in the right direction to interchange with the Luas (and Metro North) and serve the main city centre office and shopping districts around Baggot and Grafton street.

From there it heads straight to Heuston, and the tunnel continues to Inchicore, to avoid creating a bottleneck on the approach to Heuston, which cannot practically be widened.

BrianD

wrote:

I would simply contend that the RPA have been much more effective and efficient at managing their projects than IE have. Some of you will no doubt disagree with that but having had discussions with both, that's the opinion I've formed.

Are you having a laugh? The RPA effective and efficient? Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor.

The RPA have proved themselves to be another self-serving useless quango that is rapidly developing all the bad traits endemic in civil service type institutions.

As for effective and efficient. I don't recall this being present in the construction of the Red line, Green line, the extensions to either and indeed anything to do with the white elephant that is Metro North. Then again, maybe MN if it gets the funding will be a chance to prove their mettle.

On the other hand, while IR have not engaged on any projects on the scale of recent RPA projects they have proved that they can delivery relatively effectively most projects they have undertaken (including rebuilding bridges that may or may not have fallen down on their watch )

DWCommuter

It's all irrelevant.

monument

Heuston
I'm guessing Heuston isn't an issue for many, but these are worth pointing out... interchanges with Luas Red Line, Intercity, Commuter services, and Maynooth / Lucan buses. You also have a range of high density development (Heuston South Quarter, Islandbridge, and even part of the quays), James's Street area, the courts, two national museums, and the park.

Christchurch
Dublin City Council, the Four Courts, Temple Bar, Capel Street, Mary / Henry Street, Dame Street, high density residential development in nearly every direction, the National College of Art and Design, Dublin Castle, Christchurch etc.

St Stephen’s Green
Interchange with Luas Green Line (and at some stage BXD too) and Metro North, as well as being close to a whole load of bus routes. Grafton Street and the large shopping district around it (and an area with many restaurants, pubs and clubs), a large amount of offices and other business, Government and department buildings, national museums, the National Concert Hall, etc

Pearse Station
Dart and Commuter interchange. Also covers some of the above and TCD, and residential and business towards and in the south Docklands.

Docklands
Interchange with Docklands commuter and Luas Red Line. Serving the IFSC, Docklands, the East Wall area, The Point, the Grand Canal Theatre (or from Pearse, take your pick). A massive amount of high density residential and business development.

DWCommuter wrote: »

It's all irrelevant.

Dart Underground? Maybe, maybe not. If Irish Rail gets a ten year window of permission, it could be built or started in that time, even if Metro North goes ahead.

Wild Bill

strassenwo!f wrote: »

the LUAS extension to the point, the LUAS extension to Citywest, and the LUAS extension to Cherrywoood.

Monuments to good transport planning, I'm sure, the lot of them.:mad:

Any progress yet on rapid transport (e.g. LUAS) between the city and high density suburbs like Finglas and Harold's Cross/Terenure.

You think "the LUAS extension to the point, the LUAS extension to Citywest, and the LUAS extension to Cherrywood" are not monuments to good planning? So you'd prefer a line to Harold's Cross instead?

Ah shucks. :mad:

It is this sort of attitude has this country lagging so far behind in any and all public transport modes.

Enough. :cool:

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

You think "the LUAS extension to the point, the LUAS extension to Citywest, and the LUAS extension to Cherrywood" are not monuments to good planning? So you'd prefer a line to Harold's Cross instead?

Ah shucks. :mad:

It is this sort of attitude has this country lagging so far behind in any and all public transport modes.

Enough. :cool:

In hindsight they are not good planning. In my opinion they were never good planning. They were developer driven and based on the wave crest this country was riding until it lapped up on a desert island beach. Luas investment should have addressed the citys pinch points if it really wanted to contribute towards solving car dependency and providing reliable public transport options.

markpb

DWCommuter wrote: »

In hindsight they are not good planning. In my opinion they were never good planning. They were developer driven and based on the wave crest this country was riding until it lapped up on a desert island beach. Luas investment should have addressed the citys pinch points if it really wanted to contribute towards solving car dependency and providing reliable public transport options.

I agree with you about all the others but I think the extension to the Point was reasonably sensible. It provided a straight path through an area with a large number of apartments built at reasonable density and where there are a lot of jobs. It's a trip generator from both points of view (a lot like Sandyford). The only downside is that most of the people working there don't have the option of parking and most of the people living there are probably within walking distance of work anyway.

DWCommuter

markpb wrote: »

The only downside is that most of the people working there don't have the option of parking and most of the people living there are probably within walking distance of work anyway.

And the fact that development along the extension to the point has fallen way short of what it was meant to be.

monument

DWCommuter wrote: »

And the fact that development along the extension to the point has fallen way short of what it was meant to be.

There's still quite a bit of development down there, and key places like the Point and the conference centre and it's not the miles from nowhere, the rest is likely to be developed in the mid-long term.

As for Cherrywood, was it the tram line or the development which was the bad planning? A bit of both?

markpb

DWCommuter wrote: »

And the fact that development along the extension to the point has fallen way short of what it was meant to be.

Should we have waited until all the apartments and offices were built and occupied before deciding to provide public transport? The same could be said of PPR station on the Maynooth line. People deride it as a waste of money but I think its one of the few times we provided public transport before it was needed instead of years later. Of course its unfortunate that by the time we got both built, it was too late.

Cool Mo D

The Citywest Luas is a good idea too. It is developer driven, but the development was all in place before the Luas, and the industrial estate is occupied, the houses occupied, and it connects several once small villages that are now commuter towns in what is now a public transport wasteland. I would see it as being pretty well used.

It's not like the green line extension, which relied on development yet to come.

DWCommuter

markpb wrote: »

Should we have waited until all the apartments and offices were built and occupied before deciding to provide public transport? The same could be said of PPR station on the Maynooth line. People deride it as a waste of money but I think its one of the few times we provided public transport before it was needed instead of years later. Of course its unfortunate that by the time we got both built, it was too late.

I think this is where we all get sucked into believing the hype. Planning transport along with housing is an undisputed sensible thing to do. However in an Irish context we have neglected areas in favour of chasing the easily financed luas extensions into what is now Namaland. Our property market was unsustainable, yet we embraced this private contribution to transport scenario at the expense of more needy transport areas. In a properly run country luas would have been implemented at total state expense into areas already suffering from chronic road congestion and weak public transport options as well as forging ahead with servicing new development. We chose one and now we are left with little used stations and light rail lines through fields.

DWCommuter

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The Citywest Luas is a good idea too. It is developer driven, but the development was all in place before the Luas, and the industrial estate is occupied, the houses occupied, and it connects several once small villages that are now commuter towns in what is now a public transport wasteland. I would see it as being pretty well used.

It's not like the green line extension, which relied on development yet to come.

But I think its fair to say that an awful lot of land in Citywest has yet to be developed.

Wild Bill

DWCommuter wrote: »

In hindsight they are not good planning. In my opinion they were never good planning. They were developer driven and based on the wave crest this country was riding until it lapped up on a desert island beach. Luas investment should have addressed the citys pinch points if it really wanted to contribute towards solving car dependency and providing reliable public transport options.

Actually, there was a huge explosion in population in Sandyford before the Luas extension was built. The line is "standing room only" from Sandyford and is heavily used through otherwise poorly served new built-up areas as far as Carrickmines.

Way more appropriate than Harold's Cross from any perspective. Can't speak for Citywest but is seems a pretty major work-place so far as I can see. Maybe the Point could have been skipped.

The "bad planning" argument is a load of nonsense; the same "planner" fans have bored us Irish Times readers to tears for decades with whines about development preceding infrastructure (Tallaght, Ballymun, Lucan - pick any post WW2 suburb you want).

Now they see Tallaght/Ballymun 1960s as the model approach?!

Couldn't make it up

Seriously.

eia340600

Wild Bill wrote: »

Now they see Tallaght/Ballymun 1960s as the model approach?!

Couldn't make it up

Well it seems you just did.Where have you ever heard someone say that Tallaght/Ballymun type developments are the "model approach".

Wild Bill

eia340600 wrote: »

Well it seems you just did.Where have you ever heard someone say that Tallaght/Ballymun type developments are the "model approach".

On this very thread!....we have people saying the Luas shouldn't be put in ahead of the people. :cool:

Obviously fans of the Tallaght 1970s model of "planning".

BrianD

Wild Bill wrote: »

Actually, there was a huge explosion in population in Sandyford before the Luas extension was built. The line is "standing room only" from Sandyford and is heavily used through otherwise poorly served new built-up areas as far as Carrickmines.

Way more appropriate than Harold's Cross from any perspective. Can't speak for Citywest but is seems a pretty major work-place so far as I can see. Maybe the Point could have been skipped.

The "bad planning" argument is a load of nonsense; the same "planner" fans have bored us Irish Times readers to tears for decades with whines about development preceding infrastructure (Tallaght, Ballymun, Lucan - pick any post WW2 suburb you want).

Now they see Tallaght/Ballymun 1960s as the model approach?!

Couldn't make it up

Seriously.

The development south of Sandyford got the green light because the LUAS would be delivered.

What's with the "standing room only". That's the norm for this type of transport. of course the Irish always expect a seat on public transport for some unknown reason.

eia340600

Wild Bill wrote: »

On this very thread!....we have people saying the Luas shouldn't be put in ahead of the people. :cool:

Obviously fans of the Tallaght 1970s model of "planning".

Before any development takes place existing infrastructure should be fully utilised .Why were higher densities not sought in the city center and along pre-existing transport corridors like the DART and Maynooth lines before seeking rezoning for places on the peripheral of the city?

Luas lines should most certainly not be put in ahead of people..They should be put in in conjuction with housing and office developments..Sometimes this isn't feasible, so buses should be put in place in the interim..There was no commercial sense in the decision to extend the Luas to Cherrywood.Why not wait until there is almost sufficient demand before building?By all means plan ahead, but no sensible Authority would build before demand exists.

A lack of proper transport from Tallaght to the city center was only a portion of its planning failure.