DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

DU means services can be ramped up significantly and buses that currently run long parallel to the rails routes would be able to run short perpendicular feeder routes, delivering passengers to DART stations rather than An Lar directly. Munich has plenty of buses, but hardly nay actually run into Marienplatz (An Lar).

This is a MUCH more efficient use of the infrastructure. DU is NOT a standalone solution to anything, transport networks don't work like that.

Jack Noble

murphaph wrote: »

DU means services can be ramped up significantly and buses that currently run long parallel to the rails routes would be able to run short perpendicular feeder routes, delivering passengers to DART stations rather than An Lar directly. Munich has plenty of buses, but hardly nay actually run into Marienplatz (An Lar).

This is a MUCH more efficient use of the infrastructure. DU is NOT a standalone solution to anything, transport networks don't work like that.

I don't think many people understand this.

They see projects and modes like DU, MN, MW, Luas, BRT, QBC, ordinary bus routes, etc, in isolation and either ignore or do not understand the concept of an integrated transport network and how the various routes and modes complement and feed into each other.

antoinolachtnai

The key to transport is certainly interconnection. If you think DU is designed to answer this question then ask yourself:

Why is there no stop planned for Phibsboro to meet the N2?

Why is there no stop on the Kylemore Road?

Why does the DU tunnel run parallel and close to the Luas Red line for a significant distance?

Why does the transport model not show DU vastly increasing public transport patronage at peak time?

Off peak frequency is critical to allowing interconnection. Why are there no proposals on the table in relation to this?

murphaph

I'm not saying the vision IE have for DU is spot on. There should be the possibility to run Maynooth - Hazelhatch services for example, but IE won't be able to control the operation of the network forever. Stations can easily be added at your locations and should be added. Once the tunnel is in place the rest is child's play really. These side issues don't make the idea of linking up the disparate parts of the existing network wrong, far from it.

antoinolachtnai

I mostly agree with you. The vision, as originally expressed in the Arup and DTO documents is very good. The idea of a ring of rail linking the inner suburbs and the city is deeply compelling. The problem is that the execution could be so much better.

The key is attemtion to detail at the planning stage. With dense urban rail, once you set things up, especially for the alignments and junctions, it is extremely hard to modify them without very large expense and disruption. It is very hard to put in extra flyovers at the drop of a hat to link the Maynooth line in an optimal way. If provision hasn't been made, it may not be possible at all because of the restricted grades and curvature. You can't just move a stop from Inchicore to Kylemore without massive consultation and significant civil works. These things have to be planned years in advance. Adding a station is certainly possible but I don't think you could say it's child's play.

All I would suggest is that everybody keep their mind open to the idea that DU can be improved upon.

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

Light rail and heavy rail lines are different beasts, with different engineering requirements and safety restrictions for both. For example, when crossing roads on surface - light rail (MetroW) can cross at grade, while heavy rail require level crossings, and I would question whether installing them on new lines in heavily populated urban areas would even be allowed under modern safety standards.

The biggest obstacle to a Dart spur to Tallaght is called Clondalkin. One of the reasons MW takes the zigzag route it does through Clondalkin is to avoid the need to tunnel under the area, with all the heavy engineering work and costs involved. A tunnel line under Clondalkin was recommended under PFC in 2000 and was one of the route options looked at for MW and ruled out.

The exact same problem applies in parts of Tallaght - namely at Kilnamanagh-Kingswood-Belgard where MW cross the existing Red Luas, and at The Square which would be the terminus.

The Luas/MW crossing as planned is a major problem that will probably have to be reworked when MW comes back on the agenda and returns to An Bord Pleanala. Currently, it is planned to put it on a viaduct above the Luas line and Belgard Road. Local residents are dead set against this and have the support of all local politicians - who all want it in a tunnel under Luas and Belgard Road. I would just point to what happened to the Metro North routing through Ballymun as an example of what will probably happen in Tallaght.

Now, if there is that level of opposition to what is essentially a Luas Mór, how do you think the locals will react to a bloody great Dart line overhead?

As for costs, MW is costed at €1.5bn for the entire line, while the Dart U tunnel and stations costs €2.5bn. Putting a circa 8km Dart line, with a number of separate sections in tunnel and at least three underground stations, possibly four, the rest on viaducts and embankments over existing roads or in cuttings under them will easily cost somewhere in the €2-3bn ballpark.

I'm sure your technical stuff has been thoroughly done, Jack, and it all looks terribly impressive. But I think it's also a good idea not to overemphasise all of that, at this stage. There is a proposal (the DART underground) to build the biggest infrastructure project ever in the history of the state. One of the problems which bugs it, and will bug it, is that it will be running at significantly below the capacity which it will actually have.

The current answer to this capacity problem is to feed it with more trains from just one corridor. The original plans, dating from the 1970's, were that it would be fed by more than one corridor, and alignments were set aside for such a corridor to Tallaght (and a similar one, on the Maynooth line, to Blanchardstown). While it seems that one or more Departments have overseen the destruction of these corridors, there may still be time to resurrect something approximating the original proposals. There are, I believe, a goodish number of years before this underground line will be built; now is the time to look at the overall potential of the tunnel, and we should deal with the technical stuff later.

While the original alignments may well have been squandered, as you say, thanks to departmental lack of foresight, it is hopefully not too late to persuade these same departments of the desirability of rapid, direct connections between large centres of population in County Dublin and the centre of the city. Tallaght, as the largest centre in the county outside of Dublin City itself, and currently served mainly by an overall rather slow tramline, should probably be one of these centres, I believe.

It is also hopefully not too late to look at the possibility of one or possibly two spurs to populous areas to the north of the Hazelhatch line. Such spurs could deliver people from populous suburbs directly into and out of the city, without having to change. Similar to what happens in Munich and a host of other cities with central underground lines with spurs feeding into them. Such arrangements are not new and, as I'm sure I have said above, are more efficient for the passengers concerned, and in Dublin would allow better use of the tunnel than is currently proposed. Almost certainly more expensive, but better.

Jack Noble wrote: »

As I have explained, Metrowest has a defined purpose based on the reality of west Dublin today and where many of the people who live there work, shop and spend leisure time. It is also designed to distribute people across west Dublin who do need to access the city centre or areas to the west across the multiple radial lines which serve those locations. It is based detailed study of the living and working patterns of the circa 300,000 people living in and tens of thousands working in Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown. It is also based on the lessons learned in other cities with radial only rail/metro lines.

The lesson from the cities the world over with the best public transport systems is that it is most effective, for the whole city, to build radial routes first, then orbital routes come later. Dublin is no different. Promise.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Why not? Cormac Rabbitt has and presented them to CIE and govt on at least three separate occasions. And those behind the Gluas plan for Luas-style light rail in Galway are private citizens. As are West on Track who convinced the govt to build the current Limerick-Galway line and are lobbying for the extension to Tuam, Claremorris and eventually Sligo.

Mr Rabbitt is a very public-spirited man, and has done a lot of work on his plans. (I don't really know anything about the others you mention, though I'm not convinced that the Limerick-Galway line has made a lot of sense). His current plans are, as I understand them, mainly a proposed alternative way of achieving a line (the DART Underground) which has been officially approved by the DOT. I don't propose to spend any time working out the technical details of what we are currently talking about here (ie spurs to the Kildare line), which have not been officially approved, and may never be.

Simply put, there are many cities, some of which I have lived and worked in (Frankfurt, Munich and London, particularly), which have spurs which directly serve a large number of areas and which make good use of available tunnel capacity, I think it could be a good option for Dublin. If it is eventually decided that that would actually be a good thing for Dublin, I'll do what I can on the technical side.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Honestly, your excuse above sounds like a cop out. You either believe in what you are saying and can back it up with sound ideas and plans - or you are spoofing, have been called out on your spoofing but can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong.

As I said above, I'm not even going to attempt to provide alignments or costs for a route to/from Tallaght, or for one or more northern spurs from the Hazelhatch line. But, for the reasons I gave above, I feel it is a bit strong for you to categorise this stance as BS.

Is there anywhere of the size of Tallaght (72,000 people, and then there's also Clondalkin along that route) and with comparable closeness to the main city, in any European underground network, which does not have a direct rapid-rail connection to the parent city? I can't think of one, and I'm afraid it's not really up to me to work out the fine details of Martin Cullen's world-class transport system.

Jack Noble wrote: »

How do you expect to persuade the DOT and NTA they are wrong when you can't produce a viable alternative beyond 'I think there should be a Dart spur from the Kildare line to Tallaght - so there!'?

I certainly would leave out the "so there!", but I would think it makes considerable sense to link up the main population and work centres in the county (such as Dublin City, Tallaght, Blanchardstown) by the fastest and most efficient rail system available. I hope the DOT and NTA don't need some bloke like me on boards.ie to tell them that.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Your idea so it's up to you to back it up with detail. No one else will.

I repeat, the idea of a spur to Tallaght from the Hazelhatch line is not my idea. It was suggested back in the seventies, by the people who came up with the DRRTS thing, when Tallaght was about to grow into a big urban population. I think it would still be a good thing, given that Tallaght is now the second-largest urban centre in the county.

Jack Noble wrote: »

And no one can begin to consider whether it is a viable option or not until they have detail. And seeing as the NTA (and their predecessor, the DTO), RPA and IE have all considered this and other options and ruled them out for various reasons, they are not going to revisit them when they have planning permission nailed down for DU and MN - so it is up to people who propose alternatives to lay them out in detail and justify them.

The RPA and IE, and the other Department of Transport offshoots like the DTO, the NTA, etc., all of these subsidiaries have done what was within their remit, and have tried, and generally succeeded, to come up with the best solutions which they can within that. What we have yet to see is how the Department of Transport, the boss, rationalises leaving the biggest urban centre in Dublin, apart from Dublin itself, at the end of a trundly LUAS route or a trundly metrowest route, and without a rapid rail connection to Dublin. Despite what might be happening to similarly-sized centres in competitor European cities.

Jack Noble wrote: »

And from everything you have posted here, you are unwilling and unable to do that - beyond shout 'Spur from Kildare line to Tallaght'.

I've given you reasons why I will not spend time working out an alignment between Tallaght and the Hazelhatch line, or between the Hazelhatch line and populous areas to the north of it, which would eventually result in a more efficient and effective connection between Dublin city and several of its populous western suburbs. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm shouting, but if I am I will continue, until and beyond the time that the DART Underground project becomes a reality, to shout, "Spur from Kildare line to Tallaght."

Geuze

I would support the construction of a tunnel from Heuston to Docklands under the following conditions:

Intercity trains from Cork/Limerick/Galway could use it, allowing pax to get off at SGS or Pearse Lower Level (the train could continue)

An underground station at SGS seems to make sense – space to dig, lots of demand, etc.

Maybe an underground station between Heuston and SSG, would help regenerate the south inner city?

Third underground station under Pearse, as planned.

A tunnel would allow a ring of railway lines from Heuston – SSG – Pearse (underground) - Docklands – Drumcondra – Phoenix Park tunnel – and back to Heuston.

Triangular junction where the three lines meet the ring, if possible – what this means is that any train from Kildare or Maynooth may join the ring in either direction (I accept that a triangular junction for the north Dublin line seems tricky)

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I mostly agree with you. The vision, as originally expressed in the Arup and DTO documents is very good. The idea of a ring of rail linking the inner suburbs and the city is deeply compelling. The problem is that the execution could be so much better.

...

All I would suggest is that everybody keep their mind open to the idea that DU can be improved upon.

Of course it can. My main gripe with it is the station design, in particular the small number of exits. The catchment area is needlessly smaller than it should be.

Jack Noble

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The key to transport is certainly interconnection. If you think DU is designed to answer this question then ask yourself:

Why is there no stop planned for Phibsboro to meet the N2?

The Dart Underground plan that has received a railway order only concerns the tunnel section and stations between Docklands and Inchicore - nothing else. The rest are separate projects that that need separate planning permission.

The plans for the upgrade of the Maynooth-Connolly section have not been published yet so we do not know what additional stations will be proposed or included in the scheme. PFC back in 2001 recommended additional stations on the line and there is space to put in a Dart station at where the rail line passes under Prospect Road. I'd fully expect one to be put on the agenda when the Maynooth Dart plans are finally published - along with other suggested stations such as at Croke Park (for match day use) and North Strand, for example.

Why is there no stop on the Kylemore Road?

Again, not part of Dart Underground. That section of line between Parkwest/Cherry Orchard and the tunnel at Inchicore is part of Kildare Route Project Phase 2, work on which is currently suspended along with DartU.

Now that it is proposed to service Ballyfermot by Luas (Line F, Lucan to city centre) which will have an interchange with Dart at Inchicore, I don't see additional Dart stations between Inchicore and ParkWest. And I certainly don't see one at Kylemore Rd as it would be less than 400m from the Inchicore station which will serve Inchicore and Lower Ballyfermot. I know some local politicians in Ballyfermot have suggested a station at Le Fanu Road which would be a further 200-300m away from Kylemore. Again, that will be for when KRP2 comes back on the agenda.

Why does the DU tunnel run parallel and close to the Luas Red line for a significant distance?

It's only for a small section between Christchurch and Heuston but the two lines serve different areas either side of the river. The key area for DU to serve is the busy secton between Pearse, SSG and Christchurch - any link from there to H will run parallel to Luas Red.

Why does the transport model not show DU vastly increasing public transport patronage at peak time?

Dart U is about increasing capacity to cope with future demand.

Off peak frequency is critical to allowing interconnection. Why are there no proposals on the table in relation to this?

Because peak times are the most important because that's when the highest demand will be. The other times can then be set based on demand during the day. But given any IE envisage an airport dart link and a train every 15 mins all day to Inchicore, along with the trains for the outer suburbs and commuter towns, I can't really see a frequency of less than every 6 to 10 mins through the tunnel, depending on the time of day. The key is putting in a timetable whereby people know they can get a train every X mins.

Another point is that peak times will see 8-car Dart trains with a capacity of 1,400 each. Off peak, it's perfectly feasible to run a high frequency timetable but with shorter 4-car or 6-car trains depending on the time of say and demand.

But these are things to be worked out once the line is operational and IE have a clear idea of what the demands are throughout the day - like was done with Luas.

strassenwo!f

Yes, with the population of Tallaght (72,000), and the population of Clondalkin south of the Hazelhatch line, and sundry other locations in between, you're talking about an overall population of around 100,000 along a potential 8 km stretch between the Hazelhatch line and Tallaght.

By my reckoning, that works out at an average of around twelve and a half thousand potential users per kilometre along this potential route.

I reckon it's got to be worth a proper look.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, with the population of Tallaght (72,000), and the population of Clondalkin south of the Hazelhatch line, and sundry other locations in between, you're talking about an overall population of around 100,000 along a potential 8 km stretch between the Hazelhatch line and Tallaght.

By my reckoning, that works out at an average of around twelve and a half thousand potential users per kilometre along this potential route.

I reckon it's got to be worth a proper look.

It's not going to happen as a heavy rail connection. There's nowhere to thread it through Newlands and clondalkin without going underground or elevated. Light rail you can thread through on the surface.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

It's not going to happen as a heavy rail connection. There's nowhere to thread it through Newlands and clondalkin without going underground or elevated. Light rail you can thread through on the surface.

Plenty of tunnels and elevated sections of rail in Ireland. Can't see why you think we can't build a bit more.

strassenwo!f

Sorry, Murphaph, the above answer was glib. Of course I understand that costs are an issue.

Leaving aside Martin Cullen's Transport 21 stunt, the most serious official template for Dublin's transport has been the PFC document, back in 2001 or so.

(Now, I happen to believe that, of all the woolly planning which was going on in Ireland at that time, the DTO's PFC document possibly represents the pinnacle in government-sponsored planning woolliness. With scant regard to what was happening, or had happened, in other cities of a similar size to Dublin, the DTO produced a plan where there were LUAS lines going here, there and everywhere, metro lines here and there, etc., with seemingly no regard for the capacity of the lines concerned, costs, efficiency of delivering people where they want to go, etc.)

But, for the moment, let me take the aforementioned PFC document as the guide, and just talk about Tallaght. There was to be (i) a metro line from St. Stephen's Green, via the south city centre, through Terenure, to Tallaght. There was also to be (ii) the metrowest to Tallaght. And, under construction at that time was, (iii) the LUAS red line, to Tallaght.

Now, I am aware that Ireland's financial situation is not currently as good as it was back in 2001, when PFC was produced. This is why I think that it will, realistically, be around 2030 before the DART Underground project is built. But one of the potential upsides is that it might bring a greater focus on efficiency in many areas, including public transport.

So, instead of building the planned south city all the way to Tallaght,
Dublin should plan it as a metro for the south-west of the city, not as a route to Tallaght. There are savings right there, over what was planned in the PFC document.

Don't build the metrowest. All of that weaving in and out of the laneways and streets of Clondalkin still costs money.

By building a heavy rail line to Tallaght, with tunnels or elevated sections if necessary, you (i) remove the need to build the metrowest in that section of Dublin (costs saved), (ii) you remove the need to build the PFC's south city metro all the way to Tallaght (costs saved), and (iii) you provide a direct, rapid connection between the two biggest urban centres in County Dublin.

I know it's not going to happen tomorrow morning but, when the country is in a better state, that, I believe, would be a very sensible and effective infrastructure project to start with.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Plenty of tunnels and elevated sections of rail in Ireland. Can't see why you think we can't build a bit more.

Boring tunnels for an indirect route to the city from Tallaght via DU makes no sense to me. I think technically we can do anything but I think realistically if we are to start tunneling heavy rail from Tallaght to meet the Interconnector then we may as well tunnel directly to town a la PFC's "Metro south west" or whatever it was called, it was due to be the continuation of Metro North anyway.

You'd NEVER get public support for an elevated heavy rail line through populated parts of Clondalkin. Ballymun with MN was a tough sell (might still be) and Ballymun has wide avenues to run the line on.

Anyway, we need DU first to show people what rail transit can really achieve in Dublin. Your ideas, if they can be implemented, would come much later as part of a bus replacement strategy, once the buses could no longer feed people fast enough into the Kildare Route stations.

I genuinely feel that Tallaght should ultimately be linked more directly (via an extension of MN). This would also serve to bring high capacity rail transport to parts of Dublin (Harold's X, Terenure, Templeogue etc.) that have never known it, killing several birds with one stone and leaving the orbital alignment free for MW (which I firmly believe in some day)

murphaph

To be quite honest I'd take just about ANY solution. Mine, yours, anything would be better than the rubbish that passes for public transport in Dublin now. The biggest obstacle to better public transport in Dublin is Dubliners. They don't care enough about the issue to make the noise needed for politicians to take notice. The Wesht makes noise and as they say the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Dublin gets no oil (relative to its importance to the Irish state it is very poorly catered for).

ardmacha

Dubliners of influence do not travel on public transport.

Copyerselveson

ardmacha wrote: »

Dubliners of influence do not travel on public transport.

I saw Ronnie Drew on the Dart to Greystones a few years back.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

To be quite honest I'd take just about ANY solution. Mine, yours, anything would be better than the rubbish that passes for public transport in Dublin now. The biggest obstacle to better public transport in Dublin is Dubliners. They don't care enough about the issue to make the noise needed for politicians to take notice. The Wesht makes noise and as they say the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Dublin gets no oil (relative to its importance to the Irish state it is very poorly catered for).

Indeed, amount of Dublin mates I hear say "but we don't need a metro!"

Sad really.

Aard

D.L.R. wrote: »

Indeed, amount of Dublin mates I hear say "but we don't need a metro!"

I'd imagine that the prevailing idea that Dublin has a low population and a low population density causes a lot of this.

monument

Aard wrote: »

I'd imagine that the prevailing idea that Dublin has a low population and a low population density causes a lot of this.

Err... prevailing but off the mark.

Aard

monument wrote: »

Err... prevailing but off the mark.

Yes of course. Quite wide of the mark really.

cgcsb

In my experience the more you get to know a place, the smaller it seems. Many Londoners dont have a 'big city' attitude.

Jack Noble

Transport Minister Leo Varadkar gave an interesting speech on Monday at a Shift2Rail* briefing held in Dublin.

http://www.dttas.ie/speeches/2013/speech-minister-transport-tourism-sport-leo-varadkar-shift2rail-briefing-dublin

Here's the key paragraph:

I recently met with officials from the EU Commission and the Ten-T Executive Agency in Brussels who confirmed their positive views towards the Dart Underground. The EIB had also indicated a keen interest in supporting DU and this interest was confirmed to me at a meeting with the EIB Management Board on 29 April last. The Dart Underground has been included in the new Ten-T Core Network and is part of one of the nine Core Corridors. Dart Underground is likely to be a priority in the context of the next capital plan subject to an appropriate funding package being developed.

As myself and others have pointed out on this thread and the Metro North thread, Dart Underground is very much still in play - and here is Leo saying it's game on for the post-2015 capital plan.

Obviously, it will be dependent on the state of the economy in 2015/16 but today's Q3 GDP/GNP figures and the recent employment data are grounds for optimism that the worst is behind us and we can look forward to a growing economy over the next few years and beyond.

And, as I have also pointed out, if Dart is built in the latter half of the decade, then that will make Metro a much more attractive prospect post-2020.

*For those who are interested, here's who Shift2Rail are. http://www.shift2rail.org/

strassenwo!f

There've been a number of these major projects which I've looked at over the years, like the Crossrail project in London, or the second S-bahn tunnel in Munich. Both of those had proper consultations, had a proper public debate/consultation and were altered as required. In Dublin, where the spend on the cross-city tunnel represents a vastly greater proportion of the available cash (for the entire country), the initial consultation amounted to a pretty hastily-arranged presentation, with all three lines being effectively the same.

All subsequent "consultations" were basically the same.

According to the presentation to An Bord Pleanala, there were two possible locations looked at. Tara Street was one, but the flaw there was that any line through there couldn't also go through St. Stephen's Green. I take it that this means, that while it could have enabled IE to increase the number of passenger journeys to 100 million, it wouldn't have enabled all the various metro, DART and LUAS bits to integrate (because it couldn't go to St. Stephen's Green, where the LUAS was stuck, at the time).

St. Stephen's Green was grand, 'cos it could do all those things. 100 million extra passengers and connect all the bits, even if it meant seriously inefficient uptake and delivery of passengers.

College Green, which could also do all of that 100 million stuff, and allow integration of all forms of public transport, was quite clearly not even examined for the presentation to ABP (or for the public "consultations", for that matter), despite it offering an opportunity for considerably more efficient uptake and delivery of passengers through all the hours that public transport operates in Dublin.

The mind boggles.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

College Green, which could also do all of that 100 million stuff, and allow integration of all forms of public transport, was quite clearly not even examined for the presentation to ABP (or for the public "consultations", for that matter), despite it offering an opportunity for considerably more efficient uptake and delivery of passengers through all the hours that public transport operates in Dublin.

The mind boggles.

The mind boggles indeed; on another thread you were already given a long list of things which generate passengers "through all the hours that public transport operates".

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

The mind boggles indeed; on another thread you were already given a long list of things which generate passengers "through all the hours that public transport operates".

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

What is the fixation you have with College Green? Something smells of vested interest to me.

Banjoxed

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

I think we should redesign the wheel.

After all, it has been in use for so long that it must be in need of an upgrade by now.

We can spend millions on consultants to advise us on materials, on structural issues and on the most efficient location for them on vehicles.

We can also then spend a few more on the vehicles themselves. Preferably electric ones.

We can then run up a few Oireachtas committees and a public enquiry or two, just to be sure.

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

Enough of this side discussion please. Move along.

Please read the rules here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055048043

Moderator

strassenwo!f

Victor is a committee member of Railusersireland, who have long campaigned for the interconnector to be built through St. Stephen's Green. One, in particular, of the officers of that group, has spent hours on end posting often and at length here about how the interconnector would go through St. Stephen's Green, and would thus connect with the LUAS.

The poster Murphaph, who you can see thanking Victor and who is or was a member of RailusersIreland, is on record on this board as saying that the interconnector should be built through St. Stephen's Green because it would be much better for the clients of Copper Face Jack's if they were near to the line, cos' a line at College Green would be miles away.

Is there a conflict of interest here?