DART+ (DART Expansion)

1huge1

I suppose the advantage of the DART spur would be the lower cost due to it mostly going through fields past Howth Junction and the higher capacity it would offer over buses.

Granted the Metro north would be the preferred option but as you say at a ''eye wateringly high cost''

Sam Russell

It is about 5km of railway across virgin land (avoiding a cemetry) and could be completed very quickly. Only a couple of major bridges before it gets to the airport, depending on the route.

Even if the Metro North gets built, the Dart spur is a very good addition to the interconnectivity of the Dart and the northern line. Stopping at Howth Junction would help it connect with trains north of Dublin if that was thought worth it.

It is like the reopening of the Phoenix Park Tunnel - cheap and quick to implement and additive to the current network at low cost without implications for the more ambitious projects such as DU or MN unless they are seen as 'either/or'.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In a situation such as the above, where there was such an obvious discrepancy in the material presented to ABP by these two state bodies, it would (in my humble opinion) have been proper for ABP to point out that one of the state bodies was obviously incorrect in the material which they had presented.

They didn't do this.

Because, despite your opinion, that is not the purpose of ABP.

strassenwo!f

It's not the purpose of ABP, but it is surely one of its tasks.

Aard

I do not believe that that is within ABP's competencies. Could you point to where in statute might back up your assertion?

strassenwo!f

Aard, my assertion that...what?

GerardKeating

Sam Russell wrote: »

A full Dart service would take more than 30 mins to get from the Airport to Connolly. The only purpose of such a link would that it be very quick and reliable.

Besides, a Dart service could not cope with so many suitcases.

But DART carriages are bigger/Wider/longer that the Luas/Metro cars, so they should be able to copy better.

And would the DART (on the same route as Metro North) not be a bit faster.

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Aard, my assertion that...what?

This:

In a situation such as the above, where there was such an obvious discrepancy in the material presented to ABP by these two state bodies, it would (in my humble opinion) have been proper for ABP to point out that one of the state bodies was obviously incorrect in the material which they had presented.

I don't believe that this would be within ABP's competencies. Do you?

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

This:

I don't believe that this would be within ABP's competencies. Do you?

Sorry Aard. I think there are always ways that you can flag an issue if it isn't right. That didn't happen here, as far as I know.

strassenwo!f

ABP also came up with the idea that it was a "National Transport Policy Requirement" that the interconnector be built through St. Stephen's Green.

Neither IE nor the RPA said this in their presentations to ABP. ABP appear to have come up with this one entirely off their own bat.

Why did they do this? I don't know.

There had, for example, been umpteen consultants' reports into the Children's Hospital at the Mater, showing why it should be built at that location. It couldn't have been clearer to ABP that it was a "National Health Policy Requirement" for the Children's Hospital to be built there. Yet ABP rejected it.

When IE and the RPA came along, with totally conflicting presentations about the possibilities for the metro/DART interchange, ABP came up with this idea that it was a "Requirement" for the interchange to be at St. Stephen's Green.

This view was based, according to ABP, on the work of the then defunct Dublin Transportation Office (who, it appears, originally came up with the St. Stephen's Green idea by completing a join-the-dots exercise and looking out the window of their St. Stephen's Green office for a suitable location for an interchange) and Martin Cullen's great plan (you remember, the one with all the ring-fenced money for public transport, none of which remained when the time came for investment in public transport).

After all the wonderful planning that has gone on in Ireland over the last couple of decades, for example with housing estates built on flood plains, I think that ABP, the highest planning body in the country, should have been much tighter on IE and the RPA when they presented such conflicting information about the interchange options available to them.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps ABP did mention it to both applicants? If I and a neighbour in tge same type of house seek planning permission for 2 different kinds of extension and both of us claim in our applications that the position of each extension cannot be changed it doesn't really affect the planning authority's decisions. The proposal either satisfies planning law or it doesn't.

This is a poor analogy.

Your extension and your neighbour's extension are quite separate from each other.

The metro and interconnector are not.

BonkeyDonker

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is about 5km of railway across virgin land (avoiding a cemetry) and could be completed very quickly. Only a couple of major bridges before it gets to the airport, depending on the route.

Even if the Metro North gets built, the Dart spur is a very good addition to the interconnectivity of the Dart and the northern line. Stopping at Howth Junction would help it connect with trains north of Dublin if that was thought worth it.

It is like the reopening of the Phoenix Park Tunnel - cheap and quick to implement and additive to the current network at low cost without implications for the more ambitious projects such as DU or MN unless they are seen as 'either/or'.

Could it be added as a somewhat roundabout extension of the Northern line, with both tracks detouring just north of Portmarnock, and rejoining just shy of Malahide - that way it would serve all the current Dart customers that are currently served by the Northern line, and if the Dart underground it would incorporate that.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This is a poor analogy.

Your extension and your neighbour's extension are quite separate from each other.

The metro and interconnector are not.

Not necessarily. You've heard of party walls I'm sure!

The point stands that a proposal either satisfies planning law or it doesn't. Anyway, all this should really be in that other thread. DU will not be redesigned now because of this thread so it's pointless arguing either way.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is about 5km of railway across virgin land (avoiding a cemetry) and could be completed very quickly. Only a couple of major bridges before it gets to the airport, depending on the route.

Even if the Metro North gets built, the Dart spur is a very good addition to the interconnectivity of the Dart and the northern line. Stopping at Howth Junction would help it connect with trains north of Dublin if that was thought worth it.

It is like the reopening of the Phoenix Park Tunnel - cheap and quick to implement and additive to the current network at low cost without implications for the more ambitious projects such as DU or MN unless they are seen as 'either/or'.

the price being quoted for the PPT is only a few million - I think IE have estimated about 200m for the Airport Dart spur - that's a big difference and a lot of money to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (and provide a service only marginally better than what we currently have).

We already spent 700m on a tunnel that directly links the airport with the city centre, and public transport to the airport is now better than it has ever been in the past - the fact that it is not rail-based is not an issue.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's not the purpose of ABP, but it is surely one of its tasks.

No. It's not.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There had, for example, been umpteen consultants' reports into the Children's Hospital at the Mater, showing why it should be built at that location. It couldn't have been clearer to ABP that it was a "National Health Policy Requirement" for the Children's Hospital to be built there. Yet ABP rejected it.

ABP rejected a specific building design - that's all.

You're really thrashing around desperately here at this stage.

Gone West

loyatemu wrote: »

the fact that it is not rail-based is not an issue.

Is this your opinion, or are there some facts behind this statement?
I know, anecdotally, I travel abroad to new cities a lot.
I will take a taxi if there is no rail from an airport to the city, regardless of cost or distance.
I know a lot of people who would be the same. If you aren't fully aware of the local area, customs, ticketing and so on, train beats bus hands down anywhere.
My opinion of course.

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Lxflyer, in 2005(almost ten years ago now) the Department of Transport received a document from me, outlining why I believed it would make sense to build the highest capacity line ever to be built in Dublin through the centre. That is, rather than their proposed more expensive and less efficient circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green.

I'd imagine lots of people also did the same, ie wrote to the Department of Transport, because it was so obvious that this was the incorrect thing for the city.

I never heard a word from the Department, but perhaps those others did.

What is needed now is an explanation of why the interconnector, as proposed, takes such an expensive, circuitous route around the city, rather than a direct route through it, which would directly serve more people and be considerably cheaper.

The An Bord Pleanala analysis didn't attempt to answer this question.

The appropriate body to contact was (and is) the organisation tasked with preparing the design of the scheme.

That was, and is Irish Rail. Not the DoT, and not ABP. You've been told that several times. They're the people who chose the route, designed the stations etc.

Yet you keep faffing about and coming up with reams of nonsense while resolutely refusing to contact them directly with your query.

Just get in contact with them and at the very least ask the question rather than constantly regurgitating the same post again and again. What you are doing here is just pointless.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

The appropriate body to contact was (and is) the organisation tasked with preparing the design of the scheme.

Lxflyer, if the appropriate body (IE) couldn't agree with its partner (The RPA) about the interchange, what difference am I going to make?

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Lxflyer, if the appropriate body (IE) couldn't agree with its partner (The RPA) about the interchange, what difference am I going to make?

They did agree on an interchange. Just not the one you're obsessed with.

strassenwo!f

MYOB wrote: »

They did agree on an interchange. Just not the one you're obsessed with.

Yes, the RPA nad IE agreed on St. Stephen's Green.

IE looked at two, aparrently only one was suitable.

The RPA looked at the options, and said to ABP that a number of options were suitable for a metro/DART interchange.

The RPA had to find an option which also fitted in with IE's story. So they chose St. Stephen's Green.

You might think, when the RPA said there were a number of locations suitable for an interchange, that ABP might have asked about these other locations.

For example: "What about these other locations which are suitable?"

Apparently they didn't.

ABP didn't ask, and the RPA chose not to tell hem.

Is this what you mean by IE and the RPA agreeing on an interchange location?

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, the RPA nad IE agreed on St. Stephen's Green.

And that's all the matters. Agreement was reached - and its Stephens Green.

Nothing is going to be changed now, no matter how many wildly inaccurate grand pronouncements you make along the lines of having managed to "show" that somewhere else is better (which you haven't).

And for one last time - you don't seem to understand what ABP actually does. I suggest you read their actual statutory role before continuing to run off on fantasy scenarios.

strassenwo!f

It's taken me 10 years, but most people will sort it out in 10 minutes. You're going to need serious figures to explain the St. Stephen's Green detour.

Aard

You misunderstand the role of ABP.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's taken me 10 years, but most people will sort it out in 10 minutes. You're going to need serious figures to explain the St. Stephen's Green detour.

What are you talking about?

You are the one proposing a wildly costly detour from the agreed, approved route. You've already shown that you can't cost it coherently - that's about all you have actually shown comprehensively!

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

You misunderstand the role of ABP.

Clearly I do.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's taken me 10 years, but most people will sort it out in 10 minutes. You're going to need serious figures to explain the St. Stephen's Green detour.

WTF?

What 'St Stephen's Green detour'?

SSG has been planned as a major Metro/Dart interchange since 2001 when an expanded Dart network was put back on the agenda as part of PFC.

Dart Underground was never going anywhere near College Green -- except in your head.

Nor has it any need to because such a line would not serve the three major areas planners want to serve -- north Docklands and IFSC, south Docklands and Pearse/Trinity/Merrion Square, and the south city CBD centred around SSG.

The city of Dublin has changed massively since 1975 when DRRTS was published and PFC acknowledged this. That is why the DU/Metro North plans are markedly different to the system recommended nearly 40 years ago.

But if you really want answers to your questions, the solution is simple -- ask the NTA, IE and RPA instead of wasting your own time and that of everyone else on this thread.

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Lxflyer, if the appropriate body (IE) couldn't agree with its partner (The RPA) about the interchange, what difference am I going to make?

For the love of God, your repeated question here has been why did they choose the approved route over one via College Green.


What I'm saying is ASK THEM (i.e. Irish Rail) WHY!


I'll ask you again - what could you possibly have to lose by doing that?

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

the price being quoted for the PPT is only a few million - I think IE have estimated about 200m for the Airport Dart spur - that's a big difference and a lot of money to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (and provide a service only marginally better than what we currently have).

We already spent 700m on a tunnel that directly links the airport with the city centre, and public transport to the airport is now better than it has ever been in the past - the fact that it is not rail-based is not an issue.

The tunnel does not link the city and the airport - it links the docks with the M50. The fact that it aids connection with the airport is an accident.

Connecting the airport by rail makes huge sense, and connecting it to the northern line is the cheapest way currently. Extending the Dart service (as currently operated) is just what happened when the Picadilly line was extended to Heathrow. A slow underground line that stopped at every little station, picking up and dropping off a few passengers, while the carriages bulged with huge suitcases blocking every door and passsageway. They saw sense and built an express service to PADDINGTON!. Who wants to go the Paddington? It takes an hour to get from Heathrow to central London.

An express service (operating every 20 or 30 mins) will provide a 20 min link to Connolly and link with Dart, Commuter service, Intercity, and Luas. What more do you want?

Does anyone have a cost per Km for dual track electrified railway, preferably split between rail and electrification?

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The tunnel does not link the city and the airport - it links the docks with the M50. The fact that it aids connection with the airport is an accident.

Connecting the airport by rail makes huge sense, and connecting it to the northern line is the cheapest way currently. Extending the Dart service (as currently operated) is just what happened when the Picadilly line was extended to Heathrow. A slow underground line that stopped at every little station, picking up and dropping off a few passengers, while the carriages bulged with huge suitcases blocking every door and passsageway. They saw sense and built an express service to PADDINGTON!. Who wants to go the Paddington? It takes an hour to get from Heathrow to central London.

An express service (operating every 20 or 30 mins) will provide a 20 min link to Connolly and link with Dart, Commuter service, Intercity, and Luas. What more do you want?

Does anyone have a cost per Km for dual track electrified railway, preferably split between rail and electrification?

I think if DART Underground gets the go-ahead, then yes I would agree that the rationale would certainly improve significantly for building a DART spur to the airport from the Northern Line (assuming Metro North isn't built). And yes you could fit express services into the re-signalled line and through the tunnel to Inchicore.


However, I do have to take issue with your analogy with London. It does not take an hour to get from Heathrow to central London. That is nonsense.


The Heathrow Express takes 15 minutes. It's a 6 minute walk maximum to the Bakerloo line below Paddington, and it's 11 minutes from there to Piccadilly Circus. Allow 3 minutes to get up to street level and that's roughly 35-40 minutes, allowing for waiting time for the tube.


Paddington is exceptionally well connected with the District, Hammersmith & City, Circle and Bakerloo lines, and numerous bus routes, and is perfect for the West End.


The Piccadilly line will take 50 minutes for the trip to/from Piccadilly Circus.

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

Paddington is exceptionally well connected with the District, Hammersmith & City, Circle and Bakerloo lines, and numerous bus routes, and is perfect for the West End.

And in due time, will benefit from Crossrail as well.