DART+ (DART Expansion)

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

Also, turns out that ABP's decision actually was JR'ed! And the Railway Order lives.


Here's the file http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0005/NA0005.htm

Aard, while you're in there, would you be kind enough to dredge out the transcript of the RPA presentation re the metro, and the ABP report granting the railway order. It'd save us all a lot of bother.

1huge1

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Aard, while you're in there, would you be kind enough to dredge out the transcript of the RPA presentation re the metro, and the ABP report granting the railway order. It'd save us all a lot of bother.

Hold on, are you just going to ignore that you said the SSG route is 1km longer than the College Green route, but as has been shown above is is actually around 350m longer.

strassenwo!f

Telchak wrote: »

It would likely cost as much to redesign the line and prepare a new railway order, so why bother?

That's unlikely. Total design costs for the interconnector route were around 45 million euro. Redesigning the city centre bit would cost, what, 20 million euro.

They'd also need to redesign the city centre bit of the metro, which would add another few million. (My guess is they'll be redesigning that anyway).

In total, you might be looking at around 30 to 40 million euro.

Telchak

1huge1 wrote: »

Hold on, are you just going to ignore that you said the SSG route is 1km longer than the College Green route, but as has been shown above is is actually around 350m longer.

In fact, the only way you could get it near a kilometer is if you went as the crow flies straight from the North Wall portal to College Green, then straight across to the Inchicore portal.

strassenwo!f

alias no.9 wrote: »

Much of the area around college green is reclaimed marsh, given your expertise in the economics of tunnelling, do you think this may increase or decrease the cost of tunnelling or indeed the construction of an underground rail interchange?

I'd doubt if it would add significantly to the cost either way. Most of that area of Dublin is reclaimed land. Doesn't appear to prevent the proposal for an interchange at Pearse Station or a station at Spencer Dock.

Telchak

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's unlikely. Total design costs for the interconnector route were around 45 million euro. Redesigning the city centre bit would cost, what, 20 million euro.

They'd also need to redesign the city centre bit of the metro, which would add another few million. (My guess is they'll be redesigning that anyway).

In total, you might be looking at around 30 to 40 million euro.

Between this and the length thing, you're clearly just making up numbers.

Why not stop being disingenuous about all these criticisms of the SSG route, and just stick to your legitimate argument that CG is a better location for passengers?

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Aard, while you're in there, would you be kind enough to dredge out the transcript of the RPA presentation re the metro, and the ABP report granting the railway order. It'd save us all a lot of bother.

Still dodging. Still spoofing. Now asking others to do the donkey work to back up stuff you've imagined.

Whiskey Tango Alpha Foxtrot????

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's unlikely. Total design costs for the interconnector route were around 45 million euro. Redesigning the city centre bit would cost, what, 20 million euro.

And everything from the northern portal onwards until you rejoin the planned route, as your suggestion would have an impossible curve from Pearse.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In total, you might be looking at around 30 to 40 million euro.

Right, even if we accept this guesswork - now add the costs of the CPOs, foundation underpinning, heritage/archaeology works required for College Green to that; and see how much you get.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Clearly Heuston -Spencer Dock via College Green is shorter than Heuston-Spencer Dock via St. Stephen's Green.

The costs of assembling the TBM and putting it into the ground are very large. But those costs are the same whether the TBM goes via College Green or St. Stephen's Green. The main difference in costs would be related to the fact that tunnelling via St. Stephen's Green would be considerably longer, the last time I looked around 1 kilometre. That's probably around an extra 200 million euro in tunnelling costs.

The fact that a direct route via College Green would remove two of the three major curves on the proposed St. Stephen's Green route would probably also reduce costs a bit, but I doubt if it would be significant in the overall scheme.

But we're probably looking at savings of around 200 million euro by building a shorter, more direct route via College Green.

Now, obviously, there are a number of nice buildings in College Green, like the Bank of Ireland and the front of Trinity. We don't want them to collapse during or after tunnelling, so there'd have to be extra costs to ensure that doesn't happen.

But by the same token, the proposed route via St. Stephen's Green goes (last time I looked) directly under Government Buildings on Merrion Street. It'd be important to ensure that that doesn't crumble into the dust either.

So, on tunnelling costs, you're certainly looking at savings of between 100 million and 200 million euro.

I said "show", not "spoof".

Your distance has been shown to be pulled out of thin air and hugely inaccurate. Your tunnelling costs figure is pulled out of thin air and is at the utterly laughable end of the scale too.

There are curves in the route to allow trains to actually navigate them - something you need to realise.

The simple fact of the matter is that your proposal is going to be more expensive in cold, hard financial terms before we even begin to consider the huge damage to the city economy by having all of College Green dug up for multiple years. You can't spoof away from that.

Jack Noble

MYOB wrote: »

And everything from the northern portal onwards until you rejoin the planned route, as your suggestion would have an impossible curve from Pearse.



Right, even if we accept this guesswork - now add the costs of the CPOs, foundation underpinning, heritage/archaeology works required for College Green to that; and see how much you get.

And then there's the costs from the inevitable court challenges to works on College Green, costs from the resultant delays, the risk the courts will halt any work based on one of those challenges, or the cost of the Garda operation to clear and guard any construction site and protect construction workers from protests if work actually begins.

Folks, I don't think Strassenwolf has thought very far beyond 'College Green should be the Metro-Dart interchange cos I think it's a really, really cool idea!'.

GerardKeating

alias no.9 wrote: »

Much of the area around college green is reclaimed marsh, given your expertise in the economics of tunnelling, do you think this may increase or decrease the cost of tunnelling or indeed the construction of an underground rail interchange?

Also, would the risk of flooding be Worse/Less/No difference when tunneling along side a a river as (as with this route) compared to the "official" route?

And is the risk to the historical Building on Dame Street and in Trinity College increase or reduced with this "alternative" route.

strassenwo!f

Telchak wrote: »

Just in case there's any ambiguity about the lack of significant distance savings of going via College Green, I drew this out. For comparison, SSG route is 7.6km.

That's a very, nice, straight route. Fewer big curves than there are in the St. Stephen's Green proposal. In fact, that irons out two of the major curves in the St. Stephen's Green idea.

And that would also connect with the LUAS, right? And, if I remember correctly from the maps of worker density, that would also directly serve at least as many commuters as the St. Stephen's Green route. That's before we even get to the people who are using this proposed cross-city line throughout the day.

And with a bit of tweaking of the metro plans, there could be a nice interchange with the metro there as well.

I must have got it wrong with the distances involved, between the St. Stephen's Green route and a route via College Green. Any time I measured it, it was around a kilometre, but it looks like I must have been biased. Still, with that route above, you're talking about savings of around 100 million euro, which easily covers potential redesign costs.

I've read every word of this thread, and it seems to me that Dublin has a choice. It can tear up lots of St. Stephen's Green, a location which has been called on this thread an "incredibly low impact" location, to build an interchange between the metro, LUAS and DART, and leave College Green snarled with buses.

Or it can bite the bullet and build the interchange in College Green (using a DART Underground line like that illustrated by Telchak above), and hopefully pedestrianize it, while leaving St. Stephen's Green intact. And connect the DART, LUAS and metro in a really central location.

The line in that illustration posted by Telchak really does look very nice.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's a very, nice, straight route. Fewer big curves than there are in the St. Stephen's Green proposal. In fact, that irons out two of the major curves in the St. Stephen's Green idea.

I thought the point of the "curves" was that the train could not hack the tight turn shown in this "new" route.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's a very, nice, straight route. Fewer big curves than there are in the St. Stephen's Green proposal. In fact, that irons out two of the major curves in the St. Stephen's Green idea.

And that would also connect with the LUAS, right? And, if I remember correctly from the maps of worker density, that would also directly serve at least as many commuters as the St. Stephen's Green route. That's before we even get to the people who are using this proposed cross-city line throughout the day.

And with a bit of tweaking of the metro plans, there could be a nice interchange with the metro there as well.

I must have got it wrong with the distances involved, between the St. Stephen's Green route and a route via College Green. Any time I measured it, it was around a kilometre, but it looks like I must have been biased. Still, with that route above, you're talking about savings of around 100 million euro, which easily covers potential redesign costs.

I've read every word of this thread, and it seems to me that Dublin has a choice. It can tear up lots of St. Stephen's Green, a location which has been called on this thread an "incredibly low impact" location, to build an interchange between the metro, LUAS and DART, and leave College Green snarled with buses.

Or it can bite the bullet and build the interchange in College Green (using a DART Underground line like that illustrated by Telchak above), and hopefully pedestrianize it, while leaving St. Stephen's Green intact. And connect the DART, LUAS and metro in a really central location.

The line in that illustration posted by Telchak really does look very nice.

FFS, stop spoofing and waffling and making up fantasies and figures and answer the questions put to you.

Why do you keep ignoring and avoiding any questions asked of you?

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

FFS, stop spoofing and waffling and making up fantasies and figures and answer the questions put to you.

Why do you keep ignoring and avoiding any questions asked of you?

I'm doing my best Jack, but I only have so much time.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm doing my best Jack, but I only have so much time.

You haven't attempted to answer a single question myself and other posters have put to you in this thread.

Instead you come off with the same BS fantasy every time -- without a single piece of hard evidence, data or costings to support your claims.

As Nixon said to Ike in 52, it's time to sh1t or get off the pot!

strassenwo!f

Telchak, I had envisaged the DART Underground going more under Pearse Street, and less under Trinity. This would probably involve even less of a difference between the St. Stephen's Green route and a route through College Green. Do you think you could show that on whatever system you're using to produce these maps?

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Telchak, I had envisaged the DART Underground going more under Pearse Street, and less under Trinity. This would probably involve even less of a difference between the St. Stephen's Green route and a route through College Green. Do you think you could show that on whatever system you're using to produce these maps?

Jesus wept.

Have you even the slightest idea what a line under Pearse Street with a station on College Street means?

Here's a really simple question for you with a really simple Yes or No answer.

Have you asked the NTA and/or IE why they routed Dart Underground through SSG and not CG?

BonkeyDonker

Jack Noble wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Have you even the slightest idea what a line under Pearse Street with a station on College Street means?

Here's a really simple question for you with a really simple Yes or No answer.

Have you asked the NTA and/or IE why they routed Dart Underground through SSG and not CG?

Hi Jack,

strassenwo!f has asked for time to do whatever he has to do. Perhaps we should give him this time, so his work is not rushed, or disrupted by us constantly asking him to prove himself and disrupting him. When he has quantitatively shown his preferred routing to be cheaper than that chosen we can discuss it using his facts and figures.

Jack Noble

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Hi Jack,

strassenwo!f has asked for time to do whatever he has to do. Perhaps we should give him this time, so his work is not rushed, or disrupted by us constantly asking him to prove himself and disrupting him.

In fairness, he's been at this College Green nonsense for years and still hasn't produced a single piece of evidence to support his contention that College Green is a better location for a Dart-Metro interchange than Stephens Green.

But why can he not -- or will he not -- answer the simple question on whether or not he has asked the NTA and/or IE why SSG was chosen over CG?

Myself and other posters have suggested many times that he do just that. Yet he simply ignores the suggestion and following question.

Why is that? He doesn't need time to answer that question -- it's a simple Yes or No.

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Have you even the slightest idea what a line under Pearse Street with a station on College Street means?

Here's a really simple question for you with a really simple Yes or No answer.

Have you asked the NTA and/or IE why they routed Dart Underground through SSG and not CG?

Well, initially, and this can, if necessary, be backed up by all the newspaper reports at the time and over the years, they were planning to build the DART Underground through St. Stephen's Green because it enabled the IE project to connect with the LUAS.

They couldn't plan it through College Green, or any other city centre location, because the LUAS simply wasn't there. So, Jack, that's pretty much why they routed it through St. Stephen's Green. Over the years, I haven't seen a single press release or departmental statement that there was any other reason for DART Underground being built through St. Stephen's Green than that it would enable it to connect with the LUAS and metro.

And I would challenge you to present any newspaper report, or Department of Transport press release, from the time, which suggested otherwise.

Of course, the LUAS will soon be in College Green

I haven't spoken to the NTA, or to IE, about their plans for Dublin. I wrote to the Department of Transport about this very issue (College Green versus St. Stephen's Green) when I lived in Dublin, way back when. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to do this, now, when I'm outside the country (probably for the long term) and don't have to live by the decisions they make. I post on the world wide web because I hope I can influence some Dubliners to see the potential of the city the way that I do.

Practically none of the stuff which we have discussed on this amazing thread, valuable maps of commuter density in Dublin, and important contributions from posters about what they have learnt from other cities in the world, will be absorbed by the planners in Dublin. Pity.

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Aard, while you're in there, would you be kind enough to dredge out the transcript of the RPA presentation re the metro, and the ABP report granting the railway order. It'd save us all a lot of bother.

No. I just laid it at your feet. It's your assertion to back up, not mine.

strassenwo!f

Telchak's route really is very nice. I'll probably dream about it tonight.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

No. I just laid it at your feet. It's your assertion to back up, not mine.

That's fair enough, Aard. Thanks for posting what you did.

lucernarian

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's fair enough, Aard. Thanks for posting what you did.

How about this. Did you email or otherwise contact the NTA or the RPA regarding the routing to st Stephens green instead of College Green??

L1011

You've just completely changed how much you think tunnelling costs to a wildly higher figure to try cling to your 100m figure when your "1km" was shown to be wrong. Why?

strassenwo!f

No Lucernarian, I didn't. For the reasons given above.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, initially, and this can, if necessary, be backed up by all the newspaper reports at the time and over the years, they were planning to build the DART Underground through St. Stephen's Green because it enabled the IE project to connect with the LUAS.

They couldn't plan it through College Green, or any other city centre location, because the LUAS simply wasn't there. So, Jack, that's pretty much why they routed it through St. Stephen's Green. Over the years, I haven't seen a single press release or departmental statement that there was any other reason for DART Underground being built through St. Stephen's Green than that it would enable it to connect with the LUAS and metro.

And I would challenge you to present any newspaper report, or Department of Transport press release, from the time, which suggested otherwise.

Of course, the LUAS will soon be in College Green

I haven't spoken to the NTA, or to IE, about their plans for Dublin. I wrote to the Department of Transport about this very issue (College Green versus St. Stephen's Green) when I lived in Dublin, way back when. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to do this, now, when I'm outside the country (probably for the long term) and don't have to live by the decisions they make. I post on the world wide web because I hope I can influence some Dubliners to see the potential of the city the way that I do.

Practically none of the stuff which we have discussed on this amazing thread, valuable maps of commuter density in Dublin, and important contributions from posters about what they have learnt from other cities in the world, will be absorbed by the planners in Dublin. Pity.

So, essentially, you have no evidence, data or costings figures to back up your assertion that CG is a 'better' location than SSG.

And you've never once asked the people who selected SSG as a major interchange -- NTA, IE and RPA -- why they did so and how they came to this conclusion. That's despite this being known for the last 13 years.

If you are so convinced CG is more appropriate than SSG then why have you not asked these surely important questions of the relevant bodies?

strassenwo!f

MYOB wrote: »

You've just completely changed how much you think tunnelling costs to a wildly higher figure to try cling to your 100m figure when your "1km" was shown to be wrong. Why?

We're broadly talking about 200 million euro per kilometre for tunnelling through a European city.

I thought it was around a kilometre. Which should equate to savings of around 200 million euro on tunnelling costs.

I was wrong.

It is clear from Telchak's nice map above, that it's actually only around 500m shorter. So savings of only 100 million euro or so on tunnelling costs.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

We're broadly talking about 200 million euro per kilometre for tunnelling through a European city.

I thought it was around a kilometre. Which should equate to savings of around 200 million euro on tunnelling costs.

I was wrong.

It is clear from Telchak's nice map above, that it's actually only around 500m shorter. So savings of only 100 million euro or so on tunnelling costs.

You have no idea of the geology. Therefore you have no idea of tunneling cost.