DART+ (DART Expansion)

strassenwo!f

I see they've discovered a few bones during the LUAS works on College Green. It's been mentioned on this thread.

Now, we don't, as yet, know whether these are human bones. They may be animal bones, from some bygone day, or they may, for example, be the more recent bones of some Dublin hood placed there by some other Dublin hood on the last occasion that College Green was resurfaced.

But, my guess is, they're human bones from an earlier era in Dublin's development.

Bord na Mona occasionally discover human bodies, preserved for many years in the bog. What should be done?

What is done is to remove the body, do whatever study is necessary on the body, find out all that can be found out, and press on.

What is not done is to say "Lads, we've found a body in the bog, and if we continue with this we might find another body. So we're going to unfortunately have to let you all go, with a week's pay for every year of service, and we're going to close down Bord na Mona. And we're going to suggest to the Government that all turf-cutting in Ireland should cease, forthwith, in case another body is found."

Same in Dublin.

If this interconnector route is built through St. Stephen's Green, somebody will find something to hold the thing up. I wouldn't think there are many bodies there, but there are enough reasons to doubt that this is the best route for Dublin (we've discussed this a lot).

If the interconnector were built through College Green, there are probably lots of bodies down there, and boats, and little utensils that you might use to make flour, and maybe some stuff you'd use for pillaging. You'd probably find all that, if you dig a big hole there. in College Green.

You could find all that stuff there, then get the archaeologists to remove the important stuff and preserve the site by record, and then allow the main work to proceed, much like Bord na Mona do.

The poster Jack Noble said in an earlier post that he thinks College Green will eventually be pedestrianized. I think we can take it that this means removing the tarmac, covering the surface with reddish bricks, and effectively provide no record or memory of what's underneath.

Jack Noble wrote: »

I can't see those TBMs leaving much in the way for the archeologists to get their hands on, can you?

Classy, Jack. Let's use those TBMs to get rid of important and interesting information about Dublin's past.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Most decades ago - given the restraints imposed today by EU and national environment and heritage protection laws and economic realities, I believe excavating the historic cores of cities would be avoided at all costs.

I can see that logic in cities which do have a genuine historic core. Krakow, for example, is pretty much stuck with its tramlines for ever more. But Rome, for example, is pressing on with the interchange at the Coliseum ("Now, lads, are those Christian bones, or are they lion bones?").

Plenty of cities are pressing on with central routes, even now. Dublin doesn't have a historic core - in or around College Green there's the bank, and there's Trinity, and that's it. You don't want to see these buildings crumble into the dust, but the Ulster Bank on College Green/Church Lane, the Westin Hotel on College Green/Westmoreland Street, The EBS on Westmoreland Street/Fleet Street or the building that used to be Vodafone on College Green/Foster Place. Does anyone really give a **** about those?

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Does anyone really give a **** about those?

A protected structure is a protected structure.

murphaph

And you can't just protect the listed buildings. You have to ensure every building is protected during construction as you know...people are inside and on the street below.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

A protected structure is a protected structure.

Indeed it is.

Which of the buildings I mentioned are protected?

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Indeed it is.

Which of the buildings I mentioned are protected?

Doesn't matter about protected status. All the buildings must be protected during construction or the ones that aren't will take the ones that are down should the worst happen....and more important than that...there are people in and around all these buildings. You must protect them all.

strassenwo!f

Yes, Murphaph, just like all of the posters on this thread are posting on the basis that the authorities in Dublin will eventullly manage to get their heads around integrated ticketing, I'd say that we are all basing our posts on an assumption that nothing is going to be allowed which will see these important buildings crumple into the dust. Government Buildings on the St. Stephen's Green route, and the important College Green buildings on any route via College Green.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, Murphaph, just like all of the posters on this thread are posting on the basis that the authorities in Dublin will eventullly manage to get their heads around integrated ticketing, I'd say that we are all basing our posts on assumption that nothing important is going to be allowed for imporyant buildings to crumple into the dust. Government Buildings on the St. Stephen's Green route, and the important College Green buildings on any route via College Green.

There's a whole world of difference between a TBM passing under and large excavations to build station boxes. You must see that?

TheBandicoot

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The poster Jack Noble said in an earlier post that he thinks College Green will eventually be pedestrianized. I think we can take it that this means removing the tarmac, covering the surface with reddish bricks, and effectively provide no record or memory of what's underneath.

This is ridiculous even for you.

strassenwo!f

I think in Dublin's case there would probably be a lot to be gained by building a more central route, as we've discussed, certainly after construction. In terns of passenger numbers.

You'd obviously have to reroute a lot of the bus routes which currently go via the city, if the interconnector is built.

By my last reckoning, the number of DB bus services within the canals showed that about 60% went through College Green or the neighbouring streets. St. Stephen's Green was a long way back. There were a mere 25% through St Stephen's Gren..

Of course, an enormous mount of those bus services could be taken off the road, or preferably rerouted, if the interconnector is built.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think in Dublin's case there would probably be a lot to be gained by building a more central route, as we've discussed, certainly after construction. In terns of passenger numbers.

You'd obviously have to reroute a lot of the bus routes which currently go via the city, if the interconnector is built.

By my last reckoning, the number of DB bus services within the canals showed that about 60% went through College Green or the neighbouring streets. St. Stephen's Green was a long way back. There were a mere 25% through St Stephen's Gren..

Of course, an enormous mount of those bus services could be taken off the road, or preferably rerouted, if the interconnector is built.

Will you please just give it up. Every new post from you just reinforces the view that you really haven't the first clue what you are talking about -- whether it's urban transportation, engineering, planning, construction, project management and costing, or knowledge of Dublin's history, development, heritage, layout, economy, demographics and commuting patterns.

Here's just a few examples in the last couple of posts from you:

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Dublin doesn't have a historic core - in or around College Green there's the bank, and there's Trinity, and that's it.

Dublin does have an historic core dating back to Viking and Medieval times. It's centered around Dublin Castle and stretches down to the Liffey and east to what is now College Green and Trinity College. In Viking Times it was known as Hoggen Green and was later the site of a major monastery before Trinity was opened in 1592. From the early 17th Century onwards College Green and Dame Street up to the Castle were very much the heart of the city and the centre of British rule and administration in Dublin and Ireland. This area is still the historic heart of the city today and is promoted as such by DCC, Dublin Tourism and other tourism bodies.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But Rome, for example, is pressing on with the interchange at the Coliseum ("Now, lads, are those Christian bones, or are they lion bones?").

Rome Metro Line C is a very bad example to cite to back up your argument for tunneling under and excavating around major heritage and archaeological sites. Metro C has been under construction since 1990 and has been constantly delayed due to archaeological digs and the need to protect ancient sites and new discoveries. It was due to open in 2000 -- the final section to Colosseo now won't open before 2020. Costs have risen from under €2bn in 1990 to €5bn, according to a audit report carried out by the Italian Govt in 2012. Final costs by the time the final section of the line opens in 2020 are expected to hit €10bn.

In one case, plans to build an underground station at Largo di Torre Argentina were abandoned due to significant archaeological discoveries. Tunneling towards the Colisseum is a major controversy in Rome these days over fears it could cause the Colisseum to collapse - hence the slow progress.

poteen o hooley

You're feeding him Jack by giving him rational replies. He's best ignored.
The perverse agenda gripping him is no better illustrated than in his bizarre refusal to just phone the RPA where even the RPA cat knows why CG was rejected. That info would spoil his inflated self regard and ability to continue the game - all this an interesting case of how men especially can be utterly blind to how rigid and deluded and foolish they obviously are to everybody else.
I notice he's even stopped presenting any sort of rational arguments to support his thesis re CG (unsurprisingly given the exposure of numerous schoolboy howler assumptions) and just gibbers on as if there was a good case for CG.
Embarrassing really to see somebody make such an eejit if themselves.

Peregrine

You can put posters on an ignore list btw. I don't think you'd get notified of their posts.


Just saying..

Edit: Ah, ****e. You do get notified, the posts are just hidden.

strassenwo!f

Yes, Poteen O Hooley, you have a point.

And, by the way, welcome to the board, Poteen.

I was hoping that the poster Telchak would adapt the picture he had put on the board, but obviously he hasn't had the time over the last couple of weeks or so. So, perhaps some other posters would point out the advantages to introducing two major curves to, and lengthening, the route shown in this:

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So, perhaps some other posters would point out the advantages to introducing two major curves to, and lengthening, the route shown in this:

Again?

There's no ability for a station at Pearse on that route, and trains can't turn tight corners despite what you seem to believe.

There is nobody here to *be* convinced by continued posting by you - everyone and their dog knows that your suggestion is nonsensical.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, Poteen O Hooley, you have a point.

And, by the way, welcome to the board, Poteen.

I was hoping that the poster Telchak would adapt the picture he had put on the board, but obviously he hasn't had the time over the last couple of weeks or so. So, perhaps some other posters would point out the advantages to introducing two major curves to, and lengthening, the route shown in this:

Dear God, you still don't get it, do you?

That map actually shows you why your fantasy CG alignment is a bad idea and won't work.

Have another look and tell us when you can see why.

Jack Noble

MYOB wrote: »

Again?

There's no ability for a station at Pearse on that route, and trains can't turn tight corners despite what you seem to believe.

There is nobody here to *be* convinced by continued posting by you - everyone and their dog knows that your suggestion is nonsensical.

He cannot see the most obvious bloody problems with any CG alignment - yet it's as clear as day with just a cursory look at that map he loves so much.

strassenwo!f

Jack, it's obvious to you. It's not obvious to me, and may not be obvious to others on the board.

Telchak said that the route shown makes no sense.

Would you be kind enough to explain why it makes sense to introduce two major curves to the above line, and to make it longer, than just to build an approximation of Telchak's line shown above?

It's a central part of a 4 billion euro project. Could you tell us why it is necessary to introduce two major curves, and to make it longer than would appear to be necessary from Telchak's map.

Telchak's route would meet up with the LUAS. With a bit of tweaking it would meet up with the proposed metro. (and, it has to be said, the RPA idea of two stations at one location (O'Connell Bridge) could benefit from a bit of tweaking). And it would directly serve passengers in the largest high-density working area in Dublin.

You're in favour of something different, Jack. Tell us why it's better.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Jack, it's obvious to you. It's not obvious to me, and may not be obvious to others on the board.

Telchak said that the route shown makes no sense.

Would you be kind enough to explain why it makes sense to introduce two major curves to the above line, and to make it longer, than just to build an approximation of Telchak's line shown above?

It's a central part of a 4 billion euro project. Could you tell us why it is necessary to introduce two major curves, and to make it longer than would appear to be necessary from Telchak's map.

Telchak's route would meet up with the LUAS. With a bit of tweaking it would meet up with the proposed metro. (and, it has to be said, the RPA idea of two stations at one location (O'Connell Bridge) could benefit from a bit of tweaking). And it would directly serve passengers in the largest high-density working area in Dublin.

You're in favour of something different, Jack. Tell us why it's better.

It makes no sense because you only have two alignment and station options -- either (a) directly under Trinity campus with the station box in front of TCD or (b) under Pearse Street along the perimeter of Trinity with the station under College Street.

(a) can be ruled out because tunnelling under Trinity would not be allowed given the risk to TCD's historic buildings. Ref Metro North public consultation -- that's exactly what happened. That's before you even get to digging up CG itself for the station box.

(b) the distance between Pearse Station and College St is less than 700m. Given the alignment from Docklands that would allow a curve that could put an interchange station under Pearse St beside the existing station and another station under College St, each with 180m long platforms, the distance between the two stations would be so short, circa 350m-400m (That's closer together than most Luas stop in the city centre), that it would be madness to build two such stations so close together -- especially considering the disruption it would cause for very little overall benefit.

strassenwo!f

Yes, so you're not anwering the question Jack, about the best location for an interchancge

College Green isn't perfect, I know, but it ticks many of the boxes.

KCAccidental

jeez...

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, so you're not anwering the question Jack, about the best location for an interchancge

College Green isn't perfect, I know, but it ticks many of the boxes.

It is consistently pointed out to you why CG is not suitable but you persistently ignore that. Why?

Why have you simply ignored the points I made above?

SSG is the most suitable location for an interchange -- the reasons for which myself and others have outlined in detail many times in this thread. Again, you simply ignore these. Why?

I've come to the conclusion you must be a troll, intent to on disrupting this thread. I've fallen for it -- but no more. I've had enough of your nonsense.

strassenwo!f

Jack, you're fudging.

The question was, basically, how is the city (Dublin) placed at an advantage by this high-capacity being built through St. Stephe's Green.

Could you answer the question?

It's a high-capacity line, between Heuston and Spencer Dock. What benefit accrues to the city by building it through St. Stephen's Green, with all the extra curves involved, rather than just building the direct route?

I would think it's simple enough.




























st.

KCAccidental

do you actually read the replies to your posts Strassenwolf?

L1011

Why are you ignoring responses to your questions?

strassenwo!f

I certainly do KC. Every post.

And Jack has been given I don't know how many chances to come up with the advantages of building this line through St. Stephen's Green.

All he's done is come up with problems of building this line through College Green.

We all know that building a line such as this through College Green wouldn't be easy. But, if you can't come up with something plauslibly better...

What I am trying to find out is what is, long-term, the most beneficial route for Dublin.

I can see that the College Green option is one possibility. Connects with the LUAS, could connect with the metro. Directly serves the area of highest density employment in city.

Why do some people perceive it to be better to introduce two curves to this line, to build it via St. Stephen's Green, in order to achieve pretty much the same thing as they could with Telchak's nice route.

Why is it better, for the city, to build the longer route, with all the curves?

L1011

The advantages are avoiding the huge problems.

The curves are a non issue - they're an issue for your proposal in fact - but you keep clinging to them even though they actually weaken your argument hugely.

strassenwo!f

I think I'm starting to get it.

You build the interconnector via St. Stephen's Green because it avoids the diffiicultly of building it through the centre.

That's in the short term.

But, long-term, wouldn't it make sense to have the interchange in the centre?

Passenger uptake, and stuff? Over the years.

Just wondering.

strassenwo!f

So, i think we've fairly compehensively seen over the last couple of pages that there are disadvantages to College Green. As if we didn't know.

Is there any chance that we could be made aware of the advantages of building this line through St. Stephen's Green?

poteen o hooley

Don't feed the troll folks.

poteen o hooley

So, i think we've fairly compehensively seen over the last couple of pages that there are disadvantages to College Green. As if we didn't know.

Is there any chance that we could be made aware of the reasons why Trinity College and St Stephen's Green cannot be dismantled and moved 100 metres East. This way we will have a straight alignment from Westmoreland St all the way to the Luas ramp on Adelaide Rd.?

Long term would that not be better for the numbers.

Just wondering...........