DART+ (DART Expansion)

markpb

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The poor fatty's can't walk a few steps no?

Would you like the daa to pick up your bags and walk with you to your car/bus?

I gave him an email also and it wasn't to pleasant, got a replay to say it has been noted.

What an amazingly condescending post.

munchkin_utd

bk wrote: »

<snip>
Dublin isn't competing with Cork, it is competing with London, Zurick, Frankfurt, etc. It is competing to attract the top companies and competing to attract the best and brightest to come from across Europe to work here.

The danger is that these companies and young people expect high quality infrastructure. Non of them want to live in a 3 bedroom house, 3 hours commute from Dublin. They want to live in nice, large apartments in the city center, with nice bars, restaurants close by and high quality public transport, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to get around.

We need to be careful not to fall behind in these areas or we could end up losing the engine that powers the entire Irish economy.

well actually in a lot of the fields it'd be competiting with Munich.

Interestingly, Munich has a crazy policy of not having a low corporate tax rate (which the city also has a cut from and can modify), but rather just try and be a nice city to live in and use the pull of the city to be the selling factor to get over the fact that companies need to pay a little extra in tax.

And what happens? Theres no end of people looking to come, unemployment is 4%, and 2% in the suburbs, companies like GE are setting up their main research centres there.

Oh, and the city recorded a 1billion euro surplus last year, thanks to corporate taxes coming in ahead of expectations.

Also interestingly, one of the main pieces of infrastructure holding Munich together is the central S-Bahn tunnel without which the city quite literally would (and if theres any incidents or signal failures, does) grind to a halt

cgcsb

Munchkin Kid the reason why Dublin doesn't have good infrastructure is not for a lack of tax taken. Money is not the issue. The issue is Dublin can't spend it's own money in Dublin. Dublin money fills potholes in boreens in Mayo to get Kenny re-elected.

FreudianSlippers

I would also add that Ireland's corporation tax rate isn't the issue - I'd argue collection of the rate is the issue due to Double-Irish schemes and other avoidance measures (mixed in with a little "blind-eye" attitude that we have on occasion).

plodder

bk wrote: »

No it is not!

Dublin is a medium sized European city. It has almost exactly the same population size and density as Amsterdam!

This is part of the problem, people seem to think we are still stick in the 1950's, a small backwards uncompetitive city and country. Rather then the reality that we are now a relatively large European city, which is the silicon valley of Europe with almost every major IT company based here. With massive numbers of very well educated foreigners moving here to work in high end jobs.

But it seems that the old political class and even many Irish people are completely oblivious to this.

Dublin isn't competing with Cork, it is competing with London, Zurick, Frankfurt, etc. It is competing to attract the top companies and competing to attract the best and brightest to come from across Europe to work here.

The danger is that these companies and young people expect high quality infrastructure. Non of them want to live in a 3 bedroom house, 3 hours commute from Dublin. They want to live in nice, large apartments in the city center, with nice bars, restaurants close by and high quality public transport, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to get around.

We need to be careful not to fall behind in these areas or we could end up losing the engine that powers the entire Irish economy.

Well said, and given a(n informed) choice about it, I suspect a lot of natives would start to think the same way. Suburban semi detached gardens have shrunk so much to be pretty much useless for anything beyond keeping a pet rabbit. Building up a few storeys and pooling the small amount of common outdoor space makes sense. I'm not an architect, but from what I have seen, the typical 3-4 storey apartment building in Germany say, has a simple enough design and might not be anything to look at from outside, but seem to be quite nice and spacious to live in.

Parking also. It's a catch-22. If you have good public transport then there is no need for multiple car spaces per unit. But to build units like that, you need to have good public transport. And that's where the "vision" thing comes in. There needs to be a grander plan - not just planning purely in terms of traffic level prediction.

cgcsb

I wonder how developers in the SDZ will react to this? their strategy for office blocks thousands of new apartments with very little parking and only the congested red luas for pt access. I wouldn't be surprised if the size of the blocks had to be revised down/cancelled as a result.

plodder

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Also interestingly, one of the main pieces of infrastructure holding Munich together is the central S-Bahn tunnel without which the city quite literally would (and if theres any incidents or signal failures, does) grind to a halt

I was going to write a post about that yesterday. The central S-Bahn tunnel which was built for the 1972 Olympics, links the city's two main railway stations with a high capacity link and pulls together a disparate set of local railways. It was what actually created the S-Bahn network. Does that sound familiar, or similar to what DART underground was supposed to be?



When it's shown on a map as above (as multiple different lines between Hauptbahnhof and Ostbahnhof) the public and pols start to understand what its function and potential really is.

cgcsb

Indeed, after DART Underground you have buckets of capacity added, you can even start to build spur railways, Tallaght, The Airport, Swords, Navan, Blanchardstown can be included in the future, then we have a more sustainable transport model where the bulk of people are moved by high capacity rail instead of depending on Double Decker buses doing very long journeys.

antoinolachtnai

Munich is a very good example. The difference between that and DU is that a large number of the old railways feed into it at both ends. That gives extremely high frequency use of the tunnel. DU doesn't really do that. It is only connected to one railway at each end.

Carawaystick

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The poor fatty's can't walk a few steps no?

Would you like the daa to pick up your bags and walk with you to your car/bus?

Maybe airports should not bother with lifts or escalators and feic people with mobility issues too.

Any other major airport I've been to has had a higher level of travelators present, with just gaps between them at the actual gates. T2 has no travelators between several gates.

This is in the context of some kind of people mover system being implemented in Dublin airport with a poor track record of the same.

munchkin_utd

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Munich is a very good example. The difference between that and DU is that a large number of the old railways feed into it at both ends. That gives extremely high frequency use of the tunnel. DU doesn't really do that. It is only connected to one railway at each end.

well, thats actually a problem rather than advantage now as theres a full 30 services per hour, mostly 12 carraige trains the length of the platform and theres no capacity left for further expansion.
Which means theres need for a second tunnel!

At least the Dublin tunnel would have had the capacity to expand should it have been needed and would have had a bit of buffer should anything unexpected happen.

cgcsb

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Munich is a very good example. The difference between that and DU is that a large number of the old railways feed into it at both ends. That gives extremely high frequency use of the tunnel. DU doesn't really do that. It is only connected to one railway at each end.

Exactly, once it's built more destinations can be added to either end.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Munich is a very good example. The difference between that and DU is that a large number of the old railways feed into it at both ends. That gives extremely high frequency use of the tunnel. DU doesn't really do that. It is only connected to one railway at each end.

It was also connected to the Luas and Metro North and West lines (hypothetically)

The scale is different, but the idea is similar in terms of interconnectivity and potential I think. The idea of a network is kind of alien to Dubliners. Most public transport here is point to point. While people on this forum get it, I don't think politicians or the public really do. They saw DU solely as a link between Heuston and Connolly - "that's nice if I'm ever traveling between those two points, but I'm not too bothered about that... or why not just use the PP tunnel?"

On the Munich network, I don't have a map of the original S-bahn, but it has been developed continuously since it was built in the 70's. I lived there 20 years ago, and they've even added new lines since then. The U lines are a separate network (u-bahn), which is connected at each of the stations in the S-bahn tunnel.

munchkin_utd

plodder wrote: »

<snip>
On the Munich network, I don't have a map of the original S-bahn, but it has been developed continuously since it was built in the 70's. I lived there 20 years ago, and they've even added new lines since then. The U lines are a separate network (u-bahn), which is connected at each of the stations in the S-bahn tunnel.

Heres a timelapse of how it developed, but the key REALLY is the Munich version of the interconnector as the backbone of everything.

The U bahn and line extensions are just tagged on, and the most recent extension was only opened in the past year. (former shuttle service from Dachau to the middle of nowhere, now electrified and running a service per hour into the city without need to change)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OGqjPS47E

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Munich is a very good example. The difference between that and DU is that a large number of the old railways feed into it at both ends. That gives extremely high frequency use of the tunnel. DU doesn't really do that. It is only connected to one railway at each end.

To be fair the Maynooth line could also feed the tunnel. It's not written in stone that it never would.

I would be against creating new railways in West Dublin just to feed the tunnel. The north-south roads in West Dublin are actually of good capacity and can support very high frequency bus feed into the heavy rail stations along the Kildare route, supporting the same high frequency services through the DU tunnel. The R113 and R136 already have bus lanes throughout, which are barely used in reality.

Now all we need is the cancelled tunnel.

Carawaystick

murphaph wrote: »

The north-south roads in West Dublin are actually of good capacity and can support very high frequency bus feed into the heavy rail stations along the Kildare route

There's only one route across the Liffey with good capacity in west Dublin and that is full most mornings...

Idbatterim

I would also add that Ireland's corporation tax rate isn't the issue - I'd argue collection of the rate is the issue due to Double-Irish schemes and other avoidance measures (mixed in with a little "blind-eye" attitude that we have on occasion).

the issue in my opinion isnt the corporation tax, it is the fortune that is spend primarily on welfare and all the free travel passes etc and to a lesser extent the public service and procurement. Also the huge amounts of workers who pay next to no income taxes...

I read about FG cutting income taxes, which I dont actually agree with, now I am not looking to be re-elected and I understand realities coming into an election year, but only the marginal rate should be cut IMO and cut continuously over the next few years, of course that would be seen as benefiting our rich on E33,800 plus... :rolleyes:

I wonder how developers in the SDZ will react to this? their strategy for office blocks thousands of new apartments with very little parking and only the congested red luas for pt access. I wouldn't be surprised if the size of the blocks had to be revised down/cancelled as a result.

may of these blocks already have PP to the best of my knowledge? also they are hardly ambitious even with the SDZ, there is still luas redline and heavy rail close by...

Victor

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The poor fatty's can't walk a few steps no?

No need for derogatory language like this

Moderator

---

Dublin Bus estimate 25% of their passengers have some mobility impairment - disability, age, children, luggage, shopping, etc.

marno21

Carawaystick wrote: »

The only difference here between a 120kmh dual carriageway and a motorway is blue signs. And no bikes or pedestrians allowed on a motorway.

= safer.

There was a bizarre policy earlier this century of building motorway standard dual carraigeways in this country and leaving them without motorway classification thereby allowing all vehicles on them. This can be seen on the N22 and N40 in Cork where 120km/h traffic is driving beside cyclists and behind tractors and learner drivers. It also means that accesses can be built onto the new road which then destroys the quality of the road and allows ribbon development and in the case of places like Dundalk and Clonmel, means bypasses become littered with junctions and renders them useless.

Whilst there are alot of well overspecced motorways being built around the country, this means that they are future proofed. When the M7 Nenagh-Limerick scheme was being done the Nenagh bypass that was constructed in 1997 had to be retrofitted as motorway, just over 10 years after it was built originally. This shouldn't happen in future, especially seeing as the M20 project which is expected to be restarted includes online upgrades of one scheme from the 1990s (Mallow-Cork) and the Croom bypass which was built in 2001.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

Whilst there are alot of well overspecced motorways being built around the country, this means that they are future proofed. When the M7 Nenagh-Limerick scheme was being done the Nenagh bypass that was constructed in 1997 had to be retrofitted as motorway, just over 10 years after it was built originally. This shouldn't happen in future, especially seeing as the M20 project which is expected to be restarted includes online upgrades of one scheme from the 1990s (Mallow-Cork) and the Croom bypass which was built in 2001.

The Nenagh bypass was not built as a dual carriageway, which was a big mistake. They could have built it with provision to make it dual by putting in wider bridges. The same was done with the Limerick 'bypass' from the Park SC - I think it is called Childers Road.

Carawaystick

marno21 wrote: »

= safer.

There was a bizarre policy earlier this century of building motorway standard dual carraigeways in this country and leaving them without motorway classification thereby allowing all vehicles on them. This can be seen on the N22 and N40 in Cork where 120km/h traffic is driving beside cyclists and behind tractors and learner drivers. It also means that accesses can be built onto the new road which then destroys the quality of the road and allows ribbon development and in the case of places like Dundalk and Clonmel, means bypasses become littered with junctions and renders them useless.

Have you road safety data showing the 120kmh dual carriageways are dangerous? There's been several fatalities on the stretch of M1 from Lusk service area south to the M1 spur to Dublin Airport. Have there been similar fatalities on the 120kmh DC sections?

Where have any accesses been opened onto 120 (or previously120kmh) dual carriageways?

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Nenagh bypass was not built as a dual carriageway, which was a big mistake. They could have built it with provision to make it dual by putting in wider bridges. The same was done with the Limerick 'bypass' from the Park SC - I think it is called Childers Road.

Childers Road was only ever going to be an 'inner relief road' of sorts, it has accesses & housing along its length.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Have you road safety data showing the 120kmh dual carriageways are dangerous? There's been several fatalities on the stretch of M1 from Lusk service area south to the M1 spur to Dublin Airport. Have there been similar fatalities on the 120kmh DC sections?

Where have any accesses been opened onto 120 (or previously120kmh) dual carriageways?

I don't need data to back that point up. Having cyclists, pedestrians, horses, tractors and learner drivers on a 120km/h road is going to be dangerous simply by virtue of the fact that the road is designed to be travelled on at 80-120km/h and these vehicles will be travelling much lower than the speed limit meaning they are effectively rolling hazards. If it was safe for these classifications of vehicles to be on roads at 120km/h then there would be no restrictions on motorway usage.

Motorway classification means that any opening of accesses is prevented, I can't see why you would disagree with having a rule banning accesses onto these roads.

Carawaystick

marno21 wrote: »

I don't need data to back that point up. Having cyclists, pedestrians, horses, tractors and learner drivers on a 120km/h road is going to be dangerous simply by virtue of the fact that the road is designed to be travelled on at 80-120km/h and these vehicles will be travelling much lower than the speed limit meaning they are effectively rolling hazards. If it was safe for these classifications of vehicles to be on roads at 120km/h then there would be no restrictions on motorway usage.

So you are unwilling to back up your assertions as per the charter?

marno21 wrote: »

Motorway classification means that any opening of accesses is prevented, I can't see why you would disagree with having a rule banning accesses onto these roads.

Firstly, I doubt Louth or Cork Co.Co's would ever grant permission to access onto a 120kmh road.
Second I doubt ABP would allow it either.
So it'll never happen.

Back towards topic:

A couple of letters in the IT giving out about the axing of DU
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/end-of-the-line-for-dart-underground-1.2345910

They are succint summations of the benefits of the DU scheme.

Muahahaha

Saw on the VinB debate last night in the Dublin Bay North constituency this FG councillor http://naoise.ie/about-naoise/ said he was campaigning for Metro North to get back on track. He has a background as an engineer so presumably knows a bit about forward planning. It was the first time I've heard any politician advocate for it in quite some time. At least he is trying

Idbatterim

there may even be alternatives to metro north that deliver a good option, for cheaper, that could be built quicker and would be easier to sell politically... I wouldnt say it has to be MN or nothing BUT, it has to be adequate, long term and properly discussed and planned...

In my opinion Luas serving airport and swords is not on. Now if they say, both will be served also by Dart, that is a different matter, but it needs to be discussed and then planned...

Muahahaha

What I cant get over about the Luas to the airport is the fact that we already know the Broadstone to SSG leg is going to take 26 minutes, such is the amount of lights and bends it has to navigate. I know from Broadstone to the airport with be a more straighter route but its still hard to see how it could go from (outside) the airport to SSG in anything less than 45 minutes. My guess is that Aircoach and the 747 using the Port Tunnel would be quicker every time.

In any case if we do end up with this airport Luas does anyone know any details of where a bridge will be built over the Tolka Valley? And also where can we expect the tunnel underneath Glasnevin cemetary to begin and end?

jd

Muahahaha wrote: »

In any case if we do end up with this airport Luas does anyone know any details of where a bridge will be built over the Tolka Valley? And also where can we expect the tunnel underneath Glasnevin cemetary to begin and end?

Just North of Cabra Stop ,ad then resurfacing around Mobhi Road/Ballymun Road

FreudianSlippers

Luas just doesn't have the capacity (as a tram) to serve the airport - even if it was a branch off from Parnell Sq. up the N1, it'd be outdated before it was built.

cgcsb

If this option gets the go ahead, surely the RPA see that a better option would be to bring the tunnel through from St Mobhi Road to Phibsboro, on the surface past City Basin and join BXD at Dominick st instead, allowing for a future Dominick st-Stephen's green tunnel thereby delivering something very close to metro north and allowing for an interchange with the Maynooth line at Crossguns bridge.

Idbatterim

Luas just doesn't have the capacity (as a tram) to serve the airport - even if it was a branch off from Parnell Sq. up the N1, it'd be outdated before it was built.

agreed, what do you think of the proposal I have outlined on the two other threads about the Swords / airport corridor?

ok, my suggestion is they build luas to airport and HR2 from clongriffin to airport and onto swords. firstly they dont need to be done at the same time, joke of journey time to swords in particular and also to the airport with much quicker dart, sorted. Capacity issue sorted. Cie and RPA bickering, probably sorted. Very little if any underground sections, sorted, so none of the usual "shure what would dublin be doing with an underground at all at all". Both dart and luas serve airport, sorted...

RPA put price of 600,000,000 of luas to swords, so just run it to the airport and say what E450,000,000 and the cost of HR1 was estimated by Irish rail to be 200,000,000 for 7.5km. HR2 would be an additional 4.8km, cost would vary considerably, depending on a number of factors under airport, but say another 400-500 million, so the airport gets dart and luas, can be done independent of each other, the amounts arent staggering each, they would be politically sellable...

these two schemes could probably be done for less than half the cost of even metro north revised and I am not sure how capacity would compare to MNR, but it would be interesting to work it out... so seeing as how we love consensus here, give everyone a share of the spoils. To me it seems a great option, figures should be palatable to everyone, dublin airport and north dublin get great transport solution, dublin airport is served by two systems, as I mentioned...