DART Underground - Alternative Routes

strassenwo!f

Is there a higher planning body in the land?/

If they make an error, based on glaring discrepancies presented to them, where do you go?

Anyway, this isn't the issue. We're talking about the interconnector here. Did IE at any stage look at the possibility of building the interconnector via College Green.

The evidence so far is that they didn't.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Is there a higher planning body in the land?/

If they make an error, based on glaring discrepancies presented to them, where do you go?

You're still (and oh-so-obviously deliberately) not getting it.

ABPs role does not involve asking someone if they've considered every option - no matter how many different ways you try to phrase it to get around it

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The evidence so far is that they didn't.

Ask them.

strassenwo!f

Mohammad seems kind of reluctant to answer a simple question, though he's well able to post personal attacks. I'm just trying to get an answer to my question above: If Iarnrod Eireann had looked at College Green as a possible DART - metro interchange, why did they not mention it to ABP?

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Mohammad seems kind of reluctant to answer a simple question, though he's well able to post personal attacks. I'm just trying to get an answer to my question above: If Iarnrod Eireann had looked at College Green as a possible DART - metro interchange, why did they not mention it to ABP?

Because it was completely irrelevant?

I had soup for lunch today (and delicious it was too) - did I feel the need to mention it when I was getting petrol? No.

strassenwo!f

You've got an area of the city which is pretty much directly between the end points of the interconnector project, ie Heuston and Spencer Dock. And it's an area which is big enough to host the country's New Year's Eve concert.

Isn't it relevant that such an area might be looked at as one of the options for the states's largest ever infrastructure investment?

strassenwo!f

Sorry, my mistake, a direct route between Heuston and Pearse is what I meant.

I don't think it requires 'mental deviance', as suggested by Mohammad above, to ask why College Green wasn't considered by Iarnrod Eireann as a potential location on the interconnector.

It is very central, it is pretty much on a direct line between Heuston and Pearse, it will soon have a connection to the LUAS, it is busy at all hours of the day, and it is a very large area.

Van.Bosch

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You've got an area of the city which is pretty much directly between the end points of the interconnector project, ie Heuston and Spencer Dock. And it's an area which is big enough to host the country's New Year's Eve concert.

Isn't it relevant that such an area might be looked at as one of the options for the states's largest ever infrastructure investment?

I don't think you understand ABP, it is not their role to examine every option, it is their role to grant / reject planning permission for what is put in front of them. It is up to the RTA/IE to examine all options and bring their preferred route to ABP.

If I am building a house and am in two minds about whether to build two stories or three but decide to go with 2, I would present this to ABP. I would not expect them to interrogate me as to why I am not building it 3 stories.

murphaph

I'm quite sure IE would have looked at CG probably together with the RPA and it was discounted as too disruptive and to be honest I think SSG is simply the better location, as well as clearly being much easier to build.

There's basically no evidence for Stassenwolf's assertions, any of them.

alias no.9

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You've got an area of the city which is pretty much directly between the end points of the interconnector project, ie Heuston and Spencer Dock. And it's an area which is big enough to host the country's New Year's Eve concert.

Isn't it relevant that such an area might be looked at as one of the options for the states's largest ever infrastructure investment?

More spurious nonsense, the 3Arena could have hosted the reported 14k people who attended New Years concert. More to the point, St Stephen's Green could have hosted a much bigger event, not that it has any relevance to the topic at hand.
You're either incapable or willfully refusing to understand the massive additional technical, logistical, commercial, social and political difficulties associated with your proposal. You have failed to establish a single clear, measurable advantage.
If you can't convince a single person of the merits of your proposal, it's time to consider that maybe its not the rest of the world that doesn't get it.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Isn't it relevant that such an area might be looked at as one of the options for the states's largest ever infrastructure investment?

Face it - you don't have a clue what ABP do.

Grandeeod

I'm absolutely astounded by this thread, yet not surprised in any way. WTF is wrong with people? MN is already being questioned on another thread and I can already see evidence here that a new appraisal of DU will eventually happen. watch this space!

I know folks here don't appreciate what I have to say, because its hard to realise and accept, but we are not far from completely ****ing up everything and putting Dublin back another 40 years.

KCAccidental

it's one fixated poster against everyone else. Don't worry about it Grandeeod.

strassenwo!f

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I don't think you understand ABP, it is not their role to examine every option, it is their role to grant / reject planning permission for what is put in front of them. It is up to the RTA/IE to examine all options and bring their preferred route to ABP.

I think there are a couple of points here which need to be dealt with.

Firstly, two state organisations came to ABP with railway order applications, at around the same time, and those railway plans were clearly not independent of each other.

The presentations from IE and the RPA about the number of interchange options available to them in the city clearly differed in the information provided to ABP. Specifically, IE said they'd looked at two options, and only one (St. Stephen's Green) was suitable (the other one, Tara Street, was unsuitable, as any line through there would not be able to go via St. Stephen's Green). The RPA said that there were a number of suitable options for an interchange in the city centre.

I'm surprised that the two organisations didn't get their story straight before going to ABP, and I'm also surprised that the Department of Transport seem to have allowed them proceed to ABP with such a glaring discrepancy. But I find it amazing that ABP, as the highest planning body in the country didn't call them back to explain it, before granting the orders. They are after all both projects which will cost at least 2 billion euro, either of them comfortably the largest infrastructure ever made in Ireland. Whatever the statutes say, it has to be ABP's job.

Van.Bosch wrote: »

If I am building a house and am in two minds about whether to build two stories or three but decide to go with 2, I would present this to ABP. I would not expect them to interrogate me as to why I am not building it 3 stories.

There's a big difference here. The house is for your benefit, you and your family alone, and as long as it fits in with whatever local area plan there is and isn't clearly going to be a visual eyesore (or have some other negative impact on its surroundings or the neighbours), then you can build it and go ahead and live in it, and nobody else is bothered, whether you've looked at all the options or not.

But Irish Rail don't exist for the benefit of Irish Rail. The company exists to provide a transport service to the public, so it is important that the various options are fully considered in order to be sure that they are able to provide the best possible service to the public.

I accept that it would certainly have been difficult back at the time for IE to suggest a cross-city DART line which wouldn't have initially had an interchange with the LUAS, and I suspect Martin Cullen might have raised an eyebrow if they had suggested there was going to be a bit of a gap for a few years in his grand plan (the LUAS link-up was not included in his Dublin Castle scheme).

But the LUAS will shortly not be stuck at St. Stephen's Green, and it looks like it's going to be some years before the DART Underground project will go ahead. Time now, I think, to make sure that all the options have been carefully considered.

murphaph

2 is a number

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I' surprised that the two organisations didn't get their story straight before g
There's a big difference here. The house is for your benefit, you and your family alone, and as long as it fits in with whatever local area plan there is and isn't clearly going to be a visual eyesore (or have some other negative impact on its surroundings or the neighbours), then you can build it and go ahead and live in it, and nobody else is bothered, whether you've looked at all the options or not.

One last time:

You do not understand what ABP do. Stop running off on flights of fantasy about it, go learn what they do.

strassenwo!f

L1011 wrote: »

One last time:

You do not understand what ABP do. Stop running off on flights of fantasy about it, go learn what they do.

L1011, are you sure you didn't misquote me in the previous post? Just a bit, like?

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

2 is a number

Proven assertion alert.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

L1011, are you sure you didn't misquote me in the previous post? Just a bit, like?

No. You went down the garden path on your inaccurate view of what ABP do. That's what was quoted

plodder

Not really following the minutiae of this discussion, but the poster does seem to be hinting at a level of rigidity in the planning process that makes you wonder if it is fit for purpose. Didn't something similar happen with the National Children's hospital project at the Mater?

The whole strategic infrastructure thing is supposed to make the process more efficient, but possibly had the opposite effect there, because ABP were the first port of call, and apparently the application had to be designed and submitted without knowing whether it was likely to be accepted (which it wasn't in the end). Have any lessons been learned from that debacle? Could it happen again with MN and DU?

Carawaystick

plodder wrote: »

Could it happen again with MN and DU?

No
They have planning permission

lucernarian

Out of interest and from a technical perspective: What are the minimum feasible bend radii that can be used for DART trainsets in general? Is there a general Irish Rail specification based on 5ft 3in gauge? Does it vary based on whether the curve is within a tunnel or in open air?

strassenwo!f

I think you might be better off posting that in the 'DART Underground' thread. The only route which has been discussed on this thread has just one curve of any significance (between Pearse and Spencer Dock).

The route being discussed on the 'DART Underground' thread has lots of curves, including quite tight ones, because it's going so far away from the direct route between the end points.

The expertise about curves is probably on that thread.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think you might be better off posting that in the 'DART Underground' thread. The only route which has been discussed on this thread has just one curve of any significance (between Pearse and Spencer Dock).

The route being discussed on the 'DART Underground' thread has lots of curves, including quite tight ones, because it's going so far away from the direct route between the end points.

The expertise about curves is probably on that thread.

Your planned "curve" to get from College Green to the Northern line is much tighter than from SSG.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The route being discussed on the 'DART Underground' thread has lots of curves, including quite tight ones, because it's going so far away from the direct route between the end points.

None as tight as your crayons requires, though. That being the critical point here.

lucernarian

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think you might be better off posting that in the 'DART Underground' thread. The only route which has been discussed on this thread has just one curve of any significance (between Pearse and Spencer Dock).

The route being discussed on the 'DART Underground' thread has lots of curves, including quite tight ones, because it's going so far away from the direct route between the end points.

The expertise about curves is probably on that thread.

The question is relevant to this discussion and others. I'm sure such expertise would be interested in both threads. Let's be honest here. Criticisms of the existing scheme and alternative proposals include aspects of the alignment and bends being a problem. Though no one's actually said what is an acceptable radius or not. If I should have opened my own thread, the mods can inform me of this. There is *an answer* out there, only I haven't come across it through searching yet.

strassenwo!f

I didn’t get any response on the ‘DART Undrground’ thread to this, so I'd like to ask the following question here, for purely speculative purposes.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Does anyone know the depth of the proposed route in and around the bit between the Brewery and Heuston Station?

I ask this because if the depth is sufficient, there might be scope for creating a road underpass (like along the river in Rome, for example) between Victoria Quay and St. John's Road at around the same time as (or before) construction of the DART project.

Eastbound traffic currently travels over the bridge at Heuston, but this need not always be the case.

If there were scope for building an underpass at that location, it could lead to the creation of a nice plaza in front of and around Heuston, and would almost certainly allow a greater throughput of trams at that location.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thus, for example, it could become feasible to build a Walkinstown to Broadstone tram line which shares track with the red line between (say) James' Street and Church Street. At the moment this probably wouldn't be doable, because of the traffic around Heuston, but Steevens' Lane and Benburb Street would seem to be ripe for higher throughputs of trams.

Does anyone here know the depth?

(It does stand out, to me anyway, that Walkinstown Cross is an obvious location to be a transport node, in whatever transport layout Dublin chooses to pursue.

It is an obvious location as a (n interim?) terminus for a westward branch of the metro north route, if it is built and then if it is eventually extended, via Harold’s Cross, Kimmage, the KCR.

Because of its pretty unique "Place D'Etoile" arrangement in Dublin's South-West, there might be scope for building a useful short LUAS line to the North-west, to eventually share space on the red Luas, and there might be space to have a direct on-street LUAS between Walkinstown to the City Centre via Crumlin, the Liberties, etc. , perhaps via Steevens' Lane and Benburb Street?

strassenwo!f

Obviously you'd expect the proposed rail line to be at least 10 metres or so underground around there, possibly a good bit more as it needs to fit comfortably under Heuston itself for the proposed underground station. But there might be reasons why it is a bit higher under the brewery and at that major traffic junction.

You'd think that a maximum of 6-8 metres below current road level would be enough to create an underpass, and the length of the quay would certainly allow that kind of gradient. An extra bridge across the river could help deal with the city-bound traffic - if there's no other option - and a small amount of land-take from the brewery could help incorporate the ground-level inflow and outflow from the Heuston car park into this arrangement.

Costly, of course. But it might not overall be such a big price to pay for better use of the corridors along Steeven's Lane and Benburb Street. And, of course, integration of more areas of the city with the proposed interconnector.

strassenwo!f

There was an article in the Irish Times earlier this week about a review which is to be carried out of ABP's work. I think we've touched on this in this thread.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/organisational-review-of-bord-plean%C3%A1la-announced-1.2297600

Idbatterim

could they run DU via Westmoreland Street or Connell St instead, which would probably not only cut the length of the line. It would take a few hundred meters off MN or MN revised (or could they even simply have one combined stop at either college green that would serve the O'Connell Street and Grafton Street areas? Seeing as the Green line will shortly connect with O'Connell street or very close to it...

GerardKeating

Idbatterim wrote: »

could they run DU via Westmoreland Street or Connell St instead, which would probably not only cut the length of the line. It would take a few hundred meters off MN or MN revised (or could they even simply have one combined stop at either college green that would serve the O'Connell Street and Grafton Street areas? Seeing as the Green line will shortly connect with O'Connell street or very close to it...

Not if they want to Continue to malihide/howth as per the present plan. Plus trains do not do corners very will, so a big loop past ssg to get to hueston