Transport Package

Metrobest

MarkoP11 wrote:

Complete revisal of Stephen's Green Airport metro plans YES
Terminates in Swords YES
Longer Metro trains YES
Station at Glasnevin YES
Development of Metro system not a single line YES
RPA proposed single line unintegrated metro thrown in bin YES
DTO style plans back YES

Looks like I win

Platform 11 has consistently argued against the metro route that's been chosen via the Mater and DCU. You wanted the DTO's fantasy route via Finglas, which has thankfully been scratched. You insisted on comparing the Airport-Stephen's Green metro with the DRP, even though the comparisions were spurious. And then when I said that the country could afford two metro lines, you told me I was mad. This plan, which features two metro lines, vindicates my position.

You said the RPA's metro was "dead". Wrong. This (the route chosen) is the original route the RPA suggested before certain reports gave a misrpresentation of the costings for propaganda purposes.

Nobody was arguing against longer trains for the metro - this was essentially a political issue about the levels of funding government was prepared to give the project. Instead of lobbying positively for more funds for the project, you chose a strategy of attack. Your strategy backfired as the full metro is in the plan.

With the funding in place and the metro going to Swords in phase 1, the project will revolutionise transport in North Dublin. If you in Platform 11 had had your way, you would have let Irish Rail build a cheapo rail spur off the overcongested Northern Line which would have been damn all use for the vast majority of Dubliners.

Thank goodness this plan wasn't a "win" for you.

You would have cheered on Irish Rail as it presided over an "interconnected" DART network where passengers from Connolly-Howth had to make two changes of train on a route that's currently zero. Luckily with the Airport Spur off the table, Howth will get a vastly improved, not worsened, service.

I'm now more happy with the revised Leinster Rail Plan proposal, as some of its more toxic side effects have been eliminated.

If you want to do something positive now, why don't you focus your attacks on Irish Rail for not including an interchange station in its plans for passengers from the Northern line to make a direct change for Connolly and Tara. It's even more crucial now that such a station is built, as Tara is likely to be linked to the metro via an underground walkway.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Platform 11 has consistently argued against the metro route that's been chosen via the Mater and DCU. You wanted the DTO's fantasy route via Finglas, which has thankfully been scratched.

No, P11 wanted the metro to integrate at Glasnevin Junction which was not on the original plan. It is now.

Metrobest wrote:

You insisted on comparing the Airport-Stephen's Green metro with the DRP, even though the comparisions were spurious. And then when I said that the country could afford two metro lines, you told me I was mad. This plan, which features two metro lines, vindicates my position.

The comparisons between 2 new underground railways being built in the same city were spurious? Yeah, whatever. The fact is-this is yet another map, so until we have these 2 metro lines AND the interconnector, well, don't hold your breath for 'vindication'.

Metrobest wrote:

You said the RPA's metro was "dead". Wrong. This (the route chosen) is the original route the RPA suggested before certain reports gave a misrpresentation of the costings for propaganda purposes.

That route did not include Swords in the first phase. P11 campaigned tirelessly to ensure Swords was included. It has been.Ditto for the Glasnevin Interchange and the continuation south to the Green instead of Upper O'Connell Street.

Metrobest wrote:

Nobody was arguing against longer trains for the metro - this was essentially a political issue about the levels of funding government was prepared to give the project. Instead of lobbying positively for more funds for the project, you chose a strategy of attack. Your strategy backfired as the full metro is in the plan.

The project as presented needed to be attacked. It was worth it-look at the turnaround and improved proposal. When your in carriage 5 of the metro from the airport at rush hour you can thank P11 you could get on!

Metrobest wrote:

You would have cheered on Irish Rail as it presided over an "interconnected" DART network where passengers from Connolly-Howth had to make two changes of train on a route that's currently zero. Luckily with the Airport Spur off the table, Howth will get a vastly improved, not worsened, service.

Howth is one of the least densely populated parts of Dublin. What is it with you and the fetish you have with providing high capacity rail to low density areas like Howth and Harold's Cross? Weird stuff.

Metrobest wrote:

I'm now more happy with the revised Leinster Rail Plan proposal, as some of its more toxic side effects have been eliminated.

The bits that would have taken cars off the M7 and M1 bits?! That was a monumentaly stupid thing to do and only you think different. Do you have any idea of the condition of the roads network around Hazelhatch? A P&R for commuters from the M7/N7 is impossible. The railway virtually kisses the M7 at Sallins (P&R, P&R, P&R!!!!!)

Metrobest wrote:

If you want to do something positive now, why don't you focus your attacks on Irish Rail for not including an interchange station in its plans for passengers from the Northern line to make a direct change for Connolly and Tara. It's even more crucial now that such a station is built, as Tara is likely to be linked to the metro via an underground walkway.

The RPA are still in the firing line with the gauge issue and lack of connection with red line Luas and metroNorth on O'Connell Street. IE are in the firing line for not fighting hard enough for funding for the interconnector!

And if you want to do something positive then join Platform11 and try to influence policy from within rather than being an armchair general firing pot-shots at those of us in P11 from afar!

strassenwolf

Okay, I know this was Martin Cullen's plan, but what happened to all that Munich stuff that Ivor Callely was going on about and saying we were going to have to implement? Where's all that? And how are we to recognise it if it is in the plan?

(And can we have a chance to e-vote on the whole package?)

murphaph

strassenwolf wrote:

Okay, I know this was Martin Cullen's plan, but what happened to all that Munich stuff that Ivor Callely was going on about and saying we were going to have to implement? Where's all that? And how are we to recognise it if it is in the plan?

It's all in there strassenwolf, but it's all backwards. Munich has an interconnector (they are currently embarking on a second!) but it was built before they started making serious inroads on their metro, because the Muenchners realised and stll realise that the interconnector is the spine onto which their trams, buses and metro all connect. We are building ours after the rest of the stuff is in place :eek:

The Muenchners also have, as already stated, a metro, however, they did not build it from the outside it like we are to do with metroWest. You build a core network and expand it outwards. The RPA seem to believe it's better to start from the outside and work in (unlike virtually every other city in the world). Is this how future extensions to metro (say in 30 years) will be built? Will the RPA say "extension to X", and then start at X instead of working out from the existing network and providing 0 service until it's all in place, instead of doing as the Muenchners (and everyone else) do and extend outwards, one station at a time (Munich only recently opened it's latest section of U-Bahn and they are still constructing extensions OUTWARDS, the RPA truly are a shower of tossers)

gobdaw

Interconnector planning, tenders, etc 1.5 years. Construction, 4 years. Total 5.5 years with completion date in 2010/2011.
Quad n electrify Hazel Hatch, 2010.
Spencer Dock incl electrify, 2009.
Phoenix tunnel, concurrent, 2009.
Programme in T21 shortened by 4.5 years. What value is this in terms of reduced commuting times, reduced stress, reduced carbon emissions, and increased commercial activity?
How to fund?
Government finances are €1.24B ahead of forecasts, ie this money is lying in the coffers currently, with no projects identified.
Government spending on projects is currently €1B behind forecasts, ie a further lump of money is lying in the coffers not being used.
Total cash in hands: €2.24B.
Now, interconnector at 2002 prices, €1.3B, incl 4 u/ground stations. Say €1.75B at current prices, providing u/g stations at Spencer, Pearse and Heuston. U/grounds at Stephen’s and High to follow, funded separately. It is surely possible to electrify Hazel Hatch, Phoenix and Spencer within €0.45B. Total estimate €2.2B
Its technically feasible, timescale feasible, financially feasible but political will is required at government level.
If we learn anything from our colleagues in West On Track, it must be the immense value of political pressures and campaigns.
And that is where the next stage of this will have to be waged, by all of us irrespective of our political persuasion.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

It's all in there strassenwolf, but it's all backwards. Munich has an interconnector (they are currently embarking on a second!) but it was built before they started making serious inroads on their metro

This doesn't nullify the validity of your points, but the evolution of the Munich network wasn't quite like that. Their S-Bahn interconnector did indeed open before the first U-Bahn line. Something like 10 days before. **Edit: I was mistaken here - the S-Bahn interconector opened 10 days before the Olympiapark U-Bahn branch, but Goetheplatz-Kieferngarten U6 had been open for half a year prior to this**. Both were conceived as part of the same lets-get-things-moving initiative and both were built in parallel. In fact, the alignment along which their interconnector now runs was the subject of a tug-of-war between DB and the city of Munich as to whether it would be used for the Interconnector or U-Bahn. In the event, the second alignment became U-Bahn, but it could have been the other way around.

As regards building out, not in, that's not how I see the Munich network as having been built. The initial rollout, coinciding with the 1972 Olympics, consisted of two criss-crossing lines. The S-Bahn interconnector from East to West and the U-Bahn line U6 (with U3 spur to the Olympiapark). The Interconnector is actually an example of building from the outside in, bringing, as it does, rail services from outlying areas further into the centre such that their service is more compelling and onward journeys on the surface are reduced. The U6 too, went right out to outlying areas of the city. There's an implied recognition there that you're better off providing full service to a few suburbs than a last mile to all suburbs.

Munich does offer us a few lessons, though - that an interconnector at the earliest usable date is important. For us, that means the earliest date that Kildare-Balbriggan (or an acceptable subset) can be converted to full electric running.

Dermot

Bill McH

mackerski wrote:

This doesn't nullify the validity of your points, but the evolution of the Munich network wasn't quite like that. Their S-Bahn interconnector did indeed open before the first U-Bahn line. Something like 10 days before. Both were conceived as part of the same lets-get-things-moving initiative and both were built in parallel. In fact, the alignment along which their interconnector now runs was the subject of a tug-of-war between DB and the city of Munich as to whether it would be used for the Interconnector or U-Bahn. In the event, the second alignment became U-Bahn, but it could have been the other way around.

As regards building out, not in, that's not how I see the Munich network as having been built. The initial rollout, coinciding with the 1972 Olympics, consisted of two criss-crossing lines. The S-Bahn interconnector from East to West and the U-Bahn line U6 (with U3 spur to the Olympiapark). The Interconnector is actually an example of building from the outside in, bringing, as it does, rail services from outlying areas further into the centre such that their service is more compelling and onward journeys on the surface are reduced. The U6 too, went right out to outlying areas of the city. There's an implied recognition there that you're better off providing full service to a few suburbs than a last mile to all suburbs.

Munich does offer us a few lessons, though - that an interconnector at the earliest usable date is important. For us, that means the earliest date that Kildare-Balbriggan (or an acceptable subset) can be converted to full electric running.

Dermot

A very good post, Dermot.

I'm just not convinced though that the similarities between our interconnector and the central section of the Munich S-Bahn should be overstressed. Here we're talking about a line linking up one line in the east and one line in the west. There they are talking about one central line which links all lines in the west of the city with all lines in the east of the city. They also have a much higher number of trains passing through the central section than we will be able to manage.

I would also point out that their tunnel passes through the most central part of the city - locations like Marienplatz and Karlsplatz. We are planning to build one which does not go to the most central location in the city, which in anybody's book is somewhere around College Green. Instead we're planning to build our line through St. Stephen's Green - probably our equivalent of Odeonsplatz or Sendlinger Tor. A Grand Central station which is, unfortunately, not really as central as it might be.

murphaph

Dermot, I don't think it's fair to say that the Stammstrecke was an example of building from the outside in. It connects two long distance terminus stations that were built before people commuted the way they do today. So it's not like they deliberatly built the lines in that order, just that the phenomenon of commuting necessitated it later.

Fro my reading of it, the first line was the U6 from Kieferngarten to Goetheplatz (that's a 12km cross city route), then they branched off this at M. Freiheit to the Olympic Stadium. They then extended outwards, no?
Link.

The orbital metro is hard to compare with Munich as they don't really have anything like it that I can think of. Maybe when the connction is made at (is it the OEZ or up near there?) in the NW of the city that they'll have some sort of orbital system. I strongly believe that the MVG/SWM would not build the orbital metro the way we are building it. They would, IMO build it in sections from Ballymun south, opening each bit as they went and allowing the trains to use 1 depot.

In any case, you know Munich very well and know how the Stammstrecke works. Munich has led the way and it's such a damn shame our idiots can't see how our 'Stammstrecke' central spine is almost there and should be the top of the list.

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

I'm just not convinced though that the similarities between our interconnector and the central section of the Munich S-Bahn should be overstressed. Here we're talking about a line linking up one line in the east and one line in the west. There they are talking about one central line which links all lines in the west of the city with all lines in the east of the city. They also have a much higher number of trains passing through the central section than we will be able to manage.

I agree that they have more trains than we are likely to see, but The possibility remains in future to quad rack the northern line and run trains to the airport from a spur, possibly continuing to Ashbourne, a grade separated flyover could be provided at Howth Junction in 20 years too, so you could have 3 lines feeding into the tunnel from the north. Naas could get a spur someday too. There are a lot of possible combinations. The tunnel could take trains from the Maynooth line to Kildare too. There are a lot of possible uses that aren't included in this plan and underestimating the usefulness of the interconnector is far more dangerous than overestimating it's abilities.

Bill McH wrote:

I would also point out that their tunnel passes through the most central part of the city - locations like Marienplatz and Karlsplatz. We are planning to build one which does not go to the most central location in the city, which in anybody's book is somewhere around College Green. Instead we're planning to build our line through St. Stephen's Green - probably our equivalent of Odeonsplatz or Sendlinger Tor. A Grand Central station which is, unfortunately, not really as central as it might be.

The Stephen's Green area is stil the number one destination in Dublin according to the DTO, followed by the airport I believe. The Docklands will at some point likely be on a par with these and the interconnector (and possible future extensions) can hit all three destinations. I actually forsee Stephen's Green being almost identical to Marienplatz (in terms of transport) in 20 years. It will be a truly central hub.

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

I agree that they have more trains than we are likely to see, but The possibility remains in future to quad rack the northern line and run trains to the airport from a spur, possibly continuing to Ashbourne, a grade separated flyover could be provided at Howth Junction in 20 years too, so you could have 3 lines feeding into the tunnel from the north. Naas could get a spur someday too. There are a lot of possible combinations. The tunnel could take trains from the Maynooth line to Kildare too. There are a lot of possible uses that aren't included in this plan and underestimating the usefulness of the interconnector is far more dangerous than overestimating it's abilities.

Philip, I don't underestimate the usefulness of the project - In my opinion it is necessary to build it.

The Stephen's Green area is stil the number one destination in Dublin according to the DTO, followed by the airport I believe. The Docklands will at some point likely be on a par with these and the interconnector (and possible future extensions) can hit all three destinations. I actually forsee Stephen's Green being almost identical to Marienplatz (in terms of transport) in 20 years. It will be a truly central hub.

We shall have to see about the docklands. But I have to query this thing about St. Stephen's Green. I have seen statements that the busiest station on the airport metro project was predicted to be College Green, rather than St. Stephen's Green. Why would that be? If the DTO were correct, would it not be St. Stephen's Green?

If all of the plans happen, then the Green will be a central hub, to be sure, and all it will be missing will be Maynooth-Bray services. But so too would College Green if the interconnector and metro were built there, would it not?

Anyway, it doesn't matter now, Martin E has spoken, and the Green it is.:(

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

We shall have to see about the docklands. But I have to query this thing about St. Stephen's Green. I have seen statements that the busiest station on the airport metro project was predicted to be College Green, rather than St. Stephen's Green. Why would that be? If the DTO were correct, would it not be St. Stephen's Green?

I've seen that too and they might still be right.

Bill McH wrote:

If all of the plans happen, then the Green will be a central hub, to be sure, and all it will be missing will be Maynooth-Bray services. But so too would College Green if the interconnector and metro were built there, would it not?

Well, if you're coming from the north it's no big deal to stay on one more stop to change for DART at the Green but if the interconnector sisn't go so far south an awful lot of people would have to walk further. I think the idea of the interconnector is that it hits the number one destination (south city business district), and as such, makes sense to me. If you want to go to college green you can change of course, but it's not even a long walk from one end of Grafton Street to the other. I genuinely think the sweeping path the interconnector will take is the correct one. It may be possible at some future point to create an inner-orbital route using the park tunnel. Now ye're talkin-two orbitals, 5 heavy rail radials (Balbriggan, Swords, Maynooth, Hazelhatch and Bray) and the Luas too. Imagine those twits in government think the interconnector is of so little importance!

Bill McH wrote:

Anyway, it doesn't matter now, Martin E has spoken, and the Green it is.:(

Ah come on Bill, cheer up. If everything comes to fruition as outlined (I can see the eyes rolling!) it'll be pretty damned good and the political pressure to expand metro & DART (and Luas) from all parts of Dublin will mount.

The more lines that go in, the more flexible the system becomes (ao log as they're compatible RPA!!!). This is especially true with Luas. The routes can be very flexible and offer plenty of 0 change opportunities (though this should not be the aim of a good network!)

mackerski

It's true that our interconnector won't be quite as fortuitously placed as the Munich one. Part of this is down to the city layout - theirs is still centred on the original walled city and not divided by a river. For this reason, and probably for some reasons of cost, ours won't have stops in quite as many really compelling locations. However, it will deliver the following advantages that also pertain in Munich:

a) Major boost in usefulness of existing heavy rail alignments previously terminating at city edges in less useful locations.

b) As a consequence of (a), previously unusable routes become useful and attractive to commuters.

c) Spreading the number of disembarkation points for city-bound commuters across a larger range of city stations.

d) Drastic increase in the area within the city centre within an acceptable walk of commuter rail.

This is based on consideration only of the network formed by the prospective DART lines. Obviously many of these advantages are amplified further once you add the proposed metro lines and even the Luas extensions.

Dermot

morlan

Will there be an underground stop at College Gr.?

murphaph

morlan wrote:

Will there be an underground stop at College Gr.?

Yes, belonging to the metro to Swords from Stephen's Green, not the interconnector which will run east-west.

Couldn't agree more Dermot, the fundamentals of what makes the Munich interconnector work are here in Dublin too. Imagine, somewhere like Kylemore is the Donnersbergerbruecke of Munich, or could be at any rate! I can see a lot of land presently occupied wth run-down warehousing and such to be rezoned residential and built up as apartments. The areas near Inchicore works and Broombridge are prime targets I bet.

Maskhadov

will all of the metro be underground or will just some of it be?

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

Dermot, I don't think it's fair to say that the Stammstrecke was an example of building from the outside in. It connects two long distance terminus stations that were built before people commuted the way they do today. So it's not like they deliberatly built the lines in that order, just that the phenomenon of commuting necessitated it later.

No, you probably wouldn't plan things that way, but the effect is one of building inwards and the Munich circumstances of the day match our own - even if they did have far more railways converging on the capital. IOW, Munich's development shows us when it's good to build from the outside in: in those cases where the outside bit is already in place.

murphaph wrote:

Fro my reading of it, the first line was the U6 from Kieferngarten to Goetheplatz (that's a 12km cross city route), then they branched off this at M. Freiheit to the Olympic Stadium. They then extended outwards, no?

Well, I've already had to correct my earlier post, because I was careless with my timeline. The U6 route you name was the first U-Bahn stretch, but it also predates the S-Bahn tunnel by about 6 months. A full timeline may help here (scroll down the page, even the non-German speakers should get the idea).

My point about building a whole line over a good distance was partly with reference to the U6. Kieferngarten remained the northern terminus until the mid-90s, and anyone familiar with North Munich will realise that population isn't terribly dense up there. The subsequent northern extension was really geared at tying in Garching. They added a P+R too, and a lot of the extension runs by the pre-existing main depot for the system. Basically, the line as originally opened was capable of functioning as a complete entity from day 1. The southern extensions can almost be considered a new line serving new communities.

The evolution of the rest of the U-Netz also largely follows the principle of build-a-useful-line-before-you-open-anything. The main exception to this was the U5, whose middle bit was the last to be added, which seems odd and is certainly at odds with the build-outwards rule. But don't forget, the central area already had alternative routes for this bit, over S-Bahn and U2. Sometimes it's non-obvious what strategy will work best.

murphaph wrote:

The orbital metro is hard to compare with Munich as they don't really have anything like it that I can think of.

The S20 and S27 are a bit like that, I suppose. But if you want to think of the orbital as a feeder for other lines, you'd have to look to Trams and Buses to find a parallel in Munich.

Dermot

murphaph

Maskhadov wrote:

will all of the metro be underground or will just some of it be?

Some of it. The One from town to Swords will be underground as far as Ballymun, and underground under the airport, overground passing Swords (though this might change IMO, depending on what FCC have planned for Swords development).

The metro from Ballymun to Tallaght will be mostly above ground, the only underground stretch being under Clondalkin by the looks of things. This will help keep the costs of this metro down. If this route has to be bored it would never happen IMO.

Bill McH

mackerski wrote:

It's true that our interconnector won't be quite as fortuitously placed as the Munich one. Part of this is down to the city layout -theirs is still centred on the original walled city and not divided by a river. For this reason, and probably for some reasons of cost, ours won't have stops in quite as many really compelling locations.

I have yet to come across a rail tunnel which has been fortuitously placed anywhere. And I have yet to come across any definitive reason why our East-West tunnel cannot go through College Green. We seem to be able to build a North-South tunnel through it - or at least that's what we're planning. If the will was there, I'd imagine we could build it, and I believe it would be the right thing to do. It would enable every passenger on the northern DART line and the Kildare line to get to the centre. Not that they all want to do that, but it is a good place from where to get to other parts of the city. (i.e. fanning out from College Green) This is also the case in Munich - all passengers on the S-Bahn can get to the centre. If they wish to go to Sendlinger Tor or Odeonsplatz (or elsewhere), then they can change (or get out and walk). In Dublin, I fear, we will be bringing everyone to St. Stephen's Green, which is close to the centre, but is not it. In order for anybody on these DART trains to get to the centre, they will have to change or get out and walk. Not very efficient.

However, it will deliver the following advantages that also pertain in Munich:

a) Major boost in usefulness of existing heavy rail alignments previously terminating at city edges in less useful locations.

b) As a consequence of (a), previously unusable routes become useful and attractive to commuters.

c) Spreading the number of disembarkation points for city-bound commuters across a larger range of city stations.

d) Drastic increase in the area within the city centre within an acceptable walk of commuter rail.

I agree with all of these points. Connecting the Kildare Line to the interconnector will change an awful lot of things in the city. I am hopeful that it will really enable the city to start finding its East-West balance, which has been somewhat skewed by the electrified DART line.

But this would also be true if it went through College Green. My quibble is that by routing the interconnector through St. Stephen's Green we will either (i) radically skew the central part of the city towards the South or (ii) have an inefficient rail system in which significantly more people are leaving their DART trains at St. Stephen's Green in order to head north towards College Green than are leaving these trains to head south.

Our DART trains can carry, what? - about 1100 people? That's more than our proposed metro trains. But the metro trains will go to the centre, the more populous DART trains will not.

murphaph

Cheers for the link Dermot, Munich does indeed have plenty of orbital bus routes linking the S-Bahn lines in particular. How would that work here I wonder, bus from Balbrigan via Ashbourne to Maynooth and then Hazelhatch? Whatever happens, we need a vast improvement in orbital buses here.

murphaph

But Bill, the DTO says the number one destination is the area around Stephen's Green (the south city buiness district). That tallies for me, commuters who travel everyday are headed for the government departments and office blocks in and around that area.

I really don't think the interconnector is headed to the 'wrong' place.

(I've no bias either way btw, I don't travel into town and my house is located on the Maynooth line )

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

But Bill, the DTO says the number one destination is the area around Stephen's Green (the south city buiness district). That tallies for me, commuters who travel everyday are headed for the government departments and office blocks in and around that area.

I really don't think the interconnector is headed to the 'wrong' place.

(I've no bias either way btw, I don't travel into town and my house is located on the Maynooth line )

Philip - Is there anywhere I could actually view the figures? Quite clearly, for example, there are an awful lot more buses going to College Green than to St. Stephen's Green. If St. Stephen's Green was more popular, it would be the other way around, wouldn't it?

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

Philip - Is there anywhere I could actually view the figures?

Bill, The full PFC document has all the figures. I don't have a copy myself, but the online summary says;

The city centre continues to be the most popular destination;

The south-east inner city remains a primary and growing destination;

Bill McH wrote:

Quite clearly, for example, there are an awful lot more buses going to College Green than to St. Stephen's Green. If St. Stephen's Green was more popular, it would be the other way around, wouldn't it?

No, I think it's very suspect to use Dublin Bus' existing routes and termination points as the basis for a future transport network. Dublin Bus often runs buses from the easiest operational point of view (or from wherever DCC dumps them). Many routes too (the 37, 38 39 are just the onew I know of) used to run from Abbey Street but were displaced to the southside with the Luas works.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote:

But Bill, the DTO says the number one destination is the area around Stephen's Green (the south city buiness district). That tallies for me, commuters who travel everyday are headed for the government departments and office blocks in and around that area.

But aren't they all being deported beyond the Pale?

Bill McH

Now Philip, I know you have to be winding me up:)

Because you know and I know, that College Green is a busier area of town than St. Stephen's Green. I suggest you prove this to yourself by walking from Harcourt Street tram station to, say, the Garden of Remembrance. (or go in the opposite direction)

Choose any time of the day or night that you like.

You will find that there's a number of people on Harcourt Street, then a few more on the side of St. Stephen's Green beside the LUAS. Things start to get busier along Grafton Street, very busy at the bottom of it near Trinity. They continue to be very busy along Westmoreland Street, on O'Connell Bridge and on Lower O'Connell Street, before starting to thin out on Upper O'Connell Street and becoming pretty quiet up near the Garden of Remembrance.

That is a pattern which can be observed any time you wish to look at it.

It doesn't have that pattern because there's loads of people who live in College Green. It has that pattern because College Green is the centre and it is the busiest part of the city, with other adjacent areas being progressively less busy.

Of course the DTO will say that the south-east city centre is the most important destination. Could that be because it has currently got the best train service, and has had for two decades? Will that necessarily be the case when good train/metro services are built to other parts of the city? I wonder.

An East-West service missing the busiest part of the city. I think it's a pity - but Martin E has decreed it.

murphaph

Ok Bill, I can also offer this up. If I work in the south east inner city around the Government district and I come into town on any bus from west Dublin, I'm gong to be dumped at Trinity College. Maybe all these people are boosting your figures? I know myself that I would have very little business at College Green. What's there afterall? O'Connell Street and environs has shopping, Stephen's Green has shopping/offices. The area around College Green connects these two parts of town, perhaps that's another reason so many people are seen on foot 'passing through' College Green but not actually doing anything there. I know there's many a child brought up in Dublin who was dragged by his/her mother from one shopping district to the other to try on shoes, and you have to pass through College Green, but that's all you're doing-passing through.

MarkoP11

DART carries 1400 per train, Stephens Green is closer to College Green than Tara Street and Pearse

Technically it would not be possible to divert the interconnector via College Green it would simply be too tight a corner, of course Stephen's Green offers better connection to Luas, there is no guarantee the Luas link up is going via College Green. Stick with the plan which seems to be at advanced stage

Since when has College Green been the city centre, its an area not a specific location, what if you work on Harcourt Street, Stephens Green, Dawson Street, Kidlare Street, Merrion Square, Baggot Street, Stephen's Green look damn good. Those on the top end of Dame Street have the High Street stop

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

Ok Bill, I can also offer this up. If I work in the south east inner city around the Government district and I come into town on any bus from west Dublin, I'm gong to be dumped at Trinity College. I know myself that I would have very little business at College Green. What's there afterall?

There's plenty of things at or to the north of the College Green area. Loads of offices on Westmoreland Street, D'Olier Street, Tara Street, Anglesea Street, Dame Street, O'Connell Street, Abbey Street, Parnell Street, Parnell Square. TCD. Temple Bar. Plenty of things to the north of College Green. North of College Green is more than just shops. Then south you have Grafton Street, Nassau Street, Kildare Street all a couple of minutes away. The Green would be about 6-7 minutes.

The area around College Green connects these two parts of town, perhaps that's another reason so many people are seen on foot 'passing through' College Green but not actually doing anything there.

Even if they are just passing through it's still a central point between the Grafton Street/St. Stephen's Green area and the north city centre. It's true that places like the Harcourt Centre and Adelaide Road would require a bit of a walk from College Green, but I would like to see how the overall figures compare.

Another advantage of College Green is that it is the centre every hour of the week. Building the interconnector through St. Stephen's Green unfortunately means that for a lot of the week we recreate the southside DART line - catchment area only on one side of the line at weekends or outside peak times. Harcourt Street/Earlsfort Terrace and places like Fitzwilliam Square -even 3 sides of the Green itself - are empty after about 7 O'Clock each night and for the entire weekend. If it went through College Green there'd be a catchment area on both sides at all times.

Bill McH

MarkoP11 wrote:

Technically it would not be possible to divert the interconnector via College Green it would simply be too tight a corner

Too tight a corner where?

of course Stephen's Green offers better connection to Luas, there is no guarantee the Luas link up is going via College Green.

No guarantee at all. But I suspect we may have got used to the idea of the interconnector going through St. Stephen's Green because the LUAS is there. Might we have looked at the whole thing a bit differently if Mary O'Rourke had not chickened out?

Stick with the plan which seems to be at advanced stage

Oh, I think we'll be sticking with the plan all right, as the die is cast. This discussion is quite clearly a waste of everybody's time. (But isn't that what a board is for?:p)

Since when has College Green been the city centre, its an area not a specific location, what if you work on Harcourt Street, Stephens Green, Dawson Street, Kidlare Street, Merrion Square, Baggot Street, Stephen's Green look damn good.

It does. For a lot of those, College Green is also pretty good. And as I mention above - at no stage in the week does an interconnector through College Green become a 1.3 billion impersonation of the southside DART line.

Metrobest

I'm with Philip on this one. The key thing for College Green is that is connected, via the North/South metro, into a high-capacity integrated system. The metro will take a lot of the current footfall of College Green as it will become a key origin point for all journeys. College Green will not be badly served by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember the geographical nature of Dublin is such that most Northside/Southside journeys transit, by foot or by car, through O'Connell Bridge and the College Green Area. College Green is not the destination point, it's just the key transit point.

From an engineering point, putting a 12 platfrom interconnector station into College Green would be horrendously disruptive. I can't see how it could be done without doing serious damage to the surrounding buildings we treasure. The smaller station box of a metro station, following the alignment it does, will not encounter the same issues.

On that subject, could somebody clarify the exact location of the College Green metro stop? My reading of the most recent report is that the station box will be on D'Olier Street at the Screen Cinema end to link with an underground walkway to Tara. The station could be entered therefore both at D'Olier Street and somewhere near the front of Trinity; is that possible?

When the projects are built, to rail in Dublin Stephen's Green will become something like Chatelet is to the Paris metro - a central hub point, a destination in itself or a key point of connection for onward journeys, be they by bus, tram, metro, or indeed, Irish Rail.

aliveandkicking

Metrobest I never knew you were capable of talking so much sense

I agree with every word :eek: