DART+ (DART Expansion)

L1011 · 10-04-2016 9:18am

Pretending not to remember what happened the last countless times you went around in circles doesn't wash.

Your arguments have been destroyed every time. Your invented figures range from tripling the claimed reduction in distance and pulling figures out of thin air for tunneling costs

strassenwo!f · 10-04-2016 10:40am

L1011 wrote: »

Pretending not to remember what happened the last countless times you went around in circles doesn't wash.

No, I remember, but the majority of the board reading this probably don't.

L1011 wrote: »

Your arguments have been destroyed every time. Your invented figures range from tripling the claimed reduction in distance and pulling figures out of thin air for tunneling costs

No, they haven't been destroyed, at any stage. I obviously can't determine exactly how much shorter an eventual route via College Green (or Hawkins House) might be, but College Green would unquestionably be considerably shorter, and Hawkins House probably too. With College Green we might be talking up to one kilometre of a saving on tunnelling in that central area. but certainly somewhere between 500 metres and 1 km seems probable.

With the Hawkins House idea, the savings issue would be considerably different, and would largely depend on the alignment, which I mentioned above: East-West, probably incorporating Pearse and Spencer Dock (which should cost broadly around the same as a route via College Green, i.e. cheaper than a circuitous route via St. Spephen's Green), or South-West to/from North-East, probably bypassing both of those and instead going directly to/from Connolly, almost certainly achieving considerable cost saving but also very possibly not being the optimum in terms of passenger uptake and delivery.

There are many imponderables about a potential cross-city route. When it was planned, the LUAS was at St. Stephen's Green only, but whenever it is built it will be at St. Stephen's Green, College Green and many other places in the centre of the city. We also don''t, it appears, have any considerable knowledge on the board about, for example, the situation with the soil in any of those locations.

When the occasion has demanded it, I have always tried to put a ball-park figure on what that might cost. As far as I remember, those efforts have never been seriously questioned, being as they were quite obviously ball-park figures, and L1011's allegation that I misled the board at any stage needs to be challenged. He should provide a concrete example, in my view.

Sam Russell · 10-04-2016 2:42pm

Mod: @strassenwo!f

I have moved this type of argument concerning College Green that you keep bringing up into its own thread. You were the only contributor to that thread. I assume therefore that you are the only one interested in it and so you are coming close to trolling.

Please leave it alone. Otherwise ....

Muahahaha · 10-04-2016 5:48pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Once again I will emphasise that I referred to the boom years. Varadker and Donohue don't count. Dukes was only in the roll temporarily. Brennan was from Galway and served twice as transport minister. Dempsey was reared in Meath long before it was considered a suburb of Dublin. As for all this living in Dublin and going to College thing, it means nothing. They grew up in rural, car dependent Ireland. Nothing slanted about what I have said.

Wasn't it Dempsey who had a pet project of reopening the Navan-Dublin railway? He couldn't even get that over the line at a time he was transport minister and the country was awash with money. He really was a useless minister, even for his own people in Navan.

murphaph wrote: »

Infrastructure should be apolitical but it isn't. It can't be, because it costs money that means things that are obviously political (pensions, social welfare etc.) receive less if infrastructure receives more.

AFAIK in France they have ring fenced infrastructural spending to something like 2% of GDP. Its the only way to do it to help the very notion of spending on infrastructure become apolitical. There'll still be politics involved in which actual projects will be funded but by ring fencing the spending at least they are investing in infrastructure year on year. Thats no bad thing IMO but I doubt we'll be seeing it here where politicians prefer to use spending as a slush fund to get re-elected. At least the election just gone has been a bit of a game changer in that regard, FG dangled tax cuts in front of the electorate and they were returned with a lot less seats than they had in 2011.

strassenwo!f · 03-05-2016 9:51am

Is there any word on IE's latest plans for this project? There was a plan - a rather silly one, in my view - to electrify all the mainline routes and to enable them to utilise this proposed tunnel. It all seem to have gone a bit off the boil. Anybody know?

Paddico · 04-05-2016 12:56pm

Do IE have latest news bulletin on this anywhere, even if its 5 years out of date?

1huge1 · 04-05-2016 7:52pm

http://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/dart-expansion-programme

murphaph · 05-05-2016 7:26am

Oh there are lots of plans. No shortage of grand plans whatsoever.

MJohnston · 05-05-2016 9:25am

Regarding Independents influencing Infrastructure spending:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/how-micheal-martin-won-the-sweetest-deal-in-fianna-fail-history-34686721.html

The Irish Independent understands that Irish Rail CEO David Franks was also called to Government Buildings this week to brief TDs on the possibility of extending the Western Rail Corridor which runs from Ennis to Athenry.

-_-

Carawaystick · 05-05-2016 10:17am

MJohnston wrote: »

Regarding Independents influencing Infrastructure spending:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/how-micheal-martin-won-the-sweetest-deal-in-fianna-fail-history-34686721.html

-_-

Is that to connect Ennis to Limerick all year round?;)

Sam Russell · 05-05-2016 10:36am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is that to connect Ennis to Limerick all year round?;)

I think it would be to elevate the bit that is under water because it inconveniences both passengers using the service when the line is closed due to floods.

L1011 · 05-05-2016 11:15am

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it would be to elevate the bit that is under water because it inconveniences both passengers using the service when the line is closed due to floods.

The bus has no tables to have the flask out on and because its faster there's no time for a game of cards!

LeinsterDub · 06-05-2016 12:52pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Regarding Independents influencing Infrastructure spending:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/how-micheal-martin-won-the-sweetest-deal-in-fianna-fail-history-34686721.html

-_-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY

Pete_Cavan · 06-05-2016 1:03pm

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]If the CEO of IE did brief the government on [/font]the possibility of extending the Western Rail Corridor, he could not have said anything other than operating the route would cripple the company.

cgcsb · 06-05-2016 1:27pm

How could we possibly be talking about a rail route to Tuam with a government that wouldn't spend a small amount preserving the DART underground planning?

marno21 · 06-05-2016 1:34pm

cgcsb wrote: »

How could we possibly be talking about a rail route to Tuam with a government that wouldn't spend a small amount preserving the DART underground planning?

Surely a motorway to Tuam is sufficient?

Pete_Cavan · 06-05-2016 1:41pm

marno21 wrote: »

Surely a motorway to Tuam is sufficient?

They should have a bus service to connect with trains in Athenry if getting a train is so important. There is unlikely to be capacity on the single track between Athenry and Galway for any meaningful level of service between Tuam and Galway so it would probably have to be a shuttle anyway.

marno21 · 06-05-2016 2:06pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

They should have a bus service to connect with trains in Athenry if getting a train is so important. There is unlikely to be capacity on the single track between Athenry and Galway for any meaningful level of service between Tuam and Galway so it would probably have to be a shuttle anyway.

Especially seeing as the motorway is actually going from Athenry to Tuam!

Anyway, this is very off topic. Back to DU.

cgcsb · 06-05-2016 2:06pm

marno21 wrote: »

Surely a motorway to Tuam is sufficient?

You would think after the nearly billion quid went into the Gort-Tuam motorway, which will never come close to it's design capacity. Tuam ain't doing too bad if it also gets fixed rail services, population 8,000.

Either every man woman and child will be using the motorway and railway hourly for 18 hours a day or there are some very powerful politicians up there.

Meanwhile work continues on linking Dublin's 2 light rail lines so that the metropolitan area's 2 million residence may come slightly closer to something resembling an integrated public transport system. Dart Underground and electrification of the Maynooth and Hazelhatch lines will soon be celebrating their 50th year in planning.

In Cork we've yet to see a design for the proposed BRT system, downgraded from luas for 'cost' reasons. The C word obviously only carries meaning inside the M50 and N40, otherwise money is no object.

I see investigation work is ongoing for what will be Ireland's largest bridge carrying a new 4 lane motorway bypassing the bustling metropolis of New Ross and it's existing inner relief road. Funny that they recently closed a parallel railway route due to lack of use.

/rant

tharlear · 06-05-2016 3:28pm

I see investigation work is ongoing for what will be Ireland's largest bridge carrying a new 4 lane motorway bypassing the bustling metropolis of New Ross and it's existing inner relief road. Funny that they recently closed a parallel railway route due to lack of use.

How many times does the concept of a national motorway system need to be explained. The m50 and commuter motorways such as the M2 and M3 do not constitute a national motorway system

spuddy · 06-05-2016 7:08pm

tharlear wrote: »

How many times does the concept of a national motorway system need to be explained. The m50 and commuter motorways such as the M2 and M3 do not constitute a national motorway system

I think the point here is about priority. Is the development of this section of the national motorway network of greater or lesser importance than DART underground? It might be, the problem in Ireland is there is no debate, no prioritisation, and that's deeply unsatisfying for a great many of us here.

murphaph · 06-05-2016 8:45pm

cgcsb wrote: »

You would think after the nearly billion quid went into the Gort-Tuam motorway, which will never come close to it's design capacity. Tuam ain't doing too bad if it also gets fixed rail services, population 8,000.

Either every man woman and child will be using the motorway and railway hourly for 18 hours a day or there are some very powerful politicians up there.

Meanwhile work continues on linking Dublin's 2 light rail lines so that the metropolitan area's 2 million residence may come slightly closer to something resembling an integrated public transport system. Dart Underground and electrification of the Maynooth and Hazelhatch lines will soon be celebrating their 50th year in planning.

In Cork we've yet to see a design for the proposed BRT system, downgraded from luas for 'cost' reasons. The C word obviously only carries meaning inside the M50 and N40, otherwise money is no object.

I see investigation work is ongoing for what will be Ireland's largest bridge carrying a new 4 lane motorway bypassing the bustling metropolis of New Ross and it's existing inner relief road. Funny that they recently closed a parallel railway route due to lack of use.

/rant

Time for Dublin and Cork to push for their own directly elected mayor with executive powers including tax raising and spending. Only then will the lunacy end.

Grandeeod · 06-05-2016 8:51pm

murphaph wrote: »

Time for Dublin and Cork to push for their own directly elected mayor with executive powers including tax raising and spending. Only then will the lunacy end.

We agree on quite a bit, and I must admit, I'm dismayed by the lack of support a lot here have for the theory that Dublin's problems are down to the rural nature of the politicical set up. In the last debate, I saw nothing that came anywhere near justifying it.

Charles Babbage · 06-05-2016 8:57pm

murphaph wrote: »

Time for Dublin and Cork to push for their own directly elected mayor with executive powers including tax raising and spending. Only then will the lunacy end.

No, that will not end the lunacy, just distribute it differently.
What is needed is assessment and planning, but many here only agree with that when it suits their particular agenda.

Grandeeod · 06-05-2016 9:01pm

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No, that will not end the lunacy, just distribute it differently.
What is needed is assessment and planning, but many here only agree with that when it suits their particular agenda.

In all fairness, the current political set up just doesn't lend itself to the sense you are talking. Today we had the formation of a Government that wasn't actually in the national interest, but in the interest of utter political BS gameplaying.

Reuben1210 · 06-05-2016 9:07pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

In all fairness, the current political set up just doesn't lend itself to the sense you are talking. Today we had the formation of a Government that wasn't actually in the national interest, but in the interest of utter political BS gameplaying.

On that point, anyone know Shane Ross's thoughts on PT, and more specifically on the DU and metro north plans?

Sam Russell · 06-05-2016 9:13pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

On that point, anyone know Shane Ross's thoughts on PT, and more specifically on the DU and metro north plans?

Do they pass through Dublin South?

Grandeeod · 06-05-2016 9:25pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

On that point, anyone know Shane Ross's thoughts on PT, and more specifically on the DU and metro north plans?

Has no interest bar the usual political stance. He was once worried by any destruction of the Green for the construction of MN, while welcoming the project.

Personally, he has this portfolio, while waiting for FF to bring down the Government over the next 12 months.

L1011 · 06-05-2016 9:38pm

cgcsb wrote: »

New Ross and it's existing inner relief road

Totally non-functional inner relief road.

Most 1980s "bypasses" were below standard on the day they opened. Letterkenny, Carrick-on-Shannon, Galway, New Ross, etc, etc.

marno21 · 06-05-2016 9:56pm

L1011 wrote: »

Totally non-functional inner relief road.

Most 1980s "bypasses" were below standard on the day they opened. Letterkenny, Carrick-on-Shannon, Galway, New Ross, etc, etc.

Add Limerick, Castlebar and Killarney to that list.

One bridge in New Ross going forward is not feasable, especially on a national route with large amounts of HGVs.

It's TEN-T route too so would have to be done.

New Ross needs its bypass as much as Dublin needs Metro North and Dublin Underground. The point is both should be proceeding, not starving the funding for crucial transport projects.

LeinsterDub · 07-05-2016 11:49am

marno21 wrote: »

New Ross needs its bypass as much as Dublin needs Metro North and Dublin Underground. The point is both should be proceeding, not starving the funding for crucial transport projects.

In a case where we don't have money for both we should be prioritising the project that will benefit the most people and generate the best roi.

07-05-2016 2:21pm

murphaph wrote: »

Time for Dublin and Cork to push for their own directly elected mayor with executive powers including tax raising and spending. Only then will the lunacy end.

There is only so much money to go around. Dublin and Cork are leading the abolishment of water charges. Charges that were for necessary water infrastructure that made sense.

Incidentally almost all people outside the cities and towns always have and continue to pay for their own water infrastructure.

The money is still required for that upgrade or the pipes will stop flowing but it will now likely come from other capital projects instead. I suppose if Dublin/Cork is to get new water infrastructure or the Dart Underground/M20 then it will be an easy choice for the government to make. There certainly won't be the money for all.

Maybe if those protesters were presented with a trade off between DU/M20 v paying your water bills things might of been different.

Sam Russell · 07-05-2016 4:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There is only so much money to go around. Dublin and Cork are leading the abolishment of water charges. Charges that were for necessary water infrastructure that made sense.

Incidentally almost all people outside the cities and towns always have and continue to pay for their own water infrastructure.

The money is still required for that upgrade or the pipes will stop flowing but it will now likely come from other capital projects instead. I suppose if Dublin/Cork is to get new water infrastructure or the Dart Underground/M20 then it will be an easy choice for the government to make. There certainly won't be the money for all.

Maybe if those protesters were presented with a trade off between DU/M20 v paying your water bills things might of been different.

The trade off does not exist. DU is in the €billions, the water charges were only in the €hundred millions per year. Road tax might have to go up to pay for water - that is where it went anyway.

07-05-2016 5:17pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trade off does not exist. DU is in the €billions, the water charges were only in the €hundred millions per year. Road tax might have to go up to pay for water - that is where it went anyway.

Except that DU is a once off project for Billions. Irish Water is hundreds of millions of tax income every year that was destined for infrastructure, which no longer exists. The people of Dublin and Cork voted with there feet against investment in infrastructure, it might of been water infrastructure but it still has to be paid for.

Sam Russell · 07-05-2016 7:29pm

The funding for DU has to come from an EU backed low interest infrastructure fund - otherwise it will never happen. We built motorways this way, and I think it is the only way the government will go ahead with it. The adverse position that politicians have on CIE prevents them seeing the advantages socially and economically with the project.

annfield1978 · 07-05-2016 7:53pm

NTA/ TII procuring a Consultant to review collectively DART Underground and New Metro North's Tunnel/ Station Configuration against international best practice.

murphaph · 07-05-2016 8:06pm

annfield1978 wrote: »

NTA/ TII procuring a Consultant to review collectively DART Underground and New Metro North's Tunnel/ Station Configuration against international best practice. Report back within 4 months of appointment

It's like 1975 all over again. They'll never build a damn thing. They should just admit it and at least stop wasting money on reports that end up in the bin.

Grandeeod · 07-05-2016 8:11pm

murphaph wrote: »

It's like 1975 all over again. They'll never build a damn thing. They should just admit it and at least stop wasting money on reports that end up in the bin.

Ya gotta love it!:D

At this stage, I feel sorry for the younger generation who still believe all this talk about consultants and plans and sh1t.:rolleyes:

Reuben1210 · 07-05-2016 8:59pm

annfield1978 wrote: »

NTA/ TII procuring a Consultant to review collectively DART Underground and New Metro North's Tunnel/ Station Configuration against international best practice. Report back within 4 months of appointment

What is the source? do you have a link?

Hotblack Desiato · 07-05-2016 11:11pm

marno21 wrote: »

New Ross needs its bypass as much as Dublin needs Metro North and Dublin Underground.

Are you being even remotely serious?

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin and Cork are leading the abolishment of water charges.

You'll find that most of the people who paid their Irish Water charges live in Dublin and Cork.

Spineless politicians have caved in to a very vocal minority.

Charles Babbage · 07-05-2016 11:22pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The funding for DU has to come from an EU backed low interest infrastructure fund - otherwise it will never happen. We built motorways this way, and I think it is the only way the government will go ahead with it. The adverse position that politicians have on CIE prevents them seeing the advantages socially and economically with the project.

The Irish government recently sold a 100 year bond for 2.35% and is selling short term paper for 1% odd. The cost of funds is not the issue here, although it is likely the EU would lend funds for this.

Carawaystick · 08-05-2016 12:00am

Deleted User wrote: »

There is only so much money to go around. Dublin and Cork are leading the abolishment of water charges. Charges that were for necessary water infrastructure that made sense.

How much Development Levy money was collected in Dublin or Cork, which would have funded necessary infrastructure?

How much do IW charge commercial/non-residential concerns for their fresh water/ waste water treatment?

marno21 · 08-05-2016 12:50am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you being even remotely serious?

I'm being very serious. Day after day New Ross is jammed with large volumes of traffic, what happens if the bridge ever collapses?

Dublin & New Ross are both transport deficient. Both need solutions (N25 & MN/DU) as much as the other.

Sam Russell · 08-05-2016 8:40am

Well New Ross is getting its bypass, but Dublin is not getting its DU, nor its MN, nor its Airport link.

But there is a New Ross in the Dept. of Transport.

strassenwo!f · 08-05-2016 10:59am

annfield1978 wrote: »

NTA/ TII procuring a Consultant to review collectively DART Underground and New Metro North's Tunnel/ Station Configuration against international best practice.

No source has been provided for this, as mentioned above, but if it is true it would certainly be sensible.

In the earlier planning applications for railway orders for these projects, The RPA stated that there were a number of locations in the city suitable for interchange of these projects; Irish Rail said that only one of the options they'd looked at was suitable.

This glaring discrepancy in the stories from two major state companies about two major projects - either of which would be very comfortably the largest infrastructure project the state has ever been involved in - was either missed or ignored by An Bord Pleanala.

There was obviously a lack of communication between Irish Rail and the RPA about this interchange issue, and between them and their superiors (the Department of Transport) who allowed them both to proceed for a railway order with such obviously disparate stories.

It also doesn't reflect well on An Bord Pleanala, who of course waved both projects through.

Zebra3 · 08-05-2016 11:45am

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that DU is a once off project for Billions. Irish Water is hundreds of millions of tax income every year that was destined for infrastructure, which no longer exists. The people of Dublin and Cork voted with there feet against investment in infrastructure, it might of been water infrastructure but it still has to be paid for.

Nobody voted against investment in water infrastructure. People voted against paying directly for water as opposed to indirectly and against the setting up of a public utility that can be easily privatised in the future. Privitisation of public utilities is one of the major goals of the EU.

But yeah, feel free to make things up. :rolleyes:

Reuben1210 · 08-05-2016 12:23pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody voted against investment in water infrastructure. People voted against paying directly for water as opposed to indirectly and against the setting up of a public utility that can be easily privatised in the future. Privitisation of public utilities is one of the major goals of the EU.

But yeah, feel free to make things up. :rolleyes:

Paying for water indirectly doesn't work as a model, as it never gets directed at the infrastructure, and keeps it politicised. A separate entity for water is necessary to ring-fence the investment and direct investment.

As i've said before, we need to do like other European countries and ring-fence all capital investment requirements to take the politics out of it. This goes for transport and utilities infrastructure.

spacetweek · 08-05-2016 12:33pm

Back on topic please. This isn't an IW thread.

08-05-2016 3:22pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Paying for water indirectly doesn't work as a model, as it never gets directed at the infrastructure, and keeps it politicised. A separate entity for water is necessary to ring-fence the investment and direct investment.

As i've said before, we need to do like other European countries and ring-fence all capital investment requirements to take the politics out of it. This goes for transport and utilities infrastructure.

I agree, Likewise capital investment in DU will not happen or be allocated while every champagne socialist in RTE bleat about the governments responsibility to provide accommodation for everybody including those that we plan on transporting to Ireland. There are too many vested interests without any long term view that have access to taxpayers money. DU should of been completed 20 years ago but it will always be at the bottom of an ever changing list of "priorities".

The only way i can see once off large ticket items getting done is with large private sector input that allow them to make a profit. But that would mean charging realistic prices and paying realistic wages(not Luas type wages), another thing which would not be tolerated in this country as the last couple of years has demonstrated.

Did a Chinese company not propose a competitive turnkey project for the DU a few years ago ?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2016 10:41pm

marno21 wrote: »

I'm being very serious. Day after day New Ross is jammed with large volumes of traffic, what happens if the bridge ever collapses?

Does this affect hundreds of thousands of people every day? Dublin's gross infrastructure deficits do.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments