DART+ (DART Expansion)

Ben D Bus · 27-07-2016 1:37pm

From today's IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/dublin-needs-to-invest-to-gain-from-brexit-fall-out-1.2734845

DU gets listed as a crucial transport project if Dublin is to benefit from any moves out of London.

It's only an opinion piece, but it's a voice in the property market.

That's two now - this one for commercial property and SDCC's comment on further development of Adamstown

Idbatterim · 27-07-2016 1:46pm

poor infrastructure, accommodation, taxation on higher incomes are mentioned as cons to Dublin in the article. If you have kids the cost of childcare is another big one...

cgcsb · 27-07-2016 1:54pm

Clonburris needs to stop, the bridge at forbes st is already shelved, Stop more development at Clongriffin and Hansfield until this is sorted. These are things the councils can do to add the pressure. Let the place grind to a halt. I'd even go as far to say that some sort of Dublin citizen's convention could be formed and get a general strike going. People power can get things done, if this state want's to continue to function then the capital city requires some basic provision for transport.

Idbatterim · 27-07-2016 2:38pm

say we live in a parallel universe and government decides to go with the originally designed scheme tomorrow, how long would it take to run through planning again?

Grandeeod · 27-07-2016 3:16pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

say we live in a parallel universe and government decides to go with the originally designed scheme tomorrow, how long would it take to run through planning again?

Another railway order would take about 18 months.

Idbatterim · 27-07-2016 3:26pm

is that a best case scenario? could it be bumped up the priority list etc? get more staff into ABP temporarily etc. I mean it was approved before, shouldnt it be a formality? I appreciate it has to go through planning again...

Grandeeod · 27-07-2016 3:41pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

is that a best case scenario? could it be bumped up the priority list etc? get more staff into ABP temporarily etc. I mean it was approved before, shouldnt it be a formality? I appreciate it has to go through planning again...

Its even more problematic that. I gave you the best case scenario. However the reality is it would probably take even longer. Why? Well the planning lapsed last September because the CPO process wasn't started. The September deadline was imposed because property owners and developers took a high court action. For example in Bridgefoot street a site had been earmarked for the building of an evacuation shaft. This site had originally got planning permission for 33 apartments. That planning permission lapsed during the DU planning process. Now that DUs planning has lapsed the owner of that site can apply for permission to build these apartments. Goodbye evacuation shaft! In fact the owners of property that was going to be CPO'd can now apply for PP to build what they want. So while DU spends the next 18 months being "redesigned", I really hope they are keeping an eye on these sites.

Its a mess.

Idbatterim · 27-07-2016 3:58pm

or example in Bridgefoot street a site had been earmarked for the building of an evacuation shaft. This site had originally got planning permission for 33 apartments. That planning permission lapsed during the DU planning process. Now that DUs planning has lapsed the owner of that site can apply for permission to build these apartments. Goodbye evacuation shaft! In fact the owners of property that was going to be CPO'd can now apply for PP to build what they want. So while DU spends the next 18 months being "redesigned", I really hope they are keeping an eye on these sites.

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

Grandeeod · 27-07-2016 4:27pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

IE don't have the money to buy the sites, but they can object to PP being granted.

The original ABP Oral hearing is worth reading. It shows you how difficult it was to get the RO. And watch out for our Paschal's contribution on behalf of his East Wall constituents who are notoriously anti DU.

murphaph · 27-07-2016 9:05pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

can Irish Rail etc appeal these developments in light of the revised DU plan coming to light or simply make an offer to the current owner of site?

The state needs to sh!t or get off the pot. Either they CPO the property or the current lawful owners do whatever they please with it. I am obviously in favour of DU but you can't keep a sword if Damocles hanging over people indefinitely.

salmocab · 27-07-2016 9:09pm

murphaph wrote: »

The state needs to sh!t or get off the pot. Either they CPO the property or the current lawful owners do whatever they please with it. I am obviously in favour of DU but you can't keep a sword if Damocles hanging over people indefinitely.

Your right its not right to stop people doing things with their land based on piece of infrastructure that will probably not be built and certainly not as designed now.

Grandeeod · 27-07-2016 9:25pm

murphaph wrote: »

The state needs to sh!t or get off the pot. Either they CPO the property or the current lawful owners do whatever they please with it. I am obviously in favour of DU but you can't keep a sword if Damocles hanging over people indefinitely.

As you know already, the state jumped off the pot last September. With DU pushed back into a pointless two year redesign, lots of things will happen with a lot of the property earmarked for CPO. It was a combination of commercial and residential development. With the little upswing in financial terms, we can bet that the sites will be developed. 120 million would have kept plans going. A pittance in the scheme of things.

Once the NTA (another useless quango) come back with the redesign, I predict we will be looking at yet another set of CPO's and very definately a version of DU that we can all laugh at. That won't happen either. If we read some international publications about DU, they frequently mention the entire DART fiasco since 1972! Meanwhile we will get to hear Barry Kenny waxing lyrically about his paymasters decisions.

As for FG and Paschal Donohoe, they are worse than FF. Donohoe spent more time lick arsing the residents of East Wall about noise, disruption etc. He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU. He was politically/socially affiliated to making sure it never happened.

Nobody anymore publicises stuff like this nor sees the need to go beyond an internet forum or letter to the "department".

marno21 · 27-07-2016 11:27pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

As you know already, the state jumped off the pot last September. With DU pushed back into a pointless two year redesign, lots of things will happen with a lot of the property earmarked for CPO. It was a combination of commercial and residential development. With the little upswing in financial terms, we can bet that the sites will be developed. 120 million would have kept plans going. A pittance in the scheme of things.

Once the NTA (another useless quango) come back with the redesign, I predict we will be looking at yet another set of CPO's and very definately a version of DU that we can all laugh at. That won't happen either. If we read some international publications about DU, they frequently mention the entire DART fiasco since 1972! Meanwhile we will get to hear Barry Kenny waxing lyrically about his paymasters decisions.

As for FG and Paschal Donohoe, they are worse than FF. Donohoe spent more time lick arsing the residents of East Wall about noise, disruption etc. He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU. He was politically/socially affiliated to making sure it never happened.

Nobody anymore publicises stuff like this nor sees the need to go beyond an internet forum or letter to the "department".

You are fairly on the ball here. Donohue and Varadkar are absolutely pathetic Ministers. All the fuss about things for now such as removing the USC and these water charges/bin charges messes but no planning for the future or investing in upgrading our 19th century infrastructure.

If these projects were under construction we would look a lot more attractive for Brexit relocators. "It's going to be built for 2027" isn't really that attractive.

Imagine talking to an attractive woman in a nightclub. "Well I am about 5 stone overweight - but I do plan on going to the gym in 2019."

cgcsb · 28-07-2016 8:27am

Grandeeod wrote: »

He even supports their claim that they "take all the pain but no gain" from DU.

?? DARTu will put East wall smack bang halfway between Clontarf Road and Docklands station. With a train frequency of 1 DART per 10 mins, their property values will skyrocket, traditionally property is very cheap (for central Dublin) in Eastwall, DARTu will make these people millionaires, they have plenty to gain.

Grandeeod · 28-07-2016 9:41am

cgcsb wrote: »

?? DARTu will put East wall smack bang halfway between Clontarf Road and Docklands station. With a train frequency of 1 DART per 10 mins, their property values will skyrocket, traditionally property is very cheap (for central Dublin) in Eastwall, DARTu will make these people millionaires, they have plenty to gain.

I know and I agree. However since the entire DU project was conceived, there have been rumblings of discontent in East Wall and surrounding areas. The phrase "all the pain for no gain" was coined by the East Wall residents. They are called the PROJECT EAST WALL ACTION GROUP. Here's a direct quote from Paschal Donohoe when he was a senator. Remember this is his constituency.

East Wall will not benefit directly from the DART Underground but construction of this project will have a huge impact upon the community.

Oul Paschal has played a great fudge here. Parish pump politics are alive and well in the capital.

Some more quotes.

Spokesperson of the East Wall Residents Association Angela Broderick has said the whole plan is "a waste of money".

Angela Broderick, spokesperson for the Protect East Wall action group, said the entire community has been galvanised in its opposition to the plan, which she believes shows a “blatant disregard” for the community.

antoinolachtnai · 28-07-2016 11:33am

Going a bit further doesn't really cost that much when you're doing tunnelling works. The machinery is already in the ground. Tunnelling a bit further is worthwhile if it is going to avoid any sort of significant track works.

The real issue with Dart Underground is that as designed, it won't really attract that many extra people to public transport.

See table 2.5.6 of the Business Case (http://www.irishrail.ie/media/dart_underground_business_case1.pdf)

Unbelievably, the tunnel is expected to only add 1300 morning boardings per day to public transport in 2030. This is an unbelievably very small number given the cost and scale of the overall project.

The basic concept of a cross city tunnel is good, but the whole thing would need to be a lot more focused on the dense inland areas rather than the coastal areas which have light enough density and have capacity constraints. It really makes sense to revise the project to fix this fundamental issue.

I think the project has to be adjusted to have a lot more trains (up to every 2 minutes) going into the tunnel and so serving the big interconnecting points (especially St Stephen's Green) more directly for most users.

(I have asked the DoT for unredacted versions of the business case, since so much time has elapsed.)

murphaph · 28-07-2016 3:41pm

The only thing that makes sense is building it as currently planned. And that won't happen. And Ireland as a whole will suffer economic consequences but sure the Jackeens have enough already and that's the main thing.

Edit: I'm on my way home from work passing through Zoo Station and I'll be home in suburban Berlin in a few short minutes. It's not all about reducing car journeys. It should be about quality of life.

dublinman1990 · 28-07-2016 5:29pm

Can I ask about the Project East Wall Action Group a few posts back.

What sort of "blantant disregard" for the community are this group talking about if they are against DU?

For example; would these residents have any connection to being against noise levels at the IE depot in Inchicore?

Grandeeod · 28-07-2016 9:33pm

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Can I ask about the Project East Wall Action Group a few posts back.

What sort of "blantant disregard" for the community are this group talking about if they are against DU?

For example; would these residents have any connection to being against noise levels at the IE depot in Inchicore?

My earliest dealings with the East Wall residents goes back to late 2003. For the record I didn't work for IE/CIE or any developer. Nor was I a politician. The blatant disregard that you refer to was based the following.

1. The TBMs were meant to run from Inchicore and Spencer Dock. This was scaled back on the grounds of cost so the TBMs started only in the Spencer Dock area. Therefore all the spoil has to be extracted via Spencer Dock and via the East Wall area by road. The residents and local politicians were against this.

2. They claimed that they weren't getting a DART station in East Wall, despite the project being a very big benefit to the general area.

That's the short and simple version.

I have no knowledge of any connection to noise issues in Inchicore. But East Wall residents did complain about noise on the North Wall lines and sound barriers were provided by IE. These days the line sees very little traffic anyway. Overall I would expect further dissent from East Wall residents when new DU plans are submitted (if they are similar) and I am disgusted by the fact that Paschal Donohoe as a Transport Minister wasn't exposed as having a conflict of interest when it came to his dept. and remit, bottling the entire project.

I honestly don't see how they can realistically redesign the DU project at a cheaper cost and maintain its effectiveness.

From Donohoe's perspective, one of the original cost saving measures in 2010, resulted in him backing his constituents. (TBMs from Spencer Dock in one direction only.)

cgcsb · 29-07-2016 9:28am

Grandeeod wrote: »

My earliest dealings with the East Wall residents goes back to late 2003. For the record I didn't work for IE/CIE or any developer. Nor was I a politician. The blatant disregard that you refer to was based the following.

1. The TBMs were meant to run from Inchicore and Spencer Dock. This was scaled back on the grounds of cost so the TBMs started only in the Spencer Dock area. Therefore all the spoil has to be extracted via Spencer Dock and via the East Wall area by road. The residents and local politicians were against this.

2. They claimed that they weren't getting a DART station in East Wall, despite the project being a very big benefit to the general area.

That's the short and simple version.

I have no knowledge of any connection to noise issues in Inchicore. But East Wall residents did complain about noise on the North Wall lines and sound barriers were provided by IE. These days the line sees very little traffic anyway. Overall I would expect further dissent from East Wall residents when new DU plans are submitted (if they are similar) and I am disgusted by the fact that Paschal Donohoe as a Transport Minister wasn't exposed as having a conflict of interest when it came to his dept. and remit, bottling the entire project.

I honestly don't see how they can realistically redesign the DU project at a cheaper cost and maintain its effectiveness.

From Donohoe's perspective, one of the original cost saving measures in 2010, resulted in him backing his constituents. (TBMs from Spencer Dock in one direction only.)

The entire eastwall area is within 1km of either Spencer dock or Clontarf Raod. The catchment area for a frequent heavy rail service is well in excess of 1km. If they are concerned about connectivity they should insist on a pedestrian/cycling bridge/route between church avenue and Sherrif street. In fact that should be done anyway

MJohnston · 31-07-2016 11:48am

Sometimes its really, really obvious when someone creates a second account to agree with themselves...

(edit: posts I was referring to got deleted)

annfield1978 · 31-07-2016 2:44pm

Irish Rail will be seeking a consultant shortly to look at the western tie in of DART Underground between Heuston and Inchicore

BonnieSituation · 31-07-2016 2:51pm

annfield1978 wrote: »

Irish Rail will be seeking a consultant shortly to look at the western tie in of DART Underground between Heuston and Inchicore

What's that actually mean?

D.L.R. · 31-07-2016 4:09pm

Sounds like they're looking at the possibility of moving the portal from Inchicore to Heuston.

BonnieSituation · 31-07-2016 5:19pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sounds like they're looking at the possibility of moving the portal from Inchicore to Heuston.

I thought the whole point of moving it from Heuston to Inchicore was the logistics and the disruption would be better/reduced with the larger land bank available for works in Inchicore.

D.L.R. · 31-07-2016 6:47pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I thought the whole point of moving it from Heuston to Inchicore was the logistics and the disruption would be better/reduced with the larger land bank available for works in Inchicore.

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

LeinsterDub · 31-07-2016 6:59pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

Why even bother with a 2 bore tunnel let's just have one bore and half ass it completely

Grandeeod · 31-07-2016 7:01pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yeah that was how it was sold alright, but personally I think it was also a little bit of Celtic Tiger spin. I reckon Heuston portal + 4 tracking + less stations could be a realistic DU Phase 1.

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

I explained to you already why the Heuston portal idea is bonkers. 4 tracking from Heuston would be massively expensive.

Grandeeod · 31-07-2016 8:23pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

If you really want to see DU happen, educate yourself more about the project and the politics around it.

Grandeeod · 31-07-2016 10:28pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Sometimes its really, really obvious when someone creates a second account to agree with themselves...

Looked at it briefly this morning before the delete button was hit. I often wonder if it's politically affiliated fanboys promoting an unheard of agenda. Now that we are in a period of "redesigning" DU, I often worry about what the future holds for this project.

D.L.R. · 31-07-2016 10:57pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

I explained to you already why the Heuston portal idea is bonkers. 4 tracking from Heuston would be massively expensive.

Nah, we're only talking an extra mile of four tracking between Inchicore and Heuston. The cutting between Inchicore and Heuston is less than 1000m long, its not very deep, and there are only 3-4 bridges. We've built motorway projects on a far larger scale.

The question is whether its is cheaper than an extra 2km of tunnelling+tunnel lining materials and so on and it looks like a question that's being seriously asked.

monument · 01-08-2016 1:19pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

As someone who wants to see DU happen, this wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as a future Christchurch station was safeguarded.

At what point in the future is it being safeguarded for?

And if employment alone does not cut it...

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 161 Wood Quay A, was 2,669. With an approximate area of .17SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 15,700 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 119 Merchants Quay A, was 2,275. With an approximate area of .18SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 12,638.9 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 120 Merchants Quay B, was 3,822. With an approximate area of .24SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 15,925 persons per SQKM.

According to the 2011 Census, the total population in this Electoral Division (ED), 144 Royal Exchange A, was 4,481. With an approximate area of .44SQKM, this ED has a 2011 population density of 10,184.1 persons per SQKM.

brownbeard · 01-08-2016 1:59pm

I'm guessing they haven't published updated employment heat maps for the 2016 census yet but it'd be very interesting to see... anyone have any idea when we might be seeing these?

D.L.R. · 01-08-2016 3:35pm

monument wrote: »

At what point in the future is it being safeguarded for?

Preaching to the converted mate. But I'm arguing in the context of the state insisting on saving money, and how a phased delivery might be a viable budgetary solution. Christchurch in this context as being part of a second phase of works directly following phase 1.

BonnieSituation · 01-08-2016 3:57pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Preaching to the converted mate. But I'm arguing in the context of the state insisting on saving money, and how a phased delivery might be a viable budgetary solution. Christchurch in this context as being part of a second phase of works directly following phase 1.

I can't sre how that could possibly be sanctioned as money saving.

It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough they were insisting on driving the tunnel in that direction (archaeologically speaking) as it is but to drive it that way not build the station and then immediately follow it up with works to integrate a station would be beyond mental. If cross city is seen as a missed opportunity right now (going back to FFs decision to not have a northern luas line on the 90s) DU going that option would be off the scale insane.

Talk of removing the Stephens Green stop and straightening the route is also beyond belief.

BonnieSituation · 01-08-2016 3:59pm

Also the cost of finance is at an all time low. We should be borrowing to beat the band or public transport infrastructure works. There should be tbms going under city all over the place to finally give us a integrated transport system.

A proper heavy rail transport system.

murphaph · 01-08-2016 4:10pm

They could build the station box but not fit out. At this stage I'd take any half baked scheme that delivered the bones of what DU is supposed to do because I know full well it'll be a victim of its own success and need upgrading in short order, but that's how we always do things in Ireland.

D.L.R. · 01-08-2016 4:22pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I can't sre how that could possibly be sanctioned as money saving.

It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough they were insisting on driving the tunnel in that direction (archaeologically speaking) as it is but to drive it that way not build the station and then immediately follow it up with works to integrate a station would be beyond mental. If cross city is seen as a missed opportunity right now (going back to FFs decision to not have a northern luas line on the 90s) DU going that option would be off the scale insane.

Talk of removing the Stephens Green stop and straightening the route is also beyond belief.

Why is driving the tunnel in that direction a bad thing in your view? Geology? Heritage?

It could be sanctioned as money saving in the sense it would defer much of DU's cost into a phase 2, essentially a separate project to be sanctioned independently. But at the same time, politically inevitable.

markpb · 01-08-2016 4:55pm

D.L.R. wrote:

Why is driving the tunnel in that direction a bad thing in your view? Geology? Heritage?

Presumably because, in the unlikely/impossible event of DU ever being built, they would end up pulling the tunnel boring machines back and letting the men with toothbrushes in so they can dig the tunnel without damaging the historical artifacts down there.

BonnieSituation · 01-08-2016 4:58pm

murphaph wrote: »

They could build the station box but not fit out. At this stage I'd take any half baked scheme that delivered the bones of what DU is supposed to do because I know full well it'll be a victim of its own success and need upgrading in short order, but that's how we always do things in Ireland.

Surely the cost of boring and building the station box is the bulk of the expense. Fitting it our wouldn't surely be much more on top in the grand scheme.

BonnieSituation · 01-08-2016 5:02pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Why is driving the tunnel in that direction a bad thing in your view? Geology? Heritage?

The world and its mother knows that that part of Dublin is a goldmine. For the politically expedient it would be better not knowing what's down there than digging it up a la Wood Quay.

Incidentally, I work in one of the Stephenson's Bunkers and every day I die a little inside knowing what went on to put them there.

*shudders*

Markcheese · 01-08-2016 5:10pm

BonnieSituation wrote:

Also the cost of finance is at an all time low. We should be borrowing to beat the band or public transport infrastructure works. There should be tbms going under city all over the place to finally give us a integrated transport system.

Yup the cost of borrowing is really low, but there are rules about how much can be borrowed, and after the feck ups of the past the government has to show it s being responsible.... of course by not building it risks showing it has no ambition..

D.L.R. · 01-08-2016 5:32pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The world and its mother knows that that part of Dublin is a goldmine. For the politically expedient it would be better not knowing what's down there than digging it up a la Wood Quay.

Incidentally, I work in one of the Stephenson's Bunkers and every day I die a little inside knowing what went on to put them there.

*shudders*

One of the reasons Wood Quay was such a loathsome crime is there was no pressing need to build in that specific location. It was a land grab by unscrupulous people.

But unlike the Wood Quay development, DU can't really avoid the area, and DU is an economic imperative.

murphaph · 01-08-2016 6:50pm

In Rome they just plow through the stuff and the justification given is that if the metro had never been built the artefacts would never have been found either. There is a strange logic to the argument.

salmocab · 01-08-2016 7:45pm

murphaph wrote: »

In Rome they just plow through the stuff and the justification given is that if the metro had never been built the artefacts would never have been found either. There is a strange logic to the argument.

In fairness if something is buried deep enough its probably never going to be found

Grandeeod · 01-08-2016 7:46pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Nah, we're only talking an extra mile of four tracking between Inchicore and Heuston. The cutting between Inchicore and Heuston is less than 1000m long, its not very deep, and there are only 3-4 bridges. We've built motorway projects on a far larger scale.

The question is whether its is cheaper than an extra 2km of tunnelling+tunnel lining materials and so on and it looks like a question that's being seriously asked.

I doubt it would be cheaper and the amount of disruption it would cause would be huge. Motorway projects are irrelevant. They are greenfield sites.

Grandeeod · 01-08-2016 8:09pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Preaching to the converted mate. But I'm arguing in the context of the state insisting on saving money, and how a phased delivery might be a viable budgetary solution. Christchurch in this context as being part of a second phase of works directly following phase 1.

The Government are not insisting on saving money. Its an excuse and they have shamelessly allowed the railway order to lapse over 120 million. They will probably spend another 40 million redesigning DU to a rediculously stupid level. So the state saves a short term 80 million, farts around for years and construction costs rise and nothing is saved in the end, if it ever happens.

And this "phased" idea is yours and yours alone. Its about as useful to the debate as a fart in the wind. The decision to move the tunnel portal to Inchicore was made on the basis of sound engineering advice and virtually no effect on existing train services. Any deviation from this should not be tolerated. As for leaving out stops on the current proposed route, thats a rediculous idea as building them later would cost more and bring further unnecessary disruption.

Just think M50.

Markcheese · 01-08-2016 10:33pm

murphaph wrote:

In Rome they just plow through the stuff and the justification given is that if the metro had never been built the artefacts would never have been found either. There is a strange logic to the argument.

They don't just plow through, they excavate and record ... doesnt stop them building right in the heart of rome though.. (they currently have a lot of the pallatine hill ruins scaffolded and propped, as they dig a metro line at the foot of the hill )
To be fair if they're tunneling deep enough under christchurch there shouldnt be anything to find.. of course the access and box'd be a different story.

D.L.R. · 01-08-2016 10:39pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

The Government are not insisting on saving money. Its an excuse and they have shamelessly allowed the railway order to lapse over 120 million. They will probably spend another 40 million redesigning DU to a rediculously stupid level. So the state saves a short term 80 million, farts around for years and construction costs rise and nothing is saved in the end, if it ever happens.

And this "phased" idea is yours and yours alone. Its about as useful to the debate as a fart in the wind. The decision to move the tunnel portal to Inchicore was made on the basis of sound engineering advice and virtually no effect on existing train services. Any deviation from this should not be tolerated. As for leaving out stops on the current proposed route, thats a rediculous idea as building them later would cost more and bring further unnecessary disruption.

Just think M50.

Look I'm as pissed at the govt for mothballing this as you are but here we are. This review is actually happening whether we like it or not, so there's no harm talking about what could happen. Less of the hostility please.

Grandeeod · 01-08-2016 11:08pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Look I'm as pissed at the govt for mothballing this as you are but here we are. This review is actually happening whether we like it or not, so there's no harm talking about what could happen. Less of the hostility please.

There's no hostility here at all. The "here we are" attitude, while its discussed ad nauseum on boards is very defeatist though. If you take the time to actually read this entire thread you could perhaps see the circles we are going around in. Over six bloody years and thats only this thread.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments