DART+ (DART Expansion)

Zebra3 · 04-11-2016 6:09pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

this appears to be the case to me too. Its going to be impossible to tell ultimately, until we see the new proposal, the compromises or alternatives come up with and the "savings" or worse value for money, depending on which side of the fence you are on...

I read the christmas bonus costs us 350,000,000 each year, funny how a government can pull money like that out of their ass every year, but couldnt find the relative pittance to get DU works started... Tells you all you need to know about this country , its governance and its priorities...

Tells you a lot about the electorate too.

06-11-2016 1:21pm

You can forget about any significant infrastructure spending in the years ahead. The protected public sector are about to suck the country dry. Any budget surpluses should of been used for infrastructure as it was not guaranteed income, mainly lump sum corporation tax. Just as we would not consider a small scratch card win as yearly income.

Its a pity because the savings in the next few years would of paid for the DU Metro, M20, Atlantic corridor. Instead we will ensure we have the 2nd highest paid teachers in the world, but a third world infrastructure for everybody.

Were heading for a contraction just when the government are giving into every public sector whim

1. Retail Sales
...remained down on the recent high point of last May. This amounts to the weakest period in retail activity since the recovery began...

2. Industrial production
...aggregate production peaked in the middle of last year before falling sharply. Over the course of this year, output in the “traditional sector” recovered somewhat, but in the third quarter it remained 3pc lower than at the same time last year...

3. Tax revenues
... revenues were 4pc lower in October than in the same month in 2015.
That was the third consecutive month of weakness. In August there was a 13pc year-on-year fall, while in September revenues grew by a weak 2pc. This represents quite a sharp slowdown on earlier in the year...

4. Vehicle sales
New car registrations down by 12.5pc in October compared with the same month in 2015.
Light commercial registration down 2pc in October.
Bigger truck sales down 16pc in October.

The job market
is keeping strong, however:
...the labour market almost always lags behind economic activity. In the jargon of economists, it is a "backward-looking" or "lagging" indicator....

Tourism
still keeps strong too, however:
...the 2007/08 sterling plunge contributed to a one third decline in British visitor numbers which still has not been fully reversed... that the impact of the fall in sterling has yet to be felt in the tourism sector...

Currency
...currency effects will slow an economy that is already losing momentum...

LeinsterDub · 10-11-2016 9:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

You can forget about any significant infrastructure spending in the years ahead. The protected public sector are about to suck the country dry. Any budget surpluses should of been used for infrastructure as it was not guaranteed income, mainly lump sum corporation tax. Just as we would not consider a small scratch card win as yearly income.

Its a pity because the savings in the next few years would of paid for the DU Metro, M20, Atlantic corridor. Instead we will ensure we have the 2nd highest paid teachers in the world, but a third world infrastructure for everybody.

Were heading for a contraction just when the government are giving into every public sector whim

1. Retail Sales
...remained down on the recent high point of last May. This amounts to the weakest period in retail activity since the recovery began...

2. Industrial production
...aggregate production peaked in the middle of last year before falling sharply. Over the course of this year, output in the “traditional sector” recovered somewhat, but in the third quarter it remained 3pc lower than at the same time last year...

3. Tax revenues
... revenues were 4pc lower in October than in the same month in 2015.
That was the third consecutive month of weakness. In August there was a 13pc year-on-year fall, while in September revenues grew by a weak 2pc. This represents quite a sharp slowdown on earlier in the year...

4. Vehicle sales
New car registrations down by 12.5pc in October compared with the same month in 2015.
Light commercial registration down 2pc in October.
Bigger truck sales down 16pc in October.

The job market
is keeping strong, however:
...the labour market almost always lags behind economic activity. In the jargon of economists, it is a "backward-looking" or "lagging" indicator....

Tourism
still keeps strong too, however:
...the 2007/08 sterling plunge contributed to a one third decline in British visitor numbers which still has not been fully reversed... that the impact of the fall in sterling has yet to be felt in the tourism sector...

Currency
...currency effects will slow an economy that is already losing momentum...

+ Trump now

murphaph · 10-11-2016 12:30pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

+ Trump now

Yeah and to be honest we don't need Trump to hamstring our economy, we can do it fine by ourselves. Effing public sector unions and our cowardly self serving politicians who just want to clock up enough years for a decent pension.

Sam Russell · 10-11-2016 1:19pm

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah and to be honest we don't need Trump to hamstring our economy, we can do it fine by ourselves. Effing public sector unions and our cowardly self serving politicians who just want to clock up enough years for a decent pension.

Remember politicians are also paid out of the public purse and have made sure they are at the front of the queue when restoration of pay is considered. They also have extremely generous pensions and very very generous expenses, many of which are unvouched and unregulated.

strassenwo!f · 18-12-2016 3:52am

As regular readers will know, I'm very much in favour of this DART Underground project in Dublin, but I am also in favour of some tweaks and in particular I would like to see an examination of the possibility of this project being built under part of TCD.

TCD makes and has made an enormous contribution to the city, in most ways by doing what it does, but also partly by being where it is. It is an integral part of the Dublin we know.

But, by its sheer size and history, it represents a big block in the centre of the city which nobody really wants to confront.

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

GerardKeating · 18-12-2016 9:27am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

But would a North-South Line and and East-West line not both pass the same parts of College, or at least the the Front Square Area.

Also assuming your "East-West" line comes from Hueston, where does it go, it curve to go to Howth would be a near right angle, and if you wanted to go to Bray, it could not come above ground before the canal, so you are talking near Lansdowne Road.

There would also be a much better East-West Route, follow the course of the river.

strassenwo!f · 18-12-2016 11:03am

GerardKeating wrote: »

But would a North-South Line and and East-West line not both pass the same parts of College, or at least the the Front Square Area.

Front Square itself - given that it is a very large open area in the centre of the city which could easily be restored to its current grandeur - might indeed be quite a suitable location for insertion of a tunnel boring machine, for example.

If Dublin were to build an underground line linking Heuston with the East of the city, as has been proposed for many years, it would probably run between Christchurch and Pearse (hopefully with a station in or around TCD's western side), it would go nowhere near the important (and, in several cases, very deep) libraries. More likely under the much less important buildings fronting College Street and Pearse Street. Catering, administration, and so forth.

A meaningful north-south undeground line, i.e. one which hits the busiest parts of the city, would have to go under or through one or more of TCD's most precious buildings. Not so with a West-East line.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Also assuming your "East-West" line comes from Hueston, where does it go, it curve to go to Howth would be a near right angle, and if you wanted to go to Bray, it could not come above ground before the canal, so you are talking near Lansdowne Road.

I would think this 'East-West' line would go between Heuston and Spencer Dock, with stations at Christchurch, 'TCD-West' (as mentioned above) and Pearse. So, very much like the recent proposal which took up much of this thread, but without the big diversion to St. Stephen's Green, and building the Pearse section parallel to that station, rather than perpendicular.

With regard to angles, a link between Spencer Dock and a 'parallel' station at Pearse would be certainly quite big, but no more than what was proposed in the recent plan for St. Stephen's Green - Pearse, or what is done by in or around 50 trains an hour in Frankfurt, between Konstablerwache and Ostendstrasse.

Such an arrangement might indeed eventually be extended to accomodate the southside DART line, but that would be many years down the line as Dublin has other transport priorities at the moment. It is certainly easy to envisage an arrangement where both the northside and southside DART line lines feed - at least to some extent - into a direct line under the city to Heuston, with the junction of these lines being underground at Pearse Station. This could be very beneficial for the city.

It is nigh impossible to see that ever happening if a 'perpendicular' underground station were to be built at Pearse, as was proposed in the recent plan.

GerardKeating wrote: »

There would also be a much better East-West Route, follow the course of the river.

The river might certainly be an option, but the angles might be impossibly tight, for example to create a good link at the proposed station at Spencer Dock.

LeinsterDub · 18-12-2016 11:13am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

What are you talking about? Other cities with a lot more history than Dublin manage to tunnel under buildings without issue. Crossrail went thought the eye of a needle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail#Eye_of_the_Needle

strassenwo!f · 18-12-2016 11:57am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What are you talking about? Other cities with a lot more history than Dublin manage to tunnel under buildings without issue. Crossrail went thought the eye of a needle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail#Eye_of_the_Needle

Yes, of course you're entirely right. And, for example, Rome is currently building a metro line under the Coliseum, and building an interchange there. It is, I suppose, understandable, that the authorities in Dublin - with no experience yet of building underground in the city - are cautious about what might be involved.

LeinsterDub · 18-12-2016 1:58pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, of course you're entirely right. And, for example, Rome is currently building a metro line under the Coliseum, and building an interchange there. It is, I suppose, understandable, that the authorities in Dublin - with no experience yet of building underground in the city - are cautious about what might be involved.

It's not understandable. If that's their attitude it's moronic

Sam Russell · 18-12-2016 3:31pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As regular readers will know, I'm very much in favour of this DART Underground project in Dublin, but I am also in favour of some tweaks and in particular I would like to see an examination of the possibility of this project being built under part of TCD.

TCD makes and has made an enormous contribution to the city, in most ways by doing what it does, but also partly by being where it is. It is an integral part of the Dublin we know.

But, by its sheer size and history, it represents a big block in the centre of the city which nobody really wants to confront.

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

Mod: @ Strassanwolf: Any chance you could forget your hobby horse of having the Dart Underground rerouted though Trinity Front Arch. The plan that was approved routed it through Pearse and SSG and onto Cristchurch, and that is likely to be the route if it is ever built. You have been on about this for ever. Please give it a rest as it does not further discussion of Dart Underground on this thread.

Sam

strassenwo!f · 18-12-2016 4:33pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: @ Strassanwolf: Any chance you could forget your hobby horse of having the Dart Underground rerouted though Trinity Front Arch. The plan that was approved routed it through Pearse and SSG and onto Cristchurch, and that is likely to be the route if it is ever built. You have been on about this for ever. Please give it a rest as it does not further discussion of Dart Underground on this thread.

Sam

Sam, that plan was given approval, and then it was allowed to be dropped. You are saying that that is likely to be the route for this underground line, if it is ever built, but do you have any corroboration for that? Have you any official statement which backs up what you are saying?

There are options for a cross-city underground railway line: The original one was for a line with a major interchange in Temple Bar, which was dropped for a number of reasons (but which made sense then and actually now might make even more sense, in my opinion, as Temple Bar descends into a deeper unmanageable mire); and then there was the recent St. Stephen's Green plan, several hundred metres to the south of the earlier proposal, which was allowed to be dropped; and there is a suggestion that it should be built via College Green (I support a serious look at this, as the LUAS is being built through there and the City Council is looking at pedestrianising the area)

And other (perhaps better) possibilities will probably emerge before the line is built.

Given that the earlier plan for a Temple Bar route was dropped, and the plan for a detour via St. Stephen's Green was also dropped, why are you so against even discussing other possibilities for the city?

Sam Russell · 18-12-2016 7:40pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, that plan was given approval, and then it was allowed to be dropped. You are saying that that is likely to be the route for this underground line, if it is ever built, but do you have any corroboration for that? Have you any official statement which backs up what you are saying?

There are options for a cross-city underground railway line: The original one was for a line with a major interchange in Temple Bar, which was dropped for a number of reasons (but which made sense then and actually now might make even more sense, in my opinion, as Temple Bar descends into a deeper unmanageable mire); and then there was the recent St. Stephen's Green plan, several hundred metres to the south of the earlier proposal, which was allowed to be dropped; and there is a suggestion that it should be built via College Green (I support a serious look at this, as the LUAS is being built through there and the City Council is looking at pedestrianising the area)

And other (perhaps better) possibilities will probably emerge before the line is built.

Given that the earlier plan for a Temple Bar route was dropped, and the plan for a detour via St. Stephen's Green was also dropped, why are you so against even discussing other possibilities for the city?

Mod: if you wish to discuss Mod decisions, the use a PM and do not do it on thread. Take a warning.

Sam

strassenwo!f · 18-12-2016 8:11pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: if you wish to discuss Mod decisions, the use a PM and do not do it on thread. Take a warning.

Sam

Sam, am I replying to you as a poster, or as a moderator?

Sam Russell · 18-12-2016 8:37pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, am I replying to you as a poster, or as a moderator?

Mod: If it is Bold it is a Mod.

Banned for 3 days.

Sam.

Grandeeod · 18-12-2016 11:29pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: If it is Bold it is a Mod.

Banned for 3 days.

Sam.

For what its worth I think you have overstepped your own mark on this one. While Stressenwolfs posts were annoying for a long time, at this stage, he or she may feel correct. DU is actually about to undergo a complete "redesign". As much as it pains me to accept this, we are at a point where opinions on the project can include anything, as Government Policy has decided it will be different and that can also involve the route.

Up to you mod, but be realistic.

Sam Russell · 18-12-2016 11:45pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

For what its worth I think you have overstepped your own mark on this one. While Stressenwolfs posts were annoying for a long time, at this stage, he or she may feel correct. DU is actually about to undergo a complete "redesign". As much as it pains me to accept this, we are at a point where opinions on the project can include anything, as Government Policy has decided it will be different and that can also involve the route.

Up to you mod, but be realistic.

Mod: Strassenwolf was not banned for his opinion, he was banned for backseat modding. @Grandeeod - take a warning for the same reason. Use a PM instead.

Sam.

Logue no2 · 19-12-2016 11:56am

There's a good case to be made to rethink the routing through the city centre and taking the line under trinity would give a direct route to Pearse. However the proposed turnback at Pearse instead of over to Spencer Dock and then into the Great Northern line would be pointless and a false economy.

I believe Spencer Dock should be redeveloped to become a common bus and rail terminus for Dublin. Terminating InterCity trains at Heuston is too far out from the city centre. Obviously capital funding for all this is an issue but my view is we should do this all in the right way. Planning via stop gaps is planning to fail and to waste money in the long run.

loyatemu · 19-12-2016 1:07pm

Logue no2 wrote: »

There's a good case to be made to rethink the routing through the city centre and taking the line under trinity would give a direct route to Pearse. However the proposed turnback at Pearse instead of over to Spencer Dock and then into the Great Northern line would be pointless and a false economy.

I believe Spencer Dock should be redeveloped to become a common bus and rail terminus for Dublin. Terminating InterCity trains at Heuston is too far out from the city centre. Obviously capital funding for all this is an issue but my view is we should do this all in the right way. Planning via stop gaps is planning to fail and to waste money in the long run.

there's only 2 lines through the Phoenix Park tunnel and up through Cabra (and they have a low speed restriction on them). There wouldn't be sufficient capacity to route all the Heuston side trains to Spencer Dock. There's also no way to get Wexford trains to there (though I'm sure IÉ's solution to that would be to close the line south of Greystones).

murphaph · 19-12-2016 6:57pm

loyatemu wrote: »

there's only 2 lines through the Phoenix Park tunnel and up through Cabra (and they have a low speed restriction on them). There wouldn't be sufficient capacity to route all the Heuston side trains to Spencer Dock. There's also no way to get Wexford trains to there (though I'm sure IÉ's solution to that would be to close the line south of Greystones).

Properly signalled you can get 20 trains per hour in each direction through that tunnel. The speed restriction has a reason which is unlikely to be insurmountable. I don't think Heuston sees anything like that number of trains by the way, certainly not if you remove IC.

LeinsterDub · 19-12-2016 8:13pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Paradoxically the slower the trains, the higher the frequency you can have (because the safe stopping distance gets shorter).

Couldn't possibly be slower than the 20/25 kph the Luas is restricted to in the city centre

strassenwo!f · 21-12-2016 10:47pm

Logue no2 wrote: »

There's a good case to be made to rethink the routing through the city centre and taking the line under trinity would give a direct route to Pearse. However the proposed turnback at Pearse instead of over to Spencer Dock and then into the Great Northern line would be pointless and a false economy.

Has somebody suggested a turnback at Pearse? I've never been aware of such a proposal.

It is surely pretty clear that a Kildare Line - Northern Line link is the key thing here, however that is to be done.

I watched the development of Frankfurt's cross-city line for a considerable time. It took place in several stages, but the overall objective was pretty clear: an underground link between the city's main train station and the other large station (the Sudbahnhof), via the centre of the city.

That project did involve a turnback arrangement, so a 4-track tunnel was built to the centre of that city, and this facilitated a turnback until it was superseded by the continuation of the tunnel through to the other side of the city.

Once that happened, there was no need for the outside two lines in the S-Bahn system, but they were incorporated, as planned, into the city's developing U-Bahn network.

It's hard to see how a similar arrangement could be done in Dublin, given the dearth of places in Dublin's East which desperately need decent public transport (most already have it).

I would thing Dublin needs to built an all-or-nothing Heuston-East Dublin tunnel. The cleverness in Frankfurt depended on it having decent outlying areas on all sides, and Dublin doesn't have the same geography.

MrMorooka · 22-12-2016 9:53pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Has somebody suggested a turnback at Pearse? I've never been aware of such a proposal.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DART_Underground_Expansion_September_20151.pptx

strassenwo!f · 22-12-2016 11:14pm

Thanks, MrMorooka, for posting that.

I've always understood that there were two objectives for this project. Firstly, to alleviate the bottleneck at Connolly, by creating two DART lines broadly in an X arrangement (Howth-Malahide-Kildare line and Maynooth-Bray/Greystones) and secondly, broadly by doing the first, to increase the number of DART passengers to around or over 100 million passengers per year.

The city centre resignalling project may have changed those objectives, but it is clear from that map that it would not create the proposed 'X' arrangement, for want of spending a bit extra to connect to Spencer Dock. The consequences for objective two, by not implementing objective one in the originally proposed fashion, do not appear to be dealt with in the slide from the presentation.

SeanW · 28-12-2016 11:03pm

MrMorooka wrote: »

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DART_Underground_Expansion_September_20151.pptx

Times like these we need "Sad" "Angry" etc, buttons like on Facebook, cause this image invokes all of those emotions

Why?

The whole bloody point of DU was that there would be no need to turn trains around in the City Centre ... what is the point of this revision?

strassenwo!f · 29-12-2016 10:46am

You are totally correct. An arrangement with a turnback at Pearse would actually achieve little for the DART, in terms of train movements and probably also passenger numbers.

If the extra money were spent to build the line to Spencer Dock, with an arrangement of three or four platforms at that location, then there could be many through trains (8-10 an hour, or so, enabling the X-formation, along the Northern DART line) and several other trains turning back, to facilitate proper use of this tunnel and whatever might eventually come of the 4-tracked Hazelhatch line's enormous potential to improve transport possibilities in the West of the city.

monument · 30-12-2016 12:53am

SeanW wrote: »

Times like these we need "Sad" "Angry" etc, buttons like on Facebook, cause this image invokes all of those emotions Why?

The whole bloody point of DU was that there would be no need to turn trains around in the City Centre ... what is the point of this revision?

It was one of a matrix of options, it was not chosen.

strassenwo!f · 30-12-2016 8:52am

monument wrote: »

It was one of a matrix of options, it was not chosen.

I'd imagine SeanW was asking why it was even in the mix, given that it wouldn't fulfil at least one (and possibly more) of the main requirements of the project.

Ben D Bus · 30-12-2016 12:24pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'd imagine SeanW was asking why it was even in the mix, given that it wouldn't fulfil at least one (and possibly more) of the main requirements of the project.

If you want someone to make a particular choice then give them 3 options, 2 of which, on closer inspection, are non-runners. Have you never watched Yes Minister?

monument · 30-12-2016 2:31pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'd imagine SeanW was asking why it was even in the mix, given that it wouldn't fulfil at least one (and possibly more) of the main requirements of the project.

A matrix of all options and their pros and cons is a good way of highlighting the better option and making sure there's no better option than the main preferred one to date.

Allowing more public and political involvement in this process from the start will give the public and politicians both a greater understanding and more ownership of hard decisions.

BonnieSituation · 30-12-2016 8:44pm

Will it though? In reality I fear that more options on the table will give those making the decision "salmon fever" and they'll just go with some option that can expedite it from their desk and not ruffle constituent feathers in the run up to an election.

strassenwo!f · 31-12-2016 1:25am

Ben D Bus wrote: »

If you want someone to make a particular choice then give them 3 options, 2 of which, on closer inspection, are non-runners. Have you never watched Yes Minister?

I have, indeed, though not recently, but from what I remember there were two or three candidates presented to the Prime Minister for promotion to Bishop. All of them fulfilled the technical requirements of already being a Vicar or Dean, and all were also thought to believe in God (a requirement), but one or two had gone astray in some way. Thus, it would be easy for the PM to make the only choice available.

In the case of the DART Underground project there were really two requirements: (i) to link up all the rail-based lines (LUAS, the proposed metro and the DART) in the city and (ii) to relieve the bottleneck at Connolly and, in doing so, to increase the number of DART passengers to around or over 100 million per year.

The diagram posted by Mr Morooka above shows that that proposal would fulfil task (i), though the big loop via St. Stephen's Green - to meet with the LUAS green line - is looking increasingly ridiculous as the cross-city line heads toward completion.

It clearly would not fulfil task (ii), in any way, shape or fashion.

I am surprised that it managed to get into the document, given this obvious flaw. It is a mystery.

Grandeeod · 31-12-2016 2:07am

monument wrote: »

Allowing more public and political involvement in this process from the start will give the public and politicians both a greater understanding and more ownership of hard decisions.

Herein lies the problem.

We have already had public and political involvement many many years ago and still its presented as acceptable.

Daft post.

strassenwo!f · 31-12-2016 7:56am

I agree. Daft.

Monument is mostly a fine contributor, and many sub-discussions on this and other threads have been generated and enhanced by his contributions, for example of useful statistics which he has sought out and posted for the benefit of others, enhancing our knowledge along the way. I admire his contribution.

But that was very possibly the woolliest post I've seen from anyone, on any thread, in all my time on this board.

thomasj · 31-12-2016 1:58pm

monument wrote:

A matrix of all options and their pros and cons is a good way of highlighting the better option and making sure there's no better option than the main preferred one to date.

monument wrote:

Allowing more public and political involvement in this process from the start will give the public and politicians both a greater understanding and more ownership of hard decisions.

Politics I agree, but not the type of politics that makes the transport infrastructure of today .

I think we can nearly all agree that ministers for transport of recent times have damaged more than help our transport infrastructure sadly. Just look to some of the decisions made in the past. The WRC, dart to greystones, the 10 or so times metro and IC have been pulled. Cuts to transport services , the list goes on.

One of the greatest injustices in recent years, was the decision of fingal county council to reject the idea of a lord mayor. We desperately need a minister for Dublin , a lord mayor of dublin that is independent of the government. Elected by the people of dublin, responsible for all things Dublin related, they could stand up for the people of Dublin where transport ministers have failed.

Say what you like about Boris Johnson as foreign minister but you have to agree that in his role as major for London he did a good job and London benefited from that. We need someone like that for Dublin.

I lost alot of respect for fingal county council after they rejected the proposal and they put it down to bin and water charges.

We would have been better off now.

jd · 31-12-2016 2:26pm

Ben D Bus wrote:

If you want someone to make a particular choice then give them 3 options, 2 of which, on closer inspection, are non-runners. Have you never watched Yes Minister?

Was thinking that. Though couldn't politicians push them in a certain direction. The ex transport minister can tell his constituents in East Wall that there will be no tunnelling etc near them.

monument · 31-12-2016 5:32pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Herein lies the problem.

We have already had public and political involvement many many years ago and still its presented as acceptable.

Daft post.

Can you please provide a shread of evidence of public and/or political involvement in choosing from a selection of options?

Or is your post the dafter post?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I agree. Daft.

Monument is mostly a fine contributor, and many sub-discussions on this and other threads have been generated and enhanced by his contributions, for example of useful statistics which he has sought out and posted for the benefit of others, enhancing our knowledge along the way. I admire his contribution.

But that was very possibly the woolliest post I've seen from anyone, on any thread, in all my time on this board.

I think even if I tried I'd find it hard to post the woolliest post compared to half of your posts on having a station at College Green.

Grandeeod · 31-12-2016 11:24pm

monument wrote: »

Can you please provide a shread of evidence of public and/or political involvement in choosing from a selection of options?

Or is your post the dafter post?

I think even if I tried I'd find it hard to post the woolliest post compared to half of your posts on having a station at College Green.

I think you are getting carried away with yourself and your position as a mod around here. I also note that you have decided to move a goalpost or two. However I will happily answer your questions in the coming days. Before that I must attend to family and Christmas time. You require far more concentration than I have time for right now.

I'll be back.

strassenwo!f · 01-01-2017 10:55am

monument wrote: »

Can you please provide a shread of evidence of public and/or political involvement in choosing from a selection of options?

Grandeeod certainly has his work cut out here. The only public consultation about this project - what, nine years ago now, with nothing built - involved three possible routes which were basically exactly the same (Spencer Dock - Pearse - St. Stephen's Green (the LUAS) - Christchurch - Heuston), the only differences being things like the number of entrances/exits from particular stations.

A total sham.

In contrast, the RPA's metro consultations involved three different routes, with the route finally chosen being pretty much a combination of two of them, thanks in at least some measure to the input of the public.

Or contrast it with the public consultation projects which happened in relation to, for example, crossrail in London or the second cross-city underground line in Munich.

There have to be other routes which ticked, or were going to tick in a few years, and indeed are now ticking, all the boxes required of this project. It is frankly a sad joke, and should be a national embarrassment, that such a charade should have been allowed to happen.

monument wrote: »

I think even if I tried I'd find it hard to post the woolliest post compared to half of your posts on having a station at College Green.

Ouch!

Middle Man · 01-01-2017 7:54pm

SeanW wrote: »

Times like these we need "Sad" "Angry" etc, buttons like on Facebook, cause this image invokes all of those emotions Why?

The whole bloody point of DU was that there would be no need to turn trains around in the City Centre ... what is the point of this revision?

+1

The DART Interconnector plan in it's original format is a no brainer - the talking is over - just get on with it! The only change I would make at this stage would be the addition of a direct escalator (+elevators) link between the two DART Lines at Pearse Station.

Middle Man · 01-01-2017 7:55pm

monument wrote: »

A matrix of all options and their pros and cons is a good way of highlighting the better option and making sure there's no better option than the main preferred one to date.

Allowing more public and political involvement in this process from the start will give the public and politicians both a greater understanding and more ownership of hard decisions.

The time for talking is over...

Just get on with it!

Sam Russell · 01-01-2017 8:05pm

Mod: Can we stop attacking posters. Discuss the subject or refrain from posting.

annfield1978 · 02-01-2017 1:59pm

NTA have a tender from their framework relooking at the Western Portal Tie In between Inchicore and Heuston with a brif to look at all the options available

Birdie Num Num · 02-01-2017 2:16pm

thomasj wrote: »

Politics I agree, but not the type of politics that makes the transport infrastructure of today .

I think we can nearly all agree that ministers for transport of recent times have damaged more than help our transport infrastructure sadly. Just look to some of the decisions made in the past. The WRC, dart to greystones, the 10 or so times metro and IC have been pulled. Cuts to transport services , the list goes on.

One of the greatest injustices in recent years, was the decision of fingal county council to reject the idea of a lord mayor. We desperately need a minister for Dublin , a lord mayor of dublin that is independent of the government. Elected by the people of dublin, responsible for all things Dublin related, they could stand up for the people of Dublin where transport ministers have failed.

Say what you like about Boris Johnson as foreign minister but you have to agree that in his role as major for London he did a good job and London benefited from that. We need someone like that for Dublin.

I lost alot of respect for fingal county council after they rejected the proposal and they put it down to bin and water charges.

We would have been better off now.

Just to be pedantic but we do have a Lord Mayor as does London which is entirely different to what was proposed, Mayor of Dublin. London has a Mayor (e.g. Livingstone, Johnson and now Sadiq Khan). The Lord Mayor of London is none political and champions the business sector in the city of London and beyond. ...Yours pedantically.

marno21 · 02-01-2017 5:02pm

Pascal Donohue wrote:

Mr Donohoe identified the provision of public transport in Dublin city as a huge challenge for the Government, and warned of the consequences of not taking action now. He said the Government’s updated capital spending plan, to be unveiled this year, would focus on transport.

“High-capacity public transport solutions in the coming years will be of the most critical importance. There are two issues if we can’t do it. The friction between a growing economy and poor infrastructure will become very evident. [Secondly] there are new requirements [on greenhouse gas emissions] set down by the Paris Agreement post-2020 [that Ireland will fail to meet].”

Mr Donohoe said the Luas cross-city extension, when delivered, would be responsible for an additional 10 million journeys on public transport each year. Major projects such as that would be required several times over. “The challenge is how to replicate that on other high-capacity modes and transport.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/expect-more-minority-governments-says-donohoe-1.2922756

prunudo · 02-01-2017 6:18pm

marno21 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/expect-more-minority-governments-says-donohoe-1.2922756

God I hate politicians, lip service from the man who pulled the plug on the very projects that would help solve some of the Dublin public transport problems. Why don't the media call them out on their bs and stop printing party pr.
The only challenge for the government, is they don't have the guts to spend billions of euro on it.

Ps.

“High-capacity public transport solutions in the coming years will be of the most critical importance.

From the man who also wants a redesign with reduced capacity and platform lenght

dublinman1990 · 02-01-2017 7:03pm

marno21 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/expect-more-minority-governments-says-donohoe-1.2922756

“High-capacity public transport solutions in the coming years will be of the most critical importance. There are two issues if we can’t do it. The friction between a growing economy and poor infrastructure will become very evident. [Secondly] there are new requirements [on greenhouse gas emissions] set down by the Paris Agreement post-2020 [that Ireland will fail to meet].”

I really don't know what to say now when he said the above quote.

Does he not take care when planning ahead long term in a coherent manner when working as a politician & more importantly as a minister? He changes his tune after he was in charge of delaying one of Dublin's most vital projects in DU last year. He then rethinks about it all over again within the start of 2017?

One has got to ask the question why on earth did he delay this project in such a rash manner in the first place?

What was he thinking in his head at the time he made that decision for all to hear & witness. He had the authority to make one of the big decisions to happen for Dublin in a very long time & he made an instant disaster of it in front of the Irish media & the public at large.

It is an embarrassment for him & for Enda's government to swallow.

Brexit must have changed his tune in a big way to make him eventually change his mind along with any of his cabinet colleagues including Enda himself. His successor Shane Ross now has been given the task to provide the task Dubliners with three huge projects for Dublin that will last a lifetime as they will be guaranteed big long term success stories for the city & throughout the GDA. He now knows that he can't make any further decisions on behalf of the government that will potentially muck up it's legacy for a very long time.

Paschal Donohue is in trouble for starting the mess of delaying it back a further ten years or more. I don't know he can redeem himself in his current job.

Idbatterim · 02-01-2017 8:11pm

There is no way the minister of transport is the one calliNg the shots on the go ahead or not, of a €2.5 billion etc project ...

Our media it turns out are nothing but a propaganda platform for our so capable government ...

The only way these p**cks can be embarrassed by it. Is by a paid Facebook campaign ... Talk of 100 companies relocating to Dublin in the papers earlier. It's comedy. THey might want to tell their employees that if they can secure a place of their own , they'll be paying 1600 minimum for a likely **** built one bed apartment in an average area, in a city with no transport network!

As for Ross that gob****e, his biggest goal is the reopening of stepaside Garda station. Anyone else think it's coincidence that the minister for transport roll, that requires billions, has gone to two bull****ters? And in terms of odonoghue also an absolute wallflower?

Grandeeod · 02-01-2017 9:09pm

monument wrote: »

Can you please provide a shread of evidence of public and/or political involvement in choosing from a selection of options?

Or is your post the dafter post?

I said earlier that you were moving goalposts. Your point about public/political involvement is wrong. The public had their say on DU many many years ago. So you reinvent it by basing it on a "selection of options" as presented after Paschal O'D shelved the project. Two of the options then presented were/are and always will be bonkers. You seem to think that by accepting this fudge and discussing it again and again that we will eventually accept the original project as planned. Wrong. You might. Others might, but your politicians won't because the very fact that the alternatives are rediculous highlights the obvious fact that its a charade.

Strassenwolfs point about MN is completely irrelavent because that was a new build and nothing like DU which is a project that is designed to link an existing rail network. Now considering that you, Monument, dislike Strassenwolfs suggestion of routing DU under college green (the only alternative I have ever seen anywhere, why are you suddenly so caught up in a "selection of options"?

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments