Interconnector aka DART underground

Looks good hopefully we’ll actually see it built.

where do I begin….

St Stephens green

If they did up the roads instead they can use basically the exact same design twice…
at around 91 degrees to each other…
I’m surprised about the amount of plant equipment under the green
One my favorite hills of is getting the chop
Why are they showing the luas continuing? it will wreck the entrance to the park two luas’s coming at once with the amount of people in that area is just plain stupid…. someone will get hurt
two lifts in that area??? again makes no sense
they need to make it into a pedestrian square nothing more nothing less…
can anyone spot our new tiny garda station??? or toilets
where is the landscaping plan??? they did that at the end not first….
urbanism award whats that?
I have chosen some nice light poles

Christchurch

Why can they not dig up the road instead and connect with the liberties and temple bar in one hit…
Two church vistas linked by two exits simple simon…
it can also connect better with bus stops and luas stations…
take the high ground its all downhill from here:rolleyes:
Cook st entrance is where can get cooked anytime on a street that goes west to no where….
Surely existing pedestrian foot fall will be included in the EIS
if its cook st and the dark space between two bunkers VS high st????

heuston

not as bad as the others…
but it looks like you have to walk the full length of the platform twice if you head east from this location…
reminds me of naples without karim rashid
I hope the space on top becomes a piazza…

Pearce

Merrion square getting a shave aswell…

any way at least you will have 2 choices…

roads or parks…

Missarchi, what are you talking about?

ah if we knew that….

Plan looks fine by me with a few tweaks here and there.

Word to IE though – I hope your build plan isn’t left up to the person who did the map on p43 or else you’re interconnecting Cunningham road to Amiens street via the Four Courts, Dublin Castle and TCD and not meeting a rail line

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your points above, but surely the urban design of the area around the Green is a matter for the Council and can be dealt with by them if they want to put in a public square and minimise visual clutter. I don’t see how you can avoid some intrusiveness at ground level given that it’ll be a major interchange.

by the way, why do think they’re proposing using the Green for the stations? it’s so they don’t end up cutting off access to the north of Grafton St and adjoining areas. very large areas of road are going to be dug up in other areas and I think the City & RPA are right to try and minimise the impact on access to the greatest extent possible. or as the slogan goes stay ‘open for business’. you can’t just shut down parts of the city because you feel like it.

As for previous criticism of the design of the metro stations, fair enough to a point, but the whole Metro project is being dictated by minising cost. the so-called gold plating has been taken out to minimise the cost so I think all you’re going to get is functional architecture…again no big deal, it’s not an art gallery!

sunnydub thanks for the link…

It may well appear that im bashing CIE and RPA for following a budget and I am in some parts…
Because I think that 10% of the transport budget should have been spent on bikes and 60% on a metro nom.
I think you can avoid intrusiveness…

All I will say that is that this is one of the largest architectural urban planning opportunity’s Dublin will have in its lifetime if they cannot do these stations correctly you may as well give up hope…
If we dig up all these roads we have the chance to change the past significantly Dublin will not get another chance in its life time… All I ask is you compare other stations around the world and the locations…
advertising ticket prices you name it…

I’m just showing other options If I went with the alinement of the RPA I might get a little more space

I know it does not have to be an art gallery but if you look at the numbers there will never be a better location or chance to show off new architecture to the masses.. this is a fact… it is worth the investment rather than some voting machines sitting in storage or some paintings worth 5 million a pop that all of 300,000 people a year might see… here you have architecture that will be seen by millions

I cannot judge if my architecture is better and more functional than the RPA CIE but I would invite the international architectural/urban design heavy weights to comment and I would invite the government, DCC, to take action on there comments thats all I’m asking for… a fair trial…

1 private individual VS 1000’s of people and a few hundred million of euro…

worthy of debate… and showing the public different options… its only 5 billion euro after all…

I don’t always/agree with like franks work but here are some quotes… gerhy that is 😉

“Public buildings deserve to have a certain level of iconicity and personality,” he says. “Historically, that’s what makes them define the cities and communities they’re in.”

If Ireland decides to ignore that they can… but at least have a vote or discussion on it….
or you will end up with a lonely planet…

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moscow-Lonely-Planet-City-Guides/dp/1740598156

???

I agree with you that putting some money to spruce up the design is a good idea, but the fact remains that the Government has actively dictated against this in their effort to pair down the project to the max in order to minimise cost e.g. standardised station design.

In fact, while the debate may continue on these forums, the reality is that the decisions have been made and the debate is over.

the debate is over for you but not for me 😀

The Dart will run on seperate tracks to Intercity services on the south western line to improve capacity for both services. However, when the the tunnel emerges from the ground and joins onto the northern line, we’re still going to have a capacity issue. The Northern line is the most heavily subscribed section of railway in the country. That line will still be catering for DART, long distance commuter and an express intercity service to Belfast on two tracks. Until that line is quadruple tracked like the Kildare line, all services will have very limited capacity. The same applys to the North-Western line, That’ll be running a long distance commuter service to Mullingar, Longford and Navan as well as DART to Dunboyne and an intercity service to Sligo

I presume that’s why they’re planning to join the lower capacity northern Howth/Malahide line with the Kildare line and separatetly join the higher capacity Bray line with the Maynooth line…to presumably maximise capacity.

public consultation

12th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Ashling Hotel Parkgate St Dublin 2
13th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Central Hotel, Exchequer Street Dublin 2
19th August 2008 17:00-20:00 St Marys Youth Club Strangford Rd Dublin 3
20th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Alexander Hotel Merrion Square Dublin 2

@missarchi wrote:

public consultation

12th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Ashling Hotel Parkgate St Dublin 2
13th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Central Hotel, Exchequer Street Dublin 2
19th August 2008 17:00-20:00 St Marys Youth Club Strangford Rd Dublin 3
20th August 2008 17:00-20:00 Alexander Hotel Merrion Square Dublin 2

Hehe Parkgate street is in Dublin 8. I Notice that Dublin City Council write the adress of their Wood Quar offices as Dublin 2 as well even though they are clearly in Dublin 8. What’s wron with Dublin 8?:confused:

It looks like full steam ahead as they’re recruiting designers and technicians in Friday’s Irish Times

First of the consultations is tomorrow, I see

it was really boring and nothing really new…
how much heritage is below high st is it taboo??

Does that mean they’re taking out the trees to replant them so they can put them back in? there’s plenty of room up in the Park.

in theory but the destruction will be significant its impossible to tell until there are proper sections and its done…

we now have the ” destruction of merrion square” thats not to say it cannot be done well…
but you would question why they won’t dig up the road instead…
mabye the roads dept and traffic managment in DCC have to much pull…

‘Huge pressure’ to fast track rail tunnel link

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0813/1218477454427.html

IARNRÓD ÉIREANN is under “huge pressure” from the Department of Transport and politicians to make rapid progress in delivering an underground rail link between Dublin’s Heuston and Docklands stations.

Project manager Peter Muldoon also said there was “not a peep that the project is being targeted for cuts” by the Government to trim public expenditure – even though it carries an estimated price tag of €2 billion.

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor
13th Aug 2008

20 trains an hour opens up huge oportunities. A third Dart line would be a possibility, ie one starting at Heuston, going under the park(possibly an underground stop) and stopping at Blackhorse Avenue, Glasnevin, Drumcondra, Into the docks and through the tunnel back to Heuston, It’d be similar to London’s very succsesful “Circle Line”, and connect with all other modes.Making public transport a much more atractive option

It is hard to see what that adds cgcsb; it takes capacity from both the existing planned routes while only adding journeys that would be less common and would be possible under T21 with one change anyway.

It adds Blackhorse Avenue, Glasnevin and the Pheonix park to the network. Also it alows for better connectivity between modes. There is an oportunity to make better use of liffey jnct. to Heuston track. If the track was extended to north from liffey jnct, in a tunnel or surface track, through the airport and on to Drogheda. This would allow Trains coming from Belfst to stop at Dublin Airport and Dublin Heuston and It would make train journeys from Belfast to Cork, Waterford and Limerick etc. a real possibility. This would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity on the Docklands to Drogheda track for Dart and Commuter services without quadruple tracking. all intercity services Terminating in Dublin puts pressure on our railways as trains have turn and go back very quickly. It is possible for a Rosslare to Belfast Service now, but IÉ seems to lack the will.

Won’t Glasnevin be on the Maynooth Dart line and Blackhorse Avenue won’t be so far from the DIT luas.

Running mainline in from Belfast and the airport and on to Cork seems like a better idea, though hardly a short term priority.

First you suggest a DART line through the Phoenix Park tunnel and on to Docklands, then a mainline to Belfast…

I can see some rationale to using the Phoenix Park tunnel for mainline if it could be joined up with Connolly and wouldn’t disrupt DART services, that would probably require four tracking from Connolly to Howth junction or Malahide and a few new tracks and platforms through Connolly. Major work. Then you could have mainline trains that run to Heuston continuing to Connolly and on to Belfast e.g. Cork-Dublin-Belfast.

Again, not a priority, let’s build what we can first of all.

I realise it’s not a short term priority but the main belfast line being re routed to Heuston does make long term sense. As a result, the Balbriggan to Kildare DART line will be completely seperated from inter city services which will offer a huge boost in capacity and having thhe Airport on an intercity line makes a whole lot more sense as people travelling from other parts of the country don’t have to go near the city center. This option does offer a whole lot more then the option to run a circle line DARt service.

All of these plans for the stations look perfect.

I dont see any problems with any of it.

Although Spencer dock is still a puzzle for me, arent they allready building on top of where that station is. In the map i cant tell if there is a building there but its plausable that they would do it.

Also, im not one for all the historical stuff, but i can see their being problems with the high street/Christ church station, its comendable that the station entrances itself are in wood quay, but the vents and amenities at the foot of the city wall could incounter a lot of previously un-excavated archeology, after all it is the city wall.

Heuston’s plan A is looking good and the provision for at least 1 terminal platform is very good planing for both versions of the plan.

Although my only concern is the use of the double tunnel’s. What if one direction is blocked, that whole tunnel will be jammed and by the look of things only 1 track exists in each with no switches at the stations, who will you keep traffic flowing if you’re down to 1 tunnel and only 1 track? Wouldnt a 2 tracks in each tunnel or some sort of switching procedure help alleviate such a problem if it ever occured? Even in the case of terrorism or an accident 1 tunnel could be impeded and we would only have the facilities to send trains 1 direction through the whole tunnel length? That seems dangerous. New york and London have multible switches but the main flaw of some subway’s such as Glasgow’s is their isolation and lack of switching. Even the Channel tunnel has a lot of crossing points due to its traffic.

I guess they have thought about such problems but a serious blockage in one tunnel could seriously slow down the network.

for those of you interested this appears to be the difference between crossrail and the dart underground

Something tells me IE’s tunnel is going to look much better than the RPA’s train set

@SunnyDub wrote:

Something tells me IE’s tunnel is going to look much better than the RPA’s train set

I actually think the opposite… currently the RPA designs have much more potential than CIE thats not to say they will look better or function better… it just comes down to a third party taking control

CIE does not appear to be want to cut and cover st stephens green north or some corn market… it is tight but it is possible They are investing all the hard cash in docklands and not grand central… because the land around it has more potential

I presume they’re not going to cut and cover at docklands givent that Treasury are currently building over…and originally they had the docklands station under the river

I read somewhere that both future DART lines are planned to have double decker trains. I wonder can the tunnel accomidate this or will it be a case of the port tunnel i.e. the trucks for which it was intended can’t fit in

that’s just not true about the port tunnel.

Super trucks cannot safely fit in the Port Tunnel

because it was not intended to accommodate ‘super trucks’.

exactly, I mean will it be intended for double decker trains to use the DART tunnel?

Dempsey supports cross city underground

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0406/1224244068221.html

hopefully it’ll happen

there have been geo technical surveys being carried out in Stephen’s Green for the past 2 to 3 weeks for the new DART station

There has been a lot of surveying done on northside of Merrion Square also in the last few weeks

Iarnród Éireann’s DART underground timeline:

railway application:2009
enabling works: 2010
Construction start:2011
Completion:2015

+cost cutting measures including moving tunnel entrance to Inchicore, cutting out additional access points for underground stations and other small alterations

http://www.transport21.ie/MEDIA/Press_Releases/DART_Underground_-_Tunnel_to_be_extended_to_Inchicore.html

I doubt that moving the tunnel portals to Inchicore will be cheaper, but it is the sensible option. Also, a station at Inchicore is very necessary, as it’s a mature dense inner suburb – the old Cherry Orchard station was not that busy, but that’s because it only had an infrequent service as far as Heuston. A DART to the city centre would be a lot more attractive.

Sounds good…

Have CIE already tendered to consortium’s? or are they taking a different approach…

one exit for st stephens green now… hmmm

o Following the decision to relocate the entrances to the Metro North/Dart Underground common concourse in Saint Stephens Green North the access strategy was re-examined and the Kildare Street Entrance removed. This will significantly reduce the impact on Saint Stephens Green during construction without compromising accessibility.

– Alignment and station location at Pearse changed

o This will ensure that there is no requirement to acquire a small number of housing units adjacent to Pearse, and avoid any impact on Merrion Square.

Inchicore/Heuston: Monday 20th April, 17.00-20.00, Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham.

Christchurch: Thursday 23rd April, 17.00-20.00, Central Hotel, Exchequer St.

Docklands: Monday 27th April, 17.00-20.00, Sean O’Casey Community Centre, St Mary’s Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

St Stephen’s Green/Pearse: Thursday 30th April, 17.00-20.00, Alexander Hotel, Fenian St, off Merrion Square, Dublin 2.

Story on Interconnector & Metro from yesterday’s budget coverage

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0408/1224244216569.html

“Mr Dempsey said it had not been possible to cut the national roads capital budget as it was almost entirely assigned to road projects that were under way.

He cited the Dart interconnector and Metro North, which as public-private partnerships might not require funds upfront. While there might be comparatively small preliminary costs, “once the contractors move in, we don’t have any liability until it is built”.

@cgcsb wrote:

I read somewhere that both future DART lines are planned to have double decker trains. I wonder can the tunnel accomidate this or will it be a case of the port tunnel i.e. the trucks for which it was intended can’t fit in

Just wondering where you read that there may be double decker DART trains in the future?

It would be pretty cool if it’s true:cool:

Just found this map of the rail network to be on.

http://www.railusers.ie/images/2005_p11railplan.jpg

It seems to be from a couple of years back which would explain the DART to airport and the stops on MN as well as the line which appears to be the phoenix park tunnel.Interesting……….
.

I think that’s a self made map, not an IE one.

Here is IE’s latest plans.

@EIA340600 wrote:

Just wondering where you read that there may be double decker DART trains in the future?

It would be pretty cool if it’s true:cool:

It’s been such a long time, I’m afraid I can’t remember. With the plans I see now, they are clearly using single deck trains. Evidently IÉ doesn’t think the double deckers are worth the hastle.

@Fergal wrote:

I think that’s a self made map, not an IE one.

Here is IE’s latest plans.

Nice, although it’s funny that there is no DART/Commuter service to Navan on that map

@EIA340600 wrote:

Just wondering where you read that there may be double decker DART trains in the future?

It would be pretty cool if it’s true:cool:

Is there enough clearance under the overhead lines? The older bridges?

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Is there enough clearance under the overhead lines? The older bridges?

obviously not. but very difficult to anticipate such………….

@cgcsb wrote:

It’s been such a long time, I’m afraid I can’t remember. With the plans I see now, they are clearly using single deck trains. Evidently IÉ doesn’t think the double deckers are worth the hastle.

problem with double deckers they normally only have 2 sets of doors???
and they reduce frequency… increase dwell times?

@missarchi wrote:

problem with double deckers they normally only have 2 sets of doors???
and they reduce frequency… increase dwell times?

why would they only have two sets of doors? I’ve used the RER in Paris quite frequently, there are plenty of doors. I’ve never sat down and counted them though

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Is there enough clearance under the overhead lines? The older bridges?

The RER trains in Paris are actually not that much bigger than single deck ones because the floor is alot lower, two steps down from the platform and each deck is about 6.5foot high. There is a mezzanine area in the train onfront of each door that is normally where the taller gentlemen such as myself stand. Hitting your head can be very embarassing

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/NC0006.htm

NC0006: ()
Dublin City Council
Proposed underground DART line between Inchicore and the Docklands (via Heuston Station), Dublin.
Case reference: PL29N.NC0006
Case type: Railway Ord. – Consultation
Status: Consultancy has yet to be concluded
Parties

* Iarnród Eireann (Prospective Appl)

* Dublin City Council (Local Authority) (Active)

History

* 14/04/2009: Lodged

I don’t think double decker trains are a very good option, for a public transport system like this.

A much better option would be to have trains with one long articulated carriage, like a bendy bus, as found in paris, so as to maximise the amount of standing area in the length of train, while still remaining single decker.

I don’t think double decker trains are a very good option, for a public transport system like this.

The DART line using the interconnector will start in Drogheda and stop in Hazlehatch. The Hazlehatch end will eventually be extended to Kildare Town (Newbridge, Naas/Salins) . I think Double Decker (DD) trains would be ideal for a Drogheda to Kildare “Commuter” type service.

But I dont think that DD trains would be suitable for the other DART line Maynooth to Greystones

@weehamster wrote:

The DART line using the interconnector will start in Drogheda and stop in Hazlehatch. The Hazlehatch end will eventually be extended to Kildare Town (Newbridge, Naas/Salins) . I think Double Decker (DD) trains would be ideal for a Drogheda to Kildare “Commuter” type service.

But I dont think that DD trains would be suitable for the other DART line Maynooth to Greystones

The DART will not run to Drogheda, It will terminate service in Balbriggan. With a possible future extension to Drogheda. What I’m wondering is can the tunnel accomidate DD trains. It would be wise for CIE to construct the tunnel with this in mind just to keep their future options for capacity enhancement open. Why wouldn’t the Maynooth to Graystones line be able to accom DD trains? it’s entirely overground

@cgcsb wrote:

The DART will not run to Drogheda, It will terminate service in Balbriggan. With a possible future extension to Drogheda. What I’m wondering is can the tunnel accomidate DD trains. It would be wise for CIE to construct the tunnel with this in mind just to keep their future options for capacity enhancement open. Why wouldn’t the Maynooth to Graystones line be able to accom DD trains? it’s entirely overground

I thought that was their plan. DD trains.

So did I, can’t remember where I read it though, do you? but the new DART carriages that have been ordered are of the single deck variety and in the new T21 video, it appears to be a single deck dart transversing the tunnel

The plan has changed (back again) and the DART is to run to Drogheda. The cost of building extra platforms and sidings to turn Ballbriggan into a terminus allowing turn-back worked out to almost negate the the savings made by not electrifying the bit between Balbriggan and Drogheda. It a much better idea as they can replace the Diesel commuter trains completely with electric on that line instead of having a mix of DART, Diesel commuter and intercity. They’ve also modified the Hueston end of the plan; the tunnel is now to run to Inchicore and the Heuston DART underground platforms will be under the main station instead of being under Guinesses.

@missarchi wrote:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/NC0006.htm

NC0006: ()
Dublin City Council
Proposed underground DART line between Inchicore and the Docklands (via Heuston Station), Dublin.
Case reference: PL29N.NC0006
Case type: Railway Ord. – Consultation
Status: Consultancy has yet to be concluded
Parties

* Iarnród Eireann (Prospective Appl)

* Dublin City Council (Local Authority) (Active)

History

* 14/04/2009: Lodged

What exactly is the above? It’s surely not the PP for Interconnector proper, as this isn’t being lodged until September I believe?

@pippin101 wrote:

What exactly is the above? It’s surely not the PP for Interconnector proper, as this isn’t being lodged until September I believe?

It’s the initial application An Bord Pleanala to determine if the interconnector is or is not Strategic Infrastructure and ipso facto can apply for pp undr the SI Act ( in case you hadn’t noticed missarchi doesn’t really ‘do’ context, and comes more from the enigmatic wing of archiposters;))

http://www.arup.ie/index.jsp?p=118&n=279

nice curves!

I’m wondering if they are going to go for 4 escalators or more per station?

I wonder is this project going to be funded by this new scheme?

Pension funds willing to put €6bn into State projects

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0506/1224245994684.html

In some ways its good in some ways its bad.
But its not like they are going to publish live passenger movements or weekly data…

People who invest want returns = higher ticket prices and cheaper labour

So it creates a massive captive market for increase in prices and not caring about service…

The newly extended plan to Inchicore Works is absolutely crazy.
Irish Rail have devised it in a way so that the tunnel opening is in an existing playing field in a residential area. They then intend on selling their land within Inhicore Works and buildining a future surface station. This is all to maximise the value of their land.

This is an absolutely crazy idiotic way to plan a transport network not to mention housing developement (which this land is not currently zoned for).

It is clear that the interconnector should be planned to maximise value for money, and in the public interest, not that of IR. The tunnel opening should be within the Inchicore Works lands, some of which they want to sell so presumable they dont need all 75 acers.

The station should be underground and located to maximise public access which will also deliver the best value for money. This planning needs to happen now as an underground station would need to be built with the tunnel.

There seems to be something corrupt in the process whereby Irish Rail can make a proposal for the development of a major public transport plan and tag on a residential development all in their own interest and not service the public interest. And its absolutely crazy that the RPA would accept such a proposal!

This is planning for the future at it’s worst, the kind of self-serving planning that left Dublin with unceonnected Rail terminals accross the city in the first place.

Stop the madness!

Where are these details published? In the official press releases etc. the site of the portal and the new station are on existing Irish Rail works land.

In any case, I fail to see what is it you think is “absolutely crazy idiotic”? The densification of areas close to rail infrastructure sounds like good planning to me.

Jimg, whats crazy is that a “private” company, Irish Rail, with a vested interest is the body doing the planning. That is crazy planning.

It is NOT in line with Local Area Plan, Dublin City Development Plan or any other planning.
There is no objective in Transport 21 to support the value of Irish Rail’s land or the development of any new community on it’s lands.
The full details have not yet been published, I believe Irish Rail intend doing this as part of the Railway Order, which is technically published by the RPA.
the portal is in a playing field with is owned by Irish Rail, but not within the works itself as it is used by the community.
It’s not really up to Irish Rail to decide on Land Zoning, thats for the council.

Of course densification has many benefits but it needs to be planned properly, what is the point in having development palns and local government if landowners such as Irish Rail just make up their own plans and ignore them!

Incidentily the Environmental Impact Statement has already been published and there is nothing in it about this extension and the lands in Inchicore works. Nothing mentioned about densification, land rezoning. Presumable this is why the inchicore works station is a ‘future’ station, to try getting around this legality.

There is another strangeness to this, there is actually a station with proper platforms in Inchicore Works already on the Kildare line, but this is not in public use, it is there just to service the yard. This could easily be used today to service the Irish Rail land there already at no cost if it was developed for housing. And if the original plan to have the tunnel opening at Heuston went ahead this station could still be used in the future.

This smells of corruption to me, Irish Rail using the Tranport 21 budget to it’s own gain and not that of the public.

Irish rail isn’t a private company, it’s owned by CIE which is a state company. The RPA is not at all associated with IE. IE submits it’s own applications. RPA only deal with light rail projects

@ac1976 wrote:

Jimg, whats crazy is that a “private” company, Irish Rail, with a vested interest is the body doing the planning. That is crazy planning.

It is NOT in line with Local Area Plan, Dublin City Development Plan or any other planning.
There is no objective in Transport 21 to support the value of Irish Rail’s land or the development of any new community on it’s lands.
The full details have not yet been published, I believe Irish Rail intend doing this as part of the Railway Order, which is technically published by the RPA.
the portal is in a playing field with is owned by Irish Rail, but not within the works itself as it is used by the community.
It’s not really up to Irish Rail to decide on Land Zoning, thats for the council.

Of course densification has many benefits but it needs to be planned properly, what is the point in having development palns and local government if landowners such as Irish Rail just make up their own plans and ignore them!

Incidentily the Environmental Impact Statement has already been published and there is nothing in it about this extension and the lands in Inchicore works. Nothing mentioned about densification, land rezoning. Presumable this is why the inchicore works station is a ‘future’ station, to try getting around this legality.

There is another strangeness to this, there is actually a station with proper platforms in Inchicore Works already on the Kildare line, but this is not in public use, it is there just to service the yard. This could easily be used today to service the Irish Rail land there already at no cost if it was developed for housing. And if the original plan to have the tunnel opening at Heuston went ahead this station could still be used in the future.

This smells of corruption to me, Irish Rail using the Tranport 21 budget to it’s own gain and not that of the public.

on the basis of several deluded premises you post this boring rant.

the word crazed springs to mind.

it is interesting how any crank can come upon a proposal, then without an iota of accurate information, launches off into a paranoid wobbler utterly detached from any reality known to man, aliens, or beast.

ac1976:”It is clear that the interconnector should be planned to maximise value for money, and in the public interest, not that of IR“. Since IR is owned by the State it’s the same thing, the State gets the dividend.

By the way, anyone can apply to build anything provided they own the land on which they propose to build? anyone. that’s the system, IR does its planning and the planning board assesses the application with regard to policy. IR has no planning obligation other than to its shareholder.

I suspect someone has been going around your area spreading false rumours, another nimby out of the bag.

Jeez Marmajam, that’s a bit harsh. this is a public forum and this thread is about planning matters. I’m just raising the point that bad and un-transparent planning creats issues that affect all of us. (deluded or not)
If you think it’s boring you dont have to read it and you certainly shouldn’t have bothered yourself to reply if you had nothing posative to contribute. Just stick to Metro North if you will.

I think it’s interesting that people are questioning the details and the information about this project because IR have only given sketchy info and done this orally at local meetings so there is nothing but heresay to go by for now. Which is a pity because we are in the public consultation phase of the project, and it’s difficult to have a proper debate without the details. I do know that the issue of planning on this proposal has been raised with the minister of Environment by elected local reps, and I was just trying to get people talking about this before the plan is finalised and published.

ac, you’ll have to be a bit clearer about what it is exactly you are objecting to as it is not at all obvious what aspect of the plan has you whipped into such a frenzy.

Irish Rail have been selling off surplus land for decades to developers and if they feel they don’t need all the land at the Inchicore works they’ll sell it for apartments, Interconnector or no Interconnector. What is going through planning at the moment (the railway order) has absolutely nothing to do with apartments, the planning for which, if/when they get around to it, will be completely separate. Why you’d object to high density development near what will be the highest capacity railway in the country is beyond me ‘though.

Irish Rail are generally generous (to the point of carelessness) in allowing people to use their land if it doesn’t interfere with the running of the railway. I’m not sure why you’d repay this generosity with this Nimbyism; just like I hardly admire those who’ve used adverse possession law to grab IR’s assets because of IR’s relaxed attitude to the use of some of its property. It’s not Irish Rail’s remit to provide leisure facilities to local communities – it’s to run a rail service (albeit badly).

You seem to be completely confused about the relationship between IR, the RPA and the local planning system so I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say in the rest of your message.

“….that’s a bit harsh. this is a public forum and this thread is about planning matters…it’s difficult to have a proper debate without the details…. I was just trying to get people talking about this before the plan is finalised and published”.

Keep digging ac1976, you might get the tunnel built by yourself! It’s not a bit harsh to accuse IR of corruption or make up nonsense about the project, no? Or to try to subvert the lawful planning process by making representations to the Minister?

The planning process is for detailed examination of proposals, objections, and raising non-existent issues and trying to gain control over someone else’s land…

dart

I getting tired of this. 😡

Can someone, pretty please, with sugar on top, explain to me and to everyone else, what in the name of sanity does that last post have anything got to do with the Interconnector? 😡

Sorry Mods, but I think its time to start doing your jobs. I think ye are getting very lazy of late. Things like this where a post has nothing to do with the topic has to be removed and the poster has to be warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_M6JyxNnDY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishrail.ie%2Fprojects%2Fdart_underground.asp&feature=player_embedded

subliminal 738? tile style barter….

Ha. Ahh, missarchi, appreciate the link, even if your posts are impossible to decipher :p
Weehamster, I believe darts will use the tunnel. There is your connection.

Imposing dimension. Sandwich 228, Incongruous?

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/dart_underground.asp

have yall seen this Dart underground video?

From Saturday’s Irish Times…

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0704/1224250018875.html

Follow this train of thought

FRANK McDONALD Environment Editor

A quarter of a century after the inauguration of the Dart, the Government is still trying to devise a public-transport solution for the capital, and the next stage could take the Dart underground

It was described in an Irish Times headline as “CIÉ’s new weapon to confound the begrudgers”. And in truth, the Dart did. On the Sunday after it started running between Howth and Bray in July 1984, more people travelled on the new electric trains than on any day since the railway line opened in 1834. There was something symmetrical about the Dart being inaugurated in the year of the 150th anniversary of Ireland’s first railway, the Dublin to Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) line. And despite criticisms that it only served the “gold coast” around Dublin Bay, it gave the city its first whiff of continental Europe.

For months, Dubliners had been stopped in their tracks by the sight of brand-new, German-built electric trains gliding up and down the line on test runs. They were so different to the old diesel engines, which hauled probably the most obsolete rolling stock on wheels in this part of the world. That the new trains were electric was entirely due to Des O’Malley, then minister for industry and energy, who recognised the importance of not relying so much on imported oil; had it been left to his cabinet colleague, Prof Martin O’Donoghue, all Dublin would have got was a cheap and cheerful set of new diesel trains.

The Dart brand-name was chosen after sifting through numerous alternatives (such as “Bayline”). As Cartan Finegan, then marketing director of CIÉ, said at the time: “Finally, we settled for Dart because it seemed to say everything.” Dart is an acronym for Dublin Area Rapid Transit, which implied that electrifying the Howth-Bray line was merely the first phase of a much more ambitious plan to turn it into a network, with lines serving Tallaght and Blanchardstown via an underground link in the city centre. But that never happened.

When work on the electrification project started in 1980, David Waters, the engineer in charge, took personal responsibility for everything – he never bulldozed the project through, and instead negotiated with residents’ associations and other interest groups on issues such as rebuilding bridges.

There was some controversy about the cost of this EU-funded project, which worked out at £113 million (€143.5 million). Economists such as Seán Barrett of Trinity College thought it was wildly extravagant; like Martin O’Donoghue, they would have preferred to see a simple upgrade of services on the existing line. The most shocking thing was that the Department of Finance purloined £27 million (€34 million) in EU funding for the Dart, leaving CIÉ to borrow money to make up the difference. This saddled the company with repaying both capital and interest on a debt that should never have arisen, and vastly inflated the cost.

Even before the new service was inaugurated on July 24th, 1984, the price of houses along the line was going up; had CIÉ been able to “recapture” some of these gains, it could have repaid the capital outlay over time. The Dart also facilitated major commercial development, contributing to an office-building boom in Blackrock, for example. Land located near the line shot up in value, even in the bleak 1980s. It took a long time before CIÉ cashed in on this upward trend by promoting a major office scheme at Connolly Station, for example.

The company’s plans for a new transportation centre in the middle of town ran into trouble. Since 1976, CIÉ had been acquiring property on both sides of the River Liffey for this mammoth project, which would have incorporated an underground train and bus station topped by an array of office blocks, hotels and shopping malls. An Taisce was first into the breach, calling in January 1986 for a “complete reassessment” of this scheme on the basis that it would destroy the Temple Bar area. Ironically, the emerging “left bank” culture of the area had been unwittingly encouraged by CIÉ’s policy of renting out its buildings on short-term leases.

Liam Skelly, a firebrand Fine Gael TD for Dublin West, was having none of it, however. In late 1986, he claimed to have lined up a Canadian company to develop the proposed transportation centre. But the “Skelly Plan” bit the dust and Temple Bar was later designated as Dublin’s “cultural quarter”.

The plan to extend the Dart to other parts of the city was scuppered in October 1987 by the then Fianna Fáil minority government, led by Charles J Haughey. Not only did it rule out investment in anything other than buses and “diesel-based options” for rail, it also abolished the Dublin Transport Authority, which had been set up just six months earlier.

Eventually, as a result of the Dublin Transportation Initiative in the early 1990s, we were offered the Luas – although the city became the first in the world to build two free-standing light-rail lines. This was the outcome of a cowardly decision in May 1998 by ministers who couldn’t get their heads around the Luas running up and down Dawson Street.

When the Dart service started in 1984, a fleet of 80 carriages carried about 35,000 passengers per day. Government parsimony meant that not a single extra carriage was added during the next 16 years, even though passenger numbers were climbing to 80,000 per day. As a result, overcrowding during peak periods became unbearable.

Since 2001, major improvements have been made. The Dart line was extended to serve both Malahide and Greystones, new rolling stock was bought, real-time passenger information screen have been installed in all stations, platforms have been lengthened to cater for eight-carriage trains, and new stations were opened at Portmarnock and Grand Canal Dock.

Maintenance is poor, however. Dún Laoghaire station is grungy and confusing, despite its new look. Station nameplates are flimsy, their colour scheme a residue of Iarnród Éireann’s orange period; it’s a long way from the original “total design concept”.

The most serious problem is capacity. Due to constraints in and around Connolly Station, only 12 trains per hour can be accommodated on the Loop Line – too few to cater for the 90,000 passengers a day using the Dart and thousands of others on diesel trains.

Now, two decades after being ruled out, a Dart underground line is back on the agenda. This would connect Heuston Station to the Docklands, via Christchurch, St Stephen’s Green and Pearse Station, linking up with both the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines as well as the existing Dart line, to give Dublin a rail network.

Last December, the Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey described the proposed rail tunnel as the “most critical piece” of public-transport infrastructure in the State, and pledged that it would proceed, notwithstanding the Government’s yawning budget deficit. The estimate for the “Dart Underground” is €2 billion – considerably less than the still-secret cost of Metro North, which would provide a single, 18km Luas line from Swords to St Stephen’s Green. Given that the CIÉ plan would integrate existing suburban rail services, it seems better suited to serve Dublin’s sprawl than the metro.

What’s not included in the €2 billion estimate, however, is the cost of electrifying lines to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda so that trains could use the tunnel; clearly, diesel engines could not be allowed through because of the fumes they emit. The question remains of whether a cash-starved Government will have the stomach to go ahead with this.

The underground hub is still possible!
It will be interesting if they wait until a decision on metro north before lodging…

doubt ‘they’ have much of an eye on the MN application, which wil get PP anyway even if delayed until the 1st quarter 2110.
believe ‘they’ expect to lodge the IC application ‘later this year’

@DjangoD wrote:

From Saturday’s Irish Times…

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0704/1224250018875.html

Follow this train of thought

FRANK McDONALD Environment Editor

A quarter of a century after the inauguration of the Dart, the Government is still trying to devise a public-transport solution for the capital, and the next stage could take the Dart underground

It was described in an Irish Times headline as “CIÉ’s new weapon to confound the begrudgers”. And in truth, the Dart did. On the Sunday after it started running between Howth and Bray in July 1984, more people travelled on the new electric trains than on any day since the railway line opened in 1834. There was something symmetrical about the Dart being inaugurated in the year of the 150th anniversary of Ireland’s first railway, the Dublin to Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) line. And despite criticisms that it only served the “gold coast” around Dublin Bay, it gave the city its first whiff of continental Europe.

For months, Dubliners had been stopped in their tracks by the sight of brand-new, German-built electric trains gliding up and down the line on test runs. They were so different to the old diesel engines, which hauled probably the most obsolete rolling stock on wheels in this part of the world. That the new trains were electric was entirely due to Des O’Malley, then minister for industry and energy, who recognised the importance of not relying so much on imported oil; had it been left to his cabinet colleague, Prof Martin O’Donoghue, all Dublin would have got was a cheap and cheerful set of new diesel trains.

The Dart brand-name was chosen after sifting through numerous alternatives (such as “Bayline”). As Cartan Finegan, then marketing director of CIÉ, said at the time: “Finally, we settled for Dart because it seemed to say everything.” Dart is an acronym for Dublin Area Rapid Transit, which implied that electrifying the Howth-Bray line was merely the first phase of a much more ambitious plan to turn it into a network, with lines serving Tallaght and Blanchardstown via an underground link in the city centre. But that never happened.

When work on the electrification project started in 1980, David Waters, the engineer in charge, took personal responsibility for everything – he never bulldozed the project through, and instead negotiated with residents’ associations and other interest groups on issues such as rebuilding bridges.

There was some controversy about the cost of this EU-funded project, which worked out at £113 million (€143.5 million). Economists such as Seán Barrett of Trinity College thought it was wildly extravagant; like Martin O’Donoghue, they would have preferred to see a simple upgrade of services on the existing line. The most shocking thing was that the Department of Finance purloined £27 million (€34 million) in EU funding for the Dart, leaving CIÉ to borrow money to make up the difference. This saddled the company with repaying both capital and interest on a debt that should never have arisen, and vastly inflated the cost.

Even before the new service was inaugurated on July 24th, 1984, the price of houses along the line was going up; had CIÉ been able to “recapture” some of these gains, it could have repaid the capital outlay over time. The Dart also facilitated major commercial development, contributing to an office-building boom in Blackrock, for example. Land located near the line shot up in value, even in the bleak 1980s. It took a long time before CIÉ cashed in on this upward trend by promoting a major office scheme at Connolly Station, for example.

The company’s plans for a new transportation centre in the middle of town ran into trouble. Since 1976, CIÉ had been acquiring property on both sides of the River Liffey for this mammoth project, which would have incorporated an underground train and bus station topped by an array of office blocks, hotels and shopping malls. An Taisce was first into the breach, calling in January 1986 for a “complete reassessment” of this scheme on the basis that it would destroy the Temple Bar area. Ironically, the emerging “left bank” culture of the area had been unwittingly encouraged by CIÉ’s policy of renting out its buildings on short-term leases.

Liam Skelly, a firebrand Fine Gael TD for Dublin West, was having none of it, however. In late 1986, he claimed to have lined up a Canadian company to develop the proposed transportation centre. But the “Skelly Plan” bit the dust and Temple Bar was later designated as Dublin’s “cultural quarter”.

The plan to extend the Dart to other parts of the city was scuppered in October 1987 by the then Fianna Fáil minority government, led by Charles J Haughey. Not only did it rule out investment in anything other than buses and “diesel-based options” for rail, it also abolished the Dublin Transport Authority, which had been set up just six months earlier.

Eventually, as a result of the Dublin Transportation Initiative in the early 1990s, we were offered the Luas – although the city became the first in the world to build two free-standing light-rail lines. This was the outcome of a cowardly decision in May 1998 by ministers who couldn’t get their heads around the Luas running up and down Dawson Street.

When the Dart service started in 1984, a fleet of 80 carriages carried about 35,000 passengers per day. Government parsimony meant that not a single extra carriage was added during the next 16 years, even though passenger numbers were climbing to 80,000 per day. As a result, overcrowding during peak periods became unbearable.

Since 2001, major improvements have been made. The Dart line was extended to serve both Malahide and Greystones, new rolling stock was bought, real-time passenger information screen have been installed in all stations, platforms have been lengthened to cater for eight-carriage trains, and new stations were opened at Portmarnock and Grand Canal Dock.

Maintenance is poor, however. Dún Laoghaire station is grungy and confusing, despite its new look. Station nameplates are flimsy, their colour scheme a residue of Iarnród Éireann’s orange period; it’s a long way from the original “total design concept”.

The most serious problem is capacity. Due to constraints in and around Connolly Station, only 12 trains per hour can be accommodated on the Loop Line – too few to cater for the 90,000 passengers a day using the Dart and thousands of others on diesel trains.

Now, two decades after being ruled out, a Dart underground line is back on the agenda. This would connect Heuston Station to the Docklands, via Christchurch, St Stephen’s Green and Pearse Station, linking up with both the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines as well as the existing Dart line, to give Dublin a rail network.

Last December, the Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey described the proposed rail tunnel as the “most critical piece” of public-transport infrastructure in the State, and pledged that it would proceed, notwithstanding the Government’s yawning budget deficit. The estimate for the “Dart Underground” is €2 billion – considerably less than the still-secret cost of Metro North, which would provide a single, 18km Luas line from Swords to St Stephen’s Green. Given that the CIÉ plan would integrate existing suburban rail services, it seems better suited to serve Dublin’s sprawl than the metro.

What’s not included in the €2 billion estimate, however, is the cost of electrifying lines to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda so that trains could use the tunnel; clearly, diesel engines could not be allowed through because of the fumes they emit. The question remains of whether a cash-starved Government will have the stomach to go ahead with this.

What a synopsis; this is FMD doing WMD on the RPA’s uncosted Luas line in such a well written way.

There are two things I would like to add to this near perfect synopsis; most tube trains work with the electrical current coming from the track bed and not overhead lines. To realistically cost an essential upgrade to underground DART costs would need to be sourced for retro fitting DARTS to draw current from a trackbed system and overhead wires on existing DART section to at least a sizeable section of the DART fleet and the line from where it is proposed to surface at Kilmainham to say Hazelhatch in phase 1 before extending to Balbriggan and Maynooth in time. Rebuilding numerous bridges and erecting large quantities of overhead wirescapes would add excessive cost and involve much more disruption to the existing network.

Secondly CIE are a real company with plenty of undeveloped real estate; CIE should begin a discussion process with a number of International real estate groups who have developed major mixed use schemes at rail hubs for example the groups who did Kings Cross London or Spencer Dock Dublin. This would establish what type of income stream could be produced by doing a joint venture to coincide with completion and such sums could be set against future bond payments to hedge exposure to the taxpayer.

@PVC King wrote:

What a synopsis; this is FMD doing WMD on the RPA’s uncosted Luas line in such a well written way.

There are two things I would like to add to this near perfect synopsis; most tube trains work with the electrical current coming from the track bed and not overhead lines. To realistically cost an essential upgrade to underground DART costs would need to be sourced for retro fitting DARTS to draw current from a trackbed system and overhead wires on existing DART section to at least a sizeable section of the DART fleet and the line from where it is proposed to surface at Kilmainham to say Hazelhatch in phase 1 before extending to Balbriggan and Maynooth in time. Rebuilding numerous bridges and erecting large quantities of overhead wirescapes would add excessive cost and involve much more disruption to the existing network.

Secondly CIE are a real company with plenty of undeveloped real estate; CIE should begin a discussion process with a number of International real estate groups who have developed major mixed use schemes at rail hubs for example the groups who did Kings Cross London or Spencer Dock Dublin. This would establish what type of income stream could be produced by doing a joint venture to coincide with completion and such sums could be set against future bond payments to hedge exposure to the taxpayer.

incorrect.

IC will use overhead wires

you do love making things up

it is possible to run an underground system without drawing power from the trackbed. Why wouldn’t overhead lines work? they do the same job

@cgcsb wrote:

it is possible to run an underground system without drawing power from the trackbed. Why wouldn’t overhead lines work? they do the same job

visual clutter? If BXD ends up having no wires then mabye metro north should aswell.
Unless they intend on running high speed trains on it or connecting with the northern line.
I hope they allow for high speed trains and signalling on the “upgrades”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4wYN-1SVU

@missarchi wrote:

visual clutter? If BXD ends up having no wires then mabye metro north should aswell.
Unless they intend on running high speed trains on it or connecting with the northern line.
I hope they allow for high speed trains and signalling on the “upgrades”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4wYN-1SVU

I believe they’re thinking of sending the trains upside down through the tunnel.

This way the power lines will be next to the floor and less unsightly.

@marmajam wrote:

incorrect.

IC will use overhead wires

you do love making things up

Most underground systems use a ‘third rail system’ including London, Paris and Frankfurt as it reduces the size of the tunnel required and in this case would lead to a lot less rebuilding of existing route components. If you could stick to the points raised instead of resorting to immature personnal attacks people might actually read what you have said before they reject it.

In any event Irish Rail have not submitted a works order or planning application so they still have the luxury of making modifications to any preliminary models they may have compiled when money was less of an object; needless to say given their extensive real estate portfolio in strategic locations they also have the opportunity to highlight how they propose to fund their scheme.

decision already made in PA being prepared right now.
overhead lines being used.

bit rash to say ‘most’, many systems worldwide use overhead lines.

@marmajam wrote:

decision already made in PA being prepared right now.
overhead lines being used.

bit rash to say ‘most’, many systems worldwide use overhead lines.

I’ve not come across an underground without a third rail

Current Status of Project The preliminary design of the project has been completed. The project is due for completion in 2015. Work is currently underway on the scheme design, geotechnical investigation and preparation of an environmental impact study including a detailed archaeological report. Iarnród Éireann expect to submit an application for a Railway Order to An Bord Pleanala by the end 2009

There is time to tweak the project as there are no grounds to challenge the planning process based on project assessment carried out to date; they could however fit a third rail to the surface sections as an interim measure should the costs and disruptive effects of creating a wirescape from Hazelhatch to the tunnel be excessive.

The concept of DART should be subservient to the concept of creating a central underground spine for the wider Dublin transportation network this line should be viewed as handling the last 15 – 20 miles into Dublin on 2 existing lines and freeing up significant capacity on two others.

In light of reduced development levels it is vital that the four existing rail lines form four medium density corridors where development is activily promoted. This project is the only one that can deliver so much potential; literally 12 miles South, 12 miles North if you include Howth as an extra, 12 miles west and 12 miles to Maynooth. Not to forget the 3 miles in the middle!

Madrids huge metro system uses overhead wires on most, if not all of its lines . In fact , Bilbao and Barcelona do aswell . Was in barcelona recently and a group
of young guys crossed the tracks to the other platform , pretty stupid really , but the line was definately not third rail , nor was it light rail for that matter .

” Catenary
Since 1999 Metro de Madrid uses a new patented system for Metro de Madrid, A solid track hung from the roof of the tunnels, instead of the typical copper wire or aluminum. This type of catenary (or overhead line) is rigid, it is better because it has less failures. It can’t be used in instalments over the surface, requiring much more support and therefore is more expensive to install.

This system is used in other cities.”
Stolen from wikipedia

Madrid , Barcelona and Bilbao all use overhead wires .

Seville and Valencia too?
Moscow is third rail and London some big cites…

there are many systems worldwide that use overhead lines – I’ve seen them myself.

@PVC King wrote:

There is time to tweak the project as there are no grounds to challenge the planning process based on project assessment carried out to date; they could however fit a third rail to the surface sections as an interim measure should the costs and disruptive effects of creating a wirescape from Hazelhatch to the tunnel be excessive.

!

U C PeeVeeCee you’ve produced this expert’s assessment without the knowledge that IE have already rebuilt the KIldare line bridges to take overhead lines.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0707/1224250168114.html

someone’s not happy!

bulldoze them, bleedin nimbys

then use them as forced labour to save costs

@marmajam wrote:

bulldoze them, bleedin nimbys

A tad intemperate there marmajam, but not without some justification.

The piece includes this outragously misrepresentative statement:

The line is intended to surface inside the old CIE works, which is a compound few of us have ever had the chance to get into for more that fifteen minutes and while there are legitimate concerns about construction management, the design of the tunnel entrance, and the protection of industrial heritage, to suggest that the ‘historic Inchicore Railway Estate’, is about to be plunged into some kind of orgy of destruction, or even that the proposal in any way jeopardizes ‘this setpiece of nineteenth century vernacular architecture’ is hysterical nonsense of a kind we heard before from Inchicore when the Luas was first mooted to come down Tyrconnel Road, Emmet Road and Old Kilmainham.

The Inchicore branch of the virtual Luddite Society continues to thrive:mad:

on top of that, they’re getting an Inchicore railway station that they’ve been crying for since the days of horse and carts public transport.

@missarchi wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0707/1224250168114.html

someone’s not happy!

as the wise man said:

‘another joe duffy caller escaped into the wild’

@marmajam wrote:

U C PeeVeeCee you’ve produced this expert’s assessment without the knowledge that IE have already rebuilt the KIldare line bridges to take overhead lines.

But the wirescape has not been built; I have no issue which method they use but outside Spain where there seems to be a deviance from normal practice the norm seems to be a third rail fixed to the track bed. Examples include Hong Kong, Singapore Japan etc

It seems strange that if they were constructing additional tracks that they didn’t electrify at the same time or at least put the structural steel in place; very short sighted when you consider the different funding environment that has now materialised. No doubt a little rezoning and development levy regime beyond Kilmainham will supply the revenue streams close to project completion; there is a lot of redundant industrial stock that if combined into a wider holding will provide the necessary scale to do something very orderly out there. A lot of season ticket holders who will want access in all directions

@PVC King wrote:

Most underground systems use a ‘third rail system’ including London, Paris and Frankfurt as it reduces the size of the tunnel required and in this case would lead to a lot less rebuilding of existing route components. If you could stick to the points raised instead of resorting to immature personnal attacks people might actually read what you have said before they reject it.

On the contrary, Frankfurt uses overhead wires for both its S-Bahn and U-Bahn networks.

Right you are on both; I knew S-Bahn was on overhead wires on the semi segregated street sections but never noticed the Frankfurt system to be much talller than any other sections. Taking the Channel tunnel which uses overhead wires it has a 7.6m tunnel diameter versus a more standard 6.2m using the third rail method

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/ffm/frankfrt.htm

It is an issue that is best left to electrical engineers to decide the merits of lower air-cooling costs versus the additional concrete required to accomodate the wirescape. What is of surprise is if there was a clear intention to go with this project why the structural steel required to carry the wires wasn’t done as part of the track widening project.

That oversight aside which although short sighted is not fatal and the project has a very strong basis to proceed on the basis that it delivers a doubling of capacity on the existing Dart network, a lot of extra capacity on the Maynooth line / Pace extension and will both increase demand on the Kildarte line and free up a lot of capacity on the Luas red line from Heuston in.

One would wonder that taking the typical Kildare line commuter working in say Leeson Street if you gave them a choice between a train and Luas combination that leaves you in Abbey Street requiring a third leg via bus or walking and a car journey what would they chose.

Change that to an overground train to Heuston and then a DART to Stephens Green what are they going to choose?

@PVC King wrote:

But the wirescape has not been built; I have no issue which method they use but outside Spain where there seems to be a deviance from normal practice the norm seems to be a third rail fixed to the track bed. Examples include Hong Kong, Singapore Japan etc

It seems strange that if they were constructing additional tracks that they didn’t electrify at the same time or at least put the structural steel in place; very short sighted when you consider the different funding environment that has now materialised. No doubt a little rezoning and development levy regime beyond Kilmainham will supply the revenue streams close to project completion; there is a lot of redundant industrial stock that if combined into a wider holding will provide the necessary scale to do something very orderly out there. A lot of season ticket holders who will want access in all directions

Tokyo and Hong Kong both use metro trains with overhead power lines.

Other major cities include New Delhi, Rome, Sydney, San Francisco, Cairo, Istanbul……..

@marmajam wrote:

Tokyo and Hong Kong both use metro trains with overhead power lines.

Other major cities include New Delhi, Rome, Sydney, San Francisco, Cairo, Istanbul……..

Tokyo uses a third rail at least on these networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Marunouchi_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Ginza_Line

New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R142_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

Chicago

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/chic/chicago.htm

Whatever the power source the project stacks up at the level of costs identified unlike another project

I’ve actually e-mailed IE and asked if they would ever consider a Third-Rail or Fourth-Rail system. While I doubt I’ll get an adequate response, it’ll be interesting to see what they say. I also asked them a lot of other questions about the project, including if the order for 432 new carriages was still going ahead, when the electrification will take place and what IE will do to ensure it is prioritized over MN.

I’d encourage other people to also e-mail them. It most likely ain’t gonna change a lot, but at least they might put more information up on their rather spartan site.

It seems the newer systems (worldwide) are using the overhead power lines.
I suspect the order (as distinct from the tender docs) for the 400+ Dart carriages will be held back until the contract for the IC is done or imminent.

I notice that the ‘train spotter’ congregation ar pretty fixated on the IC. They do love heavy rail 🙂

And while the IC will have a hugely radical effect on the DART system it doesn’t actually service any new areas which is one of the main advantages of MN. Public transport, to get people out of their cars has to have a rail core to it. So MN with it’s interlinking elements would be more important IMO.

As of now I’d be very confidant both will actually go ahead, in the short term.
I’m also not sure the remark in the IT that the DoF is opposed to MN accurately characterises their position. This is the opportunistic negative briefing they’ve been at for a long time. There is opposition in the DoF to MN, which is a different thing. And that opposition has always been there.
The cost to the exchequer of going ahead with both these projects will not be heavy ,relatively speaking, during construction. In fact due to the jobs created tax vat social security savings etc it is probably more expensive to cancel.
By the time they are opened the world economy will have recovered.
There are many other compelling reasons for going ahead with both projects.

@PVC King wrote:

Tokyo uses a third rail at least on these networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Marunouchi_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Ginza_Line

New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R142_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

Chicago

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/chic/chicago.htm

Whatever the power source the project stacks up at the level of costs identified unlike another project

so you’ve gone from asserting that every ‘tube’ system uses the 3rd rail to struggling to find a few examples in weird foreign Timbucktoos that still use it

That’s a bit of a climbdown…….

what a chancer you are.

I suspect this is typical of the property development game which, let us not forget, is at the parasitic end of the spectrum of social behaviour

@marmajam wrote:

so you’ve gone from asserting that every ‘tube’ system uses the 3rd rail to struggling to find a few examples in weird foreign Timbucktoos that still use it

That’s a bit of a climbdown…….

what a chancer you are.

New York and Chicago equate timbuktu which you are even unable to spell.

There was a great movie made in the late 1980’s called Planes, Trains and Automobiles

I can just picture you as John Goodman complete with jam stains on paisley patterned polyester pyjamas

🙂

Chicago is worse than Timbucktoo

@marmajam wrote:

And while the IC will have a hugely radical effect on the DART system it doesn’t actually service any new areas which is one of the main advantages of MN. Public transport, to get people out of their cars has to have a rail core to it. So MN with it’s interlinking elements would be more important IMO.

The interconnector will have a far greater impact on the entire city and its commuter belt than a single ‘metro’ line. It will finally break the blinkered vision of a single line transport axis that stunts its own potential by terminating at the city centre.

DART Underground will open up the western suburbs to the rest of the city and vice versa, connecting the far reaches of the west, north and south city suburbs via the city centre. In many ways it allows public transport to compete with and offer a viable alternative to the M50, as crudely attempted by the nonsense that was metro west.

New stations at Docklands, St. Stephen’s Green, Christ Church, Inchicore, Park West, Clondalkin, Kishogue, Adamstown – Two Dart lines, Hazlehatch to Balbriggan, Maynooth to Greystones, in excess of 60 stations across the city, multiple journeys possible; integrated, reliable public transport.

This project has been on the list long before the RPA and metro north came along, it should be constructed asap, and if it is a case of one or the other given current constraints, I know which one I’d pick.

define ‘single metro line’

The following is the Position Statement of Inchicore on Track in regard Irish Rail Plan to extend the Dart Undergorund project to Inchicore from Heuston Station:

The Inchicore Railway Estate is a residential estate of approximately 240 homes, and is along with the
Inchicore Railway Works, a remarkable set piece of nineteenth century industrial planning and
vernacular architecture, which has survived largely intact, giving a strong sense of community and
belonging to the residents of the area. This area is of national importance in heritage and conservation
terms and in relation to the history of modern transport infrastructure in Ireland.

CIE Residents Association and Inchicore on Track

The CIE Residents Association is a long established organisation that represents the residents of the
Inchicore Railway Estate (also known as the CIE Estate).

On April 20th 2009 at the Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham, Irish Rail hosted a ‘public consultation’ as part of it’s
Dart Underground project, It was in this forum that it announced for the first time that it intended to apply
for a Railway Order in September, for a radical plan to tunnel from Heuston to Inchicore, that would
surface in a construction site in the middle of the Inchicore Railway Estate. In effect giving just over four
months notice on a project of national significance.

In response the CIE Residents Association held a public meeting one week later, on Monday April 27th
that was attended by in excess of 200 people and all the public representatives of the area. There was
a sense of outrage and shock at the extent, hastiness and impact of Irish Rail’s proposals. At this
meeting a call was made for volunteers to form a group to respond to the plan. Over 30 people came forward and the first meeting was held on Thursday April 30th at which “Inchicore on Track” was
adopted as the name of the group and John Beck of North Terrace was elected as chairperson.
Residents from nearby areas affected by the alignment of the proposed tunnel have also joined the group, including residents from Inchicore Road, Sarsfield Road, Woodfield and Murrays Cottages.

Inchicore on Track – Mission Statement

To campaign and lobby to ensure that the route alignment and portal position for the Dart Underground chosen by An Bord Pleanala west of Heuston Station has the
absolute minimum impact on residents and their homes while maintaining and preserving local communities, heritage and the environment.

Inchicore on Track requires that Irish Rail conduct an open and transparent consultation process that engages in a meaningful way with local communities.

Inchicore on Track Position Statement

The Inchicore Railway Estate

1. Inchicore on Track seeks the conservation, protection and enhancement of this unique place,
recognising it as a model of nineteenth century, sustainable development and urban planning
which has nourished a vibrant and close knit community. We support only those developments
and proposals that seek to sustain this into the future.

Integrated Public Transport

2. In recognition of the importance of integrated public transport, Inchicore on Track wants to see
the very best option chosen, one that promotes the greatest benefit and the least harm, an option in which the construction and operation of the Dart Underground would have the absolute minimum impact on heritage and the environment and the health, homes and lives of
residents.

The decision to consider the ‘Inchicore option’ was taken as recently as December 2008,
presented to the board of CIE in February 2009 and announced publicly in April 2009. We do
not believe that the period of time from late 2008 to April 2009 is sufficient for ALL the
alternatives to Heuston to have been examined. It appears that the only options examined were
those involving the use of land currently in the ownership of CIE. A project of such importance
should not be planned in such a hasty way.

Consultation Process

3. We require a serious and meaningful consultation process that is designed in conjunction with
local communities. We demand that Irish Rail recognises local communities and their
representative organisations, as stakeholders and partners in the environmental decision
making process and in any future developments in the area. We are dissatisfied with the partial,
drip feed of information and the burden put on residents to find out details of this project in a
painstaking and piecemeal fashion.

We demand that CIE and Irish Rail postpone their current target for a Railway Order application
until a real consultation process is established and all the options examined.

Alignment and Vent (Emergency Intervention Shaft)

4. The current proposed alignment is unacceptable because of the risk that is posed to people’s
homes, by tunnel boring works that are substantially closer to the ground level of properties
than is the case in any other part of the city. Most of these properties were built in the
nineteenth century and many have insubstantial foundations.

The position of the Emergency Intervention Shaft at Inchicore Road as part of this alignment is
unacceptable because we think the risk to homes and the disruption it would cause to people’s
lives, both during the construction and operational phases. We question the feasibility and
appropriateness of this location in a back garden in the event of an emergency or disaster
which may involve up to 1400 plus people. We request that Irish Rail give serious consideration
to other alternatives.

Portal and Construction Site

5. The current proposed location of the portal construction site in the heart of a residential area is
unacceptable because we think it would have an invasive, disruptive and detrimental impact on
the Inchicore Estate and the lives and health of its people during the construction and operational phases. A residential area is simply not suitable to host work of this scale and duration. This is compounded by the loss of amenities and green areas for local residents,
sports clubs and school. The quality of life of the residents would be severely compromised for
a period in excess of 5 years.

Station

6. The current proposed position of the station in the middle of an industrial complex is highly
questionable and would appear to be based on expedience and opportunism, rather than on
any audited or verifiable local transport requirements. It would be disconnected from Inchicore
village, would not provide sufficient public access and would most probably become a haven for
anti-social behaviour. We question whether it complies with internationally recognised best
practice for the provision of public transport.

We would support a station location in Inchicore that was chosen on the basis of local transport
needs and situated in such a way that it would not adversely affect the lives of local residents or
the existing dynamics of local communities,

Environmental Impact and Independent Advice

7. The environmental impact of this project is not known. We require that information relating to
the environmental impact assessment that is relevant to or touches upon our areas of concern
is passed on to Inchicore on Track as it becomes available.

We expect independent expert advice on technical aspects of the proposals such as the
alignment, the position of the portal and construction site, geology, tunnelling, railway engineering, the Heuston option, traffic management and other issues that might arise. The environmental impact statement should not issue, until such time as we have received this
advice and had the opportunity to participate in the assessment.

Funding for the Project/PPP and Future Development

8. We have grave concerns about the proposed funding for the project. The track record of the
use of public private partnerships to deliver major infrastructural projects in Ireland is mixed.
The current economic climate compounds the community’s anxiety around the deliverability of
such a project. Furthermore it is recognised that the failure of PPP’s has left real communities
in untenable situations for extended periods of time. We are aware that a successful Railway
Order application would give Irish Rail a ten- year window in which to commence the project.

We are concerned, given the current national economic and budgetary situation, that the community may have to live with an extended period of uncertainty and distress while awaiting the commencement of the project, should the Railway Order be granted. There is growing
recognition that the position and viability of the station only makes sense in the context of the
rezoning and development of the industrially zoned Works complex. That the provision of a station would be linked to a new PPP scheme to develop large portions of the Inchicore Railway Works or other lands in the ownership of CIE is extremely worrying. We require
assurance that this is not on CIE’s agenda.

Immediate and Ongoing Impact

9. The current proposal for the construction of the DART underground is already having a
detrimental impact on residents. In attempting to come to terms with the enormous impact of
this project, the huge information deficit and the urgent timeframe, very considerable time and
effort is being put in by residents in discussions, meetings and committees. Residents are
experiencing anxiety, stress, insecurity, invasion of their privacy and a negative impact on the
present value of their homes.

This situation could be significantly relieved by the immediate establishment of a formal and
effective consultation and participation process.

there’s a lot to be said for the Chinese way of doing things

since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?

@marmajam wrote:

define ‘single metro line’

Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen’s Green seem slightly less crazy.

@cgcsb wrote:

since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?

Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.

@cgcsb wrote:

since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?

there just isn’t enough space at Croker but a very elegant solution is coming in the medium term.
a station will be built west of cross gun’s bridge where the two lines are quite close (in between the 2 lines). this will enable interchange from any trains going into Docklands to the Connolly bound DARTs and will also serve as a station for Phibsboro (and Croke Pk)

@Peter Fitz wrote:

Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen’s Green seem slightly less crazy.

.

hmm, I see.
very very cunning.
So MN will tippytoe past Drumcondra so nobody spots it.
Then sneak past LUAS Red at O’Connell bridge to avoid having to collect any of the Tallaght-ban and,
viciously hide behind the trees in St Stephen’s Green so none of the Goys on the Green line even dream there is a connection.

Brilliant, Fitzy, even a genius would be pushed to come up with that.

@ac1976 wrote:

The following is the Position Statement of Inchicore on Track in regard Irish Rail Plan to extend the Dart Undergorund project to Inchicore from Heuston Station:

…The current proposed location of the portal construction site in the heart of a residential area is
unacceptable because we think it would have an invasive, disruptive and detrimental impact on
the Inchicore Estate and the lives and health of its people during the construction and operational phases. A residential area is simply not suitable to host work of this scale and duration. This is compounded by the loss of amenities and green areas for local residents,
sports clubs and school. The quality of life of the residents would be severely compromised for
a period in excess of 5 years.

This diagram of the inchicore station seems to show the tunnel entrance in the centre of the industrial estate.
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/20A%20Proposed%20Layout%20of%20Completed%20Station%20at%20Inchicore.pdf

I would have thought it would be a great boon to inchicore to have a local dart station giving them a frequent fast link to the south city centre and along the bay to howth/malahide. I’d imagine IE’s long term plan is to move all the industrial train sheds to portlaoise and construct a new town on site in a decade’s time. Perhaps this is what you fear. I’d prefer to live next to a bustling suburban centre rather than a huge railway maintenance yard.

@marmajam wrote:

there just isn’t enough space at Croker but a very elegant solution is coming in the medium term.
a station will be built west of cross gun’s bridge where the two lines are quite close (in between the 2 lines). this will enable interchange from any trains going into Docklands to the Connolly bound DARTs and will also serve as a station for Phibsboro (and Croke Pk)

😮 where have you obtained this information from. Yes I agree there’s very little space at Croker but it is still technically possibe and having a station at the stadium will help reduce traffic in the area (considering not a single solitary bus route passes the stadium). Also imagine the revenue IÉ can get on match days $$$$$$$$$

@cgcsb wrote:

😮 where have you obtained this information from. Yes I agree there’s very little space at Croker but it is still technically possibe and having a station at the stadium will help reduce traffic in the area (considering not a single solitary bus route passes the stadium). Also imagine the revenue IÉ can get on match days $$$$$$$$$

Saw a report that although it was feasible to build a station at Croker, there was the worry re safety/crowds with very limited space. They toyed with fitting one in further west between Croker and Phibsboro but the issue here was the roads were too narrow already without fitting a station entrance in. So the obvious answer was west of Gunn’s Cross to straddle a point where the 2 lines were close – this is included as part of DCC’S development plan for Phibsboro.
anyway Drumcondra stn is very close to Croker and with a high frequency service and park and rides in Pace and Maynooth surely this will become the gateway to Croker for fans from the West and the NW.

@Peter Fitz wrote:

Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen’s Green seem slightly less crazy.

Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.

Totally agree

It is very recent angle being spun, lets milk the full potential of the interconnector derived new capacity to make a glorified Luas line seem like the central spine of the network.

If a passenger lived in Drumcondra and were offered a four stop solution to Stepens Green of Course they would use it; if the same passenger were offered an interchange at Spencer Dock to the airport of course they would use it.

The only difference between MN and Interconnector is that MN at a cost of c€2bn stops at DCU, Ballymun and Swords whereas full implementation of the 2003 IE Dublin rail plan element to the Airport would add €200-300m, to build a spur through Lissenhall to Swords extending Malahide Dart would add maybe €150m and on top of a higher capacity solution would give the same park and ride options as well as a route into the open country of North County Dublin.

What is the fixation with Metro North?

DCU Student population c8,000
Ballymun population less than 20,000

You need at least five stations on 10m p.a.x. or else 50-60 stations to make a €2bn expenditure stack up; look at the Port tunnel it cost €800m and took virtually all HGV’s ouut of the city centre. The top slice of this project of at least €1,550m serves 8,000 students, 20,000 people in Ballymun and 3-bed semi land in Griffith Ave.

A full grade seperation north of Malahide would stop Darts crossing on the northern line; adding even more capacity; Swords could have Dart!

airport abolished I C.

demolished for aggregate on the grade sepAration north of Malahide I guess 😀

If you studied the 2003 plan you would know that the Airport connection broke south of Malahide call it spur 1 – it could terminate at Terminal 2 access to which is not difficult as it wouldn’t need to cross runways etc.

A Swords extension from the existing line would break north of Broadmeadow Estuary and simply involve existing services going through 2kms of open country before taking the proposed MN alignment back onto the edge of Swords say just in from Seatown roundabout

Hmm… while this is probably useless speculation at best, would there be any possible way we could’ve had the two proposed DART lines and perhaps a third one making use of existing lines plus newly constructed spurs to replace the more important parts of the MN route (like the airport).

The Airport section has been costed by I.E. at least as recently as 2003

Connecting Swords is as you rightly point out entirely speculative but given the short distance between an existing rail line and the proposed MN routing filling in the blanks should be easy enough on the basis of

1. Clear route
2. Proven alignment back to Swords
3. Simply removing Malahide Darts from Northern line in a slight route extension.

Excluding the Airport there is nothing North of Drumcondra that would stretch a Luas line in terms of passenger demand

Hmm… would it have ever have been feasible to have a branch (in tunnel) from St.Stephen’s Green roughly following the Metro North alignment up to Drumcondra and then some kind of tie-in to the proposed DART line there?

Ciaran Cuffe in the late 1990’s talked about a branch from Sandymount to Liffey Junction (just beyond Phibsboro) as the issue to be resolved was the blockage of the loopline with extended Maynooth and Drogheda services; that was pre-interconnector. The reality is that you would depending on where the interconnector portalls are located route Heuston – Spencer Dock – Phibsboro utilising the proposed Interconnector tunnel. The question is do the portalls hit surface before the the northern spur from the freight lines breaks from the connection to the Drumcondra branch i.e. the branch that runs along the railway end of croke park (the canal branch being the southern of two lines that goes to Liffey Junction)

The real cost of MN are the additional stations at Stephens Green, O’C st, Mater etc. Building underground stations are seriously expensive which makes that alignment hard to justify; that is why I think it is easy enough to Justify

Heuston – Interchange with National Rail for the West, Midlands and South
Christchurch – Civic District – Legal and Dublin City Council
Stephens Green – Interchange with Luas – Retail Core – Major Office hub
Pearse – Interchange with DART – TCD
Spencer Dock – Interchange Red Luas & National Rail – Major Office Hub – Development Land Bank

The train spotter congregation are the stragglers from Platform11 who tbh secretly wanted to run CIE as an ultimate form of train spottering and turned themselves into stalkers hassling CIE/IE with grandiose phantasms of running rail ,lines past everybody’s front gate, up mountains and under the 7 seas etc.
Tired of listening to their guff IE has taken to ignoring them, they have work to do for god’s sake, so the P11 sect has taken to the DART underground as the grand unified theory of Dublin transport.
8th wonder of the world an all as it will be, even allowing that most of it is flanked on one side by the blue beyond and difficult to develop their fetish for nice real trains blinds them to the bigger picture of rational rail infrastructure for Dubland.
Both MN and the IC are essential and they will go ahead so be patient and just get on with polishing your garden shed train sets in the meantime.
The spur to the airport will also be built but not yet.
More entertaining is the PVC fixation with defending Christendom against MN and all it’s works.
What’s gone wrong here is that the economics of the property market is being shoe-horned into the question of public transport infrastructure.
Understandable given that, losing the run of themselves during the celtic tiger they embarked on a mad experiment of sending the property market down a sort of Large Hadron Economic Collider.
Out of which all that’s being seen now for some time are a few puffs of smoke.
Talk about black holes.
Their only interest is any short term stimulus of the economy. It’s like a shipwreck survivor trying to put a 2nd and 3rd lifebelt on instead of striking our for shore.
This mindset got us to where we are now. A city of 2nd world public transport infrastructure, while 100s of cities worldwide continue to outstrip us.

@marmajam wrote:

hmm, I see.
very very cunning.
So MN will tippytoe past Drumcondra so nobody spots it.
Then sneak past LUAS Red at O’Connell bridge to avoid having to collect any of the Tallaght-ban and,
viciously hide behind the trees in St Stephen’s Green so none of the Goys on the Green line even dream there is a connection.

You obviously don’t see an issue with city centre termini, i hope you have nothing to do with transport planning.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

This diagram of the inchicore station seems to show the tunnel entrance in the centre of the industrial estate.
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/20A%20Proposed%20Layout%20of%20Completed%20Station%20at%20Inchicore.pdf

I would have thought it would be a great boon to inchicore to have a local dart station giving them a frequent fast link to the south city centre and along the bay to howth/malahide. I’d imagine IE’s long term plan is to move all the industrial train sheds to portlaoise and construct a new town on site in a decade’s time. Perhaps this is what you fear. I’d prefer to live next to a bustling suburban centre rather than a huge railway maintenance yard.

Hi Frank,
I am not a member of Inchicore On Track who issued that statement, so I can only speak for myslef.

The proposed station location in the Inchicore Works is at the very edge of Inchicore and is disconnected with the village and the community. It’s surrounded by a few streets of housing so its catchement area is minimal (which is actually where then Inchicore On Track group are representing).

In case you haven’t ever noticed Inchicore Village itself is not exactly over developed and in need of any counter-balance.

The porposed station would damage the village and the community around it.
The local community of Inchicore Bluebell and Kilmainham is already fragmented and this would make it worse on top of detracting investment and oppertunity from the village core.

There has been a lot of work done by DCC and studies commisioned from the Kilmainham Area Office of DCC to try and address the fragmentation and delapadation of the Village.
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/StrengthingCommunitiesMakingSpaces.pdf
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Kilmainham_Area_Plan.pdf

I am just concerned that the current proposal would be damaging to the local area and would hinder the development plans for it.

It’s also quite obvious that this is a second rate plan for the area and not to the same standard at the other new stations and does nothing to enhance the local area.

I dare say, if Ryanair were building the Interconnector perhaps this is the kind of location you would expect them to propose i.e. Inchicore Stop 1km outside of Inchicore Village, kinda like having the Heuston station stop in the Phoenix Park, lovely for sightseeing but not very practical for intercity travel.

There is also the anti-social issue you might expect to find at the proposed location due to it being disconnected with the village and long-lane access. This would not do much good for the image of Inchicore and would reinforce the second rate plan for a second rate area image.

@Peter Fitz wrote:

You obviously don’t see an issue with city centre termini, i hope you have nothing to do with transport planning.

just for that I’m cancelling the interconnector indefinitely and using the money to build a 2nd metro line from Galway to Inishmore.

Hmm… the Inchicore Station location does strike me as a bit odd. But what alternatives could be used? Could a cut-and-cover station be considered?

AC1976

I know your estate it is a very intact vernacular set piece; something that is quite rare and definitely worthy of preservation. I do not however accept that developing a medium density planned scheme on the CIE works is incompatable with retaining the character of where you live. I would offer two different reasons

1. Havelock Square D4 has seen two quite sizeable developments done on either side firstly Liam Carroll’s masterpiece conversion of the gas cylender and secondly Landsdowne Rd stadium. The locals are far from complaining once the disturbance phase ended on the former gas site and will complain more about concerts thereafter than the structure!

2. Inchicore works are a Sevesco site one of very few outside port areas in Ireland.

Yes there will be construction distrubance for a decade but the quality of life will be ultimately much higher once you gain access to both a great public transport link and buckets of public open space in the redeveloped Sevesco site. You will find a much better retail and community offer in a redevelopment than Kilmainham will ever get organically as Kilmainham will always be that little bit bohemian.

@marmjam wrote:

just for that I’m cancelling the interconnector indefinitely and using the money to build a 2nd metro line from Galway to Inishmore.

😀 Don’t forget to terminate it at eyre square now won’t ya !

@ac1976 wrote:

Hi Frank,
I am not a member of Inchicore On Track who issued that statement, so I can only speak for myslef.

The proposed station location in the Inchicore Works is at the very edge of Inchicore and is disconnected with the village and the community. It’s surrounded by a few streets of housing so its catchement area is minimal (which is actually where then Inchicore On Track group are representing).

In case you haven’t ever noticed Inchicore Village itself is not exactly over developed and in need of any counter-balance.

The porposed station would damage the village and the community around it.
The local community of Inchicore Bluebell and Kilmainham is already fragmented and this would make it worse on top of detracting investment and oppertunity from the village core.

There has been a lot of work done by DCC and studies commisioned from the Kilmainham Area Office of DCC to try and address the fragmentation and delapadation of the Village.
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/StrengthingCommunitiesMakingSpaces.pdf
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Kilmainham_Area_Plan.pdf

I am just concerned that the current proposal would be damaging to the local area and would hinder the development plans for it.

It’s also quite obvious that this is a second rate plan for the area and not to the same standard at the other new stations and does nothing to enhance the local area.

I dare say, if Ryanair were building the Interconnector perhaps this is the kind of location you would expect them to propose i.e. Inchicore Stop 1km outside of Inchicore Village, kinda like having the Heuston station stop in the Phoenix Park, lovely for sightseeing but not very practical for intercity travel.

There is also the anti-social issue you might expect to find at the proposed location due to it being disconnected with the village and long-lane access. This would not do much good for the image of Inchicore and would reinforce the second rate plan for a second rate area image.

Wasn’t the LUAS ran through James’ hospital coz the yokels didn’t want it going through Inchicore village as well , in hindsight, how blinkered was that? second rate indeed.

@tommyt wrote:

Wasn’t the LUAS ran through James’ hospital coz the yokels didn’t want it going through Inchicore village as well , in hindsight, how blinkered was that? second rate indeed.

Ah, I think that still a sore point in the area, but I beleive it was local business interests that were against it. During the consultation process the Luas route through the village was selected, but later scrapped and a route that wasnt even one of the options in the consulation was chosen after lobbying by local businesses, not sure of the specifics.

@PVC King wrote:

AC1976

I know your estate it is a very intact vernacular set piece; something that is quite rare and definitely worthy of preservation. I do not however accept that developing a medium density planned scheme on the CIE works is incompatable with retaining the character of where you live. I would offer two different reasons

1. Havelock Square D4 has seen two quite sizeable developments done on either side firstly Liam Carroll’s masterpiece conversion of the gas cylender and secondly Landsdowne Rd stadium. The locals are far from complaining once the disturbance phase ended on the former gas site and will complain more about concerts thereafter than the structure!

2. Inchicore works are a Sevesco site one of very few outside port areas in Ireland.

Yes there will be construction distrubance for a decade but the quality of life will be ultimately much higher once you gain access to both a great public transport link and buckets of public open space in the redeveloped Sevesco site. You will find a much better retail and community offer in a redevelopment than Kilmainham will ever get organically as Kilmainham will always be that little bit bohemian.

Well I dont actually live in that estate, I live in Kilmainham I was just sharing that statement from the group as it seems to be fairly well thought out and comprehensive.

However this is a Public Transport Plan and not a local development plan (which already exists) I think the station location should be chosen to provide the optimum catchment area within the confines of the tunnnel route, and there is no reason why there should be any negative long term consequences on the local area.

A station in the village (perhaps under Grattan Park, cut-and-cover) would still serve the Inchicore Works so would not prevent IR from re-developing their lands. But would have the advantage of enhancing the village core.

The plan has a massive (and controversial) Intervention Shaft (Emergency Escape) close to the village in somebodys back garden, so basically if you move this shaft a few hundred meters south and add on 2 platforms you have a underground station within the village for minimal cost.
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/31A%20Intervention%20Shaft%20Layout%20at%20Memorial%20Road.pdf

I am just concerned that the current proposal could be unnecessarily damaging to the local area and community.

@ac1976 wrote:

Hi Frank,
I am not a member of Inchicore On Track who issued that statement, so I can only speak for myslef.

The proposed station location in the Inchicore Works is at the very edge of Inchicore and is disconnected with the village and the community. It’s surrounded by a few streets of housing so its catchement area is minimal (which is actually where then Inchicore On Track group are representing).

In case you haven’t ever noticed Inchicore Village itself is not exactly over developed and in need of any counter-balance.

I imagine the reason for placing the station in the industrial site is partly to avoid objections due to disturbance during construction and partly to own the surrounding development land to make a new, denser suburb. Would there not be more objecion still from locals if a station were sited in the village? Did Kilmainham residents not mount a very successful campaign against having the luas routed through their district?

The porposed station would damage the village and the community around it.
The local community of Inchicore Bluebell and Kilmainham is already fragmented and this would make it worse on top of detracting investment and oppertunity from the village core.

But the station is not in the village, so how can it detract from the village? Do you mean it will draw people away from the village?

There has been a lot of work done by DCC and studies commisioned from the Kilmainham Area Office of DCC to try and address the fragmentation and delapadation of the Village.
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/StrengthingCommunitiesMakingSpaces.pdf
http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Kilmainham_Area_Plan.pdf

Thanks for posting them they were very interesting. I think a new rail line will make the village attract new working residents and this will be accompanied by commercial investment in the area.

I am just concerned that the current proposal would be damaging to the local area and would hinder the development plans for it.

I think it’s te basis for a new suburb 15-20 years down the road. And there’s no problem having one suburb next to another. After all that’s what a city is. Rathgar didn’t destroy Rathmines. Terenure didn’t detract from Rathgar. Rathfarnham didn’t oblliterate Terenure and so on.

There is also the anti-social issue you might expect to find at the proposed location due to it being disconnected with the village and long-lane access. This would not do much good for the image of Inchicore and would reinforce the second rate plan for a second rate area image.

One thing it will do it bring inchicore in contact with ballyfermot. Maybe this is upsetting people?

In any case, ac1976 what do you think Irish Rail should do?

Not stop at inchicore?
Mine a station under inchicore village and redevelop the village as in the city plans?
something else?

Frank, see my reply just posted above to PVC King

Basically I’m not against IR’s plans for the Works site, but a station in the village would server this site too anyway
I think it would be great too see plans for a new suburban quarter at the Works Site in Inchicore.

For me the preferance would be to shift the Intervention shaft from memorial road, a couple hundred meters south to Grattan Crescent add on 2 platforms and Bob’s your station, minimal cost, cut-and-cover from Grattan Park which is is a state of decay anyway and located within the village core on the other side of the Railway Estate.

The reason they can deliver a station at the works is that they own what will be a completely clear piece of land. There are no issues of having to acquire the land and go through the CPO process compensating each individual landowner.

The opportunity this offers is public transport c10 -15 minutes walk from Kilmainham Village and a large development site to create a new urban quarter that provides additional passenger loadings for the system.

25 Years after Dart came to Dublin it seems it is now coming close to Kilmainham

@PVC King wrote:

The reason they can deliver a station at the works is that they own what will be a completely clear piece of land. There are no issues of having to acquire the land and go through the CPO process compensating each individual landowner.

The opportunity this offers is public transport c10 -15 minutes walk from Kilmainham Village and a large development site to create a new urban quarter that provides additional passenger loadings for the system.

25 Years after Dart came to Dublin it seems it is now coming close to Kilmainham

I’m not convinced, that is definitely the reason they are locating the surface turnback facility at the Inchicore Works.

To move the Intervention shaft and build a station under Grattan Park would actually remove the need to CPO someones back garden and a part of an office carpark.
So the current proposal has not exactly been concerned with CPO’ing.
Grattan Park is owned by DCC and would be reinstated anyway.

The other point u make about a new urban quarter I am also not convinced of.
The Inchicore works is quite large, but will also host a large turnback facility as well as the kildare line it links to and the tunnel portal. I dont think there will be a lot of room left to develope anything great or significant there.
I am sceptical and I think that IR really want to develop land at Heuston and are dumping the turnback in Inchicore so they can develop the land at Heuston and not in Inchicore.
They already have plans for this that a surface turnback facility would have ruined, as well as ruining their staff carpark (have a look at heuston on google maps and you will see the enormous carpark
The map of this is below, and includs the infamous Arc to the Park!
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/FrameworkDevelopmentPlans/Documents/CIE_DEV_FRAMEWORK%20PLAN_tcm35-13602.pdf
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/FrameworkDevelopmentPlans/Pages/Heuston.aspx

Of course I could be wrong and then again so could you, as IR have not stated what development they have in mind for the site.
I think it would be bad planning to decide on a new DART station location based on a development plan that simply doesn’t exist and ignore all the plans that do already exist!

Oh and just on a sidenote, as far as being close to Kilmainham, Heuston Station is closer anyway 5-10 mins depending on where in Kilmainham u live. My concern is the potential negative impact of a bad plan could have on the area, which I hope consultation with IR will address anyway.

Inchicore is good for it…

I see the DART happening before anything at Heuston…
Building over existing tracks is not cheap…
And you think the developers will have to pay for it… which means mega height and long planning appeals… unless they don’t pay for the land…
The gripe I have with the interconnector is Connolly missing out on the action…
Unless this is a long term plan? Just how contaminated can the whole area be?
Is custom house contaminated?

Article on funding for MN and Interconnector which would be helped by the EU INvestment bank..http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0724/1224251231691.html

@layo wrote:

Article on funding for MN and Interconnector which would be helped by the EU INvestment bank..http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0724/1224251231691.html

Interesting timing as only yesterday the NTMA published its annual report stating:

The DART Underground urban rail project was the most significant infrastructure
project referred to the NDFA for financial advice in 2008. Córas Iompair Éireann
(CIE) is the procurement body for this project. During 2008 the NDFA also
provided financial advice on Metro North, Motorway Service Areas, Thornton Hall
Prison and a number of projects in the waste and water sectors.
http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2009/AnnualReportPressRelease230709.pdf

I guess the advice back from NTMA was that they have no money left after bailing out the banks and go ask the EU.

Lets hope the EU Investment bank will give us the money for all the other projects too, that might be ok for Metro North, but could be a problem getting money to invest in Thornton Hall as these loans are given on commercial terms.

@missarchi wrote:

Inchicore is good for it…

I see the DART happening before anything at Heuston…
Building over existing tracks is not cheap…
And you think the developers will have to pay for it… which means mega height and long planning appeals… unless they don’t pay for the land…

The have penciled in 20 Stories as the height of one of the buildings
And that was the council so I think there is excellent opportunity there to build something of high density and the road/walkway and arc to the park over the tracks is a great idea.
There is already permission for Irelands tallest building beside Heuston, however its not gonna be built for now but does set a precident for planners, and Pleanala has already been involved and has cleared it based on the councils Heuston development plan:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/FrameworkDevelopmentPlans/Pages/Heuston.aspx

Building Heights in the Heuston Area:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/FrameworkDevelopmentPlans/Documents/HTN_BUILDING%20HEIGHT%20PLAN_tcm35-13601.pdf

As for your “Inchicore is go for it…”
Hmmm, well I do kind of agree, but only that the Inchicore Works is good for dumping the turnback as the site there is ideal for it. But they could still have a better station location, and at minimal cost and giving better value etc etc, that’s my mantra now.

@ac1976 wrote:

I’m not convinced, that is definitely the reason they are locating the surface turnback facility at the Inchicore Works.

To move the Intervention shaft and build a station under Grattan Park would actually remove the need to CPO someones back garden and a part of an office carpark.
So the current proposal has not exactly been concerned with CPO’ing.
Grattan Park is owned by DCC and would be reinstated anyway.

You would need to CPO ground under a lot of ownerships to do a station in Grattan Park; I’m not saying that if it were greenfield you were talking about that it wouldn’t be the thing to do but diverting the alignment is not the real answer.

I also don’t agree that all you would get at Inchicore works is a turnback look at the link below in aeriel mode

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=queens+park&countryCode=GB#map=53.33908,-6.33085|17|32&bd=useful_information&loc=IE:53.34087:-6.33091:14|inchicore|Inchicore, County Dublin

There is buckets of room and the adjoining ownerships are all low bay 1980’s industrial buildings which are reaching the end of their useful functional life which is perfect development land as the land is already serviced.

It’s obvious that the ideal location for the Inchicore turnback and Dart station is in the Inchicore Works. The Inchicore Works is run down, under utilised and in the medium term any of the operations currently carried on there will be moved outside of Dublin, at which stage it will be a perfect blank canvass for a new suburban quarter. It could be developed very tastefully.

Who do these “Inchicore on Track” people think they are !? Sounds to me like a group of NIMBYs.

@ac1976 wrote:

The proposed station location in the Inchicore Works is at the very edge of Inchicore and is disconnected with the village and the community. It’s surrounded by a few streets of housing so its catchement area is minimal (which is actually where then Inchicore On Track group are representing).

Ac1976: For the record, the catchement area for the proposed station in the Inchicore Works is huge and includes Inchicore, Bluebell, Ballyfermot and Kilmainham. The “Inchicore on Track” group certainly do not represent the catchement area of the Incicore Station. It seems to me that “Inchicore on Track” only represents some (not even all) of the people who live in the CIE Estate.

@Linog wrote:

It’s obvious that the ideal location for the Inchicore turnback and Dart station is in the Inchicore Works. The Inchicore Works is run down, under utilised and in the medium term any of the operations currently carried on there will be moved outside of Dublin, at which stage it will be a perfect blank canvass for a new suburban quarter. It could be developed very tastefully.

Who do these “Inchicore on Track” people think they are !? Sounds to me like a group of NIMBYs.

Au contraire Linog, its obvious that the ideal location for a station in Inchicore would be in the center of the village. Which is close enough to serve a redeveloped Inchicore Works site, however Irish Rail have stated that they intend on reconfiguring the site and keeping some of its existing function.
There is NO plan to create any new urban quarter here, and a station location in the village would not stop this for happening anyway.

In fact there is no need for the interconnector to even go to Inchicore to redevelop the works site as the main Kildare line runs throught it anyway, they could open a station there tomorrow if they wanted. But the fact is the Inchicore Works site was chosen to avoid loosing prime development space at Heuston and NOT to develop the works site.

I dont understand why you would think that the Inchicore Works is the ideal location, it makes no sense at all especially as it is well under 1km to the center of the village.

and another point u make is that the catchment area includs Kilmainham, but this is NOT true as most of Kilmainham is closer on foot to Heuston station than the proposed station location at the Inchicore Works.
This would make the whole area less integrated and would be damaging to the area.
And this is all not necessary.

I really can’t see how u think a village location for the station would not be ideal and why u would think it would affect the development potential of the works site is just not logical, it would be a perfect location for a redeveloped works site. There is the potential there for a small new high density urban quarter and one of the main attractions of it is that there is an existing village, community and associated services on its dorrstep.

The wrong thing to do, and disastrous planning would be to unnecissarily damage the existing community by choosing a station location for invalid reasons.

@Linog wrote:

Who do these “Inchicore on Track” people think they are !? Sounds to me like a group of NIMBYs.

Thats a strange comment as I think most groups would welcome a dart station in their back yards, however locals can see that there are issuse with the proposed location that make it far from ideal and instead of putting their own interests first they have consulted with and expressed the views of the wider community.

Its also worth noting that they have not actually proposed where the station should be located, other than that the current proposed location is not suitable and does not seem to follow best practice.

That does not sound like NIMBYism to me.

@ac1976 wrote:

Au contraire Linog, its obvious that the ideal location for a station in Inchicore would be in the center of the village. Which is close enough to serve a redeveloped Inchicore Works site, however Irish Rail have stated that they intend on reconfiguring the site and keeping some of its existing function.
There is NO plan to create any new urban quarter here, and a station location in the village would not stop this for happening anyway.

In fact there is no need for the interconnector to even go to Inchicore to redevelop the works site as the main Kildare line runs throught it anyway, they could open a station there tomorrow if they wanted. But the fact is the Inchicore Works site was chosen to avoid loosing prime development space at Heuston and NOT to develop the works site.

I dont understand why you would think that the Inchicore Works is the ideal location, it makes no sense at all especially as it is well under 1km to the center of the village.

and another point u make is that the catchment area includs Kilmainham, but this is NOT true as most of Kilmainham is closer on foot to Heuston station than the proposed station location at the Inchicore Works.
This would make the whole area less integrated and would be damaging to the area.
And this is all not necessary.

I really can’t see how u think a village location for the station would not be ideal and why u would think it would affect the development potential of the works site is just not logical, it would be a perfect location for a redeveloped works site. There is the potential there for a small new high density urban quarter and one of the main attractions of it is that there is an existing village, community and associated services on its dorrstep.

The wrong thing to do, and disastrous planning would be to unnecissarily damage the existing community by choosing a station location for invalid reasons.

no it was not.

it was chosen to bring the tunnel beyond the 3 track bottleneck between Heuston Stn and Inchicore. A bottleneck diffcult to eliminate for engineering reasons.

from that we can deduce that you’re spoofing off the top of your head.

I don’t see a train depot of that massive scale being there in the long term 30-50 years.
If I had a nice house in Kilmainiam I would be pissed of two but everyone needs access to train lines so something is going to give… An urban quarter should be good for it…

[q

@ac1976 wrote:

Thats a strange comment as I think most groups would welcome a dart station in their back yards, however locals can see that there are issuse with the proposed location that make it far from ideal and instead of putting their own interests first they have consulted with and expressed the views of the wider community.

Its also worth noting that they have not actually proposed where the station should be located, other than that the current proposed location is not suitable and does not seem to follow best practice.

That does not sound like NIMBYism to me.

Could you specify the geographic area of this “wider community” that Inchicore on Track have supposedly consulted ? I’d ve very surprised if they have consulted with even a tiny part of the catchement area of the station. The catchement area of the station is Inchicore, Ballyfermott, Bluebell and parts of Kilmainham. I’ve read that statement you posted from Inchicore on Track and it’s obvious the agenda of the local yokels in Inchicore on Track is to protest about disruption a few of them will suffer during the construction phase of the portal and turnback facility. That’s NIMBYism at its highest !

I saw that ac1976

you barely escaped with your life there

@missarchi wrote:

I don’t see a train depot of that massive scale being there in the long term 30-50 years.
If I had a nice house in Kilmainiam I would be pissed of two but everyone needs access to train lines so something is going to give… An urban quarter should be good for it…

pissed of two?

no need to get obscene

Am I way off in thinking that it would have been nice for the interconnector to split and hook round to the northside at Heuston? Having stations at Smithfield, to help the regeneration there, and maybe IFSC and National College of Ireland before meeting back up with the line at the Docklands station?

Obviously it’s not going to happen but it just seems a shame.

@Yixian wrote:

Am I way off in thinking that it would have been nice for the interconnector to split and hook round to the northside at Heuston? Having stations at Smithfield, to help the regeneration there, and maybe IFSC and National College of Ireland before meeting back up with the line at the Docklands station?

Obviously it’s not going to happen but it just seems a shame.

Yeah it would be good but not going to happen. The other thing is that they could have helped smithfield when they put the Luas in. They didn’t really “connect” the open space of smithfield with the Luas stop.
I spend a lot of time in that area as I’m in the legal profession, but there is nothing in Smithfield. I’d love a good place to go for lunch but there’s really nothing there. It’s like a ghost-town, and I think it’s partially to do with the surrounding area (it really is a dump just across the road to the north) and to do with access to smithfield from the Luas.

@Yixian wrote:

Am I way off in thinking that it would have been nice for the interconnector to split and hook round to the northside at Heuston? Having stations at Smithfield, to help the regeneration there, and maybe IFSC and National College of Ireland before meeting back up with the line at the Docklands station?

Obviously it’s not going to happen but it just seems a shame.

well the proposed Dart station in the Docklands is not far from the IFSC. Well within walking distance. The proposed station at Christchurch is a great location for those travelling to templebar and the four courts area

If the tunnel was moved further north, it’d end up mimicing the red luas line. That’s a bit of a needless duplication of services. addind places that are not already served to the network would benefit more people. Keep in mind there are alredy luas services at smithfeild and IFSC

So they think application next year…

Christchurch Monday, 23rd November 09 The Atrium, Dublin City Council Offices, Wood Quay, D2

Docklands/East Wall Thursday, 26th November 09 Sean 0’Casey Community Centre, St Mary’s Road, East Wall, D3

Heuston Station/Inchicore Tuesday, 1st December 09 K1 Venue, Hilton Hotel, Inchicore Road, Kilmainham, D8

Pearse St. area/ St. Stephens Green Thursday, 3rd December 09 Alexander Hotel, Fenian Street, off Merrion Square, D2

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/dart_underground.asp
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1123/dart.html

Some more and some of the same from the Independent today.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/underground-dart-plans-on–rack-despite-euro3bn-price-tag-1951942.html

IARNROD Eireann will seek planning permission early next year to build an underground DART line in Dublin costing up to €3bn.

The proposed new line would run from the Docklands to Inchicore. Capacity would be 20 trains in each direction per hour, potentially allowing 64,000 commuters to use the line every 60 minutes.

…

Five of the six stations on the 7.5km line would be constructed below ground, with an overground station at Inchicore.

The planned underground stations are located at Heuston, Christchurch, St Stephen’s Green, Pearse Street and Docklands, and all are being designed to cater for a capacity of 60,000 people an hour to facilitate the future growth of the capital’s transport service.

The company said the station entrances are being designed as “distinctive identifiable landmark structures”, and that natural lighting would be used where possible.

…

Work would begin in 2011 and should be completed by 2016.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1229/1224261353133.html?via=mr

Dart line to be split to make way for underground

OLIVIA KELLY

DUBLIN’S DART line, which has carried passengers from Howth to Bray for 25 years, is to be severed following construction of the Dart Underground, Iarnród Éireann has confirmed.

The company will next March seek a railway order to construct the new Dart line, which will run underground from the Docklands to Heuston Station and Inchicore via St Stephen’s Green.

The underground line, due to open in 2015, will result in the current north-south Dart line being split in two.

Currently Dart trains run from Howth on the north coast of Dublin to Greystones, south of Bray, Co Wicklow, with city centre stops at Connolly, Tara Street and Pearse stations.

Once the underground line is built, passengers travelling from the north side will no longer have direct access to Connolly or Tara Street stations. Their Dart will run as normal to Clontarf Road, but will then enter a tunnel at East Wall and continue to underground stations at Docklands, Pearse, St Stephen’s Green, Christchurch, Heuston, and emerging at a surface station at Inchicore.

Passengers heading south will have to change at Pearse to return to the current Dart route.

Southside passengers travelling into the city will still have access to Pearse, Tara Street and Connolly stations. However, after passing through Connolly, their train will turn west, through Drumcondra and out to Maynooth in Co Kildare. To head north on the current Dart line, they also will have to change at Pearse Station.

Presenting the proposed lines to a recent meeting of Dublin city councillors, Dart underground project manager Peter Muldoon said the severing of the current Dart line would not affect journey times.

“If you are going from one side of the city to the other, you will have to change trains; just like every other major city. We hope to have one train every five or six minutes, so the time from leaving your house to arriving at work will not be adversely affected,” he added.

Capacity constraints at Connolly Station meant it was not feasible to construct the underground line from Connolly to Heuston stations and preserve the existing north-south Dart line.

“We have a major capacity problem with the tracks coming into Dublin,” Mr Muldoon said. “There are a huge number of tracks coming into Connolly and only one track coming out.”

The current line capacity at Connolly meant that extra trains could not be added to improve the frequency of the service, he said. The changes would allow a far greater number of trains to move through the city and would ensure passengers had a fully integrated public transport system, which brought them quickly to their destinations.

“This proposal takes people where they want to go – the Docklands and the south inner city. Merely transferring people between Heuston and Connolly doesn’t take people where they want to go,” Mr Muldoon said.

Iarnród Éireann will begin a new round of public consultation on the line and the proposed stations in the new year before it seeks a railway order, for permission to undertake the project, next March

Does that mean no more bridge?
The end of Tara St Station?
The north wall boom con bust?
You would still have to assume its faster for people to hoop of at Connolly and walk to con if that was even possible than change to metro north…
What levies where paid by developments at docklands and ISFC?

Looking forward to this one.

Thats a bit of a bummer for Northside DART passangers if they want to access the Northside of the City Center.

I work for a Financial Services Company in D1 and a lot of colleagues use the DART to commute into Connolly. I expect they will use the bus if they cant access Connolly or Tara St.

I quote Mr Muldoon “This proposal takes people where they want to go – the Docklands and the south inner city”, but what if you want to go from the Northside to the North City Center?

Another quote from Mr Muldoon “If you are going from one side of the city to the other, you will have to change trains”, thats only true for southsiders! For a Northsider u need to change train to get to the northside of the city center! And if you dont you will be brought to the southside of the city center!
Is that not a little crazy? Is that what they do in other cities?

It also seems very strange that Southside commuters are brought to tara st and connolly (as well as Pearse), while northside commuters to Stephens Green, as a Dub that just seems wierd to me. I cant image anybody would sit down and plan these connections in a rational way! What gives?

A simple solution would be to have outer suburban trains from Drogheda stop at Clontarf Rd en route to Barrow Street; problem solved zero cost. I sense a northsider conspiracy giving nartciders access to the Green and Southsiders access to Drumcoundra; is this a plot to increase GAA levels in Dalkey?

ac1976 are you serious? Access to north side city centre?

I understand your point but i think you’re wrong and fixated on the benifit of direct access to the area within walking distance of Connolly. If northside movement wants to access the Connolly st. district then they can:
(1) walk from docklands or Stephens Green or Pearse stations. (all close)
(2) use dublin bikes
(3) use the luas line from docklands stop (easier when integrated ticketing arrives) which lands them slap bang on OCS etc.

There is no issue at all. Instead huge benifits for northside dart commuters. Direct access to Stephens Green district, Templebar/Thomas street (thanks to Christchurch stop) and direct connection to Heuston ( with rail links to Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny……)

@ac1976 wrote:

It also seems very strange that Southside commuters are brought to tara st and connolly (as well as Pearse), while northside commuters to Stephens Green, as a Dub that just seems wierd to me. I cant image anybody would sit down and plan these connections in a rational way! What gives?

One result of the interconnector (if it’s ever built) would be to allow for greatly increased frequency on DART routes. Increased frequency means shorter journey times to compensate for having to change train on certain journeys.

There are bound to be losers as a result of any huge infrastructure project. The guy who lives in Killester and works in Irish Life may be displeased that he has to change at pearse but the question is whether more people are served than inconvenienced. This project is expected to generate an additional 66 million passenger journeys a year – three times the current DART passenger numbers. Is it right to deny a huge number of additional passengers this service because some of the existing passengers would be inconvenienced?

Unfortunately many politicians would side with the complainers so I’m sure ac1976 will find willing support from local representatives. There are more votes from stirring up fear than offering something new. How is your camnpaign going to prevent the interconnector from stopping in Inchicore? Will it be as successful as the previous campaign that led to the luas being rerouted away from Kilmainham? Only time will tell.

@kevin dillon wrote:

ac1976 are you serious? Access to north side city centre?

I understand your point but i think you’re wrong and fixated on the benifit of direct access to the area within walking distance of Connolly. If northside movement wants to access the Connolly st. district then they can:
(1) walk from docklands or Stephens Green or Pearse stations. (all close)
(2) use dublin bikes
(3) use the luas line from docklands stop (easier when integrated ticketing arrives) which lands them slap bang on OCS etc.

There is no issue at all. Instead huge benifits for northside dart commuters. Direct access to Stephens Green district, Templebar/Thomas street (thanks to Christchurch stop) and direct connection to Heuston ( with rail links to Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny……)

Well you forgot option (4) get the bus instead
I imagine a lot of northside DART commuters want to get to Connolly or Tara St and would transfer to the bus if they were made go elsewhere, just saying.

I see the benefits of access to Stephens Green etc, but its not the best solution really.
Dubliners should expect better to be honest.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

One result of the interconnector (if it’s ever built) would be to allow for greatly increased frequency on DART routes. Increased frequency means shorter journey times to compensate for having to change train on certain journeys.

There are bound to be losers as a result of any huge infrastructure project. The guy who lives in Killester and works in Irish Life may be displeased that he has to change at pearse but the question is whether more people are served than inconvenienced. This project is expected to generate an additional 66 million passenger journeys a year – three times the current DART passenger numbers. Is it right to deny a huge number of additional passengers this service because some of the existing passengers would be inconvenienced?

Unfortunately many politicians would side with the complainers so I’m sure ac1976 will find willing support from local representatives. There are more votes from stirring up fear than offering something new. How is your camnpaign going to prevent the interconnector from stopping in Inchicore? Will it be as successful as the previous campaign that led to the luas being rerouted away from Kilmainham? Only time will tell.

Frank, I’m not against the splitting of the Dart line, I just think people should expect the best transport solutions for Dublin. If it can be dont better then it should be!
We are spending billions on this project and its crucial that its done right.

As for the Inchicore station + portal I am not campaigning for this to be stopped, again I would prefer a better solution i.e. an underground station in Inchicore Village and not one on the periphery of Inchicore with a sub-standard design in comparison to the other stations.

Well you forgot option (4) get the bus instead
I imagine a lot of northside DART commuters want to get to Connolly or Tara St and would transfer to the bus if they were made go elsewhere, just saying.

I doubt people would take the bus but there is a more serious issue in this; if you board the Dart at any point after Howth Junction you have no way of getting to Tara St / Connolly other than changing at Pearse and travelling in reverse. There are two options either to mix train routes i.e. Darts on both the new routing and retaining some on the old routing or change the manditory stop for outer commuter services from Howth Junction to Clontarf Road if not just adding that. That way any commuter who gets on at any Dart stop north of there can simply change to an outer commuter train to access Tara/Connolly.

Looking at Clontarf Road I have always found the existance of a driving school track immediately adjoining a rail station highly ironic if not downright wasteful; a transport hub inspired redevelopment of that site combined with the existing quantum of development at the Eastpoint Business Park it would make great sense to upgrade the range of at that station.

As for the Inchicore station + portal I am not campaigning for this to be stopped, again I would prefer a better solution i.e. an underground station in Inchicore Village and not one on the periphery of Inchicore with a sub-standard design in comparison to the other stations.

Not going to happen; the intention is to electrify the line to Kildare in time. The costs of diverting the line would be significant and trying to place an underground station within Kilmainham would prove problematic on heritage grounds. Cost benefit would dictate electrifying a few kilometres of existing track instead. What is the walk 7 minutes?

Surely the logical way to get to Connolly from the northside line would be to get off at Docklands and get the Luas over? Won’t integrated ticketing be in existence in a minimum of five years?

I’d go even further to say that once intergated ticketing is finally introduced that those using Connolly will probably in the main be better off with a switch to Docklands as the majority of users probably either work in the North Docklands and will have a shorter walk or use Luas and as such will be more likely to get a seat on Westbound Luas at peak times once the Northern Line and Maynooth Line commuters board at a later station.

For Tara Street the situation is less beneficial in particular those in the area between Tara Street and College Green. The core concept driving transport in the central area has to be to connect the maximum number of high density office locations within five minutes walk of a train station that can be accessed with no more than one change.

Whether passengers change from a Dart to a diesel train or a Dart to a Luas is irrelevant but keeping it simple and walking distances down to 5 minutes is vital. I think using the outer commuter fleet to preserve the existing Dart service to Tara St / Connolly is worth looking at along with possibly terminusing a large number of Northside buses using the Howth and Malahide Roads at an interchange at Clontarf Road is definitely worth a look.

People on the Northside are gonna be understandably peeved if they have to start changing from one thing to any other thing, however efficient, to get specifically to Tara or Connolly

I would have agreed pre-integrated ticketing; people everywhere hate paying for a single journey from point A to point B twice. If the connections are smooth you just get on with it; however if you are walking for 10 minutes underground it is certainly a lot less appealing. If you get off one train and another arrivers at the same platform 2 minutes later it is bearable or if the walk behind ticket barriers takes 2-3 minutes and is in the main done on escalators it is ok. Ensuring that people continue going in roughly the right direction also helps.

@Quillber wrote:

People on the Northside are gonna be understandably peeved if they have to start changing from one thing to any other thing, however efficient, to get specifically to Tara or Connolly

I agree. I think that if billions of euro of public money are to be spent integrating our rail network in Dublin then commuters should rightly expect the best solution.
This is clearly not the best solution, although its not bad and there are many benefits but its not really good enough to take away probably the two most popular destinations for the northern DART line and expect people to then find a different mode of transport.

Surely an underground DART station at Connolly would be the optimum solution!

I hope the project goes ahead, but it will genuinely need broad public support to commit that amount of money to it and I think some mistakes are being made that could risk the whole thing going ahead at all!

@ac1976 wrote:

I agree. I think that if billions of euro of public money are to be spent integrating our rail network in Dublin then commuters should rightly expect the best solution.
This is clearly not the best solution, although its not bad and there are many benefits but its not really good enough to take away probably the two most popular destinations for the northern DART line and expect people to then find a different mode of transport.

Surely an underground DART station at Connolly would be the optimum solution!

I hope the project goes ahead, but it will genuinely need broad public support to commit that amount of money to it and I think some mistakes are being made that could risk the whole thing going ahead at all!

In order to provide a city-wide transport system, the people living near the Dart line in the north will have to be given access to Pearse station, St. Stephen’s Green, and the Docklands station where there is a link with the Luas to O’Connell St. What in god’s name are people bitching about? If they want to go to Connolly they can switch trains only once. In what other capital city would people be complaining that they have to switch trains ONCE to get to their destination? Why should the people of the north, already blessed with a Dart line on their doorstep, be given further preferential treatment? People really need to just f*** off and grow up.

I don’t see the problem, If one wants to visit Connolly station, you can:

a) Get off the train at Clontarf road and get one of the 10 bus routes that stop there to Amien Street in about 5 mins.
b) Get off at Spencer dock and get a luas back in around 5 mins.
c) complete the entire journey by QBC
or
d) get off at another stop and walk.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Why should the people of the north, already blessed with a Dart line on their doorstep, be given further preferential treatment? People really need to just f*** off and grow up.

Aren’t the people of the South who are near the Dart-line blessed with the DART in the exact same way as those on the North near the DART-line..? Bit lost there. Aren’t you just perpetuating North/South divide as if across the river there lies Shelbyville?

To assume the Northside is ‘blessed’ shows how much we need decent transport so people on either side stop mythologising one another and travel about a bit. I will absolutely agree that unnecessary whinging has prevented much from going ahead in Dublin but I feel that one would have the right to be considerably miffed by this.

@Quillber wrote:

Aren’t the people of the South who are near the Dart-line blessed with the DART in the exact same way as those on the North near the DART-line..? Bit lost there. Aren’t you just perpetuating North/South divide as if across the river there lies Shelbyville?

To assume the Northside is ‘blessed’ shows how much we need decent transport so people on either side stop mythologising one another and travel about a bit. I will absolutely agree that unnecessary whinging has prevented much from going ahead in Dublin but I feel that one would have the right to be considerably miffed by this.

Well I can see why you’re lost because the idiocy of the whole post hints are your egregiously limited intellectual capacity.

There’s no reference anywhere to a the north/south divide in Dublin in my post. I was referring to those who live in the north who are blessed with access to the Dart. Since most of those in the northside are not blessed in this way, as with most of those in the south side, then the blessed/not-blessed dichotomy refers to those served by the Dart vs those not. The people who live in Bray and want direct access to Stephen’s Green could equally complain. What about those in Dalkey who want direct access to Heuston station? What about those in Lucan who want direct access to UCD? Most of the people in Dublin wouldn’t get access to the destination of their choice by rail at all, let alone with only one change. They’re exchanging direct access to Connolly for direct access to Heuston. They also have direct access to the entire inner city southside, and a luas connection to O’Connell St.. What more do they want? They have no right to be miffed at all. They should be ecstatic.

Comment removed by the author

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Why should the people of the north, already blessed with a Dart line on their doorstep, be given further preferential treatment? People really need to just f*** off and grow up.

You were relating to both sides equally.. Forgive me for being lost yet again, it’s just a feeling I get when trying to see things from your perspective.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/dart_underground.asp

Please look at the promotional video, especially regarding Connolly and as to why the current DART system HAS to change.

Some people don’t like change at all let alone one which will improve our ability to get around this awkward city. The real winner is everybody, not just the ones who live on the east coast. We will have a superior system than the one we have right now and it will be fully interchangeable with other lines and will have a fully integrated ticketing system.

I live in Artane and use Killester DART station and I cant wait for the new system to be up and running.
🙂

Hamster

I’ve no idea where you commute to but suspect that if it were Tara St you would find the change to the proposed re-routing inconvenient. No doubt the DART Underground needs to be built and that the route is spot on. However you still have the issue that the five dart stations between Killbarick and Clontarf Road will not connect with what are 2 of the 3 busiest existing DART stations namely Tara St and Connolly.

The solution is very simple make outer commuter trains stop at Clontarf Road; possibly reconfigure Clontarf Road to accomodate 2 twin sided platforms and 4 tracks. This may necessitate the relocation of the Fairview depot to say north of Malahide but the value created by developing that site would more than pay for it. It would be such a simple project it could be looked at in parallel to the Dart Underground project.

@PVC King wrote:

Hamster

I’ve no idea where you commute to but suspect that if it were Tara St you would find the change to the proposed re-routing inconvenient. No doubt the DART Underground needs to be built and that the route is spot on. However you still have the issue that the five dart stations between Killbarick and Clontarf Road will not connect with what are 2 of the 3 busiest existing DART stations namely Tara St and Connolly.

The solution is very simple make outer commuter trains stop at Clontarf Road; possibly reconfigure Clontarf Road to accomodate 2 twin sided platforms and 4 tracks. This may necessitate the relocation of the Fairview depot to say north of Malahide but the value created by developing that site would more than pay for it. It would be such a simple project it could be looked at in parallel to the Dart Underground project.

Exactly how many millions of the taxpayers’ money should we spend to ensure that the lazy fat residents of Clontarf Road etc. don’t have to get up five minutes earlier in the morning so they can switch trains?

More to the point how much money can be made from developing train parking spaces to put more of those lazy fat residents into flats. Have you ever looked at the connectivity between Clontarf Road Station and Eastpoint Business Park one of the largest commercial schemes in the country? It is seperated by a road, scrubland and a driving school.

Lazy fat residents as you put them are a large constituency who pay a premium to get the best transport connections; it’s called efficient living.

@PVC King wrote:

More to the point how much money can be made from developing train parking spaces to put more of those lazy fat residents into flats. Have you ever looked at the connectivity between Clontarf Road Station and Eastpoint Business Park one of the largest commercial schemes in the country? It is seperated by a road, scrubland and a driving school.

Lazy fat residents as you put them are a large constituency who pay a premium to get the best transport connections; it’s called efficient living.

The reason Dublin is a ugly gridlocked shithole of a place, is that every single individual within it is so obsessed with their own perception of their own interests that historical areas are choked with traffic because shop-keepers lobby to keep cars rolling through, every interesting architectural proposal is shot down by nimbyism, and now the reforming of the rail network will be obstructed by this sort of idiocy. Some people need a SERIOUS KICKING.

Why are you still there then?

Scared you might get a serious kicking elsewhere?

There is nothing idiotic about wishing to see a continuity of connectivity; particularly when same would be revenue enhancing.

Does anybody know which manafacturers have been shortlisted to build the 432 EMU’s that Iarnród Éireann are to order?? There was definitely news that a list had been made, but of who??

Last year we were told that the European Investment Bank were going to bankroll the Dart Underground and Metro North projects:
http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/minister-dempsey-meets-vice-president-of-european-investment-bank/

They must have told Dempsey to get lost as this year we are being told that it will be funded under a PPP
http://www.irishrail.ie/news_centre/news.asp?action=view&news_id=641

Are they having trouble financing these projects?
Traditionally PPP’s are not the easiest way of getting Infrastructure delivered and often fail to succeed.

Is the failure to secure direct funding from the EIB putting these projects at risk?

The EIB funds a lot of PPP projects. It has a unit that advises governments on how to structure PPP deals. It lends to successful bidders for PPP infrastructure projects. EIB tries to lend for environmentally progressive projects. EIB doesn’t like to be the sole lender.

I imagine they will part fund these projects as payback for the govt setting up NAMA according to the Commission/ECB/IMF wishes. Some cash is needed upfront for the Mater, airport and ssg stations that are to be built separately from and prior to the rest of the project.

Two articles that show the direction of EU policy on major transport projects:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/eu-transport-nominee-wants-bigger-money-fewer-projects/article-188954
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/eu-wise-men-chief-wants-more-rail-less-road

I think in the last couple of years, it did looks more certain that it was going to be a PPP and the current state of ours and the EU’s finances just copper-fastened things.

While I do hate PPP’s as they cost the taxpayer much more in the long term, they do give security in projects actually going ahead or not. PPP projects in Ireland have done well and will serve us well in our bad cash strapped time. This means that we dont have to cough up a cent until the project is finished and up and running in around 2016 (or later). So when the next bad budget comes out, rest assured that it will have virtually no impact of the DART expansion plan as well as the Metro North.
🙂

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0224/1224265093538.html

http://www.dubchamber.ie/calendar.asp?event_id=546

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/57A%20Proposed%20SSG%20North%20Shaft.pdf

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/58A%20Proposed%20SSG%20East%20Shaft.pdf

the sound of traffic…

world war three;) run the gauntlet…
I’m sorry but who in there right mind is going to go to this station after dark and on weekends… smack central…
The design is completely wrong and utterly wrong…
you couldn’t invent it if you tried…
I thought the dart was going to up the game… that period…

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/41AProposedStationEntranceatChristchurch.pdf

heuston looks grafty…

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/47A%20Proposed%20Bass%20Place%20-%20Fenian%20St%20Ventilation%20Shaft.pdf

sandwich street looks familar

free land on top?

SSG why cant they just dig up the road and put the vents in it new york style…

@missarchi wrote:

world war three;) run the gauntlet…
I’m sorry but who in there right mind is going to go to this station after dark and on weekends… smack central…
The design is completely wrong and utterly wrong…
you couldn’t invent it if you tried…
I thought the dart was going to up the game… that period…

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/41AProposedStationEntranceatChristchurch.pdf

I never figured you for a snob. Do you know the area well? I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with it.

@missarchi wrote:

SSG why cant they just dig up the road and put the vents in it new york style…

eh cos of the disruption I guess, that would be the logical option.

@cgcsb wrote:

I never figured you for a snob. Do you know the area well? I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with it.
.

well cgcsb the civic offices are notorious for crime and drug addicts loitering at night and ignoring that is not going to make the problem go away. There is also a known problem of open drug dealing during the daytime in this area.

It certainly is not a safe place to wak through at night, try it sometime and see what you think.

Perhaps it would have been an idea to include the Gardai in the selection of station locations?

Merchants Quay Project for drug addicts is on the other side of Winetavern Street. Means there’s a lot of zombie-like smack heads wandering around. I have never had any problem from them. The block around cook street with the old city walls is quiet and pretty apart from the undead.

Inchicore Residents are great.

No we don’t want that useful luas thingy ruining our village, we’re much happier on the bus and who do you think you are trying to give us a DART station?

Down with this sort of thing.

@ac1976 wrote:

well cgcsb the civic offices are notorious for crime and drug addicts loitering at night and ignoring that is not going to make the problem go away. There is also a known problem of open drug dealing during the daytime in this area.

It certainly is not a safe place to wak through at night, try it sometime and see what you think.

Perhaps it would have been an idea to include the Gardai in the selection of station locations?

I’ve walked it at night many times. Never seen a single drug addict loitering. Although that’s probably because the civic office’s green space is closed off by a fence at night.

If there is a problem, the gardaí should have regular foot patrols as they should in all public plazas

@cgcsb wrote:

I never figured you for a snob. Do you know the area well? I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with it.

I lived in the area for over 3 years just so you know…

Sometimes the kids throw bottles at people on bikes…
Sometimes they kick in your front door…
Sometimes they shoot at you…

sometimes there is d8hate

Experienced any of this?
Guess you haven’t lived in the liberties…

A snob with a 50 euro bike go figure…

do you even know what the milan method is?
do you know what a bailey bridge is?

@missarchi wrote:

I lived in the area for over 3 years just so you know…

Sometimes the kids throw bottles at people on bikes…
Sometimes they kick in your front door…
Sometimes they shoot at you…

sometimes there is d8hate

Experienced any of this?
Guess you haven’t lived in the liberties…

A snob with a 50 euro bike go figure…

no, never experienced this. Is Christchurch and Winetavern st really part of the Liberties?

@missarchi wrote:

do you even know what the milan method is?
do you know what a bailey bridge is?

Relevance to the topic being discussed?

I know what a bailey bridge is. I know that the Milan Method is something to do with phsycology, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about. Again, what has this to do with anything?

@cgcsb wrote:

no, never experienced this. Is Christchurch and Winetavern st really part of the Liberties?

Technically, the liberties are everything in this area:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Francis+St&daddr=Francis+St+to:R110%2FThe+Coombe+to:Pimlico+dublin+to:Meath+Street+dublin+to:53.343064,-6.276155&geocode=FUnzLQMd3Dug_w%3BFerkLQMdj0Wg_w%3BFQ7mLQMdqS-g_w%3BFYjoLQMd0Cmg_ylFRkW1JAxnSDH3cCNNYojEcQ%3BFWPsLQMdGTKg_ymX7AT7JAxnSDHUcoGK6KZ2jg%3B&hl=en&mra=dme&mrcr=2&mrsp=5&sz=17&via=1,2&sll=53.340944,-6.277292&sspn=0.005944,0.016512&ie=UTF8&z=17

And ringsend is in D4.

and O’Connell st station will be in D1 and D2…

Does that make it D 1.5?

@cgcsb wrote:

Again, what has this to do with anything?

Abolutely nothing just like the vasy majority of incomprehensible dribble from this poster.

One sincerely hopes that this project will be insulated from the additional €1bn in annual capital budget savings indicated by BL for next year and presumably medium term years commencing at the next budget.

@PVC King wrote:

One sincerely hopes that this project will be insulated from the additional €1bn in annual capital budget savings indicated by BL for next year and presumably medium term years commencing at the next budget.

Capital budgets for 2009-2014 have been set already as part of thefix the deficit plan.

2009: 7.2bn
2010: 6.4bn
2011: 5.5bn
2012: 5.5bn
2013: 5.5bn
2014: 5.5bn

These are still huge amounts of money for our size of country, and I am very happy the govt didn’t just decide to entirely cut capital spending rather than current spending. We don’t know how much of this is for transport projects, but the completion of the motorways and the new policy to spend twice as much on public transport as roads from 2011 onwards augurs well. I don’t see the combined interconnector and metro north projects costing more than 500m in any one year, so I still think they are feasible in the context of the above numbers.

@PVC King wrote:

Abolutely nothing just like the vasy majority of incomprehensible dribble from this poster.

One sincerely hopes that this project will be insulated from the additional €1bn in annual capital budget savings indicated by BL for next year and presumably medium term years commencing at the next budget.

In the real word, missarchi’s ‘posts’ are 100 times more sensible than the pretentious guff you inflict on this excellent site.
He/she has humour also, a quality quite alien to you other than in it’s ugly spirit guise.

We’ve seen your contributions to the Metro North discussion. I doubt the weird and wonderbar world of internet message boards has ever been outdisgraced so far with the likes of your farrago of childish transport economics.
And finding yourself annihilated in any rational argument on the subject you laughably resort to tranparent made-up data and blatant lyimg, to be blunt.

You are going to look an even bigger eejit when the MN contracts are signed in due course.

Apparently you are some sort of ‘estate agent’ chappy. I’m not surprised in honesty.

Get real, PVCKing. Estate agency is a shyster profession. They are parasites who contribute nothing to society.
And they were/are at the heart of our present financial woes.
You’re not in any position to be criticising anybody.
Humble boot licking is about as much as is permitted from you 😀
I’d be quite happy if all estate agents were locked up.
After being tarred and feathered.

Other than that, I like your contributions.

marmajam?
https://archiseek.com/content/member.php?u=23248

@Frank Taylor wrote:

marmajam?
https://archiseek.com/content/member.php?u=23248

Indeed, a Marmajam by any other name!

Anyway, back on track somewhat… I don’t think because an area has drug problems should preclude them from getting a stop. I personally wish we had some sort of good underground system connecting the commuter towns and various spots in the city. I know Dublin isn’t really big enough to warrant it, but it could really change the way the city flows and operates.

@OisinT wrote:

I don’t think because an area has drug problems should preclude them from getting a stop.

Agreed but the exit should be in between the bunkers if possible towards temple bar or in plain site of the street not a scary maze that feels like a border crossing.
By all means dig it up… But to cover it in granite like that is a real waste.
Sliding trap doors?

Pearce entrance is the best by far that will be overshadowed one day…

These “proposed entrances” on the IE website aren’t… awful but they’re pretty lackluster. These are just general outlines right?

They’re also pretty low-rise, I read somewhere that DART and Metro station were going to have components of a certain height that would allow them to be seen from a distance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0304/1224265558300.html

Dart Underground’s economic benefit ‘will far outweigh costs’

THE BENEFITS of Dublin’s proposed “Dart Underground” outweigh the costs by more than two to one, according a new economic appraisal from London-based consultants Colin Buchanan.

A €2 billion proposal to link Docklands Station with Heuston via Pearse Street and Christchurch, Dart Underground is intended to provide for a reorganisation of Dublin suburban services with trains running from Greystones to Maynooth and from Hazelhatch to Balbriggan or Drogheda.

Making a presentation on the economic advantages of public transport investment to a breakfast meeting in Dublin yesterday, Paul Buchanan, of Colin Buchanan, said high-density cities had a high pay-off for the environment and economy and were more productive as employers had access to a greater pool of workers, while innovation always increased.

He said “Dublin without a strong commercial centre will not deliver the growth Ireland needs” and maintained good public transport was the key to creating one. His company’s analysis for Iarnród Éireann had found Dart Underground would be “immensely” beneficial in creating the strong commercial centre.

“Quite apart from tying together Dublin’s two growth areas for high density, Docklands and Heuston,” he said, Dart Underground would “sweat” the rail company’s assets, making much better use of investment in track and trains.

“It brings rail-based public transport right through the central business district (CBD). This is much better than passing beside the CBD as happens at present,” he told The Irish Times.

Mr Buchanan said his firm’s analysis was that investment made in Dart Underground would return a benefit about 2.5 times greater than the cost.

He made his presentation at a breakfast briefing organised by Dublin Chamber of Commerce and hosted by corporate lawyers Byrne Wallace.

Iarnród Éireann said it welcomed comments on Dart Underground which, a spokesman said, “demonstrated the crucial value of an integrated transport system” which, he added, would being economic benefits to the entire city region.

Blatant Advertisement!
Paul……

@Yixian wrote:

These “proposed entrances” on the IE website aren’t… awful but they’re pretty lackluster. These are just general outlines right?

They’re also pretty low-rise, I read somewhere that DART and Metro station were going to have components of a certain height that would allow them to be seen from a distance.

One would hope they’re just giving a general jist of the idea.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/39A%20Proposed%20Station%20Entrance%20on%20Sandwith%20Street.pdf
I would have thought they’d try to capitalise on the airspace above the stations, not that i’m averse to a new park, if done nicely. Also a bit of a shame not to try in some way to echo the 1930s style brickwork and entrances on the existing building on site.

This however has sent gusts of relief through my heart…
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/40AProposedStationEntranceatDocklands.pdf
The birch and dogwood strewn mess that’s there at the moment looked eerily like something a certain architecure firm might pass off as a permenant park, designed by the employee that knows less than 5 but more than 3 shrub/tree names.

@Bago wrote:

One would hope they’re just giving a general jist of the idea.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/39A%20Proposed%20Station%20Entrance%20on%20Sandwith%20Street.pdf
I would have thought they’d try to capitalise on the airspace above the stations, not that i’m averse to a new park, if done nicely. Also a bit of a shame not to try in some way to echo the 1930s style brickwork and entrances on the existing building on site.

This however has sent gusts of relief through my heart…
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/40AProposedStationEntranceatDocklands.pdf
The birch and dogwood strewn mess that’s there at the moment looked eerily like something a certain architecure firm might pass off as a permenant park, designed by the employee that knows less than 5 but more than 3 shrub/tree names.

One of the greatest things about building a subway for Dublin will be that areas like Sandwith St above are going to be completely transformed.

“Build it and they will come”, wherever you put an underground station, retail, infrastructure and entertainment will follow.

I cannot express how a great a thing the combined Metro/DART “Dublin Underground” is for the city.

@Yixian wrote:

One of the greatest things about building a subway for Dublin will be that areas like Sandwith St above are going to be completely transformed.

“Build it and they will come”, wherever you put an underground station, retail, infrastructure and entertainment will follow.

I cannot express how a great a thing the combined Metro/DART “Dublin Underground” is for the city.

Sandwith Street isn’t really bad. But I agree with the sentiment in general

@OisinT wrote:

Sandwith Street isn’t really bad. But I agree with the sentiment in general

I don’t mean run down necessarily, just bland and a bit lifeless.

Will they put the vents in the road?
It’s been done before…
Anglo?
Or is this one big plastic animal…
we all know what tado says…

http://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/tadao-ando-qa/2504

http://www.woostercollective.com/2008/03/street_art_at_its_best_3_plastic_animals.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/newyork/ny673.html
http://www.mta.info/capconstr/7ext/construction.htm

vented poles?

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-remarkable-pneumatic-people-mover

http://zichi.posterous.com/high-tech-tokyo-subway

So, this might be a stupid question but, to what extent is DARTu and Metro north being considered as part of one big project?

We’re obviously sorted with DARTu, we can bank on that, but is metro north still in the air?

It would make a lot of sense to have both finished around the same time – if not launch together.

@Yixian wrote:

So, this might be a stupid question but, to what extent is DARTu and Metro north being considered as part of one big project?

We’re obviously sorted with DARTu, we can bank on that, but is metro north still in the air?

It would make a lot of sense to have both finished around the same time – if not launch together.

the last module of the oral hearing is expected to be heard in April afaik. And a decission should be in August or there abouts.

So it’s at a similar stage to DARTu then really?

No. DARTu is about 2 years behind Metro North. They haven’t even applied for a railway order yet. Application should go in this year. Railway order granted by 2012. Construction start by 2014. Completion 2020. And that’s being optimistic.

Some co-ordination between the two projects will be required to build the mammoth station at SSG. (Ooo ooo won’t somebody think of the darling trees and the ducks?) A lot of predictions that getting two agencies to work together on this station will be a disaster.

Excuse my igorance but why would it take 2 years to get a railway order, 2 years to then start the construction and 6 years to construct one relatively short tunnel plus 6/7 stations. Why are simple feats of engineering so difficult to get done in this country. Surely if they started now it would cost less, provide employment and be ready when we come out of recession. By 2020 we will probably be in another recession.

Look at the London transport map compared to Dublin, yes the population is considerably bigger but if we dont have decent infrastructure how can this country ever grow. Why are Irish citizens happy to spend 3/4 hours commuting?

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/print_maps/LondonConnections.pdf

@pulp wrote:

Excuse my igorance but why would it take 2 years to get a railway order, 2 years to then start the construction and 6 years to construct one relatively short tunnel plus 6/7 stations. Why are simple feats of engineering so difficult to get done in this country. Surely if they started now it would cost less, provide employment and be ready when we come out of recession. By 2020 we will probably be in another recession.

Look at the London transport map compared to Dublin, yes the population is considerably bigger but if we dont have decent infrastructure how can this country ever grow. Why are Irish citizens happy to spend 3/4 hours commuting?

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/print_maps/LondonConnections.pdf

I constantly wonder that myself… everything is dragged out as far as it can be (presumably so that everyone can get a chance to try to block it until they get some sort of compensation out of the project) when what we really need is a few big public/private works projects going to get our unemployed workers back. Perhaps not more housing, but infrastructure is a goldmine!

These projects always take a long time generally…
Because of a myriad of issues.

The timescale could certainly be compressed given enough money. However, comparing Dublin – a city of about one million people with a further half million in its hinterland – to London, with seven million and a further eight million in the South East of England, is ludicrous.

@pulp wrote:

Excuse my igorance but why would it take 2 years to get a railway order,

route selection, detailed design, application for railway order, consideration by bord pleanala, public hearings, further information, further hearings…

2 years to then start the construction

2 years for selecting a winning bidder and negotiating the details of a contract.

and 6 years to construct one relatively short tunnel plus 6/7 stations. Why are simple feats of engineering so difficult to get done in this country.

The line will of course be built by international contractors but speed of construction will be limited by whether ABP allows 24hr construction. To be fair, tunnelling under a city, hospital & airport while allowing traffic to continue is never trivial. Some stations will be mined, one station is even planned to go under the Liffey at O’Connell bridge.

Surely if they started now it would cost less, provide employment and be ready when we come out of recession. By 2020 we will probably be in another recession.

The public scrutiny sections do seem to drag on and I have no idea what value ABP is bringing to the deal. I think in the UK, there is a parliamentary committee that just pays a transport consultancy to verify that the project makes sense.

Bear in mind that in this country if you wish to simply apply to run a new bus route you normally have to wait years for the department of transport to decide whether to grant you a licence.

2 years to select a winning bidder?

Isn’t MN set to do it in less than a year?

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

The timescale could certainly be compressed given enough money. However, comparing Dublin – a city of about one million people with a further half million in its hinterland – to London, with seven million and a further eight million in the South East of England, is ludicrous.

it doesn’t matter how many people live in the city, the point is that we should have a good transport system for the scale and size (geographically) of our city. No one is saying we need the London underground here, just that we have a good way of getting around the city without needing a car or bus.

Smaller cities than Dublin have undergrounds, cities growing at rates a fraction that Dublin is have undergrounds – the need for DARTu and MN is self-evident.

All “progress trackers” still say that both projects are due to be completed by 2016 btw.

@Yixian wrote:

All “progress trackers” still say that both projects are due to be completed by 2016 btw.

I mean, do you actually live in the same country as the rest of us? Projects a fraction the size of this go 10 or 20 years overdue. If you think we’ll have two underground lines in Dublin by 2016, you’re beyond talking to.

Ok, it might not make 2016, but 2016 is itself a revised, delayed date.

Wait till ABP get their hands on the application for the interconnector and you can add on a couple more years!!!

http://issuu.com/celtcia/docs/preview:D

@Yixian wrote:

2 years to select a winning bidder?

Isn’t MN set to do it in less than a year?

a year to select a bidder and maybe 9 months to negotiate a final contract.The contract for MN is unlikely to be signed before 2012. All of these estimates are best case scenarios. There are lots of possibilities for the projects to to undergo further delays or cancellation.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0315/1224266296888.html

Looking forward to the DARTu lets hope they raise the bar up a notch

Some very interesting comments on Dart Underground, I live in Adamstown on the Kildare line so it could have huge benefits to me when it completed in terms of public transport connectivity. I have a few question someone might be able to provide answers for.

Given that the Dart underground will proceed through strategic infrastructure bill, what’s a realistic date for tunnelling to commence?

Once operational you would expect to see a massive switch to public transport given the connectivity options something not available to commuters before. In the event of an accident in one of the tunnels or god forbid a terrorist attack, the whole public transport system would be rendered useless due to the vital role of the Dart underground. Do you think this is a flaw of the Dart underground proposal?

I live in Adamstown on the Kildare line, parallel to the Kildare we have the Maynooth line which is just 5km apart. Would it not make sense to build a new rail line between Leixlip station & Adamstown (green fields). This would allow some trains from Maynooth to re route to the city to Docklands via Kildare line. There are Turn-back facilities at Adamstown, in future years it would be possible to stop Intercity trains Adamstown and passengers disembark here and continue their journey to the North-side with having to travel through the entire city.

If a short link of line was built from Docklands to the back of Connolly station, along with the 5km of track at Adamstown/Leixlip you would have created a circle line in effect, which in the event of failure of any section the entire rail system would not shut down. Surely both theses short sections, would make the system more efficient, does this make sense?

With the building of the Dart Underground does that mean that electrification of the Kildare and Maynooth line will happen at the same time? or will IR complete the tunnel and benefits will only be available to current dart users and sometime in far off future again they will provide electrification to Kildare & Maynooth lines? as we tend to do public transport in Ireland.

@tomtdowling wrote:

Given that the Dart underground will proceed through strategic infrastructure bill, what’s a realistic date for tunnelling to commence?

I would estimate 2011/2012(optimistic)

@tomtdowling wrote:

Once operational you would expect to see a massive switch to public transport given the connectivity options something not available to commuters before. In the event of an accident in one of the tunnels or god forbid a terrorist attack, the whole public transport system would be rendered useless due to the vital role of the Dart underground. Do you think this is a flaw of the Dart underground proposal?

yes, I would imagine there will be a huge switch over to public transport, especially with integrated ticketing.

Hopefully such an accident or attack will never take place, but in such an event there will just have to be temp. replacement bus services, theres things happen, and there’s no way to plan for them in advance.

@tomtdowling wrote:

I live in Adamstown on the Kildare line, parallel to the Kildare we have the Maynooth line which is just 5km apart. Would it not make sense to build a new rail line between Leixlip station & Adamstown (green fields). This would allow some trains from Maynooth to re route to the city to Docklands via Kildare line.

those living on the Maynooth line wishing to access the docklands will be able to do so on Navan-Docklands commuter services. It is already possible to travel between Maynooth and Docklands on a commuter train. So, it’s hard to imagine what benefits this would have.

@tomtdowling wrote:

There are Turn-back facilities at Adamstown, in future years it would be possible to stop Intercity trains Adamstown and passengers disembark here and continue their journey to the North-side with having to travel through the entire city.

again, I don’t see the benefits, it would only be beneficial to those traveling from the South west to Lexlip and Maynooth.

@tomtdowling wrote:

If a short link of line was built from Docklands to the back of Connolly station, along with the 5km of track at Adamstown/Leixlip you would have created a circle line in effect, which in the event of failure of any section the entire rail system would not shut down. Surely both theses short sections, would make the system more efficient, does this make sense?

such a line already exists between the back of Connolly infact a full line exists between Heuston and the Docklands via the pheonix park tunnel, a circle line in the future may exist starting at Heuston-Christchurch-Stephen’s Green-Pearse-Docklands-Drumcondra-Heuston. Also it may be possible to add more stations to the northern end of the line perhaps Phibsborough and Blackhorse Avenue.

@tomtdowling wrote:

With the building of the Dart Underground does that mean that electrification of the Kildare and Maynooth line will happen at the same time? or will IR complete the tunnel and benefits will only be available to current dart users and sometime in far off future again they will provide electrification to Kildare & Maynooth lines? as we tend to do public transport in Ireland.

Yes Kildare and Maynooth lines will be electrified by 2015.

@tomtdowling wrote:

Given that the Dart underground will proceed through strategic infrastructure bill, what’s a realistic date for tunnelling to commence?

I’d call 2012 VERY optimistic…

andrew, I wasnt in the least suggesting we have as many lines as London but you can virtually go anywhere by rail in London and the tubes while fairly small move people very quickly and efficiently, with frequencies in minutes. If the first tube dosent have any seats not to worry there be another in 60 seconds. We have 4 train lines shared with intercity, and frequencies on the Dart can be up to 20 odd minutes while the luas although has a high frequency is farily slow. Tallaght to city centre is around 60 minutes. meanwhile although we have a farily extensive bus network nearly all channelled through one street. Have a look at how many empty buses are travelling almost empty or stopped empty on the quays even at peak times. Surely we should have 3/4 metro lines criss crossing the city. We could then give the city back to the public rather than cars. The city would be a much nicer place to live and work in. College Green could have its plaza with fountains. The quays could have their cafes along the river and people could get to work in under 30 minutes even from outlying suburbs.

here is the other prision :rolleyes:

I got an interesting reply from Irish Rail to my comments submitted during the consultation evening they hosted.
“Your comments mostly related to the local area framework plans (for Inchicore/Kilmainham) and that the station location should be located in Inchicore Village.
As a project team we are liaising with DCC and local community groups and residents. We are conscious that there is a desire for the new station location to compliment development plans for the area. this matter will be addressed in the EIS that will accompany the Railway Order Application.
An urban design framework plan for the Inchicore Works site will form part of this submission“

I think its a bit strange to add on an Urban framework plan to the DARTu project, why not just design the project around the existing City Development Plan and local area plans as they are? This seems like planning backwards to me. Does it not put at risk the whole project?
Obviously I am biased as I would like to see Inchicore Station as an underground station in the village itself, which is in line with the framework plan for the area.
But IR are biased too they wish to use this project to play property developer like the guys over in the docklands.

According to DCC: “A Framework Development Plan is a programme that aims to create a new economic, commercial or cultural district wherein Dublin city can continue to grow and prosper” – This is straying a bit from the project objectives of DARTu and encroaching on the Dublin City Development Plan (out of which the urban framework plans began).

Irish Rail sound more like the DDDA here, they want a development plan for their lands to allow them become property developers. This is crazy!

Anyway the Railway Order is delayed while IR design a new Urban quarter for the city…

The timing will match the new development plan that is underway…
But in theory its valid until 2011 or 2013 cannot remember…
Image a new local area plan for the liffey at 1:5

The latest estimates for DARTu’s completion, according to this, are 2018! Pity that we’ll have to wait so long really.

http://www.ppp.gov.ie/ppp-projects

Its a while but when you look at the process

Planning = 18 months
Tender = 6 – 12 months

That takes you into early 2013 pre-commencement

Given that the line meets two existing lines that will extend the construction time given operational sensitivities; London’s Cross Rail went on site 12 months ago; they are targetting a completion date of 2017 albeit that it is a more complex project; on that basis 2018 looks about right in terms of deliverability.

This project would be great to magic from the air today but it will be worth waiting for in terms of the level of intergration that it delivers to existing services and areas of the City Centre currently underserved by public transport or served by mono-directional routings.

It seems like IE and RPA are incapable of working together; but as the Lucan Luas line is on hold and as a better solution exists to serve Lucan, Liffey Valley etc by using the alignment of Metro West for Dart extensions the only real issue is getting these two agencies under public ownership to show a little less oneupmanship and a little more acknowledgement that they are subsidiaries of the same entity.

Awful tragedy the MOLA situation; sadly trying to get paid by a client base preserving all their capital to service debt that has senior ranking is never easy and hopefully they will do a phoenix manouvere that preserves the employment of as many of their talented fee earners as is possible.

Post Nama settling down and putting a floor under the residential development market the Inchicore site will have a very significant value given its public transport service provision. Getting the designation right in the development plan is vital as a clear designation will enable the maximum price to be secured or profits extracted should they go down the JV route a la Spencer Dock.

That this essential public transport project proceed speedily is vital both from a public service point of view but also from a Nama point of view; there are a number of very substantial of loans on sites in Dublin 8 that will remain toxic until such time as a clear timetable emerges for this project. As can be seen with the bank share prices in the past week since Nama transfers began the markets like to see progress, as do commuters.

Underground DART delayed until 2018
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/dart.html

I also know that Irish Rail are presenting some revisions to their plans for the Dart Underground at the Hilton Hotel in Kilmainham on Tuesday 11th May between 5-8pm.

They dont seem to have updated their website yet.

Will it ever be built? What if there is another economic downturn before 2018?
I think this project is doomed, I cant help but think the RPA would have been more capeable of delivering something (metro).

Will we have another economic downturn?
No.
Try to keep your inner headless chicken contained, ac1976.
Economic issues are manageable for the foreseeable future. Storms in a teacup.
Let the Greeks riot. Communism is dead.
The more the crisis the quicker the progress.

@shytalk wrote:

Will we have another economic downturn?
No.
Try to keep your inner headless chicken contained, ac1976.
Economic issues are manageable for the foreseeable future. Storms in a teacup.
Let the Greeks riot. Communism is dead.
The more the crisis the quicker the progress.

Shytalk I can assure you with 100% certainty that we WILL have another economic downturn, and many more after that, the only question is when, and if you have a project that will take a decade or more to deliver there is always a chance that economic issues will impact on the schedule and possable sucess, even more than once!

There will only be another downturn if the Government doesn’t do what is necessary to control the deficit; spending needs to be clearly focussed on projects and existing programmes that deliver value for money. There will also be a certain amount of luck involved and everything depends on the global economy i.e. our customers; however few projects can display the type of benefits that this one does in terms of joining existing services together and removing a massive logjam to three of the 4 existing rail lines.

To say the project is delayed 3 years is incorrect; even if an Bord closed the hearing today the submission phase would take the project into Q3; if construction takes 6 years that is already 18 months delay from the previous timetable. Allowing 18 months to refine the design and select a contractor is plenty of time but clearly not pushed out to the distant future.

If this project completes in 2018 Dublin will have a real rail system that is intergrated for the first time; once the construction tender is awarded then you can crack open a bottle.

@ac1976 wrote:

Shytalk I can assure you with 100% certainty that we WILL have another economic downturn, and many more after that, the only question is when, and if you have a project that will take a decade or more to deliver there is always a chance that economic issues will impact on the schedule and possable sucess, even more than once!

foreseeable future ac1976, forseeable future.

I too, like you, am a prophet. I predict there will be an earthquake in the Turkey/Iran area in the next 20 years.

I’d be very confidant that we will grow very fast in the medium term. Even though a bloke down the pub told me we are doomed.

RTE also running a story about Environmental Impact Assesments, it seems that it is not considered legal by the European Courts of Justice for the Government to authorise projects before the EIA is published!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/environment.html
This could be a possable legal stick for oppenants to any major governemnt project to use!

I’m not sure that 1st RTE report adds anything to the delay announced about 2 months ago.
3 years longer than what?
Media reports on both the IC and MN are notoriously confused.
The Sunday BP was gibbering recently about MN ‘spurs’ to the Airport and ‘cut and cover’ in O’Connell St.
It’s all too much for the the junior reporters tasked with understanding and remembering the English phrased facts delivered in briefings.
The IT manages to up the cost of MN by about 1 billion with every report.

I blame ABP. They are turning out to be a bigger scourge than the bleedin’ banks.

Looks like Minister Dempsey hasnt been kept up-to-date, strange since it was really public info for the last couple of months.

RTE NEWS Updated with:

“Transport Minister Noel Dempsey previously described the 7.6km underground rail link as the most critical piece of public transport in the State.

Mr Dempsey said if the company is making such a decision, they will be hearing from him. He said he was not aware of any change and that he would be seeking clarification immediately.

“

Sounds like he’s pissed!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/dart.html

He needs them on site before May 2012 for the election. But he clearly knows the timetables involved and the years that Martin Cullen dithered on this issue. The best thing he could do is be honest and have an independent consultancy rank all proposed transport projects in order on a cost benefit analysis.

Once released into the public domain it can be discussed by transport and urban economists who can clarify just what projects are overdue and which are outdated over-optimistic hangovers from the tiger period.

@PVC King wrote:

He needs them on site before May 2012 for the election.

Not really, he just needs to keep talking about it till 2012, maybe publish some reports, have RPA and Irish Rail produce some new maps and tender some more advertising contracts in the meantime.

The situation in London with Crossrail is interesting the construction work has barely begun and although preffered bidders have been selected there are whisperings that a new government may remove funding; clearly neither TFL or the Mayor’s office has the cash independently.

What would make a reversal very politically unpalatable is that work has commenced albeit quite basic works. Once people in Dublin see work they will expect completion and vote into same. Judging by many of the reactions on this board I think peple in Ireland have developed a cynical view on infrastructural project delivery flagged at election time in the absence of works to clarify that at least some concrete has been poured or skipped.

Ohh he’s seriously pissed, someone’s gonna get shafted and spend until 2018 sitting in a office doing nothing and still getting paid for it!

Dempsey cautions Irish Rail over statement

The Transport Minister has revealed he was not told of an announcement by Irish Rail to delay a major project in Dublin – even though he was with the company’s board this morning.

The targeted completion date for the underground DART link is now being moved out to 2018, with Irish Rail blaming “planning delays”.

Noel Dempsey has told the Dáil he was with the board of CIE this morning, and they said nothing about what they ended up announcing at lunchtime.

And Minister Dempsey says planning can’t be to blame and he is furious that Irish Rail could announce any policy decisions.

“I don’t know how the statement could be made in relation to planning because – again, if I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected in relation to this – but I understand that the statement that was made that because of delays in the planning process that it was likely to go out to that time” he said.

“But I don’t know how anybody could make a statement like that – because nobody knows how long it’s going to be in the planning process”.

“But if the company is deciding off it’s own bat that it’s going to re-order government priorities, they’ll be hearing from me” he added.

http://www.newstalk.ie/news/news-headlines/dempsey-cautions-irish-rail-over-statement/

This Article on RTE from November 2009 lists a potential completion date of 2016. Given the additional number of building plots and number of heritage implications far exceeding those on the mainly suburban proposed Metro North light rail line; the planning process on a broad gauge underground going under both Medieval and Georgian Dublin was going to require more work; specific reference to the exhaustive EIS process.

As the RPA have found An Bord are very thorough in their examination of all projects; just because the application is multiple boxes in scale does not mean that every single aspect will not be examined in fine detail.

How any agency can be castigated for allowing contingency time is not really clear; if IE are wrong then the ‘if the line is built by 2016′ scenario may come back into play. Personally I’d be looking to trim costs from programmes that are not going to complete until the prudent fiscal stance adopted restores the government finances; as opposed to castigating a delivery team who prudently added a contingency period.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/dartunderground/Meetings%20DART_03.pdf

Details of new “consultation” evenings detailing revisions, staring tomorrow!
Who’s going? (Dempsey should go along to find out what they are upto)

Public Consultation Evenings. Each event will be held between 5pm and 8pm.
Christchurch
Thursday, 6th May 2010
The Atrium, Dublin City Council Offices, Wood Quay, D2
Pearse St. Area / St. Stephens Green
Monday, 10th May 2010
Alexander Hotel, Fenian Street, off Merrion Square, D2.
Heuston Station/Inchicore
Tuesday, 11th May 2010
K1 Venue, Hilton Hotel, Inchicore Road, Kilmainham,D8
Docklands/East Wall
Thursday, 13th May 2010
Sean 0’Casey Community Centre, St Mary’s Road, East Wall, D3

In reality ABP are flapping about like a bunch of panicky schoolgirls.

@ac1976 wrote:

Underground DART delayed until 2018
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/dart.html

NAMA is for me the greatest push factor in deciding to emigrate. I would however very much like to imagine myself returning to my home city once the Dart Interconnector (DIC) is built, as I believe it will be a powerful symbol of recovery, renewed confidence and optimism, and above all, a better quality of life for Dubliners.

@soulsearcher wrote:

NAMA is for me the greatest push factor in deciding to emigrate. I would however very much like to imagine myself returning to my home city once the Dart Interconnector (DIC) is built, as I believe it will be a powerful symbol of recovery, renewed confidence and optimism, and above all, a better quality of life for Dubliners.

Agreed as long as the makers of the bunkers get a guiding hand and the rest of them.

I came accross this IR Presentation 29/4/10 re DART underground and St Stephens Green
It seems to be a presentation made to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce about the Environmental Impact of DARTu and specifically around Stephens Green.
There are some interesting details there, not to mention the fact that IR told the Dublin Chamber of Commerce that the completion date is 2018 only last week.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30970112/Irish-Rail-DART-Underground-Presentation

@shytalk wrote:

In reality ABP are flapping about like a bunch of panicky schoolgirls.

An Bord are part of a planning framework where they are the appeals level for ordinary cases and first instance in infrastructural cases. The High Court are the level of second instance in infrastructural cases and third instance in normal cases followed by the Supreme Court at Third/Fourth Instance and Strasbourg at Fourth/Fifth Instance.

If An Bord get it right at first instance then projects can proceed without having to worry about the credibility of further legal challenges. To state that they should merely rubber stamp applications is to suggest that Vincent Salafia style exposure should be unleashed on important projects that are the subject of planning decisions. If An Bord close off all the legal angles properly then the ability of a litigant to get access to the courts will be made significantly more difficult.

AC

That is an interesting document; you got to hand it to the OPW for their managment of their Stephens Green holdings; a job very well done! 😉

There’s a lot to be said for the Chinese planning system.
20 mins to clear off. 30, if you’re lucky.
There’s a reason why there’s 1 billion Chinese.

On the contrary there are 1 billion Chinese citizens because their one child policy failed miserably; even centralised planning can only exercise so much control. If you want a model on how to develop look at Hong Kong, Taipei or Singapore the quality of life is much higher in the outposts.

The approach taken by the Irish system works just fine when development plans are followed or no-one appeals.

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1634

Interesting viewpoint from Mr Mallee of CILT (double checking spelling now), he says it like it is but who is going to clear up this mess?

Government must clear up Dart Underground confusion say transport experts
06 May 2010 20:28

“For these reasons and on behalf of those who work in the logistics and transport sector for whom the Interconnector is a vital project, I am calling on Iranrod Eireann and the Department of Transport to immediately clarify the future of the project.”

Who wouldn’t want to contribute to a thread where a commenting organization enjoys the acronym CILT?

Dempsey is a hatchet – you may recall his po-faced response to that elderly FF Councillor on the Late Late – one of Kenney’s finest shows – when he single-handedly destroyed this government’s support of the Church on the pedophile priests issue by repeating the question asked by one of IIRC seven barristers representing the Church.

“What size was his penis?”

Dempsey never twitched a muscle, although he looked both shaken and stirred afterwards.

Expect nothing from Noel being put under pressure by a group calling itself CILT.

Even CITL would be better, although it reads like a request to make the tea.

ONQ.

It’s a tough one for Dempsey, kinda like how Mary O’Rourke is synomonous with the Luas delays.

If I were him I would look to expedite this project and cut a few corners.
I think I’d move the portal back to Heuston which was the original idea.
Irish Rail didnt like it because there were some technical issues, but they did say it was feasable, however the turnback facility would be located on their staff carpark so hard luck for them and a point scored for the minister.

Surely that would cut a lot of cost out? And time? And it delivers exactly what was originally asked for?
Some further cost cutting and expediting could be achieved on top of this and the original deadline of 2015 achieved?

The project is basically suffering from scope creep (Inchicore extension, and they are now preparing a framework dev plan for the Inchicore Works site)
Scope creep always ends up with extra cost and extended schedule. Only solution is to cut

There is little doubt that IE are banging away at this full tilt behind the scenes; however there are two issues for them one is that they are at the mercy of An Bord who will do their job diligently and two presentation is not as clear as the Cross Rail Timetable for Delivery

Whereas the Irish Rail Presentation (at slide 3) is far too brief.

To resolve the latter problem what IE need to do is design a website like Crossrail because they have a major communication issue on this; any new webpages could be e-mailed to the minister. To resolve the An Bord problem what IE need to do is give the likely date of decision from An Bord and attach a serious health warning that this element of the process is beyond their control and that as this is a sequential project any delays here result in knock on delays.

2018 would not be as good as 2016 but it is hardly a disaster in the context of GDP growth of 3% p.a. estimated to 2015; much of which will be focussed to the regions such as Mid West which has had a really gruesome series of job losses. Getting small projects such as the Luas link up done in the interim could be very helpful; particularly if it were extended to Drumcoundra which would enable more Maynooth trains to use Spencer Dock and ensure that Maynooth Passengers had access to the CC via Luas from the very lightly used Drumcoundra station; the real benefit of this is that the Dart could see significantly more services if the number of diesel services requiring turnbacks at Barrow Street were reduced.

@PVC King wrote:

Getting small projects such as the Luas link up done in the interim could be very helpful; particularly if it were extended to Drumcoundra which would enable more Maynooth trains to use Spencer Dock and ensure that Maynooth Passengers had access to the CC via Luas from the very lightly used Drumcoundra station; the real benefit of this is that the Dart could see significantly more services if the number of diesel services requiring turnbacks at Barrow Street were reduced.

By Luas link up do you mean Line BXD (from St. Stephens Green to Broombridge)? There is no way you could extend it to Drumcondra station because the route doesnt go near it. The Metro will stop at Drumcondra station anyway so theres that link. Luas Line BXD will go as far as Broombridge station where it will interchange with Iarnrod Éireann’s Maynooth railway line services so Maynooth passengers can travel to the city centre that way.

I wouldn’t call Line BXD a small project but I think there is more merit in completing it than in some of the other projects which seem to be progressing quicker, such as Lucan Luas. Maybe some of the enabling work for the line will be done along with metro work where they share the same route, like alone Westmoreland Street and O’Connell street. One of the main reasons for line BXD is the DIT single campus at Grangegorman, which I’m sure would generate a few thousand passengers on the line daily. If they would get on with building the campus I’m sure there would be more will to complete this project.

To illustrate how flawed BXD is you need to realise that Broombridge is on a rail line; the NCR/Cabra Road is a high volume bus route and much of the proposed Luas Route travels through 3 bed semi land which will not deliver the ridership required. You mention the new DIT campus which seems mired but assuming it is built (it has my support) the Campus is less than 1 kilometer from Dorset Street where a Luas stop could be built on a shorter and more viable routing.

If I didn’t have an urgent appointment with the Central and Jubilee Lines I’d go through BXD’s crayonic properties in more detail. No doubt you will reply

IE are being upfront with what they are proposing which is good it also looks like they are trying to tender after planning.

Slides 56 ect is hit n miss it’s ironic being able to see anglo from the park you use to only see the top of the shelbourne if you stand in the middle…

then the legal statement…

I find it surprising they cannot figure out a way to dig up the road on SSN

@PVC King wrote:

To illustrate how flawed BXD is you need to realise that Broombridge is on a rail line; the NCR/Cabra Road is a high volume bus route and much of the proposed Luas Route travels through 3 bed semi land which will not deliver the ridership required. You mention the new DIT campus which seems mired but assuming it is built (it has my support) the Campus is less than 1 kilometer from Dorset Street where a Luas stop could be built on a shorter and more viable routing.

Perhaps the location of the current planned terminus is a bit silly, but it is after all intended to eventually go on through Finglas. Maybe with that extension it will be more feasible as a line? This still presents its own problems though, as the everywhere North of the Liffey on the Green line will be more like the Red line in terms of speed and capacity than the current Green line. Finglas Luas may make more sense as its own separate line 🙁

Jimg wrote an excellent post on the subject of the Luas line to Lucan

Experience elsewhere suggests that trams have a very valuable role in City Centres but are clearly not suited to longer journeys. Reconsider Luas again and ask the question would the existing scenario of Luas or the scenario below be better

Green Line Heavy Rail Cherrywood to Charlemont surface and Underground to Connolly via College Green.

Red Line Luas from the Point Depot to St James Hospital

Heavy Rail spur from existing rail line at Clondalkin to Tallaght

It is too late to retrofit the Green line as mass aprtment and retail development added since construction commenced has made it too important to take out of service for more than a couple of days at a time so all you can do is extend it.

Looking at Finglas the question is do you want a meandering Luas line to the City Centre via Broombridge or a more direct spur from a Luas Line serving Ballymun and connecting with heavy rail at Drumcoundra and connecting on to Stephens Green and Cherrywood. Realisitically neither the Finglas or Lucan routes will be built in the next 10 years wheras a Luas to Ballymun and Finglas could probably be delivered within 5 years as the savings from MN would be so significant and the extension costs to Finglas cost a fraction of the BXD routing.

@PVC King wrote:

Jimg wrote an excellent post on the subject of the Luas line to Lucan

Experience elsewhere suggests that trams have a very valuable role in City Centres but are clearly not suited to longer journeys. Reconsider Luas again and ask the question would the existing scenario of Luas or the scenario below be better

Green Line Heavy Rail Cherrywood to Charlemont surface and Underground to Connolly via College Green.

Red Line Luas from the Point Depot to St James Hospital

Heavy Rail spur from existing rail line at Clondalkin to Tallaght

It is too late to retrofit the Green line as mass aprtment and retail development added since construction commenced has made it too important to take out of service for more than a couple of days at a time so all you can do is extend it.

Looking at Finglas the question is do you want a meandering Luas line to the City Centre via Broombridge or a more direct spur from a Luas Line serving Ballymun and connecting with heavy rail at Drumcoundra and connecting on to Stephens Green and Cherrywood. Realisitically neither the Finglas or Lucan routes will be built in the next 10 years wheras a Luas to Ballymun and Finglas could probably be delivered within 5 years as the savings from MN would be so significant and the extension costs to Finglas cost a fraction of the BXD routing.

La la land.

Most of those ideas belong in the unnatural history museum.

Though I’d expect to be paid to view them.

@PVC King wrote:

No doubt you will reply

CraigFay said exactly what I was going to say so I wont repeat.

@PVC King wrote:

Looking at Finglas the question is do you want a meandering Luas line to the City Centre via Broombridge or a more direct spur from a Luas Line serving Ballymun and connecting with heavy rail at Drumcoundra and connecting on to Stephens Green and Cherrywood. Realisitically neither the Finglas or Lucan routes will be built in the next 10 years wheras a Luas to Ballymun and Finglas could probably be delivered within 5 years as the savings from MN would be so significant and the extension costs to Finglas cost a fraction of the BXD routing.

Are you suggesting building a Luas along the route of the metro instead of the metro? The metro will go all the way out to the airport, whicha luas would not be capable of. You say yourself “Experience elsewhere suggests that trams have a very valuable role in City Centres but are clearly not suited to longer journeys.” Without a link to/from the airport I dont think a Luas out to Ballymun/Finglas is feasible.

Luas from Drumcondra station is not needed because you are already within 10 minute bus journey of College Green with bus stop across the road from the station. As I said above, at least BXD serves DIT Grangegorman campus which will guarantee passengers and without it Grangegorman campus would only have a limited bus service and no other public transport.

Are you suggesting building a Luas along the route of the metro instead of the metro? The metro will go all the way out to the airport, whicha luas would not be capable of. You say yourself “Experience elsewhere suggests that trams have a very valuable role in City Centres but are clearly not suited to longer journeys.” Without a link to/from the airport I dont think a Luas out to Ballymun/Finglas is feasible.

Precisely what I meant; the idea of building Metro and Luas on the same alignment from Stephens Green to Parnell Square is wasteful of scarce resources. Having looked at Metro North it is clear that the necessary passenger levels don’t exist to even break even operationally; due to the nature of the route and that linking the airport can be acheived in the manner envisaged in the IE Dublin Rail Plan at a fraction of the cost. Metro North is a white elephant Ireland can’t afford anymore, up to 2006 the Westren Rail Corridor was considered viable by the same decision makers. That said Ballymun does need a transport connection and Luas to Ballymun would on the basis of the Red Line usage figures stack up.

As I said above, at least BXD serves DIT Grangegorman campus which will guarantee passengers and without it Grangegorman campus would only have a limited bus service and no other public transport.

Then the solution is to extend the bus service; neither Oxford or Cambridge Universities require a tram system and both are more than a mile from the nearest rail connection and are more substantial in scale; they have no problem surviving.

Luas from Drumcondra station is not needed because you are already within 10 minute bus journey of College Green with bus stop across the road from the station.

This type of logic is exactly whats wrong with the thinking behind Metro North; Luas isn’t required with a pricetag of a few hundred million euros but a Metro at a cost of billions of euro is. What one could only call fat fingered logic.

Poor old pvcking has dug himself into such a hole with his fantasy and invented figures for MN, he’s already dug his way past Bellinstown and is now fast approaching the fabled link up with the Northern commuter line at Balbriggan
Half the tunnelling work already done for Metro Nth pvcking. brilliant stuff.

@PVC King wrote:

Precisely what I meant; the idea of building Metro and Luas on the same alignment from Stephens Green to Parnell Square is wasteful of scarce resources. Having looked at Metro North it is clear that the necessary passenger levels don’t exist to even break even operationally; due to the nature of the route and that linking the airport can be acheived in the manner envisaged in the IE Dublin Rail Plan at a fraction of the cost. Metro North is a white elephant Ireland can’t afford anymore, up to 2006 the Westren Rail Corridor was considered viable by the same decision makers. That said Ballymun does need a transport connection and Luas to Ballymun would on the basis of the Red Line usage figures stack up.

Building a Luas out to Ballymun would be very expensive becuase it would require digging up the main roads from the city centre to anywhere north, Dorset Street, Drumcondra Road and Ballymun Road. I cant imagine how a traffic management plan would work if you were to do this. I agree the metro would be many times more expensive but at least much of the traffic distruption would be avoided. I live in Drumcondra and this Luas would be of huge benefit to me but I dont think it would get enough passengers if it didnt carry people to and from the airport.

Apart from serving Ballymun and DCU, this luas would not be of any real benefit as Drumcondra is close enough to city centre and buses are sufficient. But as you say, DIT does not warrent a luas, then neither does DCU which has less students. So your line only really serves Ballymun. At least the metro goes to the airport, where 20.9 million passengers passed through in 2009, with that number going to increase when the new terminal, capable of handling 15 million passengers, is open. Most of these would use the metro if it was built and it would also attract more tourists to Dublin.

Just because the metro and BXD share the same alignment, very briefly, does not mean it is a waste of resources. They will bring people for different parts of the city into the city centre which is where most people want to go. If the metro is not built soon it will never be built. The metro will only be a white elephant if Dublin does not expand and develop but the only way this will happen is if the metro is not built.

@PVC King wrote:

Then the solution is to extend the bus service; neither Oxford or Cambridge Universities require a tram system and both are more than a mile from the nearest rail connection and are more substantial in scale; they have no problem surviving.

DIT has 22,000 students and over 1,100 staff, plus the Grangegorman campus will also have a HSE Primary Care Unit, do you really think all these people should just get the bus? The campus will gaurantee thousands of passengers each day on BXD, not to mention those travelling from Broombridge station to city centre and locals as well. BXD is a lot more viable than a luas to Ballymun. Both Oxford and Cambridge Universities have huge on campus accomodation which the limited Grangegorman site can not provide so most people will have to commute.

@PVC King wrote:

Having looked at Metro North it is clear that the necessary passenger levels don’t exist to even break even operationally; due to the nature of the route and that linking the airport can be acheived in the manner envisaged in the IE Dublin Rail Plan at a fraction of the cost.

A spur to the airport would necessitate quad tracking to Malahide (very very expensive) and still overload this corridor. Under the Dublin Rail Plan this line from Spencer Dock to Malahide would have to accomodate three different train routes, Heuston to Airport DART, Kildare to Drogheda DART and the Northern commuter line trains. Also taking passengers from the airport to Malahide/Clontraff/Spencer Dock before eventually getting into St Stephens Green via Interconnector would take a long time. Of course that means the Interconnector would have to be built first which adds another €2billion to your proposal. Still think its cheaper?

@PVC King wrote:

This type of logic is exactly whats wrong with the thinking behind Metro North; Luas isn’t required with a pricetag of a few hundred million euros but a Metro at a cost of billions of euro is. What one could only call fat fingered logic.

Drumcondra does not need a luas and neither does Ballymun. The airport needs a metro and the fact that it passes through these places is a bonus. Grangegorman and Broombridge need a luas link and so does Finglas, although that will take a while… I still think BXD should be priority over projects like Lucan Luas which connects with nothing now that Interconnector has been put back. At least BXD links with Maynooth/Pace rail and goes through the city centre which is always agood thing (I’m sure there will be plenty of examples where it is not a good thing but anyway).

@Pete wrote:

Under the Dublin Rail Plan this line from Spencer Dock to Malahide would have to accomodate three different train routes, Heuston to Airport DART, Kildare to Drogheda DART and the Northern commuter line trains.

I agree with most of your points but under the Dublin Rail plan The Drogheda DART would’nt share any track with the Airport DART or Northern Commuter trains.They’re completely separate, meeting only at Pearse Station.

@Pete wrote:

Building a Luas out to Ballymun would be very expensive becuase it would require digging up the main roads from the city centre to anywhere north, Dorset Street, Drumcondra Road and Ballymun Road. I cant imagine how a traffic management plan would work if you were to do this. I agree the metro would be many times more expensive but at least much of the traffic distruption would be avoided. I live in Drumcondra and this Luas would be of huge benefit to me but I dont think it would get enough passengers if it didnt carry people to and from the airport.

The costings would be similar to the Red line and there would be an element of prioritising Luas over road users as is the case on a section of James’ Street.Pressure is now off Dorset Street as the main freight route for M1, N2 since the port tunnel opened the space exists for bus lanes so the space exists for a shared Luas/Bus lane. Cars could suffer but journey times would be cut dramatically from Ballymun, Glasnevin and Drumcoundra.

@Pete wrote:

Apart from serving Ballymun and DCU, this luas would not be of any real benefit as Drumcondra is close enough to city centre and buses are sufficient. But as you say, DIT does not warrent a luas, then neither does DCU which has less students. So your line only really serves Ballymun. At least the metro goes to the airport, where 20.9 million passengers passed through in 2009, with that number going to increase when the new terminal, capable of handling 15 million passengers, is open. Most of these would use the metro if it was built and it would also attract more tourists to Dublin.

Tourists are not attracted to cities because of their airport terminals or connections to the city centre from same. Congrats to the DAA on terminal 2 and the improved management of terminal 1 of late but they have so much spare capacity that its only rational use is to try to encourage a major US carrier to code share with Aer Lingus developing a trans- Atlantic hub. Very few of those passengers will visit the City Centre. Dublin Airport will be a pleasure to use for many years to come because Ireland bound passenger numbers will at best grow very slowly from the current level which has declined 12.6% on the previous year; this trend could persist as clearly much of the travel in the previous years was based on a booming consumer credit market which will continue to tighten at least into the medium term.

@Pete wrote:

Just because the metro and BXD share the same alignment, very briefly, does not mean it is a waste of resources. They will bring people for different parts of the city into the city centre which is where most people want to go. If the metro is not built soon it will never be built. The metro will only be a white elephant if Dublin does not expand and develop but the only way this will happen is if the metro is not built.

If you were talking about New York or Paris that argument would be sustainable but one of Dublin’s major advantages is the compact nature of its City Centre. If you walk from Parnell Square to Baggot Street you have pretty much crossed the City Centre in less than half an hour.

@Pete wrote:

DIT has 22,000 students and over 1,100 staff, plus the Grangegorman campus will also have a HSE Primary Care Unit, do you really think all these people should just get the bus? The campus will gaurantee thousands of passengers each day on BXD, not to mention those travelling from Broombridge station to city centre and locals as well. BXD is a lot more viable than a luas to Ballymun. Both Oxford and Cambridge Universities have huge on campus accomodation which the limited Grangegorman site can not provide so most people will have to commute.

DIT has a student population of 20,500 and of these many are on part time and evening courses and even more are apprentices such as mechanics, sparks etc who are in a day a week at most. The vast bulk of DIT students live close to campus i.e. people in Cathal Brugha St will get a flat in Mountjoy Sq or those in Bolton Street will gravitiate towards Smithfield. The situation in Oxford and Cambridge is little different as it is mainly International students who use the limited on campus accomodation which is astronomically priced in comparison to the private rental sector. I have a feeling that NAMA will be looking at companies such as Unite the student housing specialisists as their loanbook is seriously overweight on D7.

@Pete wrote:

A spur to the airport would necessitate quad tracking to Malahide (very very expensive) and still overload this corridor. Under the Dublin Rail Plan this line from Spencer Dock to Malahide would have to accomodate three different train routes, Heuston to Airport DART, Kildare to Drogheda DART and the Northern commuter line trains. Also taking passengers from the airport to Malahide/Clontraff/Spencer Dock before eventually getting into St Stephens Green via Interconnector would take a long time. Of course that means the Interconnector would have to be built first which adds another €2billion to your proposal. Still think its cheaper?

IE costed this element as costing sub €500m; the rationale for Dart in 1984 was that the switch fom diesel to electric trains removed acceleration/deceleration time by 1 minute per station. When the outer commuter section is electrified that will allow shorter gap times between services. The current arrnagement where all Darts stop at all stations and all outer commuter trains skip all stations to Howth Junction this could be reviewed to all outer commuter trains serving say Harmonstown and Kilbarrick which would no longer be served by existing Dart routes; this would even up journey times by making existing Dart faster and outer commuter slower; outer commuters would not complain as they would have received the 1 minute per station improvement on all stations.

@Pete wrote:

Drumcondra does not need a luas and neither does Ballymun. The airport needs a metro and the fact that it passes through these places is a bonus. Grangegorman and Broombridge need a luas link and so does Finglas, although that will take a while… I still think BXD should be priority over projects like Lucan Luas which connects with nothing now that Interconnector has been put back. At least BXD links with Maynooth/Pace rail and goes through the city centre which is always agood thing (I’m sure there will be plenty of examples where it is not a good thing but anyway).

The airport needs a rail connection but Dublin does not need a line from Ballymun to the airport; how many bus services currently serve this route? Money is tight and spending in excess of €2bn to connect the airport via light rail simply does not deliver value for money. Interest bill alone €110m p.a.

Post Dublin Rail plan the interconnector will deliver an additional capacity of c 65 p.a.x. it can do so because it enhances 100 miles plus of existing track by connecting the western suburbs and removing crippling capacity constriants on the other three lines.

Grimm’s Fairy tales comes to mind.

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.
Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.
There’s no getting away from this.
Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.
So the difference is pretty clear.
And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.
Not 110m as you allege.
Peanuts in 15 years time.
Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

All these things have been pointed out to you several times already and yet like a stuck record you pontificate like some transport economics expert about things that are way out of your depth.
But you need these lies to maintain your irrational arguments agaimst MN

You have never supplied costings referenced to one document. For funding cost guidance read the dow newswire below; if tier 1 Government costs are 5.50% which they are at present the costs for subordinate debt which this project would be would be well in excess of that figure.

AT A GLANCE: Europe Bank, Insurer Exposure To Weak Economies

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

THE EVENT: European financial stocks have been hit by mounting worries over their exposure to weak economies in the region since ratings agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded Spain’s sovereign debt by one notch, reduced Greece to junk status and cut Portugal to A-minus.

The European Union and the International Monetary Fund have since agreed a three-year EUR110 billion loan package for Greece intended to help restore the country’s economy but has done little to assuage market concerns that debt problems could spread.

Below is a list of exposures declared by individual banks and insurance companies:

FRANCE:

*Credit Agricole (ACA.FR): Greek government bonds EUR850 million, of which its Emporiki Bank of Greece (TEMP.AT) unit accounts for EUR600 million. Greece commercial commitments EUR2.4 billion, mainly secured lending against ships and trading transactions. Greek interbank risk EUR180 million. Holds minority stakes in Banco Espirito Santo (BES.LB) of Portugal and Bankinter (BKT.MC) of Spain.

*Societe Generale (GLE.FR): Greek state exposure of EUR3 billion at end-April. Overall exposure to Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain around EUR13 billion. SocGen owns a majority stake in Greek bank Geniki.

*BNP Paribas (BNP.FR): Exposure to Greek sovereign debt around EUR5 billion, commercial sector exposure around EUR3 billion, mainly in the shipping sector with loans secured by assets.

*Natixis (KN.FR): Greek exposure at end-April EUR882 million. Greek sovereign debt EUR160 million. Commercial exposure EUR618 million, mainly international shipping sector companies, project finance. Greek bank exposure EUR104 million.

*BPCE: Greek exposure at end-April EUR2.1 billion, includes EUR1.4 billion sovereign debt.

*AXA (AXA): At end March, government bond exposure EUR5.2 billion for Italy, EUR3.8 billion for Spain, EUR800 million for Portugal, EUR500 million for Greece and EUR400 million for Ireland.

*CNP Assurances (CNP.FR): Net of policyholder participation and tax, Greece EUR113 million, Portugal EUR154 million, Spain EUR241 million, Ireland EUR103 million, Italy EUR438 million.

GERMANY:

*Deutsche Bank (DB): Greece very limited, no comment on others.

*Deutsche Postbank AG (DPB.XE): Greece EUR1.3 billion. Portugal EUR50 million, Spain EUR1.2 billion, Ireland EUR350 million, Italy EUR4.7 billion.

*Commerzbank (CBK.XE): Greece EUR3.1 billion, total of EUR26.5 billion public finance exposure to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

*Munich Re AG (MUV2.XE): Greece EUR2.1 billion, Portugal EUR800 million, Spain EUR2.1 billion, Italy EUR5.1 billion.

*Hannover Re (HNR1.XE): Greek exposure EUR35 million.

*Allianz (ALV.XE): Greece EUR900 million, Portugal EUR500 million, Spain EUR1.8 billion, Italy EUR7.6 billion.

*Hypo Real Estate: Greece EUR7.9 billion, Portugal EUR1.7 billion, Spain EUR2.7 billion, Italy EUR26.5 billion.

Metro North is a stand alone route; there are no live plans to extend it as you well know.

This white elephant is dead; the economy will survive precisely because projects like this are being shelved.

You will find out soon enough that all my figures are 100% correct.

btw, One always gets the feeling that the drowning of submissions with jargon is indicative of a mind that is unable to think fot itself.
You don’t even understand the finacial guff you plaster into your posts to create the illusion that they carry some technical expertise.
I’m done with you now.

@PVC King wrote:

Metro North is a stand alone route; there are no live plans to extend it as you well know.

This white elephant is dead; the economy will survive precisely because projects like this are being shelved.

I have to agree here, as a stand alone line it makes no sense. It would be insane to introduce a completely new mode of transport and only have a single line.

This is a no brainer to solve though, esp as it is Luas compatible, the dots need to be joined.

Does anyone else think a review of transport21 would be good right now? And not to sink any grandiose projects but to actually focus on getting things done properly?
A few changes and a bit of corner cutting and we would actually have a plan that would work and could be delivered. As it is the transport21 ship is sinking and the captain, Mr Dempsey, is preparing to walk the plank.

PVC any chance you would replace him? You might have to change your nickname!

I wouldn’t fire Dempsey for two reasons firstly experience suggests that the Government will not secure another mandate in two years time given the financial turbulence; so the six months lost by the next minister to get their head around the portfolio would make a switch unviable for the informed 18 months they would have.

Secondly I do understand that people enter politics to acheive things and the unravelling of Transport 21 has more to do with the collapse in the global economy in general and real esatte development in particular. Using a 2004 outlook literally any transport project in the East of Ireland could be made to stack up as developers could bankroll a significant amount of the cost through development levies.

Wind the clock forward and the development levies are gone; passenger growth at Dublin Airport is non-existant and thanks to Goldman Sachs advice on the Greek public debt the ‘off balance sheet’ funding model is dead. Investors want to know total interest cover in a stress tested environment; same game very different rules and unfortunately until unemployment comes down signifcantly it will retard the ability to raise finance at reasonable rates. Which makes it even more important to ensure that any monies spent deliver real strategic benefits to the wider transport system. It is frightening to think that the taxpayer will be paying interest on the loans for the recently opened Ennis to Athenry line whilst Oranmore still doesn’t have a station; the taxpayer will be paying interest on the loans to the Citywest Luas extension but the development intended to pay for it will not happen for a very long time.

I would extend your question to ‘has their ever been a more pertinent time to conduct a full review of Transport 21?’

There are serious problems with the existing rail network; which if corrected will give Dublin a very solid base to expand from over the coming 10-20 years.

@PVC King wrote:

passenger growth at Dublin Airport is non-existant..

That’s fairly irrevelant seeing as ho in 2009(the heart of the recession) passenger levels were just below 21 million.That’s a vast amount of people, most seeking access to Dublin city and environs.

And about the stand alone project thing-Just because its trains are a different colour dosn’t make it a stand alone project.It connects with 2 proposed DART lines and 2 LUAS lines..Or in other words-THE ENTIRE DUBLIN RAIL NETWORK. Hardly stand alone.

That’s fairly irrevelant seeing as ho in 2009(the heart of the recession) passenger levels were just below 21 million.That’s a vast amount of people, most seeking access to Dublin city and environs.

The predictions for Metro North involved predictions of Dublin Airport passenger numbers being c25m p.a.x. this year on the basis of 8% yoy growth from 2005 and rising at 8% p.a. to 2020 to be close to 40m p.a.x. The reality is that passenger numbers at 3% growth will only hit 28.2m p.a.x. by 2020 applying a very generous 3% growth rate from the 2009 figures. Those missing passenger numbers would destroy the operational viability of the proposal in isolation.

Secondly to state that all passengers will seek access to Dublin City which is all the routing would serve is rubbish; Dublin is the only real International airport on the Island and draws the bulk of its passengers from the Midlands, West and North of the country. The vast majority of journeys will continue to be by car regardless if you built Metro North and or Monorails to Galway, Belfast and Bellmullet.

And about the stand alone project thing-Just because its trains are a different colour dosn’t make it a stand alone project.It connects with 2 proposed DART lines and 2 LUAS lines..Or in other words-THE ENTIRE DUBLIN RAIL NETWORK. Hardly stand alone.

The proposals for Metro West are gone and the prioposed extension to Tallaght via Terenure never made it past an article written by Frank McDonald a number of years ago. This is clearly a stand alone line as there is one difference between Metro North and Dart which is fatal; they operate on different track gauges.

The IE proposal of a Dart spur to Dublin Airport would also interact with all the networks you have described but more critically would involve no change for passengers with heavy cases to either the Belfast line (assuming an additional stop were added at an existing station say the new station at Clongriffin) and to Heuston the main rail hub for the South and West of the Country.

Gold medal prospect, Olympic Straw Clutching event.

@shytalk wrote:

Gold medal prospect, Olympic Straw Clutching event.

Good to see that you are as sweet as ever marmajam

THE GOVERNMENT would have to underwrite the financing risks associated with the public-private partnership (PPP) project for Metro North if it is to be built, according to one of the consortiums bidding for the contract.

Stephane Kofman, who heads the specialist investment division of HSBC, told a lunch meeting in Dublin organised by the Ireland-France Chamber of Commerce that equity had become “very scarce” as a result of the recession.

The British government had set up a co-financing agency to underwrite private finance initiatives (PFIs) for public infrastructure projects in order to ensure that it had “solid partners” at a time when the volume of PFIs is in decline.

Mr Kofman said HSBC had invested €10 billion in PPP projects since 2001 and it was now a partner with Alstom, the French tramway builder, and SIAC in bidding for the Metro North contract, for which competition was “very fierce”.

Didier Traube, concessions director of Alstom, said the recession had meant there were now fewer lenders in the market – just seven to 10, compared to between 30 and 40 offering loans just two years ago. Lenders had also become “more risk averse”.

Consequently, project debt was now more expensive – “by a factor of two or three”. This meant that there would have to be “guarantees from the public side” to underwrite the financing or refinancing risks, according to Mr Traube.

Mr Kofman conceded that there was an “ideological reluctance” to accept PPPs because they were seen as more expensive, as privatisation in disguise, offering reduced levels of service and with the State awarding “secret” tenders.

“The PPP model faces intense scrutiny, but continues to spread,” he said. The main advantage was that it “spread costs over life of the asset”, although it was “unlikely to offer a rapid remedy” as an economic stimulus because of long lead times.

Without referring to the secrecy surrounding Metro North, for which the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) has refused to divulge any estimated cost, he said PPP projects should be “implemented in a very transparent procurement process”.

One of the PPP projects in which HSBC is involved is the new high-speed rail link between Belgium and the Netherlands. Alstom, which built the Luas trams for Dublin, is currently delivering a single-line tramway in the northern French city of Reims.

This was also a PPP contract for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the new tramway, as well as all bus services in the Reims metropolitan area for a 35-year period – 10 years longer than the term quoted for Metro North by the RPA.

The €413 million project, due for completion in 2011, is receiving a 40 per cent public subsidy, with 50 per cent provided by bank debt and the rest by the project’s shareholders, including Alstom, French construction giant Bouygues and a number of banks.

Mr Traube said Reims Metropole, the public client, is covering part of the risk, including interest rate changes. The main advantage of controlling the buses is that it “provides revenue during construction as well as better control of tramline patronage”.

In Dublin, Luas and bus services operate entirely independently and are run by different agencies – Veolia, the French company that won the contract to operate Luas, and Dublin Bus, which is planning a 10 per cent cut in services to reduce its growing deficit.

In Reims, as in Bordeaux, bus services are being reorganised to “feed” passengers to the 11km tramway after it opens in two years’ time. Mr Traube said this will lead to a 40 per cent increase in public transport patronage in the metropolitan area.

The off balance sheet funding model is dead; it is government debt; not a comodity that can be wasted on a stand alone rail project which will attract no development levies from development or have the passenger numbers originally envisaged because airport traffic has slumped and no new houses are being built.

@PVC King wrote:

The off balance sheet funding model is dead; it is government debt; not a comodity that can be wasted on a stand alone rail project which will attract no development levies from development or have the passenger numbers originally envisaged because airport traffic has slumped and no new houses are being built.

That is scary stuff, the whole funding model of t21 is planned on, is now corrupt.
How about scaling back some projects but still meeting the original objectives?
I think it would be reckless for the government not to reconsider

– shelving Metro North and building the Irish Rail proposed DART spur to the Airport
Saving 4.5 Billion
– scaling back interconnector tunnel from 7.5km to the original 5.2km (to Heuston)
Saving at least 700m but probably more as well as saving a couple of years off the schedule.

Total cost of both projects: 1.8 Billion
Total cost of the current proposals: 7 Billion
TOTAL SAVING 5.2 Billion

Interesting article from 2004 on where we could have been four years from then:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/airporttocity-centre-rail-link-would-take-four-years-146174.html

AC

I am totally lost on the Metro North cost accoring to EIB it would cost €6bn

EIB may give €500m to Dublin Metro project
Monday, 22 March 2010 15:07
The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.

The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.

The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway – the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year

The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here – the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB’s renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.

‘We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,’the bank’s vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

Total review by independent consultants required; with funding assessments like this it is no wonder the Greeks are in the trouble they are in; we need to ensure that Ireland makes it very clear we will not borrow €5.5bn to pay for Metro North or build motorways to places like Tuam.

@PVC King wrote:

Metro North is a stand alone route; there are no live plans to extend it as you well know.

This white elephant is dead; the economy will survive precisely because projects like this are being shelved.

The fact that the metro will stand alone is exactly why it should be built. The Dublin Rail Plan which you are promoting proposes to two and three rail lines running side by side all over the city. The following was what is proposed under the Dublin Rail Plan;

The following is what is proposed under the current Transport 21 plan;

The Transport 21 plan with the metro is the simplest, easiest for passengers to use, provides better connection options for users, reduces duplicating routes and would be the cheapest in the long run.

You bang on about all these figures to do with the airport, neglecting the fact that if was easier to get to and from, more people both here and tourists would use it. The metro would also see large passenger numbers using the mater hospital (and national childrens hospital) stop, DCU stop, large and expanding residential areas of Drumcondra, Ballymun and Swords, as well as the Park and Ride further north.

@ac1976 wrote:

That is scary stuff, the whole funding model of t21 is planned on, is now corrupt.
How about scaling back some projects but still meeting the original objectives?
I think it would be reckless for the government not to reconsider

– shelving Metro North and building the Irish Rail proposed DART spur to the Airport
Saving 4.5 Billion
– scaling back interconnector tunnel from 7.5km to the original 5.2km (to Heuston)
Saving at least 700m but probably more as well as saving a couple of years off the schedule.

Total cost of both projects: 1.8 Billion
Total cost of the current proposals: 7 Billion
TOTAL SAVING 5.2 Billion

Interesting article from 2004 on where we could have been four years from then:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/airporttocity-centre-rail-link-would-take-four-years-146174.html

The fact that this would require a double decker Interconnector, and the cost of this, is completely ignored, not to mention the fact that all the design work would have to start from scratch, adding extra costs, money spent on design is wasted and adding years to the programme.

@PVC King wrote:

DIT has a student population of 20,500 and of these many are on part time and evening courses and even more are apprentices such as mechanics, sparks etc who are in a day a week at most. The vast bulk of DIT students live close to campus i.e. people in Cathal Brugha St will get a flat in Mountjoy Sq or those in Bolton Street will gravitiate towards Smithfield. The situation in Oxford and Cambridge is little different as it is mainly International students who use the limited on campus accomodation which is astronomically priced in comparison to the private rental sector. I have a feeling that NAMA will be looking at companies such as Unite the student housing specialisists as their loanbook is seriously overweight on D7.

You obviously didnt read the document which you provided the link to, hoping the rest of us wouldnt read it also. It says “The campus will be student-centred and resourced to meet the multiple needs of the Institute’s current student population of 20,500 students with the potential to accommodate a further 1,000 full time students when completed and a further potential increase of 30% in the decades ahead. ” So thats 21,500 when its built and potentially 28,000. It also says, regarding student accomodation, DIT seek “distinct identifiable groupings of 300-400 beds maximum for ease of management and a sense of community“. As a current student in DIT Bolton Street I can only think of 6 out of my class of 60 who can walk to college without getting public transport. Luas BXD will be needed when the new campus is built.

If metro and BXD were built, work on the section where they share the same alignment (Westmoreland Street and O’Connell Street) could be combined, meaning less distruption in city centre and less overall cost. These two projects make more sense then a double decker Interconnector and numerous Dart/Intercity/Suburban lines along the east cost which would create a mess that would have to be cleaned up in 10 years time, probably by a metro… Plus you would also have to built that Luas Ballymun line you were on about, and extend it to Finglas and Swords, which would be needed to connect all these Dart/Intercity/Suburban lines which is another couple of hundred million on top.

There are no current plans to extend metro south but this could happen in the future. As skytalk informed me on another thread “The metro trains will ‘turnback’ at St Stephen’s Green by continuing on a tunnell loop under the park (they won’t terminate with the driver switching to the other end). This means that when MN is extended (and it certainly will be) it will be possible to insert the TBMs without very serious upheaval.“. Metro also provides for futuer expansion which is another advantage.

I believe metro is a much better option and will make Dublina better connected city at a lower long run cost.

Absolute common sense Pete. We don’t need another M50 2 lanes fiasco. MN will pay for itself on opening and there will be exponential growth along it’s route. As many observers have pointed out, the likely problem will be an outcry in 20 years as to why it wasn’t constructed heavy rail. But not feasible now due to expense.
If you are perverse enough to read pvcking’s posts closely you will find they are littered with downright lies and deliberate and slippery attempts to hide data awkward to his anti MN obsession.
A few posts ago he’s telling us the debt will cost 5.25% to service. Then quickly he’s trying to use the EIB to bolster a point, forgetting that the EIB are ready to lend cash at 5%.
In fact it’s quite possible that the capital cost will be raised without going to the capital markets at all.

You obviously didnt read the document which you provided the link to, hoping the rest of us wouldnt read it also. It says “The campus will be student-centred and resourced to meet the multiple needs of the Institute’s current student population of 20,500 students with the potential to accommodate a further 1,000 full time students when completed and a further potential increase of 30% in the decades ahead. ” So thats 21,500 when its built and potentially 28,000. It also says, regarding student accomodation, DIT seek “distinct identifiable groupings of 300-400 beds maximum for ease of management and a sense of community”. As a current student in DIT Bolton Street I can only think of 6 out of my class of 60 who can walk to college without getting public transport. Luas BXD will be needed when the new campus is built.

The current popluation is 20,500 of which half are most likely apprentices; that equates to 10,250 total full time students assuming usage of 40% and attendance of users of 60% the numbers would dwindle down very quickly as many will be in local accomodation, many more will cycle, others will get lifts from neighbours and family and others will take Luas to Smithfield rather than get off a train at Heuston and change at Abbey St; the campus is not in City West it is about 10-15 mins walk from Smithfield.

If metro and BXD were built, work on the section where they share the same alignment (Westmoreland Street and O’Connell Street) could be combined, meaning less distruption in city centre and less overall cost. These two projects make more sense then a double decker Interconnector and numerous Dart/Intercity/Suburban lines along the east cost which would create a mess that would have to be cleaned up in 10 years time, probably by a metro… Plus you would also have to built that Luas Ballymun line you were on about, and extend it to Finglas and Swords, which would be needed to connect all these Dart/Intercity/Suburban lines which is another couple of hundred million on top.

Nope the interconnector will increase capacity to 100m journeys as is; Luas to Fibglas from DCU would add 1km and Swords can be accessed from the Northern line along the proven Metro North route terminating at Estuary for a few hundred million. With grade seperation to Swords routing would in fact add capacity to the Northern line as Darts would no longer have to cross at Malahide.

There are no current plans to extend metro south but this could happen in the future. As skytalk informed me on another thread “The metro trains will ‘turnback’ at St Stephen’s Green by continuing on a tunnell loop under the park (they won’t terminate with the driver switching to the other end). This means that when MN is extended (and it certainly will be) it will be possible to insert the TBMs without very serious upheaval.”. Metro also provides for futuer expansion which is another advantage.

I believe metro is a much better option and will make Dublina better connected city at a lower long run cost.

Shytalk is deranged and has already been banned from this site once; if Phase 1 of Metro costs €6bn what would the wider network cost?

EIB may give €500m to Dublin Metro project
Monday, 22 March 2010 15:07
The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.

The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.

The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway – the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year

The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here – the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB’s renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.

‘We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,’the bank’s vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

Its bedfellows such as a Motorway to Tuam and another Motorway from the N7 to the N11 accross the Wicklow Mountains show just how unneccesary this project is. The country is clearly not in a position to fund this; where in God’s name will the country get €5.5bn from to build one light railway? Bondmarkets would kill the NTMA

The EIB has not estimated that Metro North will cost €6bn. The author of this article makes this estimate.

The EIB last year mentioned a figure of 6bn for the total cost of both Metro North & The Interconnector
http://www.eib.org/epec/infocentre/documents/FINAL%20FINAL%20EUROPEAN%20PPP%20REPORT%202009.pdf (pg.86)

THE GOVERNMENT would have to underwrite the financing risks associated with the public-private partnership (PPP) project for Metro North if it is to be built, according to one of the consortiums bidding for the contract.

This PR statement came from HSBC who was backing the Dublin Express Link consortium. This consortium was eliminated from consideration a couple of months later.

It’s musical chairs anyway…

The big one…

Europe agrees $700 billion ‘monster’ bailout plan

The monster bailout “proves that we shall defend the euro whatever it takes,” the European Union’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, Olli Rehn, told a press conference after 11 hours of marathon Brussels talks.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

The EIB has not estimated that Metro North will cost €6bn. The author of this article makes this estimate.

The EIB last year mentioned a figure of 6bn for the total cost of both Metro North & The Interconnector
http://www.eib.org/epec/infocentre/documents/FINAL%20FINAL%20EUROPEAN%20PPP%20REPORT%202009.pdf (pg.86)

Frank

That report was not written by the EIB it was written by DLA Piper a large law firm known for their decentralisation of work to regional offices versus being magic circle. They list Metro North as costing €700m whilst Lucan Luas was listed as costing €1bn; they must have talked to Marmajam to get their costings. The article posted above is from RTE and it begs the question why did the RPA not seek a retraction from RTE if it is so wide of the mark.

The €1bn pricetag for the Tuam Mororway is even more bizarre as Tuam in an urban sense has a population of less than 3,000 people.

The M3 is listed as being on the route between Monaghan and Dublin; I would suggest you read the links you post in future. But will leave you to consider the view of the view of the greatest Chairman Corporate Ireland has ever produced.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

Lies, DAMN lies, Statistics, and pvcking 😀

EIB may give €500m to Dublin Metro project
Monday, 22 March 2010 15:07
The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.

The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.

The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway – the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year

The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here – the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB’s renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.

‘We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,’the bank’s vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

EIB’s report written by DLA at page 253; an utter shambles.

That report was not written by the EIB it was written by DLA Piper a large law firm known for their decentralisation of work to regional offices versus being magic circle. They list Metro North as costing €700m whilst Lucan Luas was listed as costing €1bn; they must have talked to Marmajam to get their costings. The article posted above is from RTE and it begs the question why did the RPA not seek a retraction from RTE if it is so wide of the mark.

The €1bn pricetag for the Tuam Mororway is even more bizarre as Tuam in an urban sense has a population of less than 3,000 people.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

Open secret in informed circles that capital cost of MN will be about 1.7 billion.

Believe that the Beano will come out with cost of 50 billion this weeks edition.

I’ll send you a copy pvcking.

EIB may give €500m to Dublin Metro project
Monday, 22 March 2010 15:07
The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.

The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.

The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway – the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year

The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here – the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB’s renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.

‘We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,’the bank’s vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

EIB’s report written by DLA at page 253; an utter shambles.

That report was not written by the EIB it was written by DLA Piper a large law firm known for their decentralisation of work to regional offices versus being magic circle. They list Metro North as costing €700m whilst Lucan Luas was listed as costing €1bn; they must have talked to Marmajam to get their costings. The article posted above is from RTE and it begs the question why did the RPA not seek a retraction from RTE if it is so wide of the mark.

The €1bn pricetag for the Tuam Mororway is even more bizarre as Tuam in an urban sense has a population of less than 3,000 people.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

We do love a good panic.
Greece ‘problem’ is manageable.
Storm in a teacup in the bigger scheme.

Marmajam knows more than the ex-Chair of Goldman Sachs International and BP

EIB may give €500m to Dublin Metro project
Monday, 22 March 2010 15:07
The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.

The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.

The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway – the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year

The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here – the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB’s renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.

‘We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,’the bank’s vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

EIB’s report written by DLA at page 253; an utter shambles.

That report was not written by the EIB it was written by DLA Piper a large law firm known for their decentralisation of work to regional offices versus being magic circle. They list Metro North as costing €700m whilst Lucan Luas was listed as costing €1bn; they must have talked to Marmajam to get their costings. The article posted above is from RTE and it begs the question why did the RPA not seek a retraction from RTE if it is so wide of the mark.

The €1bn pricetag for the Tuam Mororway is even more bizarre as Tuam in an urban sense has a population of less than 3,000 people.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

You’re praying to the wrong gods pvcking 😀

A lot more transparency in a bond market than a PPP

MADRID Amey PLC and Bechtel Group Inc. have agreed to sell Tube Lines Ltd. for GBP310.2 million, Amey parent Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC) said late Friday.

In a Spanish regulatory filing, Ferrovial said TLL, which is tasked with the maintenance of three London Underground lines, will be purchased by the U.K. state-owned Transport for London.

Company website: http://www.ferrovial.es

Interconnector it is; the metro has left the building

@PVC King wrote:

Nope the interconnector will increase capacity to 100m journeys as is

Interconnector is grand and yes it will increase capacity on the Dart line, but your ignoring my main points. The interconnector, as envisaged under the Dublin Rail Plan would have to be double decker to handle all the traffic that would go through it (two Dart lines). The double decker tunnel would cost considerably more than the €2bn for the single tunnel. Why spend €3 – 4bn on a 7.5km tunnel to create an improved Dart line that would only bring people from Pearse Street to Inchicore? Dart users have coped with the current system for long enough so can stick with it for another few years. You would also have to add cost of building rail line from Malahide to airport and provide extra tracks from Malahide into Docklands on top of that. Capacity may be increased to 100m journeys but I dont think it would get 100m passengers going from Malahide to Heuston or visa versa.

@EIA340600 wrote:

under the Dublin Rail plan The Drogheda DART would’nt share any track with the Airport DART or Northern Commuter trains.They’re completely separate, meeting only at Pearse Station.

How does it make any sense to have three rail lines (2 Dart 1 Commuter) running alone the East coast northside all serving the same stops? The only difference in these two Dart lines is one would go from the airport and one from Drogheda and then both from Malahide to Hueston, both serving 13 out of 16 stops along the airport route. The airport Dart in this case would have three extra stops, and with all other stops served by the other Dart, you are effectively creating a new rail link to the airport only. If the figures dont stack up for the metro how can they for this? At least the metro would introduce new areas to the public transport system. The metro would link with both Luas lines and Drumcondra station and serve St. Stephens Green, Mater hospital, DCU and airport.

@PVC King wrote:

if Phase 1 of Metro costs €6bn what would the wider network cost?

The metro will cost €2bn not €6bn, as has been pointed out by almost every other poster here so would appreciate if you didnt quote that figure again. I would suggest extending the metro south (at some time in the future and not now) through Harolds Cross, Terenure and Rathfarnham, doing away with the need for Luas Line E. Again I know metro will be more expensive than luas but a metro line running from Rathfarnham to airport via city centre and connecting with every other rail line in Dublin would be extremely popular. The main point is the metro allows for future expansion of the rail network, unlike overloading the North East coast line of County Dublin.

Transport 21 plans (over next 20 years) will create;

• Dart from Maynooth to Greystones via Connelly
• Dart from Balbriggan to Hazelhatch via Interconnector
• Metro from Rathfarnham to north of the airport via city centre
• Luas (green) from Cherrywood to Finglas (green line plus BXD plus finglas extension) via city centre
• Luas (red) from Tallaght to Docklands via city centre

Nice and simple with no over lapping yet all major population centres are catered for and all lines connect at least two other rail lines.

@PVC King wrote:

Shytalk is deranged

At least that is one thing we can all agree on. Shytalk would rather make general comments with no real relevance and dismisses all other suggestions without a reasonable and structured argument. I dont mind people disagreeing as long as they can back up their point of view, Shytalk just throws out insults.

@Pete wrote:

Interconnector is grand and yes it will increase capacity on the Dart line, but your ignoring my main points. The interconnector, as envisaged under the Dublin Rail Plan would have to be double decker to handle all the traffic that would go through it (two Dart lines). The double decker tunnel would cost considerably more than the €2bn for the single tunnel. Why spend €3 – 4bn on a 7.5km tunnel to create an improved Dart line that would only bring people from Pearse Street to Inchicore? Dart users have coped with the current system for long enough so can stick with it for another few years. You would also have to add cost of building rail line from Malahide to airport and provide extra tracks from Malahide into Docklands on top of that. Capacity may be increased to 100m journeys but I dont think it would get 100m passengers going from Malahide to Heuston or visa versa.

The interconnector will cost about €2bn to build in isolation. Not all passengers will use the tunnel but it will greatly enhance service levels on the three existing routes into Connolly from Greystones, Maynooth and Northern line (branching to Howth). By allowing Darts to run more frequently on the Bray and Maynooth routes it provides capacity purely on the basis of removing about 50% of the traffic currently using the ‘loopline’ In essence it doubles capacity.

@Pete wrote:

How does it make any sense to have three rail lines (2 Dart 1 Commuter) running alone the East coast northside all serving the same stops? The only difference in these two Dart lines is one would go from the airport and one from Drogheda and then both from Malahide to Hueston, both serving 13 out of 16 stops along the airport route. The airport Dart in this case would have three extra stops, and with all other stops served by the other Dart, you are effectively creating a new rail link to the airport only. If the figures dont stack up for the metro how can they for this? At least the metro would introduce new areas to the public transport system. The metro would link with both Luas lines and Drumcondra station and serve St. Stephens Green, Mater hospital, DCU and airport.

The Luas Route from O’Connell Bridge to Ballymun is less than 7kms; A Luas service would be more than adequate to serve all the locations above that you have listed. In terms of the Northern Line not all trains need to stop at all stations; if trains ran every 3 mins at peak times and stations beyond the City Centre were grouped into bundles then you could seperate the more important destinations such as the Airport and Swords/Malahide with fewer services to Drogheda and Howth.

@Pete wrote:

The metro will cost €2bn not €6bn, as has been pointed out by almost every other poster here so would appreciate if you didnt quote that figure again.

The key word is almost as the cost has never actually been clarified by anyone; but it is strange that you would apply to the EIB for €6bn and only list the Metro. In any event it is a PPP so it would be very easy to quote a low headline figure and increase the cost by locking in excesively priced operational and maintenance contracts. Such as the one below which has just been bought out by Transport for London because it was an unmitigated disaster.

Amey PLC and Bechtel Group Inc. have agreed to sell Tube Lines Ltd. for GBP310.2 million, Amey parent Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC) said late Friday.

In a Spanish regulatory filing, Ferrovial said TLL, which is tasked with the maintenance of three London Underground lines, will be purchased by the U.K. state-owned Transport for London.

Company website: http://www.ferrovial.es

@Pete wrote:

I would suggest extending the metro south (at some time in the future and not now) through Harolds Cross, Terenure and Rathfarnham, doing away with the need for Luas Line E. Again I know metro will be more expensive than luas but a metro line running from Rathfarnham to airport via city centre and connecting with every other rail line in Dublin would be extremely popular. The main point is the metro allows for future expansion of the rail network, unlike overloading the North East coast line of County Dublin.

I am very surprised that a DIT student would overlook the housing density issues; do you not have Terry Prendergast as a lecturer? As Ciaran Cuffe said to us the best way to assess any planning decision is from the air. All of the areas you have listed are predominently greying suburbs with very low population density and high levels of protected structures making redevlopment extremely challenging even if the site assembly works out.

@Pete wrote:

Transport 21 plans (over next 20 years) will create;

• Dart from Maynooth to Greystones via Connelly
• Dart from Balbriggan to Hazelhatch via Interconnector
• Metro from Rathfarnham to north of the airport via city centre
• Luas (green) from Cherrywood to Finglas (green line plus BXD plus finglas extension) via city centre
• Luas (red) from Tallaght to Docklands via city centre

Nice and simple with no over lapping yet all major population centres are catered for and all lines connect at least two other rail lines.

Its a nice wish list but do not forget that up to recently the Dept for Transport could rely on massive development levies on the basis of all predictions being very favourable demographics delivering 100,00 housing units a year up to 2006; that figure is now about 10,000 per year and with the overhang on Nama’s books this won’t change anytime soon.

Have a look at the Frankfurt system on this link what Frankfurt does very well is have a number of rail lines that operate at high frequency i.e. 2 – 3 minute intervals with grade seperated spurs ensuring that capacity can be maintained at peak times.

Sadly neither BXD or Lucan Luas will be built as will be the case for Metro North; once the ratings agencies realised what Greece were up to with off balance sheet PPP’s that source of finance is closed and there isn’t the money from general budget. Mitsui’s proposal 15 years should have been built but development was funnelled elsewhere during the boom years and won’t be back anytime soon.

@shytalk wrote:

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.
Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.
There’s no getting away from this.
Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.
So the difference is pretty clear.
And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.
Not 110m as you allege.
Peanuts in 15 years time.
Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

All these things have been pointed out to you several times already and yet like a stuck record you pontificate like some transport economics expert about things that are way out of your depth.
But you need these lies to maintain your irrational arguments agaimst MN

The reason we have this volcanic cloud of dishonest guff from pvcking is simply thanks to his irrational antipathy to MN.
Both CBAs for MN were predicated on long term normal growth not the fantasist stuff pvcking concocts.
There’s no rational argument aginst it. All the main players are happy with it and the contracts will be signed in the 1st half of next year.

@shytalk wrote:

The reason we have this volcanic cloud of dishonest guff from pvcking is simply thanks to his irrational antipathy to MN.
There’s no rational argument aginst it. All the main players are happy with it and the contracts will be signed in the 1st half of next year.

The un-named main players as you put it signed off on the Western Rail Corridor and have applied for €1bn to build a motorway to Tuam.

@Pete wrote:

Interconnector is grand and yes it will increase capacity on the Dart line, but your ignoring my main points. The interconnector, as envisaged under the Dublin Rail Plan would have to be double decker to handle all the traffic that would go through it (two Dart lines). The double decker tunnel would cost considerably more than the €2bn for the single tunnel. Why spend €3 – 4bn on a 7.5km tunnel to create an improved Dart line that would only bring people from Pearse Street to Inchicore? Dart users have coped with the current system for long enough so can stick with it for another few years. You would also have to add cost of building rail line from Malahide to airport and provide extra tracks from Malahide into Docklands on top of that. Capacity may be increased to 100m journeys but I dont think it would get 100m passengers going from Malahide to Heuston or visa versa.

The interconnector will cost about €2bn to build in isolation. Not all passengers will use the tunnel but it will greatly enhance service levels on the three existing routes into Connolly from Greystones, Maynooth and Northern line (branching to Howth). By allowing Darts to run more frequently on the Bray and Maynooth routes it provides capacity purely on the basis of removing about 50% of the traffic currently using the ‘loopline’ In essence it doubles capacity.

@Pete wrote:

How does it make any sense to have three rail lines (2 Dart 1 Commuter) running alone the East coast northside all serving the same stops? The only difference in these two Dart lines is one would go from the airport and one from Drogheda and then both from Malahide to Hueston, both serving 13 out of 16 stops along the airport route. The airport Dart in this case would have three extra stops, and with all other stops served by the other Dart, you are effectively creating a new rail link to the airport only. If the figures dont stack up for the metro how can they for this? At least the metro would introduce new areas to the public transport system. The metro would link with both Luas lines and Drumcondra station and serve St. Stephens Green, Mater hospital, DCU and airport.

The Luas Route from O’Connell Bridge to Ballymun is less than 7kms; A Luas service would be more than adequate to serve all the locations above that you have listed. In terms of the Northern Line not all trains need to stop at all stations; if trains ran every 3 mins at peak times and stations beyond the City Centre were grouped into bundles then you could seperate the more important destinations such as the Airport and Swords/Malahide with fewer services to Drogheda and Howth.

@Pete wrote:

The metro will cost €2bn not €6bn, as has been pointed out by almost every other poster here so would appreciate if you didnt quote that figure again.

The key word is almost as the cost has never actually been clarified by anyone; but it is strange that you would apply to the EIB for €6bn and only list the Metro. In any event it is a PPP so it would be very easy to quote a low headline figure and increase the cost by locking in excesively priced operational and maintenance contracts. Such as the one below which has just been bought out by Transport for London because it was an unmitigated disaster.

Amey PLC and Bechtel Group Inc. have agreed to sell Tube Lines Ltd. for GBP310.2 million, Amey parent Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC) said late Friday.

In a Spanish regulatory filing, Ferrovial said TLL, which is tasked with the maintenance of three London Underground lines, will be purchased by the U.K. state-owned Transport for London.

Company website: http://www.ferrovial.es

@Pete wrote:

I would suggest extending the metro south (at some time in the future and not now) through Harolds Cross, Terenure and Rathfarnham, doing away with the need for Luas Line E. Again I know metro will be more expensive than luas but a metro line running from Rathfarnham to airport via city centre and connecting with every other rail line in Dublin would be extremely popular. The main point is the metro allows for future expansion of the rail network, unlike overloading the North East coast line of County Dublin.

I am very surprised that a DIT student would overlook the housing density issues; do you not have Terry Prendergast as a lecturer? As Ciaran Cuffe said to us the best way to assess any planning decision is from the air. All of the areas you have listed are predominently greying suburbs with very low population density and high levels of protected structures making redevlopment extremely challenging even if the site assembly works out.

@Pete wrote:

Transport 21 plans (over next 20 years) will create;

• Dart from Maynooth to Greystones via Connelly
• Dart from Balbriggan to Hazelhatch via Interconnector
• Metro from Rathfarnham to north of the airport via city centre
• Luas (green) from Cherrywood to Finglas (green line plus BXD plus finglas extension) via city centre
• Luas (red) from Tallaght to Docklands via city centre

Nice and simple with no over lapping yet all major population centres are catered for and all lines connect at least two other rail lines.

Its a nice wish list but do not forget that up to recently the Dept for Transport could rely on massive development levies on the basis of all predictions being very favourable demographics delivering 100,00 housing units a year up to 2006; that figure is now about 10,000 per year and with the overhang on Nama’s books this won’t change anytime soon.

Have a look at the Frankfurt system on this link what Frankfurt does very well is have a number of rail lines that operate at high frequency i.e. 2 – 3 minute intervals with grade seperated spurs ensuring that capacity can be maintained at peak times.

Sadly neither BXD or Lucan Luas will be built as will be the case for Metro North; once the ratings agencies realised what Greece were up to with off balance sheet PPP’s that source of finance is closed and there isn’t the money from general budget. Mitsui’s proposal 15 years should have been built but development was funnelled elsewhere during the boom years and won’t be back anytime soon.

@shytalk wrote:

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.
Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.
There’s no getting away from this.
Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.
So the difference is pretty clear.
And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.
Not 110m as you allege.
Peanuts in 15 years time.
Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

All these things have been pointed out to you several times already and yet like a stuck record you pontificate like some transport economics expert about things that are way out of your depth.
But you need these lies to maintain your irrational arguments agaimst MN

answer the real issues

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.

Report 1 for abusive posting; your already on thin ice for your antics under the previous user id of marmajam

Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.

All the other lines will exist in the absence of Metro North; it is therefore a stand alone line that for the vast majority of its route serves a very low density catchment beyond Drumcoundra and for all of its route beyond Ballymun; excluding Dublin Airport and Swords which can be served by faster Dart options. The interconnector will provide a viable transport system. Name one major muti-national employer on the route; IBM, Intel, Citibank, HSBC, they are all a lot closer to interconnector locations.
There’s no getting away from this.

Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

No scheme is planned on a timeframe of more than 20-30 years; ; except maybe the railway junction I visited in the Bolivian altiplano added in 1870 and shut in 1996. The level of housing and commercial space to be that will require require locations adjacent to a transport corridor can be adequately serviced by the 4 interconnector assisted lines; not to mention that development is unlikely to be as regionally unbalanced as it was over the past decade. i.e. more development for Cork, Galway, Limerick etc is likely to ensure that Dublin doesn’t suffer from over-development again for a very long time.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.

North West Dublin is Blanchardstown it is served by Commuter rail which will be upgraded to Dart; you are talking about MN serving a very narrow corridor comprising of 3 bed semis built between 1920 and 1970. The passenger numbers or multinationals are elsewhere. There is not one bus route between Ballymun and the Airport which indicates that there is no demand to connect these two centres.

And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.

The EIB funding is for 8.33% of a €6bn package; even taking your €2bn figure which you have never backed up €1,833m would need to borrowed on the open market where yields exceed 5.50% for gilts; that is €100.83m plus €8.3m to the EIB or €109.13m p.a. there would be a risk premium attached to all further deficit sums.

But I don’t believe this can be built for €2bn without some form of inflated service contract being manditory. Compare this project to the interconnector and it offers little, very little. The passenger predictions for the Airport are back to about 28m for 2020 for starters on the demand side; the operational losses on this system would crippling; unless there is seperate ticketing and then commuters have to pay both MN and IE to make journeys involving 2 modes on the system .

Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

So it costs €2bn but the exchequer will receive €2.2bn; are you serious? Then the ongoing operational contract must be crippling; isn’t this how Greece became bankraupt?

I ignore your posts because you supply no sources for anything you say and have difficulty with basic arithmetic.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

Oh nooo it’s spreading. I think transport 21 is dead

New cross-city line to link Luas is derailed until 2018 at earliest
By Paul Melia
Monday May 10 2010

It also says that even with the “most pessimistic of economic outlooks”, with no growth for decades, it still makes financial sense to build the line.

@Pete wrote:

At least that is one thing we can all agree on. Shytalk would rather make general comments with no real relevance and dismisses all other suggestions without a reasonable and structured argument. I dont mind people disagreeing as long as they can back up their point of view, Shytalk just throws out insults.

What?

You should read back the whole thread here and on Metro North. Every single issue has been discussed.
.pvcking has been exposed lying and inventing data time and again.
Read the posts and see the laughable made up data confounded.
Usually followed by huge cut and paste drivel lifted from news sites lol
He’s a fantasist, which is pretty evident anyway from the scattergun attempts to blind with irrelevant fiscal data which he hopes nobody will understand.
I’m not interested in going over it all again.
There have been 2 CBAs done for MN.
There were of course predicated on normal long term growth averages.
Not the sort of dreamed up numbers pvcking plucks out to bolster his case.
MN will cost nothing to the exchequer until 2016/7. Any payments needed before then will be more than covered by tax and vat revenue, social security savings etc
I’m not interested in rehashing the points.

MN will cost nothing while employing up to 9,000 with other fillup benefits for the economy.
The alternative we’re offered of a DART spur from the northern line is not sensible. It will funnell huge traffic into a narrow corridor bordered by the sea.
That’s aside of the real world issue that if we go for that plan now – nothing will happen for another 10 years while consultations, scoping, appeals etc drag on
by which time it might well be obvious that we actually need Metro North.

It’s laughable stuff.
Anway, all this real issues are clear to those involved, the contracts will be signed earlyish next year and MN will proceed.

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.

Report 1 for abusive posting; your already on thin ice for your antics under the previous user id of marmajam

Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.

All the other lines will exist in the absence of Metro North; it is therefore a stand alone line that for the vast majority of its route serves a very low density catchment beyond Drumcoundra and for all of its route beyond Ballymun; excluding Dublin Airport and Swords which can be served by faster Dart options. The interconnector will provide a viable transport system. Name one major muti-national employer on the route; IBM, Intel, Citibank, HSBC, they are all a lot closer to interconnector locations.
There’s no getting away from this.

Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

No scheme is planned on a timeframe of more than 20-30 years; ; except maybe the railway junction I visited in the Bolivian altiplano added in 1870 and shut in 1996. The level of housing and commercial space to be that will require require locations adjacent to a transport corridor can be adequately serviced by the 4 interconnector assisted lines; not to mention that development is unlikely to be as regionally unbalanced as it was over the past decade. i.e. more development for Cork, Galway, Limerick etc is likely to ensure that Dublin doesn’t suffer from over-development again for a very long time.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.

North West Dublin is Blanchardstown it is served by Commuter rail which will be upgraded to Dart; you are talking about MN serving a very narrow corridor comprising of 3 bed semis built between 1920 and 1970. The passenger numbers or multinationals are elsewhere. There is not one bus route between Ballymun and the Airport which indicates that there is no demand to connect these two centres.

And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.

The EIB funding is for 8.33% of a €6bn package; even taking your €2bn figure which you have never backed up €1,833m would need to borrowed on the open market where yields exceed 5.50% for gilts; that is €100.83m plus €8.3m to the EIB or €109.13m p.a. there would be a risk premium attached to all further deficit sums.

But I don’t believe this can be built for €2bn without some form of inflated service contract being manditory. Compare this project to the interconnector and it offers little, very little. The passenger predictions for the Airport are back to about 28m for 2020 for starters on the demand side; the operational losses on this system would crippling; unless there is seperate ticketing and then commuters have to pay both MN and IE to make journeys involving 2 modes on the system .

Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

So it costs €2bn but the exchequer will receive €2.2bn; are you serious? Then the ongoing operational contract must be crippling; isn’t this how Greece became bankraupt?

MADRID Amey PLC and Bechtel Group Inc. have agreed to sell Tube Lines Ltd. for GBP310.2 million, Amey parent Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC) said late Friday.

In a Spanish regulatory filing, Ferrovial said TLL, which is tasked with the maintenance of three London Underground lines, will be purchased by the U.K. state-owned Transport for London.

Company website: http://www.ferrovial.es

I ignore your posts because you supply no sources for anything you say and have difficulty with basic arithmetic.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

@PVC King wrote:

So it costs €2bn but the exchequer will receive €2.2bn; are you serious? Then the ongoing operational contract must be crippling; isn’t this how Greece became bankraupt?

I ignore your posts because you supply no sources for anything you say and have difficulty with basic arithmetic.

You can’t beat a bit of irony.

How do you make out 200m X 6 == 2.2 billion?

And you doubt my arithmetic. 😀 😀 😀 😀

There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.

You claimed it would cost €2bn and you claimed there would be a net gain of €200m. Do you know what net gain means? For example the saving made by the government of closing the RPA save for those completing the Cherrywood and ill conceived City West extension which would be more or less the entire wage bill i.e. no income because nothing is being developed hence none of the development levies that underpined the development decisions less costs i.e. the entire construction cost.

You said you didn’t trust my arithmetric and then calculated 200m X 6 = 2.2 Billion.

I’m still wondering what sort of arithmetic you’re working with 😀

Any chance of an answer?

Net gain means proceeds less costs. Now are you prepared to defend the points that you made?

It’s estimated that the construction phase of MN will contribute 200m + Euros p.a. in tax and VAT receipts to the exchequer and along with social security savings as a good proportion of the 9,000 workforce will be taken from the unemployed.

It will actually cost money to cancel MN.

As the scheme doesn’t have planning and all the money needs to be borrowed; it is not quite clear how it would cost money to bin the elephant?

Its like saying it would cost money to not to buy a baseball cap in America on a tax rebate scheme; you may get a little tax back; you may even defer payment if you pay on a credit card; but you will pay for it.

You see pvcking, your whole contrived argument is demolished by just a few salient but key issues that you continually either try to obscure or as has benn pointed out a few times you blatantly invent data to defy.

Report 1 for abusive posting; your already on thin ice for your antics under the previous user id of marmajam

Firstly MN is not primarily a link to the airport. It is firstly a key spine in a comprehensive public transport netwiork that is essential for the success of the Dublin city region into the future. You might live in a declining former colonial power but the world moves on fast and Dublin has to compete globally with very dynamic global regions. Poor public transport is consistently marked at the top of the list for drawbacks to inward investment for Dublin by multi nationals.

All the other lines will exist in the absence of Metro North; it is therefore a stand alone line that for the vast majority of its route serves a very low density catchment beyond Drumcoundra and for all of its route beyond Ballymun; excluding Dublin Airport and Swords which can be served by faster Dart options. The interconnector will provide a viable transport system. Name one major muti-national employer on the route; IBM, Intel, Citibank, HSBC, they are all a lot closer to interconnector locations.
There’s no getting away from this.

Secondly, MN will last for 150 yrs at least. You build your infrastructure first then greater development is facilitated.

No scheme is planned on a timeframe of more than 20-30 years; ; except maybe the railway junction I visited in the Bolivian altiplano added in 1870 and shut in 1996. The level of housing and commercial space to be that will require require locations adjacent to a transport corridor can be adequately serviced by the 4 interconnector assisted lines; not to mention that development is unlikely to be as regionally unbalanced as it was over the past decade. i.e. more development for Cork, Galway, Limerick etc is likely to ensure that Dublin doesn’t suffer from over-development again for a very long time.

Not the other way round as you with your estate agent mind seems to imagine.
MN opens up the whole NW sector of Dublin, already enhanced by a major airport with a huge future.
Thirdly is it not light rail as you keep trying to assert. It would be defined as light metro.
And the real point is that it will have 4 times the capacity of the Luas, fully grade separated.

North West Dublin is Blanchardstown it is served by Commuter rail which will be upgraded to Dart; you are talking about MN serving a very narrow corridor comprising of 3 bed semis built between 1920 and 1970. The passenger numbers or multinationals are elsewhere. There is not one bus route between Ballymun and the Airport which indicates that there is no demand to connect these two centres.

And finally the tenders for MN are way below 2 billion and the interest repayments will be in the region of 75m a year.

The EIB funding is for 8.33% of a €6bn package; even taking your €2bn figure which you have never backed up €1,833m would need to borrowed on the open market where yields exceed 5.50% for gilts; that is €100.83m plus €8.3m to the EIB or €109.13m p.a. there would be a risk premium attached to all further deficit sums.

But I don’t believe this can be built for €2bn without some form of inflated service contract being manditory. Compare this project to the interconnector and it offers little, very little. The passenger predictions for the Airport are back to about 28m for 2020 for starters on the demand side; the operational losses on this system would crippling; unless there is seperate ticketing and then commuters have to pay both MN and IE to make journeys involving 2 modes on the system .

Leaving aside 9,000 employed over 6 years, VAT and tax receipts etc etc
There will be a net gain of approx 200m p.a. for the exchequer during construction.
What’s the issue about cash shortage?

So it costs €2bn but the exchequer will receive €2.2bn; are you serious? Then the ongoing operational contract must be crippling; isn’t this how Greece became bankraupt?

MADRID Amey PLC and Bechtel Group Inc. have agreed to sell Tube Lines Ltd. for GBP310.2 million, Amey parent Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC) said late Friday.

In a Spanish regulatory filing, Ferrovial said TLL, which is tasked with the maintenance of three London Underground lines, will be purchased by the U.K. state-owned Transport for London.

Company website: http://www.ferrovial.es

I ignore your posts because you supply no sources for anything you say and have difficulty with basic arithmetic.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

@PVC King wrote:

All of the areas you have listed are predominently greying suburbs with very low population density

Of course, Terenure is a greying low desity suburb when compared with the thriving, cosmopolitan and dynamic urban quarter that is, err, Malahide!

@PVC King wrote:

Not all passengers will use the tunnel but it will greatly enhance service levels on the three existing routes into Connolly from Greystones, Maynooth and Northern line (branching to Howth). By allowing Darts to run more frequently on the Bray and Maynooth routes it provides capacity purely on the basis of removing about 50% of the traffic currently using the ‘loopline’ In essence it doubles capacity.

@PVC King wrote:

All the other lines will exist in the absence of Metro North

All current Dart and commuter services will exist in the absence of the Interconnector. You will still be able to get from Howth to city centre. The current Dart system isn’t that over crowded that we need to spend €3 – 4bn trebling its capacity, which is what the interconnector intends. The direct link from the Docklands to Heuston is not going to attract that many new commuters.

At least the metro incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations, St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O’Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station alread built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with 20,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.

You propose building a Luas out to Ballymun/Finglas as an alternative. So thats a double decker Interconnector, new rail line from Malahide to airport, with extra tracks to allow for greater frequency and a 7km luas serving what you describe as “a very low density catchment beyond Drumcoundra and for all of its route beyond Ballymun“. There is not the population there for this luas but with the airport on the line along with everything else I have mentioned, the metro becomes viable. The metro provides most of the benefits of these three projects and would be cheaper then them combined. Granted Dart capacity will be a lot lower then if interconnector was built but we can live with that for the reasons outlined above.

@shytalk wrote:

MN will cost nothing to the exchequer until 2016/7. Any payments needed before then will be more than covered by tax and vat revenue, social security savings etc

MN will cost nothing while employing up to 9,000 with other fillup benefits for the economy.

I have to agree with shytalk on this.

@Pete wrote:

Of course, Terenure is a greying low desity suburb when compared with the thriving, cosmopolitan and dynamic urban quarter that is, err, Malahide!

You can’t compare the constructions costs between the Victorian period Dublin and Drogheda railway with the costs of building a modern underground railway. For starters it passed through farmland and wasn’t underground; in addition labour costs were lower and as there were no cars in the Victorian Era ; so rail acheived a much higher modal split.

@Pete wrote:

All current Dart and commuter services will exist in the absence of the Interconnector. You will still be able to get from Howth to city centre. The current Dart system isn’t that over crowded that we need to spend €3 – 4bn trebling its capacity, which is what the interconnector intends. The direct link from the Docklands to Heuston is not going to attract that many new commuters.

What the €2bn interconnector does is triple capacity by removing the previously explained loopline capacity constraint; it also makes the routes out of Heuston a lot more attractive as they no longer require a change onto Luas Red Line which without the link up to the Green Line misses most of the office district which is located in Dublin 2. There is a lot of redundant industrial property in D8 and D10 which is ripe for regeneration; no such development land with adequate power and water supplies exists on the route of Metro North. Only legions of nimbies; it is simply not suitable for redevelopment because the plots are too small to make site assembly feasible.

@Pete wrote:

At least the metro incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations, St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O’Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station alread built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with 20,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.

The park n ride listed by the RPA as delivering about 30% of the passenger numbers can be built to service the Northern line as it is barely a mile from same and none of the other destinations would in combination hit anywhere near the passenger loadings on the Luas Green Line. Ballymun Town Centre will prosper with out of town visitors going to Ikea; other than Dundrum Town Centre I am unaware of any major suburban shopping centre that relies heavily on public transport; certainly people are not going to go into Central Dublin and change to Metro North to visit a 50,000 sq m shopping centre when there are millions of square feet in the City Centre; same goes for Swords with phase 2 of the Pavillions and between Ballymun and Pavillions they will cannibalise each other to the point that traffic would be non-existant. Pavillions however is a great play on a weak Euro as being the first major shopping centre for northerners to leverage the strong pound when the currency goes back to equilibrium; Metro North or Spur to Northern line to attract shoppers from Belfast?

@Pete wrote:

You propose building a Luas out to Ballymun/Finglas as an alternative. So thats a double decker Interconnector, new rail line from Malahide to airport, with extra tracks to allow for greater frequency and a 7km luas serving what you describe as “a very low density catchment beyond Drumcoundra and for all of its route beyond Ballymun“. There is not the population there for this luas but with the airport on the line along with everything else I have mentioned, the metro becomes viable. The metro provides most of the benefits of these three projects and would be cheaper then them combined. Granted Dart capacity will be a lot lower then if interconnector was built but we can live with that for the reasons outlined above.

The system is trippled in capacity with single decker trains; this is not Paris the population base is slightly over 1m not 8m and unlike Paris where the area inside the Periphique is predominently made up of 5-6 storey multi-occupied buildings the metro North catchment is predominently 16 to the acre 3 bed semi’s.

@Pete wrote:

MN will cost nothing to the exchequer until 2016/7. Any payments needed before then will be more than covered by tax and vat revenue, social security savings etc

MN will cost nothing while employing up to 9,000 with other fillup benefits for the economy.I have to agree with shytalk on this.

Rolled up interest results in interest being paid on interest; note Marmajam/Shytalk no longer talks about off balance sheet accounting; the proposal for Metro North is debt funded whatever way you look at it and Ireland can no longer raise debt at an attractive cost.

More tough budgets needed – Sutherland
Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:17
Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has said Ireland had successfully differentiated its economic situation from that of Greece, having shown a real intent to deal with the deficit.

Speaking on RTE’s This Week programme to be broadcast tonight, Mr Sutherland said the public finances will have to be continually reviewed over the next three years.

He said the Government will need to introduce even more difficult budget measures over the next three years in light of the Greek debt crisis.

However, Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs Pat Carey said the Government does not plan to bring forward the budget but will continue to implement spending cuts.

@PVC King wrote:

You can’t compare the constructions costs between the Victorian period Dublin and Drogheda railway with the costs of building a modern underground railway. For starters it passed through farmland and wasn’t underground; in addition labour costs were lower and as there were no cars in the Victorian Era ; so rail acheived a much higher modal split.

You misunderstand, my point was that, today, you dismiss extending transport routes to Terenure while you champion increasing routes to Malahide and other such areas which already have adequate transport links. Why?

@PVC King wrote:

What the €2bn interconnector does is triple capacity by removing the previously explained loopline capacity constraint;

I accept that, I dont dispute it and I know it to be true so there is no need to keep mentioning it.

@PVC King wrote:

it also makes the routes out of Heuston a lot more attractive as they no longer require a change onto Luas Red Line which without the link up to the Green Line misses most of the office district which is located in Dublin 2.

I cant understand this campaign to improve public transport for those who already use it, instead of offering it to new customers. Many people who live in Kildare or North County Dublin use the current Dart line to get to work in the city centre regardless of they change to another intercity/luas line. Just because they can get to work without having to change post interconnector does not mean 3 times as many people with use the line.Just because the capacity is increases does not mean the number of passengers will automatically increase accordingly also.

The luas lines we have now were not “proven existing transport corridors” but yet people are using them. The fact that the metro does not go through existing transport corridors is the beauty of it. It opens up the rail network to new commuters. This will have knock-on effects as people will not only use it to get from metro stop to metro stop, they will also use it to access other rail lines increasing numbers on luas/dart/intercity rail also.

@PVC King wrote:

Ballymun Town Centre will prosper with out of town visitors going to Ikea; other than Dundrum Town Centre I am unaware of any major suburban shopping centre that relies heavily on public transport; certainly people are not going to go into Central Dublin and change to Metro North to visit a 50,000 sq m shopping centre when there are millions of square feet in the City Centre; same goes for Swords with phase 2 of the Pavillions and between Ballymun and Pavillions they will cannibalise each other to the point that traffic would be non-existant. Pavillions however is a great play on a weak Euro as being the first major shopping centre for northerners to leverage the strong pound when the currency goes back to equilibrium; Metro North or Spur to Northern line to attract shoppers from Belfast?

I was not merely referring to Ballymun as a shopping destination. I was talking about the new regenerated town which is developing which is projected to have a population of 40,000. This will require a transport link. You constantly dismiss these individual places but it is the combination of 6 or 7 popular stops along the route which will ensure high passenger numbers on the metro.

@PVC King wrote:

no such development land with adequate power and water supplies exists on the route of Metro North.

No development land, just existing settled, relatively affluent residential communities with limited public transport links. The kind of people who will use public transport if provided and the kind of people we should be targeting with these projects, not some guy in Malahide who doesnt have enough options already, lets route three rail lines past his house and open the entire city to him while neglecting everyone else… There is development potential at Ballymun on MN route though.

@PVC King wrote:

Rolled up interest results in interest being paid on interest; note Marmajam/Shytalk no longer talks about off balance sheet accounting; the proposal for Metro North is debt funded whatever way you look at it and Ireland can no longer raise debt at an attractive cost.

You talk a lot about how PPPs will turn Ireland into the next Greece. Just wondering how you would fund the interconnector, which will at least cost as much if not more due to the fact that the tunnel would have to be a double decker as stated in the Dublin Rail Plan you love so much in order to handle the “additional 65m p.a.x.“, which is another issue you fail to address.

Metro North not only opens public transport to new users, it also links up most of the existing network. The interconnector is the final piece of the puzzle and would link up everything nicely, but has to be built when everything else is in place. Otherwise it only benefits people in Balbriggan and Kildare. Extending Green Line to Abbey Street, as you suggested on another thread, could be built at the same time providing greater links at a reduced cost.

@Pete wrote:

You misunderstand, my point was that, today, you dismiss extending transport routes to Terenure while you champion increasing routes to Malahide and other such areas which already have adequate transport links. Why?

On the contrary you ignore the physical; there is an existing rail line to Malahide; if one did not exist and if land take didn’t exist you wouldn’t build an underground there; same with Howth, Bray etc. But lines do exist and because of the loopline the interconnector is required to accomodate the development that has sprung up over the past 50 years in most cases at densities of much higher than 16 to the acre.

@Pete wrote:

I cant understand this campaign to improve public transport for those who already use it, instead of offering it to new customers. Many people who live in Kildare or North County Dublin use the current Dart line to get to work in the city centre regardless of they change to another intercity/luas line. Just because they can get to work without having to change post interconnector does not mean 3 times as many people with use the line.Just because the capacity is increases does not mean the number of passengers will automatically increase accordingly also.

The problem is that a lot of people can’t get onto existing services because they are crush loaded a few stops from their departure point. There is proven demand; the routes to Ballymun and Swords have buses whilst the Airport has the aircoach. In time appropriate solutions can be found but at this stage in the fiscal cycle the metro makes no sense on financial grounds.

@Pete wrote:

The luas lines we have now were not “proven existing transport corridors” but yet people are using them. The fact that the metro does not go through existing transport corridors is the beauty of it. It opens up the rail network to new commuters. This will have knock-on effects as people will not only use it to get from metro stop to metro stop, they will also use it to access other rail lines increasing numbers on luas/dart/intercity rail also.

The Green line was proven as it was built on the Harcourt to Bray rail line; as such it provided a cheap trackbed and densities had increased since the line closed. The Red line is crushloaded as far as Heuston at peak times, highly successful as far as Fatima after that it is far from viable. Also both Luas lines cost about €800m the price tag for Metro is €2bn plus much higher operating costs as the stations are more complex.

@Pete wrote:

I was not merely referring to Ballymun as a shopping destination. I was talking about the new regenerated town which is developing which is projected to have a population of 40,000. This will require a transport link. You constantly dismiss these individual places but it is the combination of 6 or 7 popular stops along the route which will ensure high passenger numbers on the metro.

Ballymun has a current population of about 20,000 and please don’t take this the wrong way but with housing more affordable than anytime in a decade in areas with stronger demographics; expanding that population will be a very hard sell.

@Pete wrote:

No development land, just existing settled, relatively affluent residential communities with limited public transport links. The kind of people who will use public transport if provided and the kind of people we should be targeting with these projects, not some guy in Malahide who doesnt have enough options already, lets route three rail lines past his house and open the entire city to him while neglecting everyone else… There is development potential at Ballymun on MN route though.

The big sell on the Transport 21 projects was the significant contribution that the private sector was going to make in the form of development levies of about €10,000 per residential unit built along the catchment. Given that NAMA owns virtually all the development land or will within a few months what were perfectly legitimate deductions in the financial maths no longer exist as it would be one government body paying another. Across each of the 4 interconnector corridors and Metro North you could have banked on 4,000 units per route yielding about €40m per route which would have made a decent dent in the interest bill. Sadly the market has moved to incentives and not taxes as the market needs help. If development levies were gradually re-introduced to the interconnector routes; the absence of development levies may assist the Metro North route to increase to more viable densities for a reassessment in 5 years time. But with an Airport runway right beside the only unbuilt area it is not exactly the ideal location to build unless it is affordable housing.

@Pete wrote:

You talk a lot about how PPPs will turn Ireland into the next Greece. Just wondering how you would fund the interconnector, which will at least cost as much if not more due to the fact that the tunnel would have to be a double decker as stated in the Dublin Rail Plan you love so much in order to handle the “additional 65m p.a.x.“, which is another issue you fail to address.

Government paper for the sums not extended by the EIB to fund a standard construction tender based on the plans and particulars verified by An Bord Pleannala. Given that capacity that is already past breaking point on 3 rail lines can be doubled in one investment and the fourth grow significantly as the route no longer ends at Heuston makes the cost worth the benefit.

@Pete wrote:

Metro North not only opens public transport to new users, it also links up most of the existing network. The interconnector is the final piece of the puzzle and would link up everything nicely, but has to be built when everything else is in place. Otherwise it only benefits people in Balbriggan and Kildare. Extending Green Line to Abbey Street, as you suggested on another thread, could be built at the same time providing greater links at a reduced cost.

You miss the point; the rest of the network links up without Metro North; it serves a very low density suburban catchment and the airport and would operationally would be very expensive to run given the complexity of its subterranean concourse elements.

The metro links the city and will generate passengers numbers, not just on its route but on the whole Dublin rail system. Firstly, look at the stops on the metro route;

• St Stephens Green, with link to Luas Green line (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future),
• O’Connell Street, with link to Luas Red line (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future),
• Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station alread built as part of Mater redevelopment)
• Drumcondra Station with link to Maynooth/Pace rail line
• DCU (with 20,000 students and staff),
• regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development)
• the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.)
• park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.

To look at these stops in issolation and dismiss them individually would be wrong. Not only will people along the route be able to get to/from these destinations, people on Luas Red, Green and Maynooth rail lines will also avail of these stops. This increases passenger numbers on the whole network. The metro allows people to travel from; Stillorgan to the airport, Tallaght to Mater Hospital, Maynooth to DCU, Swords to O’Connell Street, Ballymun to Docklands, Clonsilla to St Stephens Green with only one change. These are just examples of how the metro will link up most parts of the city and none of these journeys would be possible if only the interconnector was built. (Of course existing Dart passengers will still to able to get to/from city centre and use these routes from there)

Contrast this with the limited service the interconnector would bring. To build the interconnector now and increase the capacity along this route is to put all our eggs into the one basket. Most of the existing passengers on the Dart would only use the interconnector, if built, to extend their journey from Heuston to St Stephens Green/Pearse Street, a distance of little over 3km, or from Connelly to St Stephens Green/Pearse Street, a distance of little under 2km. The benefit for existing commuters is relatively small considering they can already get to where they need to go by switching train/to luas or by walking a bit. This small extension is also not enough to treble passengers, at least not in the short term.

With the interconnector built and no metro would leave two main transport corridors in the city. Of these the interconnector route from Heuston to Malahide would contain two Dart lines, as well as the Northern Commuter line from Connelly, with only one other route (Maynooth line). This is not represent an efficient system and is very limited in terms of passenger destinations. Many communities, both northside and southside, would be neglected.

The metro would lead to more efficient and sustainable growth across the entire city in the future and it sets Dublin up for greater economic growth once we come out of recession. The interconnector can be built at a later date to enhanse the network further and increase capacity.

Metro North Tenderers Press Release
In the short term, Metro North will provide an important stimulus to construction activity. The project is expected to create 4,000 direct construction jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. The consortium that will be selected to build Metro North is likely to include both Irish and international contractors and much of the work will involve local contractors, professional service firms and local workers. Other sectors of the regional economy are likely to benefit such as those in the construction material supplying industry. There will also be secondary spin off impacts due to the expenditure of wages in the local economy by the construction workforce. Sectors which will benefit include accommodation and lunch and evening meal providers.

Metro North will address a significant deficit in public transport infrastructure in north Dublin city and in Fingal, the fastest growing county in Ireland. It will facilitate development in the corridor which is forecast by Fingal County Council to generate 37,000 additional jobs and more than double the existing level of economic activity and employment in the area. It is crucial to the continued expansion of Dublin Airport and will underpin the significant investment already made in the economic regeneration of Ballymun.

Pete

We have been through all those points before and you have not credibly dealt with the fact that all the predictions were made when the economy was experiencing growth of 8-12% p.a. In light of changed circumstances remove the words stop listing assets that exist independent of the proposed/culled metro north project do not use inapprpropriate words such as projected and capacity and factor in the installation of a Luas line to Drumcoundra and Ballymun as per Mammy O’Rourkes plan.

Where did you get the figure of 20,000 for DCU which in fact has 10,000 students and probably less than 1,000 staff of those a large number would be part time. Write fact not fiction.

Why the interconnector is a great project is that it is four development corridors excluding its City Centre Routing; between higher inner city densities and the four existing routes the Clonee extension and the Luas extensions there is enough serviced land to develop 20,000 homes a year for the next 20 years. The area between Ballymun and Swords does not need a Metro in the same way people don’t want to live near an airport.

‘Urgent’ need to deal with deficits – IMF
Friday, 14 May 2010 16:24
The IMF has warned developed nations they face an “urgent” need to rein in budget deficits or risk stymied growth.

“As economies gradually recover, it is now urgent to start putting in place measures to ensure that the increase in deficits and debts resulting from the crisis… does not lead to fiscal sustainability problems,” it warned in a high-profile report.

“If public debt is not lowered to precrisis levels, potential growth in advanced economies could decline by over half a percent annually, a very sizable effect when cumulated over several years.”

AdvertisementThe warning came as Europe continues to be gripped by a debt crisis that has rippled out from Greece across the continent and the globe.

The Greek government is confronting widespread opposition to an austerity program needed to secure an European Union and the IMF bailout totaling €110 billion.

The area between Ballymun and Swords does not need a Metro in the same way people don’t want to live near an airport.:mad:

There are plenty of people who live along the proposed metro line who would use the service and along with the IC might provide soon joined up transport service for the whole of Dublin.

Look at T2 at Dublin airport it has far more capacity than required at the moment but look ahead to 10/15 years time Dublin will be building T3.

Its a shame the IC has been delayed until 2018 why such a delay is allowed needs to be looked at and sorted out ASAP.

What were your thoughts 12 years ago when Luas was announced for Ballymun?

PVCKing stop quoting these reports about reducing national debt to support your argument, you make it sound like the interconnector is free! The interconnector will cost almost as much but provide much less benefits. And continue to consider the metro route on a stop by stop basis which is not a true reflection of the benefits. It is the combination of rail transport to popular locations with no (or very limited in the case of SSG) rail transport (St Stephens Green, Mater Hospital, DCU, Airport), residential communities with relatively high populations but low densities (Phibsborough, Drumcondra, Ballymun, Swords) and links to other public transport systems (Luas Red and Green lines and Maynooth rail) that make the metro viable. Interconnector, on the other hand, brings people on the Dart/Northern Commuter Line and South Western Commuter line a little closer to the city centre.

A Dart spur to the airport does not make sense because it would follow the route of exisiting Dart line with only two new stops, Malahide Road and airport. So in effect this is really only an airport line, because all other stops, bar one, are already served. It is not worth the cost because you would spend a couple of hundred million building a new track from Malahide to the airport, quadtracking the line from Docklands to Malahide and reconfiguring, and in some cases complete redevelopment of stations on the line. All this just for the airport which, as you say yourself;

@PVC King wrote:

Tourists are not attracted to cities because of their airport terminals or connections to the city centre from same. Congrats to the DAA on terminal 2 and the improved management of terminal 1 of late but they have so much spare capacity that its only rational use is to try to encourage a major US carrier to code share with Aer Lingus developing a trans- Atlantic hub. Very few of those passengers will visit the City Centre. Dublin Airport will be a pleasure to use for many years to come because Ireland bound passenger numbers will at best grow very slowly from the current level which has declined 12.6% on the previous year; this trend could persist as clearly much of the travel in the previous years was based on a booming consumer credit market which will continue to tighten at least into the medium term.

Building a Luas to Drumcondra would cost another couple of million and again is not worth it. That means digging up the roads between St Stephens Green and Drumcondra, some of the busiest in the city, to link an area that is;

@PVC King wrote:

predominently 16 to the acre 3 bed semi’s.

You are also building two separate lines (Luas from St Stephens Green to Drumcondra and Dart from Docklands to airport) to do what the metro can do in one go. The metro would certainly be cheaper per kilometer and offer better value for money. The metro line would also be more profitable by combining passengers from these two routes instead of splitting them and would also incorporate more stops. The four development corridors you speak of would still exist as all existing services would continue to operate, but with a fifth corridor with much more potential. To ensure continued economic prosperity in Dublin we need to move forward and continue to compete with other cities. To stand still is to be left behind. The metro does more for the city than the interconnector and will have guaranteed passengers from the day it opens. The interconnector can be built in 5-10 years time, by which time there might actually be need to increase capacity on the current rail lines.

@Pete wrote:

PVCKing stop quoting these reports about reducing national debt to support your argument, you make it sound like the interconnector is free! The interconnector will cost almost as much but provide much less benefits. And continue to consider the metro route on a stop by stop basis which is not a true reflection of the benefits. .

Provide the case study that backs that point up; that is simply ridiculous…

@Pete wrote:

It is the combination of rail transport to popular locations with no (or very limited in the case of SSG) rail transport (St Stephens Green, Mater Hospital, DCU, Airport), residential communities with relatively high populations but low densities (Phibsborough, Drumcondra, Ballymun, Swords) and links to other public transport systems (Luas Red and Green lines and Maynooth rail) that make the metro viable. Interconnector, on the other hand, brings people on the Dart/Northern Commuter Line and South Western Commuter line a little closer to the city centre..

No it removes the loopline blockage enhancing 4 lines and creating high density development opportunites in Dublin 8; you assess catchments by drawing a 1kms circle from each station; on this basis metro has a very very low population catchment and very small plot size making redvelopment very diifcult.

@Pete wrote:

A Dart spur to the airport does not make sense because it would follow the route of exisiting Dart line with only two new stops, Malahide Road and airport. So in effect this is really only an airport line, because all other stops, bar one, are already served. It is not worth the cost because you would spend a couple of hundred million building a new track from Malahide to the airport, quadtracking the line from Docklands to Malahide and reconfiguring, and in some cases complete redevelopment of stations on the line. All this just for the airport which, as you say yourself;Building a Luas to Drumcondra would cost another couple of million and again is not worth it. That means digging up the roads between St Stephens Green and Drumcondra, some of the busiest in the city, to link an area that is.

The Northern line does not need to be quad tracked; the blockage is South of Connolly.

BXD which is proposed by the same agency will dig all those streets up anyway; this was looked at pre-port tunnel by this government and the externalities were found to be acceptable.

@Pete wrote:

You are also building two separate lines (Luas from St Stephens Green to Drumcondra and Dart from Docklands to airport) to do what the metro can do in one go. The metro would certainly be cheaper per kilometer and offer better value for money. The metro line would also be more profitable by combining passengers from these two routes instead of splitting them and would also incorporate more stops. The four development corridors you speak of would still exist as all existing services would continue to operate, but with a fifth corridor with much more potential. To ensure continued economic prosperity in Dublin we need to move forward and continue to compete with other cities. To stand still is to be left behind. The metro does more for the city than the interconnector and will have guaranteed passengers from the day it opens. The interconnector can be built in 5-10 years time, by which time there might actually be need to increase capacity on the current rail lines.

You are saying that the c20kms Metro is cheaper per kilmoter than enhancing in excess of 100kms of existing track. You obviously either work for the RPA or live on the soon to be culled from the drawing board line as you are so far short of objectivity on this that it is painful.

@PVC King wrote:

What were your thoughts 12 years ago when Luas was announced for Ballymun?

Never going to happen with the road space too narrow along the Drumcondra Road close to the Cat + Cage pub and while it was announced no firm date to start phase 2 of Luas then!!!!

I still think both the MN and IC will help each other passenger figures wise and also feed into the Luas lines and of course CIE bus services.

let’s be positive and for once plan ahead and put the transport services in for the next 20 to 30 years and provide excess capacity and not end up like the M50/Dublin Airport/Water Services around Dublin need I say any more!

I don’t buy the Cat and Cage argument as when the routing was announced it was in the context of the Port Tunnel not being completed which has made a significant difference to traffic levels on Drumcoundra Road by banning large numbers of HGVs en route from N7 to N1 who didn’t want to pay the toll on the M50. This area also has a continuous bus lane; without going off point too much there are also fall back positions such as CPO powers to remove parking areas, gardens or worst case some buildings or the route could see a change back towards Glasnevan once the key Drumcoundra station stop was passed.

The IC in isolation does plan for the growth of the City providing 4 seperate development corridors along existing rail lines by creating capaicty on each of those lines. In addition you have two Luas extensions that are now into Green Fields which the development machine will target as soon as the resdiential development market recovers in 4-5 years time.

What I don’t buy is that the Metro North project is critical; it would provide capacity but in the wrong places; other than serving the Airport it addreses no strategic needs; you mention the M50 upgrade you should consider this another way; the real analogy are the development densities along the proposed Metro route at locations such as Swords and Ballymun; if the three lane approach were adopted then the densities would have been a multiple of what they are; which is housebuilder led sprawl versus a Lyonesque vision of sustainability. You don’t spend billions at a time of austerity plugging in low density urban sprawl you target investments that produce significant additional capacity from the existing infrastructure.

The frightening part is that there is no EIB funding for the Interconnector; not even an application listed on their website.

I wonder what the final colour scheme for the network will be, obviously, this is unacceptable:

and let’s not talk about this:

@cgcsb wrote:

I wonder what the final colour scheme for the network will be, obviously, this is unacceptable:

Awful indeed.
Harry Beck would turn in his grave.
It looks like the designers ran out of red and yellow felt tips.

I love the way Inchicore is mooted as a “Future Station” as if all the others currently exist.

The notion stations cannot have colors is also flawed.
What is wrong with an orange station on a green line and vice versa…

@neutral wrote:

@PVC King wrote:

I don’t buy the Cat and Cage argument

The problem there is the lack or road space that’s available at that point its more or less one lane each way for a while as there are also shops beside the pub.

Believe me the traffic is still there not as bad since the port tunnel opened but I’m passing that way most days and the last thing it needs is double luas lines.

So as opposed to CPO’ing a few plots and widening the road; you’d advocate spending billions to build a metro. Which from the EIB funding application listings it would appear will be at the expense of the Interconnector.

@PVC King wrote:

@neutral wrote:

So as opposed to CPO’ing a few plots and widening the road; you’d advocate spending billions to build a metro. Which from the EIB funding application listings it would appear will be at the expense of the Interconnector.

No I would propose to complete both MN + IC as per plans and would expect to see the IC receive EIB funding on the same scale as MN when their application for planning permission is at the same stage as MN.

The Luas line as proposed many years ago to the airport is long gone.

@neutral wrote:

@PVC King wrote:

No I would propose to complete both MN + IC as per plans and would expect to see the IC receive EIB funding on the same scale as MN when their application for planning permission is at the same stage as MN.

The Luas line as proposed many years ago to the airport is long gone.

I am beginning ito wonder f you ever looked at the Luas proposal to Ballymun as it was never intended to go to Dublin airport. Simply up Drumcoundra Road and on to Ballymun with a few CPO’s to remove a little garden here and there.

In terms of the planning process there is little difference between MN and IC one is mired in poor drafting whilst the other deferred their application on foot of pre-planning meetings given that the MN application is unapproved it is clear that the tender process is entirely premature and will end up being rewritten; with the taxpayer paying the bill. The only parrallel one could draw is the Deloitte computer consultancy for the HSE.

What I can’t figure out is why a ‘price to be determined’ application wasn’t made.

Between the Interconnector and Metro North, the IC is certainly the less glamorous project, but it is far more important.

Let’s do a basic comparison.

Metro North

– I will take that it will cost somewhere between 4-6 billion euro. I appreciate that tender prices are cheaper, but no one has verified this so-called 2 billion euro cost. If the Metro North costs 1.7 billion euro, then certainly it is worth pursuing. Once we get into 3-6 billion euro figures, we really have to start looking.at what we’re getting for that sum of money.

– 18 km of new-build line.

– 19 stops. 3 of which will provide interchange – Drumcondra (to DART) SSG (to DART) & Luas, Connolly to Luas. As you can see, two of its three connections are dependent on Interconnector.

– Provides a link from the City-Centre to the Airport.

– Services Ballymun and Swords which are not currently serviced by any rail.

– Links to Connolly and Heuston via Red-Line Luas.

– 4-5 minute peak-time intervals. 90m light-rail rolling stock.

– Does not physically integrate with any other networks. We have a vague proposal for an extension to the Green Line and then the Luas West which is really just crayonville. The RPA love pointing out how Luas and Metro vehicles will be able to interoperable but the fact is, no links will actually be provided. None of the railway order documents (which I have read) even hint at this.

– Terminates in a field north of Bellinstown. North of Swords there is incredibly little demand.

– Passenger figures based on unrealistic groundings.

– Estimates 35 million pax.

Interconnector:

– Like MN, no concrete cost has been given. 4 billion is the figure I hear branded about most often for the overall Interconnector project. I’ve heard 1.5 billion, I’ve heard 6 billion. Figures are all over the place. While I believe IC will be far cheaper than MN, I’m going to assume 4-5 billion for the purpose of this comparison.

– 8.3 km of new build line.

– 6 stops. All of which will provide interchange. Inchicore (to Luas), Christchurch (to Luas), Heuston to Intercity/Luas, SSG to Luas ( & Metro North), Pearse to DART #2, Docklands to Luas/Commuter. Of the interchanges only 2 are wholly dependent on other projects being forwarded. The rest provide interchange regardless of whether MN or Lucan Luas etc. go ahead.

– Provides a link from the Heuston area to the new Docklands district as well as two vital city centre locations at Pearse and St.Stephen’s Green (not currently served by rail).

– Link to Connolly via DART #2.

– Initially 16 trains per hour through tunnel. i.e 4 minute intervals. 174m platforms allowing for 8 car DARTs.

– Physically integrates with existing networks. Integrates with Northern Line at East Wall junction and with Cork mainline at Inchicore.

– Provides for electrification as far as Hazelhatch, Maynooth and Drogheda. Provides for order of 800 new DART rolling stock to service this. This frees up commuter rolling stock.

– Creates two new high-capacity DART lines running East-West and North-South, intersecting at Pearse.

– Increases capacity on existing lines – e.g Northern Line 10 tph –> 21 tph, Maynooth Line 6 tph –> 16 tph.

– Expects to triple capacity on its new network to 100 million pax. Though I’ve yet to see justification for those figures.

When you stack up the comparisons it seems pretty clear to me that there is one project – Interconnector – that deserves absolute priority. MN might be a nice shiny looking new line on the map and it has its positives, but the Interconnector project gets to the core of a major deficit in the network and fixes it. It doesn’t fix everything mind you, and there are opportunities for smaller improvements that could be made even without IC. But IC plugs a gap in service nicely, and allows us to make use of our existing infrastructure. MN is like an Interconnector for lines that don’t actually exist yet and are unlikely to ever exist in the medium-long term because they aren’t viable.

As much as I don’t like Irish Rail, their recent proposals have made far more sense than the rubbish the RPA are pumping out. I applaud them on the success of the Green and Red Luas, but that doesn’t mean you can just get out your crayons and start dotting down Luas lines everywhere. The Lucan Luas and Luas West are perfect examples of this. Why would anyone want to sit 50 minutes on a winding tram when Bus Eireann have recently published plans to beef up the bus service, thus making it far more competitive.

Any money earmarked for that would be far better spent on providing a link from the Maynooth line to the Heuston one, allowing allow Intercity services to terminate at Heuston and giving all priority to DARTs and scaled-down commuter services.

Blunt and to the point. 😀

I think looking at MN from a sum of its parts approach would be useful

1. Spur to Dublin Airpot c €500m
2. Spur to Swords c€250m
3. Luas to Ballymun c€500m
4. Park n Ride North Dublin = 2,600 * 15,000 c €40m

Total €1.29bn

The cost if it can be really acheived for €1.7bn is €410m more expensive; however once it is operationally efficient to point that the operational subvention is at the lower end of subvention norms then it is an acceptable. There are however four major caveats that need to be addressed.

1. The €1.7bn would need to be actual cost payable by way of the normal S-Curve distribution funding model and not some exotic funding structure that pays a spread above sovereign rates

2. That the passenger numbers would need to be stress tested to a recessionary loading i.e. at about 21-23m pax to see what the annual operational loss would be.

3. That a €100 – €200 per square meter development levy be placed on all development within 1km of the route for the next 20 years including domestic extensions to make up the €410m shortfall.

4. That the funding environment would permit both Metro North and the Interconnector which is a far more strategically valuable and necessary project.

We will soon see if the RPA have been able to leverage the poor construction pmi conditions or were over-optimistic in their ability to mask the true folly of the original costings.

Did you allow for quad tracking in those costs to the junction area?

I’m astounded; a question with a point from the resident board spammer.

No as it did not feature in the Dublin Rail Plan

I think looking at MN from a sum of its parts approach would be useful

1. Spur to Dublin Airpot c €500m
2. Spur to Swords c€250m
3. Luas to Ballymun c€500m
4. Park n Ride North Dublin = 2,600 * 15,000 c €40m

Total €1.29bn

The cost if it can be really acheived for €1.7bn is €410m more expensive; however once it is operationally efficient to point that the operational subvention is at the lower end of subvention norms then it is an acceptable. There are however four major caveats that need to be addressed.

1. The €1.7bn would need to be actual cost payable by way of the normal S-Curve distribution funding model and not some exotic funding structure that pays a spread above sovereign rates

2. That the passenger numbers would need to be stress tested to a recessionary loading i.e. at about 21-23m pax to see what the annual operational loss would be.

3. That a €100 – €200 per square meter development levy be placed on all development within 1km of the route for the next 20 years including domestic extensions to make up the €410m shortfall.

4. That the funding environment would permit both Metro North and the Interconnector which is a far more strategically valuable and necessary project.

We will soon see if the RPA have been able to leverage the poor construction pmi conditions or were over-optimistic in their ability to mask the true folly of the original costings.

Coming in at the end of this argument with a quick and slightly irrelevant question….has anyone been to Nice lately? They have built the exact same system as the Luas in recent years…it’s running through the old city, in fact it runs straight through the main central historic square in the city, and it links large areas together. It took a couple of years to build and the whole lot was done at once.
It connects the suburbs, the colleges, the train station (gare SNCF) the historic part of the city, and the bus station. It ties in with numerous bus stops all over the city. Each end is accessible to the main motorway running along the length of the Riveria, the A8. There’s an integrated ticketing system for buses and trains and trams where you can top up your card online.I don’t think this tram system is even 4 years old yet.
We have a lot to learn.

@sash wrote:

Coming in at the end of this argument with a quick and slightly irrelevant question….has anyone been to Nice lately? They have built the exact same system as the Luas in recent years…it’s running through the old city, in fact it runs straight through the main central historic square in the city, and it links large areas together. It took a couple of years to build and the whole lot was done at once.
It connects the suburbs, the colleges, the train station (gare SNCF) the historic part of the city, and the bus station. It ties in with numerous bus stops all over the city. Each end is accessible to the main motorway running along the length of the Riveria, the A8. There’s an integrated ticketing system for buses and trains and trams where you can top up your card online.I don’t think this tram system is even 4 years old yet.
We have a lot to learn.

And they have a single ticket price of EUR1
And there are no over-head lines in main square and typical journeys are just a few km
This line was not designed for people in Aix-sur-mer or other satellite towns to sit on for 50 mins to go to “town” they have railyways for that kind of thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXFkBG3-Do

Great link it really does display that light rail and period architecture can co-exist once the overhead wiring system is well done. And the weather in Nice; i’m now drooling :p

AC makes a very pertinent point re the pricing matrix for fares on the system; there is no way that cheap fares are going to be part of the deal as the money simply isn’t there to subsidise mass transit in the way that some other countries do.

One of the key advantages that the interconnector will have is its ability to rely heavily on the existing station network; which will be all heavy rail. It will be interesting to see the estimated cost base for the interconnector section of the network which clearly must be established prior to the metro north project even being contemplated. The last thing Irish public transport needs is an overscaled management contract for the proposed Metro North line eating up a budget that is required to run public transport across all major urban centres.

spurs ro the airport and Swords are impossible due to capacity constraints, end of.

Do you have anything more technical to back that up as opposed to the very mancunian ‘end of’ line?

Irish Rail in their Dublin Rail plan were able to make the airport spur work; the claim is therefore nothing new and grounded in scoping done by their qualified engineers.

On Swords you couldn’t be further wrong; by grade seperating a spur to Swords you would in fact add capacity as trains would leave the tracks on the correct side as opposed to the current arrangements which involve trains crossing tracks which requires safety gaps in the timetables of both tracks.

@PVC King wrote:

Do you have anything more technical to back that up as opposed to the very mancunian ‘end of’ line?

Irish Rail in their Dublin Rail plan were able to make the airport spur work; the claim is therefore nothing new and grounded in scoping done by their qualified engineers.

On Swords you couldn’t be further wrong; by grade seperating a spur to Swords you would in fact add capacity as trains would leave the tracks on the correct side as opposed to the current arrangements which involve trains crossing tracks which requires safety gaps in the timetables of both tracks.

At present the northern line is operating at capacity, The DART rail resignaling plan will provide an extra 4 train paths per hour on the line when complete in 2011, and that’s it. 4 extra trains per hour is all that can be safely introcuced to the northern line, completely insufficient capacity, the viaduct at Malahide is a bottle neck, but it’s by no means the only capacity issue on the Northern Line.

I agree that the issue centres on a blockage at a viaduct but that post interconnector and if the at grade reversals were removed from Malahide then the viaduct that is the blockage would be the Victorian ‘Loopline’ running from Connolly to Pearse which is the only section of the network which suffers from the vexed 3 routings into 2 lines issue.

As explained the addition of grade seperation to divert trains towards Swords would in fact create capacity; if this were also to be done at Howth Junction even more capacity could be created by removing yet another ‘timetable gap’ required on health and safety grounds.

The timetable on the northern line and DART is also somewhat unweildy; the idea that every DART stops at every station between Connolly and Malahide/Howth and that Northern commuter services skip every station between Clontarf Rd and Kilbarrick is also somewhat flawed. To say that Raheny or Harmonstown needs a 3-4 minute service post IC is flawed. If trains to Drogheda stopped and served two of these stations and if DART to Airport and Malahide and Howth each skipped one or two stations then the ‘gap times’ required on these routings would fall allowing a higher number of trains per hour. Yes this would increase journey times on the outer suburban routes by 2-3 mins but if compensated by additional stations such as Stephens Green and Christchurch then it is a net gain not to mention that they might actually get the seat they paid for.

In a perfect funding environment you would build the metro regardless of cost, quad track the Northern line and Maynooth line but this is not even an average funding environment; it is the most constrained funding environment since the creation of the state; make no mistake there is a divergence in credit markets between the haves and the have nots in the Eurozone and Ireland for the forseeable future will be a have not.

There is a real danger that if the costs of MN exceed €1.7bn and if the operational losses exceed €2 per passenger that the costs could force the mandarins of Merrion St to call time on the Interconnector; which has it would seem not had an EIB application made.

One cannot forget that the blockage that you assert might happen at Malahide already exists it is called the Loopline and existing services will remain crushloaded until such time as it is removed by the Interconnector. Until this blockage is removed then all new routes will need be assessed very much as secondary objectives.

A new PDF about the project.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/dartunderground/Missing%20Link%2018pp_11.pdf

Nothing new really, except for some pretty pictures of a shiny heuston station.