Luas, Metro and DART – Drawings and Photomontages

Westmorland Street – OC Bridge Metro station

College Green

At College Street and Westmoreland Street a series of single track cantilever poles are proposed. Between stops, the poles are placed a consistent 450mm approximately from the kerb edge. These poles follow the strategy used at O’Connell Street and O’Connell Bridge, where there is a similar consistency in the use and setting out of poles. The extent of cabling is thus minimised at these locations.

College Street

From Fusiliers’ Arch to the corner of Dawson Street, a series of cantilever poles are proposed. This is in accordance with the architectural design strategy, and minimises the extent of cabling at the periphery of St. Stephen’s Green.

Dawson St.

Dawson St.

More info http://www.dublinluasbroombridge.ie/

I know I must be missing something in all this, but what was (is) the objection to running the LUAS line on either side of the median in O’C St? Why go to the bother of invading a much narrower street like Marlborough and building yet another bridge over the river? The present alignment on O’C St looks very lopsided (and the poles which ‘acknowledge but not compete with the formal setting of the 3 no. five arm Victorian lampstandards’ are so hamfistedly wrong in this context).
Is this another example of the febrile ravings of the traffic engineers? Is it too late to call a halt (pardon the pun)?

On the contrary, why not go down Marlboro Street completely. It is hardly used by cars anyway and might breathe new life into what has become – in large chunks – a very shabby street.

And just as the Palestrina breaks into the sublimity of the ‘ Ave Verum’ two trams lumber by… Kefu; where’s your soul?

It seems to me that the turn from O’Connell st onto Parnell street is far too sharp, I would’ve prefered if

a) both tracks used O’Connell Street
b) they turned into the site of the, no demolished Royal Dublin Hotel and emerged on Parnell st. That way it would be a broader curve, allowing trams to go faster.

Looks like the taxi rank on OCS will have to go 🙂
There will be only one lane left for northbound traffic: will this be a bus lane? If so that means no cars going north on OCS from Westmoreland street or turning left from Bachelor’s Walk.
Where will a bike lane fit in on OCS?
Should we buy the Bordeaux-style ground level power supply instead of overhead catenary? The French seem to have had teething problems but maybe they’re resolved now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

Last thing we need is a load more poles.

Many thanks Morlan for posting the photomontages – you have done the site some service.

Why oh why do the RPA insist on using out-of-date technology by erecting utterly unnecessary poles, cables, and other clutter in what is supposed to be our areas of finest architecture – ie College Green, O’Connell Street, Westmorland Street, Dawson Street, and outside the Rotunda Hospital?

Other progressive cities on the continent have long since dropped the use of cable clutter in their central areas in favour of cable free technology, be it by APS ground supply in Bordeaux – or by battery power in Nice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

Once again the RPA are proposing to create unnecessary expense and delays by inserting cobble lock where it simply is not needed, and where tarmac would work perfectly fine. Over engineering for the point of it. The RPA previously did this along the Red Luas line where their pinnacle achievement in terms of folly is cobble lock on the section between Church Street and Queen Street, the insertion of granite pavement either side, topped off by small barriers with signs indicating that said pavements are not supposed to be used by pedestrians.

Can we have a few more (anti) pedestrian galvanised steel barriers please, such as the crap (anti) “pedestrian pens” that they erected around Beresford Place, outside the Custom House for the Red Luas? I am sure the boys will feel they’ll have done their job when thats in place :rolleyes:

Why do we have to have such aesthetically illiterate slobs let loose to visually vandalize the most important areas of our city? It doesn’t happen in other continental cities. In Nice there is frequently grass as the primary surface for the median into which the rails are set, and as said, no cables – this creates a very ambient pleasant atmosphere. Yet in Dublin we insist on doing it our own way, to pointlessly and expensively create harsh hard surfaces for the sake of it, so that presumably we can show the world that we too can have the civic standards of a provincial Brit city 🙁

One final point re Marlborough Street – I actually do think that what is proposed here makes sense, in that when political demonstrations / commemorations occur outside the GPO, the Marlborough Street line can be used as a bypass for trams going each way. So credit there where its due.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Looks like the taxi rank on OCS will have to go 🙂
There will be only one lane left for northbound traffic: will this be a bus lane? If so that means no cars going north on OCS from Westmoreland street or turning left from Bachelor’s Walk.
Where will a bike lane fit in on OCS?
Should we buy the Bordeaux-style ground level power supply instead of overhead catenary? The French seem to have had teething problems but maybe they’re resolved now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

Last thing we need is a load more poles.

Ha! Great minds think alike!

Agree re taxi rank going; the opportunity there is to now remove it to Cathál Brugha Street beside the Gresham Hotel, as previously identified on this site as preferred, where the taxis can wrap around red brick Romanesque Revival style church 🙂

The buses and Luas should share the same space – it is madness not to, and as proposed will only lead to major objections from Department store owners and other vested interests. I never get the RPA’s allergy to the concept that the Luas tracks can actually accommodate other traffic without the world coming to an end :confused:

@hutton wrote:

The buses and Luas should share the same space – it is madness not to

Actually I suppose it would miss out on the opportunity to have a good old fashioned turf war between two state agencies, just like what happened between CIE and RPA regarding the Broadstone – Liffey Junction line :rolleyes:

@cgcsb wrote:

It seems to me that the turn from O’Connell st onto Parnell street is far too sharp, I would’ve prefered if

a) both tracks used O’Connell Street
b) they turned into the site of the, no demolished Royal Dublin Hotel and emerged on Parnell st. That way it would be a broader curve, allowing trams to go faster.

Afraid I have to disagree – see my above point re Marlborough Street, and also I would not at all be in favour of introducing an unnecessary permanent gap, breaking up the integrity of the boulevard that should be O’Connell Street. Don’t be giving them ideas! :mad::p

@Morlan wrote:

OC Bridge – Metro station (not showing Luas BXD)

Oh dear, John Gormley’s plastic poles cycleway disappears with that plan – he won’t be liking that.

Not that he’ll be Minister when it opens. Or even a TD 🙂

thanks Morlan

@hutton wrote:

Afraid I have to disagree – see my above point re Marlborough Street,

what about Marlborough street? seperation from road traffic is ideal for rail services from a transport engineering point of view. At present the luas will share space with cars on lower O’Connell st.

@hutton wrote:

and also I would not at all be in favour of introducing an unnecessary permanent gap, breaking up the integrity of the boulevard that should be O’Connell Street. Don’t be giving them ideas! :mad::p

Dublin central is going on that site anyway. It wouldn’t be a gap, developers can build around it.

Hopefully the paving pattern around stephens green is just a mock-up. Looks very nasty, zero artistry.

It seems from the video that the interiors of Christchurch, Pearse & inchichore reference the new Carlow art gallery exterior. I think it’s great we have 3 stations that look the same as a famous art gallery this will truly be award winning architecture at its best.

In addition the exterior of Christchurch references Operation Overlord with an enclosed auditorium which ties back to the other aliases associated with this fine civic space.

http://www.rpa.ie/en/news/Pages/1,000FreeLuasticketstotheKingsofConcreteFestival.aspx

It was reveled yesterday that the government has axed many of Transport 21’s projects due to no cash (quelle surprise!).

It would appear that Luas BXD will not go ahead any time soon, HOWEVER, Metro North will, and enabling works for BXD will go ahead alongside the construction of Metro North – no point digging up College Green twice.

Metro North and DART Underground will go ahead as planned.

The DART Underground Railway Order should be online over the next week or so, and hopefully there will be a few renders and montages for us, which I will post here.

@hutton wrote:

Many thanks Morlan

@lostexpectation wrote:

thanks Morlan

No probs!

@johnglas wrote:

what was (is) the objection to running the LUAS line on either side of the median in O’C St?

From what I have read on other forums, johnglas, Dublin Bus may have been the reason for the route change. :rolleyes:

@cgcsb wrote:

I would’ve prefered if they turned into the site of the now demolished Royal Dublin Hotel and emerged on Parnell st.

Surely not, cgcsb! 🙂

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Looks like the taxi rank on OCS will have to go 🙂

🙂
@Frank Taylor wrote:

There will be only one lane left for northbound traffic: will this be a bus lane?

Yeah, only one lane northbound on OCS Lower for buses and taxis, two lanes northbound on OCS Upper with Luas eating into the central median there.
@Frank Taylor wrote:

Where will a bike lane fit in on OCS?

There is room on OCS Lower northbound for a bike lane beside the bus lane.
@hutton wrote:

Why do the RPA insist on using out-of-date technology by erecting utterly unnecessary poles, cables, and other clutter in what is supposed to be our areas of finest architecture

I would agree with that, but the RPA haven’t mentioned anything about ground supply. They don’t want to give it as an option, for budgetary reasons. They would if there was enough pressure from the likes of ourselves!
@hutton wrote:

cobble lock where it simply is not needed, and where tarmac would work perfectly fine.

Agreed. While it looks nice, the tramline should also be used as a bus lane for Dublin Bus. Remember, these are two different State companies competing with eachother, and we have no central transport authority for Dublin.. yet!

@Morlan wrote:

.

Surely not, cgcsb! 🙂

surely, yes, sharp corners are the reason for the long journey times on the red line, I’d prefer if the same were not repeated, and sharp corners were minimized.

@Morlan wrote:

Yeah, only one lane northbound on OCS Lower for buses and taxis, two lanes northbound on OCS Upper with Luas eating into the central median there.

It is my understanding that the luas will share with private traffic on lower O’Connell street. If that were’nt the case as you suggest, there would be no point in a private traffic lane in upper O’C because the only way to access the northbound carriageway of O’C is via O’Connell Bridge and a left turn from the quays onto O’C(soon to be banned by city council)

@Morlan wrote:

It was reveled yesterday that the government has axed many of Transport 21’s projects due to no cash (quelle surprise!).

It would appear that Luas BXD will not go ahead any time soon, HOWEVER, Metro North will, and enabling works for BXD will go ahead alongside the construction of Metro North – no point digging up College Green twice.

Seems Dempsey remains in a different reality to the rest of the World; no Luas link up but Metro North and a Motorway now extended from Waterford to Letterkenny are prioritised. Ireland is doomed with leadership like that……..

@Morlan wrote:

It was reveled yesterday that the government has axed many of Transport 21’s projects due to no cash (quelle surprise!).

I’m not saying that you’re incorrect, but the article is clear that:

“No projects have been cancelled and Transport 21 continues to provide the strategic framework for capital spending on transport infrastructure into the future.”

“Government sources confirmed vulnerable projects included four Metro/Luas schemes — Metro West, Luas lines from Cherrywood to Bray, Lucan to the city centre and St Stephen’s Green to Liffey Junction.”

This indicates, to me, that while 4 of the projects are vulnerable either some or all may not be cancelled.

The only projects that have actually been cancelled so far are the:
“Nine new motorway rest areas planned for the M7 (Limerick), M8 (Cork), M9 (Waterford), M3 (Cavan) and N11 (Wexford)”

The announcement as to what projects other than the rest areas that are actually cancelled will be announced next week, but I definitely believe it would be insane to build the MN without doing BXD at the same time. Postpone the other projects, but at least get the BXD as far as DIT/Grangegorman.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Looks like the taxi rank on OCS will have to go 🙂
There will be only one lane left for northbound traffic: will this be a bus lane? If so that means no cars going north on OCS from Westmoreland street or turning left from Bachelor’s Walk.
Where will a bike lane fit in on OCS?
Should we buy the Bordeaux-style ground level power supply instead of overhead catenary? The French seem to have had teething problems but maybe they’re resolved now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

Last thing we need is a load more poles.

I’m assuming they are not using the ground level power because the BXD will be connecting to the existing luas line. Why they didn’t use this in the first place is a good question – obviously it’s to do with cost.

Renders from the DART Underground Railway Order

Stephen’s Green station

Stephen’s Green station

Pearse station

Pearse station

Pearse station

Pearse station

Docklands

Docklands & “Station Square”

Docklands

Inchicore station

Christ Church

Christ Church

They is more but the site went down when I was downloading the PDFs.
http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/

It appears for the Pearse st enterance that the sky bridge and that trinity owned building will be demolished, is this the case?

@cgcsb wrote:

It appears for the Pearse st enterance that the sky bridge and that trinity owned building will be demolished, is this the case?

No. That entrance is here (:

Pearse Station entrance is on Sandwith Street two streets back from Westland Row

Page 17 option PB guess the best option was discounted because of perceived severe traffic impacts… Bailey bridges?
Museum of Ireland against it… hmmm makes you wonder inside city walls… There are many examples of stations incorporating these elements guess they didn’t want to follow best practice and urban design.

http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/downloads/Environmental_Impact_Statement-EIS_and_Environmental_Impact_Statement_Non-Technical_Summary-NTS/Volume_4%E2%80%93EIS_Appendices/02_Background/A2.5_Vol_16_Section08.pdf

It also seems there is only one station style and that is crossrail.
I like the website it pulls out all the stops.

@OisinT wrote:

I’m assuming they are not using the ground level power because the BXD will be connecting to the existing luas line.

The Bordeaux system uses ground level power in the centre but the trams switch to overhead in the suburbs. I assume they haven’t proposed ground level supply because the cost might sink the project.

Why they didn’t use this in the first place is a good question – obviously it’s to do with cost.

It was innovative and didn’t work well at first. Far better for us to let the French iron out the problems before we use it.

By the time BXD is being constructed (2016?) we may feel we have the money for ground level power.

The Bordeaux system uses ground level power in the centre but the trams switch to overhead in the suburbs. I assume they haven’t proposed ground level supply because the cost might sink the project.

So save on the third rail and build a bridge and divert twice as many utilities instead…………

The piece on Bordeaux states that the costs of third rail are 300% those of conventional suspended wires; the question is how much does conventional suspended wiring cost? What is the top slice that suspending as invisibly as possible from Grade 1 protected structures in a sensitive area in heritage terms cost? I would not be surprised if the additional costs for a third rail on BX to the top of O’Connell St / Parnell Square were manageable in the context of a direct route being adopted and vastly reduced utility diversion costs and complete elimination of the bridge saving… The project as it stands is another timewarp back to the ‘Boom just got Boomier’ Era it needs to reflect current fiscal realities.

Absolutely. On pain of this project not going ahead, BXD without question must be powered in an alternative manner to overhead cables. There is little point going back into this discussion, having exhausted it at considerable length a couple of years ago, when all the arguments were rehearsed. If we are to develop a high quality city core, it is essential that the protection of the aesthetic qualities of its principal streets and iconic flagship spaces is given the very highest consideration.

This is backwards technology for a city that is looking to achieve international standards of design recognition through the new Development Plan, the new Public Realm Strategy, the application for UNESCO World Heritage status, and the application for European Design Capital 2014. In fact, it utterly flies in the face of the principal objectives all of these strategies for a quality ceremonial city core based on respect for its built heritage, inherent streetscape character and design excellence. It makes a mockery of public investment in such initiatives if there is not a strong and concerted agreement and vision for the city on the part of the capital’s planning authority as to what happens to what is effectively the front room of the State, over which it has jurisdiction and moral authority, with regard to the impact of a highly invasive project such as this. The fact it has even got this far, speaks volumes over such a commitment – it should never have got to this stage, even in the late 1990s, never mind the current cabled proposal.

Of course, the Luas BXD route is but a drop in the ocean relative to the collective impact of it, Metro and DART Underground, but the effects of the latter two are at least largely confined to the construction phase. Luas BXD by contrast will have a lasting impact on the city core that will be nigh on impossible to rectify for many years. The decision on its powering at this juncture is also critical in terms of determining the impact of potential future routes, such as along Dame Street, Christchurch Place and Thomas Street. Again, the impact of cabling shall be a major issue long this important route.

The effects of multiple platforms and the impact on public realms generally along BXD, having inspected the plans, is a topic so vast as to make one weary, but these issues can be resolved. It’s the cabling that’s going to be a considerable uphill struggle to push for change with – something that demands coherent and collective agreement amongst a number of bodies, persons and authorities to help achieve, not to mention real vision at ABP level.

You are totally right the Historical Civic Core of the City is having its largest intervention in many decades through the Luas link up. Clearly a step needs to be taken back to get a sophisticated urbananist solution.

The Bordeaux third rail idea is from an urbanist perspective the only solution that will preserve the most important vistas in the city. In addition the ridding of cars from that area will create an area of real value; the leisure potential is vast.

What needs to be done to acheive it?

Stop thinking like engineers and start thinking about the user experience, as tourists, as commuters and as shoppers; on street Luas from Sandyford to Swords and a third rail from Stephens Green to Parnell Street paid for many times over from the billions saved by ditching a metro that no one knows the cost of and the passenger loadings don’t exist to justify; what could be more pleasant than getting on a tram in DCU and getting off into a pristine wire free College Green with no steps, escalators, CCTV cameras etc?

Interconnector will be less user freindly but as a workhorse it is more a system fix than designed to be user freindly…

I am prepared to pay for a submission on BXD if Graham is prepared to write it…. More to the point the interim dividend from my CRH holding will pay for it….

Graham is willing to prepare a submission if PVC King is willing to pay him 😀

Done PM an address for said cheque

Ha. All joking aside, this is a very serious issue which, judging by the level of concern previously expressed amongst many of the engaged Archiseek community over this matter, is something that we need to get active on to make our concerns known. If even half the time previously spent on the last discussion on the Luas Central Corridor thread was diverted into a concise submission or three, we’d be getting somewhere.

A picture is a thousand words.

What are peoples thoughts on the station designs and underground interiors?

Are the stations actually going to look that bland?

@damcw wrote:

What are peoples thoughts on the station designs and underground interiors?

Are the stations actually going to look that bland?

What do you mean? There’s plenty of space there to erect cheap advertising :rolleyes:

Not to go totally off tangent, on the Dart line it is remarkable to see how the originally tightly co-ordinated uniform colour scheme has been let totally disappear at stations and along the line – where once there was green with rainbow elements, now its often any colour or simply not painted at all 🙁

To be fair to them they do capture the essence of the bland, uninspired, directionless, trivial nation we strive to be.

Missarchi has been doing a good job compiling images of metros from around the world, in her/his update today is a station in Moscow:

The full thread is here.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, this is the crap proposed for St. Stephen’s Green, which “will be to Dublin what Grand Central is to New York” (according to Martin Cullen in 2005).

Now of course budget is an issue, but I don’t believe that an architect was involved in the design above. These are stations that possibly hundreds of thousands of people will go through each day! If we’re going to spend billions on their construction, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a bit of effort to be put into the interiors.

In London, they are taking the issue of station design seriously for their Crossrail project. There were architecture groups lobbying for a Chief Architect to be appointed to the project. Are there no groups in Ireland looking for something similar? I’m actually shocked at the silence, even on this website, about the renders above. It isn’t acceptable!

Meanwhile, in Ireland, this is the crap proposed for St. Stephen’s Green, which “will be to Dublin what Grand Central is to New York” (according to Martin Cullen in 2005).

With that mans record on heritage and treatment of the park in the proposed construction phase of the soon to be abandoned Metro North station at St Green; I’m surprised he didn’t sanction a Grand Central Scale overground station on Stephens Green (i.e. the OPW Park) continuing via Fitwilliam Square, Upper Mount Street and Beggers Bush to connect with the Dart line at Havelock Square.

I’d not get carried away by the London images; that image is for Canary Wharf or Heathrow? Very different scale requirement to one city centre station in Dublin; designing a good concourse with architectural input would be no harm on the Interconnector. MN won’t be intersecting at Stephens Green for decades if ever.

@PVC King wrote:

the soon to be abandoned Metro North station at St Green;
…..
MN won’t be intersecting at Stephens Green for decades if ever.

Snap out of it, mate.
Work is starting in 7 months.

Bank costs to swell deficit – ESRI
Wednesday, 14 July 2010 15:33
The Economic and Social Research Institute says the cost of providing extra capital to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide will have to be included in the national accounts, and will push the government deficit from 11.5% to 19.75% of economic output – by far the highest in the developed world.

The report indicates that 120,000 people will have left Ireland in the two years to next April.

Read more detail on the report here

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund has praised the Government’s moves to support the banks and tackle the budget deficit, saying they had helped stabilise the economy. Read more on the IMF view here

Spend on training, urges ESRI

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EVIX

LONDON (ShareCast) –

LONDON (Dow Jones)–A consortium of City investors is close to seizing control of a third of Britain’s trains for about GBP1.7 billion, said U.K. newspaper The Times on Sunday citing sources close to the situation.
The investors, 3i Infrastructure PLC (3IN.LN), Morgan Stanley Infrastructure and Star Capital, have teamed up to buy the rolling stock leasing business owned by HSBC Holdings PLC (HSBA.LN).
It owns 4,000 U.K. trains, including several distinctive fleets such as the Intercity 225 trains, that run between London and Edinburgh and the Javelin high-speed commuter trains that provide services between London and Kent.
The business was one of three created and sold off when British rail was broken up in 1990s.
The private consortium has been given a period of exclusivity to finalise the deal and a price of GBP1.7 billion has almost been agreed with the deal expected to close by the end of the month, said the newspaper citing sources close to the situation.
3i, Morgan Stanley and HSBC were not immediately available to comment

Can we take it that the rolling stock would be leased; cutting the costs of the capital project but swelling the ongoing overhead? i.e. That the figures quoted do not pay for the entire project?

I’m pretty sure those are just proof of concept renders rather than actual final design renders from the architects.. there was a lot of talk about “iconic” station designs that reflect their region, so fingers crossed we’ll see that.

I’m more interested in how they are going to brand all of this now though. I think there’s a lot to learn from London here, unification is key. Everything; the luas, DART, buses, bikes, metros – should all come under Transport for Dublin and be unified with a common branidng, smartcard and transport map.

This, together, will be revolutionary for the city.

@Yixian wrote:

I’m more interested in how they are going to brand all of this now though. I think there’s a lot to learn from London here, unification is key. Everything; the luas, DART, buses, bikes, metros – should all come under Transport for Dublin and be unified with a common brandng, smartcard and transport map.

They achieved common branding in the 80’s with both Dart and Dublin Buses carrying green livery. It was only in the mid 90s afaik that DB deviated with separate ‘City Swift’ branded double deckers and short-hop ‘imps’. Latterly luas, bikes have all developed their own colour schemes – while Irish Rail have allowed the visual appearance of Dart stations deteriorate beyond belief 🙁

Yixian is spot on – a map, smartcard and common branding is the way forward.

IMO the livery of all dublin transport (minus luas) needs to be updated for the 21st century. The Dart looks 100 years old and the Dublin Bus livery is hideous.

which photos are the same station by different people?
and what are the differences which one was done first?

Yixian, have you ever been to an Irish train station? Because those renders look like exactly the type of thing that Irish Rail builds 🙁

http://two.archiseek.com/2010/clongriffin-station-iarnrod-eireann-architects/

Irish Rail have obviously gotten their ‘in-house design team’ (see above) to do it, because it looks exactly like the same, sterile, cheap materials that they’ve used in every other station. Form tends to fall waaaaay behind function with them.

Why can’t they make a point of teaming up for an Irish architecture firm for an overall design concept. Or have different architects for each station. I just wish they’d do something/anything exciting. It’s not a big ask when you’re spending billions on infrastructure that is to last over 100 years!

I agree on the branding btw.

Curious – while the stations have large external place names in Irish (especially helpful for Gaeltacht visitors who have forgotten their English) and sometimes in English, nothing whatever says this is a Metro entrance,:D or whatever the thing is eventually called.

@dc3 wrote:

Curious – while the stations have large external place names in Irish (especially helpful for Gaeltacht visitors who have forgotten their English) and sometimes in English, nothing whatever says this is a Metro entrance,:D or whatever the thing is eventually called.

Yep, pretty awful, but they are just intial renders.

I was reading two recent discussions on Boards about signage and branding.

The Official Language Act brought in new guidelines back in 2008 that require all government bodies to erect fully bilingual signage. The Irish has to come first and be larger than or equal to the English text below it.

Maybe that´s why the renders are in Irish only with English to the side?

Also, the National Transport Agency want to have a single brand (and possibly livery) for all Dublin transport. e.g. DART, Bus, Luas, Metro.

Which sounds great, but will it ever happen?

Aha thanks Morlan. I was wondering why the signs on the platforms of the Luas line to Point Village are different to the existing lines. The new arrangement of equally sized text for English and Irish is jarring, difficult to read, and visually unpleasant. The former arrangement was much clearer.

Indeed, the smaller text gave an elegance to the Gaeilge, which now looks hamfisted and arrogant, and makes you wish it wasn’t there at all.

Buckmister fuller roofs!
I would prefer micaceous oxide paint to that white paint.
Glass will always get smashed…
White tiles/walls will always look dirty.

@GrahamH wrote:

The new arrangement of equally sized text for English and Irish is jarring, difficult to read, and visually unpleasant. The former arrangement was much clearer.

Indeed, the smaller text gave an elegance to the Gaeilge, which now looks hamfisted and arrogant, and makes you wish it wasn’t there at all.

It is indeed a load of arse, but now Gaeilge has to be larger or the same size and as prominent as “ze English”. This does not apply to traffic signage.

Theregulations are here.

Personally, I can read the new Luas signage just fine. But I would prefer that both lingos were differentiated somehow.

Being Morlan, I took out some crayons (sorry).

Current signage

English in italics

Irish in less visible font, which goes against the regulations, so not possible.

Irish in bold, English in normal.

I think that is pretty much the choice in relation to new signage. 😮

As mentioned, the regulations can be downloaded here.

If my examples do not follow the regulations, I welcome your ideas. 🙂

who got da font?

Given that Metro and Luas will both be light-rail systems and the plan is for both to be interoperable, I would imagine that Metro stations will have a graphical continuity with Luas stations, ie, they’ll look pretty much the same.

vs Oslo central

http://www.stalforbund.com/Staldag2008/GroBonesmo1.pdf
http://www.stalforbund.com/Staldag2008/GroBonesmo2.pdf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0913/1224278759275.html

Council opposes overhead cables on cross-city Luas line

DUBLIN CITY Council is opposing a plan to use overhead power cables on the proposed cross-city Luas line because of their detrimental effect on the city’s “exceptional” and “exquisite” architecture.

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) wants to use the same overhead power supply system on the new line, which will link the Sandyford and Tallaght lines before continuing on to Broombridge in Cabra, as it does on the existing lines.

However, the council said the proposal was not acceptable in the city centre. The route the Luas will take – from St Stephen’s Green, down Dawson Street, through College Green, across O’Connell Bridge, and up O’Connell Street to Parnell Square – passes the city’s most significant public buildings, it said.

College Green in particular consisted of a “progression of exceptional classical buildings”, including the “exquisite” portico of the Bank of Ireland, which should not be compromised by cables and wires. Comparisons made by the RPA in relation to the wiring used by early 20th century trams in the city centre were “not an argument of weight” in the context of best-practice building conservation, the council said.

The RPA should provide an alternative wire-free system, the council argued. It said it was in favour of the overall project but it urged An Bord Pleanála to make it a condition of the railway order that St Stephen’s Green to Parnell Square be a wire-free zone.

The council’s position is supported by the Dublin Civic Trust, which submitted that the overhead lines would have a damaging impact on “large swathes of the ceremonial core of the city”. The Irish Georgian Society is also against the use of overhead lines.

The RPA June applied to An Bord Pleanála last for a railway order to construct the new line. A date for a public hearing on the project is expected to be announced soon by the planning board.

The RPA said it investigated a wire-free option that has been used on trams in Bordeaux in France since 2003. The system uses a third rail embedded in the road between the tram tracks which becomes energised as it hits connectors underneath the tram, but switches off when the tram passes.

However, the RPA said the technology was still new and there were concerns over its robustness, reliability and safety; and it was “substantially” more expensive.

A second bone of contention for the council is that the RPA’s plans to run the Luas along the central plaza of O’Connell Street. The council had undertaken a major improvement scheme of the street in recent years and the widened median was the central element of the design. The proposed alignment would “detrimentally affect the integrity of the newly completed scheme,” the council said, and should not be permitted.

😉

you have scored 1 point out of 1000 :p

I still don’t like the border of 1 & 2

@missarchi wrote:

who got da font?

Yes, your sign is very nice and Parisian. Unfortunately, it is in breach of the regulations 😉

@Morlan wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0913/1224278759275.html

Council opposes overhead cables on cross-city Luas line

DUBLIN CITY Council is opposing a plan to use overhead power cables on the proposed cross-city Luas line because of their detrimental effect on the city’s “exceptional” and “exquisite” architecture.

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) wants to use the same overhead power supply system on the new line, which will link the Sandyford and Tallaght lines before continuing on to Broombridge in Cabra, as it does on the existing lines.

However, the council said the proposal was not acceptable in the city centre. The route the Luas will take – from St Stephen’s Green, down Dawson Street, through College Green, across O’Connell Bridge, and up O’Connell Street to Parnell Square – passes the city’s most significant public buildings, it said.

College Green in particular consisted of a “progression of exceptional classical buildings”, including the “exquisite” portico of the Bank of Ireland, which should not be compromised by cables and wires. Comparisons made by the RPA in relation to the wiring used by early 20th century trams in the city centre were “not an argument of weight” in the context of best-practice building conservation, the council said.

The RPA should provide an alternative wire-free system, the council argued. It said it was in favour of the overall project but it urged An Bord Pleanála to make it a condition of the railway order that St Stephen’s Green to Parnell Square be a wire-free zone.

The council’s position is supported by the Dublin Civic Trust, which submitted that the overhead lines would have a damaging impact on “large swathes of the ceremonial core of the city”. The Irish Georgian Society is also against the use of overhead lines.

The RPA June applied to An Bord Pleanála last for a railway order to construct the new line. A date for a public hearing on the project is expected to be announced soon by the planning board.

The RPA said it investigated a wire-free option that has been used on trams in Bordeaux in France since 2003. The system uses a third rail embedded in the road between the tram tracks which becomes energised as it hits connectors underneath the tram, but switches off when the tram passes.

However, the RPA said the technology was still new and there were concerns over its robustness, reliability and safety; and it was “substantially” more expensive.

A second bone of contention for the council is that the RPA’s plans to run the Luas along the central plaza of O’Connell Street. The council had undertaken a major improvement scheme of the street in recent years and the widened median was the central element of the design. The proposed alignment would “detrimentally affect the integrity of the newly completed scheme,” the council said, and should not be permitted.

The delivery of on street mass transit on the Country’s main street is no small undertaking; it is a provision that will have many knock on implications to the built environment not least of which are important civic buildings on the Wide Streets Commission’s central spine from Parnell Sq to College Green.

The DCC observation appears to focus on two areas; firstly the third rail which seems has more or less universal support apart from the RPA.

Secondly DCC seem to be of the opinion that it will undermine the O’Connell St refit done in 2003/04; on this I disagree for two reasons firstly should the third rail system be introduced the damage could be limited to one lane of traffic; secondly and more importantly should the dominence of buses and cars not be tackled on this one key civic space.

I would suggest that should Luas be extended North that many of the routes currently using O’Connell Street would no longer need to do so; I would also suggest that Capel Street is underused in terms of bus usage.

There is a golden opportunity for Luas to transform O’Connell St by using a third rail and utilising the median as platforms with the doors opening inwards; all that would be required to keep O’Connell St moving would be a reduction in bus traffic and to ensure that bus stops were restricted to areas where they could be recessed into the footpath allowing a dedicated Luas lane, and a bus/cycle lane from the existing two lanes.

As the OCS fit out would be c10 years old by the time the route were delivered maybe some updating of what is a very good core design may be no bad thing.

@Morlan wrote:

Yes, your sign is very nice and Parisian. Unfortunately, it is in breach of the regulations 😉

I think we need some symbolism or heavy metals.
If they say metro what is the irish equivelent under ground?

@missarchi wrote:

I think we need some symbolism or heavy metals.
If they say metro what is the irish equivelent under ground?

Faoi thalamh (fwee halav) or just Meitreo

This is architecture… with archs

who if left of field?

An Bord Pleanála gives Metro North go ahead

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1028/metro.html

The multi-billion-euro Metro North project in Dublin has been given the green light by An Bord Pleanála.

The rail link from St Stephen’s Green to Swords now faces final approval from the Government on a cost benefit analysis.

The infrastructure project is described as the biggest in the history of the State and the ruling from An Bord Pleanála runs to 1,700 pages.

The board has given permission for an underground track from St Stephen’s Green to north of Ballymun where it will cross the M50 on a flyover.

It will go underground at Dublin Airport stopping at a centralised transport hub before going overground again to Swords with some of the line on stilts due to the undulating landscape.

The board has eliminated two stops at Belinstown and Seatown and ordered the relocation of a depot and park-and-ride facility.

It wants the park-and-ride facility and depot moved from Belinstown, which is north of Swords, because of the risk of flooding.

The overall 18km line has therefore been shortened by 2.3km.

The final plan for the underground section at Ballymun and the stop at O’Connell Street also need to be finalised.

But it is the proposed ‘big dig’ in the city centre, involving moving statues like the O’Connell monument and closing off part of St Stephen’s Green, that is causing concern to some businesses.

Enabling works on underground utility lines is due to start next spring, while the construction itself is scheduled to last from 2012 to 2016.

The overall estimated cost has varied from €5bn at the height of the boom to €3bn now with reduced construction costs.

Supporters point out that because it will be a public-private partnership the initial cost will be taken by the private operator. The Rail Procurement Agency will have to make a final decision between two consortiums – Celtic Metro Group and Metro Express – in coming months.

A number of economic studies have been carried out by the RPA with the latest showing that for every €1 spent on the Metro there will be €2 back in terms of overall economic benefit.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore has said the Metro North project should be postponed while Transport Minister Noel Dempsey has said it will go ahead subject to a final cost analysis.

The RPA says the line will be able to carry 20,000 passengers an hour with 10km underground providing a journey time of 20 minutes from Dublin Airport to the city centre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgwYT_4Pr9k

New render of Westmorland

@Morlan wrote:

New render of Westmorland

I’m sure it’ll feel very safe after dark, in an area already drastically under lit :rolleyes:

Btw I see no overhead cables for Luas BX – so do we now have two RPAs; Luas RPA who advocate overhead cables, and Metro RPA who don’t?

The render reflects the approved location of the Westmorland entrance to the enormous O’Connell Bridge station.

Westmorland Street access

As for the lack of cables, I doubt we’ll be seeing trams running through here until 2020 or later. Hopefully we’ll have battery powered trams or third rail by then!

Is it really necessary to have two traffic lanes and a tram lane down Westmorland?

Let’s pedestrianise the fucking lot! Dublin Bus can use the tram lane. Deliveries and other access can share with pedestrians.

Westmoreland street is useful as a traffic artery, pedestrianisation is not required at present, a widening of the western footpath is long overdue though. College green will have to be a bus only street from 5am to 12.30am in order to allow for proper segregation of luas services.

@hutton wrote:

Btw I see no overhead cables for Luas BX – so do we now have two RPAs; Luas RPA who advocate overhead cables, and Metro RPA who don’t?

Dont you know overhead cables would clutter the streetscape!

Oh and a wall of yellow buses….

Road use or not the paving should be continued with some “design”
I would also like a little stream and some grassy knolls might not look out of place…
Oh and the bumps…
I’m not a fan of glass and steel

still needs gov approval…

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1028/breaking44.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1028/breaking3.html

I would suggest that should Luas be extended North that many of the routes currently using O’Connell Street would no longer need to do so; I would also suggest that Capel Street is underused in terms of bus usage.

Very true PVC KIng,and DCC took very recent action to ensure that Public Transport useage of Capel Street would be well nigh impossible given that parking bays and assorted other impediments now abound.

But the principle of alternatives to OCS as the SOLE means of Publicly Crossing the Liffey are sound.

I have also for a long time past suggested Jervis Street as offering a great set of Bus Laning possibilities,given that it allows just as easy access to the Henry/Mary Street shopping souks,as well as being adjacent to the Dublin Bus Strand Street Terminal site,now sadly moribund…?

Any takers……

Very true PVC KIng,and DCC took very recent action to ensure that Public Transport useage of Capel Street would be well nigh impossible given that parking bays and assorted other impediments now abound

Retail has changed; paint is now sold from retail parks at the edge of cities; parking in Capel Street has no other rationale other than DIY enthusiasts and tradesmen loading paint pots. Capel Street needs to be handed over to DB as the main Southbound route for 16-22 etc to free
up O’Connnell St.

I have also for a long time past suggested Jervis Street as offering a great set of Bus Laning possibilities,given that it allows just as easy access to the Henry/Mary Street shopping souks,as well as being adjacent to the Dublin Bus Strand Street Terminal site,now sadly moribund

I agree that this route could take a lot of strain currently borne by OCS and Aston Quay/Bachelors Walk.

The prize could be a pedestrianised / Luas only Central Bank to Parnell Square

DoT press release on the 4-year plan

http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=258

Is Metro North going ahead?

Yes. Metro North is the major component of the public transport allocation. The planning and procurement processes for Metro North are proceeding. The estimated expenditure on Metro North in the period 2011-2014 is now slightly less than previously estimated because of the An Bord Pleanala requirement to relocate the depot. This will result in a short delay of a number of months in the overall timescale for the project.

Notwithstanding this, enabling works for Metro North will commence in 2011 and the procurement process will continue. This is expected to result in the selection of a preferred bidder in 2012. The final business case for the project will then be submitted to Government for approval to proceed to construction.

Is DART Underground going ahead?

It will now not be possible to deliver the tunnel element of the programme in the immediate period. However, some of the re-signalling and associated works, which have capacity benefits in and of themselves, will proceed over the next four years and this will prepare the network for the delivery of the underground tunnel once financial resources permit.

An Bord Pleanala has commenced the oral hearing for DART Underground. It is likely that the railway order could be made by the end of 2011. The DART Underground project is an extensive programme involving the construction of an underground tunnel, to be delivered by public private partnership, and the delivery of various other resignalling and associated works to facilitate the integration of the Northern and Kildare Lines via the tunnel.

What other public transport projects will go ahead in this period?

We will continue to spend on vital public transport programmes such as railway safety, traffic management, accessibility and real time passenger information across the country. In Dublin the Luas extension to Citywest will be complete in 2011 and a new public transport bridge at Marlborough Street will commence construction. Planning will continue on a range of other public transport projects including Luas BXD, the cross-city link, Luas extensions to Lucan and Bray, and Metro West. Funding is available to commence construction on the Navan Line in 2013. Money will also be provided for the purchase of new buses for PSO services.

You all know the economic backdrop, can one person who doesn’t live on the Metro North route please give a rationale for Metro North being built at the expense of the Interconnector.

I don’t believe I’m reading this. Words fail me.

The Govt is obssessed by Metro North

@PVC King wrote:

You all know the economic backdrop, can one person who doesn’t live on the Metro North route please give a rationale for Metro North being built at the expense of the Interconnector.

RPA did the superior PR job no doubt. There’s no votes in the interconnector, it’s not sexy, it doesn’t go anywhere where there is blatantly obvious demand, it’s difficult to explain to the general public the Connolly signalling bottleneck if you’re an institutionalised CIE salaryman. The project justification should have been outsourced to major international PR pimpers ages ago . The fact the project is based in logic would dictate that it was always at the greater chance of being scuppered.

Out my way , FF will be playing the ‘at least we got yiz T2 and MN’ card and it might save them a seat or two in North Co. Dublin.:mad:

Up the Wesht!…and North Co Dublin! Yeeehaaar!

this is pure electioneering to keep those living on the MN route interested in FF. 2012 is an easy thing to punt anyway – well away yet.

There is absolutely no way this will happen

@PVC King wrote:

You all know the economic backdrop, can one person who doesn’t live on the Metro North route please give a rationale for Metro North being built at the expense of the Interconnector.

From my point of view, both are essential and they complement each other well. However, MN opens up rail to new parts of Dublin and mostly serves areas inside the M50. DU improves the service for people who already have a rail service and brings people closer to the business and financial districts. Crucially though, the benefits of DU are mostly for people on suburban lines outside Dublin. It makes commuting from Kildare better while doing very little for people living closer to the city centre.

If MN is built, lots of extra people will be able to take the train. If DU is built, few new people will take the Dart because it doesn’t serve new destinations. However, if both are built, we end up with a quite decent network which benefits both.

One project gives us solid foundations for a genuinely integrated public transport system, which can be improved upon if our economic fortunes ever change.
The other gives us a reasonably useful metro line, but does little to join up the utterly disjointed network of train and tramlines we already have.
One project is hard to explain to the public and will generate little in the way of votes.
The other is all glitz and is guaranteed to secure votes in North Dublin.
Which would you choose?
It is just another example of how the current political system cannot be trusted to make decisions in the national long-term interest and are instead obsessed with short-term electoral gain.

Listening to Dr James O’Reilly on Pat Kenny this morning and one of the panel described a scenario where Jackie Healy Rae crossed Merrion St to meet Chopper and asked for a school extension in Kilgavin in return for voting for the budget is being a non-runner. Why should a two maybe three constituency project be any different?

I have consistently called for an appropriate solution to the airport and Swords a Luas line after the Interconnector funding is alloted; who knows they might even complete at the same time.

@PVC King wrote:

Listening to Dr James O’Reilly on Pat Kenny this morning and one of the panel described a scenario where Jackie Healy Rae crossed Merrion St to meet Chopper and asked for a school extension in Kilgavin in return for voting for the budget is being a non-runner. Why should a two maybe three constituency project be any different?

Because unlike JHR pork-barrelling, this project passes a cost-benefit analysis and benefits 0.5 million people. It’s sickening that the Tralee bypass is getting the go-ahead while projects like DART underground and Luas BXD are put on ice.

It is exactly this type of cost benefit analysis that got the country into the mess it is in; Metro North had a projected passenger load of 35m pax in 2005 with Metro Waste; in 2010 without Metro Waste it was forecast to have 36.5m p.a.x.

The cake will be a lot smaller going forward for the next 5 – 10 years, Metro North needs to be ranked fairly, ahead of the Tuam Motorway but behind the interconnector, such a ranking assuming the Luas sections get built and when the economy makes it Dart-like in its loadings then the plans for the tunnelled section from DCU in can be dusted down.

I cannot understand why current Dart users are not marching on CIE/Iarnrod Eireann offices !!!
The CIE Railway Order plan is to reroute the Dart from between Clontarf and Connolly stations so the Dart from North will run underground via a “Pierce Underground Station” to Heuston while the Maynooth line runs to Bray.
To make matters worse the Underground Pierce station to Mainline Pierce is a good 15 minutes walk with a little escalator time.
All those loyal Dart users will now have at least 15 minutes added to their journey times and even more if the interchange between trains has any delay. What a disaster!! Dart will will lose a large portion of its loyal users.
Maybe CIE will reconsider, seeing they have 4 years at least to think about it ???

Pearse
Pearse
Pearse

“All Dart users will have 15 mins added to their journey”. Really?

@StephenC wrote:

Pearse
Pearse
Pearse

“All Dart users will have 15 mins added to their journey”. Really?

Sorry Pearse it is … and yes I amend “all” to “all current Northside Dart users passing Clontarf Station and all Southsiders passing Connolly Station”, that is the vast majority of Northsiders and quite a large portion of “D U R T” users.

All kidding aside your remark hardly addresses the serious issue I raise. Don’t tell me …. you work for CIE/IE?

How long a distance is the interchange going to be at Pearse if it will take 15 mins?

You need to weigh up the time savings of trains not queing up into the loopline bottleneck which will more than give back the 2-3 mins the interchange will take. With the exception of two journey routing i.e. northside to Connolly or Tara the journey times will be much faster; for all you poshe nartciders getting to show off your white socks and black slip ons outside Korkey’s from where they came will be much easier and faster….

“loop line bottle-neck” you are kidding!!!
For Southsiders going North past Clontarf it will be a nightmare … they will need to walk for 15 mins to get to the Pearse Underground North platform and their DART will be held at Docklands Underground every time a mainline train is moving to or from Connolly.
For those Southsiders going to St Stephen’s Green after a 15 minute walk they then have the problem of 20 to 30 minute intervals where no Darts run due to the intervals created by mainline trains to and from Connolly … this will be so until the line North is four-tracked, and that is not part of the DU RO.
After DART users have digested the above we can then have a look at the Northsiders plight. Northsiders!!! Watch out if you are now going to Tara Street … better to walk if DU as per RO is built.

“loop line bottle-neck” you are kidding!!!

The existing position is three directions into 2 hence the bottleneck from an equation of 1.5:1; DU will be grade seperated and have 4 directions into two routes i.e. 1:1 which eliminates the bottleneck.

they will need to walk for 15 mins to get to the Pearse Underground North platform

What is the length of underground passage between platforms? Your timing suggests c 1 mile

their DART will be held at Docklands Underground every time a mainline train is moving to or from Connolly.

No; the lines northbound and southbound are grade seperated unlike the present time; there will be lead times on non-stopping services but regardless of what routings are chosen or in the current arrangements there will always be lead times to allow fast trains headways on health and safety grounds. That is unless a graduated stopping regime is introduced to outer suburban trains to stop at a number of the quieter DART stations and have DART make an equal number of stops at different stations between Killester and Portmarnock. Outside peak frequency on outer commuter will be in the order of 15-20 mins between services.

Watch out if you are now going to Tara Street

The one legitimate issue you raise; entirely solved by ensuring both Dart and Commuter trains stop at Clontarf Road allowing an interchange between Dart and Commuter trains bound for Barrow St.

Dear PVC King before any other comment on Pearce check the DU Railway order please.

Obviously you don’t understand what lack of four-tracking on the Northern Line means.
From Howth Junction to Connolly DART trains have to clear the line before a mainline train can run.
Stoping at Clontarf makes the delay worse …. think it out please.
From now on let’s take one point at a time.

Let’s start with the gap in DART trains … yes it should be 15 to 20 minutes but DE Facto it is not … currently it is well over 20 mins (up to 30 mins) a lot of times. Those gaps will exist on Dart Underground as DART and Mainline to Connolly run on the same line.

Now traveling North …. DART trains again must clear the line to Howth Junction and onwards to Malahide before the mainline train runs.

DART and Mainline north are not separated never mind Grade Separated.

The Loop line delay (bottle-neck) is nothing by comparison .. hence I figure you must still be kidding me!!!

@cagey wrote:

Dear PVC King before any other comment on Pearce check the DU Railway order please.

Sigh!!! … comment on PEARSE stations … sorry about the typo.
If you require URLs just sing out.

Obviously you don’t understand what lack of four-tracking on the Northern Line means.

I fully understand what it means, however given the fiscal meltdown it could not be justified even if you could establish that the entire cabinet had houses on the landtake and that they would be CPO’d with the value of their primary personal investment capped at €1 each. Getting funding for DU will be hard enough without diverting the focus on the issue from an intergration tunnel to a wider project. I suggest you stop whinging about the existing service which is terrible but will only be resolved by adding more capacity to the loopline by eliminating the 1.5:1 equation.

You can 4 track the Northern line from Fairview to Larne but 1.5:1 is still the problem……

@PVC King wrote:

“loop line bottle-neck” you are kidding!!!

The existing position is three directions into 2 hence the bottleneck from an equation of 1.5:1; DU will be grade seperated and have 4 directions into two routes i.e. 1:1 which eliminates the bottleneck.

That’s 2:1

You probably mean two routes onto two sets of rail lines which would be 1:1
My complaint here is not about the current position but the position that will pertain if DU goes ahead which will cost me approx. an extra 1 hour travel daily.

You ideas about the “loop line bottle-neck” is crazy. Let me explain.

The current DART problems are (1)gaps and (2)overcrowding.
(1) Gaps in the current DART service are mostly due to lack of four-tracking.
(2) Overcrowding happens due to the platforms filling up while we wait 20 minutes (gaps) for a mainline train to pass.
This was the case before the Maynooth line began to share the loop line and has not significantly changed as the Maynooth line quite often utilises the gaps in DART.

The loop line aleviation by DU will speed up trains by a miserable few minutes and this is almost neglible compared to the delays due to lack of four-tracking. Even if your ratio was 1:10 this would pertain. So please, no more about ratios.
The DU if it goes ahead it will not aleviate (1) or (2) above. Worse still it will add (as the RO stands) over an hour to my journey time (daily) due to the appaling location of Pearse Underground, and this will be the case for the majority of current DART users.

This is an Architecture site and I really would like to see a discussion on Pearse Underground design, by the Architects in here.
I think the design is appalling.

(1) Gaps in the current DART service are mostly due to lack of four-tracking.

in 1984 DART ran a 5 min frequency at peak; gaps are due to extended northern and maynooth commuter services.

(2) Overcrowding happens due to the platforms filling up while we wait 20 minutes (gaps) for a mainline train to pass.

Overcrowding is due to theremoval of 5 minute frequency at peak times.

My complaint here is not about the current position but the position that will pertain if DU goes ahead which will cost me approx. an extra 1 hour travel daily.

Why are you going to sell your house and move to Trim so you can have a longer drive than you currently have?

@PVC King wrote:

(gaps are due to extended northern and maynooth commuter services.

The Northern Mainline causes the big gaps .. no red herrings re maynooth and loop line please.

Overcrowding is due to theremoval of 5 minute frequency at peak times. .

The big gaps man ……. pleeeeeese!

Why are you going to sell your house and move to Trim so you can have a longer drive than you currently have?

As the Dart Undergroud is proposed, my morning DART will be rerouted to Heuston …. I will have to interchange to the Maynooth line, as will many other DART users. Those going south to Connolly or Tara St will be really hard done by.

The gaps will cause me a likely even bigger delay on my evening return and no silly question from you helps change that reality.

I was going to suggest a remedial change to the DU RO, but due to your silly question I will now do all I can to make sure the DU never happens, and I hope every current DART user does the same.

As the Dart Undergroud is proposed, my morning DART will be rerouted to Heuston

What is your journey i.e. which suburb to which street?

The gaps will cause me a likely even bigger delay on my evening return and no silly question from you helps change that reality.

Are you really saying the gaps will be worse after DU is built?

A little history lesson on the 4 tracking of the Northern line; Northern Rock, Jerome Kerviel, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, AIG, Lenihan Bros, the treasury is empty its been charged to the IMF who might just if idiots like you shut up may just see DU for the must have project that it is.

I am saying the “gaps” will mostly remain and added to that (for most current DART users… including me) will be a lengthy interchange time, both ways.
If you are quoting history, CIE would long ago have gone the way of those you mention but for the very large state subsidies they swallow every year, and I am thinking “Good Riddance” if the DART can be saved. So much for your history lesson. Instead of idiotic name calling, let’s see you suggest a FIX. If you cannot then we know we know who should stay silent.

I am saying the “gaps” will mostly remain and added to that (for most current DART users… including me)

Evidence?

will be a lengthy interchange time, both ways.

150m down an escalator……

What evidence… don’t be silly … the proposal is to reroute the DART from the North to Heuston via Docklands Underground and the gaps will remain.
In this forum I am inviting architectural “fixes” for the DART Underground as proposed.
CIEs proposal was based on the “Loop line” being the biggest bottle-neck but as a DART user I known that is not the case. The lack of four-tracking is by far the worst bottle-neck.

The only section of the network where all trains currently travel is between the Royal and Grand Canal’s; by diverting all northbound DARTS via the interconnector tunnel 30-40% of traffic is removed from this constrained environment and given access to the key commercial and civic zones in the City. You are the first person in this forum to ever complain at having the ability to have a direct service to Stephens Green instead of Tara Street, Christchurch instead of Connolly.

4 tracking the northern line is a worthy medium term objective, however getting a luas line to the airport would be a greater priority along with some other public transport projects such as Metro West either built as Dart spurs or Luas feeding into Luas North.

@PVC King wrote:

You are the first person in this forum to ever complain at having the ability to have a direct service to Stephens Green instead of Tara Street, Christchurch instead of Connolly.

When I am wrong, I say sorry. When you are wrong you come up with a direct lie. I never complained about a service to St Stephen’s Green and that is not the center of the city.

So you support the service then?

In employment density and retail intensity terms Stephens Green is the centre of the City; distances may for the pruposes of maps be measured from the GPO but that reflects historic and out of date development patterns as against where people travel to most.

@PVC King wrote:

So you support the service then?

So what’s wrong with “sorry”????

I bet more people travel to Blanchardstown S.C. and surrounds than to St Stephen’s Green. If so, by your argument electrification to Coolmine and Clonsilla should take priority over DU. Now isn’t that a good idea?? after the four-tracking north of course.

Of course the whole system should be “joined up”, and platform destination choice should be the standard goal.

I think you will find electrificiation to Maynooth is on the cards within or a couple of years after the interconnector completes. Electrification to Maynooth won’t be too far behind nor will electrification to Balbriggan and staggering station calls between Connolly/Spencer Dock and Howth Junction something along the lines of

Dart

IC
Clontarf Rd
Killester
Raheny
Howth Junction

Northern Line

Connolly
Clontarf Rd
Harmonstown
Kilbarrick
Howth Junction

Would speed up Dart, slow down Northern Commuter and allow passengers from Dart and Northern Commuter to interchange at Clontarf Road to whichever routing they wanted.

@PVC King wrote:

…… a couple of years after the interconnector completes.

It will be 4 years at least if DU ever starts and with any luck your “a couple of years after” will mean I will not need the lousy gapped service.

Anything less than 4-tracking is a bad compromise that would severely curtail the trains entering and leaving the DU and compromise the DU RO as it stands. I think they are forecasting a DU train every 3 minutes (would have to check that).

As the country moves from the ripping itself apart in the media phase to the time to rebuild under a new administration phase; money will be tight and and only must have projects built; I more than anyone would love to see the exchequer position swapping places with the Singapore Finance ministry (not that they would ever end up with any fiscal deficit beyond a single year) but that is not going to happen any time soon.

3 minute headways with Darts speeded up and outer commuters slowed down would be a very very dramatic improvement on current services which are auwful. Blind confidence in the future is inviting a very bad end and being seen to plan for new projects at this time would be just that, the bond hawks certainly have not gone away; careful and meticulous planning has the potential to deliver progress; Dublin Underground is the key piece of investment in the Irish transport system as the economy returns to better times through carefully targeted investments. Straining the public finances to fund new projects or Metro North will send out all the wrong signals from an economy that needs to be seen as beyond perfect for at least the next 5 years.

I am however confident better times are ahead once a stable government emerges who have the will to get it right; no more Tuam motorways……

Have you ever tried to walk across the N17 of Sawdoctor fame at rush hours? I can only presume you know nothing about the N17 otherwise you would not quote Tuam as a bad example.

Continuous 3 minute headways on DU without big “gaps” will never happen without 4 tracking of feeder lines, for the reasons I have already quoted.

The 4 tracking section east of Pearse is ideal for a temporary (2yrs) station while Pearse is outfitted with DU underneath, but the DU as proposed is looking more and more unlikely, and if it goes ahead a lot of current DART users will be alienated.

The N17 of Sawdoctor fame was actually Kilburn High Road at rush hour in practice; if you remember the pretext of the song was a ‘wish that I was on that N17’. A commuter town of c3,000 people can not justify a motorway in post Lenihan Bros Ireland.

So after the Tuam motorway is built what is actually going to pay for 4 tracking? The Central Bank of Ireland is not the Fed it can’t print money when it feels like it. In any event you have not come up with any technical basis as to why playing around with the timetable will prevent 3 min headways; the Northern line in London runs 90 second headways as do the Jubilee and Central lines at peak.

@PVC King wrote:

The N17 of Sawdoctor fame was actually Kilburn High Road at rush hour in practice; if you remember the pretext of the song was a ‘wish that I was on that N17’.

The words of the song mention turning left for Shannon … very difficult to do from Kilburn. (say sorry)
Do you ever look anything up???

Well I didn’t see much future
When I left the Christian brothers school
So i waved it goodbye with a wistful smile
And I left the girls of Tuam
Sometimes when I’m reminiscing
I see the prefabs and my old friends
And I know that they’ll be changed or gone
By the time I get home again.

(Chorus)
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
Travelling with just my thoughts and dreams

Well the ould fella left me to shannon
Was the last time I traveled that road
And as we turned left at claregalway
I could feel a lump in my throat
As I pictured the thousands of times
That I traveled that well worn track
And I know that things will be different
If I ever decide to go back.

(Chorus)
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
Travelling with just my thoughts and dreams

Now as I tumble down highways
Or on filthy overcrowded trains
There’s no one to talk to in transit
So I sit there and daydream in vain
Behind all those muddled up problems
Of living on a foreign soil
I can still see the twists and the turns on the road
From the square to the town of the tribes
(Chorus)
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
Yes I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green
Travelling with just my thoughts and dreams

Not go and troll some other website

(Chorus)
And I wish I was on the n17
Stone walls and the grass is green

Hehehehe hardly Kilburn
For your info the N17 is the number of the road from Tuam to Galway …. say sorry

Some of us graduated from Kilburn to places you can only dream of… now F**k off

Some of us graduated from Kilburn to places you can only dream of… now F**k off

@PVC King wrote:

Some of us graduated from Kilburn to places you can only dream of… now F**k off

You never graduated from prep school

We don’t do the 11 plus in Ireland so you are right it is a gap in my CV, University and professional association are enough, but its the many years of experience of sorting out gobshites that my clients pay me for; those that can’t measure thats worth loads; those that don’t understand the bigger picture, kerching…….

Metro North manager says project has broad support

THERE WAS a broad public and political consensus behind Metro North and a new government was unlikely to halt it, the project manager claimed yesterday.

He said the agency had met Opposition transport spokesmen and “Labour and Fine Gael were broadly supportive” of the project.

About €135 million has already been spent on enabling works and planning for Metro North and the Railway Procurement Agency said yesterday that €45 million had been provided for it in the Budget. This brings the total spend on Metro North to almost €200 million before the project has received Government approval.

Both Fine Gael and Labour refused to give an absolute commitment to the project yesterday, claiming such a move would be “irresponsible” before assuming office and seeing the full costs.

Contracts for significant enabling works would be awarded early next year. “Until we sign the public-private partnership we can’t say the project will go the full way . . . but it is a note of confidence that the Government said it will support enabling works over the next year or so.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1215/1224285580700.html

These have been out for a while but I though’t I’d post them here

DART Underground 3D animations

Pearse Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9s8znCf2eA

Stephens Green Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25XCQ9i0x4

Christchurch Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCy8ekqUC-I

Inchicore Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv0hnXmSdms

Heuston Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD58BF6oHm8

DART Underground: A New Travel Experience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hMdzKhPGE

RPA Metro 3D animations

Metro North
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgwYT_4Pr9k

Metro West
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5prJe0l7M64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5prJe0l7M64&feature=related

We now know where those printing plates from the French Central Bank went when they disapeared from Charles De Gaulle’s freight hall under suspicious circumstances.

“ … to be user freindly… “
“…should the dominence of buses and cars  …”
“DU will be grade seperated and have 4 directions into two routes i.e. 1:1  “
“.. 150m down an escalator….. (Pearse interchange)“
“ Stephens Green is the centre of the City; distances may for the pruposes of … “ 
“I think you will find electrificiation to Maynooth … “
“The N17 of Sawdoctor fame was actually Kilburn High Road … “
“ … when they disapeared from Charles … “

and now for the punchline
“Some of us graduated from Kilburn … “

Bovered?

Stay on top; the design of Pearse underground is a level of perfection you will never reach.

A note of caution was sounded by Tim Brick, executive director of the Irish Academy of Engineering. He warned that public consultation by way of An Bord Pleanála and environmental assessments had failed to win public support in a wide range of projects from the Shell to Sea campaign to the Dublin Port Tunnel.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2010/1217/1224285355107.html

If architecture doesn’t uplift our spirits has it failed?

“It is a natural corridor,” he points out.

Nope its a €3bn hole in the ground the IMF won’t sanction.

The Green Way was originally conceived in response to the 2009 report of the Government’s High-Level Action Group on Green Enterprise which stated that Ireland needed to “develop one or more green zones in order to create an environment that can support the development of green enterprise and be used to market Ireland overseas”.

Give Martin Naughton some cash and he will give you green jobs in Dunleer, so the locals don’t need to commute to Dublin; ABP recognised this when they prevented MN from even considering park n ride north of Swords. But for the fantasists this was disaster, almost 40% of projected peak ridership was conditioned out of the equation.

“We wish to create an internationally recognised green economic zone and position Ireland as a leader in the world’s most exciting and rapidly growing sector,” says Tony Boyle, chairman of the Steering Committee for An tSlí Ghlas. “The potential of this project, which builds on our existing assets and infrastructure, is that it can assist in the transformation of our economy.”

Problem solved; build it in Park West its already got a rail line….

Even the video makes the walk from DART to DART in Pearse look very long.It’s a design flaw that should have been ironed out from the start, but it’s not that big a deal that the project shouldn’t go ahead..The part of the walkway that’s done in stone looks quite cool…

In an ideal World you would have two platforms backing on to each other or at right angles; in reality you have got to work with the plots that are available, working out where access is currently weak relative to existing access and delivering the project without considerable disturbance during the construction phase. Once built a 200m walk will take the average commuter 2 minutes a distance that probably seems longer watching youtube than dodging commuters when you’re on the move.

@EIA340600 wrote:

…It’s a design flaw that should have been ironed out from the start, but it’s not that big a deal that the project shouldn’t go ahead..

Unfortunately for CIE/IE it is a big deal as they would have to change the alignment of a large portion of the DU.
Phase1 of the Draft Dart Underground Railway Order (DU RO) decided on the alignment (with no consultation with the public … not even Dart Users) and from then they have all had “Tunnel Vision”.
While Pearse DU (as designed) is a fiasco, retaining some North/South service would alleviate the need to interchange at Pearse.
Imagine spending 2.5 billion, and CIE have admitted to not having done a count on the “Current Dart Users” affected or even a straw poll on the their likely shift to the car. CIE/IE have “Transport21” logo on all their documentation but refuse to contemplate retaining some service directly from North to South (as envisioned in Transport21) … as I said “Tunnel Vision”.

it is a big deal as they would have to change the alignment of a large portion of the DU.

Where would they have put the entrance then? Pearse as it stands is bursting at the seams in terms of its existing passenger load; are you suggesting that they should have funnelled the commuter load from West Dublin and Kildare into the same entrance?

even a straw poll on the their likely shift to the car.

A choice of an additional range of stations and routings and a better service on all lines due to elimination of the loopline capacity constraint; I wonder why they didn’t ask passengers why such an improvement would drive them into their cars…..

@PVC King wrote:

Where would they have put the entrance then? Pearse as it stands is bursting at the seams in terms of its existing passenger load; are you suggesting that they should have funnelled the commuter load from West Dublin and Kildare into the same entrance

This is the last time I am going to answer ridiculous questions.
The entrances to DU as suggested are quite OK but the escalators should rise directly from DU up into Pearse mainline … no contention there as the Maynooth line as suggested in the DU RO goes through Pearse mainline .. and any interchanging passengers ( e.g. for St Stephens Green) go directly down escalators to the DU.

A choice of an additional range of stations and routings and a better service on all lines due to elimination of the loopline capacity constraint; I wonder why they didn’t ask passengers why such an improvement would drive them into their cars…..

It is not a better service for a large number of “Current Dart Users”, hence it is not a better service on all lines
DU should enhance DART services for “Current Dart Users” not curtail their choice of direct destination or impose an ill thought out interchange .. the adverse effects of the poor design on “Current Dart Users” is so far not publicly estimated, not even by a published straw poll. To ask rail passengers if they would like a better service would be a ridiculous exercise.

The entrances to DU as suggested are quite OK but the escalators should rise directly from DU up into Pearse mainline … no contention there as the Maynooth line as suggested in the DU RO goes through Pearse mainline .. and any interchanging passengers ( e.g. for St Stephens Green) go directly down escalators to the DU.

You overlook four key points

1. The space does not exist to get all passengers out of the existing and new routes; a new entrance was required.
2. No plot large enough to accomodate a new station entrance existed any closer that wasn’t a protected structure
3. No underground interchange is without underground passages
4. The existing station is on an elevated railway which increases the distance required to introduce a camber for.

The distance including escalators is about 200m from platform to platform which is well within acceptable comparable standards; on balance the new station entrance location is the best acheivable.

I

t is not a better service for a large number of “Current Dart Users”, hence it is not a better service on all lines
DU should enhance DART services for “Current Dart Users” not curtail their choice of direct destination or impose an ill thought out interchange .

As above 200m cannot be considered an ill thought out interchange, I would refer to Bank, Bond Street and Green Park in London and Gare Montparnasse in Paris as having far longer interchanges as does central in Hong Kong. I can see merit in all trains on Howth, Malahide, Drogheda & Dundalk stopping in Clontarf to create a more direct interchange for northciders using Tara St and Connolly Station but that would be an operational and not a physical infrastructure issue.

. the adverse effects of the poor design on “Current Dart Users” is so far not publicly estimated, not even by a published straw poll. To ask rail passengers if they would like a better service would be a ridiculous exercise.

Asserted poor design is not a generally held view; no doubt the DTO did significant research and I very much doubt that length of interchange scored highly in their research. The top 3 would have I would hazard a guess have been

1. More desinations
2. More frequency
3. New trains

I have made and will continue to make one undeniable point … the designers of DU RO as drafted have missed the target of DU under Pearse mainline by a large distance. The station design where commuters are required, after rising to surface level, to go down and cross under Cumberland Street to get to Pearse mainline only exasperates the daft alignment, and is an insult to current DART users.

Arguing about entrances and keeping the station open cut no ice, and are shown to be only red herrings.

No point in bringing up other things like your bad maths and your failure to look at the DU RO Diagrams.

“DU will be grade seperated and have 4 directions into two routes i.e. 1:1 “

“.. 150m down an escalator….. (Pearse interchange)“

You are preventing real architectural discussion

Real architectural discussion would be discussing the finishes which are very good or the cool clean lines of the new station; although you did repeat ad nauseum that it was something like a loo at the bottom of your garden.

200m is not a long distance as International comparison has shown. You fail to see its wider context in planning, engineering and delivery terms. But again the 4 directions into 2 routes equation was too much for you, which I will rxplain one last time

The loopline is a problem precisely because the spur to Maynooth is no grade seperated and each South bound train fed into the loopline from Maynooth must cross the Northbound Howth/Drogheda path; this leads to delays on avery large basis as three directions do not go into 2 lines. As DU will see all north bound Darts surface from the Interconnector in grade seperated paths this cross over is eliminated in the case of the majority of movements; adding the Kildare direction of Dart moves the equation by adding an additional route. 4 directions, 4 tracks on two routing directions. 1:1

You need to remember your Shannon gaffe and plenty of others.

@PVC King wrote:

Real architectural discussion would be discussing the finishes which are very good or the cool clean lines of the new station; although you did repeat ad nauseum that it was something like a loo at the bottom of your garden….
200m is not a long distance …

Discussing the merits or otherwise of the above platform level station are pointless as long as the loo is at the bottom of the garden and you still have not viewed the draft DU RO for Pearse.
Don’t tell me you think Shannon is near Kilburn …. people in here can decide who made the gaffe

Posting on Christmas Day how sad; you should have been opening your second bottle of Dom 1990 by that stage of the day getting ready for a good armagnac.

cagey wrote:
Do you have to be told every little detail PVC …. find out for yourself.

To interchange at Pearse You will have to go through two ticket barriers.

You keep refering to the plans but never post them other than those that don’t back up anything you say.

The words of the song mention turning left for Shannon … very difficult to do from Kilburn. (say sorry)
Do you ever look anything up???

Don’t tell me you think Shannon is near Kilburn …. people in here can decide who made the gaffe

Lets look at the words of the song.

Well the ould fella left me to shannon
Was the last time I traveled that road
And as we turned left at claregalway

Behind all those muddled up problems
Of living on a foreign soil
I can still see the twists and the turns on the road
From the square to the town of the tribes

,

The exact distance between Kilburn and Shannon is 60 mins airtime, 25 mins clearing the airport, 15 mins to Paddington on Heathrow Express and 9 mins on the Bakerloo line or about 109 mins from take off.

You fail to understand the context of anything, I bet the interchange from the Express to the Bakerloo which is also about 200m would be a problem for you as well.

… the square to the town of the tribes

“The Town of the Tribes” is Galway and the N17 runs from Tuam to Galway ….. seems pointless telling you anything.

I am unable to post in here, so you need to look at “dartunderground RO” for yourself.
And DU Pearse is still a loo at the bottom of the garden.

Seeing as you add nothing to the discourse other than a loo; do you object to the 200m distance between the Heathrow Express and the Bakerloo line? which is the shortest of the Paddington interchanges.

Please quit with the red herrings … DU RO has only one underground.
The original alignment was for a station under Cumberland Street … that was when the loo was in the house … since then it has been downhill all the way for current DART users.
Docklands, St Stephen’s and Heuston interchange directly above. The mobility people have made a submission to return to the original alignment.
BTW I have the exact measurements for Pearse but insist you do your own homework.

Can you either post the drawings of the RO alignment and the alleged draft alignment; both in pdf form or specific weblinks to indiviudal drawings or withdraw your comments which are immature in the extreme and add nothing to the discussion.

@PVC King wrote:

… your comments which are immature in the extreme and add nothing to the discussion.

Precisely what you do … block those who might have an answer before it is too late, and never say sorry when you are wrong. Go do your own research. Maybe you should start with putting “Tuam N17” into Google.

Letter in today’s IT

Solving our water problems
Madam, – The executive manager of Dublin City Council is quoted (Home News, December 30th) as saying that funds are currently not available to deal with the risk of losing water supply to north Wicklow and south Dublin should the tunnel from the Vartry reservoir collapse. How can this be?

There appear to be funds for ministerial pensions and projects such as Metro North. Are these more important? It beggars belief that the supply of water in Ireland has been given such low priority by the Government for such a long time.

Has this to do with incompetence, economic treason or stupidity? All three, I believe. – Yours, etc

I reiterate my objection to this vanity project at the expense of our health, education and general wellbeing.

@wearnicehats wrote:

Letter in today’s IT

Solving our water problems
Madam, – The executive manager of Dublin City Council is quoted (Home News, December 30th) as saying that funds are currently not available to deal with the risk of losing water supply to north Wicklow and south Dublin should the tunnel from the Vartry reservoir collapse. How can this be?

There appear to be funds for ministerial pensions and projects such as Metro North. Are these more important? It beggars belief that the supply of water in Ireland has been given such low priority by the Government for such a long time.

Has this to do with incompetence, economic treason or stupidity? All three, I believe. – Yours, etc

I reiterate my objection to this vanity project at the expense of our health, education and general wellbeing.

That’s a total false dichotomy which I notice was made by a few other people too. We can have a good water infrastructure and a good public transport infrastructure. We just have to pay for it. Dublin City Council is constrained because it has a limited ability to raise its own funds. What we need are water rates and a property tax to fund local government so that they have the resources to upgrade our antiquated water infrastructure.

The focus on Metro North is infuriating. The cost of Irish Nationwide Building Society is twice what Metro North will cost, Anglo is 15 times the cost and similar multiples on other failed banks. If we really want to restore balance to the nation’s finances we have to do a debt for equity swap with these banks and a proper resolution of debts. That will wipe out billions in liabilities for the Irish state and restore confidence to Ireland as a sovereign debtor. The problem for Ireland is that we have attached a ton weight of debts from a failed banking system around the neck of a state and forced Irish taxpayers to pay for the decade long spiral of greed, speculation and venality in our property, banking and political circles. It is only when we stop this madness that any confidence will be restored to Ireland as a nation. Doing away with Metro North will not change this. Even spending nothing on capital expenditure over the next 10 years won’t resolve the mess we’re in. In fact it will make it a whole lot worse because thousands of jobs will be lost in construction, our infrastructure will suffer and become less competitive and we’ll be left streets behind our international counterparts.

It’s Metro North or nothing, you have to understand. If it’s cancelled after going through such a long process then there is next to no chance of any other major project in Ireland proceeding. Nobody involved in infrastructure will want to deal with us if we’re shown to be flakey on Metro North. It could also open us up to being sued by the PPP consortia for making them enter a tendering process on false premises.

This year we will see the final Railway Order granted, the best and final offers of the PPP bidders made, a final business case with an updated cost-benefit analysis drafted and then the decision will be with the Cabinet on whether to proceed with the project. Fine Gael and Labour look likely to form the next government and their decision on MN will be on the basis of the final cost-benefit analysis and business case. Given that Metro North already has a 1.55:1 benefit to cost ratio in the outline business case, it’s likely that the final cost-benefit ratio will also be positive and therefore final approval will be given by an FG/Labour govt to Metro North.

actually it’s about money being available for essential services

For every closed hospital bed that is reopened to take a pensioner off the trolley they’ve been on for 48 hours in a corridor an operation is cancelled to offset the cost

Perhaps if you had to spend 48 hours waiting on a hospital bed you might not be too bothered about having to wait that wee bit longer on a feckin bus

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

resources to upgrade our antiquated water infrastructure.

The focus on Metro North is infuriating. The cost of Irish Nationwide Building Society is twice what Metro North will cost, Anglo is 15 times the cost and similar multiples on other failed banks.

Take a step back and ask why the banks failed?

It was very simple as an industry they consistently factored in unrealistic demand targets, ignored the potential for cost over-runs; relied upon the availibility of cheap credit for ever and did no detailed due diligence of any of the projects they were lending to. The taxpayer is being asked to lend Metro North €3bn and the latest I can deduce is this: The RPA estimate in their 2010 CBA that intra-journey maximum hourly demand would peak in the moderate growth scenario at 3,640 at Northwood stop; this includes 666 passengers that would have boarded at two stations (Bellinstown & Lissenhall) that have been axed from the route by ABP; in addition the Seatown stop has been axed which contributed over 700 of these passengers; this station has a section of its catchment that is equidistant to DART at Malahide; so one wonders how much further leakage would occur from passengers who probably use dart anyway but would certainly find DART easier than using one of the other Swords stops on Luas North. The true capacity required is less than 3,000 people per hour maximum.

Luas can carry 6,000 an hour or future proof the project for 15 – 20 years. As Keynes said in the long term we are all dead!

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

It’s Metro North or nothing, you have to understand. If it’s cancelled after going through such a long process then there is next to no chance of any other major project in Ireland proceeding. Nobody involved in infrastructure will want to deal with us if we’re shown to be flakey on Metro North. It could also open us up to being sued by the PPP consortia for making them enter a tendering process on false premises.

Until the contract gets signed its a business risk; once Lenihan Bros depart the new government will do exactly what the last government did in 1997 and review everything; remember the last government was to build three Luas lines that actually joined up. But Mammy had other ideas……

actually it’s about money being available for essential services

I agree that until the new government has actually seen the books and can say with all certainty what the true costs of the number of ‘off balance sheet’ PPPs that have been entered into on the basis of rolling up interest into the long term then no decisions can be made. From there a hierarchy of services needs to be drawn up in areas such as health, education, policing, IDA, Enterprise Ireland etc and then look at transport; if there is no tax base there is no way to pay back the loans.

If one project is to be built it must be Dublin Underground so that NAMA can break ground on the maximum number of sites with toxic loans such as Adamstown with 9,000 undeveloped plots, the four DART lines have infinitely more penetration.

@wearnicehats wrote:

actually it’s about money being available for essential services

For every closed hospital bed that is reopened to take a pensioner off the trolley they’ve been on for 48 hours in a corridor an operation is cancelled to offset the cost

Perhaps if you had to spend 48 hours waiting on a hospital bed you might not be too bothered about having to wait that wee bit longer on a feckin bus

So youre argument is to spend 100% of public money on healthcare? Because that’s what you’re saying if every euro the government spends on something outside healthcare is a euro which puts someone on a trolley. The health budget has quintupled over the past 13 years and health outcomes have not improved proportionally. It’s time for the health sector to start spending that money more efficiently instead of being pumped with yet more money.

Moreover, failing to invest in our transport infrastructure would perpetuate the billions of euro in the cost of congestion in our economy which reduces the resources available for essential services like health and water. For our economy to grow properly into the future and provide the basis for investment in health, education and water we need public transport projects like Metro North.

@PVC King wrote:

Take a step back and ask why the banks failed?

It was very simple as an industry they consistently factored in unrealistic demand targets, ignored the potential for cost over-runs; relied upon the availibility of cheap credit for ever and did no detailed due diligence of any of the projects they were lending to. The taxpayer is being asked to lend Metro North €3bn and the latest I can deduce is this: The RPA estimate in their 2010 CBA that intra-journey maximum hourly demand would peak in the moderate growth scenario at 3,640 at Northwood stop; this includes 666 passengers that would have boarded at two stations (Bellinstown & Lissenhall) that have been axed from the route by ABP; in addition the Seatown stop has been axed which contributed over 700 of these passengers; this station has a section of its catchment that is equidistant to DART at Malahide; so one wonders how much further leakage would occur from passengers who probably use dart anyway but would certainly find DART easier than using one of the other Swords stops on Luas North. The true capacity required is less than 3,000 people per hour maximum.

Luas can carry 6,000 an hour or future proof the project for 15 – 20 years. As Keynes said in the long term we are all dead!

The RPA consistently under-estimates the true passenger numbers of the projects they develop, Metro is basically a Luas north of Northwood, it doesn’t stop at Northwood and has significant trip generators around each of its stops and the Luas isn’t future-proofed for 15-20 years. It’s at capacity now 6 years after opening and that’s with longer trams than originally anticipated at the launch of service. Building a Luas line like you’re always saying is a total non-solution as it doesn’t have the capacity nor roadspace.

Until the contract gets signed its a business risk; once Lenihan Bros depart the new government will do exactly what the last government did in 1997 and review everything; remember the last government was to build three Luas lines that actually joined up. But Mammy had other ideas……

Luas was lines on a map when the FF/PD government came to power in 1997. Metro North is a fully realised project with active bidders, budget for enabling works and a railway order. Luas was nowhere near as shovel-ready as Metro is now in 1997. On top of that, the original idea was for a Luas line to the airport, but that idea was junked by the DTO’s Platform for Change document in 2001 as it was realised it wouldn’t have the capacity, roadspace and speed required. Your fantasy Luas line was therefore abandoned by the experts back in 2001. Moreover, the projections used to justify this stepchange have already been exceeded so there is no doubt that a market exists for the Metro.

I agree that until the new government has actually seen the books and can say with all certainty what the true costs of the number of ‘off balance sheet’ PPPs that have been entered into on the basis of rolling up interest into the long term then no decisions can be made. From there a hierarchy of services needs to be drawn up in areas such as health, education, policing, IDA, Enterprise Ireland etc and then look at transport; if there is no tax base there is no way to pay back the loans.

If one project is to be built it must be Dublin Underground so that NAMA can break ground on the maximum number of sites with toxic loans such as Adamstown with 9,000 undeveloped plots, the four DART lines have infinitely more penetration.

Well until it has a railway order, finalised the bidding process and finished all the other related works DART Underground cannot proceed. All the preliminary work for MN will have been finished by the end of this year, DART Underground will only be halfway through it by then.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

The RPA consistently under-estimates the true passenger numbers of the projects they develop, Metro is basically a Luas north of Northwood, it doesn’t stop at Northwood and has significant trip generators around each of its stops and the Luas isn’t future-proofed for 15-20 years. It’s at capacity now 6 years after opening and that’s with longer trams than originally anticipated at the launch of service. Building a Luas line like you’re always saying is a total non-solution as it doesn’t have the capacity nor roadspace.

The demand numbers at peak in the 2010 CBA were 3,640 maximum at any time in any direction and this allowed for 2% yoy growth from 2010 to 2015; take out the 666 passengers using Bellinstown and Lissenhall stops which are no longer part of the project and the route has less than 3,000 maximum intra journey deamnd at peak time; remove even 25% of the 700 people at Seatown stop which was deemed unneccessary and you are in the order of 2,800 maximum hourly demand in 5 years time.

Luas has a capacity of 6,000 peak demand; take growth at 2% and it is future proofed for over 38 years; take it at a much more optimistic 5% and it is future proofed for 15 years. If after 10 years the 5% is hit then plans can be made to build an alternative underground route from Northwood into the City Centre plugging in the Eastern Route option that was rejected as the original Luas destination of Ballymun was endorsed.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Luas was lines on a map when the FF/PD government came to power in 1997. Metro North is a fully realised project with active bidders, budget for enabling works and a railway order. Luas was nowhere near as shovel-ready as Metro is now in 1997. On top of that, the original idea was for a Luas line to the airport, but that idea was junked by the DTO’s Platform for Change document in 2001 as it was realised it wouldn’t have the capacity, roadspace and speed required. Your fantasy Luas line was therefore abandoned by the experts back in 2001. Moreover, the projections used to justify this stepchange have already been exceeded so there is no doubt that a market exists for the Metro.

I was under the impression both Barclays and HSBC had hit the exits and with AIB being within weeks of almost total nationalisation this leaves only a single bidder; is this not correct? Can you please list the consortia left in the process.

The DTO platform for change listed 4 seperate metro lines

1. Tallaght via Kimmage
2. Lucan via Bluebell
3. Tara St to Tallaght via Finglas
4. Shanngannagh to the Airport

3 of these lines have been scrapped and the fourth can be taken in three sections

1. Shanngannagh to Cherrywood – defered due to a suspect cost benefit basis
2. Cherrywood to Stephens Green – built as Luas and with by far the highest population density on the route
3. Stephens Green to Airport – Clearly Luas loadings in terms of population density.

There is no question that delivering Luas will upset motorists and require rerouting of bus routes in the city centre; I would however ask why would someone take the 16 bus all the way from Rathfarnham to Dublin Airport when they could get off in Camden Street and interchange to Luas at Harcourt?

If people had a cross city Luas it would change journey behaviour dramatically.

The only roadspace I see on the entire route as being highly problematic is Phibsboro; the area around Cross Guns Bridge is already a significant pinch point; that area would require a tunnel from the disused canal bank to St Mobhi Road where a football pich exists for a tunnel site; this would require a tunnel of just over 1kms in length.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Well until it has a railway order, finalised the bidding process and finished all the other related works DART Underground cannot proceed. All the preliminary work for MN will have been finished by the end of this year, DART Underground will only be halfway through it by then.

That Martin Cullen and Noel Dempsey slowed up the DART underground project deliberately should have no bearing on the delivery of that project. This is clearly now an either or situation the money is not there for both. Dempsey got his white elephant M3, Cullen his White Elephant M9, Bertie his head in a cupboard. For Swords Luas would be a great result given even the vastly overscaled DTO document didn’t grant anything.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Well until it has a railway order, finalised the bidding process and finished all the other related works DART Underground cannot proceed. All the preliminary work for MN will have been finished by the end of this year, DART Underground will only be halfway through it by then.

DART Underground is dependent on the Metro to build St Stephens Green Underground.
No Metro = No DU St Stephens and the Draft RO as it stands would be nonsense as all the figures would have to be revised.
Maybe CIE/IE would try to add another of its infamous “Corrigenda” to the draft DU RO EIS but I cannot see An Bord Pleanala agreeing. Of course the DU RO EIS is so rushed that another “error” would hardly be noticed.
Someone mentioned four DART lines, but the DU RO as drafted halves the current successful DART service at Pearse without any figures to support the financial sanity of same. The aims of Transport21 it seems has been forgotten even tho’ the DU RO has that logo on every page.

So DART will now be every 20 mins at Pearse instead of every 10 mins at Pearse; where is your evidence?

Where are the drawings you keep referring to on other threads?

@PVC King wrote:

The demand numbers at peak in the 2010 CBA were 3,640 maximum at any time in any direction and this allowed for 2% yoy growth from 2010 to 2015; take out the 666 passengers using Bellinstown and Lissenhall stops which are no longer part of the project and the route has less than 3,000 maximum intra journey deamnd at peak time; remove even 25% of the 700 people at Seatown stop which was deemed unneccessary and you are in the order of 2,800 maximum hourly demand in 5 years time.

Luas has a capacity of 6,000 peak demand; take growth at 2% and it is future proofed for over 38 years; take it at a much more optimistic 5% and it is future proofed for 15 years. If after 10 years the 5% is hit then plans can be made to build an alternative underground route from Northwood into the City Centre plugging in the Eastern Route option that was rejected as the original Luas destination of Ballymun was endorsed.

As I said to you before, the RPA under-estimates demand all the time. They had to lengthen the trams on the Luas to meet the demand the RPA didn’t foresee along the routes of the Red and Green Line. The same will happen with Metro North as people flock to a high-capacity, very reliable and rapid rail transport. Luas isn’t future-proofed, it’s jampacked at the minute and has very little spare capacity just 6 years after being completed. If we were to build your fantasy Luas line then it too would be packed in less than a decade and then we’d have to build Metro North anyway because the trams would be too full. What you’re proposing is the rail equivalent of the two-lane M50. Build a lukewarm shadow of what’s needed and then build what is needed 10 years later at twice the cost.

If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.

It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.

I was under the impression both Barclays and HSBC had hit the exits and with AIB being within weeks of almost total nationalisation this leaves only a single bidder; is this not correct? Can you please list the consortia left in the process.

2, Celtic Metro Group and Metro Express.

The DTO platform for change listed 4 seperate metro lines

1. Tallaght via Kimmage
2. Lucan via Bluebell
3. Tara St to Tallaght via Finglas
4. Shanngannagh to the Airport

3 of these lines have been scrapped and the fourth can be taken in three sections

1. Shanngannagh to Cherrywood – defered due to a suspect cost benefit basis
2. Cherrywood to Stephens Green – built as Luas and with by far the highest population density on the route
3. Stephens Green to Airport – Clearly Luas loadings in terms of population density.

Lucan via Bluebell was actually going to be Luas, not Metro actually, and the RPA has fleshed this out with the Luas Line F proposal. The certainly do call for a Metro line from Shangannah to the Airport and Swords, but the map clearly indicates that what they were proposing was a lot heavier than a Luas line. If they were proposing a Luas line then it would be indicated on the map as other Luas lines are charted there too. This illustrates that the DTO abandoned any Luas line to the airport proposal and upgraded this to a Metro. Therefore these transport exports disagree with you and your fantasy Luas line.

There is no question that delivering Luas will upset motorists and require rerouting of bus routes in the city centre; I would however ask why would someone take the 16 bus all the way from Rathfarnham to Dublin Airport when they could get off in Camden Street and interchange to Luas at Harcourt?

If people had a cross city Luas it would change journey behaviour dramatically.

The only roadspace I see on the entire route as being highly problematic is Phibsboro; the area around Cross Guns Bridge is already a significant pinch point; that area would require a tunnel from the disused canal bank to St Mobhi Road where a football pich exists for a tunnel site; this would require a tunnel of just over 1kms in length.

You also need to consider Ballymun. The local residents have expressed a clear preference for an underground rail line through their area. You would also need to go underground at the airport because you couldn’t have trams criss-crossing the apron. You also need to consider the need for grade separation around Swords which requires sections of elevated rail and cut-and-cover tunnels. This is all manageable when we’re building a railway line with 17,000 maximum capacity, another story when we’re doing it for your low capacity fantasy Luas line. And don’t tell me that the demand doesn’t exist there for a Metro line. The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.

That Martin Cullen and Noel Dempsey slowed up the DART underground project deliberately should have no bearing on the delivery of that project. This is clearly now an either or situation the money is not there for both. Dempsey got his white elephant M3, Cullen his White Elephant M9, Bertie his head in a cupboard. For Swords Luas would be a great result given even the vastly overscaled DTO document didn’t grant anything.

Martin Cullen and Noel Dempsey did not slow down the DART Underground project, it’s due to CIÉ incompetence that it’s taking so long. They originally proposed starting the tunnel at Heuston and boring from both ends. This changed when they added in Inchicore and decided to only bore from that end. They themselves imposed the delay when they changed the plans for DART Underground. Noel Dempsey only found out about the delay through the media. The point remains that DART Underground has only begun the railway order process, Metro North has one, CIÉ has only begun the tendering process, Metro North will have finished that by the Summer. MN is shovel ready, DART Underground is not and therefore should get the priority over the next year. Once DART Underground is finished its preliminary work by 2013, we should proceed with it too.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

As I said to you before, the RPA under-estimates demand all the time. They had to lengthen the trams on the Luas to meet the demand the RPA didn’t foresee along the routes of the Red and Green Line. The same will happen with Metro North as people flock to a high-capacity, very reliable and rapid rail transport. Luas isn’t future-proofed, it’s jampacked at the minute and has very little spare capacity just 6 years after being completed. If we were to build your fantasy Luas line then it too would be packed in less than a decade and then we’d have to build Metro North anyway because the trams would be too full. What you’re proposing is the rail equivalent of the two-lane M50. Build a lukewarm shadow of what’s needed and then build what is needed 10 years later at twice the cost.

According to the proponents of the scheme in their most recent cost benefit analysis the true demand is less than 3,000 allowing for moderate growth; why would you develop a system with a 20,000 capacity when growth is predicted at 2% p.a. Forget 2004 a set of initial demand figures when the eastern European floodgate opened; the migration is now in the opposite direction. Whatever way you spin it a maximum demand figure of 3,000 intrajourney per hour cannot justify a €3bn capital spend.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.

It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.

Dublin City Centre is 25 minutes by Aircoach from the airport; Heathrow to Oxford Circus cannot be done in less than 40 mins and that assumes you hit everything on the nail. The passenger loadings are Luas so should the specification be.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Lucan via Bluebell was actually going to be Luas, not Metro actually, and the RPA has fleshed this out with the Luas Line F proposal. The certainly do call for a Metro line from Shangannah to the Airport and Swords, but the map clearly indicates that what they were proposing was a lot heavier than a Luas line. If they were proposing a Luas line then it would be indicated on the map as other Luas lines are charted there too. This illustrates that the DTO abandoned any Luas line to the airport proposal and upgraded this to a Metro. Therefore these transport exports disagree with you and your fantasy Luas line.

That is not what the map says; it also lists unsegregated light rail. The Luas proposal for Ballymun was government policy until 1997 it is therefore credible.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

You also need to consider Ballymun. The local residents have expressed a clear preference for an underground rail line through their area. You would also need to go underground at the airport because you couldn’t have trams criss-crossing the apron. You also need to consider the need for grade separation around Swords which requires sections of elevated rail and cut-and-cover tunnels. This is all manageable when we’re building a railway line with 17,000 maximum capacity, another story when we’re doing it for your low capacity fantasy Luas line. And don’t tell me that the demand doesn’t exist there for a Metro line.

Ask anyone what their preference is between an on street tram or an underground and unless they intend to use it will say underground; that does not address a rationale on a cost benefit basis. The airport needs a limited amount of tunnel and the only location on the route where you can justify an underground station; Swords with the M1 built now has the road space to accomodate Luas. The design capacity is actually 20,000 the demand less than 3,000.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.

When the RPA can’t get demand above half that of a Luas line capacity then what other conclusion can you draw other than nice idea but unaffordable when the IMF are running the country.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Martin Cullen and Noel Dempsey did not slow down the DART Underground project, it’s due to CIÉ incompetence that it’s taking so long. They originally proposed starting the tunnel at Heuston and boring from both ends. This changed when they added in Inchicore and decided to only bore from that end. They themselves imposed the delay when they changed the plans for DART Underground. Noel Dempsey only found out about the delay through the media. The point remains that DART Underground has only begun the railway order process, Metro North has one, CIÉ has only begun the tendering process, Metro North will have finished that by the Summer. MN is shovel ready, DART Underground is not and therefore should get the priority over the next year. Once DART Underground is finished its preliminary work by 2013, we should proceed with it too.

It is well known the CIE were not given the resources to design the DART underground project on demand; the project had a finalised route in 2004 but took many years to receive the resources. For the entire period until the IMF’s arrival the public were completely misled into believing both projects were fully funded; when it mattered DART underground was not funded and a route with a demand of 3,000 maximum hourly intra journey demand was funded to a capacity of almost 7 times what is required.

Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity Ltd, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Grupo Soares da Costa S.G.S. S.A., Obrascon Huarte Lain and Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras, S.A),

A lot of Spanish names in there; I can’t see Spanish banks doing anything other than defending their balance sheets in the context of Portugal looking like it will be IMF’d within the next 2 weeks and Spain then being lined up for the CDS tug of war that will define the Euro’s future. Barclays private equity probably won’t do it; leaving Mitsui as the only credible player; will they still build it for nothing?

Celtic Metro Group

MetroExpress (Global via Infraestructuras S.A., Macquarie Capital Group Ltd, Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. and Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd). Contacts for the consortia listed on RPA website.

So it is actually funded by a nationalised bank; the more you look at this project the more it is a complete fiction.

@PVC King wrote:

According to the proponents of the scheme in their most recent cost benefit analysis the true demand is less than 3,000 allowing for moderate growth; why would you develop a system with a 20,000 capacity when growth is predicted at 2% p.a. Forget 2004 a set of initial demand figures when the eastern European floodgate opened; the migration is now in the opposite direction. Whatever way you spin it a maximum demand figure of 3,000 intrajourney per hour cannot justify a €3bn capital spend.

I see you’ve invented another canard to perpetuate your opposition to Metro North. However, if you are willing to use the business case of MN to justify your position, you have to accept all of it in order to be consistent. The business case, even with your “half-Luas capacity” patronage, finds a BCR of 1.55:1 for the project in narrow terms and 2:1 in broad terms. So regardless of how many people get on at what stop the project as a whole makes sense and will reap us significant economic return ergo we should proceed with it.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.

It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.

Dublin City Centre is 25 minutes by Aircoach from the airport; Heathrow to Oxford Circus cannot be done in less than 40 mins and that assumes you hit everything on the nail. The passenger loadings are Luas so should the specification be.

It’s not just an airport link! It’s a completely new public transport corridor which will get people to and from the airport quicker and cheaper than Aircoach and a lot more besides. On top of that, don’t be so Anglocentric – Metro North will bring us into line with what Copenhagen, Vienna and Amsterdam enjoy in terms of time taken to get from the city centre to the airport. That’s the standard we should be aiming for.

I also see you completely ignored my point about what will inevitably occur if we drop Metro North. It’ll go the same way as the 3-line DART proposed in the DRRTS in 1975. There will not be an immediate search for a Luas alternative. People will be condemned to our slow and inefficient bus service which keeps commuters car bound in our city. The €3 billion we’ll “save” will quickly be eaten up by the costs of congestion across the northside of the city.

That is not what the map says; it also lists unsegregated light rail. The Luas proposal for Ballymun was government policy until 1997 it is therefore credible.

Oh yes it is, the map clearly shows a METRO line running through Ballymun to the airport, not a Luas line. Luas to Ballymun was government policy until it was realised that it was insufficient. This was around 2000 and this change of thinking is reflected in the PfC ergo your fantasy Luas line died back in 1999.

Ask anyone what their preference is between an on street tram or an underground and unless they intend to use it will say underground;

Utter rubbish. The RPA has conducted extensive consultation on Metro North with the residents of Ballymun. They originally proposed elevated rail through Ballymun as this was seen to be the cheapest means of building the line through the area. However the locals objected on the basis that the rail line would create an area where anti-social behaviour would develop. Similar concerns were expressed about an on-street line. It was therefore decided to create a cut-and-cover tunnel through that area for Metro North to address these concerns. If we were to go with your fantasy Luas line then they’d be on to An Bord Pleanála like a flash and their objections would force you to put the Luas underground. However we’d then be putting a low capacity line underground, not a high capacity Metro. It’s things like this which make me feel your proposed Luas line would fail a CBA and therefore be rejected by Cabinet.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.

When the RPA can’t get demand above half that of a Luas line capacity then what other conclusion can you draw other than nice idea but unaffordable when the IMF are running the country.

Well since Metro North is included in the four year plan which was agreed with the EU and IMF, then they mustn’t have had any problems with proceeding with this project which has a positive CBA.

It is well known the CIE were not given the resources to design the DART underground project on demand; the project had a finalised route in 2004 but took many years to receive the resources. For the entire period until the IMF’s arrival the public were completely misled into believing both projects were fully funded; when it mattered DART underground was not funded and a route with a demand of 3,000 maximum hourly intra journey demand was funded to a capacity of almost 7 times what is required.

They had a finalised route in 2004 but decided to change it as you well know to include a stop at Inchicore and only tunnel from there. That was a self-imposed delay by CIÉ and it results in their project being significantly behind that of Metro North. The way it’s looking, it could be 2013 before we have to think about the boring of DART underground which would almost be outside the bounds of the four-year plan. In any case, the track works around the tunnel are expected to continue so we can start on Metro North now and do DART underground later.

A lot of Spanish names in there; I can’t see Spanish banks doing anything other than defending their balance sheets in the context of Portugal looking like it will be IMF’d within the next 2 weeks and Spain then being lined up for the CDS tug of war that will define the Euro’s future. Barclays private equity probably won’t do it; leaving Mitsui as the only credible player; will they still build it for nothing?

Well given that the consortium has spent millions on bidding for this project and will be looking to sign the contract to build the line this year, it is highly likely that yes, all parties to the consortium would like to build it.

Celtic Metro Group

MetroExpress (Global via Infraestructuras S.A., Macquarie Capital Group Ltd, Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. and Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd). Contacts for the consortia listed on RPA website.

So it is actually funded by a nationalised bank; the more you look at this project the more it is a complete fiction.

Oh yes, a complete fiction which has its railway order, a complete fiction whose enabling works budget has been granted, a complete fiction which, after a few procedures will get the go-ahead in the Summer of this year. What’s a complete fiction is your fantasy Luas line.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

I see you’ve invented another canard to perpetuate your opposition to Metro North. However, if you are willing to use the business case of MN to justify your position, you have to accept all of it in order to be consistent. The business case, even with your “half-Luas capacity” patronage, finds a BCR of 1.55:1 for the project in narrow terms and 2:1 in broad terms. So regardless of how many people get on at what stop the project as a whole makes sense and will reap us significant economic return ergo we should proceed with it.

The RPA figures speak for themselves 3,640 maximum intra journey demand; less 666 for Bellinstown and Lissenhall give less than 3,000; Seatown with 700 plus passengers also axed. Luas with a capacity of 6,000 per hour has almost 3 times the capacity of the existing demand which underpin those cost benefit analysis which were compiled in the same manner as the one for the M3 and Limerick tunnel which will cost the exchequer €100m due to traffic levels not hitting the ‘minimum base levels’

Address current projections based on the revised project.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.

It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.

No; a Luas line can go back to planning and have consent within 3- 4 years. That is just scaremongering.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

It’s not just an airport link! It’s a completely new public transport corridor which will get people to and from the airport quicker and cheaper than Aircoach and a lot more besides. On top of that, don’t be so Anglocentric – Metro North will bring us into line with what Copenhagen, Vienna and Amsterdam enjoy in terms of time taken to get from the city centre to the airport. That’s the standard we should be aiming for.

I also see you completely ignored my point about what will inevitably occur if we drop Metro North. It’ll go the same way as the 3-line DART proposed in the DRRTS in 1975. There will not be an immediate search for a Luas alternative. People will be condemned to our slow and inefficient bus service which keeps commuters car bound in our city. The €3 billion we’ll “save” will quickly be eaten up by the costs of congestion across the northside of the city.

A transport corridor whose stations with consent produice just over a third of the capacity of a Luas line at peak times.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

That is not what the map says; it also lists unsegregated light rail. The Luas proposal for Ballymun was government policy until 1997 it is therefore credible.

Oh yes it is, the map clearly shows a METRO line running through Ballymun to the airport, not a Luas line. Luas to Ballymun was government policy until it was realised that it was insufficient. This was around 2000 and this change of thinking is reflected in the PfC ergo your fantasy Luas line died back in 1999.

http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

The map at p30 is pure fantasy; an underground to Tallaght from Tara St via Finglas in addition to another underground metro to Tallaght via Kimmage and another underground netro to Lucan via Bluebell. That document was the most crayonic exercise in the history of the state even more so that Martin Cullen’s road map.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Ask anyone what their preference is between an on street tram or an underground and unless they intend to use it will say underground;

Utter rubbish. The RPA has conducted extensive consultation on Metro North with the residents of Ballymun. They originally proposed elevated rail through Ballymun as this was seen to be the cheapest means of building the line through the area. However the locals objected on the basis that the rail line would create an area where anti-social behaviour would develop. Similar concerns were expressed about an on-street line. It was therefore decided to create a cut-and-cover tunnel through that area for Metro North to address these concerns. If we were to go with your fantasy Luas line then they’d be on to An Bord Pleanála like a flash and their objections would force you to put the Luas underground. However we’d then be putting a low capacity line underground, not a high capacity Metro. It’s things like this which make me feel your proposed Luas line would fail a CBA and therefore be rejected by Cabinet.

No disrespect but you obviously have no experience of underground if you think an underground is safer than an on street system; regardless of peoples perceptions the reality is that stations create more anti-social behaviour than Luas platforms because the entrances provide a focal point to congregate as opposed to open access platforms. Regardless of the views in berties boomier Dublin; the city and country cannot afford to build an underground due to the misinformed views on anti-social behaviour.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.

The capacity with stations as sanctioned is about a third of a Luas line. with those loadings one 90m Luas every 20 mins would satisfy peak demand.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

When the RPA can’t get demand above half that of a Luas line capacity then what other conclusion can you draw other than nice idea but unaffordable when the IMF are running the country

Well since Metro North is included in the four year plan which was agreed with the EU and IMF, then they mustn’t have had any problems with proceeding with this project which has a positive CBA.

The 4 year plan which was put together on the back of a cornflake box was brtoad brushstrokes; all it proves is that they are ok with one project of that size not that it has to be a Luas line that will have usage of less than a sixth of its design capacity.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

They had a finalised route in 2004 but decided to change it as you well know to include a stop at Inchicore and only tunnel from there. That was a self-imposed delay by CIÉ and it results in their project being significantly behind that of Metro North. The way it’s looking, it could be 2013 before we have to think about the boring of DART underground which would almost be outside the bounds of the four-year plan. In any case, the track works around the tunnel are expected to continue so we can start on Metro North now and do DART underground later.

They did not sit on the idea for 5 years until 2009 before changing their route at the last second; they were not given the funds until about 2007/08 to undertake detailed design. You can’t spend €3bn just because it is the project that is first in the former ministers pecking order. Dart Underground is an opportunity cost that Luas North can’t pay; like Anglo its bankraupt.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

A lot of Spanish names in there; I can’t see Spanish banks doing anything other than defending their balance sheets in the context of Portugal looking like it will be IMF’d within the next 2 weeks and Spain then being lined up for the CDS tug of war that will define the Euro’s future. Barclays private equity probably won’t do it; leaving Mitsui as the only credible player; will they still build it for nothing?

Well given that the consortium has spent millions on bidding for this project and will be looking to sign the contract to build the line this year, it is highly likely that yes, all parties to the consortium would like to build it.

A consortium may have spent up to 5% of the project value on initial design and pitching; they still need to raise the other 95% of finance; in this climate would you lend money to a Spanish construction firm to build an Irish Government project that will lose a lot of money operationally; at an attractive rate of interest? I’d rather buy Hungarian debt……

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Celtic Metro Group

MetroExpress (Global via Infraestructuras S.A., Macquarie Capital Group Ltd, Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. and Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd). Contacts for the consortia listed on RPA website.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

So it is actually funded by a nationalised bank; the more you look at this project the more it is a complete fiction.

Oh yes, a complete fiction which has its railway order, a complete fiction whose enabling works budget has been granted, a complete fiction which, after a few procedures will get the go-ahead in the Summer of this year. What’s a complete fiction is your fantasy Luas line.

Well I’ve news for you; the proponents of the fantasy Luas line will be in Government in a few months time and AIB will be 99% owned by the taxpayer; €3bn isn’t going to happen.

anti social behaviour…

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

@PVC King wrote:

http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

The map at p30 is pure fantasy; an underground to Tallaght from Tara St via Finglas in addition to another underground metro to Tallaght via Kimmage and another underground netro to Lucan via Bluebell. That document was the most crayonic exercise in the history of the state even more so that Martin Cullen’s road map.

“Crayonic”

Priceless.

GIven the amount of Photmontage Design and 3D Skyhook Archtiecture we see as eye candy on almost every competition entry these days I hope you don’t mind when I make my next comment on BD Online if I use that excellent term.

ONQ.

The entry from Pearse street is through the TCD building for the Pearse mainline station mostly … for DART Underground it will be quicker to walk around to Sandwich Street

Updated Metro West animation. (:

You’d know there was an election…..

That money is still being wasted on this fantasy shows just how out of control certain semi states have become under this lame duck administration of spivvs

Hilarious!

OC Street

OC Monuments will be moved to Collins Barracks!

Parnell

SSG

There is a bug in the forum software. I kept getting this error:

Your images may only be up to 800 pixels wide.

But they are 800px wide. I had to click ‘submit’ about 10 times and eventually they went through. Annoying.

Don’t suppose we could have stations similar to the Swedish subway system? I assume not.

http://luketechtips.com/a-neat-blog-about-tech/unbelievably-cool-swedish-subway-system.html

@Morlan wrote:

There is a bug in the forum software. I kept getting this error:

Your images may only be up to 800 pixels wide.

But they are 800px wide. I had to click ‘submit’ about 10 times and eventually they went through. Annoying.

It consulted experian, who said no

@PVC King wrote:

It consulted experian, who said no

Computer says ‘no’? I see.

You wouldn’t need a computer to see that Metro North wouldn’t even carry half the capacity of a Luas line; as we were told in college any concept put together on the back of a Major Box in terms of demand analysis is doomed.

Luas 6,000 passenger per hour
MN less than 3,000 in 2015 allowing for the moderate growth scenario compiled by the RPA.

That interconnector was dumped for this white elephant is an utter disgrace…..

@PVC King wrote:

Luas 6,000 passenger per hour
MN less than 3,000 in 2015 allowing for the moderate growth scenario compiled by the RPA.

That interconnector was dumped for this white elephant is an utter disgrace…..

The Luas Green line is completly inadequate at peak. It should have been a Metro from the beginning. The Fantasy Extention Winding Tour into the foothills of the Dublin mountains is absolutely ridiculous. The money should have been spent extending the Red Line to Ballyfermon and Lucan, where human beings live.

Interconnector is indeed important, VERY important, but the fact is is that it has not yet secured a Railway Order,’ nor has it a PPP consurtium to pay for it. Shame CIÉ didn’t get the app in 2 years ago.

Metty Norbo, as I have just decided to call it, already has the Railway Order and a few consortia lining up to pay for it.

Heck, PVC! The European Investment Bank want to give us .5 billion toward the project.

As a PPP project, Metty Norbo needs feck all funding from the tax payer. We start paying for it in 2018 when it’s completed.

DART Vunderground Express should have gone ahead before Metty Norbo, but CIÉ were too late in their Railway Order, eh, by 2 years, but Metro North is all ready to go.

There simply is not enough cash to build the Vunderground Express right now.

Bargain labour and material costs, PPP to pay for it, creating thousand of jobs. This is the best time to build Metro North.

metro north is ready to go back to the drawing board…
There are conditions…
There is no real architecture…
Ireland’s economic situation is worst than Egypt…
The minds are not open… The future is as vague and grey as concrete with bent tonight…

RIAI issue election manifesto – Building a Better Ireland

@missarchi wrote:

metro north is ready to go back to the drawing board…
There are conditions…
There is no real architecture…
Ireland’s economic situation is worst than Egypt.

APB eliminated three stops at Belinstown, Lissenhall and Seatown, and ordered the relocation of a depot and park and ride facility.
Great decision by the APB, but bad news for Fianna Fáil’s gombeen men that own the land north of Swords. Arseholes!

Once/if Fine Gael approve the project, the RPA should consult with “the artists (us)” and check this link below and do something similar? :/

http://luketechtips.com/a-neat-blog-about-tech/unbelievably-cool-swedish-subway-system.html

@Morlan wrote:

APB eliminated three stops at Belinstown, Lissenhall and Seatown, and ordered the relocation of a depot and park and ride facility.
Great decision by the APB,

You do realise that in so doing they removed over 20% of peak ridership; given that park and ride could have been provided anywhere between Dunleer and Donabate on the Northern line it was absolutely the correct decision to remove these stations.

It did however fatally damage the project, what the public are being asked to buy into is spending €3bn on a system with a capacity for 20,000 hourly peak when demand is less than 3,000 per hour or half what a Luas line can deliver. And yes Dart Underground is the cost of building it, despite all the assurances it wouldn’t be, still no connection between Dublin’s four existing rail lines, 3 of which excceded capacity 10 years ago.

With work on Metro North still scheduled to start in 2012, but DART Underground to be postponed due to cutbacks identified
in the Government’s National Recovery Plan, the opportunity must be grasped to re-evaluate the relative merits of both
projects writes Alice Charles of Planning and Transportation Consultants Colin Buchanan. The current ”‘first up best dressed” position taken by the Government in light of Metro North recently receiving a Railway Order from an Bord Pleanála, is another example of thestate failing to strategically plan and effectively evaluate public transport infrastructure provision in the Capital.

As confirmed by Budget 2011, Metro North will proceed to ‘advance works’ stage next year, but is still subject to final Cabinet funding approval. The DART Underground project will proceed through the planning phase but will have no funding allocated for ay construction or enabling works phases before 2014. Observing the time period taken by the Board in reaching a decision in granting permission for the Metro North Project, a Railway Order for DART Underground should be forthcoming in late 2011. On reaching this stage, it is now generally assumed that the DART Underground project will then be shelved for two to three years on foot of current exchequer difficulties. However, the current crisis in government finances may be viewed as an opportunity to take stock of the strategic and economic benefits of both projects. With the conditions attached to the recent granting of the Railway Order by the Board, there is evidence to suggest that the timescales for both projects could converge over the coming years.
The Board’s decision in respect of Metro North to exclude the depot, stop and park and ride facility at Belinstown, the stop at
Lissenhall and to seek the relocation of the proposed depot to Dardistown, south of the Airport (presumed eventually to be a
shared facility in the event of the development of Metro West) allows breathing space in which the DART Underground proposal has the potential to reach an enabling works stage within a broadly similar timeframe. The shortening of the Metro North route, is the axing of parts of the proposed commuter catchment, most Dublin rail project are still in doubt.

The shortening of the Metro North route, via the axing of parts of the proposed commuter catchment, must influence assumptions made pertaining to overall passenger numbers contained within the project’s Redacted Business Case published
in July 2010. Therefore the assumptions underpinning the project’s cost/benefit analysis should be the subject of a
comprehensive review. It is evident from the decision of the Board that it had reservations about the ability of the route, as proposed, to function effectively as a rapid transit service for Airport users at peak hours if the line extended beyond Swords. Assumptions regarding the potential development of lands and the subsequent economic benefits accruing to the Metro North
Economic Corridor included in its Business Case must also be called into question.

The potential to regroup and fine-tune the whole Project should also be viewed in the context of the forthcoming Transport
Infrastructure Ireland Bill 2011, which makes legislative provision for the merger of the National Roads Authority and the Railway Procurement Agency. In combination, these factors have the potential to allow for a more focussed strategic review of all proposed rail projects in the Greater Dublin Area and their relative merits. In an ideal scenario all major public transport
projects should proceed in tandem, but in the event that prioritisation of projects is required, there is a strong case for
DART Underground becoming the primary investment focus from 2013 onwards. The call for the effective prioritisation of DART Underground and other connective Light Rail projects over the standalone Metro North as envisaged by the current
Government stance, is echoed by a recent Mid-Term review of the Transport 21 Programme undertaken on behalf of the
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport by Professor Austin Smyth, a leading UK based Transport Consultant. This
report states that under current economic conditions and Government funding constraints, priority needs to be given in the short-term to seeking to maximise economic growth by ensuring construction of DART Underground and the Luas Cross-City BXD line as centrepieces of a conurbation-wide rail network.

This report emphasises the superior Business Case and Wider Economic Benefits inherent in DART Underground. It considers the project to be the key to unlocking capacity on other routes and if necessary by other modes, which is an intrinsic element of the project. The Business case for Dart Underground identifies the project as having ‘exceptional’ benefits in relation to its costs if land use policies complement the application process. This should be viewed in the context of the recently adopted Dublin City
Development Plan 2011-2017, in particular the potential within the Plan to deliver revised statutory land use plans for the key
eastern and western poles of the interconnector at the Docklands and Heuston station and the identification of Connolly station
as a location for medium-high rise building clusters.
Moving out from central Dublin, the potential benefits are evident from delivering a large improvement in rail accessibility
to the city centre from a wide catchment area as there will be benefits for each of the four rail corridors radiating from the city
centre. The positive effects on all existing services, the potential for greater modal interchange across all forms of public transport and the far greater passenger capacity deliverable for a significantly lower capital outlay than that of Metro North,
should be the key influencing factors on any decision to be taken on progressing major rail projects by the incoming
administration in the Spring of 2011.
With Budget 2011 inevitably containing little to cheer about beyond vague commitments to capital investment in public
transport, the opportunity should be grasped to implement a full strategic review of the medium term objectives of DART
Underground, Metro North and mooted extensions to the Luas network, in order to effectively commit what limited exchequer
resources will be available over the next four years to advancing each respective project to its appropriate milestone while we
await an upturn in the state’s economic fortunes.
A ‘catch-up’ approach should be employed for 2011/2012 to allow DART Underground to reach a similar footing to Metro North in the project delivery process. This would allow for a reexamination of the proposed funding mechanisms that are to be employed by both the RPA and Iarnród Éireann under the Public Private Partnership model. Budget 2011 has flagged that the National Pensions Reserve Fund (NPRF) is willing to invest in Irish infrastructure assets on a commercial basis in partnership with third party institutional investors. The Government has committed to finding opportunities for the NPRF and other private investors.
With the above in mind, it would prove prudent for all major rail projects to be allowed to reach the same stage of implementation over the next 18 months, so that a critical appraisal of all capital investment in public transport may be
undertaken to shape the distribution of what limited funding will be available in a manner not shown in the Transport 21
investment programme.
Alice Charles is an Associate Director Planner in Colin Buchanan’s Dublin Office. http://www.colinbuchanan.com

http://www.magico.ie/files/admin/uploads/W153_Field_2_55223.pdf

This is an excellently balanced critique of the situation with very sensible conclusions; a practice of International reknown has lived up to its reputation. There is only one credible outcome shelve all projects until a proper review is undertaken.

tiger stripes?

http://www.archdaily.com/110370/train-depot-of-the-future-yaj-architects/
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0207/breaking32.html

@PVC King wrote:

You do realise that in so doing they removed over 20% of peak ridership

The park and ride will be moved to somewhere around the Malahide estuary, as recommended by APB. The depot will be located in Dardistown, along with another P&R for the M50.

@PVC King wrote:

when demand is less than 3,000 per hour or half what a Luas line can deliver. .

Show me where you could route a Luas Line from the City Centre to Ballymun and Swords. Luas would not have the capacity nor frequency for such a route. This has already been discussed at length on Boards.

The park and ride will be moved to somewhere around the Malahide estuary, as recommended by APB.

An Bord simply removed the park and ride they did not suggest where it should go; as anyone who remembers soundbites will head in cupboard’s one of “The Swans and the Snails” which referred to a rare snail that cost a lot of money and time on the Kildare Bypass and the Swans were those that call the Broadmeadow Estury protected habitat. The park and ride can go to Donabate and use the Northern line; end of inflating the figures, the figures need to relate to unique user trips that specific catchments generate; the further up the northern line park and ride goes the less strain is put on the M1.

The depot will be located in Dardistown, along with another P&R for the M50.

Why in gods name would you put a park n ride on the M50? N3 has rail at Blanch, M1 has a choice of other locations to build one including Gormanstown, Balibriggan and Donabate. I am in no doubt that An Bord identified the lack of ridership on the catchment and chose to expose it by eliminating the park and ride passenger demand to undermine the project fatally in a manner that saw them retain their track record of not refusing one large scale infrastrucuture project but making it so unviable that the bean counters would veto it; they chose to do so in a way that clearly exposed the emperor’s clear nudity but kept them off a collision course with the autocratic Lenihan Bros government.

Show me where you could route a Luas Line from the City Centre to Ballymun and Swords.

Luas BX to Constitution Hill near Broadstone, disused canal, tunnel from Royal Canal to football pitch at Tolka river, St Mobhi Road surface to north of Ballymun before taking the proposed RPA alignment to Swords.

Luas would not have the capacity nor frequency for such a route.

43m Luas carries 430 people, demand for this line is less than 3,000; Luas at intervals of 9 minutes has spare capacity even to handle peak demand which allows for 5 years of moderate growth. 4 minute intervals delivers 6,450 passengers per hour peak. Metro North with a design spec of 20,000 would not hit capacity off a sub 3,000 base for hundred plus years.

The issue is not both Dublin Underground and Metro north and which comes first; it is a question of which gets built; spreading densification and development potential across 4 development corridors through Dublin Underground makes a lot more sense than building a project at half the demand levels to justify Luas capacity.

Why does a ranking exercise scare the proponents of Metro North so much?

@PVC King wrote:

Luas BX to Constitution Hill near Broadstone, disused canal, tunnel from Royal Canal to football pitch at Tolka river, St Mobhi Road surface to north of Ballymun before taking the proposed RPA alignment to Swords.

Like this? http://goo.gl/maps/ucpR

Pretty much, I’d have gone up the West side of Parnell Square to avoid the car-parks at the Ilac and soon to be Dublin Central; the key blockage is the N2 entering the City at Phibsboro; everything else in manageable at grade (airport excluded) The journey times would be a probably 3-5 minutes slower and a few cpo’s would be required; but with a saving of close to €2bn and much lower ongoing operating costs by eliminating 7 underground concourses it is a very small price to pay.

Cobbles necessary? We’re losing symmetry.

Updated route map showing cut n’ cover and elevated sections.
http://bit.ly/hnKpP4

Warning over any cancellation of Metro North

06 March 2011 By John Burke and Nicola Cooke

Ireland’s credibility in managing major procurement projects would be dealt a serious blow if the incoming government cancelled the Metro North project, according to an internal memo prepared by senior transport department officials.

The Fine Gael-led administration has only two viable options concerning Metro North: to cancel the project or to approve it immediately, according to the briefing document which was drafted in recent weeks for the outgoing government.

The memorandum, which was obtained by The Sunday Business Post under the Freedom of Information Acts, strongly advances the argument against delaying the project. ‘‘There is a strong view that a further delay to Metro North is not an option,” it states.

Any decision to axe the long awaited 18 kilometre route would ‘‘undermine the credibility of the Irish government as a counterparty to PPP [Public Private Partnership] deals’’.

‘‘The PPP process commenced three years ago [and] the PPP bidders have invested substantial amounts in bidding for Metro North and continue to spend money keeping their teams mobilised,” it says.

‘‘If the project does not proceed based on this competition it is highly unlikely that bidders with the requisite skills would invest the substantial sums required again to put another bid together,” the memo says.

In addition to undermining Ireland’s credibility as a partner in PPP deals, any decision to cancel the project could also have a ‘‘serious impact’’ on other major infrastructure investment projects and on deals in other sectors, the memo says.

The memo said the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) provided the national transport authority with an update to its business case in December, indicating that the cost-benefit ratio was still at 2:1 – meaning €2 returned in revenue for every €1 spent.

Dealing with the question of whether the Dart Underground project should proceed ahead of Metro North, the memo went on to say that while both demonstrated strong economic cases, it was ‘‘significant’’ that Metro North had reached implementation stage, while the planning approval process for the Dart Underground project could take 12 months or more.

An Bord Pleanála granted planning approval for a railway order last October, but did not grant permission for the last three stops and train depot at Belinstown.

As a result, the RPA is now redrafting plans to submit a new application for a depot at the end of the line in Dardistown.

However, the agency is ready to begin ancillary works on the project – such as realigning utility lines and moving city centre monuments – but the outgoing government did not sign a commencement order for this.

The Sunday Business Post previously revealed that one of the bidders had given serious consideration to quitting the process because of the ongoing delays with it.

The Celtic Metro and Metro Express consortiums have both invested several million euro in the project over the last five years.

Does that include the the Irish Times extension?

@Morlan wrote:

Cobbles necessary? We’re losing symmetry.

I think the big purple tram hurtling down one side of the street might do a job on the symmetry too…

http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/metro-rebrand-planned-2819980.html

METRO North is set to be delayed by a number of years, overhauled and rebranded, as the Government looks to deliver a light railway for north Dublin on its own merits.

The Fingal Independent can exclusively reveal the Fine Gael-Labour coalition is considering temporarily shelving the project, before proceeding with an inclusive revised scheme under a new name, which will incorporate the DART interconnector and possibly Metro West.

Of the three major rail projects currently under consideration, the connection of the Luas lines (BDX) is the likeliest to be given the goahead this September, when Transport Minister, Leo Varadkar, announces the results of a viability review, highly-placed sources have said.

Local TD and Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly, refused to be drawn on the proposal, but admitted the funding problems had to be addressed in order to move the project forward.

‘I, as a Minister in Dublin North, am still of the view that this project is a vital driver for new business and jobs for Dublin North and the economic corridor from north Dublin to Dundalk,’ Minister Reilly said.

Meanwhile, a rally in favour of Metro North will take place outside the Department of Transport on Thursday. METRO North is set to be delayed by a number of years, overhauled and rebranded as the Government looks to deliver a light railway for north Dublin on its own merits.

The Fingal Independent can exclusively reveal the Fine Gael-Labour coalition is considering temporarily shelving the project, before proceeding with an inclusive revised scheme under a new name, which will incorporate the Dart interconnector and possibly Metro West.

Of the three major rail projects currently under consideration, the connection of the Luas lines (BDX) is the likeliest to be given the go-ahead this September, when Transport Minister, Leo Varadkar, announces the results of a viability review, highly-placed sources have said.

‘It is being considered at the moment that the Metro North project as we know it will be overhauled and the interconnector and Metro North may be integrated and delivered as the one project,’ a source said.

‘Some elements of influence will be that the Metro North brand is now perceived to be ‘negative’ because of the uncertainty surrounding it and the current Government are considering rebranding the project and stamping their own mark on it, rather than delivering on a Fianna Fáil-led proposal.

‘ This is expected to drag out the delivery of the light rail network into north Dublin for several more years and in September, the Government will look at a restructure to deliver it and the interconnector as one plan.

‘BDX will be going ahead to serve the Grangegorman campus where all the DIT colleges will be relocated. It’s the most deliverable at the moment.

‘This may even throw a lifeline to Metro West. Metro North needs to go ahead for Metro West to happen, but with it being in the constituency of Minister Leo Varadkar and Minister Joan Burton, with restructuring, they could be looking at it as one big picture.’

Local TD and Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly, refused to be drawn on the proposal, but said the future of Metro was dependent on funding.

‘The Metro North project will be part of the review of all capital projects, which is not due out until September,’ Minister Reilly said.

‘I, as a minister in Dublin North, am still of the view that this project is a vital driver for new business and jobs for Dublin North and the economic corridor from north Dublin to Dundalk.

‘Funding problems have to be addressed in order to move this project forward.’

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/yellow-cabs-to-give-us-a-taste-of-new-york-style-2818949.html

NEW York-style yellow cabs could soon hit the streets in Dublin.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) has proposed a “distinctive external branding” for the taxi fleet “such as a single colour”.

The suggestion forms part of the NTA’s public consultation process on vehicle standards for the taxis, hackneys and limousines.

If the regulation was to be introduced, the colour would have to be decided on at a later date, with yellow a possibility. The change would apply in Dublin and countrywide.

Other changes to be considered include a requirement to renew taxi licences every six months for vehicles more than nine years old.

The NTA also suggests imposing an upper age limit of 14 years for vehicles beyond which the drivers would not be issued with licences.

WRAP

In addition, it is proposed to exclude pick-up trucks for use as taxis and ban tinted windows.

But the most eye-catching change is the proposal to impose a standard branding “such as a single colour, ‘vehicle wrap’ or decal”.

Submissions from members of the public on the proposals can be made up to August 5.

Taxi regulator Kathleen Doyle said: “As ever, we are aware that we need to strike a balance between achieving standards that offer the customer confidence, comfort and safety, and allowing industry members to operate successfully in the economic circumstances.

“We want to hear from everyone that has an interest in the industry, including drivers and passengers.

“We will also be meeting stakeholder groups nationwide to get their feedback.”

submissions

She added: “In addition, the Government’s taxi regulation review steering group will be more wide-ranging in its approach … particularly in relation to vehicle standards. However, this consultation process, carried out by the National Transport Authority, will feed into the review group and submissions will be incorporated as appropriate into the review group’s findings and recommendations.”

The NTA said a new code of regulations for vehicle standards was expected to be introduced on a phased basis starting in the first half of 2012.

The proposal on the colour of taxis was first mooted a number of years ago but was abandoned because of the high cost involved for drivers. The suggestion had formed part of a 2005 report on the taxi industry by Goodbody Consultants but was never implemented.

[/b]

Hadnt heard anything about this but…t’would appear that Third Rail technology is a viable (if slightly more expensive – €18m – option for Luas BXD. A report commissioned by An Bord Pleanala has cast doubts on the RPAs claims that it wouldnt work. The report can be viewed via DCBA site http://www.dcba.ie/?p=536

Yes this was published about six weeks ago. An emphatic, independent declaration that third rail is viable in Dublin in spite of all the RPA has done over the years to try and bury the issue, and specifically that it is operable in the BXD context with its special constraints, including shared vechicular environments and traffic crossing perpendicularly over the tracks. Only the issue of cost and some minor concerns about retrofitting some parts of the tram fleet raise their head, both of which can be ironed out when taking account of the enormous scale of the project and the prestige it would bring to Dublin if executed correctly.

A number of third parties issued responses to the Board following from the publication of the report, which forms part of a wider submission of further information by the RPA including the design of the Dawson Street platforms. A decision should be due fairly shortly one imagines…

Competition Results!

Graham – you are right on the money; it is a question of cost. Increase business rates along the City Centre section of the route to pay for it; between say Dawson Street and the top of O’Connell Street. There will be a massive uplift in trade when the Dundrum catchment has a choice between the mega mall on a rainy day and posing outside A & F’s new MSU on College Green when the sun shines. I can say with 100,000,000% certainty there is no way Westminster City Council would ever permit a wirescape outside their Burlington Gardens masterpiece. Why should College Green through to OCS be any different?

What should be a project we all endorse without reservation in principle should not be botched.

Well the Board has ruled.

It is official.

Dublin will forever be a third rate capital, with modest, provincial continental cities having greater civic aspirations and design pretensions in how they position a sandwich board than the entire twitterati that run public life in Ireland.

The Board has decided, while recognising the full merits of the observations of the above-mentioned independent report on third rail powering of Luas BXD, that: “the Board did not consider it appropriate to impose a condition requiring the provision of [an] alternative power system in the city centre”.

It would appear that a submission by Dublin City Council’s drainage division swayed matters – the same Dublin City Council whose corporate position is to favour third rail – relating to the city’s existing drainage system (never mind a modified one) to deal with extreme rainfall events that “might impair tram functioning”. The extensive runs of shared running of buses and cars was also taken into consideration.

Thus, two irresolute lines wipe out two full paragraphs of virtues of third rail as acknowledged by the Board and the Systra report on third rail. Reading through the hard copy of the Railway Order here, and having read the Systra report from cover to cover, the imbalance of their decision is quite simply astonishing. There is not even remotely adequate justification for their position on this.

This is a disaster for Dublin and nobody in public authority could give a damn about it. Goodbye (what’s left) of a quality Dublin city centre.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0803/breaking21.html

How disappointing (is that suitably underwhelming). I haven’t had a chance to read the full Board report yet but I am hoping that proposed memorial to the public toilets on College Green remains in place. A suitable legacy to the Triumph of Mediocrity that 21st century Dublin has become (for further reading see also Palace Street, Grafton Street, the Dubline, etc).

http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0004/NA0004Schedule14.pdf

1. Dawson Stop
The northbound Dawson Stop shall not be constructed as proposed. The southbound stop on Dawson Street is confirmed. The tracks shall be realigned on Dawson Street to take account of this modification. Details of the revised track alignment (including traffic markings etc.) shall be agreed with the planning authority prior to commencement of construction.

Reason: It is considered that the character and attractiveness of Dawson Street would be unduly compromised by this stop, which, taken in conjunction with the existing bus stops on this pavement, would also create an excessive level of pedestrian congestion to the detriment of the street’s commercial viability.

2. Median of O’Connell Street Upper
The vertical alignment of the track along the central median of O’Connell Street Upper shall be as proposed at the oral hearing, that is, on a track raised to the same level as the median. A safety audit shall be prepared in relation to the detailed design, which shall include any measures necessary to cater for pedestrian safety vis-à-vis the change in track levels. The design and audit shall be agreed with the planning authority prior to construction.
Reason: In the interest of clarity. It is considered that this would be visually more satisfactory and a safer arrangement than originally proposed in the application.

3. Technical Cubicle at Marlborough Street
The technical cubicle proposed for the north end of Marlborough Street shall be omitted. The cubicle shall be relocated to a suitable site within the general vicinity of the Parnell Stop. This revision shall be implemented by means of an application for amendment under section 146B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.

Reason: It is considered that the proposed location would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the adjacent property and on the character of this end of Marlborough Street and that there are viable, alternative locations in the vicinity.

4. Parnell Street Re-instatement
The scope of the proposed scheme in the Parnell Street area shall be extended to include full façade to façade pavement renewal/reinstatement on Parnell Street between Marlborough Street and O’Connell Street Upper and O’Connell Street Upper and Moore Lane. The pavement width on Parnell Street shall be maximised subject to consultation and agreement with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to achieve an upgrade of the public realm to an appropriate standard in this area.

5. St Stephen’s Green Siding
The rail siding proposed for St. Stephen’s Green North shall be used only for turnback operations and emergency use by disabled trams, and shall not be used for stabling of trams during normal operation of the system.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

Good news for Parnell Street, and the Board appears to have mitigated the negative effects of the proposed stop on Dawson Street. This summation (I am not sure if it is a direct quote) included in the Inspectors Addendum Report and originating from Fitzers/Pierre Marco White on Dawson Street, says it all to me…

The RPA response is all about movement and shows little understanding of place. Ultimately the success of the LUAS BXD Project will lie in sustaining the heart of the city as a vibrant lively attractive city where public transport supports city character and street life and a sense of place.

I do welcome the construction of Luas BXD and I never thought that the Railway Order was in doubt. I just wish it could have been different.

Dreadful, dreadful decision for Dublin City.

From the RPA’s selection of the most elaborate route imaginable, (necessitating the construction of a standard motorway bridge within pissing distance of O’Connell, while ensuring that any possible benefit from this ridiculous crossing is obliterated by ramming double tram lines through the core of the city anyway) to ABP now enabling the RPA to inflict their cables & paraphernalia on as wide an expanse of Dublin city centre as possible.

Fusiliers Arch, Mansion House, Trinity College, Bank of Ireland, O’Connell Bridge, O’Connell Street proper, the GPO – all now complete with cables.

This is no more than a trophy project for the RPA, with questionable benefits. What is not in question is the detrimental impact on key city streetscapes, spaces & landmarks – drastically altering the ambience, fabric, character and visual amenity of the city core, never mind all that it might have been.

I would have thought Dublin Bus might appeal this to a higher court…

What are the odds of something hitting a pole and bringing down live wires or water?

Either way you even wonder if the project will go ahead given the dire economic times…

Its unlikely to go to the courts as a review of an ABP decision can only be made on procedural grounds. The courts cant review the decision itself.

Looking at the northern end of Dawson Street again yesterday I wondered how the island platform will be accommodated. The street is quite narrow here and it seems like it will be a challenge to maintain a Luas stop, a traffic lane (or two?) and decent pavement widths. I cant see any drawings of the revised stop design on the Luas site

http://www.dublinluasbroombridge.ie/

Bus Átha Cliath and a cowardly TD were the reason it wasn’t linked in the first place. Looks like they didn’t get their way this time round.

Regarding the Dawson Stop, RPA outline their reasons for not wanting a central platform on page 8 here: http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0004/document3.pdf . They mosty seem to relate to interference with Dublin Bus and other traffic, and danger to pedestrians.

Nonetheless, they have submitted revised designs on page 4 here: http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0004/document4.pdf

Time to write up yet another Local Area Plan for DCC’s dusty shelf of forgotten dreams.

---

“Westmoreland Street as it would look following the reconfiguration of city centre traffic proposed by the National Transport Authority.”

The most comprehensive assessment yet of traffic in Dublin city centre has concluded that most of it should go elsewhere. And the picture painted by the National Transport Authority of the current state of play is far from flattering.

College Green is plagued by bus congestion, overcrowded bus stops and cluttered narrow footpaths, while on Westmorlan Street pedestrians are confined to a relatively narrow area containing trees, phone boxes, side-road entrances, front-of-shop promotions, etc.

More

The 3 photomontages are great…imagine.
Where has this report come from and why now. It seems to have been leaked to FMcD.
Lets remain hopeful. I would love to see the actual report.

Where is a masterplan?

DCC in damage control.

Brendan O’Brien, DCC’s head of technical services said

“It wasn’t a joint plan and there’s a lot in that study which may never see the light of day. It was never intended to be anything other than a discussion document.”

Michael Phillips, DCC’s director of traffic said:

“We were very disappointed in this leaked document. There are a number of serious issues with it and our worries are that there has been an expectation created out there that we will not be able to deliver. We are very conscious that the car shopper is as important as other modes of transport. To keep retail viable in the city centre, what we need to ensure is that there is a balance between all modes of transport.”

No panic! Private car traffic is to remain the dominant mode of transport in Dublin City centre for the next few decades at least.

As I said, just another document to stick on the shelf and gather dust.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/traffic-plan-for-dublin-may-not-see-the-light-of-day-says-city-council-1.1525841

DCC made to look stupid yet again. Utter joke

I’d go for childish and churlish rather than stupid.

Sod private car ownership, all these reports being produced are way more damaging to the environment and the weight of them of them on the DCC shelf is likely to push the earth off-axis

Theres like 10 shops at College Green if the bank was given over to the people there could be more banks shopping and cafes ect. Dublin City Councils traffic department do not even have enough staff and money to meet members of the public.

That’s right, Paul, confined to the dusty shelf, just like your website.

Be grateful to the 10 remaining members you have left.

Sounds harsh, Morlan.

The site has been going through a lull in the last while, it is true. I suspect that this is, to a large extent, because times are tough in the architectural/planning sector and people are currently not willing to share their views and ideas in the way that they were.

@SeamusOG wrote:

Sounds harsh, Morlan.

The site has been going through a lull in the last while, it is true. I suspect that this is, to a large extent, because times are tough in the architectural/planning sector and people are currently not willing to share their views and ideas in the way that they were.

I think the decline of this website started when the process of updating it began a few years ago. For a period of literally years, there was always one thing or another wrong with the site – the whole thing didn’t work, the space to enter your login name was in the wrong place so you it was difficult to even log in, you couldn’t click on the forums, etc etc. I think people probably got a bit sick of that, and may have gone to other, more reliable, websites.

However, this is the best-looking Irish architecture website, and I think if everything is working, it is well poised to benefit from any coming upturn in Irish architecture.

So who is going to win if NTA and DCC roads dept go head to head?

More likey a compromise will be made Lucas and DB will share a corridor…

And there will a lane that car be used for cars sometimes 5-10am

Or is this exercise more musical chairs??? Pass the parcel?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/09/12/sydney-cbd-are-cars-doing-the-heavy-lifting/

With regards to the website I think it’s great but architecturefoundation.ie may be taught at school.
The profession also deems bus shelters more important that College Green a sad state of affairs with a Dutch connection. Has the profession given up?

I don’t think this website has lost its appeal – there’s simply nothing out there worth talking about

Personally I couldn’t give a toss if college green is pedestrianised. For what? so I can walk from Grafton Street to O’Connell street easier? Under the new plan there’d be a great new tourist game – get a snap of the bank before a bus comes

Whilst I think the paving on Grafton St could be better I don’t see the need for 570 pages on it

Dutch Billys? Wha?

Churches?. Pah

People banging on about Thomas St as if it’s in any way salvageable instead of the total kip it really is (as someone who lives in de area)

There are several major schemes in planning that are worth talking about and there will be some major schemes going to planning soon that are worth talking about but, you know what? what’s the point? You might as well come back in 2 years when the dinosaur planning process has finished coping with the likes of mannix flynn poncing up and down the quays dressed like a twat

You’d have to wonder why you even bother typing in the web address wearnicehats ?

Perhaps if you started an interesting thread that might broaden out the discussion on the site.

I think you are right, the low level of activity of the site is a result of a moribund development sector and a profession with very little to say for itself these past few years. I also think forums are losing out to Twitter. And of course there is the ever present fickleness of people.

However the most enjoyable feature of Archiseek IMO has been the fact that it address such a wide range of urban issues to suit everyone’s tastes and interests. If you don’t like a particular issue then the beauty of the Board is that you can pass it over. And its a space to say much more than 140 characters will allow. And generally, it has been free from trolls.

Its also worth everyone remembering that the site is FREE. You don’t pay for access. You don’t pay to be a member. I’m sure Paul has other things he could be doing. The fact he devotes so much time and energy to a niche interest is highly commendable.

Personally I am glad its here and I enjoy the company.

…and I do give a shit about the future of College Green

A little harsh Morlan….

I wasn’t going to comment on this but I will…

Yes, the site has had technical difficulties but this isn’t some small site on wordpress.com or blogger. It’s huge and when it has problems, they tend to be magnified. Other large architecture sites have teams of people – editors, writers, tech to sort out issues. Archiseek has to wait until I finish the dayjob, spend some time with the kids and then hopefully if I’m not completely knackered I might get an hour or two to sort out some stuff. And I’m not a sysadmin type person.

We’ve had a couple of signifcant outage recently due to issues at Digiweb in Dublin – one today for example. Those are completely outside of my control.

If there’s relevant news, I post it during the day, but upgrades and continuous development take time. In that time I could be doing paid work for other people – work I could really do with, but I do this because I love it. There’s zero financial benefit to me in doing this.

You’re all welcome to your opinions, and opinions are what makes the discussion board hum, so feel free to disagree amongst yourselves. Forums have become diluted over the last 5/6 years due to dicussion on everything from twitter to facebook to flickr. Outside of blogs, the era of the one-person website is well and truly over.

I shall continue to do my best…. as I still believe the site has a lot to offer.

Hear hear

Back to the substantive issue…this from the NTA on Saturday

Sir, – Your article “Dublin traffic plan could be gridlocked” (September 13th), continues your earlier coverage (September 9th) of our draft study on possible future scenarios for Dublin city centre transport.

I wish to clarify that the National Transport Authority did not publish this study. It is still a working document and we are now starting, in liaison with Dublin City Council, to carry out a detailed technical impact assessment of the proposals in order to develop a workable, balanced solution for the city.

Seeking wider feedback on a working paper too early in the process generally either raises concerns or heightens expectations. The final set of proposals will be published when the technical assessment is complete, and feedback will sought from the public at that stage.

The authority puts much material into the public domain for consideration and we also publish a considerable amount documentation on our website – traffic and travel data, policy proposals, bus and rail company performance reports, our board minutes, financial statements, etc, all of which can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.nationaltransport.ie.

When we publish proposals for the city centre we look forward to hearing the views of the public and we can engage in discussion at that stage. Just for the record, the draft study does protect access to city car parks. – Yours, etc,

GERRY MURPHY,
Chief Executive,
National Transport Authority,

@StephenC wrote:

Hear hear

Back to the substantive issue…this from the NTA on Saturday

Sir, – Your article “Dublin traffic plan could be gridlocked” (September 13th), continues your earlier coverage (September 9th) of our draft study on possible future scenarios for Dublin city centre transport.

I wish to clarify that the National Transport Authority did not publish this study. It is still a working document and we are now starting, in liaison with Dublin City Council, to carry out a detailed technical impact assessment of the proposals in order to develop a workable, balanced solution for the city.

Seeking wider feedback on a working paper too early in the process generally either raises concerns or heightens expectations. The final set of proposals will be published when the technical assessment is complete, and feedback will sought from the public at that stage.

The authority puts much material into the public domain for consideration and we also publish a considerable amount documentation on our website – traffic and travel data, policy proposals, bus and rail company performance reports, our board minutes, financial statements, etc, all of which can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.nationaltransport.ie.

When we publish proposals for the city centre we look forward to hearing the views of the public and we can engage in discussion at that stage. Just for the record, the draft study does protect access to city car parks. – Yours, etc,

GERRY MURPHY,
Chief Executive,
National Transport Authority,

I find it very hard to believe this draft was developed in June 2013 the exact same month Celtcia released there draft master plan in public. The fact that the traffic department in DCC got this document only a month or so ago is even more suspicious. Back dated and behind the eight ball…

While it’s entertaining to see one set of civil servants (NTA) go to battle with another set of civil servants (DCC Traffic Dept), I am left wondering – what would the general public want?

Would the public like to see greater pedestrianisation of College Green? I believe many would.

Would business owners in the area support it? Well, there has always been a group of businesses willing to fight any proposed traffic control measures, public transport construction projects etc

Is this even feasible? How would you reroute traffic?

Regarding the site – I think it’s unnecessary to have 8 seperate regional forums when there has barely been 8 developments worth speaking about in Ireland over the past 5 years. If things were consolidated into fewer forums, it might lead to a greater sense of activity about the place.

Senior Civil Servants being uncivil to each other..IN PUBLIC…cripes,Irelabd really has been badly hit by this Austerity so…..!

That aside,I spent quite some time with my monocle attempting to find the most important deliberate mistake in that (General William) Westmoreland St photomontage……The absence of a Stainless Steel Pole,upon which is clamped a fingerpost with a Blue n White P…..pointing to the Temple Bar Multi-Storey Car Park…mind you we would already have had to secure the future of the Setanta,the Clarendon St and then we would have to move on to the Princes Street one also…..Fair play to Mickey boy Phillips for leaping to the defence of the Multi-Storey Car Park Industry….

Michael Phillips, DCC’s director of traffic said:

“We were very disappointed in this leaked document. There are a number of serious issues with it and our :shifty: worries :shifty: are that there has been an expectation created out there that we will not be able to deliver. We are very conscious that the car shopper is as important as other modes of transport. To keep retail viable in the city centre, what we need to ensure is that there is a balance between all modes of transport.”

You bet they were worried !!!

The single greatest contribution the likes of Mr Phillips could make to Dublin City,before taking the Lump,would be to seize these Multi-Stories and convert them to affordable living units,hostels,brothels,absynthe dens…in fact ANYTHING except MULTI STOREY CAR-PARKS…..! Just taking in the great Buzz about Town on Friday night for Culture Night,I couldnt help but note just how small a role Public Transport played in the overall event,and just how the ramshackle state of DCC’s City-Centre Traffic Management contributed to this….great swathes of the City Centre’s narrowest streets taken over COMPLETELY by deluded Taxi Drivers ranked-up totally,and dangerously illegally at junctions,pedestrian crossings and on padestrianized streets,thereby rendering it FAR more difficult for mainstream Public Transport to operate effectively…ALTHOUGH !!…now that I think of it,appropriating one of those multi-stories and using it as a compulsory TAXI Holding Pen (A Lá the Airports “Kesh”) might be one way of reining in these individuals..?…Well now Michael Phillips,I’ll leave it witcha OK ?

Now THAT is left field thinking!

Our city centre is choked with cars. We tend to forget just how noisy and hurried and chaotic it is. Its really not very pleasant. Some of my Culture Night observations anon…

So NTA where is the draft report?
Still a work in progress?

Incredibly enough Stephen C,in the actual City CENTRE area,which I would define as Stephens Green to Parnell Square on a N/S axis…it is the TAXI which causes most problems for the functioning of a CITY.

Those of a military background may remember the charge of “Action contrary to the maintenance of Discipline & Good Order”,which upon conviction,could see your wage docked !

One of the major mistakes of the “Good Time Charlies” in DCC and the NTA during the Boom was this insidious portrayal of the Taxi industry as an integral part of the City’s Public Transport system..

It is not,and should not be portrayed as such.

Reality in my yoof,which remains my reality today,is that Taxi’s are an Added-Value PRIVATE Hire element,always intended as a backup or complement to Mainstream Public Transport (Bus & Rail)…Thats how the rest of the World operates.

Dublins Traffic & Transport supremo’s somehow or other got it into their heads,after a youthful immersion in American Sit-Com scenarios,that everybody who need to go ANYWHERE in a City simply walked outside the door and yelled TAXI !!!…and,hey presto a Yellow Checker Cab would glide to a halt at their feet,thus it followed,to those TV addicts that WE too could enjoy this Nirvana !

Fast forward then to Bobby Molloy,and his holy-war against sanity,which gave new meaning to the term Deregulation and which now see’s a supposed National Transport Authority flailing wildly around in ultimately fruitless attempts to put order onto manufactured chaos.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/political-push-behind-deregulation-139255.html

Even those of restricted comprehension can appreciate the pure truth of this snippet from the above…

With plates only allowing taxis to operate in specific geographical areas, the supply problem in Dublin was becoming particularly acute with demand outstripping cities of similar size due to the capital’s low population density, low public transport provision (subsidies for bus transport being a fraction of what they were in most developed countries)

IF Gerry Murphy and Mick Phillips still persevere with this madcap attitude that they have NO responsibility for facilitating mass Public Transport,as opposed to mollycoddling a small grouping of “Cash Only” businesspeople by allowing them free rein to impose their will on the rest of the CIty then perhaps it’s P45 time for the pair of them…….Oh and while I’m at it…the Asst Garda Commissioner responsible for Traffic Regulation in the DMA also !!!!

Nama plans to revamp most important square in Ireland.

http://www.herald.ie/news/nama-plans-huge-revamp-of-the-square-29593539.html

Central bank moves to docklands to get faster and more insecure Internet connection.

http://www.demotix.com/news/1160617/irish-central-bank-purchase-dublin-dockland-site#media-1160608

Looking at the Luas Cross City website recently I couldn’t find any reference to the cameras that were going to be installed so that the progress of the construction could be followed. Has that idea been dropped does anybody know?

@Dilitante wrote:

Looking at the Luas Cross City website recently I couldn’t find any reference to the cameras that were going to be installed so that the progress of the construction could be followed. Has that idea been dropped does anybody know?

I’m not at all surprised that the Camera idea has been quietly allowed to slip into the Administrative Quagmire that is the BXD Construction Phase.

IF these Camera’s were operational,yesterday for example (Sat 14th March) they would have provided a vast repository of evidence of Serious lack of DCC/GARDA/RPA competence in relation to Public Safety in and around Dawson Street.

Added to this would be further hours of evidence (Complete with Roof-Sign Numbers) of frenzied apopelectic Taxidrivers disregarding every aspect of the Road Traffic Acts (and Small PSV Regulations) as they converge,like Piranah Fish on the NEW-IMPROVED Taxi Rank outside Kapp & Petersens on Nassau Street.

U-Turns ON a left hand bend,U-Turns ACROSS a solid-bordered Traffic Island,U-Turns directly in the path of approaching traffic,only then to sit behind the Legally Parked Taxi’s and obstruct the General Traffic Flow….Emergency Stops and figures of 8 ….these,and other stupendous examples of just WHY the Director of Taxi Regulation should be dismissed forthwith,carried on ALL DAY LONG and into the Night,under the baleful gaze of the pre-existing DCC/Garda CCTV systems at the bottom of Grafton Street/Nassau Street…..and the response to this IN YER FACE BUD dangerous codology…..NOTHING! (Unless a toot from a Garda Squad Car Crew being delayed on its way back to Pearse Street for “Refreshments” counts as “action” ).

DCC,with the collusion of the Garda DMR Traffic Section saw fit to change the status of the lay-By outside K&P’s from a Loading-Bay to a Taxi Rank,in the somewhat forelorn hope of regularising the guerilla Cab situation which sees Taxi Drivers Rank-Up ON,yes folks ON the Pedestrian Crossing in the furtherance of their business (Which is most definitely NOT mainstream Public Transport).

Further back in the Dawson St Jungle,alongside the BXD Compound fencing,these same “Professional” grouping see fit to pull ON to,and sit on the FOOTPATH in the hope of attracting custom into their cabs….and they are PERMITTED,even encouraged to do this,even though it’s effects quickly feed back through the Single-Lane restricted traffic flowing off St Stephens Green.

I can only deduce from the level of disinterest in applying commonsense,let alone the LAW,that Dublin City Council/An Garda Siochana/RPA have been in someway compromised by the Taxi fraternity to the extent of rendering these bodies incapable of functioning in the PUBLIC INTEREST (Which,in this case may NOT equal the Taxi Industry’s Interest )

Not for the first time,do I suggest that a Major Incident,perhaps involving Fatalities is the only thing which will stimulate these so-called “Agencies” into performing their statutory duties.

Rather than focusing on the pressing and urgent need to ban power-tool use in historic areas of the City,this,by now, thoroughly rotten Civic Administration should be waking up to the very real level of ADDED Public Safety Risk it is imposing on ordinary Citizens !!!!

The end of public space!

http://www.archdaily.com/486724/architectural-review-s-latest-issue-is-this-the-end-of-public-space/