Metro North – Alternative to St Stephen’s Green

Home Forums Ireland Metro North – Alternative to St Stephen’s Green

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #711199
      Service charge

      Separate thread for this as I don’t want to get into a row over the whole project.

      I just cannot bare to see this part of Dublin ruined when we have so much unused and derelict space in the city. It is one of the cities very few living public spaces.

      I really want to explore why SSG is central to this plan and an alternative cannot be found for the majority of the work.

      Clearly some station work has to be carried out at SSG but the current plan uses it as a base for everything from drilling to storing machinery.

      Surely SSG should only be sacrificed for essential use.

      While somewhere such as Wilton Place could be used for everything else. It has plenty of space (an unloved and unused park) together with an accessible road that isn’t a thoroughfare.

      Or perhaps even Merrion Sq could be used. Everyone hates the current layout and the trees need to be culled anyway.

    • #814210

      It does not have much to do with location…

      Some mining methods take longer than others but they create much less damage and leave many more options open.

      The current issues are not just linked to metro north they are linked to 3 major projects. They are all interrelated with co-ordination and other issues.

      It appears ok to have a high pressure gas pipelines just below the road but not vents…
      Bailey bridges can be used to cross roads not rivers…

      go figure…

    • #814211

      @Service charge wrote:

      Separate thread for this as I don’t want to get into a row over the whole project.

      The separate thread is here:

      It’s a bit late to propose an alternative hub to Stephen’s Green. The Stephen’s Green hub was proposed in 2005 as part of Transport 21. The route selection public consultation was done in 2006. The stop design for Stephen’s Green was done in 2008.

      Bord Pleanala had the application in 2008 and has had two sets of oral hearings since and has now spent more than two whole years thinking about the project.

      So it’s not really on at this stage for some pound shop in town to complain that their trade may be temporarily affected by the government building a gigantic funnel to pour customers through their doors for many years to come.

    • #814212

      Trying to keep away from old threads, as having a feeling they will not stay on topic.

      Assuming the project is going ahead and that there will probably be large protest at SSG I am more interested in proposing possible alternatives.

    • #814213

      Sorry service charge, I didn’t take in your post properly. I though you were proposing a new route, whereas you’re suggesting that site equipment be stored elsewhere than the park. I think you’re still too late as you would have had to make your case during the oral hearings. You would have to show that the drawbacks of moving the equipment back and forth from your favoured location did not outweigh the benefits to the Green.

    • #814214

      @Frank Taylor wrote:

      The separate thread is here:

      That’s not THE separate thread, Frank. That’s just one of a number of threads where the issue of the interchange location has been discussed on

      (And there may indeed also be other threads, on other boards, where the location of the interchange is, or has been, discussed. Other possible interchange locations may have been discussed there). I personally favour College Green, or a location very near to it.

      It’s a bit late to propose an alternative hub to Stephen’s Green. The Stephen’s Green hub was proposed in 2005 as part of Transport 21. The route selection public consultation was done in 2006. The stop design for Stephen’s Green was done in 2008.

      Not quite right, Frank.

      The originally proposed hub – in the centre of the city – was proposed in the 1970’s. The more southerly St. Stephen’s Green hub was proposed – without very much in the way of documentation to justify the shift from the centre – by the DTO (from their offices in St. Stephen’s Green) in their “Platform for Change” Document around the turn of the Millennium. So, other hubs have been proposed in the past.:)

      The Transport 21 document did not “propose” the interchange, it included it, and the subsequent public consultation process was based on this interchange, with three practically identical routes through this interchange being presented.

      No alternatives.

      A total farce, in my opinion.

      The proposals to build an interchange in other locations, such as the centre of the city, are not new, and should not be presented as being “too late” for consideration. If anything, and it will come as no surprise that I hold the authors of the DRRTS report in high esteem, I feel that their original proposals may have unfortunately come “too early”.

      In my opinion, they were basically right, in their view that the interchange for the highest capacity lines should be, as close as possible, to the centre of the city.

      But it is interesting to see how the current proposals have been dealt with, in the current round of presentations to An Bord Pleanala.

      First up, Mr. Rory O’Connor, from the RPA. He said that there were a number of locations for possible metro/DART interchanges in the city. He then explained why St. Stephen’s Green was the one chosen by the RPA (because it would interchange with the proposed DART – it being, vide infra, the only route ever proposed for the DART underground project).

      He did, however, decide against giving any information about the pros and cons of the other possible locations.

      Next up, Iarmrod Eireann, with their Environmental Impact Statement for the DART Underground project.

      According to their EIS, they looked at two possible interchange locations: Tara Street Station and St. Stephen’s Green.

      Apparently Tara Street was unsuitable for a number of reasons – so, since the RPA and IE have been working very closely together over a number of years, this obviously wasn’t one of the potential interchange stations that Rory was talking about – but on the plus side, St. Stephen’s Green was.

      In St. Stephen’s Green, IE had thus identified a suitable interchange location. In other words, IE had looked at two possible locations, one of which was unsuitable, and one of which fitted the bill. According to IE, only one location in the city was thus suitable for an interchange.

      The RPA, according to Rory, on the other hand, had believed that a number of locations were suitable.:confused:

      So, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that:

      a) Rory was spoofing when he said that he believed there were a number of interchange options, and IE were right in believing that there was only one; or

      b) Rory was right, and IE never bothered their arses looking at the various other possibilities.

      I can’t see how one could reach any other conclusion.

      Not, in my opinion, a sign of coordinated transport planning, and no more than it ever was a reason for me or anyone to buy into the idea that the longer, more expensive, circuitous route for the interconnector is the best way for Dublin. A shorter, cheaper, more central route is, I believe, what we should be striving for.

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News