O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Sue wrote:
Given that the government’s new transport plan involves building a metro under O’Connell Street, won’t that mean that all the paving etc. has to be ripped up again in a few years? Or can they tunnel underground without causing too much disruption on land? (The Port Tunnel would suggest otherwise)
They will have to rip up the lower end of the street in order to build to subway station. Please god I hope they don’t cut-and-cover the whole of O’Connell St., uprooting the spire, etc. 😮
@Morlan wrote:
They will have to rip up the lower end of the street in order to build to subway station. Please god I hope they don’t cut-and-cover the whole of O’Connell St., uprooting the spire, etc. 😮
i cant see them using cut and cover not in o`connell st anywaycan you imagine the the disruption and uproar it would cause
@aj wrote:
i cant see them using cut and cover not in o`connell st anywaycan you imagine the the disruption and uproar it would cause
I was fortunate in having the opportunity to see some of the feasibility study plans for the metro stations a few years back ( was it really so long ? )
The station was located north of the spire and took up the whole width of the median. This would have to be built using cut and cover.
Theres also the linked Luas lines which are most likely to follow the old proposed alignment which would mean that the median south of the spire and the roadway would be disrupted. If full four way connections are made then O’Connell St./ Abbey Street junction will be dug up as well.
The latest plan envisages continuing Luas northwards on O’Connell Street up to Parnell Square so effectively that s the whole place B*&&^%^erd up. If you believe the timescales published this week the works could begin within two years.
And talking of Parnell Sq aren’t there plans to upgrade that whole area soon. Probably just in time to rip it up for new Luas lines.
Planning me ….. :rolleyes:
jj@JJ wrote:
I was fortunate in having the opportunity to see some of the feasibility study plans for the metro stations a few years back ( was it really so long ? )
The station was located north of the spire and took up the whole width of the median. This would have to be built using cut and cover.
At the time the station was originally planned, the idea was to intersect with Tara Street DART. So they needed to put the metro station at the north end of O’Connell street to get the angle right to aim for Tara. Now that the DART intersection is Stephen’s Green, they can build elsewhere on O’Connell Street. Although the station will be cut and cover, the metro line won’t be because it will have to be far deeper to get across the river.
They should actually take the opportunity to put it under the ILAC centre redevelopment or some other building due to be demolished and rebuilt
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
They should actually take the opportunity to put it under the ILAC centre redevelopment or some other building due to be demolished and rebuilt
The east end of Parnell street could be ideal….this is a decrepit part of the city compared to its west side which has undergone massive redevelopment in recent years!
Or the Carlton site.
Though getting one project underway will be troublesome enough, never mind trying to synchronise two.@GregF wrote:
The east end of Parnell street could be ideal….this is a decrepit part of the city compared to its west side which has undergone massive redevelopment in recent years!
agreed a great idea…
I think the Carlton site should be kept as an entertainment venue of some sorts , whether it be theatre, cinema, concert hall, etc.. The shopping mall walkway could be incorporated into this too. I think it would not only add a mass of people to this part of the street but also a bit of glam too rather than just a train station. With the Carlton, the Savoy, the Ambassador and the Gate Theatre as well as a new metro in the decrepit east Parnell Street, it could be a bustling part of the city. (almost like London’s West End, ahem!)
@GregF wrote:
I think the Carlton site should be kept as an entertainment venue of some sorts
Agreed, Greg. All I was thinking was that an underground entrance could be provided on the site- right in the middle of the street (there was a post a couple of months ago that said how wonderful it would be to get a train in from the airport and arrive slap bang on O’C.S.). And it would minimise the excavation works if one could be provided while the site is being redeveloped (ambitious, I know, but a man can dream! 🙂 ).
Under the Carlton site is a good idea for a metro station but…. wouldn’t that mean they have to tunnel under the Spire? And wouldn’t THAT mean that the spire would have to come down, at least temporarily? 😮
If there’s one advantage to destroying O’connell Street, it’ll be that the Metro project will have to be finished by the 2015 deadline for the 1916 centenary :rolleyes:
One can imagine the uproar from businesses on the street should such works be carried out here, and I wouldn’t blame them in the slightest – having to go through that all over again. If the station could be located underground on the Carlton that would be beneficial on a number of levels – don’t know how deep the Spire goes though…
Likewise Parnell St East as Greg suggests – the derelict end happily being the one closest to O’Connell St.Even after a station is built under the median, what sort of impact would this have at ground level? Yes London Underground stations are virtually non-existant at street level save some railings, but in the median context they will probably completely consume its width, not to mention a substantial depth. Even the taxis don’t have that impact…
And as for a Luas interchange on the Lower street…. 😮
Interesting diagrams on this PDF as to what might be done on O’Connell St in constructing a station by means of a median cut and cover:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/sas/feis/pdf/figure3-07.pdf
Sad really to compare what might eventually be a rather large cave under St. S Green with the beautiful Grand Central. Should they dig up the Green where will our Freemen grave their sheep?
The reason Park Avenue in NYC is so wide is due to the fact that the lines were overground until the tracks were re-done on a cut and cover job; anyone know when that happened? Heavy trucks are prohibited from Park Av. for that reason. The lines re-emerge about 96th St.(?) which is where and why the property prices drop.
Would it not have been considerably easier and cheaper for the Govt. to have an additional tunnel running with the Port Tunnel and then have an elevated train running along the M1 a la JFK-NYC route? Or is that too obvious?Did anyone see Capital D on RTE1? Couldn’t they use the underground tunnel as part of the new metro for Dublin? I was also thinking why couldn’t they build a kind of Luas for Cork City?
I agree, Cork should have a tram/light rail system.
Also, I think once O’Connell Street is completed there should be no further roadworks for at least a millennium. The present redevelopment has been an arduous ordeal. The installalation of a Metro station would just cause further unnecessary turmoil in the vicinity for many more years.
Hmmmm…
How can work on a metro station under O’Connell Street be considered “unnecessary”….I’d consider it quite essential…
I think they should close it off totally (or upper then lower) for the duration of any major metro works. The problem is too many people consider it when travelling into and out of town. Were it closed, they would have to take alternate routes….no big deal! It would be for the greater good. But perhaps not many DRIVERS would see it that way. :pAnyway I think long term, it’s image should be pushed as a “public plaza” more than as a “traffic thoroughfare”…..
@Boyler wrote:
Did anyone see Capital D on RTE1? Couldn’t they use the underground tunnel as part of the new metro for Dublin? I was also thinking why couldn’t they build a kind of Luas for Cork City?
Yes, I saw this. The problem with using the Park Tunnel us that there’s no capacity at Connolly to take these trains. This is why we need a new station at Spencer Dock with its own tunnel going to Heuston.
@GregF wrote:
I agree, Cork should have a tram/light rail system.
Also, I think once O’Connell Street is completed there should be no further roadworks for at least a millennium. The present redevelopment has been an arduous ordeal. The installalation of a Metro station would just cause further unnecessary turmoil in the vicinity for many more years.
If it’s going to give us a massively improved transport system for the next 100 years, I’d happily see O’C ripped up again. Either way, the tunnel under O’C will have to be very deep in order for it to pass under the river. It’s safe to assume then that they will not use cut-and-cover method. The lower end of the street will be excavated in order to build the station.
The notion of ripping up some/all of the street furnishings before they are even laid is really too difficult to bear – especially in the context of having waited 20 years for the IAP to come about in the first place!
And it’s not drivers that are affected by works electrolyte, feck the drivers – it’s pedestrians that have to suffer! 🙁The idea of the paving and street furniture being ripped up almost straight away, indeed it being proposed before a considerable amount of it is even laid, must surely go down in history as one of the great farces of the 21st century. Is there any point in even continuing the Upper works? – though there will be a 3/4 year breathing space (also a political breathing space).
Though if it has to be done….it has to be done. A good excuse to get rid of those lampposts anyway 🙂Hmmmm, notice anyone missing from the new crossing at the very top of the street?
These four fellas of course:
I presume they are going back in, and have just been hauled up for a bit of a scrubbing down. They certainly better be. Like the GPO bollards they are protected, so ought to be returning soon.
Again a shame to have them lifted, even if only temporarily, presumably not having been moved since their laying. The connection with the past is gone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
