a boyle
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@StephenC wrote:
Most definately! There are numerous streets around OC St crying out for some development and life. Malborough Street and Cathal Brugha are the obvious ones. And Parnell Street (OC to Summerhill stretch) is in a criminally rundown consition, although it must be said atht these streets already provide the types of shops that Frank refers to…as does Talbot Street, Moore St, Dorset St, Gardiner St…
So is it the case going forward that o’connel street itself it not in need of the most attention but north and east of it ? And if these areas got that attention, oconnell street would only thrive ?
Impressively west and south western of oconnell are thriving ( herny street , bloom’s and liffey street)@StephenC wrote:
It would be great to have a traffic free Suffolk St (and this would con…..Reducing space for predestrains further in Grafton Street and sending them roundabouts to St Andrew’s/Suffolk St would not solve the problem. ….
Well the reason i thought it was a no brainer is that grafton street is two lane south bound at the minute . One of these lanes disapears of course at the turn on to nassau street . You would need to move that one bus stop in front of the provost house.
Come to think of it allowing the buses to use grafton street in both directions ought to mean that the foot path could be widened, because the loading bays and bicycle racks would move to suffolk street.
You need to make sure that grafton street had no bus stop at all.
What do you think ?
just in case any body is unsure i am only talking about the section of grafton street that is not currently pedesrianised.
@StephenC wrote:
I think the rationale in improving the types of shops on O’Connell Street was
a) the balance had perhaps tipped too far in the favour of the so-called “undesireables” like fast food and call shops.
b) this is the capitals principal thoroughfare and should reflect the best that the city has to offer in terms of shops, restaurants etc.
c) many of the uses on the street (and the office developments, I believe, all fall in to this catagory) just don’t do anything for the street..don’t contribute any life to the street.
d) many of the arguements against cheap shops concern the poor upkeep of their premises and the general poor design… JWT, Funland, the terrace I mention above.Most commentators are not calling for all these shops to be closed, but they shouldn’t be allowed to dominate. A perfect example is the Centra/Londis/Spar proliferation in the city…undoubtably there is a demand for these shops but is the city any richer for having so many? Would you be happy to visit a city centre that only offered you this? Isn’t 5 fast food outlets enough on the street. Wouldnt an internet call shop be better suited to less prominent street?
That is fair. Can i take it that the implication is that the council should be trying to free up space on nearby streets for some of the shops to move to ? Curiously there is very little retail space east of oconnel.
@jdivision wrote:
I don’t think there’s enough footfall on the island to justify retail – the Manchester Utd store showed that and retailers learned a lesson, hence it’s still empty. Maybe the only thing would be if the guys who bought the former bank behind it on Westmoreland St and got planning for retail also bought that – that scheme (I think it’s the ICS building) doesn’t appear to have moved much in recent years. The Westmoreland bar is also on sale so could be a good landbanking opportunity for somebody. I expect residential and possibly an extension of the Westin hotel.
I think it is a case of there are no shops so there is no footfall. The manu shop was not enough to attract people accross the road.
The widening of the footpath by one traffic lane (there is one spare lane that doesn’t serve any purpose , and i always get stuck in it! ) . Removing the pay display parking and using the whole ground level and some second level for retail and you have a viable mixed use scheme. It would complete the wide streets commisions vision in a very nice way
@Frank Taylor wrote:
The way I see it, there are negatives and positives to poor and rich cultures. O’Connell street is one large public thoroughfare that celebrates working class Dublin and it would be a pity to go any further than we have already.
Yes true. I don’t think O’connell street is particularly tatty anyway. The shop front are tatty but calling for all the riff raff to be closed down is just snobbery. There is more than enough space on the street to accomodate rich shops and poor shops . And that would be a huge step forward in integration in this economically sectarian city.
I think the future for the street completely rosy. grafton street was always a planning blip , and it is clear that commerce is moving northwards. There are some more projects starting in years to come. Arnotts is reputed to be buying abbey street (most of it), to open onto it. Then of course the carlton , that will be fixed up and the findlater house is crying out for GAP.
There just seems to me to be such a such waste in sending traffic through college green. There is one improvement i think we could all agree on. Close Suffulk street, make grafton street two way. You would need to move the loading bay facilities in front of spar round the corner onto suffolk street, but that is not too hard.
If the port tunnel gives the respite that is is capable of there are many things like this that could be done . Maybe stop cars driving onto college green. If you think about it anytime you use college green you could use the quays instead.
The big transport ideas are not that technical , but it takes a while to get your head around them. I would say to stephenc that some will be built. — the extension to the lulu will be built.
despite the train strike recently , all the trains tracks in country have been renewed in recent years. And an entire new set of trains for all the different services are either on order or have arrived. Thats a big job!indeed but i will bring it full circle if you like. This network of trams based around the two dart lines , will enable the college green westmoreland street and o’conell street to be pedestrianised , almost completely. And i look forward to the day when a large ‘impressive’ fountain sit in fron of trinity and buses are nowhere to be seen .
the grade seperation is not currently needed as you point out . the current plans allow for 16 trains per hour. However full grade seperation will allow for 40 trains per hour over the next century.
In short the interconnector allows for an increase of capacity of 75 million initially with the possiblity of increasing it passed 150 million
The under ground tram expect to carry 30 million in twenty years. You tell me which is a better idea the metro north (25) OR the interconnector + tram + bus (75 mill + 10000 per hour)
The metro north carries fewer people to fewer places more slowly for the same amount of money. Are you a painter/artist/musician because only such a person could forgiven for not understanding numbers.
The trams are may be a bit wider but there is only two of them as against 8 dart carriages. so to repeat it 600 against 2500 per service.
Despite what the inquiry says there is no need to provide improve the luas extension for the next decade. Because the current tram set can run at five minute intervals from carrickmines to the city , suplemented by other tram starting at sandyford to give a 2.5 minute frequency between sandyford and town and five minute frequency between carrickmines and town.
You have consistently ignored that having provided a network of 7 trams you can then reasonably bring their frequencies up to 1.5 /2 minutes. Thereby getting a large increase in capacity without blowing money on a white elephant ,which is what the metro north is.
@Thomond Park wrote:
As both Luas lines display neither has sufficient capacity and the interconnector will represent as a parralell version of the metro whilst serious congestion can be expected on the Sandyford line.
the current luas lines can have it’s capacity doubled if city centres car restrictions are put in place that will be enough@Thomond Park wrote:
I don’t think that existing users of the Maynooth commuter service would accept this as most of them continue their journey beyond Connolly and this would make DART connection impossible in a single change.
Because forcing a single change for the commuters from maynooth allow the current capacity to quadruple (in conjunction with the interconnector) it is fair and reasonable.@Thomond Park wrote:
This exists already what do you think Spencer Dock was prior to development?
spencer dock is only half grade seperated. If it is made fully grade seperated there is potential for 100 thousand per hour per direction which is impressive compared with the underground tram that tops out at 25 thousand.
Thomond Park wrote:Where are the 90m trams? If 90m island platforms were introduced entire alignments would have to be taken out of service and reinstatement would result in long closure periods as statutory safety periods were observed] What are you talking about ? the ninety metre trams is what the rpa want to build to the airport : two trams stuck back to back. A phenomenal waste of a tunnel.@Thomond Park wrote:
Luas is sufficient? The above relates to 9 coach trains and your answer is 30m trams
No my answer was build the interconnector and the tram (7 ) which you would have noticed if you stopped focussing on trying to be clever.
The northern line currently can’t take any more train because of congestion .As allready posted the docklands station or broadstone can divert all sligo line trains away from connoly freeing up time for more northern darts The interconnector frees up more space by allowing dart to pass straight through the city and so get out of the way of intercity . routes .
What is so good about the interconnector is that initially it will cope with 16 trains an hour thats 2500 * 16 = 40 thousand people per direction per hour. when this number is reached it can be increased again in decades to come. The construction of a grade seperated slipway from the interconnector to the northern line will allow frequencies of up to 90 seconds. thats 60/1.5*2.5= 100 thousand per hour per direction. So it will be able to cope today and for the next 100 years. That is called good planning.
but i am sure that a 90 metre tram is more important than 300 metre train .yes well done.
@Rory W wrote:
…
The example of Sandyford is given as to “Oh my God It’s 23 stories tall” – it’s hardly a ghetto at Beacon South Quarter, people want to live there because it’s in the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area and has the Luas link to the city centre. …As a northern line commuter the spur to the airport off the Dart line is a non runner – the line is at capacity already at peak time and this would only make things worse (particularly when the interconnector is finished). The only way that a decent link to the airport is created (a la Heathrow) is to build the metro – don’t forget it is possible to run express metros to the airport as well.
Firstly the reason i object to the sandyford towers is because 2000 appartments have been granted, (roughly 1500 more were sought), and only 200 hundred of these are appropriate for one child families. Lots of shops are being built. But no school and no park . No tennis court , No running track. Only a PRIVATE gym. This is not building a community.
If a substantial park was built and 10 million invested into expanding the three primary/secondary schools , i would welcome a hundred storey tower or four, with space for a few thousand single people and a few thousand families. This location would be ideal.
Regards the northern line. This factually incorrect. The interconnector adds 75 million extra spaces to the network. The northern line is held back by congestion which the docklands station halves, and the interconnector removes completely. If these were built in tandem with an airport spur, there would be space to add the same capacity to the airport as the underground tram (25 million) AND add 50 million to the rest of the network. And while the tram will not be able to be further updgraded, the rail network will still have the potential to double capacity again in 5 decades. This means an eight carriage dart for 2500 people every 2 minutes against two trams stuck together for 600 every 2 minutes.
Thomond the airport to busaras time on the bus will be 14 minutes. This was ignored by the consultants who examined the case for the underground tram.
We need the real metro (interconnector) which allows for high frequency on all four routes into the city (instead of metro north one route). We need this because each service on the interconnector can allow for 2500 people instead of 600. We need the interconnector because from the start it allows for four minutes frequencies, and can be double again in fifty years. We need a network of 6/7 tram lines connecting to this very high capacity backbone network. We need 2 tram lines running north south from swords to tallagh(via terenure) and bray (via dundrum). We need an orbital tram outside the m50. and we need two east west trams, one on the north side one on the south side.
The interconnector is so much better by leaps and bounds (ie four routes to the city centre with four minutes frequency services and 2500 people a go) backed up by a network of trams at five minute frequencies and 300-600 people a go. and in turn backed up by buses at variable frequency at 50 -100 people a go.
You see this makes sense . Building an underground tram in the least populated part of the city , where a third of the route can’t be built on , is retarded. Furthermore it’s slower than the bus (we just built a bus metro system with the port tunnel) . Furthermore the patronage expected to the airport which will form the financial bedrock for the first decade won’t materialise because people don’t like lugging their luggage around and the bus is ten minutes quicker.
QUICK QUESTION am i the only engineer ? Because if this is the case i can smugly confirm you don’t know what you are talking about. GOOD day.
you are absolutely right about the ratp. but you did forget to mention ,that they go on strike . You when it’s little isabelle communion. or they had a late night . Or they just neeeeeeeeeed a break.
competing agencies ought to be a really good thing, if their was a transport minister who could take decisions. And there is the nub , all the transport decisions affect bertie’s constituency directly or indirectly.
So while brennan seemed to be competent ( he reorganised the road contracts so that the price thats named is the final price) his hands were tied behind is back . no interconnector / because that means no metro for the next 7 years. Do NOTHING with aer lingus and of course do NOTHING with aer rianta (it still exists! ).
Then he was switched for actually thinking he could decide what happened to aer lingus , and was replaced with cartoon character of a minister.
You have definitely hit the nail on the head. I would hope the next administration would bring in a toiseach not dependant on that constituency.
@LOB wrote:
If it is Aldborough House, I see a planning permission was lodged earlier this month to convert it into a 40 bedroom ”Day Hospital Medical Care Facility”.
details/drawings here
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2569/06&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=266613%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20ResultsIf you look under view documents there are some scanned drawings
damn , that was to be my dublin gaff. it is a bit selfish to expect me to get sick to stay there, frankly.
Thomond Park wrote:As has been stated many times by users of the line the Luas cannot handle current volumes from Miltown inbound at peak times]Thanks for supporting my argument there Thomond . The housing development has outpaced the provision of transport capacity. Now multiply the capacity by ten .
Then take the route and for a third of ban any development (airport exlusion zone) ,
then take another third and ohh it is already largely developped — oooh like ranelagh and charlemont.
then take the last third and ooohhh there a spot for a 40 storey , thanks very much. cash back !
As you have just said there is an explosion of developement south of dundrum. How can you see that and then say that the development in swords will be restrained to 4-7 storeys ? when metro capacity is provided? To make the metro work you need to add a hundred thousand people give or take a few tens of thousands. where will they go ?
Wait —- — hang on — are you smoking something ?
Thomond Park wrote:That is absolute rubbish]No i don’t think so. the tram resulted in office plans for the industrial estate being shelved and replaced with very intense housing development. I think i am right in saying that three applications for tower blocks went in (one 15 storey , one 23, and another inbetween) in ballinteer gort mhuire’s application included a ten storey block. This was adjacent to 2 storey terraced houses.
The route that the dart takes was always developped with medium intensity, and it was mostly developped before the dart started. What has happened in dundrum and in swords is a huge number of semids . These can only be balanced in terms of high rise. So there will be more extremes. To see how correct this is we shall have to wait for the census to come out.
Now dundrum hasn’t turned into a ghetto, far from it. In fact it has never looked better (for the most part). But there is a whole leap between a capacity of 3 thousand and 30 thousand an hour a direction.
in any event it is plain common sense to build a network of 6/7 trams across the whole city (including one to swords). instead of one concentrated metro north route.
okaaaay you seem to be ignoring or not listening . whether its a metro or a tram makes no difference to the speed. ( the bus will be faster into the city by the way) but is it’s a metro you will be overshadowed by a fourty tower block .
I do understand wanting improvements to transport, i think you are being very naive about the consequences of a metro. If the metro can take 30000 per hour per direction. It will need to take at least 20/25 thousand to pay for itself. do you want that level of development? Are there enough greens spaces as it is ? are there enough corners newsagents as it is. Are there enough schools? i doubt it.
You are welcoming the most intensive development in the country with open arms , which baffles me. You are also ignoring that for the price of this metro you could build a tram following the same route (with same speed , at 4/minute frequencies) , a main heavy rail link to the airport. and 2or possibly three more trams lines on the north side alone. This would spread the devopment pressure across the whole of the northside. Maybe you like high rise living. Maybe you have faith in the planning system. Maybe lessons have been learnt from the high rise ballymun , the scattered tallaght, and the joke liffey valley. I think you are nuts!!
@KerryBog2 wrote:
The tower blocks, the transport works!
KByou won’t get middle income people to raise families in tower blocks unless you ‘spoil’ them ! you need parks (proper one) schools , a new hospital. nice old buildings restored, sports facilities ,gyms … the list is endless. And if you don’t get middle income families to raise their children in these tower blocks (that WILL come), it won’t work well. You could either have these block filled with immigrants which means riots of some description in the future. Or a dead town with people completely retiring into their world at night. This happens in la defense and as a consequence is expremely dangerous at night. Or the IFSC on a small city scale. Which is what swords WILL turn into.
Tower blocks can be great but like everything else they need to be done properly . However a tower block is a bigger bet.
It not unrealistic to expect housing for 150 thousand people to be added , over a thirty year period. Thats cork. And because of the airports exclusion zone most of this will need to be squeezed in around swords.
