admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
those from the libertarian economic sect don’t believe that big gov investment in public transport is effective.
though they’re a bit subdued at the moment since their charismatic messiah Alan Grreedspan vapourised most of the US banks.
not that they see it that way apparently it was George W’s fault for applying communist and unamerican arab type economic policies.
I have this on reliable authority from Sarah Palin
This is far from ideological
I just don’t see how anyone can be expceted to take the above cost benefit analysis in such a redacted form as being credible
A true Cost benefit analysis would be
Number of passengers = Fares per year – minus Cost of operation & Costs of finance = net cost per passenger carried
Taking seperate spurs to the airport and Swords as the viable alternative which is credible post interconnector which would cost £1,550m less then Metro North clearly does not stack up.
No report written in 2003 with every meaningful number contained therein removed from public view can justify this to even the most ardent gricer. That is even forgetting just how altered the set of assumptions are; development contributions you can’t be serious in this climate. Not to mention the revenue share that would need to occur in an intergrated ticketing regime which would if based on milage give metro north an average of say 20% of the fare on most journey’s
Agreed
The vista downriver from O’Connell Bridge is complicated enough by the loopline without adding another bridge which in any event would be of limited use given the usage of Marlborough Street by Northside buses which drop off there before picking up on Abbey Street or Eden Quay.
I do however wish to congratulate DCC on their improvements to bus movements on the North South Axis to get from Upper Leeson St to Dublin Airport at 10am in 30 minutes is impressive; and clearly indicates that their QBC schemes are working like a dream!
Agreed
Stick to core business
A real pity they put together a damn efficient supply chain and whilst some may not like some of their earlier work; I have no doubt that the Dublin inner Apartment market would have been unlikely to deliver critical mass as quickly as it did in 1994/95 without Zoe.
I really hope that a long term view can be taken on this; the Zoe model of affordable high density City Centre apartments is exactly what could be a major part of the solution in a couple of years when existing supply overhang is dispersed into the market.
I disagree in that if a permission simply expired with so many live permissions in existance that developers would simply concentrate on the live permissions that they had.
What this will do is give an impression that a permission secured now may stay live for a period exceeding 5 years, if I am right then there will be more speculative applications. The real problem in the system at present is securing the finance for the construction phase which will resolve itself as soon as strock overhangs begin to clear, which hopefully will not be too long in the major urban centres.
No question that some projects will be built that will be dated and bland as a result of this change. The real purpose of this is to keep valuations of development land at ‘with FPP’ levels in the short term. This was not just prudent but necessary given the amount of development land that is leveraged.
I would however say that banks will play the key role in deciding which of these permissions actually get built. You get the feeling that whilst relationships will remain important that banks will be a lot more selective of what development finance they extend and will be looking to see a big uplift in value between existing use and proposed development. i.e. full redevelopment of cleared sites at transport nodes will secure preference over densification of existing uses.
I strongly hope this encourages more work for architects and planners as developers and funders are able to look at new permutations with the comfort of a longer timeline.
Thanks
Section 27 (1) a (ii) is possibly the wooliest wording I’ve ever seen in my life but would be very difficult to disprove that someone was suffering from any of those issues
This has to be good for architects and planners
@ac1976 wrote:
I’m not convinced, that is definitely the reason they are locating the surface turnback facility at the Inchicore Works.
To move the Intervention shaft and build a station under Grattan Park would actually remove the need to CPO someones back garden and a part of an office carpark.
So the current proposal has not exactly been concerned with CPO’ing.
Grattan Park is owned by DCC and would be reinstated anyway.You would need to CPO ground under a lot of ownerships to do a station in Grattan Park; I’m not saying that if it were greenfield you were talking about that it wouldn’t be the thing to do but diverting the alignment is not the real answer.
I also don’t agree that all you would get at Inchicore works is a turnback look at the link below in aeriel mode
There is buckets of room and the adjoining ownerships are all low bay 1980’s industrial buildings which are reaching the end of their useful functional life which is perfect development land as the land is already serviced.
The reason they can deliver a station at the works is that they own what will be a completely clear piece of land. There are no issues of having to acquire the land and go through the CPO process compensating each individual landowner.
The opportunity this offers is public transport c10 -15 minutes walk from Kilmainham Village and a large development site to create a new urban quarter that provides additional passenger loadings for the system.
25 Years after Dart came to Dublin it seems it is now coming close to Kilmainham
@marmjam wrote:
just for that I’m cancelling the interconnector indefinitely and using the money to build a 2nd metro line from Galway to Inishmore.
😀 Don’t forget to terminate it at eyre square now won’t ya !
Or just build two seperate spurs to the Airport and Swords off the Northern line saving €1,550m plus
30 minutes by Bus from the Airport to the Burlington at 630pm hardly a sign that current arrangements are flawed
AC1976
I know your estate it is a very intact vernacular set piece; something that is quite rare and definitely worthy of preservation. I do not however accept that developing a medium density planned scheme on the CIE works is incompatable with retaining the character of where you live. I would offer two different reasons
1. Havelock Square D4 has seen two quite sizeable developments done on either side firstly Liam Carroll’s masterpiece conversion of the gas cylender and secondly Landsdowne Rd stadium. The locals are far from complaining once the disturbance phase ended on the former gas site and will complain more about concerts thereafter than the structure!
2. Inchicore works are a Sevesco site one of very few outside port areas in Ireland.
Yes there will be construction distrubance for a decade but the quality of life will be ultimately much higher once you gain access to both a great public transport link and buckets of public open space in the redeveloped Sevesco site. You will find a much better retail and community offer in a redevelopment than Kilmainham will ever get organically as Kilmainham will always be that little bit bohemian.
@marmajam wrote:
hmm, I see.
very very cunning.
So MN will tippytoe past Drumcondra so nobody spots it.
Then sneak past LUAS Red at O’Connell bridge to avoid having to collect any of the Tallaght-ban and,
viciously hide behind the trees in St Stephen’s Green so none of the Goys on the Green line even dream there is a connection.You obviously don’t see an issue with city centre termini, i hope you have nothing to do with transport planning.
Ciaran Cuffe in the late 1990’s talked about a branch from Sandymount to Liffey Junction (just beyond Phibsboro) as the issue to be resolved was the blockage of the loopline with extended Maynooth and Drogheda services; that was pre-interconnector. The reality is that you would depending on where the interconnector portalls are located route Heuston – Spencer Dock – Phibsboro utilising the proposed Interconnector tunnel. The question is do the portalls hit surface before the the northern spur from the freight lines breaks from the connection to the Drumcondra branch i.e. the branch that runs along the railway end of croke park (the canal branch being the southern of two lines that goes to Liffey Junction)
The real cost of MN are the additional stations at Stephens Green, O’C st, Mater etc. Building underground stations are seriously expensive which makes that alignment hard to justify; that is why I think it is easy enough to Justify
Heuston – Interchange with National Rail for the West, Midlands and South
Christchurch – Civic District – Legal and Dublin City Council
Stephens Green – Interchange with Luas – Retail Core – Major Office hub
Pearse – Interchange with DART – TCD
Spencer Dock – Interchange Red Luas & National Rail – Major Office Hub – Development Land BankThe Airport section has been costed by I.E. at least as recently as 2003
Connecting Swords is as you rightly point out entirely speculative but given the short distance between an existing rail line and the proposed MN routing filling in the blanks should be easy enough on the basis of
1. Clear route
2. Proven alignment back to Swords
3. Simply removing Malahide Darts from Northern line in a slight route extension.Excluding the Airport there is nothing North of Drumcondra that would stretch a Luas line in terms of passenger demand
If you studied the 2003 plan you would know that the Airport connection broke south of Malahide call it spur 1 – it could terminate at Terminal 2 access to which is not difficult as it wouldn’t need to cross runways etc.
A Swords extension from the existing line would break north of Broadmeadow Estuary and simply involve existing services going through 2kms of open country before taking the proposed MN alignment back onto the edge of Swords say just in from Seatown roundabout
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen’s Green seem slightly less crazy.
Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.
Totally agree
It is very recent angle being spun, lets milk the full potential of the interconnector derived new capacity to make a glorified Luas line seem like the central spine of the network.
If a passenger lived in Drumcondra and were offered a four stop solution to Stepens Green of Course they would use it; if the same passenger were offered an interchange at Spencer Dock to the airport of course they would use it.
The only difference between MN and Interconnector is that MN at a cost of c€2bn stops at DCU, Ballymun and Swords whereas full implementation of the 2003 IE Dublin rail plan element to the Airport would add €200-300m, to build a spur through Lissenhall to Swords extending Malahide Dart would add maybe €150m and on top of a higher capacity solution would give the same park and ride options as well as a route into the open country of North County Dublin.
What is the fixation with Metro North?
DCU Student population c8,000
Ballymun population less than 20,000You need at least five stations on 10m p.a.x. or else 50-60 stations to make a €2bn expenditure stack up; look at the Port tunnel it cost €800m and took virtually all HGV’s ouut of the city centre. The top slice of this project of at least €1,550m serves 8,000 students, 20,000 people in Ballymun and 3-bed semi land in Griffith Ave.
A full grade seperation north of Malahide would stop Darts crossing on the northern line; adding even more capacity; Swords could have Dart!
@marmajam wrote:
define ‘single metro line’
Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen’s Green seem slightly less crazy.
@cgcsb wrote:
since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?
Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.
@marmajam wrote:
And while the IC will have a hugely radical effect on the DART system it doesn’t actually service any new areas which is one of the main advantages of MN. Public transport, to get people out of their cars has to have a rail core to it. So MN with it’s interlinking elements would be more important IMO.
The interconnector will have a far greater impact on the entire city and its commuter belt than a single ‘metro’ line. It will finally break the blinkered vision of a single line transport axis that stunts its own potential by terminating at the city centre.
DART Underground will open up the western suburbs to the rest of the city and vice versa, connecting the far reaches of the west, north and south city suburbs via the city centre. In many ways it allows public transport to compete with and offer a viable alternative to the M50, as crudely attempted by the nonsense that was metro west.
New stations at Docklands, St. Stephen’s Green, Christ Church, Inchicore, Park West, Clondalkin, Kishogue, Adamstown – Two Dart lines, Hazlehatch to Balbriggan, Maynooth to Greystones, in excess of 60 stations across the city, multiple journeys possible; integrated, reliable public transport.
This project has been on the list long before the RPA and metro north came along, it should be constructed asap, and if it is a case of one or the other given current constraints, I know which one I’d pick.
Do IE have footfall counters at their stations?
It is always a good indicator looking at Kings Cross hitting 60m pax last year to understand complex interchange; you start to understand how complex true rail hubs can get and the development potential they create. There really is something about a history of rail in a location and the ability of locals not to object becuase they actually use the service themselves and do not wish to preserve 3 bed semi as the urban ideal.
You also wonder how hard it would be for a commuter to consider 3 stops on the Maynooth line and an interchange at Pearse to hit Stephens Green or a Pace train terminating at Spencer Dock before heading to Airport to be difficult.
