admin

@alonso wrote:

The basic question is are we prepared to take the pill required to deliver transport infrastructure. Is Dublin willing to do what Boston did? We’re focussed on the Green here, but all along the route of both currently proposed metros and other luas lines, people will face chaos for the best part of 5 years each. What is the alternative? Not just for this location, but for the City as a whole.

The alternative is to future proff the project by moving the end of the current line away from the central business district to a selected inner most suburb where retail and office activities will not be effected by the thousands of movements of spoil.

The alternative is to select a site which has no heritage or tourist value such as Mount Pleasant Park, Cathal Brugha Barracks or Harolds Cross Hospice.

The alternative is to ensure that he other section of the green doesn’t have to excavated in 10-15 years time when the line is extended.

The alternative is to extend the length of planning control where development contributions and higher densities can be leveraged.

This project is nothing compared to Boston’s big dig; it is a simple narrow gauge underground line; the DLR underground if you will and the costs of extending it a mile or so are less than nothing but the externalities of pursuing this version will be significant damage to the retail core for three years whilst the Mount Anvil brigade go to Dundrum instead as they have no where to be seen on a sunny day.

I mentioned this to my partner and her reaction was only in Dublin

I agree with much of the above save that the pond and bridge will be obliterated if a diagonal alignment is followed. To me the unique qualities of the green are two areas; the centre of the park in formal style which has been done ad infinitum elsewhere; secondly the miniture Serpentine stretching from the Shelbourne to the Fusilliers arch which gives all the flavour of its larger Hyde Park inspiration in a much more urban setting.

The former could be mapped out, fittings removed and reinstated reasonably easily; the latter could not and the collection of mature trees is irreplaecable for its honest authenticity. I cannot believe that the RPA are proposing this it is quite simply unacceptable for a state body to propose the destruction of the premier public space in the city to save a few euros.

This solution not only destroys the authenticity of the finest city park but also puts thousands of trucks a month into the core of the central business district which will add congestion and nullify much of the benefit of the highly successful Dublin Port Tunnel for a period of years.

The only acceptable solution is that the tunnel surface somewhere in the region of the Grand Canal be it an available greenfield site in either Ranelagh, Rathmines or Harolds Cross, of course this will involve additional cost but it will give impetus to a further expansion of the network and safegaurd one of the major tourist draws to the city. We need a metro that is capable of expansion and not one that will involve the destruction of the Green twice in 10-15 years, no city can afford that type of disruption right at its core.

@CutePanda wrote:

A) The construction footprint is tiny compared to the massive engineering involved. The RPA and CIE deserve praise for keep about 80% of the Green open to the public.

Temporary closure or restricted access during construction is not the fucking point, as stated ad nauseum. Its about the significant & permanent alteration of a landscape set piece as laid out by A.E. Guinness circa 1880, that has matured in tandem, without significant interference.

@CutePanda wrote:

B) McDonald has been anti metro from day one and this stinks of sour grapes. He was anti-Luas and wanted it underground in the city centre, now 8 years later he is against underground railways and wants more tracks on streets.

I don’t agree with McDonald’s stance on ‘Metro’, save to say that if your going to go to the trouble of constructing tunnels capable of accommodating an actual metro type system, you might want to put something a little better than a glorified luas in it. An actual metro travelling @ 120kph, nothing too difficult to achieve, would reach O’Connell Street in 6 minutes.

@CutePanda wrote:

C) The Nostalgia Nazis in this country are still trying to hold us back.

This nazi grouping obviously now includes me, now perhaps that is actually a little OTT.

@CutePanda wrote:

D) Dublin need this more for the future well being of the city, more so than harking back to the legacy of the days of powdered wigs

Of course it does, despite the lack of ambition embedded in metro north. There are alternatives.

@CutePanda wrote:

E) Everything will be replaced as it was before and amazingly enough I have been told that trees can grow again.

Obviously the aesthetic benefit derived from a 120 year+ maturation process means nothing to you.

@Cute Panda wrote:

The title of this thread is so OTT and inflamatory – it should be rebanded to ‘Metro/Interconnector Works’ without the OP hysterical editorial swing based on a IT article written by a person who does not need to take public transport to work.

If as a result of these works, substantial felling in the affected areas of the green is necessary, coupled with the introduction of several above ground installations, it is reasonable to suggest that the integrity of the green as set out in 1880 will in fact be destroyed.

Excellent 🙂 thanks for update Devin.

@alonso wrote:

why is it ok to dig the crap out of an educational facility that caters for almost 20,000 people but not a park that caters for far less and on a voluntary basis ie people don’t work or attend it for college?

Because its large recreation space can be reinstated exactly as is & can easily be accessed from nassau st. I’m talking college park here, not the entirety of its 47 acres. Never mind the benefit to trinity of having the best transport links possible, the city would have a centrally located transport hub, with entrances from north, south, east & west. In any case it was a suggestion as a possible alternative & obviously not likely.

I’d like to see foot fall through the green in one year, i’d suggest far in excess of 20k stop to enjoy its peace, & a multiple pass through.

Its not about temporary closure of the green, if they said it was to be closed in full for whatever number of years & will re open without its integrity destroyed, i’d say ok, we need the metro. That is not what the the RPA & IE are proposing to do.

If you think my ‘wailing’ is ott, grand.

@gunter wrote:

If that is the argument, what are the alternative locations?

Trinity’s large green spaces has crossed my mind, i know they’d most likely have a fit which perhaps could be appeased by an investment package – they would have to be compensated in some way for the temporary loss of recreation space.

Centering both metro north & interconnector around trinity would allow for entrances from college green, nassau, pearse and westland row with a link up to luas if that bloody bx line is constructed. There’s nothing easier to reinstate than grass.

As said, metro north should at least continue to a green space south of the canal to allow for future expansion with minimal disruption, but then that might just make too much sense to the rpa.

I really can’t believe they are running with this design; it is clear that should they build a perfect loop that the line will never be extended beyond this point.

I know there is a tight fiscal backdrop at present but this really is shortsightedness of the highest order and I have no doubt that this will unite every conservationist that hasn’t talked for years.

Is this a deliberate effort on the part of the RPA to delay the project two years whilst the revised application goes through ABP and blame the conservation lobby so that funds can continue to be diverted into the motorway programme?

Both could qualify for the Dublin vista’s thread, for the love of God, was no consideration given to what the arches might frame ??? well obviously not, don’t even know why i’m asking 😡

At least we might get somebody that actually knows the city & has some semblance of an idea of what the city actually needs;

Compare & contrast with random utterings from many a transport minister, may i sight martin cullen as an example, spouting shite about an interconnector & connectivity when its clear he has no clue as to what it is, what it will do or how much it will cost.

I was bemused to hear Brian Cowen declare as part of his budget speech that ‘next year the m50 toll bridge will have four lanes in each direction’ … it already has four lanes both ways, that is not the issue, the god damn plaza is.

Rural ministers in particular, do not have a clue about Dublin & its problems.

If things are going arse ways in Dubin, at least we could pin the tail on a directly elected mayor, its fairly difficult to pin anything on 15 double speaking government donkeys.

@Graham H wrote:

Very elegant facade treatment, if the arrangement of footprints a bit weird in this view. A wider selection of imagery would probably reveal all.

Does this mean the curvy side bit will get the same facing treatment? I can’t seem to match the two.

Is this a completely new design ? like Graham, i can’t square it with the old curvy job (pardon pun), if not, what side are we looking at here ! ? Quite like it btw.