SeamusOG
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@ctesiphon wrote:
I’d say you could stick to the northside, alonso. I don’t recognise it from the Grand Canal, but I’m not certain of that either- there’s a couple I’d need to check.
What’s the nearest one to Mountjoy? Prospect Road?
This one is a puzzle. I think there’s towpath almost directly adjacent to the Royal Canal at least the whole way in from Broombridge to the North Strand – in some cases sharing the bridge with the canal (i.e. under the road). The Grand Canal has less of a recognised towpath in parts, so I’d be inclined to think that’s where it is. On the other hand, it’s more hump-backed bridge territory, and there is a bit more variety of bridges along the Royal, so it might be along that one.:confused:
@Rory W wrote:
Well if the interconnector is to (a) loop around the south City centre serving Pearse and onwards to Heuston and (b) meet with Luas and the metro then surely St Stephen’s Green makes sense for a stop. I can’t see what the problem is here Seamus?
Well is it to loop around the south city centre? What was the problem with the original route proposed in the DRRTS study (which involved a line running from Connolly to Heuston that did not serve Pearse and did not loop around the south city centre)? Or some other route?
There must surely be a number of ways that a line can be built across the city between the Northern line and the Kildare line, connecting with the LUAS (as it is linked up) and with the metro (as it is built).
I suspect that it was possibly illegal for the RPA to refer to the proposed metro station at St. Stephen’s Green as being a connection point to the proposed interconnector (in the document relating to the three possible routes), given that there has been no consultation about the much higher capacity line. However, unlike the M3 protestors, I would not have the resources to test this out.:(
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Because its still 9 years away at best Seamus, with many worried that it will never happen at all.
Obviously all the usual hoops will have to be jumped for such a major project, with full public consultation etc.I’ve heard several radio interviews with the heads of IE & RPA saying they are in close consultation re the hub at Stephen’s Green, you have to assume that this is the case.
I do assume that this is the case.
So when does the consultation with the general public occur about the various options for our highest capacity line?
@alonso wrote:
the interconnector is at an extremely early stage, and the reopening of Broadstone may be regarded as a political tactic to render it unnecessary. there are no route options at this stage. however as Metro North proceeds they will have to design in the interconnector from the outset
A proposed route map has been produced by Irish Rail at a number of presentations. However, this has never been presented to the general public. It is vital that this proposed route, and other options which could also be feasible, should be presented to the public for consultation.
Based on the FACT that the interconnector will be a line with a much higher capacity than the metro, I think it’s a pity that we don’t see it as follows: “As the interconnector proceeds, they will have to design in the metro from the outset.”
That statement would make a lot more sense to me.:(
The main justification for the line is to provide 2 continuous DART lines through the city centre. Balbriggan to Kildare, and Maynooth to Greystones. The current north south alignment will be severed in the city, and cross cty journeys that you do in one today will require interchange underT21
Obviously I understand what the interconnector is intended to achieve. But we had public consultation about the LUAS link-up, the metro north, the original LUAS, LUAS extensions, etc. Why must the highest capacity line ever proposed in this country be routed through St. Stephen’s Green without proper discussion?
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
I think its fairly well accepted that the interconnector will travel through south city with stations at high street / christ church, st. stephen’s green, pearse and on to spencer.
Do you think it is fairly well accepted? I would be interested to know what you base this on. It can certainly not be based on discussion of the line among the general public, as I suspect many people are unaware of the entire proposal. Even the Irish Rail website makes almost no mention of the project.
Whether or not the proposed alignment is the correct one, it is important that the proposed route should be discussed by the public in a public consultation process, along with other possible routes.
I’ve certainly never seen any variation on that alignment.
Alternative alignments were suggested long before the currently proposed alignment appeared. I suggest you look at the DRRTS report of the 1970’s to inform yourself of just one of the other options.
Under the Government’s Transport 21 blueprint St Stephen’s Green will become one of Dublin’s main transport hubs as a junction for Luas and Metro services as well as the rail interconnector which will link the city’s main shopping area with Heuston Station and the new Spencer Dock station which opened earlier this week.
I find this all very odd.
At no stage has there been any public consultation about the proposed interconnector.
No invitation for views about the proposed line, and no consultation about the merits of a number of possible routes across the city.
As the main original justification for proposing the line was that it would relieve the bottleneck at Connolly Station – a situation which has now been dealt with to a large extent by the presence of the Docklands Station – I find it amazing that we are being led to believe that this can only be achieved by building the proposed interconnector through St. Stephen’s Green.
There must be other options. And as it’s a very important line, the public should get a chance to see those options and make their views known.
A nice idea tommyt.:) Though today’s health and safety regulations might not allow it.:(
I was talking to a couple of workers down there a few days ago.
They’re a firm that are doing exploratory work on the status of the river bed, etc. Once this has been done, Mr C. and his bridge-building team can get cracking.
At the time I was passing, the river bed was about 11 metres below the surface at that point (and at that time of day), according to the marks on their little platform. (I’d guess that was about 13-14 metres below the level of the road at the location of the platform (ca. the Ferryman). They told me there was then about another 5-6 metres of silt and boulder clay below this, before they were hitting bedrock.
It could all be some time yet before the bridge is built.
I realise it’s probably a bit late now to make a useful contribution to this thread.:(
But the building was originally called Ansley House – in case that helps in searching for information about it.
@manifesta wrote:
Here’s a question that’s been bugging me for I don’t know how long. Can anyone explain why certain streets in Dublin are numbered with adjacent houses in sequential order (1, 2, 3, 4 all on the same side of the street) while most (those that ‘run normally’) have all the odds on one side and the evens on the other?
I’ve never been able to figure out any pattern or logic to the numbering and it seems an (er, sorry) odd thing to have both patterns existing within the same city. Is this variance at all unique to Dublin or has anyone noticed this elsewhere? The only possible logical explanation I could muster was that the numbering system has to do with when the street was developed, but even so. . . I’m stumped.
And it doesn’t stop there.
There’s say, the Lower Leeson Street pattern, which goes 1-ca. 50 from the Green up to the kiosk, then ca. 50-ca. 100 back from the canal to the Green on the other side. And the all-odd/all-even option. Both of which you mention.
Then on Lower Mount Street, the numbers start on the southern side of the street at the Merrion Square/Holles Street End and go sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) up as far as the canal (around number 45/50, I think). Then it’s back to the Holles Street end, where the numbers go (for example) 50,51, 52 all the way back to the canal.:confused:
There may be others.
As far as I know there does not seem to be a pattern. What an interesting city!:)
One of the problems here is the height of the station relative to the rest of the city.
If the Broadstone line (to/from the canal) were to be reopened for a metro or a LUAS line, it would be necessary for either of these to either head underground before the station, or entirely away from the station, if they are to continue to travel in towards the city and maybe across it.
The gradients involved would quite simply not allow such lines to enter the station building and then continue further into the city.
As far as I can see, the only situation in which the building itself would be used is as a mainline/metro/LUAS terminus.
If cross-city metro/LUAS lines are eventually to be part of the overall plan, the Broadstone station building will play no part, though the line to/from Broadstone hopefully will. It is probably time to look seriously at alternative uses for this fine building.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
IE maintain that Connolly does not have the capacity for the additional traffic the interconnector would bring & so are routing it through Spencer Dock which given the expansion of the city to the east & now the go ahead for the conference centre seems like an ok decision to me…
Connolly in its current guise, with only overground services possible, would not enable the capacity increase which the interconnector would bring. IE are correct about that.
But they originally proposed an underground line which would have gone under Amiens Street, through Temple Bar and on to Heuston. This was proposed in the 1970’s, so with improved tunnelling techniques such a line should be a doddle in the modern day. That could connect rather nicely with the LUAS link-up/the Metro somewhere around Westmoreland Street. And given that the proposed tunnel is, apparently to be built to accomodate 12-carriage trains, a connection with Tara Street should also be very feasible.
It’s true that there is a certain amount of development going on in the east of the city. But the current centre of the city is already developed, and is always going to be a more popular destination than Spencer Dock or the area around it. Yet the proposed route will make this area more difficult to get to, for people who can currently travel on the northern DART line to Tara Street.
The solution, as far as I can see, is to build the line along the originally proposed route. That way:
1) you bring people directly to Connolly, and those who wish to go to Spencer Dock change onto the LUAS. I suggest that this would suit more people than the proposal that the line gets built to Spencer Dock and those who wish to go to the area around Connolly have to change onto the LUAS. The relative popularity of the two locations should become clear once the red line is extended to the Point. And apparently, because of the gradients involved in going under the river close to Spencer Dock, it looks like there will be a not inconsiderable walk to get from train to tram at the location, making it quite difficult to get to Connolly. On the other hand, this need not be the case at Connolly, as the underground station could be below the level of the river some considerable distance before even arriving at Connolly, so changing to get to Spencer Dock (or Abbey/O’Connell Street) should be quite easy.
2) Tara Street is currently a busier station than Pearse Station, indicating greater popularity. By building the line along the originally proposed route, people could go directly to Tara Street, as they currently can (though they would be doing so underground). That way, you bring people to Tara Street and those who wish to travel to Pearse would change. This is a better arrangement than one where people who wish to get to Tara Street would have to change at Pearse.
3) I believe that the link-up will show that the LUAS stations in and around Westmoreland Street will be more popular (i.e. greater passenger numbers getting on or off) than the station at St. Stephen’s Green. If the line were built as originally proposed, this could be catered for by bringing people directly to the Westmoreland Street area, and those who wish to go to St. Stephen’s Green would change. In my opinion, this would be better than the currently proposed arrangement where the line goes to St. Stephen’s Green and people who want to go to the Westmoreland Street area would have to change.
The originally proposed line would be some distance shorter than the current proposal, so you’d expect that it would be cheaper to build. And it looks to me like it would suit more people – though perhaps not Treasury Holdings. I’m interested to see than IE still have an interest in Spencer Dock – I thought they had sold the whole site to Treasury. But it might help explain why they ditched the original plan.
It’s interesting to see that Irish Rail are still involved down there. That might help to explain their keenness for routing the proposed “interconnector” through the location.
I wonder just how closely they’ve looked at route options which do not go through Spencer Dock.
I recall there was a proposed underground route between Connolly and Heuston in the mid 70’s. We haven’t heard much about that in recent years. Irish Rail’s continued involvement in Spencer Dock might help to explain that.
City to get conference centre on banks of the Liffey
IT’S been a long time coming but now a glass-fronted newcomer is set to upstage its neighbours on the Liffey and become a landmark on the Dublin skyline.
The five levels of conference rooms, exhibition and banqueting space, and the 2,000-seat auditorium of the National Conference Centre have been much heralded over the past few years.
The UCD-educated architect who created the blueprint for the building admitted he had high aims in mind.
A “legacy” building was Pritzker prize-winning Kevin Roche’s aim – one which would be as iconic as the Four Courts and the Custom House.
The €400m project had been mired in planning issues, but permission has finally been granted and diggers are already standing by on the 81-acre site.
Milestone
Arts Minister John O’Donoghue said that yesterday’s signing of the contract with the Spencer Dock International Conference Centre Consortium, involving Treasury Holdings, businessman Harry Crosbie and Irish Rail, was a “milestone” for Irish tourism.
The NCC, to be located on the banks of the Liffey at Spencer Dock, will be less than half a mile from O’Connell Street and is expected to be completed by 2010.
The centre, boasting 22 meeting rooms, will accommodate up to 8,000 delegates.
Under the public-private partnership agreement, the consortium have signed up to design, build and finance the centre and will also operate it for a quarter of a century.
During this time it is expected to reap €380m, before the building then reverts to the ownership of the State.
Tourism chiefs have already started taking bookings, with the centre expected to be opening its doors for business in 2010.
Business tourism, including conference travel, is worth €475m to the Irish economy each year, according to Failte Ireland estimates.
Economy
The NCC is expected to be a moneyspinner for the economy, with estimated earnings of up to €50m a year.
Last night tourism and business interests welcomed the awarding of the contract.
Failte Ireland chair Gillian Bowler said Ireland would now be able to compete among the best to attract lucrative events here.
“I am particularly pleased that such a striking and innovative design has been selected, which will enhance the Liffey scape for generations to come,” she said.
The Irish Hotels Federation said that the facility would help the country attract a larger share of the €40bn global conference market.
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce said that the announcement came at a critical time, given the loss of venues such as Jurys Ballsbridge, which had over 850 conference seats.
Louise Hogan
Whatever else can be said about the project, it’s not less than half a mile away from O’Connell Street.:rolleyes:
@ctesiphon wrote:
PS PVCKing- will Leinster play in Lansdowne? The always entertaining Ryle Nugent refers to Donnybrook as ‘The Home of Leinster Rugby’- will it not always be so? I mean, if this decision has taught us nothing else, it’s that Irish rugby is motivated above all else by sentimental nostalgia.
I think Leinster will be playing most of their bigger home games in the RDS, capacity ca. 15-20,000, when it is redeveloped. At least until Donnybrook is redeveloped to a capacity of about 11-12,000.
I’m not sure I like the idea of incorporating that strip of land along the Dodder into the new development. I’m surprised that no alternative could be found to doing this.
@GrahamH wrote:
Here’s another quick (or not) one.
Quick. Ha.:confused: 😀
Time for a clue perhaps? (Maybe you could tell us if it is on the northside or the southside).
I’ve a feeling it might be in a park. I don’t know why.
ctesiphon wrote:In theory, knowing the orientation of a street and examining the line of the shadows cast should be sufficient to determine the time a photo was taken. If you project back from a shadow to the object casting the shadow, this will give the exact position of the sun. (If it can be done from two separate points, the answer will be even more accurate due to triangulation.) The sun is only ever in precisely the same position twice a year, at either side of the longest/shortest days- Dec 20th = Dec 22nd]
Thanks very much, ctesiphon, for your answer. Very informative.If O’Connell Street is a north-south street, which it broadly[ is though it may be at a slight angle, then Cavendish Row would run in a slightly north-west to south-east direction.
