![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cathair Bhaile Átha Cliath
Posts: 199
|
![]() www.independent.ie
Quote:
![]() Now I know all about the PPT or the 'The Ghost Line' (never heard of that term before) and RUI/P11 campaign (one of the first) to use this for the Commuter service and I this my full support. However, going by this report, it looks like to me that RUI are (in some way) Anti-Interconnector, that it shouldn't be built and that the PPT should be used instead. This is the first time the figure of €2b has popped up since a certain former Fine Gale spokesperson for transportation used it in a few letters she sent to the Irish Times. Please tell me that this is just another case of bad Indo reporting. ![]()
__________________
R.I.P. T21 ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Technical Officer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Coach C, Seat 33
Posts: 12,669
|
![]() 1. Policy has has been that the Park Tunnel should be used
2. Irish Rail gave a undertaking before a Dail committee to use it 3. They lied and didn't follow through 4. The longer we wait the higher the price Its very clearly stated http://www.railusers.ie/campaigns/phoenix_tunnel/
__________________
Unhappy with new timetable - let us know |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Membership Officer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Maynooth
Posts: 1,116
|
![]() I think the tone of the article implies that we do not need the Interconnector which is certainly not the case.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Really Regular Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosslare Line
Posts: 600
|
![]() I would love to see the ghost line being used. Connolly-Newbridge/Kildare after all Connolly station is alot closer to the city center... You could have the odd service from Galway or Cork etc arriving in at Connolly's platfrom 2,3 or 4 and departing Connolly. The inter-connector we need there's no fighting on that. All the city center stations should be linked up.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Technical Officer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Coach C, Seat 33
Posts: 12,669
|
![]() The issue at hand is the interconnector is either likely to be cancelled due to cash running out in T21 or that is will arrive sometime after 2015. Thats 8 years away and things are getting really bad now we need some action http://www.railusers.ie/transport21
All T21 costs are presented as 2004 prices but our investigation shows that cost inflation is included in the overal budget http://www.railusers.ie/transport21/costs.php We need to make the best use of the resources to hand and its a crazy situtation to have a two track passenger line in Dublin city lying idle. http://www.railusers.ie/campaigns/phoenix_tunnel/ Together with our collegues in the DART for Lucan we have shown that for passengers arriving in Heuston even with 40m trams and more buses there is nowhere near the capacity to move people into the city as the Kildare route project hits. That has been noted by the public inquiry and a study commissioned. If 2 trains per hour operated to Docklands (not Connolly) from the Kildare line that would make a huge difference, also serve Drumcondra, Docklands serves the IFSC and is only 15 minute walk to Merrion Square, back of TCD and so on places where people want to go. IE promised both verbally and in writing and where funded, even gave a date for the service to start Barry Kenny of course has his stuck record line of no capacity in Connolly, none in needed, though funny he says it can't take any more so what of the 1 extra inbound and 1 extra out in the morning rush from Jan 20 2008? We believe that one platform in Docklands could be connected to the Drumcondra line though the purchase of a small plot of land off Ossery Rd. Cobh operates with a single platform and no current Dockland services use the second platform so there is no practical problem. IE of course cite the need to rebuild Glasnevin Junction, they don't and if they had done the job right we wouldn't be here
__________________
Unhappy with new timetable - let us know Last edited by Mark Gleeson : 25-11-2007 at 15:31. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Blanch, Dublin
Posts: 81
|
![]() Quote:
Also, on the subject of killing off the interconnector, I'd like to ask Mark G just how sceptical he IS that this project will actually proceed under T21??? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 94
|
![]() I don't think IÉ can really maintain that position in the context of their Broadstone proposal. (BTW, I agree with what weehamster and Mark Hennessy said re the tone of the article.)
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Technical Officer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Coach C, Seat 33
Posts: 12,669
|
![]() We got a situation where all the informed commentators, us, Frank McDonald, James Wickham and so all agree that the interconnector is essential and should be going ahead before anything else.
So why is it last on the list? IE don't seem to be in much of a hurry, they did consultation in first week July, no word since, compare that to the RPA. Clearly to us indicates no hurry and going on the past experience its certainly at the DoT level calling the shots. Its the usual sensational Sunday Indo, but senior IE people still have to answer for misleading the joint committee, they got money to do the Park Tunnel Docklands service and the public left stranded in Heuston have a right to answers And of course there is more going on in the background
__________________
Unhappy with new timetable - let us know Last edited by Mark Gleeson : 25-11-2007 at 20:46. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|