Metro West Route Options

strassenwolf

mackerski wrote:

They do have comparable routings, often via a combination of lines originally built to do the run from suburb to city centre. Today these routes are slowly being joined up specifically to allow for access to one none-central area from another. Consider the current Munich U3 extension to Moosach.

Indeed, they're doing that today. It is some years since they effectively dealt with the problem of getting people into the city. Now they can press on with making their system even better, by making it easier for them to get around the city. I don't think Dublin is at that stage yet.

mackerski wrote:

Of course, since we now know that Metro West is actually a tram line, we can also look at similar services in other cities that don't happen to do the An Lár thing. Munich has them, as does London (in Croydon).

In fact, Munich's tram and rail network would be something of a dream for those who believe in the "principle" of going to An Lár. 8 S-Bahn lines, 8 U-Bahn lines, 7 tram lines all going to one or more of three stations separated by, in total, about a kilometre in the middle of the city.

It is true that there are three tram lines which do not go to any of these stations and would be much more in line with what is to be achieved by the metrowest. But how much focus has Munich placed on the development of these lines over the years, compared to the focus on building lines which go into and across the middle of the city?

Enigma365

Indeed, they're doing that today. It is some years since they effectively dealt with the problem of getting people into the city. Now they can press on with making their system even better, by making it easier for them to get around the city. I don't think Dublin is at that stage yet.

I think it's safe to say that if they put off metro west until some date in the medium-term future, it will likely be much more difficult and expensive to build, as the areas where metro west is currently planned to go through will have developed significantly.

Is it not possible that they are having some foresight in building something now, when it is relatively easy, rather than waiting until it is absolutely needed - at which point it will be far more difficult to build.

I accept that much needs to be done to improve public transport into the city centre, but I can't help thinking that the people who are criticising metro-west now, are the same ones who will whine about the lack of foresight of the Government, when in 20+ years, these parts of west Dublin become densely populated and in dire need of such a system, which will then be FAR more difficult to deliver.

murphaph

Munich of course had far better planning than West Dublin and so their problems are somewhat different than ours. Wrt the line traversing open countryside north of the M50, that is disappointing-however if I may use Munich as an example once more, they also have a U-Bahn line (Garching) which traverses nowt but fields for miles as it heads towards the TUM. I would view this portion of metro West as necessary rather than desirable as the destination is the connection with metro North. Ideally a more southerly routing could serve Finglas but the cost begins to soar and Finglas may well get a highly segregated Luas extended from Broombridge in any case, a line which could link up with metro West near the M50.

Just to lay my cards on the table here-I believe the Interconnector to be a much higher priority to metro West, however the government (together with a relaxed IE attitude) in its infinite wisdom has resulted in it being shifted down a gear and as the metro West consultations are about to begin, we will naturally discuss it here.

The point Slice makes about Clondalking being sparsely developed is fair, in November 2006! Give it a short time and the vacant lands north of the old paper mills will all be infilled with HD-I'd wager money on that, regardless f metro West appearing. The desired density figures for Clondalkin and environs are much higher than at present, hence plenty of PPs granted for infill apartment blocks of all sizes.

Would anyone state in all honesty that Clondalkin was that different in density from some of the places the Green or Red Luas lines pass through, indeed, the Red Line passes through some of the least densely populated parts of Dublin yet it's still immensely popular. People will walk further than ou think to high quality rail transport. 15 mins walk is a fair distance either side of the line and factor in an increased number of cyclists interchanging with our new rail services and the catchment areas increase further.

Metro west will connect 2 county towns (Tallaght & Swords) with each other and along the way will pass the large Fingal Co Co offices at Blanchardstown. People work in these places, people need to visit these places. Like I said, the interconnector is more important to me (though I'd rarely/never use it directly) than metro West, but metro West has merit. The DTO even thought so.

bk

Interesting article in yesterdays Sunday Business Post about the land developers who will profit from Metro West (Don't whine too much, some always profits from these trype of developements:

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=19221-qqqx=1.asp

But the part that is interesting and realtvie is the following:

The final route will be a boon for landowners, as local authorities will allow significantly higher density development on sites near public transport links.

For example, in Sandyford in south Dublin, the local authority now allows about 150 apartments an acre, because of the presence of the Luas line.

On the Naas Road, planners are considering increasing the number of apartments allowed per acre from 30 to 120.

So all those Green Fields that Metro West will run through, will likely become the highest density areas of the city.

That is the thing about these sort of developments. When you compare if a line should run through green fields or through Finglas, not only would Finglas be significantly more expensive to do, but Finglas is a relatively low denisty area, but if you go through green ffields, with the right planning it can become a much more high density area, due to the presence of the line and stations.

There are a few important points to take away from this:

1) The land developers should be forced to give the land for the line for free to the RPA, since the developers will profit greatly from building along the line.

2) Stations should also be paid for by the developers for the same reason.

3) This need to be planned well, we don't want to create ghettos outside the city, these developements need good infrastrucute like an attractive town square near the stop with shops, creche, pubs, schools, gymns, youth centers, etc.

To do this will probably require developers on adajacent sites to work togther and with the local councils planning authorities.

Things like this can turn out to be really good or really bad.

4) We badly need a well run Dublin Transport Authority with real authority to oversee it all and make sure it is all well integrated.

Slice

It's preferable that development takes place on brown-field sites as oppose to green-field sites in my opinion. Dublin is not short of these within existing neighbourhoods because it's not densely built by European standards. Intensive green-field development along the proposed route of Metro West will ultimately worsen congestion for that entire area of the city regardless of Metro West. This is because not everyone in those new developments will rely on the Metro for getting around. Any assumed benefits of Metro West will only be offset by this fact.

gobdaw

murphaph wrote:

I'll be darned-there's actually a way to thread it through with just a few at grade crossings of relatively minor roads and perhaps little or no demolition. ..... I've tried to draw the alignment as best can and you can see, most of it is of street, runing through parks and along the backs of houses-just like Luas Green Line.

Excellent post and attachment. It shows clearly the physical possibility of routing MetroWest very adjacent to the centre of Clondalkin. The downside is the loss of public amenities at Moyle Park, college facilities and the open space at Dunawley and Oakwood Estates. It will come as no surprise to RPA the extent of local opposition to the loss of these amenities. Maybe the compromise of cut 'n' cover, with only temporary loss of amenities, is the real preferred option, with win/win all round.

That situation seems replicated at Blanchardstown. Traffic on the town centre ring road and feeder roads is regularly and literally grid locked. Route 1 runs north from Porterstown interchange station along Blanchardstown Road North, cuts across Millenniun Park football pitches, threads between Coolmine Lodge and Council offices, across Verona football pitches, north into surface car park at Library, along ring road in front of Fitness centre, across Blanchardstown Bypass and towards hospital and Aquatic centre. A lot of amenities to be encroached upon and if the route is not underground will result in their loss with no possibility, at the present stage of development of the area, of being substituted elsewhere in the locality.

I don't think that this route will be nor can be 100% " street level"

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

Indeed, they're doing that today. It is some years since they effectively dealt with the problem of getting people into the city. Now they can press on with making their system even better, by making it easier for them to get around the city. I don't think Dublin is at that stage yet.

You don't? Post-interconnector (which I also think should be prioritised over MW) you'll be able to hit most of the city centre from various directions by using:

• Balbriggan DART
• Metro North
• (possibly) Finglas Luas
• Maynooth DART
• Hazelhatch DART
• (for the masochists) Red Line Luas

I see Metro West as a creative cross route feeding these radial routes. I can't see how, in the presence of the listed routes, you could build as strong a case for a single extra radial line (with the limited hinterland that implies) as for MW that will strengthen the existing ones.

strassenwolf wrote:

In fact, Munich's tram and rail network would be something of a dream for those who believe in the "principle" of going to An Lár. 8 S-Bahn lines, 8 U-Bahn lines, 7 tram lines all going to one or more of three stations separated by, in total, about a kilometre in the middle of the city.

Like most cities, Munich worked with what it had. For the S-Bahn, they took regional railways in all directions terminating in two main stations and turned them into a network by building an interconnector tunnel.

The tram network started out and largely still is An-Lárish (though it tends to favour cross-city routes), dating as it does from more than 100 years ago.

The tube network was planned in large part around the routes of existing trams (whose numbers the lines took). Cross links in the modern network were a very early reality - in fact, they, like integrated ticketing, were there from the day of opening of the first line. Multi-mode networks are good that way, especially in a city full of tram lines.

strassenwolf wrote:

It is true that there are three tram lines which do not go to any of these stations and would be much more in line with what is to be achieved by the metrowest. But how much focus has Munich placed on the development of these lines over the years, compared to the focus on building lines which go into and across the middle of the city?

The core of the modern Munich network was built over the course of about 15 years and hasn't really changed a lot since then, except in the advancement of outer extensions, most planned from early on and many of which open up new cross links. The city centre, was rightly put to rights early on, and once enough radials were in place, the rest followed.

I claim (and I do this as somebody who didn't see the point of MW until I considered it in the context of the overall network) that a single cross-linking line (especially something as lame as an on-street tram) is a valid, reasonable and useful addition to a city that already has seven radial approaches relatively evenly spread.

DerekP11

Ive just had a look at Murphaph's photo and metro west alignment via Clondalkin. I agree with Gobdaws assertion about possible objections to the loss of amenities, but I doubt "cut and cover" is in the budget for metro west judging by the routes and very luas nature of it. It also looks like you propose going via Newlands cross.

So ive thrown away the crayons and brought out the hand grenades. Sorry Murphaph.

Knowing the area, the first thing I'd say is that some of your clearances may require a lot more CPO's than you imagine. As for cutting through Moyle Park, thats where I think your idea falls down completely. Being an ex student and knowing the layout very well, your route would put metro west right across the main avenue up to the school. It also runs across the student entrance and effectively barricades the entrance to the gymnasium/hall. These are the only access points to the school. Furthermore, the playing pitches are also the pitches of Round towers GAA club. Taking out part of the Mill SC carpark is probably a bit risky too.

Overall, I agree with your thinking about bringing the centre of Clondalkin into the equation as its penetration at its very best. However doing this "on the cheap" is counter productive as objections will flow and a lot of them will be justified. Unfortunetly we are not dealing with a "metro". We are dealing with an LRT in reality. If we were going to do it properly, based on how West Dublin has ended up, then Metro West should have its fair share of underground so it can do its job the best way possible. As it stands all its going to be is a long meandering tram that passes the periphery of areas its serving. Ideally the Clondalkin stop should be under the ground right outside Tuthills in the heart of the village centre. LRT cannot do this kind of penetration in an area that was planned out for the car over the last 25 years.

murphaph

I pretty much followed the alignment indicated on the RPA map which definitely cuts through Dunawley but doesn't get to the New Nangor Road/9th lock road junction so it must pass to the west of the old paper mills (current SC) and it states in text that it runs through Moyle Park "to serve Clondalkin". I'm pretty confident it is the actual brown route the RPA are espousing. I believe the bits where it severs access to the school etc. would almost certainly have to be 'dive unders' but would be cheap and easy to build if not too numerous. I'd reckon that the bulk of the CPOs would be along Fonthill Road across from the Statoil. Not cheap but not expensive in the context. Ideally of course it would all be tunneled but I don't think that's what we're looking at with 'metro' west. I have to say however that the only truly meandering bit is through Clondalkin and it isn't really that meandering. The route along Belgard is obviously straight as an arrow as is the route along the Fonthill and Blanchardstown (North and South) roads. Metro west of course will require a multi million euro high level crossing of the Liffey and they've stated that important roads will be grade separated. In this conext, a few extra dive unders at slightly less busy roads would seem at least possible. It's still a lot cheaper than an underground option of course. One interesting point in the leaflet is that the RPA state a depot may be required. This is very interesting as it suggests Red Cow may be used (to me anyway). Even with some at grade crossings, you're still talking a clear 90km/h from Porterstown to Liffey Valley. That's a jourey time of perhaps 2 or 3 minutes! Imagine that. Imagine trying to get from Blanch to Liffey Valley today-a helicopter is about the only way to make that time. We know that grade separation will be required over the railway and canal so (assuming any overpass of the N4 would also clear the entrance to Liffey Valley) leaves just 2 junctions between Porterstown and Dunawley. I have to say I'm intrigued by metro west and can't wait to ask the RPA some questions about it.

monument

Victor wrote:

Isn´t Blanchardstown - Ballymun a waste? Surely run it inside the M50 to serve Finglas, IKEA, etc.

aliveandkicking wrote:

That is a very good point Victor. I done a bit of a 'crayon on map' drawing to illustrate what you mean. Now this is just a line on a map but maybe there is a possible route through Finglas West and Ballymun which could be used. What do you think Philip, could it be a goer?

If it was to be routed through Finglas, wouldn’t joining the line to Metro North at a point a little further south make sense too?

loyatemu

monument wrote:

If it was to be routed through Finglas, wouldn’t joining the line to Metro North at a point a little further south make sense too?

yeah - but you can't draw that on their map because of where they've put the text boxes...

why does option 2 swing north at the N2? It looks to me like option 1 serves empty countryside alongside the M50, while option 2 serves empty counrtyside half a mile further north. Whats the point of this diversion? Is it to give passengers a better view of the airport?

It might be more expensive but after Blanch IT the line should head East-South-East through Finglas and meet Metro North around Ballymun

gobdaw

loyatemu wrote:

why does option 2 swing north at the N2? It looks to me like option 1 serves empty countryside alongside the M50, while option 2 serves empty counrtyside half a mile further north. Whats the point of this diversion? Is it to give passengers a better view of the airport?

If lands between M50 and airport were to be developed in the future, MetroWest Route 2 would be alligned centrally to it and any town centre would be positioned on the MW. Route 1 would be very periferal to any future development.

Airport's dead hand on development in it's surrounding area will probably be weakened in the future.

Victor

Well it will serve the Harristown bus garage

gobdaw

murphaph wrote:

Metro west of course will require a multi million euro high level crossing of the Liffey and they've stated that important roads will be grade separated.

Wouldn't it be nice if the powers that be got together and designed a double-decked bridge here, one deck carrying the outer orbital road over the Liffey valley with the other carrying MetroWest. It would mean savings for both but especially for the taxpayer.

Too sensible? :rolleyes:

Winters

The orbital road is further west from here but that is a very valid point. However I would fear that a loss of toll income would be a major reason why the gov/DoT would shy away from it. Even a double decker public transport only bridge with cycleways could be an option.

The three major sticking points currently are Clondalkin, Liffey Valley and Blanchardstown.

What are posters opinions of the line not diverting into Liffey Valley Shopping Centre?

DerekP11

Winters wrote:

The orbital road is further west from here but that is a very valid point. However I would fear that a loss of toll income would be a major reason why the gov/DoT would shy away from it. Even a double decker public transport only bridge with cycleways could be an option.

The three major sticking points currently are Clondalkin, Liffey Valley and Blanchardstown.

What are posters opinions of the line not diverting into Liffey Valley Shopping Centre?

It would be a public transport travesty.

Metrobest

bk wrote:

yet CIE has done a shockingly bad job at promoting it, most of the general public have never even heard of it and the schedule for it seems to be unnecessarily long, with little or no indication of any start by CIE.

I think this is more of a problem of CIE, rather then priority from government or anything like that.

Absolutely. Why can't Irish Rail put up posters in every train and station explaining with is going to be done with the network over the next ten years. That's what happens in Sydney.

I can't decide about Metro West. Done properly, it has some merit. But it depends on
1) Speed
2) Ease of access/interchange
3) The density of residential spaces close to stations
4) The density of office/industrial hubs close to stations

Presently the areas along MetroWest's proposed routes are not suitable for a mass transit system. They are charachterised by sprawling low rise housing estates, low rise shopping centres and sprawling low rise industrial estates. The low rise culture is further cemented by a dependence on the car, supported by the M50 motorway.

To make MetroWest a success, almost unimaginable levels of vision and planning are required. Development adjacent to stations would need to combine high density employment hubs, mixed in with housing and other development. Nobody's going to use MetroWest unless it takes you somewhere you want to go or need to be. There's always going to people who want to visit a shopping centre or a Woodies DIY store, but that's not going to sustain a metro line.

MetroWest might make more sense if it looped back into the city from Tallaght via Templeogue, Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines, connecting in tunnel with metro North at the Green. At least one end of the line would have high patronage, then.

aliveandkicking

Metrobest wrote:

Absolutely. Why can't Irish Rail put up posters in every train and station explaining with is going to be done with the network over the next ten years. That's what happens in Sydney. .

Agreed they could do more but a couple of weeks ago they had a four page supplement in Herald AM outlining what will be done over the next 10 years. So they are getting better.

Metrobest wrote:

They are charachterised by sprawling low rise housing estates, low rise shopping centres and sprawling low rise industrial estates. The low rise culture is further cemented by a dependence on the car, supported by the M50 motorway.

So just like the areas they built the red and green Luas lines then which I'm sure you'll agree have been an amazing success despite the low rise nature. Again the low rise nature of the areas the Maynooth line runs does not stop trains being overcrowded, likewise the lengh of the entire DART route has low rise housing along it yet it's packed to the rafters.

Metrobest wrote:

MetroWest might make more sense if it looped back into the city from Tallaght via Templeogue, Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines, connecting in tunnel with metro North at the Green. At least one end of the line would have high patronage, then.

That route is in Platform for Change and will be a project for post Transport 21.

bk

aliveandkicking wrote:

Agreed they could do more but a couple of weeks ago they had a four page supplement in Herald AM outlining what will be done over the next 10 years. So they are getting better.

FYI Here is the article:
http://www.irishrail.ie/news_centre/HeraldAm.pdf

Good start but needs to do better.

Slice

DerekP11: As it stands all its going to be is a long meandering tram that passes the periphery of areas its serving

I know I'm labouring a point here but does this not have something to do with the way much of the areas it runs through is quite low-density and so in order to serve any reasonable amount of people it needs to take quite a meandering route?

aliveandkicking: So just like the areas they built the red and green Luas lines then which I'm sure you'll agree have been an amazing success despite the low rise nature. Again the low rise nature of the areas the Maynooth line runs does not stop trains being overcrowded, likewise the lengh of the entire DART route has low rise housing along it yet it's packed to the rafters.

Of course the difference being that these two lines travel into the city centre whereas Metro West won't.

aliveandkicking

Slice wrote:

Of course the difference being that these two lines travel into the city centre whereas Metro West won't.

Very true but Metro West will directly link to five seperate lines which directly travel into different parts of the city centre (Red Luas, Lucan Luas, Kildare line, Maynooth line, Metro North) so passengers on Metro West will actually have a huge choice as to which part of the city centre they want to go.

DerekP11

Slice wrote:

I know I'm labouring a point here but does this not have something to do with the way much of the areas it runs through is quite low-density and so in order to serve any reasonable amount of people it needs to take quite a meandering route?

I don't think so. Perhaps my use of the word meandering was incorrect in the context of where metro west will serve.(its meandering in relation to existing development) However, it doesn't appear from the routes proposed that it is serving areas that you mention. My point is that it is effectively missing areas that have had poor public transport for nearly 30 years in an effort to serve new developments on the basis of PPP through developer contributions. Therefore sprawling developments like Neilstown(there since the late 70s/early80s) etc and Liffey Valley SC will be ignored.

But, the jury is still out and my opinion is hardly a de facto one. Remember I coming from an angle that wants to see established development served by this new infrastructure, while it appears that the RPAs remit is to foster new development. In that scenario, there will be big losers.

bk

DerekP11 wrote:

But, the jury is still out and my opinion is hardly a de facto one. Remember I coming from an angle that wants to see established development served by this new infrastructure, while it appears that the RPAs remit is to foster new development. In that scenario, there will be big losers.

I suppose the question is do you put it through existing residential areas that are currently underserved by public transport, but are very low density. Or do you put it through undeveloped land where with good planning, very high density housing can be built, which IMO better serves (and is serviced) by this sort of public transport.

Slice

BK: I suppose the question is do you put it through existing residential areas that are currently underserved by public transport, but are very low density. Or do you put it through undeveloped land where with good planning, very high density housing can be built, which IMO better serves (and is serviced) by this sort of public transport.

That's assuming that future planning on the Metro West route is going to be of any quality at all. A look at pretty much all development west of the M50 doesn't suggest it will be. More than anything it will act as an opportunity for the building industry to yet again profit from public spending without any assessment of the value to be gained from such expenditure.

Of course, Fingal County Council won't have a problem with this because it stands to gain a great deal from rates brought in by all the potential new industry. At the same time with the building industry being the main driver of the economy, and a party in Government with such close links to this same industry it’s not surprising that Metro West is given priority over any other public transport infrastructure in the capital. This has all been cleverly dressed-up as being an effort to improve public transport when in fact it smacks more of dubious Government decisions that don’t necessarily stand to best serve the public interest.

There’s no doubt that areas like Tallaght and Blanch etc need better public transport but this simply isn’t it. Metro West will be the excuse to further develop idle country-side by the M50 and that will only have a negative effect on all of the M50 and everyone that uses it, as well as those currently living near it. We might all be thinking this is a good way of improving public transport now, but once it’s completed and all the additional lands on its’ route rezoned it will become blatantly clear how thoroughly duped we’ve been in being led to think things would get better. If the NRA are objecting to an Ikea superstore because of it's effect on the M50 think about how they might feel about a whole new town on the west-side of the airport? Nobody believes Metro West will actually make it okay...

Of course, I don’t live along the proposed route in any of the neighbourhoods we’re talking about, and nor do I rely on the M50 every day so in that respect it doesn’t really matter to me. I just happen to think that it is potentially a very big waste of money that will create more problems than it solves if implemented poorly. If the intention is to improve public transport then there are so many other ways of doing so that don’t create these problems I see happening with Metro West.

mackerski

Slice wrote:

There’s no doubt that areas like Tallaght and Blanch etc need better public transport but this simply isn’t it.

Speaking as a Blanch resident, I have to disagree. Post-interconnector (indeed, post Docklands station) a regular (enough) train service will leave my area and get into town in about 20 minutes. However, my nearest station is 20-30 minutes walk from me - feeder buses would be one way of fixing this, but they suffer from road congestion. A big-tram line that can feed people like me to Porterstown is dandy. That it can also get me on a more direct route to the airport, Clondalkin, Tallaght, or Kildare is a nice bit of network thinking IMHO. This all applies pretty much regardless of the alignment chosen. (Though, while one option does pass by my house, the other passes my office.)

A Dub in Glasgo

mackerski wrote:

Speaking as a Blanch resident, I have to disagree. Post-interconnector (indeed, post Docklands station) a regular (enough) train service will leave my area and get into town in about 20 minutes. However, my nearest station is 20-30 minutes walk from me - feeder buses would be one way of fixing this, but they suffer from road congestion. A big-tram line that can feed people like me to Porterstown is dandy.

Why not build a new road which is only for the feeder bus for fraction of the cost?

mackerski

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why not build a new road which is only for the feeder bus for fraction of the cost?

Seems valid. A kind of dedicated route for high-capacity public-transport vehicles. Of course, with some careful prerequisites on the vehicles to be used, they could probably manage to keep the road a bit narrower than might typically be required. And indeed, if the vehicles could be rail-based, it would prevent freeloading private cars from using the new road altogether.

Yeah...

spacetweek

gobdaw wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice if the powers that be got together and designed a double-decked bridge here, one deck carrying the outer orbital road over the Liffey valley with the other carrying MetroWest. It would mean savings for both but especially for the taxpayer.

Too sensible? :rolleyes:

A slightly simplistic view, there are good reasons not to build the Outer ring road bridge here. (It's been discussed in other threads) Basically because it would be flooded with M50-dodgers.

spacetweek

gobdaw wrote:

If lands between M50 and airport were to be developed in the future, MetroWest Route 2 would be alligned centrally to it and any town centre would be positioned on the MW. Route 1 would be very periferal to any future development.

Airport's dead hand on development in it's surrounding area will probably be weakened in the future.

Loads of 'fo easily available on this folks, just do some searches.
Here's Fingal's development maps for the area between the airport and the M50. Loads of industrial development planned for the area.

Hopefully the intention would be to build a Finglas Luas from Liffey Junction to MW via the centre of Finglas.

murphaph

Any bridge across the Liffey should definitely allow buses on a second deck/beside the tracks and of course, like the Dargan bridge, pedestrians and cyclists should be accomodated alongside. The Westlink Bridge should also have been built to allow peds ad cyclists cross in safety from D15 to Liffey Valley. These places are really quite close together but have a glaciated valley between them!

DerekP11

murphaph wrote:

Any bridge across the Liffey should definitely allow buses on a second deck/beside the tracks and of course, like the Dargan bridge, pedestrians and cyclists should be accomodated alongside. The Westlink Bridge should also have been built to allow peds ad cyclists cross in safety from D15 to Liffey Valley. These places are really quite close together but have a glaciated valley between them!

Amen to that Murphaph.

Airmail

monument wrote:

If it was to be routed through Finglas, wouldn’t joining the line to Metro North at a point a little further south make sense too?

I was thinking same. I suppose you have to keep in mind if you come inside the M50 before the N2 you lose a park and ride. Id be under the impression theres no chance of tunnelling under Finglas aswell. Heres two routes I doodled up .
http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/12/7/f_n2toballi_80c3m_fd835898.jpg

Iób

murphaph wrote:

Any bridge across the Liffey should definitely allow buses on a second deck/beside the tracks and of course, like the Dargan bridge, pedestrians and cyclists should be accomodated alongside. The Westlink Bridge should also have been built to allow peds ad cyclists cross in safety from D15 to Liffey Valley. These places are really quite close together but have a glaciated valley between them!

Dublin Cycling Campaign proposed this when the second of the two parallel bridges was being proposed, even going to the bother of getting drawings of the potential designs. Of course, they were treated insultingly by the inspector at the hearing and ignored.

There's no reason why a pedestrian/cyclist route can't be retrofitted.

The bridge consists of a plane on top of a hollow box, jutting out either side of it. You could put a pedestrian/cyclist route through the box, although I think you might want to cut a few windows into it. You could also suspend it off the side of the box, hanging down from the roadway. Technically entirely practical.

Winters

Retrofitting either of the westlink road bridges is not practical and would not achieve value for money.

However a combined metrowest, cycleway, footpath bridge across the liffey from Liffey Valley to Porterstown/Blanchardstown would be the best option.

aliveandkicking

Airmail wrote:

I was thinking same. I suppose you have to keep in mind if you come inside the M50 before the N2 you lose a park and ride. Id be under the impression theres no chance of tunnelling under Finglas aswell. Heres two routes I doodled up .
http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/12/7/f_n2toballi_80c3m_fd835898.jpg

Very impressive Airmail, I would like to hear the RPA's reasoning for not routing it through Finglas. It would be worth submitting your route proposals to them during the public consultation period and see what they have to say.

spacetweek

I&#243 wrote: »

Dublin Cycling Campaign proposed this when the second of the two parallel bridges was being proposed, even going to the bother of getting drawings of the potential designs. Of course, they were treated insultingly by the inspector at the hearing and ignored.

There's no reason why a pedestrian/cyclist route can't be retrofitted.

The bridge consists of a plane on top of a hollow box, jutting out either side of it. You could put a pedestrian/cyclist route through the box, although I think you might want to cut a few windows into it. You could also suspend it off the side of the box, hanging down from the roadway. Technically entirely practical.

TBH man this doesn't sound great. The one through the inside would be dark and would attract unsavoury elements. The one hanging off the bottom would be hair-raising.

A cycle/pedestrian route should be part of the MetroWest Liffey bridge.

Victor

spacetweek wrote:

TBH man this doesn't sound great. The one through the inside would be dark and would attract unsavoury elements.

Why? "Unsavoury elements" don't like hanging around on long bridges where they can be spotted easily. Oh, and fit lights.

The one hanging off the bottom would be hair-raising.

Not necessarily, is the existing bridge hair-raising? Can't it be sufficiently closed in?

A cycle/pedestrian route should be part of the MetroWest Liffey bridge.

Just make sure the parapet is high enough.