Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

marno21

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

bk

marno21 wrote: »

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

It seems to suggest there would be no extra stations. You are correct that is one of the things that makes that option less attractive then Charlemont.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

I think they would need one station as they need a station every km or so for ventilation, emergency egress etc.

They had one in mind at Ranelagh, I think.

markpb

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they would need one station as they need a station every km or so for ventilation, emergency egress etc.

Those things can be achieved without a station.

Sam Russell

markpb wrote: »

Those things can be achieved without a station.

Yes that is true, but that would leave a 2 km gap in stations between Beechwood (South) and SSG.

They could put a station in Sussex Sq (Leeson St), I suppose - that is halfway, and open space, with good connections for buses.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

I have read that article, but Eamon Ryan should know at this stage that the Metro is going from Swords-Sandyford and will not be going to Rathfarnham. Any proposals like the above are only a distraction from the real issue and the main priority is getting this Metro built. Given the amount of giving out he does about the Metro North plan not being built he should be helping one Metro get built besides getting out the crayons.

I'm sure you read the article. Eamon Ryan clearly stated the reasons for considering running it to Rathfarnham. I'm not arguing his case for him. I'm simply saying that he has suggested an alternative route and provided reasons for why he's suggesting it. There's a real sense of fear in this thread everytime anything remotely negative or different is projected. I guess that's based on metrolink supporters knowing that there is a very real chance of it not getting built at all or as suggested while not all will admit it. Eamon Ryan is the least of your worries.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes that is true, but that would leave a 2 km gap in stations between Beechwood (South) and SSG.

They could put a station in Sussex Sq (Leeson St), I suppose - that is halfway, and open space, with good connections for buses.

Although surely the luas would cover that gap

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

Although surely the luas would cover that gap

Yes, but why leave such a gap. Sussex Sq is quite a bit East, and connects with the Leeson St bus services - 46A, 145, plus others.

I think it would spread the goodness that is Metrolink.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, but why leave such a gap. Sussex Sq is quite a bit East, and connects with the Leeson St bus services - 46A, 145, plus others.

I think it would spread the goodness that is Metrolink.

Why would we not bring the tunnel further west on an arc before it ties back in at beechwood or further south at windy Arbour. There’s no point duplicating so much catchment area that’s already served by Luas green. Instead of going east go west. That’s where the stations are needed!

strassenwo!f

Where is this 'Sussex Square' that is being mentioned?

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Where is this 'Sussex Square' that is being mentioned?

Where Leeeson St crosses the canal. Leeson St is a very long St.

strassenwo!f

Where Leeson Street crosses the canal is Leeson Street Bridge. Within the canal ring there's Lower Leeson Street and the bit outside the canal is Upper Leeson Street.

'Sussex Square' is a new name to me, but admittedly I haven't been around that part of town for a year or two.

jd

Sussex Terrace is what I think they mean

strassenwo!f

Oh, okay, that stretch heading down to the Burlington Hotel?

That could make a lot of sense if they were planning to build a route out along the N11, which could indeed be sensible in the longer term, but I don't think that's the plan being discussed here.

tom1ie

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Oh, okay, that stretch heading down to the Burlington Hotel?

That could make a lot of sense if they were planning to build a route out along the N11, which could indeed be sensible in the longer term, but I don't think that's the plan being discussed here.

Well, I don’t think a route out the n11 or even metrolink tie in swinging to the east should be considered without looking at commuters in the sw areas first. If metrolink is gonna be tied in further south than charlemount, swing the tunnel west before it ties back in at beechwood or wherever. Not east. There is already heavy rail and almost brt standard busses in that area.

strassenwo!f

It's all a bit of a puzzle to me too, Tom. It certainly would be a big ask to go underground from St. Stephen's Green to somewhere near the Burlington - perhaps tunnelling under much of the protected Georgian area of Dublin - and then swinging over towards the current Green line and making a connection with that line, somewhere. It'd have to increase costs significantly, you'd think. But perhaps it's sensible, and perhaps it's doable.

I'm hoping that Sam will come back and give us a picture of what he envisages with his proposal, and where his suggested station would actually be.

Given that the stations on these metros cost several tens of millions of euros, you'd imagine considerable thought went into his proposal to the board, even if the readers here are, at present, unsure where the station's location definitively is.

tom1ie

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's all a bit of a puzzle to me too, Tom. It certainly would be a big ask to go underground from St. Stephen's Green to somewhere near the Burlington - perhaps tunnelling under much of the protected Georgian area of Dublin - and then swinging over towards the current Green line and making a connection with that line, somewhere. It'd have to increase costs significantly, you'd think. But perhaps it's sensible, and perhaps it's doable.

I'm hoping that Sam will come back and give us a picture of what he envisages with his proposal, and where his suggested station would actually be.

Given that the stations on these metros cost several tens of millions of euros, you'd imagine considerable thought went into his proposal to the board, even if the readers here are, at present, unsure where the station's location definitively is.

Well I’m just advocating that if the tie in is further south, the extra tunnel should be arcing westerly not easterly.

strassenwo!f

tom1ie wrote: »

Well I’m just advocating that if the tie in is further south, the extra tunnel should be arcing westerly not easterly.

I understand what you're advocating. And you are absolutely right to present your idea to the board.

There are two flaws I would readily see which would need to be addressed with your proposal for a portal somewhere around Windy Arbour.

Firstly, the gap between the two residual sections of the LUAS Green line would be quite short. There'd be a LUAS line between Cherrywood and Sandyford, then passengers from Cherrywood or locations between there and Sandyford would change to a metro at Sandyford, then change again at Windy Arbour (say) to get to locations served by the LUAS.

This is not just a flaw of your plan, it's a flaw of the overall scheme. The proposal being discussed on this thread will not deliver greater speed or, based on the current information we have, any noticeable extra capacity between the city centre and Cherrywood, and will just introduce complications for most passengers, who are simply trying to travel between Cherrywood/Sandyford and the city centre (mainly), Broadstone, Grangegorman, Phibsborough and other locations along the route.

However the second flaw is pretty specifically related only to your proposal. If the line you propose is to get from Rathmines to Windy Arbour it needs to cross the Dodder at some location other than the Nine Arches. It could be a bridge, which would add considerable expense, but you were talking about a portal around Windy Arbour, and that inevitably means a significant change in elevation (between Rathmines and the Dodder) and a very serious change in elevation, over a very short interval on the other side of the river, in or around the Columbanus housing estate to/from Windy Arbour.

I may be wrong, because I haven't been around there for a few years, but I'd guess the gradients involved for a tunnel between somewhere under the Dodder and Windy Arbour, via Columbanus or a neighbouring area, would just be too much for the vehicles proposed for Dublin's metro.

I'm afraid I can't remember if places like Windy Arbour are actually in Dublin City, or if they're now in DL-Rathdown. But the City Hall on the Quays has all the elevations for Dublin City, and presumably the other authorities have them as well. It'd be worth checking them out, to see if you can back up your plan.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

Well I’m just advocating that if the tie in is further south, the extra tunnel should be arcing westerly not easterly.

Going from SSG to Beechwood can go anywhere underground, but tunnelling under that section is going to be difficult given the age of most of the property. Then there is either no station, or there is one, given that it is 2 km distant, and a tunnel or ventilation portal is needed each km approx. It will cost an extra €100 m or so to get to Beechwood (for the extra km of tunnel), but there is a saving of the work required on the Charlemont and Ranelagh parts of the line, and no need for a bridge at Beechwood.

Going on the westward side gets the Metro to Portabello bridge, if that helps, but at an extra cost of 300 m of tunnel, costing an extra €30 m. Unfortunately that is north of the pinch points.

Maybe, just miss out the extra station. The published emerging route had a station (underground) at Charlemont, but if they are going further south, they have not indicated where there preferred location for stops would be. (As far as I can see). The Green Line (N) would terminate at Ranelagh, with a turn back south of the station.

We will need to wait till later in the year when they published their preferred route.

strassenwo!f

Sam, are you not going use your post to tell us more about your 'Sussex Square' proposal?

youre boring me now

Eamon Ryan again arguing publicly in favour of a Rathfarnham spur, in an open letter on thejournal.ie:

thejournal.ie/readme/eamon-ryan-open-letter-to-shane-ross-on-the-need-for-a-review-of-the-metrolink-design-4094230-Jun2018/

Bray Head

Dublin accounts for a hugely disproportionate amount of tax revenue in Ireland. It is not the only place suffering from congestion, but it is the only large urban centre where electrified mass transit could really make a difference.


In the meantime, its politicians are arguing over closures of small streets and completely missing the huge improvements Metrolink would bring to public transport in Dublin.


It must look very funny to people outside the Pale who are generally wild with excitement about whatever bypass or road widening is coming their way.

LXFlyer

Bray Head wrote: »

Dublin accounts for a hugely disproportionate amount of tax revenue in Ireland. It is not the only place suffering from congestion, but it is the only large urban centre where electrified mass transit could really make a difference.


In the meantime, its politicians are arguing over closures of small streets and completely missing the huge improvements it would bring to public transport in Dublin.


It must look very funny to people outside the Pale who are generally wild with excitement about whatever bypass or road widening is coming their way.

With respect Bray Head - this is about the whole transport solution for south central Dublin.

It’s getting critical at this point in the whole swathe of the city between the Crumlin Road and the LUAS green line.

I just don’t think the BusConnects plan is ever going to be delivered in that area - it’s just too radical in terms of CPO activity and fairly major road closures to general traffic, and will still have major pinch points. I just cannot see it happening in anywhere near the required form to deliver real improvements, as politically it’s a time bomb.

I’ve been consistent all along in my view that a Metro Line is the only realistic solution for the area.

As for the Green Line, there are two significant elements in my view:

1) Closing Dunville Avenue to through traffic will have significant negative impact on the already clogged roads of Ranelagh and Milltown. Traffic levels are anything but minor. I think a bridge or an extended tunnel is going to be needed there.

2) The potential closure of the Green Line for the upgrade, both in terms of distance and time. Any lengthy closure (longer than three months in the summer) is going to have a massively negative impact on traffic in south Dublin. There’s nowhere for it to go and the amount of replacement buses required could be phenomenal at peak times.

If a south central Metro were in place then there would be some possibility of transferring Green Line passengers to it during a closure while it is upgraded.

I honestly do think that Eamon Ryan is right to raise this now frankly.

What you may think is minor will have massive impacts on all of south Dublin.

MJohnston

While I agree that a potential Green Line long-term closure is an absolute no-no, I think the talk from Ryan about dividing communities is entirely overblown. Problems like Dunville Avenue can be easily solved by a relatively inexpensive cut and cover on the line itself, and with a bit of decent urban realm planning, we can get a series of actually pleasant looking pedestrian underpasses to maintain foot access across the line. Irish people seem to have this aversion to pedestrian underpasses for some reason.

The egregious thing is Ryan using this as opportunity to foist his own Rathfarnham line plan on us, which will undoubtedly kill the project outright, if not delay it another 3-4 years, when it is already arriving far too late. He isn't proposing realistic solutions to the plan we have.

tom1ie

There are a few points in this debate that we know are 100% fact
(1) the green line must be upgraded to allow for the extra passengers from cherrywood and the other developments in that area.
(2) there is no way the green line can be closed for ANY length of time to get dunville Avenue grade separated.
(3) traffic levels in Dublin sw are at critical levels.

So apart from the extra cost what is wrong with:
tie-ing in at windy arbour, bypassing dunville Avenue, thus giving a simple tie in set of points as opposed to having to close the green line for unknown time, and upgrading windy arbour to sandyford while the line is still operational.
Tie ing in this far south allows the tunnel to have stops at rathmines and dartry, which will reduce traffic levels from critical.
This solution solves all 3 known facts.
By the way the extra cost should be approx 240 mill for 3 stations and about 400 mill for tunnel if I remember correctly, those figures being based on metrolink figures.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

While I agree that a potential Green Line long-term closure is an absolute no-no, I think the talk from Ryan about dividing communities is entirely overblown. Problems like Dunville Avenue can be easily solved by a relatively inexpensive cut and cover on the line itself, and with a bit of decent urban realm planning, we can get a series of actually pleasant looking pedestrian underpasses to maintain foot access across the line. Irish people seem to have this aversion to pedestrian underpasses for some reason.

The egregious thing is Ryan using this as opportunity to foist his own Rathfarnham line plan on us, which will undoubtedly kill the project outright, if not delay it another 3-4 years, when it is already arriving far too late. He isn't proposing realistic solutions to the plan we have.

I still think it’s right that we have this discussion now.

I’ll respectfully continue to disagree regarding which should be built first - I think that a large swathe of south Dublin is just going to become a car park if a Metro is not built in the south central area as I don’t see the BusConnects project being delivered in the form necessary to transform journey times.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

I still think it’s right that we have this discussion now.

I’ll respectfully continue to disagree regarding which should be built first - I think that a large swathe of south Dublin is just going to become a car park if a Metro is not built in the south central area as I don’t see the BusConnects project being delivered in the form necessary to transform journey times.

I don't disagree at all that south/south-west Dublin needs that Metro line, but I think it's real cloud cuckoo thinking to believe that a line there is politically viable right now.

We need the northern Metro section.
We need the Green Line upgrade.
The Green Line upgrade is significantly less expensive than a hypothetical Rathfarnham underground line.

Putting the whole project in jeopardy by clouding the positive benefits of the current plan in favour of an unplanned alternative, much more expensive, much much less likely to go ahead route is just really frustrating to me.

youre boring me now

MJohnston wrote: »

The egregious thing is Ryan using this as opportunity to foist his own Rathfarnham line plan on us, which will undoubtedly kill the project outright, if not delay it another 3-4 years, when it is already arriving far too late. He isn't proposing realistic solutions to the plan we have.

Exactly. This isn't a responsible intervention. It's a politician channeling the NIMBYism of his constituents. As someone said under his journal.ie open letter, it's NIMBYism masquerading as environmentalism.

tom1ie wrote: »

So apart from the extra cost...

That is the principal reason. An extra few hundred million mightn't seem like much, but it imperils the project and emboldens other communities to demand budget-increasing concessions to the design.

tom1ie

youre boring me now wrote: »

Exactly. This isn't a responsible intervention. It's a politician channeling the NIMBYism of his constituents. As someone said under his journal.ie open letter, it's NIMBYism masquerading as environmentalism.




That is the principal reason. An extra few hundred million mightn't seem like much, but it imperils the project and emboldens other communities to demand budget-increasing concessions to the design.

Yes but this provides the best of both worlds, it gives a concession to the sw by providing a station at rathmines where bus connects can feed the station and where a future metro 2 can launch from.
It bypasses dunville Avenue
It doesn’t close the green line for an extended period of time.
It upgrades the green line from sandyford to windy arbour which will be cheaper than the 300 mill already budgeted as there’s less stations to be upgraded and no grade separation needed at dunville Avenue
It opens up milltown gc for mid density housing.
All this for probably less than 640 million, then minus the cost of green line closures, minus the cost of dunville upgrade, minus the negative effect of traffic in the rathmines area.......... it’s a no brainer.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't disagree at all that south/south-west Dublin needs that Metro line, but I think it's real cloud cuckoo thinking to believe that a line there is politically viable right now.

We need the northern Metro section.
We need the Green Line upgrade.
The Green Line upgrade is significantly less expensive than a hypothetical Rathfarnham underground line.

Putting the whole project in jeopardy by clouding the positive benefits of the current plan in favour of an unplanned alternative, much more expensive, much much less likely to go ahead route is just really frustrating to me.

I would continue to argue that the Metro in south central Dublin is needed sooner than the Green Line upgrade.

I get that it will cost more but the reality is that without it that area will grind to a complete standstill way sooner than the Green Line capacity issues will arise.

That is really frustrating to me to be honest. The BusConnects ideas for that area just won’t happen to the degree necessary - I’m quite prepared to bet my home on that. That means a massive area without any form of quality public transport.

That to me is the important reality here.

LXFlyer

youre boring me now wrote: »

Exactly. This isn't a responsible intervention. It's a politician channeling the NIMBYism of his constituents. As someone said under his journal.ie open letter, it's NIMBYism masquerading as environmentalism.




That is the principal reason. An extra few hundred million mightn't seem like much, but it imperils the project and emboldens other communities to demand budget-increasing concessions to the design.

So we shouldn’t actually have a debate about it?

Do you deny that the issues that I’ve raised above are problems?

We need realistic long term solutions for south central Dublin - at the moment I don’t see them.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

I would continue to argue that the Metro in south central Dublin is needed sooner than the Green Line upgrade.

I get that it will cost more but the reality is that without it that area will grind to a complete standstill way sooner than the Green Line capacity issues will arise.

That is really frustrating to me to be honest. The BusConnects ideas for that area just won’t happen to the degree necessary - I’m quite prepared to bet my home on that. That means a massive area without any form of quality public transport.

That to me is the important reality here.

But you understand that Metro North + Green Line as a project has a high likelihood of going ahead, while Metro North + Hypothetical New Rathfarnham Line has a very low likelihood? And the latter will lead to multiple year delays compared to the existing plan? And will be much more expensive?

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes but this provides the best of both worlds, it gives a concession to the sw by providing a station at rathmines where bus connects can feed the station and where a future metro 2 can launch from.
It bypasses dunville Avenue
It doesn’t close the green line for an extended period of time.
It upgrades the green line from sandyford to windy arbour which will be cheaper than the 300 mill already budgeted as there’s less stations to be upgraded and no grade separation needed at dunville Avenue
It opens up milltown gc for mid density housing.
All this for probably less than 640 million, then minus the cost of green line closures, minus the cost of dunville upgrade, minus the negative effect of traffic in the rathmines area.......... it’s a no brainer.

Tom that Milltown GC thing has no chance, it must be over 100 acres of land some of the most expensive land in the country and belongs to what I imagine are a very well connected and rich bunch of people. In the unlikely event of your idea being used the may get some land for a portal if needed but beyond that I’d say no chance.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes but this provides the best of both worlds, it gives a concession to the sw by providing a station at rathmines where bus connects can feed the station and where a future metro 2 can launch from.
It bypasses dunville Avenue
It doesn’t close the green line for an extended period of time.
It upgrades the green line from sandyford to windy arbour which will be cheaper than the 300 mill already budgeted as there’s less stations to be upgraded and no grade separation needed at dunville Avenue
It opens up milltown gc for mid density housing.
All this for probably less than 640 million, then minus the cost of green line closures, minus the cost of dunville upgrade, minus the negative effect of traffic in the rathmines area.......... it’s a no brainer.

Tom that Milltown GC thing has no chance, it must be over 100 acres of land some of the most expensive land in the country and belongs to what I imagine are a very well connected and rich bunch of people. In the unlikely event of your idea being used the may get some land for a portal if needed but beyond that I’d say no chance.

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

Tom that Milltown GC thing has no chance, it must be over 100 acres of land some of the most expensive land in the country and belongs to what I imagine are a very well connected and rich bunch of people. In the unlikely event of your idea being used the may get some land for a portal if needed but beyond that I’d say no chance.

Ok in your opinion that’s never going to work, but you admit there might be Land got for a portal. So what about the other points I’ve raised about doing the tie in there, why doesn’t it make sense?

bk

A Milltown tie-in was ruled out as being too expensive in the tie-in study. If Charlemont is a non starter, then one of the shortlisted Beechwood options would be the obvious alternative option.

MJohnston

bk wrote: »

A Milltown tie-in was ruled out as being too expensive in the tie-in study. If Charlemont is a non starter, then one of the shortlisted Beechwood options would be the obvious alternative option.

I'd forgotten the alternative tie-in options were still available online.



If Eamon Ryan is going to crow about Dunville Avenue, then Beechwood South option is an easy, already studied alternative that wasn't too far behind the selected Ranelagh option in desirability factors.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

But you understand that Metro North + Green Line as a project has a high likelihood of going ahead, while Metro North + Hypothetical New Rathfarnham Line has a very low likelihood? And the latter will lead to multiple year delays compared to the existing plan? And will be much more expensive?

Frankly we need to look at this again.

Otherwise that massive area will just become a glorified car park. The BusConnects plans for the south central area are a fantasy and will only end up plastering the cracks rather than deal with the problem. They won’t happen to the degree they need to.

Journey times of 90 minutes plus on the 15 and the 16 in the peak between the southern termini and the city will become the norm.

I’m trying to take a broad perspective here - I’m talking about a large swathe of south Dublin. I get the likelihood of a delay to the project but the bus speeds in that area are the slowest in the city and it is grinding to a halt.

If people cannot see the urgency of this problem then frankly they’re myopic.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Frankly we need to look at this again.

No we don't, we don't need to be delaying Metrolink by years in the best case scenario or risk getting it cancelled completely in a worst case scenario.

We just need to get on with building the damn Metrolink as planned.

Then we can look at SW, etc.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

A Milltown tie-in was ruled out as being too expensive in the tie-in study. If Charlemont is a non starter, then one of the shortlisted Beechwood options would be the obvious alternative option.

Was milltown ruled out as too expensive due to the complexity of the tie in and lack of space, or because of the extra tunnel? If stations at rathmines and dartry were added in surely this would improve the cba, albeit it increasing the cost. In a project of 3 bill + is 600 mill going to tip the scales?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

Was milltown ruled out as too expensive due to the complexity of the tie in and lack of space, or because of the extra tunnel? If stations at rathmines and dartry were added in surely this would improve the cba, albeit it increasing the cost. In a project of 3 bill + is 600 mill going to tip the scales?

Extra tunnelling and CPO AFAIR. Extra stations would like ramp up the cost even further and would likely make this option more like 1billion extra rather then 600m extra without the stations.

Either way, Beechwood option is only a little more expensive then Charlemont and largely resolves all the objections.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd forgotten the alternative tie-in options were still available online.



If Eamon Ryan is going to crow about Dunville Avenue, then Beechwood South option is an easy, already studied alternative that wasn't too far behind the selected Ranelagh option in desirability factors.

The Beechwood South option is a real option, already in the published plans.

If that option is chosen, then an underground station is likely to be needed, and the obvious choice is on the canal, between Portobello Bridge and Leeson St Bridge, with Charlemont Bridge being a third choice.

If Portabello Bridge is chosen, then a large area of the SW area gets to be with 1 km of the Metrolink, including the whole of Rathmines, and as far as Harold's Cross Bridge.

There is no logic in putting this extra underground station at Charlemont, as it is already served by the GL, and is, of itself, no generator of traffic.

The Portabello stop could be a good branch off point for the Metro II line towards the SW.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

No we don't, we don't need to be delaying Metrolink by years in the best case scenario or risk getting it cancelled completely in a worst case scenario.

We just need to get on with building the damn Metrolink as planned.

Then we can look at SW, etc.

Well bk not for the first time you and I will fundamentally disagree. I really don’t think you have a clue of how bad the problems in south central Dublin are right now.

As someone who on most weeks takes an evening peak bus trip on different corridors across the Dublin Bus network to see how the city is moving, I get a good idea of the traffic levels in the city and how the transport is coping (or not), and I can quite honestly say nowhere even comes close to the problems faced by that area.

That area is being shafted, and frankly there’s no other way of putting it.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Extra tunnelling and CPO AFAIR. Extra stations would like ramp up the cost even further and would likely make this option more like 1billion extra rather then 600m extra without the stations.

Either way, Beechwood option is only a little more expensive then Charlemont and largely resolves all the objections.

Where are you getting 1bill from?! It’s 80 mill per station. 3x80= 240 mill
Tunnel from charlemount to windy arbour via rathmines is approx 3.5 km. 100 millx3.5 = 350 mill. 240+350= 590 mill. Cut and cover can be used in milltown gc portal which would reduce price further. Haven’t factored in cpo of part of milltown gc but it’s still far shorter than 1 bill.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well bk not for the first time you and I will fundamentally disagree. I really don’t think you have a clue of how bad the problems in south central Dublin are right now.

As someone who on most weeks takes an evening peak bus trip on different corridors across the Dublin Bus network to see how the city is moving, I get a good idea of the traffic levels in the city and how the transport is coping (or not), and I can quite honestly say nowhere even comes close to the problems faced by that area.

That area is being shafted, and frankly there’s no other way of putting it.

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Beechwood South option is a real option, already in the published plans.

If that option is chosen, then an underground station is likely to be needed, and the obvious choice is on the canal, between Portobello Bridge and Leeson St Bridge, with Charlemont Bridge being a third choice.

If Portabello Bridge is chosen, then a large area of the SW area gets to be with 1 km of the Metrolink, including the whole of Rathmines, and as far as Harold's Cross Bridge.

There is no logic in putting this extra underground station at Charlemont, as it is already served by the GL, and is, of itself, no generator of traffic.

The Portabello stop could be a good branch off point for the Metro II line towards the SW.

Yeah this would seem feasible but would have to have integration with bus connects passengers coming from rathfarnham and firhouse corridors and a massive secure bike park.

MJohnston

tom1ie wrote: »

Where are you getting 1bill from?! It’s 80 mill per station. 3x80= 240 mill
Tunnel from charlemount to windy arbour via rathmines is approx 3.5 km. 100 millx3.5 = 350 mill. 240+350= 590 mill. Cut and cover can be used in milltown gc portal. Haven’t factored in cpo of part of milltown gc but it’s still far shorter than 1 bill.

No guessing required:

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

I think we need to have an urgent discussion about it.

I’ll say it again - the BusConnects ideas just simply won’t happen for political reasons. Do you honestly think that Templeogue Rd and Kimmage Rd Lower are going to be closed to general traffic (partially or completely) and that all the necessary CPO activity will happen?

I just don’t see that ever happening.

Therefore we need to see what is viable. Otherwise it’s just going to get worse and worse, and my view is that should take precedence.

I’m also concerned about the prospective impact of any Green Line closure - we need more information on exactly how long that may be.

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

Lol that’s a bit of a jump isn’t it! At the very least the tbm’s can be in the ground at the northern end digging towards ssg before the final decision is taken. I think this forum is turning into a “it’s the idea that’s on paper and no other alternatives will be entertained forum. “
It’s good to trash out these things.

marno21

MetroLink is already achieving an awful lot and ticking a lot of boxes compared with previous built projects in Dublin. This project is 7km longer than the Luas Green Line which took 3 stages to be built, and was significantly cheaper. The project already serves quite a wide area which badly needs it. It's not doubting the need for Metros or improved public transport in other parts of Dublin, but there has to be a certain element of trying not to bite off more than you can chew also.