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

donvito99

not1but4 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity where did you find out that 6 houses would needed to be lost at Charlemont?

There's a video on youtube by Engineers Ireland (shouldn't be hard to source) that stated houses would have to go on the east side directly behind the IN site as well as across the road. I assume this would also either close or severely curtail access to tall vehicles on Dartmouth Road in order to get trains down to street level and then down to tunnel portal level before the canal. Quite an undertaking.

EDIT: Looking at the satellite from Google Maps and it would appear that there are (a) no houses on the IN site side and (b) only about two + a few back gardens that would need acquiring south of Dartmouth Road.

strassenwo!f

donvito99 wrote: »

It's not that I don't favour some future extension to the South West, but this is apples and oranges.

What modifications to the Green line are required? To descend into a portal somewhere at Charlemont would require the loss of about 6 houses according to Engineers Ireland in addition to the entirity of the former Irish Nationwide site. Every platform would have to be enlarged. Crossings at Beechwood/Stillorgan would have to be eliminated/ameliorated. Other than new vehicles, little else is required. The track, trackbed, power supply and depot are all there. So for very little additional investment you'd easily see the 9,000 pph go to 18,000 pph. If that can be done as €2-300m on top of the existing MN proposal then we're laughing. An entirely new alignment towards the South West would take an additional 18,000 pph from other modes in an area unserved by any rapid transit... for billions more. The two projects are incomparable in terms of the scope of this discussion.

Saying that we shouldn't upgrade an existing alignment that we've built to an inferior capacity at great expense when we have the opportunity to do so given that the boring machines will be in the ground and will only have to travel an additional 800m or so is insane.

I think, for the moment, we'll have to agree to disagree. The main thrust of this thread is the construction of a line between the city and the Airport/Swords, and when that is in train (no pun intended) we should start to look again at the next stage of this project.

There is, I think, a good case to be made for Ireland committing itself to a spend of, say, 1 billion euro per year for public transport infrastructure for the next 20 years: half to be spent on infrastructure in Dublin and half in other cities in the country. Within about 10 years you will have exhausted all the possibilities outside of the capital, so more money can be concentrated on public transport infrastructure in Dublin, including extensions to the metro north project on the southside.

I've lived for an appreciable length of time in 6 cities, apart from Dublin (my home town), including 4 in Germany. One thing I took from my time in those German cities was that public transport infrastructure development seemed, in many ways, to be based on 'fairness'.

Thus, wherever you live in the city, there's going to be decent public transport infrastructure near you, and if there isn't, then it's coming soon and you will also have an opportunity to share in the growth and development of the city. This is most obvious in the public transport maps of two of those cities (Munich and Frankfurt) but also quite discernable in the other two I've lived in (Stuttgart and Dresden).

When the first phase of metro north is built, I am opposed to it being extended towards Sandyford/Cherrywood, principally on the basis of 'fairness'. There are no figures yet available which show that that corridor is busier than a potential corridor (or corridors) to the SouthWest of the city, and I think that it would be 'fairer' to spend some share of Ireland's public transport outlay on delivering rail transport to areas in the SouthWest, rather than upgrading an already very good line to/from Cherrywood.

MJohnston

The Metro "South" upgrade is one of the most cost effective, rapid, and cheap upgrades we could do to our transport network, and additionally it reconfirms some smart planning decisions made with the original Green line. It provides a significant PR boost to the entire Metro project and allows it greater political capital to be a sturdier prospect across multiple governments. It is something that is also a lot cheaper to do alongside Metro North instead of much later. And, best of all, it doesn't prevent the idea of a future southwest Metro line, in fact it only reinforces it by making Metro an expansive system rather than a one off airport link.

To ignore all that because you think all those meanies in the southside get all the shiny things is just silly. I will have essentially zero direct benefit from Metro South and I still think it's a fantastic idea.

strassenwo!f

But, as Donvito said above, there's only a kilometre or so (I would think it's more like 2 or 3) before you connect the main metro north project with the Green line.

And then what's your TBM going to do?

It's going to do nothing, nothing. for other areas of the city.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But, as Donvito said above, there's only a kilometre or so (I would think it's more like 2 or 3) before you connect the main metro north project with the Green line.

And then what's your TBM going to do?

It's going to do nothing, nothing. for other areas of the city.

I really don't get your point, are you arguing that the completely hypothetical southwest line should be built at the same time as Metro North?

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

I really don't get your point, are you arguing that the completely hypothetical southwest line should be built at the same time as Metro North?

Yes. I think that the first phase should be the city - airport/Swords connection, and then there would be a city - southwest of the city connection.

That's what I think should be developed.

I don't think that it can all be done at the same time, but, overall, that would be the plan.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes. I think that the first phase should be the city - airport/Swords connection, and then there would be a city - southwest of the city connection.

That's what I think should be developed.

No, that wasn't what I asked. But nevermind, when do you think the southwest line should be built in relation to Metro North?

donvito99

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But, as Donvito said above, there's only a kilometre or so (I would think it's more like 2 or 3) before you connect the main metro north project with the Green line.

And then what's your TBM going to do?

It's going to do nothing, nothing. for other areas of the city.

It's less than 1km from East SSG to The Irish Nationwide site.

strassenwo!f

I thought I had answered it in my last post, but if it's still not clear to you, I think the authorities should build the metro north (the line between the city and the airport/Swords line). When money is available, they should continue it towards the southwest of Dublin.

Is that clearer?

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I thought I had answered it in my last post, but if it's still not clear to you, I think the authorities should build the metro north (the line between the city and the airport/Swords line). When money is available, they should continue it towards the southwest of Dublin.

Is that clearer?

No, I think your answer is a massive cop out. I'm asking under what kind of schedule do you think a southwest line should follow the north one - 5 years, 10 years, more?

And as a follow-up, when would you do the Metro South upgrade?

strassenwo!f

Could somebody help me here?

I want to answer this man's questions, but there isn't even a definite timeline for construction of the metro link between the city and the Airport/Swords, and he's asking me for a precise time for further construction towards the south of the city.

Can somebody help?

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Could somebody help me here?

I want to answer this man's questions, but there isn't even a definite timeline for construction of the metro link between the city and the Airport/Swords, and he's asking me for a precise time for further construction towards the south of the city.

Can somebody help?

That's exactly my point. You're wanting to cancel indefinitely an upgrade that's ready to go, cheap, and easy because you don't want it.

But you want it to be cancelled in favour of a southwest line that doesn't exist, has never even been vaguely proposed, has no price tag, and you don't even know how many years it would be after Metro North before it could start planning let alone construction.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're wanting to cancel indefinitely an upgrade that's ready to go, cheap, and easy because you don't want it.

But you want it to be cancelled in favour of a southwest line that doesn't exist, has never even been vaguely proposed, has no price tag, and you don't even know how many years it would be after Metro North before it could start planning let alone construction.

I'm not suggesting cancelling anything.

At the moment there is planning permission for a rail line between Swords and St. Stephen's Green.

That's all.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm not suggesting cancelling anything.

At the moment there is planning permission for a rail line between Swords and St. Stephen's Green.

That's all.

If you're not proposing cancelling the Metro South upgrade, then you're proposing that it should be made unnecessarily expensive by not doing it in parallel with Metro North. Which is pointless.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

If you're not proposing cancelling the Metro South upgrade, then you're proposing that it should be made unnecessarily expensive by not doing it in parallel with Metro North. Which is pointless.

Changing the Green line to Metro is a no-brainer, since it was designed that way.

However, leaving the TBM go southwest from Ranelagh about 5 km out from there underground and then break to surface running would make sense. Even if they just did the tunnel with three stations at most underground and terminated just above ground.

Reuben1210

Sam Russell wrote: »

Changing the Green line to Metro is a no-brainer, since it was designed that way.

However, leaving the TBM go southwest from Ranelagh about 5 km out from there underground and then break to surface running would make sense. Even if they just did the tunnel with three stations at most underground and terminated just above ground.

Castle Golf Club grounds and Marley park would be ideal places for it to resurface in the southwest!

MJohnston

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Castle Golf Club grounds and Marley park would be ideal places for it to resurface in the southwest!

I think that's too close to the Metro South alignment - I'd have it following the Dodder, perhaps it could even link up with the Red Line at Tallaght, as network intersections like that can be really important and useful.

Reuben1210

MJohnston wrote: »

I think that's too close to the Metro South alignment - I'd have it following the Dodder, perhaps it could even link up with the Red Line at Tallaght, as network intersections like that can be really important and useful.

The Dodder out to Knocklyon/Firhouse? probably a reasonable enough route yeah!

Zebra3

Any SSG station should be built beside/over the Luas. Nobody is talking about tarmacing over half of SSG. Whatever small amount of damage is done to the Green during a metro station construction will be minuscule compared to the benefits the city will reap from it for centuries to come.

We’re not talking about digging it up for a new road but for superior long term beneficial environmentally friendly public transport.

MJohnston

Zebra3 wrote: »

Any SSG station should be built beside/over the Luas. Nobody is talking about tarmacing over half of SSG. Whatever small amount of damage is done to the Green during a metro station construction will be minuscule compared to the benefits the city will reap from it for centuries to come.

We’re not talking about digging it up for a new road but for superior long term beneficial environmentally friendly public transport.

It's not about the Green itself, it's about the potential clash between the new Luas tracks and the excavation zone for the Metro station.

As someone pointed out, the best solution - if building the Metro station at the top of Grafton is a problem - is to have the Metro station under SSG East and then a very short underground walkway which surfaces right beside the Luas stop.

I can't think of any reason at all why the Metro station needs to be directly underneath the Grafton Street corner of SSG.

xper

not1but4 wrote: »

donvito99 wrote:

To descend into a portal somewhere at Charlemont would require the loss of about 6 houses according to Engineers Ireland in addition to the entirity of the former Irish Nationwide site.

They cannot do anything to the office block there as it's bizarrely a listed building.

Protected structures can be "preserved by record" and then demolished if it is deemed necessary. There was an old cottage on the Sandyford - Cherrywood Luas extension that met this fate.

wakka12

xper wrote: »

Protected structures can be "preserved by record" and then demolished if it is deemed necessary. There was an old cottage on the Sandyford - Cherrywood Luas extension that met this fate.

If theres solid reasons the council will allow demolition of anything. The entirety of York Street, an entire listed street, was demolished for the new RCSI building, Im sure a lot of money sweetened the deal. And this was only in 2005..not the 60's, though it might sound like it.

BowSideChamp

They need to run a decent BRT route to the airport & Swords through the Port Tunnel before they even think of Metro North.

Imagine also, the biggest delay to tourists coming to the City Centre is the disgrace that is Passport Control at DUB. This can be fixed with minimal investment.

donvito99

BowSideChamp wrote: »

They need to run a decent BRT route to the airport & Swords through the Port Tunnel before they even think of Metro

Which does nothing for Swords, Ballymun, the North inner city, the city centre, the entirety of the green line...

Fantastic if you work in the port and need to catch a flight.

donvito99

BowSideChamp wrote: »

They need to run a decent BRT route to the airport & Swords through the Port Tunnel before they even think of Metro

Which does nothing for Swords, Ballymun, the North inner city, the city centre, the entirety of the green line...

Fantastic if you work in the port and need to catch a flight.

marno21

Interesting article on New Metro North from a civil engineering point of view.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/business-culture/decision-imminent-on-engineers-for-2bn-dublin-metro-scheme/10026380.article

tom1ie

How many and what capacity are the park and rides on metro north? I presume there's a p+r for swords?

Idbatterim

donvito99 wrote: »

Which does nothing for Swords, Ballymun, the North inner city, the city centre, the entirety of the green line...

Fantastic if you work in the port and need to catch a flight.

They can't. THe quays are choked. They need the dodder transport bridge and upgrade of road outside point done years ago. We will be waiting years. Literally hate to believe we live in such a backwards da kip when it comes to transport and infrastructure

Consonata

MJohnston wrote: »

As someone pointed out, the best solution - if building the Metro station at the top of Grafton is a problem - is to have the Metro station under SSG East and then a very short underground walkway which surfaces right beside the Luas stop.

This is a great solution.

I'm just sad to see the problem has arisen at all, since it should've been forseen if the BXD had been built first. Now the taxpayer is paying 700 million as a result for a redesign.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that but still. This is these peoples jobs. Surely planning for every eventuality is a part of their job description and not having 700 million euro c**k ups.

Idbatterim

Consonata wrote: »

This is a great solution.

I'm just sad to see the problem has arisen at all, since it should've been forseen if the BXD had been built first. Now the taxpayer is paying 700 million as a result for a redesign.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that but still. This is these peoples jobs. Surely planning for every eventuality is a part of their job description and not having 700 million euro c**k ups.

What is this 700 million figure for that is being bandied about ?