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

yabadabado

P_1 wrote: »

Closer to 5, maybe 10 if you want to ramble about in the park itself.

Only quibble I'd have with the route is it not connecting to the northern line at Donabate.

Though I can only imagine how much fun the Green Line is going to be during construction.

I suppose they only can have so much on phase 1 but whose to say 5-10 years after the inital opening that a spur wont be built to connect it to Northern line/Donabate.Its about 4km but could open up large tracts of land for development at a later stage and a coonection to the airport for northern line users.

Ernest

RTE News report on this tonight mainly focussed on the negative aspects of MetroLink - like some sports club being inconvenienced during construction.

Amirani

sdanseo wrote: »

No more costly than building the Metro if it's done right. The highest cost of an undeground tunnel by far is the tunneling, and a track that's 17cm wider for heavy rail isn't going to increase the cost enormously.
Metro is the right choice for this route but needs to be scalable to at least 20k ppdph.

You're forgetting that everywhere South of Stephen's Green isn't really compatible with heavy rail? That would be quite a bit more costly than metro plan.

Agreed re. scalability to 20k ppdph.

Idbatterim

Ernest wrote: »

RTE News report on this tonight mainly focussed on the negative aspects of MetroLink - like some sports club being inconvenienced during construction.

Of course they were. Another joke of an Irish “institution “

What a total shocker. An enourmous project requires some disruption... please tell us more rte...

bk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How about underground heavy rail every 2 minutes?

Great, do you have an extra billion or two to build that?

sdanseo wrote: »

The DART is high floor, configured for more standing and significantly wider than a Luas/Metro (1600mm vs 1435mm gauge) and fits around 1,000 people as opposed to 400 on a Luas or maybe 600 on a 90m Metro.

The proposed Metros will also be wider 2.65m and they maybe high floor too (they haven't decided yet).

BTW you do know London Undergounds heavy rail trains range in length from 60m to 120m, with most around 110m. 90m, Metros is perfectly fine for us.

BBTW the fact that DART is so long, is actually a major disadvantage of it. They had to make them that long because they couldn't increase the frequency due to sharing the tracks with other trains and signalling. They would have much prefered to go with 4 carriage DARTS and a higher frequency, then the 8 carriage ones they were forced to go with. It was a nasty work around for the constraints of the heavy rail network.

sdanseo wrote: »

You'd only need to run one DART for every 2 or 3 trams to have the same efficiency and DART Underground is the more important project because it goes out further from the city and connects more of the commuter towns.

People much prefer a more frequent service, then a less frequent service. Most people rather to arrive at a station to see the next train is 2 minutes away, then 15 minutes.

Again I'll remind you and others that even the Luas with it's small and narrow 43m trams still manages to carry more people a day per line then DART.

sdanseo wrote: »

No more costly than building the Metro if it's done right. The highest cost of an undeground tunnel by far is the tunneling, and a track that's 17cm wider for heavy rail isn't going to increase the cost enormously.
Metro is the right choice for this route but needs to be scalable to at least 20k ppdph

Actually the biggest cost is the station boxes. A DART would require station boxes twice as long as the Metro and that would massively ramp up costs. It is why Dart Underground was going to cost more then Metro, despite less stations and much shorter length of tunnel.

Trying to find space for 200m station boxes would require a whole lot more CPO'ing.

sdanseo wrote: »

The DART project still needs to happen because it connects all 4 heavy rail lines which go further out, have higher capacity and ultimately connect more people who can then complete their journeys on the core inner-city system incl. Metro/Luas/Bus.

Interestingly the DART Underground tunnel was not planned to carry intercity trains, unlike many people think. Just DART only, that is why it was called DART Underground. If it had to carry intercity trains like Crossrail, then that would ramp up the cost even more due to even longer stations, more complicated signalling, etc.

yabadabado wrote: »

I suppose they only can have so much on phase 1 but whose to say 5-10 years after the inital opening that a spur wont be built to connect it to Northern line/Donabate.Its about 4km but could open up large tracts of land for development at a later stage and a coonection to the airport for northern line users.

Absolutely, it is a given and you can see from the design of the depot, that it has been designed to allow trains run through it and on in future.

Green Party: Ossian Smyth

Taking part in the public consultation is worthwhile - it gets you thinking about the city and the ideas you submit have to be bullet-pointed and considered. If there are two factions for opposing options within a project team, it helps if one side can say that they identified good public support for their choice in the consultation.

My fear is that this project may simply follow the lifecycle of the previous "Metro North"; spending hundreds of millions on planning, design and property acquisition and then get binned in the next downturn.

normanoffside wrote: »

Where is Fosterbrook? Google is showing me Mt Merrion?

That should say Fosterstown

copacetic

Ernest wrote: »

RTE News report on this tonight mainly focussed on the negative aspects of MetroLink - like some sports club being inconvenienced during construction.

I’ll think you find they focused on the aspects that most people will care about. A relatively random router change moved a station 500m or so from a farmers field to the grounds of two major sports clubs and two schools. Then they decided sure that would be a great location for the major depot itself so we will take all the land anyway for 3-6 years. They don’t appear to have thought about where the club would go to and they ave they club 2 days notice.

It will be a major issue for the area, for all the politicians in the area and the GAA itself, especially with it being the club of the new president of the GAA.

It shows a fair bit of poor planning by the project team in the way they did it apparently without thinking of any of these issues.

MayoSalmon

Lads what's the craic with utilising the green line instead of tunnelling to the south west of Dublin and bringing rail service to them. Areas like Rathfarnham, Terenue, etc

Stephen Strange

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Lads what's the craic with utilising the green line instead of tunnelling to the south west of Dublin and bringing rail service to them. Areas like Rathfarnham, Terenue, etc

€€€€€€€€€€€

strassenwo!f

sdanseo wrote: »

Ossian, if an opportunity arises to ask further questions, I'd be interested to know how the change from Stephen's Green West to East and incorporation of Tara Street as an interchange affects the project director's thoughts on DART underground. If they are choosing this option what is the scope for DART to connect in the future, as was proposed?

There's really no reason to bother Ossian any further on this.

They've chosen this option, and it will connect with the DART at Tara Street, and at Whitworth Road.

There's no reason for it also to connect at St. Stephen's Green. How many DART/Metro connections do you want? or need?

Still, in fairness to you, I am a bit surprised that they've chosen this option, as when Irish Rail went to An Bord Pleanala for a railway order, they said they'd looked at two options for their proposed underground railway line's interchange with the metro: Tara Street and St. Stephen's Green West.

Irish Rail's problem with Tara Street was basically that any line through there wouldn't go via St. Stephen's Green and wouldn't connect with the LUAS.

Any line through St. Stephen's Green would, of course, connect with the LUAS and would also go through St. Stephen's Green.

This logic was, of course, readily accepted by An Bord Pleanala, as they waved Irish Rail's plan through, with minimal scrutiny and at a very large cost in terms of its preparation.

ABP also waved the RPA's plan through, and that one included many millions euro on a station box at the Mater which may well not now be used, due to its proximity to Whitworth Road. There were several million euro spent by state agencies, namely the Department of Transport, Irish Rail and the RPA, presenting plans to ABP which will not now happen.

The LUAS link-up has changed a lot of things - not least that we now know we don't need to build a route via St. Stephen's Green to connect the DART with the LUAS. We should also have learnt that ABP's authority is basically shot in terms of public transport issues, because of their lackadaisal approach to previous applications for railway orders.

sdanseo

bk wrote: »

The proposed Metros will also be wider 2.65m and they maybe high floor too (they haven't decided yet).

High floor would be the best option as it provides the higher capacity although I saw an infographic somewhere within the myriad of paperwork released today which showed the 90m LFV as the best cost-to-capacity ratio by a good distance based on analysis of the Charlemont-Sandyford upgrade alone.

bk wrote: »

BTW you do know London Undergounds heavy rail trains range in length from 60m to 120m, with most around 110m. 90m, Metros is perfectly fine for us.

I recently watched a 5-part documentary on the underground. They often close stations entirely due to overcapacity to prevent stampedes. Their capacity is inherently limited by old infrastructure and while it is a world-class system, we have the ability to plan in the here and now and should future proof for decades to come.

bk wrote: »

People much prefer a more frequent service, then a less frequent service. Most people rather to arrive at a station to see the next train is 2 minutes away, then 15 minutes.

bk wrote: »

Again I'll remind you and others that even the Luas with it's small and narrow 43m trams still manages to carry more people a day per line then DART.

Yes, but in a slower, more frustrating and significantly more accident prone fashion. That the Luas is so successful is only a testament to how badly the DART is managed and its potential watsed, it doesn't mean it should be ignored in favour of a 100% metro focus. The healy rail routes reach much further to areas where stations are not served by feeder buses. If Irish Rail / TII built significant P+R facilities near more suburban stations you would see a massive uptake in usage. People drive to the city because it costs them to fortune to park at the train station and that's in the unlikely event that there are spaces left after 7am (bar a few great examples like M3 Parkway).

bk wrote: »

Actually the biggest cost is the station boxes. A DART would require station boxes twice as long as the Metro and that would massively ramp up costs. It is why Dart Underground was going to cost more then Metro, despite less stations and much shorter length of tunnel.

Trying to find space for 200m station boxes would require a whole lot more CPO'ing.

I completely agree, the Metro project will suffice for this route if it's fone correctly and will certainly be future proofed in terms of capacity if DU is done as well since that will inherently take pressure off especially the central section. I was merely pointing out the tunnel infrastructure would not have to be any appreciable amount wider or more costly. Hypothetically speaking though, why could the core of the station box not remain the same size and platforms be extended into the tunnels? If you gained perhaps 50m at each end there is suddenly a 190m platform with the nearest exit only 50m away at most.

bk wrote: »

BBTW the fact that DART is so long, is actually a major disadvantage of it. They had to make them that long because they couldn't increase the frequency due to sharing the tracks with other trains and signalling. They would have much prefered to go with 4 carriage DARTS and a higher frequency, then the 8 carriage ones they were forced to go with. It was a nasty work around for the constraints of the heavy rail network.

bk wrote: »

Interestingly the DART Underground tunnel was not planned to carry intercity trains, unlike many people think. Just DART only, that is why it was called DART Underground. If it had to carry intercity trains like Crossrail, then that would ramp up the cost even more due to even longer stations, more complicated signalling, etc.

The signalling issues but more importantly the general capacity constraint of the loopline bridge are why DU is so important. Double the capacity = double the services.

I'm not suggesting that DU carry intercity trains although at least the option would be there - but they can contnue to use the existing PPT. What DU does is allow high-frequency, high-capacity routes over longer distances from Drogheda / Maynooth / Celbridge / Greystones over a network that is mostly complete, and just needs to be linked. It isn't feasible to rely on the Luas/PPT to provide that level of connectivity going forward or even now.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There's really no reason to bother Ossian any further on this.

They've chosen this option, and it will connect with the DART at Tara Street, and at Whitworth Road.

There's no reason for it also to connect at St. Stephen's Green. How many DART/Metro connections do you want? or need?

To be clear, I'm not worried about the interchange being at Tara rather than Pearse / SSG. I'm worried that the govt will use the interchange at Tara as an excuse not to proceed with DU which is the more important project from a national / regional point of view.

There's also the problem that if you have to interchange at Tara St, and the DU stops at Pearse but no longer SSG (West) since that station no longer exists, that adds an extra change for e.g. a Celbridge - DCU commute and might disenfranchise some (previosuly you could get the DART from Celbridge to SSG and jump on the Metro there, now you would have to continue to Pearse, Change to the other DART line, go 1 stop to Tara, then change to Metro).

strassenwo!f wrote: »

We should also have learnt that ABP's authority is basically shot in terms of public transport issues, because of their lackadaisal approach to previous applications for railway orders.

I learnt a long time ago to have very low expectation of any planning authority in this country. Their collective, consistent ineptitude is almost beyond belief.

Case in point, main road between Swords and Malahide. 15 years ago there was room to widen or perhaps dual this with the loss of maybe 3 properties.
Since then about 100 houses have been built in the way and it now takes 20 mins to travel 2km on a daily basis with absolutely no possibility to now do anything about it bar with the liberal application of a bulldozer and a chequebook.

ignorance is strength

Great information, bk. I thought I was quite informed about the plans, but it's humbling to see someone with so much more knowledge. And it heightens the contrast with the average person commenting on journal.ie and Facebook who seems to think that designing and building a metro line is as simple as building a road through a field - sure, you're mostly taking away, rather than building! (Ironically, as well, they frequently complain that no planning goes into these projects, when anyone who has even glanced at the studies and plans will know that that is laughably untrue.)

bk wrote: »

BBTW the fact that DART is so long, is actually a major disadvantage of it. They had to make them that long because they couldn't increase the frequency due to sharing the tracks with other trains and signalling. They would have much prefered to go with 4 carriage DARTS and a higher frequency, then the 8 carriage ones they were forced to go with. It was a nasty work around for the constraints of the heavy rail network.

Could I ask what the constraints on Darts re. signalling are? Is it the case that Irish Rail has an antiquated signalling system, or is one Dart every fifteen minutes, along with however many commuters, really the maximum capacity that can be got from each line?

MJohnston

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Lads what's the craic with utilising the green line instead of tunnelling to the south west of Dublin and bringing rail service to them. Areas like Rathfarnham, Terenue, etc

This has been covered loads on this thread - the Green Line track between Charlemont and Sandyford is already capable of running Metro trains from right now. The only works needed to turn that from Luas to Metro will be closure of a handful of level crossings, possibly platform adjustments, and the tunnel tie-in at Charlemont. So that's a lot of extra line for a very small amount of money (relative to the rest of the project).

A south-west Metro line is a must for the future, but it would at least double the cost of the Metro project, and probably closer to 2.5x the cost. That would kill the project dead. Better to build the coherent parts that make sense asap and then evolve from that.

Dyr

bk wrote: »

Also I don't think the community around it will be very happy if they hold it up. In particular DCU has a lot of pull there I'd imagine.

DCU has lots of playing grounds there they can volunteer, so off they go. DCU are not the massive boon to the area that people imagine

Jonny cooper making the point that Na Fianna have 125 teams and 3,500 members on their books. You think the community around there going to be happy losing that when theres a massive site a stones throw away that is still waste ground which the government just dont want to pay for?

MJohnston

Bambi wrote: »

DCU has lots of playing grounds there they can volunteer, so off they go. DCU are not the massive boon to the area that people imagine

Jonny cooper making the point that Na Fianna have 125 teams and 3,500 members on their books. You think the community around there going to be happy losing that when theres a massive site a stones throw away that is still waste ground which the government just dont want to pay for?

Which massive site?

yabadabado

Bambi wrote: »

DCU has lots of playing grounds there they can volunteer, so off they go. DCU are not the massive boon to the area that people imagine

Jonny cooper making the point that Na Fianna have 125 teams and 3,500 members on their books. You think the community around there going to be happy losing that when theres a massive site a stones throw away that is still waste ground which the government just dont want to pay for?

Someone better tell Jonny Cooper that there are hundreds of thousands more people who will benefit from the building of this metro.Views like his are so short sighted.

sdanseo

MJohnston wrote: »

A south-west Metro line is a must for the future, but it would at least double the cost of the Metro project, and probably closer to 2.5x the cost. That would kill the project dead. Better to build the coherent parts that make sense asap and then evolve from that.

How do you figure double? Say Edmonstown to O'Connell St. Is there room for a set of points and a third platform under the street?

Enough space for cut and cover stations at Terenue, Harold's Cross Park and maybe Rathfarnham but the rest would need to be dug out I guess.

strassenwo!f

It will be interesting to see how the official map develops over the years. At the moment the line is punctuated by station names which are all placed to the East of their location, between their location and the current DART line.

On the southside of the city, it certainly does give a good initial idea of the priorities of the city planners

I'd guess that there will soon be an attempt to move some of those station names over to the other side of the line, to add to the pretence that the area to the southwest side of that line is something that the authorities actually give a **** about.

MJohnston

sdanseo wrote: »

How do you figure double? Say Edmonstown to O'Connell St. Is there room for a set of points and a third platform under the street?

Enough space for cut and cover stations at Terenue, Harold's Cross Park and maybe Rathfarnham but the rest would need to be dug out I guess.

At least double because you'd have to tunnel for about the same distance towards the south-west as you would for the planned Airport to OCS section.

With a south-west route though, I'd say it's pretty vital that it links back into the Red Line at some point outside the M50.

Either way though, I'd say a significant extra cost would be involved, at least double of the "Metro North" section.

yabadabado

MJohnston wrote: »

At least double because you'd have to tunnel for about the same distance towards the south-west as you would for the planned Airport to OCS section.

With a south-west route though, I'd say it's pretty vital that it links back into the Red Line at some point outside the M50.

Either way though, I'd say a significant extra cost would be involved, at least double of the "Metro North" section.

OCS to Tallaght(link to Luas Red line) a route to take in places like Terennure,Rahtfarnum,Harolds Cross and stops in towards the city centre would be a massive undertaking.A large PnR near one of the first stops(near M50) would be needed as well.
Be great if something like that ever happened but it will be hard enough get Metro link built.

bk

sdanseo wrote: »

High floor would be the best option as it provides the higher capacity although I saw an infographic somewhere within the myriad of paperwork released today which showed the 90m LFV as the best cost-to-capacity ratio by a good distance based on analysis of the Charlemont-Sandyford upgrade alone.

Yes, I talked about that earlier in detail, they looked at three options:

Luas: 55m LFV - Driver Controlled - 20 TPHPD: 7,380 PPDPH

Scenario 1: 60m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 12,390 PPDPH
Scenario 2: 60m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 18,000 PPDPH
Scenario 3: 90m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 22,320 PPDPH
Scenario x: 90m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 27,000 PPDPH

The last one is one I added myself, which they didn't look at. 90m LFV only came out top because they didn't look at the 90m HFV option.

I suspect they want to push 90m LFV as it is cheaper. It requires much less costly works along the Green line.

sdanseo wrote: »

I recently watched a 5-part documentary on the underground. They often close stations entirely due to overcapacity to prevent stampedes. Their capacity is inherently limited by old infrastructure and while it is a world-class system, we have the ability to plan in the here and now and should future proof for decades to come.

Of course, which is why I've long said we need 90m platforms, at least as an upgrade option and I'd also prefer them to go with HFV and driverless too. Lots of future potential then.

sdanseo wrote: »

Yes, but in a slower, more frustrating and significantly more accident prone fashion. That the Luas is so successful is only a testament to how badly the DART is managed and its potential watsed, it doesn't mean it should be ignored in favour of a 100% metro focus. The healy rail routes reach much further to areas where stations are not served by feeder buses. If Irish Rail / TII built significant P+R facilities near more suburban stations you would see a massive uptake in usage. People drive to the city because it costs them to fortune to park at the train station and that's in the unlikely event that there are spaces left after 7am (bar a few great examples like M3 Parkway).

In fairness, I don't think it is being ignored. 2 billion on heavy rail in the Dublin Region will absolutely transform it IMO.

It is disappointing that we aren't getting the full DU tunnel for now. But at least the Whitworth Road plan should give us a lot of the same benefit as a temporary alternative.

sdanseo wrote: »

I completely agree, the Metro project will suffice for this route if it's fone correctly and will certainly be future proofed in terms of capacity if DU is done as well since that will inherently take pressure off especially the central section. I was merely pointing out the tunnel infrastructure would not have to be any appreciable amount wider or more costly. Hypothetically speaking though, why could the core of the station box not remain the same size and platforms be extended into the tunnels? If you gained perhaps 50m at each end there is suddenly a 190m platform with the nearest exit only 50m away at most.

If your interested, you should read the Tunnel Configuration Study for the Metro here:

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/tunnel-configuration-study/metrolink-tunnel-configuration-study.pdf

They go into exahusting detail on the different types of tunnels options and station building techniques and all the pros and cons of each. It is super interesting geeky stuff if you are curious.

What you are suggesting is called mining out a station and it tends to be vastly more expensive then straight station boxes. Also it has a bunch of safety concerns about ventilation and quick escape in case of fire.

The other option they looked at is mono tube tunnels, an extra large tunnel bore that can fit both two tracks stacked on top of one another along with the platforms. However the downside is much bigger, more expensive TBM, much more dirt to deal with and the stations have to be much deeper. It all seems to add a lot of expensive.

Reading this document, it really comes across that tunnelling itself isn't such a big deal, it is the stations that are complicated.

sdanseo wrote: »

The signalling issues but more importantly the general capacity constraint of the loopline bridge are why DU is so important. Double the capacity = double the services.

The current City Center Resignalling Project will greatly increase capacity to 20 trains per direction per hour across the bridge. That will greatly help increase capacity:

http://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/city-centre-resignalling

This, plus terminating more trains at Docklands and having people interchange at Whitworth Road will likely give you most of what DU offered.

sdanseo wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that DU carry intercity trains although at least the option would be there - but they can contnue to use the existing PPT. What DU does is allow high-frequency, high-capacity routes over longer distances from Drogheda / Maynooth / Celbridge / Greystones over a network that is mostly complete, and just needs to be linked. It isn't feasible to rely on the Luas/PPT to provide that level of connectivity going forward or even now.

Sure, but the electrification of the lines, PPT, Whitworth Road and City Center regsignalling will give you much the same high frequency, high capacity, that is the beauty of it. It really is very clever.

sdanseo wrote: »

To be clear, I'm not worried about the interchange being at Tara rather than Pearse / SSG. I'm worried that the govt will use the interchange at Tara as an excuse not to proceed with DU which is the more important project from a national / regional point of view.

Got you, I'd say Whitworth Road will be more the issue, as it will give you most of the benefits, without the need of the tunnelling.

I do think DU or something similar will still eventually happen, but Whitworth Road definitely makes it all easier to put off for another decade.

sdanseo wrote: »

There's also the problem that if you have to interchange at Tara St, and the DU stops at Pearse but no longer SSG (West) since that station no longer exists, that adds an extra change for e.g. a Celbridge - DCU commute and might disenfranchise some (previosuly you could get the DART from Celbridge to SSG and jump on the Metro there, now you would have to continue to Pearse, Change to the other DART line, go 1 stop to Tara, then change to Metro).

For Celbridge to DCU?

No you don't, Celbridge to Whitworth Road, change there for Metro to DCU, easy.

That is my point, when you sit down and start thinking about a bunch of the journeys you might take under DU and then think about them under the new plan, most of them are much the same.

Dyr

yabadabado wrote: »

Someone better tell Jonny Cooper that there are hundreds of thousands more people who will benefit from the building of this metro.Views like his are so short sighted.

Not short sighted for his club or community, there's alternatives right beside na Fianna, there's either a game being played or the govt are just looking for a land grab.

Which massive site?

Botanic Road, sold for about 15 million last year presumably around the same time that the NTA were pulling this doozy of a plan out of their backsides

bk

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Great information, bk. I thought I was quite informed about the plans, but it's humbling to see someone with so much more knowledge. And it heightens the contrast with the average person commenting on journal.ie and Facebook who seems to think that designing and building a metro line is as simple as building a road through a field - sure, you're mostly taking away, rather than building! (Ironically, as well, they frequently complain that no planning goes into these projects, when anyone who has even glanced at the studies and plans will know that that is laughably untrue.)

Thanks, but nothing special, I just took the time to read through all the excellent info they published today. Well I skimmed it, there is probably a couple thousand pages between all the docs.

As you say, I've always been very impressed by all the plans I've looked at from the NTA, TII, etc. We clearly have excellent engineers and planners. Unfortunately it is the politicians who mess it up IMO

It most be frustrating for those engineers and planners to see their hard work go to waste as the politicians mess around.

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Could I ask what the constraints on Darts re. signalling are? Is it the case that Irish Rail has an antiquated signalling system, or is one Dart every fifteen minutes, along with however many commuters, really the maximum capacity that can be got from each line?

They are currently working on improving it with the city center resignalling plan to 20 trains per hour per direction.

Part of what doesn't help is the complexity with mixing different types of trains, DART EMU's, with Diesel Commuters and Intercities. They all have different speeds, weights, acceleration/decelaration characteristics that compicates things greatly.

When some people here talk about heavy rail being better then Metro/Light Rail and point to the likes of London Underground, Berlin, etc. the point they all seem to miss is what makes these systems so good, is that they are fully segregated and don't mix with any other trains. That greatly simplifies the service and allows greater frequency and reliability.

They aren't mixing trains like we do here.

I'd take a fully segregated, high frequency Metro any day over a mixed heavy rail line.

salmocab

naFianna should and Im sure will be well looked after with whatever solution is reached, if their ground is the best place for the portals then they should receive very practical solutions and if possible move back in with a stop below their newly rebuilt grounds. Its perfectly fine for a sports club to expect not to have their grounds taken away from them but if they are they should be looked after very well.
The greater good is obvious here but that doesnt mean they should just move along they need to get the best they possibly can for their members.

Kermit.de.frog

Why did they go with "MetroLink" anyway - doesn't Manchester have a tram system by exactly the same name?

yabadabado

salmocab wrote: »

naFianna should and Im sure will be well looked after with whatever solution is reached, if their ground is the best place for the portals then they should receive very practical solutions and if possible move back in with a stop below their newly rebuilt grounds. Its perfectly fine for a sports club to expect not to have their grounds taken away from them but if they are they should be looked after very well.
The greater good is obvious here but that doesnt mean they should just move along they need to get the best they possibly can for their members.

I don't think anyone is saying Na Fianna should just bagck their bags and leave but if this is the best option then it needs to happen.
The club will be inconvenienced by it but alternative arrangements will be made and they will be compensated for it. When it is completed they will have a metro station serving the local area and a stop right outside their ground. Imo they will end up in a much better position than they currently are in.The advantages of the stop far outweigh the short time hassle.

bk

Bambi wrote: »

DCU has lots of playing grounds there they can volunteer, so off they go. DCU are not the massive boon to the area that people imagine

The point is DCU own vastly more land in the area then anyone. That makes them part of the community and a bigger say then most. But I agree, they could well offer the use of some of their land temporarily.

Bambi wrote: »

Jonny cooper making the point that Na Fianna have 125 teams and 3,500 members on their books. You think the community around there going to be happy losing that when theres a massive site a stones throw away that is still waste ground which the government just dont want to pay for?

I live in the area. I frequently have had the lovely cavary there on a Sunday.

It is certainly a pity to see it be effected for a few years, but I think it is a cost well worth paying and frankly I'm sure many of their neighbours would agree, specially when they consider the big increase in house values this will have for them, never mind a nice quick trip into town and the airport.

Bambi wrote: »

Not short sighted for his club or community, there's alternatives right beside na Fianna, there's either a game being played or the govt are just looking for a land grab.

Botanic Road, sold for about 15 million last year presumably around the same time that the NTA were pulling this doozy of a plan out of their backsides

The club won't lose the land, the land will be put back after it is finished. And I'm sure they will be handsomely paid for the inconvenience for a few years.

That location is needed in order to hit Whitworth Road, which is key to all this plan. It is where they can connect the Kildare and Maynooth lines with the Metro.

I don't really see any other option, it is either there or the front of the Botanic Gardens. I suspect the Gardens would face a lot more local resistance.

December2012

marno21 wrote: »

In the Infographic

"Connecting to the DART System at Tara Street and the Maynooth and Kildare lines at Glasnevin"

Good.

That would be great, but how would that happen? Does the line presently go into Glasnevin? (I didn't think so but would happily be wrong go have a good connection to this service)

FreudianSlippers

Look. 60m trains, 90m platforms, driverless trains... it's obvious (for the moment).

yabadabado

Bambi wrote: »

Not short sighted for his club or community, there's alternatives right beside na Fianna, there's either a game being played or the govt are just looking for a land grab.



Botanic Road, sold for about 15 million last year presumably around the same time that the NTA were pulling this doozy of a plan out of their backsides

How are the government looking for a land grap when it's only a temporary messure?

The site on Botanic Rd which is extremely close to Whitworth Station?

You want the government to buy/CPO that site?