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

munchkin_utd

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Will the Luas extension from Brides Glen to Bray be built prior to the Metro ? note in most of the reports that I have had time to read it states Luas from Sandyford to Brides Glen - would have thought it wold be referred to as Luas to Bray from Sandyford.

If they were wise they wouldnt build it until theres increased capacity when the metro is finished.
From all accounts trams are wedged in the mornings so adding 1000s more passengers per hour at the start of the line is making a chronic problem worse.

The folks in Bray (and points inland) also have their DART line so they arent in a bad position to begin with

Dyr

tobsey wrote: »

I was a member in Na Fianna as a child and still know many who are members today. It would be a shame to see the club impacted like that but I don't understand why nobody has mentioned Albert College park as an alternative for launching the TBMs. The green space is at least as big as the Na Fianna/Home Farm section. .

Alberts College was the original area for the machinery in metro north as far as I remember.

You have the dept of defence grounds and Home Farm next door to Na Fianna too.

plodder

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Speaking as somebody who lives near the Fostertown stop (and no other knowledge) there are several thousand houses that are served by that stop. Swords central is close alright but a 20 minute walk from the Fostertown one and most of River Valley / Ridgewood / Holywell will already have a 20 or 30 minute walk to get to Fostertown.

And Fostertown has Airside which is a pretty major shopping area and curently a pain in the hole at any slightly busy times.

I wasn't suggesting moving either of these stops, though I think the Fosterstown one should be right at Airside/Boroimhe which would suit those areas and Holywell much better.

It's just that it won't be possible to add a stop between there and the airport after construction if it's not planned for up front, and there's a fairly huge wodge of potential development land down there.

yabadabado

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Less than 5 km of track would run it from the end of the planned line to Donabate Station.

I think I remember that Fingal made an amendment to their Development Plan to preserve a pathway to connect to the northern line. Not sure if it was to Donabate though I would think it the most likely.

Was looking at this yesterday its 3.8km in a straight line to the trainstation. I think it would be a good move as an add on when the metro is completed and maybe not bring it as a straight line but add a stop north west of trainstation to open up development.

Iirc that area is green fields?

tobsey

Hurrache wrote: »

Storage yard I think is what the grounds will be used for as opposed to a launch site.

See Ossian's post above where he asked various questions at a launch meeting:

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

I met the project director this evening and asked him your questions. The general sense I got was that they are at an early stage with many important decisions not yet made (like driverless trains and station length)

Every station will be cut and cover (no mining). In 2021 they plan to launch 2 TBMs at Fosterstown and simultaneously 2 TBMs at Griffith Park. Exit points will be Griffith Park and Charlemont. They have to tunnel under the East end of Trinity College to connect Tara St and St Stephen's Green. (I remember TCD raising objections to tunneling under historic buildings last time around but the East buildings are more recent)

When they say Griffith Park there the really mean Na Fianna, because the tunnel only goes under Griffith Park at the Tolka bridge.

I understand the concerns with destroying large parts of St Stephen's Green, but Albert College isn't nearly as important. It's basically a load of pitches and a playground. There is a line of well established trees along the roadside, but Na Fianna has that too.

bk wrote: »

Well they will be a station going in just a few dozen meters north of Albert Park for DCU/Collins Avenue. So you wouldn't duplicate that.

Though perhaps they could build a station there and drop both Collins Avenue and Na Fianna Stop. But then you'd serve a smaller catchment area.

And I wonder if they were worried about local and eco resistance to digging up a park. With the original MN project their was a lot of controversy about digging up Stephens Green. I wonder if they thought that there would be less outcry about digging up two playing fields, then knocking lots of old trees in a park and they might be right.

But good questions, worth asking.

Do they have to launch the machines from Station boxes though? Na Fianna would lose their main pitch for the station construction, but they could keep the all-weather pitches and the club house fully operational. Home Farm wouldn't lose its pitch either. Plus you'd think it would be much less invasive on the two schools on the same site.

Really when you look at how congested Na Fianna is between the narrow road, close proximity to housing, two schools and the soccer pitch, Albert College makes much more sense. The only problem is you'd be putting a TBM in the ground half way between two stations rather than at a station, which would mean a lot more of the land to be refilled and covered.

You only have to look at the depot for the Port Tunnel to see how long it takes to recover from that work. It was about 8 years after the tunnel opened that Whitehall gained their pitch and the rest of the site is still a wasteland. If Albert College is used then half the park could probably remain open and the two pitches used replaced after.

tobsey

plodder wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting moving either of these stops, though I think the Fosterstown one should be right at Airside/Boroimhe which would suit those areas and Holywell much better.

It's just that it won't be possible to add a stop between there and the airport after construction if it's not planned for up front, and there's a fairly huge wodge of potential development land down there.

It's not really potential development land due to proximity to the airport. Especially once the second runway is built on the north side of the airport site. You need a green belt around the airport for noise and safety reasons.

plodder

copacetic wrote: »

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.

But the amount of green space there is massive. It has to be possible to accommodate all activities with a bit of imagination (and money obviously).

Maybe they should have done a bit more prep, but this is the public consultation stage after all, and it seems they are genuinely looking for consultation. It's disappointing to hear the old "we weren't consulted" chestnut. That's what's going to happen starting now.

Shedite27

MICKEYG wrote: »

I wonder now that we will have lots of proper connections can we rename all the lines.
I am slightly colour blind so would prefer a numbering system like in Paris/New York (maybe in tandem with colours).
So as an example...
Metro is Line 1
Dart - Line 2
Luas Red - Line 3 (maybe 3A, 3B etc. to reflect possible different destinations)
Luas Green (Charlemont to Broombridge) - Line 4
Luas Green (Sandyford to Brides Glen) - Line 5

Etc etc

Used to always be a big bugbear of mine, most people don't care if it's a dart, maynooth line, or luas, just put it all on the one network.

I think this issue might be with people not used to the system, would assume one ticket would cover both forms of transport for say line 2 and line 3, so until you get the integrated ticketing sorted I reckon it's a non-runner.

plodder

tobsey wrote: »

It's not really potential development land due to proximity to the airport. Especially once the second runway is built on the north side of the airport site. You need a green belt around the airport for noise and safety reasons.

actually I was looking at the outer safety zone and not the noise zone. Whatever about housing, I'm not sure it makes sense to restrict all development in the noise zones.

loyatemu

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Will the Luas extension from Brides Glen to Bray be built prior to the Metro ? note in most of the reports that I have had time to read it states Luas from Sandyford to Brides Glen - would have thought it wold be referred to as Luas to Bray from Sandyford.

on the larger development plan the Bray extension is listed as "after 2027", so no.

tobsey

plodder wrote: »

Some of it is within the outer noise zone for the new runway, which doesn't limit development. Much of the rest isn't restricted at all. That land is too close to the airport and the metro line to rule out all development. Even if it wasn't suitable for housing, it would be perfectly suitable for commercial use (imo).

I know what you're saying but if you look at the satelite images over the Pinnock Hill roundabout there is a lot of green land there ready for development which is in a much better location than right beside the airport. Those green field sites are much better served by having the station at the back of Airside.

plodder

tobsey wrote: »

I know what you're saying but if you look at the satelite images over the Pinnock Hill roundabout there is a lot of green land there ready for development which is in a much better location than right beside the airport. Those green field sites are much better served by having the station at the back of Airside.

Yes, but the location of the Fosterstown stop is a separate issue to whether one should be allowed for closer to the airport. I need to look into the details of the noise zones, but my own experience from working in London (Hounslow) many years ago, very close to Heathrow, was I would have no problem working that close to an airport, whatever about living there.

Idbatterim

in relation to bray, surely there will be a massive park and ride before it shoots over the n11 and into bray to take huge amounts of traffic off the n11?

loyatemu

Idbatterim wrote: »

in relation to bray, surely there will be a massive park and ride before it shoots over the n11 and into bray to take huge amounts of traffic off the n11?

it doesn't go near Bray - there's a Luas extension to Bray on the larger plan but it won't even start until after the Metro is built so there's no point even discussing it now.

Pixel Eater

Just having a look at the plans in detail there now. One thing on the O'Connell Street stop; the proposed station will be directly under the upper OCS Luas stop. This means that you could could only connect with the north bound tram, although the Parnell stop isn't too far but does require crossing two streets. Would it be better if the station was placed at the bottom of OCS to service the OCS Lower stop instead as it would also service the red line?

bk

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Just having a look at the plans in detail there now. One thing on the O'Connell Street stop; the proposed station will be directly under the upper OCS Luas stop. This means that you could could only connect with the north bound tram, although the Parnell stop isn't too far but does require crossing two streets. Would it be better if the station was placed at the bottom of OCS to service the OCS Lower stop instead as it would also service the red line?

It would be nicer there, but it looks like the curve to Tara St would then be too tight from there.

strassenwo!f

There is a nice element of 'closure' in the posts by the poster bk, which I welcome.

If he is correct, that a two-minute (or better) service will eventually obtain on the route between Charlemont and Sandyford, then we can finally put to bed the DTO's plan for a metro between Tallaght and the Airport/Swords, via St. Stephen's Green, as outlined by their crayonwork in their 'Platform for Change' plan back around 2000.

I'm glad we may have finally got that out of the way.

AlmightyCushion

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Just having a look at the plans in detail there now. One thing on the O'Connell Street stop; the proposed station will be directly under the upper OCS Luas stop. This means that you could could only connect with the north bound tram, although the Parnell stop isn't too far but does require crossing two streets. Would it be better if the station was placed at the bottom of OCS to service the OCS Lower stop instead as it would also service the red line?

It's a 2 minute walk away. Even with heavy traffic on both roads, it won't take too long.

Van.Bosch

I think Na Fianna is going to be a huge planning challenge, if they could just mine out the station box there and drop the TBM’s in at Albert College would that be doable and if it is it might mean Na Fianna pitches are just needed for a much shorter period of time?

bk

BTW One downside of the this new plan versus the old Metro North Plan is the entrance/exits to the stations.

Under the old plan, each station had multiple entrance/exit at various locations around it, which would make pedestrian access easier, quicker and safer.

For instance at the above O'Connell St stop, it would have had entrances on both O'Connell St East and West, so that you wouldn't need to cross O'Connell St to get to the station.

Under the new plan they look to be going for simpler station designs, with just one entrance directly above the station. So for instance this above O'Connell St stop will require people to cross from either side of O'Connell St to get to it.

Definitely a disadvantage, but I can also understand that it likely makes the stations cheaper to build.

yabadabado

Maybe for some of the stations at very busy area's /junctions there will be more points of access. It wouldn't be needed in many places but would be good idea at the likes of OCS.

bk

yabadabado wrote: »

Maybe for some of the stations at very busy area's /junctions there will be more points of access. It wouldn't be needed in many places but would be good idea at the likes of OCS.

Yes, at O'Connell St, Tara and SSG. The rest should be fine. But then another downside is that it would mean more digging up of those streets and disturbance.

BTW one other thing about the OCS stop, I don't see how it can be built without closing down LCC at that point, at least temporarily!

Unless they build a short section of Luas track further West or East to go round it.

loyatemu

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's a 2 minute walk away. Even with heavy traffic on both roads, it won't take too long.

they might consider pedestrian tunnels (as other Metro systems have). An underground walkway from the OCS stop to the corner of Abbey St and Marlborough St would provide interchange with both Luas lines. They're tunnelling in that direction anyway, might be possible.

strassenwo!f

There was a group called Platform 11, who then became Railusersireland. They used to post here a lot - almost everyday in fact - especially about the earlier plan for an DART connection between Heuston and the East of the city.

It would be interesting to hear what they make of this plan, if they're still around.

cgcsb

murphaph wrote: »

Government = taxpayer. Na Fianna will I'm quite certain be provided temporary accommodation and will have their existing facilities handed back in top condition. And most locals will be far more interested in getting their metro station. 125 teams is still only max 3000 players. Of those many will be actually be happy to accept the inconvenience for a metro line to the city and airport!

Can't believe we're talking about this aspect of the project....no, actually I can because it's always like this.

It's a very minor detail alright, don't know why the media have latched onto it. Thousands of farms homes and businesses are demolished and completely lost forever to accommodate motorway schemes. This is a temporary upheaval for a small sports club who will be heavily compensated.

ignorance is strength

bk wrote: »

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.

It seems to me less a problem with individual politicians as with the political culture and structures. It requires a huge political investment to realise any project. And when, as with the Luas, planning appeals and City Council indecision, which are outside the national government's control, stymie the project, the government receives unrelenting blame. In other words, it's not clear to me that much would change if you filled the Dail with able politicians.

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.

Thanks a lot for that. Tbh, as a Southsider, it was only when I looked at the commuter timetable yesterday that I realised how many non-Darts share the line north of Pearse.

It's dispiriting to hear you say that it's probably at capacity, because it would be a lot nicer to be able to put it down to Irish Rail incompetence, leaving the prospect for improvement.

LoMismo

I'm pretty sure there'll be some CPOs required in the Ranelagh/D6 area. There are a lot of posho legal types living around there who will be a force to reckon with.
Personally I can't see this happening, certainly not by 2030. This is Ireland ffs. We could have another general election and whoever gets in power could scrap it all in favour of investing in smaller towns in Ireland or something. Seriously we shouldn't be taking this seriously until there are tunnels being bored.

Pixel Eater

LoMismo wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there'll be some CPOs required in the Ranelagh/D6 area. There are a lot of posho legal types living around there who will be a force to reckon with.
Personally I can't see this happening, certainly not by 2030. This is Ireland ffs. We could have another general election and whoever gets in power could scrap it all in favour of investing in smaller towns in Ireland or something. Seriously we shouldn't be taking this seriously until there are tunnels being bored.

That's the spirit.

Synode

Anyone know will the route open up much land for development of houses?

Pixel Eater

bk wrote: »

Yes, at O'Connell St, Tara and SSG. The rest should be fine. But then another downside is that it would mean more digging up of those streets and disturbance.

BTW one other thing about the OCS stop, I don't see how it can be built without closing down LCC at that point, at least temporarily!

Unless they build a short section of Luas track further West or East to go round it.

Didn't the O'Connell Statue needed to be moved to facilitate the original Metro North plan. Would it still need to be? Maybe tunneling technology has advanced since then.