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

wakka12

Ernest wrote: »

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

People should look to cross rail london to see real disruption. Most of wimbledon town centres needed to go to facilitate this, but londoners put and shut up because they know overall its for betterment of the entire city

tom1ie

I know this would be outside the scope of works but it’s a shame there are no plans to massively expand the p+r at carrickmines by way of multiple multi storey car parks. It’s a great location, plenty of room to expand, with a dedicated on/off ramp and could take a sizable amount of northbound traffic off the m50, depending on the size they upgraded it to. The higher frequency Luas (one MetroLink is up and running) could then feed into sandyford to our (hopefully) fully automated 90m hfv metros

Lord Glentoran

wakka12 wrote: »

People should look to cross rail london to see real disruption. Most of wimbledon town centres needed to go to facilitate this, but londoners put and shut up because they know overall its for betterment of the entire city

Well, it’s only forty plus years since the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study proposed a rail link to Ballymun and the Airport. Official Ireland needs time to digest any proposal :rolleyes:

Stephen15

If they were to built the Metro as driverless would it not be be very complicated and expensive to upgrade the Green Line to cater for driverless trains. What ever about upgrading the platforms to HFV would making the system driverless not require big changes to the signalling system etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't think of any metro systems around the world that were upgraded from driver operated trains to driverless ones. Has it ever been done?

embraer170

There are quite a few examples of conversions to driverless including one of the busiest lines in Paris (line 1), which was converted including the addition of platform screen doors.

There are quite a few advantages to driverless including significantly lower labour costs, decreased headways and fewer disruptions (because the system is fully isolated).

tom1ie

Just sent this to mailto:consultations@metrolink.ie. I presume they might forward my e mail on to someone in the design office? Worth a try maybe?


Hi
Just wondering if there are any plans to upgrade the p+r at Carrickmines Luas stop to a much larger capacity. When metro link is operational I presume the Luas Green Line south of sandyford will have a higher frequency and hence capacity to feed into the MetroLink at sandyford, a good way of encouraging this would be to greatly increase the p+r at carrickmines.
Also regarding the p+r at estuary, will there be set down areas for Dublin bus, private busses adjacent to the platform for local commuters to avail of?
Is 3000 parking spaces enough? Going on the data from the nra traffic counter website there seems to be a peak volume in the morning between 7am and 8am of approx 8000 cars between j01 and the m50, during weekdays. This is not including the traffic in the previous or next time periods. Are 3000 p+r spaces really going to make that much difference?
Should we be looking at a larger scale multiple multi storey p+r at the estuary stop, in the order of 10000?
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Kind regards.

Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad

Dats me

Are many people here planning on going to the public consultations? Given the only press the plans have gotten so far have been negative and the amount of things they seem to be waiting on the consultation to finalise, it would probably be a good idea

Idbatterim

fair play for the above email, but this being Ireland, nothing will be done, until it is open, proven undercapacity and then eventually "upgraded"

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

fair play for the above email, but this being Ireland, nothing will be done, until it is open, proven undercapacity and then eventually "upgraded"

Yeah maybe, that’s the sure fire way of keeping all the designers in receipt of taxpayers money, but maybe just maybe, we can get this right. We got the port tunnel correct, we got terminal 2 in Dublin airport correct, we can and should get this correct, as long as people keep the planners/ designers on the right track (sorry) and hope to god the politicians in power with vested interests, keep their greedy noses out of things we will have the start of a multi line system, with maybe a few orbital loop brt routes thrown in for good measure.

Lord Glentoran

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah maybe, that’s the sure fire way of keeping all the designers in receipt of taxpayers money, but maybe just maybe, we can get this right. We got the port tunnel correct, we got terminal 2 in Dublin airport correct, we can and should get this correct, as long as people keep the planners/ designers on the right track (sorry) and hope to god the politicians in power with vested interests, keep their greedy noses out of things we will have the start of a multi line system, with maybe a few orbital loop brt routes thrown in for good measure.

Indeed. I often wonder would many of our senior civil servants prefer if Dublin was stuck at 1976 forever? With all the cant printed down the years in the newspapers about "White Elephants", I firmly believe that.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

In my fantasy world it makes sense to divert the green line from Peter Place along the canal to be joined to the Red Line at Rialto, allowing most red line trams to bypass the slowest part of the route.

It would be simpler to extend the Green line along Adelaide Rd towards Grand Canal Dock, while maintaining the connection to the current line towards Sandyford so trams can be moved as required. If they only went as far as Leeson St it would allow a reasonable turn around space, but going as far as GCD would allow connection to the Dart.

.

salmocab

If we’re talking fantasy’s I think the Luas going down the Southside of the green and heading through D4 and somehow joining up with the redline extension creating a loop. As a disclaimer I’ve put absolutely no thought into this and it’s just popped into my head.
I live Rathfarnham direction and would love a metro out this way but I use the green line a bit and it does be packed so the upgrade is welcome.
I think the next thing Dublin needs is a mayor who can drive plans that aren’t on the whims of TDS and election cycles.

Reuben1210

marno21 wrote: »

Evil transport chiefs to appear in front of transport committee after publishing destructive Metro plans designed to disrupt GAA clubs and demolish residences

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-link-plan-causing-concern-among-generations-of-people-1.3438264

It's going to be a long few years..

I've written to the Irish Times on their clearly negative slant when it comes to coverage of anything progressive such as metros or densification of the city to make it sustainable.

I wonder will they answer at all, but it needs to be said as they clearly favour providing a platform to the minority of people who are NIMBYS.

Muahahaha

Just on the CPO of 100 houses and the Na Fianna problem. Perhaps it is naive of me but I really dont see this as a major stumbling block. There has been thousands of houses CPOed in the building of the motorway network so the legal avenue to do so is tried and tested successfully before. In fact many farmers had their farms split in two by the motorways and even those legal challenges did not defeat the importance of providing infrastructure in the national interest.

For sure some residents in Glasnevin will go to the High Court to try to stop their house being CPOed but ultimately case law shows that every legal argument against a CPO has been tried and failed. At the end of the day if the Metro satisfies a judges barometer for national infrastructure then the CPOs will go through. Some cases may well be appealed to the Supreme Court on a point of law but it is going to be a losing wicket.

I would expect any judge to take the same view with the inevitable Na Fianna case. They will argue about 3,500 members, part of the community, etc but again at the end of the day the importance of national infrastructure will trump their arguments. The case will really only be a matter of what sum of money will have to be paid to the club to compensate for their inconvenience.

Lets not also lose sight of the fact that the majority of this infrastructure is buried underground which means fitting it into the public realm is far easier, out of sight is out of mind after all. If it were a new overground railway line being attempted to be built you would have multiples of CPOs and then on top of that multiples of compensation cases from home owners who now have railway commuters looking in their back windows. If a 100 houses CPOed and Na Fiannas land used for a few years is the total of collateral damage on this project then in the grander scheme of things it is a very, very small price to pay. It will not be difficult for the NTA legal team to point out those salient facts to a deciding judge.

To me the single biggest potential stumbling block to the Metro is not the CPO and Na Fianna problem, it is a change of government; specifically a lurch back to Fianna Fail. Should that happen then all bets are off imo.

MJohnston

I'd be really surprised if the amount of houses to CPO is in double figures, let alone close to 100. Where did that figure cone from?

P_1

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd be really surprised if the amount of houses to CPO is in double figures, let alone close to 100. Where did that figure cone from?

Seeming a block of apartments (coincidentally right beside the Irish Times' fance office) might need to be knocked for the Tara Street station

yabadabado

Yeah supposed to be the 70 apartments in the College Gate complex that will be knocked.Not sure a reason has been given why it would be demolished.

Surely they could rebuild them afterwards?

jd

Muahahaha wrote: »

To me the single biggest potential stumbling block to the Metro is not the CPO and Na Fianna problem, it is a change of government; specifically a lurch back to Fianna Fail. Should that happen then all bets are off imo.

Fianna Fail are in favour of a metro. The biggest problem will be the local politicians - I believe Pascal is a member of Na Fianna!

Ernest

Reuben1210 wrote: »

I've written to the Irish Times on their clearly negative slant when it comes to coverage of anything progressive such as metros or densification of the city to make it sustainable.

I wonder will they answer at all, but it needs to be said as they clearly favour providing a platform to the minority of people who are NIMBYS.

And, again, in today's Irish Times, their always-boring economics writer Cliff Taylor pours coolish water over the proposed MetroLink and its benefits.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/let-s-not-dig-ourselves-into-a-hole-on-the-dublin-metro-plan-1.3438057

murphaph

salmocab wrote: »

If we’re talking fantasy’s I think the Luas going down the Southside of the green and heading through D4 and somehow joining up with the redline extension creating a loop. As a disclaimer I’ve put absolutely no thought into this and it’s just popped into my head.
I live Rathfarnham direction and would love a metro out this way but I use the green line a bit and it does be packed so the upgrade is welcome.
I think the next thing Dublin needs is a mayor who can drive plans that aren’t on the whims of TDS and election cycles.

If done properly the metro should benefit the likes of Rathfarnham immensely. Many buses should run east towards metro stations rather than direct towards the city centre once capacity is there to support it.

sdanseo

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

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.

Was just re-reading earlier parts of the thread and must agree with this statement.

We have had so many false starts with this project that getting shovels in the ground quickly is imperative to be sure it doesn't simply disappear in the coming years like so many attempts before.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the CPO of 100 houses and the Na Fianna problem. Perhaps it is naive of me but I really dont see this as a major stumbling block.

You should take a look at some of the borderline militant FB groups that have already popped up - all it will take is a few populist SF councillors and Mary Lou who of course is a local herself to join the gang and quite literally stunt the capitals growth for another decade unless the public consultation can quickly identify an alternative site.

As a complete aside, while the CPO should proceed in the common good, wouldn't Albert College Park is a better site? Closer to DCU and eliminates the need for a stop at Collins Avenue, saving €100m. (It's exactly 2km from Whitworth Road bridge so still within the guidelines as to how far apart access points can be, and no person has to walk more than 1km or 10mins to get to the Metro, so that solution could be perfectly viable)

specialbyte

Ernest wrote: »

And, again, in today's Irish Times, their always-boring economics writer Cliff Taylor pours coolish water over the proposed MetroLink and its benefits.

Cliff Taylor gives out about the 28 page benefit to cost ratio (BCR) report prepared by the engineering firm Systra. He says it is too short and doesn't mention modelling approaches or assumptions used. I just want to point out there is another report from Systra in Volume 2 (The Appendices) of the main report on pages 239-298. It includes all of the things that Cliff Taylor wishes were in the main BCR report.

I've so far been impressed with the thorough reports published by TII/NTA on this proposed metro scheme. If they keep up this high quality work the only thing that I can imagine scuppering this plan is an economic turndown or new government who want to redesign the project so it is "theirs". Hopefully neither of those things happen.

Stephen15

I can't see the Na Fianna issue stopping the project happening. My belief they are kicking up a fuss so they can get a bigger payout for the project the usual carry on from the GAA. The only thing that can stop the project is government incompetence and penny pinching. CPOs wont be an issue as long as the government can afford them.

murphaph

Stephen15 wrote: »

I can't see the Na Fianna issue stopping the project happening. My belief they are kicking up a fuss so they can get a bigger payout for the project the usual carry on from the GAA. The only thing that can stop the project is government incompetence and penny pinching. CPOs wont be an issue as long as the government can afford them.

Exactly. NaFianna are just making sure they get a nice bit of compo.

wakka12

Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!

Lord Glentoran

wakka12 wrote: »

Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!

Betcha there will be at least one snorty piece about Metrolink in the Sindo tomorrow.

donvito99

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

wakka12 wrote: »

Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!

Betcha there will be at least one snorty piece about Metrolink in the Sindo tomorrow.

Definitely. The usual "it's a white elephant" guff and then trotting out more useless bus lanes and the outer orbital nonsense.

Shedite27

P_1 wrote: »

Seeming a block of apartments (coincidentally right beside the Irish Times' fance office) might need to be knocked for the Tara Street station

It's the block south of Tara Street Station that the NTA is targetting. Currently consists of 2 abandondend buildings and 3 terrace houses.

It's the triangle bounded by Townsend St, Luke St and the Rail line.

Reuben1210

Shedite27 wrote: »

It's the block south of Tara Street Station that the NTA is targetting. Currently consists of 2 abandondend buildings and 3 terrace houses.

It's the triangle bounded by Townsend St, Luke St and the Rail line.

Was that for the new proposal, or the Metro announced in 2015? There isn't an apartment block on that site, and it didn't object, just said an entrance is likely to be there and could interfere with the development.

plodder

Ernest wrote: »

And, again, in today's Irish Times, their always-boring economics writer Cliff Taylor pours coolish water over the proposed MetroLink and its benefits.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/let-s-not-dig-ourselves-into-a-hole-on-the-dublin-metro-plan-1.3438057

I don't know what to make of that. On the face of it, yes of course, you can't spend 3-4 billion without some notion of an economic return.

But then you have this:

The key economic benefit is delivering people along the route more quickly to their destination – a bus might take 50 minutes from Swords to the city centre , or more at rush hour, while the Metro would get there in 25 minutes. This accounts for 78 per cent of the assumed benefits of the scheme, so we need to be sure that there will be enough passengers using the service.

That just seems to miss the point spectacularly. It's not about shortening journey times. It's about increasing transport capacity, so that the numbers traveling can be increased massively.

Maybe there should be a study done on economists past predictions on projects like this. What was the cost of their pessimism, their under estimation of usage and economic benefit etc?