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

sdanseo

Reuben1210 wrote: »

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.

The current proposal. The letter looks to be incorrectly dated 2017 instead of 2018, since planning application 4485/17 was only submitted in December 2017, and the stamp says it was received on the same day in 2018.

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4485/17&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3692211%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4357307%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3692211%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Web Reference Application Date: 11-Dec-2017
Planning Application Reference: 4485/17 Registration Date: 11-Dec-2017
Decision Date: 13-Feb-2018 Application Type: Permission
Final Grant Date: Extension of time to:
Last Date for Observations: 23-Jan-2018
Main Location: 157-164, Townsend Street, Dublin 2
Proposal Permission for development on a site of c.0.1416ha. at 157-164 Townsend Street, View full text

This development is directly across the road from the terraced houses you mentioned.

marno21

Looking forward to see if Colm McCarthy has his tuppence worth on the scheme in the Sunday Independent tomorrow

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

Looking forward to see if Colm McCarthy has his tuppence worth on the scheme in the Sunday Independent tomorrow

I think that would overvalue his contribution.

Idbatterim

marno21 wrote: »

Looking forward to see if Colm McCarthy has his tuppence worth on the scheme in the Sunday Independent tomorrow

He will probably get the 3 billion figure and tell us how many buses it could buy ...

jd

Idbatterim wrote: »

He will probably get the 3 billion figure and tell us how many buses it could buy ...

Which is a bit rich coming from a guy who drives to and from UCD and would be baffled if you handed him a Leap Card.

MayoSalmon

Idbatterim wrote:

He will probably get the 3 billion figure and tell us how many buses it could buy ...

You weren't far wrong there...just prattles on about cost...waste of time really reading that!

Green Party: Ossian Smyth

tom1ie wrote: »

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

TII obtained permission last month for a 310 space multistorey p&r at Carrickmines with 62 cycle spaces.

yabadabado

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

TII obtained permission last month for a 310 space multistorey p&r at Carrickmines with 62 cycle spaces.

It's good to see they are looking to build more PnR but they should be trying for much bigger capacity where possible.

LoMismo

Was there a Sindo piece?

xper

bk wrote: »

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.

I've gone a bit drawings-blind after trawling through all the documentation but the design of the O'Connell Street proposed in "metrolink-concept-engineering-drawings-book.pdf" (which I take to be the emerging preferred route) was the one "Are you kidding me?" moment I had when doing so and I can see this changing during detailed design and after consultation.

That OCS station ground level layout is positively dangerous (and Ballymun Village stop is similar). The entrances open directly onto the southbound carriageway on one side and the Luas track on the other with little circulation space inside - cue crowd surge shoving pushing people waiting for teh crossing out in front of a tram or bus whose driver has severely constrained sight lines. The layout also demands pedestrians moving from the Metro to the OCS Luas stop cross a carriageway and then cross back over the same carriageway 100m down the road. Inevitably, desire lines will lead people in a hurry to make dashes along the Luas tracks themselves.

The "metrolink-volume-3-assessment-options-drawings.pdf" document has an alternative layout for the OCS stop which has the entrances on either side of the street leading to a underground concourse spanning the street. This makes much more sense and has multiple practical advantages:

• increases safety by separating pedestrians from Luas and vehicular traffic
• provides lots of circulation space on street and within the station for what will be a very busy stop.
• also provides an improved street crossing and access to Luas stop (with additional mid-street entrance)
• no relocation of the Luas OCS Upper stop required
• increases Luas/traffic movement by removing two on-street pedestrian crossings
• retains two traffic lanes on southbound carriageway removing impact on bus stops and movement

I'd also like to see a shift in the St Stephen's Green East layout to move the ground level elements towards the park and thus retain a second norhtbound traffic lane. Again, we want to avoid impacting bus movements a la LCC. The pedestrian entrance could be located in the large open area at the corner of the pak and still be sympathtic to monument located there.

tom1ie

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

TII obtained permission last month for a 310 space multistorey p&r at Carrickmines with 62 cycle spaces.

Good to see, but it’s a pity it’s only 310. I wonder what the footprint of the above building is?
Will it take up the footprint of the existing p+r?
I know the ground in the area wouldn’t be ideal for going down 5 levels in addition to the 5 they are proposing, but 310 ain’t gonna make a whole lot of difference in taking cars off the m50 north of carrickmines.

D.L.R.

I'm just hoping Tara Street isn't cheap and basic. Its a great opportunity for a badly needed complete station overhaul I sincerely hope we take it.

Idbatterim

MayoSalmon wrote: »

You weren't far wrong there...just prattles on about cost...waste of time really reading that!

Yeah I just got a free copy of the indo. Read the first few lines on his article about Metrolink and stopped there, don’t even know why I started ... if that bull**** was put up on here, it would be deemed trolling ... I’ve stopped reading a tons of articles, these people are idiots...

tom1ie

Excuse my ignorance on this but how do 60m hfv metros have higher capacity then 60m lfv metros. Let's say both are driverless. Is it the fact lfv have more seats or something? If so could less seating in the lfv compartments and more "bum benches" be specified to increase capacity?
I would've though high floor ment either taller metros or less head room? Or am I completely off the mark here?
Apologies if this has already been explained.

ricimaki

tom1ie wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance on this but how do 60m hfv metros have higher capacity then 60m lfv metros. Let's say both are driverless. Is it the fact lfv have more seats or something? If so could less seating in the lfv compartments and more "bum benches" be specified to increase capacity?
I would've though high floor ment either taller metros or less head room? Or am I completely off the mark here?
Apologies if this has already been explained.

In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS


In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.

xper

D.L.R. wrote: »

I'm just hoping Tara Street isn't cheap and basic. Its a great opportunity for a badly needed complete station overhaul I sincerely hope we take it.

Well the proposal appears to encompass a new public plaza between Poolbeg St and Townsend St in front of a new main entrance building at the south east side of the current rail station. If they are considering a new civic space, you would think some effort will be put into making the building attractive. The heavy rail platforms themselves may not see much change. I presume they would retain the existing northern entrance.

The caveat is that everything on the plans right now is very much up for change, of course. It could be decided that an office building would work over that space too.

Reuben1210

ricimaki wrote: »

In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS


In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.

Yes, but in many metros, the high floor can seem like a low floor when the trackbed is lower, which I assume will be the case. That way, you get the best of both worlds!

Sam Russell

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Yes, but in many metros, the high floor can seem like a low floor when the trackbed is lower, which I assume will be the case. That way, you get the best of both worlds!

The low floor allows for low platforms, but a high floor vehicle implies higher platforms. The Luas platforms hardly come halfway up a duck compared with the Dart platforms. Consequently, if a HFV design is chosen then there is no possibility of interoperability between Luas and Metro.

In a way this is a good thing as it makes it less likely that passengers will wander over the Metro tracks and put themselves in mortal danger. As a consequence there will by pedestrian bridges at Metro stops, and the tracks will be completely separated from passengers as in the Dart system.

High floor allows complete freedom of layout while low floor is confined by the position of the bogeys that protrude inside the body of the vehicle.

Stephen15

ricimaki wrote: »

In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS


In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.

The Vancouver skytrain is a bad example the seats should be benchstyle on a metro facing horizontally across like on the London Underground and most other Metro systems around the world. That would be the big advantage of having a high floor system. Allowing for more standing space nessecary for a high capacity system. On lots of metro systems many people would rather stand than sit even if there are seats available.

MJohnston

Stop quoting pics!

marno21

That was fast..

TII have issued a PIN for tender for Preliminary Market Consultation Relating to the Procurement of Design & Construction Services for MetroLink

Jacobs/IDOM JV will take MetroLink to ABP for mid 2019. TII are already looking beyond this

Tender in full:

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=126241&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

ricimaki

Stephen15 wrote: »

The Vancouver skytrain is a bad example the seats should be benchstyle on a metro facing horizontally across like on the London Underground and most other Metro systems around the world. That would be the big advantage of having a high floor system. Allowing for more standing space nessecary for a high capacity system. On lots of metro systems many people would rather stand than sit even if there are seats available.

I chose it because it shows that there can still be a decent number of seats without compromising too much on standing room. You're right though, the bench style is best for high capacity systems.

marno21

Some local knowledge appreciated..

In the square bordered by Collins Avenue, Ballymun Road, Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road, the square which contains DCU, there are a number of green fields. What is the purpose of these fields, who owns them? Could Na Fianna be given permission to relocate to these fields for a number of years?

P_1

marno21 wrote: »

Some local knowledge appreciated..

In the square bordered by Collins Avenue, Ballymun Road, Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road, the square which contains DCU, there are a number of green fields. What is the purpose of these fields, who owns them? Could Na Fianna be given permission to relocate to these fields for a number of years?

AFAIK they're owned by the Highfield Hospital group. The land itself is used as an urban farm https://www.facebook.com/ElmhurstCottageFarm/

jd

marno21 wrote: »

Some local knowledge appreciated..

In the square bordered by Collins Avenue, Ballymun Road, Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road, the square which contains DCU, there are a number of green fields. What is the purpose of these fields, who owns them? Could Na Fianna be given permission to relocate to these fields for a number of years?

Are you talking about this?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.381851,-6.2552853,456m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056653349

Peregrine

marno21 wrote: »

Some local knowledge appreciated..

In the square bordered by Collins Avenue, Ballymun Road, Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road, the square which contains DCU, there are a number of green fields. What is the purpose of these fields, who owns them? Could Na Fianna be given permission to relocate to these fields for a number of years?

Highfield Private Hospital/Farm, Elmhurt Home and, IIRC, the field with frontage on Griffith Avenue is owned by DCU (not DCU Sports Grounds).

I haven't really had time to comment on the new plans but I think the DCU field is a viable location for Na Fianna. Alternatively, a station at DCU Alpha near the National Metrology Lab and Educate Together could be reconsidered. I think it was called the Glasnevin stop in the alignment study. But TBMs may have to be launched from Albert College Park.

Ernest

Stephen15 wrote: »

The Vancouver skytrain is a bad example the seats should be benchstyle on a metro facing horizontally across like on the London Underground and most other Metro systems around the world. That would be the big advantage of having a high floor system. Allowing for more standing space nessecary for a high capacity system. On lots of metro systems many people would rather stand than sit even if there are seats available.

I very much doubt that.
I have never seen empty seats with people preferring to stand instead of sit on the London Underground system or on any of the Dublin train/tram systems.

LeinsterDub

The new Dublin Metro will cost between €3 billion and €4 billion but will deliver a much higher level of economic benefits, according to a cost/benefit analysis undertaken on the project.

The analysis, undertaken by French engineering and consultancy company Systra – and just published on the MetroLink site – estimates the benefits of the investment would be between 2.4 and three times the cost, mainly due to savings on passenger journey times.

The cost benefit is slight improved over MN
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/metro-economic-value-to-exceed-construction-cost-of-up-to-4bn-1.3438410?mode=amp

yabadabado

Ernest wrote: »

I very much doubt that.
I have never seen empty seats with people preferring to stand instead of sit on the London Underground system or on any of the Dublin train/tram systems.

I very rarely take a seat on the Luas I prefer to stand. Not sure why but always get on and head to the opposite side of the tram. I'd usually only be on red line for 4 or 5 stops.

plodder

Trains should or could have a mixed layout with sections that are regular perpendicular seating and sections that are open plan, with parallel seats, to allow for standing and for bringing bikes. See attached image for an example from Denmark. I'm not sure our Metro carriages will be as wide as this to allow free standing bikes, but to accommodate them at all you need a big open space.