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

Lord Glentoran

plodder wrote: »

Actually, I think that's a good sign - that some of the knee-jerk reactions weren't really representing the club. I think they'll sit down with the NTA and work something out.

It begs the question though as to why RTÉ's Prime Time was hyping it up, with live coverage from Na Fianna, and wheeling out not just Colm MacCarthy but Sean Barrett. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has ever welcomed any rail project.

Zebra3

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It begs the question though as to why RTÉ's Prime Time was hyping it up, with live coverage from Na Fianna, and wheeling out not just Colm MacCarthy but Sean Barrett. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has ever welcomed any rail project.

RTÉ are sadly totally out of touch with the ordinary person.

I remember when bus lanes went in on the N11, they milked it on the radio. Embarrassing stuff.

Lord Glentoran

Zebra3 wrote: »

RTÉ are sadly totally out of touch with the ordinary person.

I remember when bus lanes went in on the N11, they milked it on the radio. Embarrassing stuff.

As Frank McDonald said, between RTÉ, the Indo and the SBP, it was like reportage of the Normandy landings in 1944 from the German perspective..

Muahahaha

Elessar wrote: »

Sadly I fear the strength of the GAA and the political unwillingness to go against it will mean this will eventually have to be moved somewhere else, no doubt meaning some poor unfortunates will have to be moved from their homes or something.

You couldn't make it up.

Thing is though if the NTA relent and go find another site to launch the TBMs and it isnt on public land then the residents asked to sell up are going to be piping up saying "why us and not Na Fianna". It would really get messy then.

Lets just hope Na Fianna are privately accepting it but publicly fighting it to improve the amount of compensation they will be getting.

ignorance is strength

This is a letter I sent to the Irish Times over the weekend, which wasn’t published. Perhaps it’s too long and my name lends no credibility to the critique. But it’s a little galling when you see some of the trite, overblown rubbish they publish in the letters page. My rationale was that Barrett embodies the ideological opposition to the metro, so tarnishing him diminishes the wider movement.


It is important to assess the technical claims made by transport economist Professor Sean Barrett, on RTE’s Prime Time last week (March 29th), where he argued vigorously against the planned Dublin metro.

He said that Dublin Airport has the highest public transport share of any city in Europe, rendering the metro unnecessary. But the National Transport Authority’s most recent survey, in 2011, found that only 33% of passengers travelled by public transport to the airport, lower than at Stansted (47%), Heathrow (40%) and Gatwick (38%) airports, in the U.K. (In wider Europe, Copenhagen airport had an equivalent share of 57%.) It seems improbable that things would have changed significantly enough, in the interim, to overturn these deficits and make Professor Barrett’s claim true.

He predicted that the metro would be “way over capacity” resulting in empty trains being run. But maximum capacity is a poor metric; more important is whether the metro would meet peak demand. For illustration, the Luas Green Line currently has a theoretical capacity (based on current frequency and tram size) of over 85 million passengers per year, more than twice the number carried annually. Yet this has not prevented the significant congestion we have seen in recent months.

He claimed the metro would “replicate bus services … that get you to the airport faster,” with there already being a service from St Vincent’s Hospital to the airport, with a journey time of 22 minutes. But the only service operating that route is timetabled to take thirty minutes, and operates hourly, compared with the metro’s expected peak frequency of thirty trains per hour.

He said that a large part of the cost of the metro involves “ripping out the Luas.” In fact, as is widely known, the Luas Green Line was built to a higher specification than was required for Luas trams, and Metro Link upgrades will, consequently, cost only between €50 million and €135 million, less than five percent of the projected €3 billion cost.

So many inaccuracies should cause one to question the credibility of Professor Barrett’s criticisms of the MetroLink project.

Yours, etc, etc

plodder

The Irish Times seems to be more interested in letters about dogs chasing cars.

I was reading about the new metro line B in Rennes, Brittany (which is the tenth largest city in France :rolleyes:). Tunneling has just finished in the last few weeks. 13.8km total with 8.5km bored tunnel, 2.2km c&c, and 2.5km elevated (and 15 stations). 1 TBM used over a 38 month period. Tunnel is 9m diameter, which I assume is two track. Project total cost €1.2 billion.

Idbatterim

“Buses” that <snip> barrett lost all credibility with that term. Buses are way too unreliable and slow here too get people out of their cars in large numbers...


Mod: Do not use offensive terms please.

ignorance is strength

ignorance is strength wrote: »

This is a letter I sent to the Irish Times over the weekend, which wasn’t published. Perhaps it’s too long and my name lends no credibility to the critique. But it’s a little galling when you see some of the trite, overblown rubbish they publish in the letters page. My rationale was that Barrett embodies the ideological opposition to the metro, so tarnishing him diminishes the wider movement.


It is important to assess the technical claims made by transport economist Professor Sean Barrett, on RTE’s Prime Time last week (March 29th), where he argued vigorously against the planned Dublin metro.

He said that Dublin Airport has the highest public transport share of any city in Europe, rendering the metro unnecessary. But the National Transport Authority’s most recent survey, in 2011, found that only 33% of passengers travelled by public transport to the airport, lower than at Stansted (47%), Heathrow (40%) and Gatwick (38%) airports, in the U.K. (In wider Europe, Copenhagen airport had an equivalent share of 57%.) It seems improbable that things would have changed significantly enough, in the interim, to overturn these deficits and make Professor Barrett’s claim true.

He predicted that the metro would be “way over capacity” resulting in empty trains being run. But maximum capacity is a poor metric; more important is whether the metro would meet peak demand. For illustration, the Luas Green Line currently has a theoretical capacity (based on current frequency and tram size) of over 85 million passengers per year, more than twice the number carried annually. Yet this has not prevented the significant congestion we have seen in recent months.

He claimed the metro would “replicate bus services … that get you to the airport faster,” with there already being a service from St Vincent’s Hospital to the airport, with a journey time of 22 minutes. But the only service operating that route is timetabled to take thirty minutes, and operates hourly, compared with the metro’s expected peak frequency of thirty trains per hour.

He said that a large part of the cost of the metro involves “ripping out the Luas.” In fact, as is widely known, the Luas Green Line was built to a higher specification than was required for Luas trams, and Metro Link upgrades will, consequently, cost only between €50 million and €135 million, less than five percent of the projected €3 billion cost.

So many inaccuracies should cause one to question the credibility of Professor Barrett’s criticisms of the MetroLink project.

Yours, etc, etc

Appreciate the likes, guys! Just thought it’s marginally more useful online than in my sent folder.

Btw, the theoretical capacity figure for Luas Green line that I gave, which is almost certainly wrong, was calculated using the same back-of-beer-mat method as Barrett, which, in his case, was: 30(tph)x20(hrs)x365x500(capacity)x2(directions)=219m passengers. My argument is vulnerable to the response that the overcrowding recently is principally because of issues at College Green, but I think the point stands! Btw, does anyone know where he got the Transport Infrastructure Ireland estimate of 53m passengers?

Sam Russell

If Metrolink is going to cost €3 billion over a construction time of 6 years, then that works out at €500 million a year. The Minister for Teachers has just announced that he has found funding for 5,000 new teachers. Now teachers get about €36,000 per year starting of, so he has managed to find €180 million a year (for ever and rising incrementally every year) so why cant Lord Ross of Churchtown find €500 million a year for a mere six years?

The Green Line runs through his constituency.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Metrolink is going to cost €3 billion over a construction time of 6 years, then that works out at €500 million a year. The Minister for Teachers has just announced that he has found funding for 5,000 new teachers. Now teachers get about €36,000 per year starting of, so he has managed to find €180 million a year (for ever and rising incrementally every year) so why cant Lord Ross of Churchtown find €500 million a year for a mere six years?

The Green Line runs through his constituency.

1. He has no interest in that because he won't be in office long enough to reap the political awards
2. He doesn't actually care about this project in the first place
3. If he found 1% of €500m he could easily find some more bang for your buck ideas for gaining political credit in his constituency for far less effort.

The master of pork barrel politics was hiding in plain sight all along.

What does he even need this €500m/year for anyway? The Metrolink is exchequer funded for design and CPO until 2021 and for construction from 2021.

Idbatterim

They will have a billion or two to send up in smoke in budget 2019. The money thing is just total bull**** !

tom1ie

When metro runs into major opposition from na fianna, locals threatening legal action in ranelagh and politicians crying foul, surely we can rely on the same people that got a bloody incinerator built in ringsend in the middle of a large population!
This is a massive infrastructure project so many times more important than an incinerator, so if that can be built in the face of massive objection, surely the metro will.

ignorance is strength

tom1ie wrote: »

When metro runs into major opposition from na fianna, locals threatening legal action in ranelagh and politicians crying foul, surely we can rely on the same people that got a bloody incinerator built in ringsend in the middle of a large population!
This is a massive infrastructure project so many times more important than an incinerator, so if that can be built in the face of massive objection, surely the metro will.

Except that the incinerator is actually in what is probably the least densely populated area in the city, and dwarfed by two industrial chimneys.

marno21

tom1ie wrote: »

When metro runs into major opposition from na fianna, locals threatening legal action in ranelagh and politicians crying foul, surely we can rely on the same people that got a bloody incinerator built in ringsend in the middle of a large population!
This is a massive infrastructure project so many times more important than an incinerator, so if that can be built in the face of massive objection, surely the metro will.

Who was behind the incinerator?

Dats me

Guys I was at the public consultation today. Would really recommend to anyone thinking of heading down to go, some great people there.

Much, Much more positive that the thing will be built now than I was before.

Public Reaction:
- There are talks ongoing with Na Fianna's board, obviously they are difficult negotiations but the guy seemed confident that they would come to an agreement
- People asking why they don't move the second portal & stop from Na Fianna: it would throw all the stations off and the Glasnevin stop is very important, so is not leaving people on the line 1-1.5km from a station
- People who they have talked to who are getting their homes CPOed actually seem mostly very positive about the project
- Anyone suggesting that we just build to St. Stephen's Green/Charlemont first, it seems either the whole thing happens or nothing
- Overall mood was very positive there, nowhere near the doom and gloom of this thread, and these were guys working on it all day

Some other interesting things:
- Guy I was talking to favours fully automated, High-Floor Vehicles, 90 second headway
- Vehicle & Platform length will be determined to take the load up to 2057 (30 years), more Metro lines should be built between 2027 and 2057 which should take some load off this line (South-West to North-East seems to make sense on the map)
- Slightly worryingly, 90m platforms doesn't seem set in stone, again everything based on 2057
- What could derail HFV is the green-line tie in, HFV means there will never be metro to Bride's Glen, and more disruption (not just money) on the Green Line during construction
- P&R at Dardistown isn't currently being considered because NTA don't want more people on the M50
- They are seriously considering Single Bore tunnels too, maybe surfacing at Daridistown and back under M50 to reduce cost

Another Thing:
- Whole Na Fianna thing is to reduce cost. When tunnelling, the excavated soil is passed back down a conveyor belt to the surface. If they can have a portal at Fostertown and one at Na Fianna, then they can either have 2/4 (single or twin bore) machines in the ground, saving time and money, or more likely do the tunnelling in 2 goes with 1/2 machines (Fostertown - Na Fianna, Na Fianna - Charlemont). This means that they'll be able to start building the railway on the first section while tunnelling happens in the second section

I asked a load of questions but that's all I can think of at the moment. If I've missed anything feel free to ask!

MJohnston

The platform height increases on the Charlemont-Sandyford section is going to be really tricky to do without disruption. Presumably each of them have the space already to extend to at least 90m, so there's at least 36m of extra space to work with at every one. So I can think of a few options:

1. You could upgrade 24m of the existing 54m platforms before the Metro is opened, leaving 30m for Luas passengers, and inform people on board that only the front 'x' doors will open. That gives you 60m Metro HFV platforms to work with upon opening, and then the remaining 30m can be upgraded after that. People might balk at only certain doors on a tram opening, but I remember this specifically on the Washington DC Metro, they'd have an automatic announcement on the train that went "First 3 carriages only" or similar, so it's not unprecedented (and I'd note, on the DC Metro that was a permanent arrangement too).

2. You build the Metro stations entirely separately adjacent to the Luas stops, ie. a full 90m HFV platform before or after the existing Luas platforms along the line, and you use the existing Luas stop access points to reach those new stations. Then once the Metro opens, upgrade those lower Luas platforms and either live with 144m Metro platforms, or remove some portion of the temporary Metro platform to reduce it back down to 90m. This is possibly more workable, but it has its own confusions too - people might wonder why they have to walk all the way down the Luas platform to get to the Metro, and it might annoy...who knows. I also don't know if this is possible on elevated sections like Ranelagh, and I don't know whether there is room for 144m long platforms at every station.

3. The tunnel tie-in at Charlemont closes the entire southern section of the Green Line for so long that they can upgrade the platforms at the same time. This is obviously a horrible outcome, I'd imagine that while the tie-in is being completed they will be able to continue running trams between Broombridge and Charlemont and Ranelagh and Bride's Glen.

jd

Dats me wrote: »

Guys I was at the public consultation today. Would really recommend to anyone thinking of heading down to go, some great people there.

..

Public Reaction:
- There are talks ongoing with Na Fianna's board, obviously they are difficult negotiations but the guy seemed confident that they would come to an agreement
- People asking why they don't move the second portal & stop from Na Fianna: it would throw all the stations off and the Glasnevin stop is very important, so is not leaving people on the line 1-1.5km from a station

- They are seriously considering Single Bore tunnels too, maybe surfacing at Daridistown and back under M50 to reduce cost

Yeah, it is very worthwhile to go to the consultation, but I could only fit it in on a work break.
I talked to one of the engineers about the Na Fianna thing - they reckon that is the best place for the stop. It's easier and costs less if they they construct the station where the portal is. I still suspect that what may happen is that the portal will be back in Albert College Park, but the station will be built around Na Fianna/Home Farm pitches. Someone else pointed out to me that Mobhi Road is quite narrow, and it might be easier to remove the tunnel spoil from Albert College Park.

He mentioned single bore too, but the option in the document for the Northwood Stop if the metro went over the M50 would have to be amended as a housing development has just been been completed where the stop would be.

jd

Dats me wrote: »

- They are seriously considering Single Bore tunnels too, maybe surfacing at Daridistown and back under M50 to reduce cost
..
or more likely do the tunnelling in 2 goes with 1/2 machines (Fostertown - Na Fianna, Na Fianna - Charlemont). This means that they'll be able to start building the railway on the first section while tunnelling happens in the second section

I asked a load of questions but that's all I can think of at the moment. If I've missed anything feel free to ask!

I presume if they used one machine and surfaced at Dardistown, the second Portal would be at the Northwood Stop?
If someone makes it to another presentation it would be a good question to ask!

tom1ie

I asked a load of questions but that's all I can think of at the moment. If I've missed anything feel free to ask![/quote]

Great questions. Thanks for taking the time to ask them and then post answers on this forum. Did they mention anything about fitting PSG (passenger safety gates) on the entire line? (Not just new build)
Was anything mentioned about no psg's means metros with drivers?
Thanks.

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

The platform height increases on the Charlemont-Sandyford section is going to be really tricky to do without disruption. Presumably each of them have the space already to extend to at least 90m, so there's at least 36m of extra space to work with at every one. So I can think of a few options:

1. You could upgrade 24m of the existing 54m platforms before the Metro is opened, leaving 30m for Luas passengers, and inform people on board that only the front 'x' doors will open. That gives you 60m Metro HFV platforms to work with upon opening, and then the remaining 30m can be upgraded after that. People might balk at only certain doors on a tram opening, but I remember this specifically on the Washington DC Metro, they'd have an automatic announcement on the train that went "First 3 carriages only" or similar, so it's not unprecedented (and I'd note, on the DC Metro that was a permanent arrangement too).

Only certain doors opening already happens on some of the Docklands Light Rail (DLR) in London. They made the DLR longer to increase capacity, but there were a couple of stations they couldn't extend since they were on bridges, etc. So they simply left them as they are and only open doors on the platform. If it is ok for them as a permanent solution, I'd say it would be ok for us as a temporary solution. Regular users would know where to stand.

MJohnston wrote: »

2. You build the Metro stations entirely separately adjacent to the Luas stops, ie. a full 90m HFV platform before or after the existing Luas platforms along the line, and you use the existing Luas stop access points to reach those new stations. Then once the Metro opens, upgrade those lower Luas platforms and either live with 144m Metro platforms, or remove some portion of the temporary Metro platform to reduce it back down to 90m. This is possibly more workable, but it has its own confusions too - people might wonder why they have to walk all the way down the Luas platform to get to the Metro, and it might annoy...who knows. I also don't know if this is possible on elevated sections like Ranelagh, and I don't know whether there is room for 144m long platforms at every station.

As the HFV option is likely to start out at just 60m trains, then that makes the above option a bit easier. 60m HFV platform + 55m Luas LFV platform is just 115m.

Once the Metro is operating fully, you could then convert the 55m Luas platform to HFV too, to give you easy upgrade to 90m platforms in future.

Sounds like quiet a nice option.

Perhaps a combination of the above two options where needed.

MJohnston wrote: »

3. The tunnel tie-in at Charlemont closes the entire southern section of the Green Line for so long that they can upgrade the platforms at the same time. This is obviously a horrible outcome, I'd imagine that while the tie-in is being completed they will be able to continue running trams between Broombridge and Charlemont and Ranelagh and Bride's Glen.

They is a brief mention in one of the docs of the idea of running a Luas line from the Harcourt Street line down the Ranelagh Road to rejoin the green line in Ranelagh in order to avoid closing the line for the tie-in works.

tom1ie wrote: »

Did they mention anything about fitting PSG (passenger safety gates) on the entire line? (Not just new build)
Was anything mentioned about no psg's means metros with drivers?
Thanks.

Not the OP, but based on the docs, yes PSD are absolutely needed for driverless trains at all platforms, both new and old. Plus more importantly (and expensive) pedestrian overpasses like DART has.

If they go with drivers, then they can get away without PSD's * and overpasses, but it then reduces frequency and is more dangerous IMO.

* I'd assume we get PSD's in the underground stations either way, at least I hope so.

bk

Dats me wrote: »

Guys I was at the public consultation today. Would really recommend to anyone thinking of heading down to go, some great people there.

Thanks, a lot of what you posted here confirms what you could guess from the docs on the Metrolink website, but isn't necessarily spelt out.

Dats me wrote: »

- There are talks ongoing with Na Fianna's board, obviously they are difficult negotiations but the guy seemed confident that they would come to an agreement
- People asking why they don't move the second portal & stop from Na Fianna: it would throw all the stations off and the Glasnevin stop is very important, so is not leaving people on the line 1-1.5km from a station

Yes, it is obvious that it is the Whitworth Road interchange station that completely drives this alignment.

Dats me wrote: »

- Anyone suggesting that we just build to St. Stephen's Green/Charlemont first, it seems either the whole thing happens or nothing

Yes, the original Metro North plan included a massive turning "loop" under Stephens Green, it was one of the reasons most of the park was being dug up. This isn't possible under the new plan. They need the tunnel to emerge somewhere south and have a depot and turning facilities above ground.

Tie-ing in and upgrading the Green line is way cheaper then going South West.

Dats me wrote: »

Some other interesting things:
- Guy I was talking to favours fully automated, High-Floor Vehicles, 90 second headway
- Vehicle & Platform length will be determined to take the load up to 2057 (30 years), more Metro lines should be built between 2027 and 2057 which should take some load off this line (South-West to North-East seems to make sense on the map)

Fantastic, everything I'd hope for.

Dats me wrote: »

- Slightly worryingly, 90m platforms doesn't seem set in stone, again everything based on 2057

Would be mad not to build the underground stations to this spec, even if it isn't currently used. I think 60m HFV is plenty for the next 30 years, but mad not to enable 90m for future.

Dats me wrote: »

- What could derail HFV is the green-line tie in, HFV means there will never be metro to Bride's Glen, and more disruption (not just money) on the Green Line during construction

Yes, I expected this, the docs don't detail it, but I'd say it will be complicated.

No problem with no Metro to Brides Glen/Bray. 55m trams every 2 minutes should be able to handle this section fine.

Dats me wrote: »

Another Thing:
- Whole Na Fianna thing is to reduce cost. When tunnelling, the excavated soil is passed back down a conveyor belt to the surface. If they can have a portal at Fostertown and one at Na Fianna, then they can either have 2/4 (single or twin bore) machines in the ground, saving time and money, or more likely do the tunnelling in 2 goes with 1/2 machines (Fostertown - Na Fianna, Na Fianna - Charlemont). This means that they'll be able to start building the railway on the first section while tunnelling happens in the second section

Yes, that would all be very advantages. Speed up the project, while reducing cost!

Heartbreak Hank

Closing the crossings/access at Beechwood, Alexander etc. and building the new bridge at Sandyford could possibly be done with live Luas trams running: night time/off peak work for the pedestrian over passes etc. offline for the bridge...

That would allow for more flexibility with constructing temporary low platforms away from the permanent stops allowing high platforms to be built. When they are done, break the Luas into three with high floor metros running on the Sandyford - Charlemont (or Ranelagh) portion and more or less the future Luas scenario on the other two legs. You could then remove the temporary platforms and away you go.

Dats me

tom1ie wrote: »

Did they mention anything about fitting PSG (passenger safety gates) on the entire line? (Not just new build)
Was anything mentioned about no psg's means metros with drivers?
Thanks.

He did! Sorry for not mentioning it.

Autonomous will be fully segregated from passengers and traffic.

Downside of this is that if they use single-bore and you go to the wrong platform you'll have to go up to the surface again and cross over there, no way around this though really

plodder

Dats me wrote: »

Downside of this is that if they use single-bore and you go to the wrong platform you'll have to go up to the surface again and cross over there, no way around this though really

I wonder why that's the case. If it's side by side, why not leave gaps in the wall, or if stacked, then put stairs at one end of the platform?

I think the tunnel options that have a shared concourse underground would be best though.

Dyr

Chivito550 wrote: »

The whole Na Fianna thing is infuriating. All they can think about is the short term inconvenience of losing a few pitches rather than the golden ticket they have been given. They will be the most easily accessible GAA club in Ireland when the metro is finished. This is the crippling short termism which ruins our country.

Feel free to retweet these tweets all.

https://twitter.com/j_sullivan_aths/status/977246283428659201?s=21

Na Fianna would be mad to move out of their catchment area for the life cycle of a entire generation of players. It's not just an inconvenience, its a killer for them. the people who whinge and bitch (and I've never heard an athletics guy not bitch about the GAA ) about this don't understand the basics of how GAA clubs work, their membership isn't drawn from passing trade via public transport. Na Fianna have clubs on every side of them (bar the city centre) so any move outside their catchment is going to screw them. There's a reason Kickhams have been trying to get away from the airport and into Ballymun for years.

What you're going to see is the staging area being moved back to Alberts College rather than the NTA saving themselves a few bob to blow on consultants.

LeinsterDub

Bambi wrote: »

What you're going to see is the staging area being moved back to Alberts College rather than the NTA saving themselves a few bob to blow on consultants.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to rent the DCU pitches from 5-10 Monday to Friday and All weekend when they aren't being used?

ignorance is strength

Bambi wrote: »

Na Fianna would be mad to move out of their catchment area for the life cycle of a entire generation of players. It's not just an inconvenience, its a killer for them. the people who whinge and bitch (and I've never heard an athletics guy not bitch about the GAA ) about this don't understand the basics of how GAA clubs work, their membership isn't drawn from passing trade via public transport. Na Fianna have clubs on every side of them (bar the city centre) so any move outside their catchment is going to screw them. There's a reason Kickhams have been trying to get away from the airport and into Ballymun for years.

What you're going to see is the staging area being moved back to Alberts College rather than the NTA saving themselves a few bob to blow on consultants.

Zzz

They won’t be moved from their catchment area. And unless the club community is a lot weaker than one is frequently lead to believe, it is far from the existential threat portrayed.

pigtown

MJohnston wrote: »

3. The tunnel tie-in at Charlemont closes the entire southern section of the Green Line for so long that they can upgrade the platforms at the same time. This is obviously a horrible outcome, I'd imagine that while the tie-in is being completed they will be able to continue running trams between Broombridge and Charlemont and Ranelagh and Bride's Glen.

The tie in works don't have to cause any disruption at all, watch this video
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50d_1416442061

munchkin_utd

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Zzz

They won’t be moved from their catchment area. And unless the club community is a lot weaker than one is frequently lead to believe, it is far from the existential threat portrayed.

sure Cuala from south Dublin are all Ireland club hurling champions twice in a row and their pitches are all over the place, so a club being dispersed is definitely not a threat to their success or existence.

I'm sure some sort of arrangements can be figured out with local clubs, schools, training colleges or even requisition part of nearby parks to install temporary training pitches.
Where theres a will theres a way.

bk

Bambi wrote: »

Na Fianna would be mad to move out of their catchment area for the life cycle of a entire generation of players. It's not just an inconvenience, its a killer for them. the people who whinge and bitch (and I've never heard an athletics guy not bitch about the GAA ) about this don't understand the basics of how GAA clubs work, their membership isn't drawn from passing trade via public transport. Na Fianna have clubs on every side of them (bar the city centre) so any move outside their catchment is going to screw them. There's a reason Kickhams have been trying to get away from the airport and into Ballymun for years.

What you're going to see is the staging area being moved back to Alberts College rather than the NTA saving themselves a few bob to blow on consultants.

Please stop the disinformation!! Here are some facts:

- Their club house won't be effected by this.
- The second pitch they use, at Scoil Cathriona, not 5 meters behind their club house won't be effected by this.
- The half a dozen other playing pitches in the area, that they already use in the area won't be effected by this. The pitches they use at St Pats in DCU, Albert College Park, Griffith Park, St Vincents, Rosmini, etc.

They won't have to move out of their catchment area for a generation, complete and utter nonsense!

The fact that you mention that the area is already thick with GAA clubs and pretty incredible number of playing pitches, shows that the whole thing really is making a mountain out of a mole hill.