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

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

DART will have much better coverage and frequency by 2027 and there'll be a strong feeder bus network. All going well there's a chance it won't be a complete sardine tin of commuters the day it opens like the luas was.

I think you’re being a bit ahead of yourself there.

I’d preface all of that with “If the current plans come to fruition”.

Far too many people are taking all of these plans (BusConnects, Metrolink and DART upgrades) as being certainties.

Remember that so many transport plans for Dublin have been scuppered at the last minute when it came down to political sign off. Once politics gets involved, even the best laid plans can come to nought.

Until we see boots on the ground, nothing is certain.

marno21

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think you’re being a bit ahead of yourself there.

I’d preface all of that with “If the current plans come to fruition”.

Far too many people are taking all of these plans (BusConnects, Metrolink and DART upgrades) as being certainties.

Remember that so many transport plans for Dublin have been scuppered at the last minute when it came down to political sign off. Once politics gets involved, even the best laid plans can come to nought.

Until we see boots on the ground, nothing is certain.

The current plans are more achievable in the sense that Metrolink aside, there are no big individual project elements that require massive funding and can be done piecemeal if there is funding constraints.

Compared with Transport 21 which had the massive 2 tunnels and Metro West, a good chunk of the smaller elements of Transport21 were done (M3 Parkway, KRP, Luas extensions, Middleton line, Ennis-Athenry) etc

DART Expansion is being phased and broken into smaller parts so we should see some of it done at least. Of course Metrolink is the big one we all want to see done

LXFlyer

marno21 wrote: »

The current plans are more achievable in the sense that Metrolink aside, there are no big individual project elements that require massive funding and can be done piecemeal if there is funding constraints.

Compared with Transport 21 which had the massive 2 tunnels and Metro West, a good chunk of the smaller elements of Transport21 were done (M3 Parkway, KRP, Luas extensions, Middleton line, Ennis-Athenry) etc

DART Expansion is being phased and broken into smaller parts so we should see some of it done at least. Of course Metrolink is the big one we all want to see done

Indeed but discussing these things and saying by 2027 they will be in place is politically naive.

I’m sorry to be negative but we have a dire history of political rowing back on rail-based public transport investment.

People need to be more cautious in their predictions I think.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Indeed but discussing these things and saying by 2027 they will be in place is politically naive.

I’m sorry to be negative but we have a dire history of political rowing back on rail-based public transport investment.

People need to be more cautious in their predictions I think.

Better vote for FG so

As long as FG continues to be in government, I don't see them being able to back down on these projects, specially giving Leo's history and involvement in them.

If FF were to get back into power, they might mess around with them. But even then I'd expect it to be limited, since they have pretty much rubber stamped these projects given their involvement in government.

We have actually heard surprisingly little political complaints about these projects from the opposition. A few complaints about not building the original Metro North, but little else. I think that reflects a realisation amongst all political parties that the people of Dublin are desperate for decent public transport and anyone seen to get in the way of these would be in serious political trouble.

If a new election was called, I suspect all parties would promise to fully support these projects, but would try and differentiate by promising even more (e.g. DU tunnel, etc.).

That is why all the noise around the National Development Plan was about the advertising of it, rather then anything about it. Everyone knows it is a fundamentally good plan and it would look bad to attack it, so instead they went for the advertising around it.

Having said that Brexit or another recession could definitely stop them. In fairness pretty much all the parties supported the original Metro North and DU plans. It was the recession that knocked them out. Until the TBM's are in the ground, I'll be hoping the economy holds out.

Sam Russell

Went to the public consultations in the Hilton. Lot of people discussing the Beechwood stop, mainly concerned with pedestrian and cycle access across the line.

I mentioned station names could be better, but was told they are working names and could be changed. Most detailed design choices still to be decided. Overall, very impressed with the approach. 90 metre trains, well thought out connectivity - Whitworth Rd, Tara St, Sandyford - all good choices. It just needs to continue onto Donabate for the full house.

I am interested in the tie in with the Greenline, and think that could do with more thought - like keeping the connection for trams to move as otherwise extra trams are needed at each depot.

Now we need it built. Could they do the bit north of the M50 for a start?

Zebra3

What’s the fascination people have with wanting the metro to connect with the northern rail line?

Surely that brings it to a dead end whereas continuing it north at a certain parallel distance from the northern rail line will ensure it can be extended when need over future decades.

bk

Zebra3 wrote: »

What’s the fascination people have with wanting the metro to connect with the northern rail line?

Surely that brings it to a dead end whereas continuing it north at a certain parallel distance from the northern rail line will ensure it can be extended when need over future decades.

Allows people on the Northern line to get to Swords and the Airport. More connectivity.

You are correct though that it should go North too. But no reason it can't do both with a branch. It is very normally for Metro lines to branch out in different directions outside the core city.

BonnieSituation

I'm just on the way into it now as it stands.

BonnieSituation

McDowell just turned up as I walked out. Ffs

jd

BonnieSituation wrote: »

McDowell just turned up as I walked out. Ffs

I would have followed him back in again. I wonder does he engage in debate or just lecture the engineers

specialbyte

I had a super interesting chat with a TII engineer at the public consultation today. We talked about a ton of things and there were a few nuggets that I don't think have been mentioned on this thread before.

The TII engineer mentioned the ramp from Charlemont to Ranleagh will be a 5% if they keep with the current plan. The current Charlemont ramp is ~4%. Though he mentioned to me that they are going to get Jacobs, who are doing the detailed designs, to re-investigate the green line tie-in because they don't sound too happy with any of the options they have right now. He also mentioned they think they can keep Northbrook Road open to vehicle traffic after all of the works. I was quite skeptical but they think they have a plan, which might also explain the 5% grade.

The TII engineer also talked through how they are thinking about the green line upgrade. He said internally in TII they are thinking about things from scratch essentially. Most things are up for change including platform height and installing screen doors, but he also mentioned things like changing the voltage on the overhead powerlines. It was news to me that even the voltage might be up for change. They don't really want to limit the new metro system or the new vehicles because of the current green line design. I was kinda surprised to hear this considering most of the documentation tries to underline how simple the green line upgrade will be. If that's true then those of you dreaming for a super high capacity system with HFV and platform screen doors you might be in luck.

I also asked about merging the Stillorgan and Sandyford stops because they are so close together. He said that him and a few other colleagues in TII were in favour of that but they got pushback because the general public aren't great at change and they are trying to avoid as many objections as possible. The TII engineer also mentioned that they are not super set on elevating the tracks over St Raphaelpha's Road near the Stillorgan stop. He mentioned he worked on that part and said no detailed engineering work has been done there. They just know something is possible to get grade separation. He mentioned that they might even drop the tracks under the road and effectively create a super shallow, maybe even open air, station for the Stillorgan stop.

I asked about the Cross Guns/Glasnevin station. He said it isn't clear who will actually build the new Irish Rail station. Will it be TII or Irish Rail? He suspects that they will do it because the Irish Rail tie-in there is a large part of their business case. So it is likely the planning application for Metrolink will include the Irish Rail station and that some magic pot of NTA money will be used to pay for it to keep it off the MetroLink budget. He also mentioned that the currently published concept design is highly unlikely to be what is built. It is likely they will stagger the platforms away from each other so that the north platforms are much further east (nearer the tennis courts) than the south platforms. This is to leave enough clearance from the points on the rail line just to the west of the station at Glasnevin Junction.

We also got talking about the depot location. There is an alternate proposal to locate the depot at the Dardistown stop. This would also mean they can relocate the TBM launching site from the Na Fianna grounds to Northwoords. Ironically though the Dardistown depot would be built on the Na Finana Grounds on the old airport road. So there's no winning really. The TII engineer mentioned that their current lead designer is leaning in the direction of a Dardistown depot for two reasons. In the original planning permission for Metro North the depot was north of Swords. An Bord Peanala rejected that section of the Metro North plan because of flooding concerns. They have relocated the depot from the original Metro North plan and they think they have mitigated all the flooding concerns, but they may want to just avoid that issue completely by moving to Dardistown. They also think they can get a better operational environment if the depot is not at the end of the line. This was a little over my head so I didn't dig in here. The one thing he did stress was that if they do move the depot to Dardistown they would still have the Estuary stop and they would still have the strategic park and ride spaces at Estuary just off the M1. So good news there.

The final thing we talked about very informally was about how they made some of the choices. There was a strong bias internally within TII to pick whatever option required the least amount of permanent CPO or would cause the least number of objections. He mentioned this is why the Collins Avenue stop is a few hundred meters away from the orbital bus routes on Collins Avenue. Doing this they could avoid CPO'ing 9 houses and build on open land in front of the church there. It's not ideal or what they wanted but it avoids CPO'ing. This was also a large part of why they went for option 4B of the green line tie-in and not 4A. Option 4A doesn't close the Luas line for a whole year like Option 4B and it retains an engineering link between all of the luas/metro lines. However, Option AB required CPO'ing something like 20 houses, whereas 4B only CPO's 4 houses completely (AFAIR). They are very worried generally about getting caught up in tons of objections and maybe even in the High Court. The fear of objections has been a deciding factor in many of the decisions they have taken up to this point. Bluntly, they want to piss off as few people as possible to get the project over the line. He did mention that the interchange points at Cross Guns and at Tara Station this bias towards avoiding CPOs was relaxed. Their business case is tied to strong interconnection with the heavy rail network and the shorter they can make the interconnection the better the business case. A stronger business case made it more likely to get government approval over other transport projects (looking at you Dart Underground) and will make it easier for the Dept of Finance to approve the project. For this reason they were allowed by management to do more CPO'ing in those areas designs.

I hope some of you find some of this information helpful.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on moving the depot to Dardistown. Does it actually solve many of TIIs issues?

P.S Quick tip for anyone going to the final public consultation. Talk to the people with the TII badges and not the people with the ARUP badges. Every ARUP person I talked to didn't really know the full story and redirected me to a TII engineer. As an engineer who's read all of the published documents none of my questions were softballs so maybe I'm just a tough customer for those kinds of public consultation meetings.

jd

specialbyte wrote: »

We also got talking about the depot location. There is an alternate proposal to locate the depot at the Dardistown stop. This would also mean they can relocate the TBM launching site from the Na Fianna grounds to Northwoords. Ironically though the Dardistown depot would be built on the Na Finana Grounds on the old airport road. So there's no winning really. The TII engineer mentioned that their current lead designer is leaning in the direction of a Dardistown depot for two reasons.

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that the alternate option of launching at Northwood was still under serious consideration when I talked to an engineer at one of the presentations. They'll have to re-site the underground station they had proposed as part of this option, there is a new development directly over it

Grandeeod

I'm not an engineer. I was never an engineer and I will never be an official engineer - ever. However, I'm absolutely stunned at the level of engineer on offer at the public consultation today. None of them had any kind of decent explanation to my questions. The Green line tie in. Nope. The Phisborough IE station? Nope. I could go on and on,

Overall I found it lacking in details and very much an anything can happen scenario. More or less just like the original Metro North consultations after a few expensive private consultants had done a job. Bottom line for me, is that I can see the obvious spoof job. Obviously I hope its not going that way, but......

On a lighter note I recognized a lot of people from over the years, including engineers that originally worked for the RPA. Great in one way but sad in another way to see us all back in a similar boat. I wore a disguise. No choice.:D

specialbyte

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm not an engineer. I was never an engineer and I will never be an official engineer - ever. However, I'm absolutely stunned at the level of engineer on offer at the public consultation today. None of them had any kind of decent explanation to my questions. The Green line tie in. Nope. The Phisborough IE station? Nope. I could go on and on,

Overall I found it lacking in details and very much an anything can happen scenario. More or less just like the original Metro North consultations after a few expensive private consultants had done a job. Bottom line for me, is that I can see the obvious spoof job. Obviously I hope its not going that way, but......

On a lighter note I recognized a lot of people from over the years, including engineers that originally worked for the RPA. Great in one way but sad in another way to see us all back in a similar boat. I wore a disguise. No choice.:D

I feel your pain. I must have talked to at least 12 people from TII/ARUP at the consultation today before I found someone who could answer even somewhat detailed questions. For anyone going to the final public consultation looking for hard answers just keep asking different people questions until you feel like you're talking to someone who knows there stuff. They have definitely wheeled out some spoofers who know the gist of the project but their knowledge is skin deep.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Better vote for FG so

As long as FG continues to be in government, I don't see them being able to back down on these projects, specially giving Leo's history and involvement in them.

If FF were to get back into power, they might mess around with them. But even then I'd expect it to be limited, since they have pretty much rubber stamped these projects given their involvement in government.

We have actually heard surprisingly little political complaints about these projects from the opposition. A few complaints about not building the original Metro North, but little else. I think that reflects a realisation amongst all political parties that the people of Dublin are desperate for decent public transport and anyone seen to get in the way of these would be in serious political trouble.

If a new election was called, I suspect all parties would promise to fully support these projects, but would try and differentiate by promising even more (e.g. DU tunnel, etc.).

That is why all the noise around the National Development Plan was about the advertising of it, rather then anything about it. Everyone knows it is a fundamentally good plan and it would look bad to attack it, so instead they went for the advertising around it.

Having said that Brexit or another recession could definitely stop them. In fairness pretty much all the parties supported the original Metro North and DU plans. It was the recession that knocked them out. Until the TBM's are in the ground, I'll be hoping the economy holds out.

With respect, given the political history and the exceptional amount of cock-ups and shambolic political decisions that have been made over the years when it comes to public transport over the years, I think you might be somewhat politically naive about this. That’s no particular slur on you, but I suspect that I’ve been around (and had a deep interest in this area) a lot longer than yourself, and when you’ve seen so many plans come so far and then end up being bastardised or rejected, it’s very hard to take anything seriously until physical construction happens.

We can all wax lyrically about plans, but the bottom line is that until it doesn’t mean anything until work starts.

Paper never refused ink!!

LXFlyer

Agree with earlier posters btw - the knowledge or appalling lack of it by some of the representatives at the consultation was striking, and they were waffling rather than answering direct questions. They would have been better not being there at all.

That being said one of the RPA/TII engineers that I spoke with was superb and he answered a significant amount of detailed questions.

Brian CivilEng

Just to play devil's advocate here for a minute as I am an engineer and I would class myself as competent, but I completely fall down when asked a question slightly different to what I had expected. Give me 30mins and allow me to write down my thoughts and it's a completely different story. A lot of engineers are quite introverted, and sometimes talking to people is so exhausting it's easier to just let them think you a fool. Heaven knows it has held my career back, but it's something I've noticed in colleagues too. So generally the people who do stand up at public consultations aren't the experts, they are the people who don't mind talking to other people. The experts were back in the office crunching the numbers.

I don't know if that is the case here, and I do know plenty of engineers who can talk the talk as well as walk the walk, but please don't put down to apathy or incompetence what can be attributed to personality.

LXFlyer

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate here for a minute as I am an engineer and I would class myself as competent, but I completely fall down when asked a question slightly different to what I had expected. Give me 30mins and allow me to write down my thoughts and it's a completely different story. A lot of engineers are quite introverted, and sometimes talking to people is so exhausting it's easier to just let them think you a fool. Heaven knows it has held my career back, but it's something I've noticed in colleagues too. So generally the people who do stand up at public consultations aren't the experts, they are the people who don't mind talking to other people. The experts were back in the office crunching the numbers.

I don't know if that is the case here, and I do know plenty of engineers who can talk the talk as well as walk the walk, but please don't put down to apathy or incompetence what can be attributed to personality.

To be fair I appreciate that, but one particular guy really was clueless and started going on complete tangents and wasn’t answering the questions he was being asked, until when asked did he actually know the answer, he admitted he didn’t.

He was wasting people’s time, rather than directing them to someone who did know the answers, of which there were several.

Sam Russell

I got the impression that one overriding design aim was to reduce CPO requirements, particularly of homes, and to generally reduce grounds for opposition from locals.

Looking at the detail, it appears to make a lot of sense as long as the Dart expansion goes ahead as well.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

I got the impression that one overriding design aim was to reduce CPO requirements, particularly of homes, and to generally reduce grounds for opposition from locals.

Looking at the detail, it appears to make a lot of sense as long as the Dart expansion goes ahead as well.

The whole project looks like an exercise in risk reduction, from the limiting of CPO requirements, to the the simplified stations, out to the station construction (all to be dug straight down instead of being dug out.), it all screams to me that they've sat down and thought long and hard about what's important in this project.

Still impressed with it all, to be honest.

Sam Russell

CatInABox wrote: »

The whole project looks like an exercise in risk reduction, from the limiting of CPO requirements, to the the simplified stations, out to the station construction (all to be dug straight down instead of being dug out.), it all screams to me that they've sat down and thought long and hard about what's important in this project.

Still impressed with it all, to be honest.

So am I.

Maybe the consultation is out to judge the level of objections to the project. When I was looking around, there was a large group of 'unhappy' people taking issue with the Beechwood and Cowper stops design and the implications it would have on cyclists, particularly juvenile cyclists. This would have implications for (non) provision of ramps for cyclists and like problems.

At the end of the consultations, they may well sharpen their pencils and address most of the problems - one way or another. Let us hope they do not use the erasure on the other end of the pencil to the detriment of the overall project.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

So am I.

Maybe the consultation is out to judge the level of objections to the project. When I was looking around, there was a large group of 'unhappy' people taking issue with the Beechwood and Cowper stops design and the implications it would have on cyclists, particularly juvenile cyclists. This would have implications for (non) provision of ramps for cyclists and like problems.

At the end of the consultations, they may well sharpen their pencils and address most of the problems - one way or another. Let us hope they do not use the erasure on the other end of the pencil to the detriment of the overall project.

As some other have said here, Cowper and Beechwood seemed to be the busier of the stands when I was there.

Keeping access at Dunville Avenue seems to be the big issue. Dropping the road and creating an underpass seems to be the current notion.

Got more clarity about Charlemont and how that will tie in too; it will just end up like Tallaght or the Point is now. That was a personal albatross that just couldn't work out.

I brought up the potential moving of the Na Fianna station and they said it could happen that was until I mentioned the knock on effects it would have at Collins' Ave etc. So there's definite gaps in knowledge there. HA HA!

They're all in on Whitworth. Obviously they should be. But this seems different.

All in all I got a certain vibe that NIMBYism isn't going to be allowed derail the whole project for one or 2 small things. Which is distinctly un-Irish.

Sam Russell

I think this type of video presentation should be produced to showcase the project, particularly the building phase.

I think it would create a positive vibe towards it, particularly if it included the Dart expansion element.

Brian CivilEng

LXFlyer wrote: »

To be fair I appreciate that, but one particular guy really was clueless and started going on complete tangents and wasn’t answering the questions he was being asked, until when asked did he actually know the answer, he admitted he didn’t.

He was wasting people’s time, rather than directing them to someone who did know the answers, of which there were several.

Knew absolutely nothing but could talk about it for hours, he must have been upper management.

bk

specialbyte, great write up, answers a lot of questions and great insights into the thought process that is going into the project, which can often be as important as the details.

specialbyte wrote: »

They don't really want to limit the new metro system or the new vehicles because of the current green line design. I was kinda surprised to hear this considering most of the documentation tries to underline how simple the green line upgrade will be. If that's true then those of you dreaming for a super high capacity system with HFV and platform screen doors you might be in luck.

I'm absolutely delighted to hear this. From reading the docs, I was a little worried that they were leaning towards the cheapest and easiest solution due to the tie in with the Luas, which would result in an inferior Metro overall. So I'm happy to hear that they are prioritising a high quality Metro over the Green line tie-in.

specialbyte wrote: »

I asked about the Cross Guns/Glasnevin station. He said it isn't clear who will actually build the new Irish Rail station. Will it be TII or Irish Rail? He suspects that they will do it because the Irish Rail tie-in there is a large part of their business case. So it is likely the planning application for Metrolink will include the Irish Rail station and that some magic pot of NTA money will be used to pay for it to keep it off the MetroLink budget.

Yes, the whole reason they are going for this route over the original route via Drumcondra is because of Whitworth Road. Without it, it would likely make more sense to go with the original route, so they really need to make the whole station happen.

specialbyte wrote: »

We also got talking about the depot location. There is an alternate proposal to locate the depot at the Dardistown stop. This would also mean they can relocate the TBM launching site from the Na Fianna grounds to Northwoords. Ironically though the Dardistown depot would be built on the Na Finana Grounds on the old airport road. So there's no winning really.

LOL, though depending on how many playing fields they would be taking, then I suspect Na Fianna would still prefer that location over Mobhi Road.

specialbyte wrote: »

The final thing we talked about very informally was about how they made some of the choices. There was a strong bias internally within TII to pick whatever option required the least amount of permanent CPO or would cause the least number of objections. He mentioned this is why the Collins Avenue stop is a few hundred meters away from the orbital bus routes on Collins Avenue. Doing this they could avoid CPO'ing 9 houses and build on open land in front of the church there. It's not ideal or what they wanted but it avoids CPO'ing. This was also a large part of why they went for option 4A of the green line tie-in and not 4B. Option 4B doesn't close the Luas line for a whole year like Option 4A and it retains an engineering link between all of the luas/metro lines. However, Option 4B required CPO'ing something like 20 houses, whereas 4A only CPO's 4 houses completely (AFAIR). They are very worried generally about getting caught up in tons of objections and maybe even in the High Court. The fear of objections has been a deciding factor in many of the decisions they have taken up to this point. Bluntly, they want to piss off as few people as possible to get the project over the line. He did mention that the interchange points at Cross Guns and at Tara Station this bias towards avoiding CPOs was relaxed. Their business case is tied to strong interconnection with the heavy rail network and the shorter they can make the interconnection the better the business case. A stronger business case made it more likely to get government approval over other transport projects (looking at you Dart Underground) and will make it easier for the Dept of Finance to approve the project. For this reason they were allowed by management to do more CPO'ing in those areas designs.

I would agree it is very obvious from the planning docs that they have tried to fit in the station boxes where it would cause the least disruption.

I wish they didn't have to do this, but in fairness it reflects the reality of Irish planning system, courts, politics and perhaps most importantly social culture. So I think they are smart to do this, for such an important and expensive project. It is more important to get this done and prove the concept of Metros and then perhaps future lines will be easier and can involve more CPO'ing etc.

specialbyte wrote: »

I hope some of you find some of this information helpful.

Incredibly helpful, thank you,

CatInABox wrote: »

The whole project looks like an exercise in risk reduction, from the limiting of CPO requirements, to the the simplified stations, out to the station construction (all to be dug straight down instead of being dug out.), it all screams to me that they've sat down and thought long and hard about what's important in this project.

Still impressed with it all, to be honest.

Yes and I'm very happy to hear it. Getting this done is much more important then getting it perfect.

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate here for a minute as I am an engineer and I would class myself as competent, but I completely fall down when asked a question slightly different to what I had expected. Give me 30mins and allow me to write down my thoughts and it's a completely different story. A lot of engineers are quite introverted, and sometimes talking to people is so exhausting it's easier to just let them think you a fool. Heaven knows it has held my career back, but it's something I've noticed in colleagues too. So generally the people who do stand up at public consultations aren't the experts, they are the people who don't mind talking to other people. The experts were back in the office crunching the numbers.

I don't know if that is the case here, and I do know plenty of engineers who can talk the talk as well as walk the walk, but please don't put down to apathy or incompetence what can be attributed to personality.

From my experience it is the same in the software world. Send me an email and I'll give you an excellent, well thought out and detailed response/solution. Throw an unexpected question my way in the middle of a meeting and there will be a lot of errs... and ahhhs... and I'll get back to you on it.

Different peoples minds work in different ways and people who are detail oriented tend to having difficulty throwing out quick answers off the cuff when under pressure. A good work environment is one where managers understand these sort of differences in people and works with them, rather then trying to catch them out, etc.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think this type of video presentation should be produced to showcase the project, particularly the building phase.

I think it would create a positive vibe towards it, particularly if it included the Dart expansion element.

I wonder if something like that was produced or they were planning to produce something like that, but it got canned after all the controversy around the NDP videos and advertising that blew up just a few months earlier.

A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

I wonder if something like that was produced or they were planning to produce something like that, but it got canned after all the controversy around the NDP videos and advertising that blew up just a few months earlier.

A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't

That is a bit like the argument re Quangos. They are bad, so we'll get rid of them. But we need someone to look after problem .... so we must set up an outfit to over see it - say the Private Tenancy Board, or the Low Pay Commission, or whatever - oops - we have just created a whole load of Quangos when we were trying to get rid of them.

If you want buy in to a project like Metrolink, then it is necessary to promote properly and the best way to do that is with a professional video presentation, followed by professional promotion.

Otherwise, it generates reactions like Na Fianna or Beechwood are generating, with no-one out there countering McCarthy and his negativity.

LXFlyer

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Knew absolutely nothing but could talk about it for hours, he must have been upper management.

Nope. He was a younger guy.

Dats me

I went to the City Council consultation and was actually approached by an engineer who had an answer to every question and was generous with his answers.

Unfortunate that they've trotted out wafflers, but it's likely that they would be of high enough standard for a lot of the public. From the studies online and my experience during the consultation, I think the calibre of people doing the nitty gritty of the Metro is extremely high.

citizen6

The TII guy I spoke to said there's nothing stopping an upgrade of Sandyford-Bride's Glen to Metro in future. It would depend on passenger numbers (and presumably funding).

He also said that if they go elevated over M50 with the depot at Dardistown (Option , there will be a P+R there. I asked why the M50/depot decision affects the P+R decision and he wasn't clear on that. Maybe the road access would be different - they would need staff access to the depot anyway so probably makes sense to do a P+R beside the staff car park.

Overheard another rep saying something to the effect that the public consultation is to highlight all the problems, and that every problem will be addressed in some fashion in the planning submission - otherwise they risk it being rejected.