Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )
Comments
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,874 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22470
To reduce risk of working nearer human activity and buildings etc, Copenhagen built a TBM site on their central man-made lake:
Really? Did you somehow manage to miss the big row of six and seven story, historic apartment buildings right across the road from that construction site! And all the other buildings all around it.
In other words, that is a very densely populated and complicated site. By comparison a GAA pitch in the suburbs of Drumcondra is far less risky.
Here is another brilliant example of an incredibly tight construction sites in Copenhagen:
Some of the photos you posted show other sites on parts of squares and other open spaces -- as well as cost effectiveness, this has built-in risk avoidance.
Risk avoidance!!! Those pictures show Metro stations being squeezed into busy narrow streets and parks within meters of some of the most historic and important buildings in the heart of Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Those were full of risk.
And have you looked at the detailed MetroLink plans. If you had, it would be obvious that they have done almost everything possible to reduce cost and risk. They have very clearly tried to squeeze Metro stations into parks and green fields, similar to Copenhagen and Amsterdam. By doing so they avoid as much as possible having to CPO people's homes.
Choosing to temporarily build in a field of a sporting club in a suburbs is absolutely good example of reducing risk.There's no question that some sites are confined, but few planners of metros pick confined or problematic sites when there's an alternative near by and no good reason not to use it.
"No reason", there is a very good reason, cost. By putting both the construction site and station in one location it reduces unnecessary cost of a separate station and construction site and thus risk as you like to put it.Although, I have to note that, I still think there's an element of needless destruction with elements of MetroLink -- including far from temporary effects.
How is is not temporary? And how would putting a construction site in Albert College Park, in addition to a Metro Station in Na Fianna not simply increase the "needless" destruction?
Na Fianna would then lose two playing fields instead of one! Never mind the other three sporting clubs, which people seem to not care about!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have watched it all so far. The complaints about the traffic on Mobhi Road and the construction traffic adding to it, but no comment about how the Metro will drastically reduce traffic on Mobhi Road and bring massive benefits to the area.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
But when you have the choice, you can chose to break one egg rather than 20 eggs.Here is the thing, the people of Dublin are desperately crying out for high quality public transport. We are decades behind similar sized cities and we have an awful lot of catching up to do.
Of course there is going to be some disruption when major new infrastructure like this is built. Did people really think that Metro's simply spring into reality with no disturbance!
However such disruption and risk can certainly be managed and planned for. As you can see from the pictures in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Barcelona.
Having looked at the plans I haven't seen anything that looks particularly troublesome here. They really have seemed to bent over backwards to reduce disturbance and risk with this plan.
Nobody thinks metros simply spring into reality with no disturbance — you can do all the shadow boxing that you want, but you’re not dealing with the issue of a more suitable TBM site very close to the site and on the route.
“They really have seemed to bent over backwards to reduce disturbance and risk with this plan” — that’s a really strange statement, there’s a few stops that could be placed or have their final design better to lower disturbance.Metrolink has a very low volume of "destruction", they could have absolutely gone to town but its clear they were trying to avoid objection.
I really don't see how the amount of people who are impacted is in any way a negative when you compare it to the volume of people who will benefit from the project.
Building a project of this scale with no disruption is simply not possible.
You’re putting forward arguments that little to nobody is making — nobody is saying no disruption. There’s a big different between minimising disruption and looking for no disruption.
I sure hope the NTA and TII aren’t thinking like posters here — it will be damaging to the project if they keep this up.Really? Did you somehow manage to miss the big row of six and seven story, historic apartment buildings right across the road from that construction site! And all the other buildings all around it.
In other words, that is a very densely populated and complicated site. By comparison a GAA pitch in the suburbs of Drumcondra is far less risky.
There’s a big buffer of first a wide street and next the compound before you get to the actual dig area.Here is another brilliant example of an incredibly tight construction sites in Copenhagen:
As I’ve said, where needed, that’s grand.Risk avoidance!!! Those pictures show Metro stations being squeezed into busy narrow streets and parks within meters of some of the most historic and important buildings in the heart of Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Those were full of risk.
Again... Amsterdam and risk? Really? 7 years time over run — perfect reason why a club would fight for their pitches.
CPH also did stations with tunnels / platforms on top of each other to get into some of the most narrow spaces. There’s also no need for that on this route. Not everything is comparable.And have you looked at the detailed MetroLink plans. If you had, it would be obvious that they have done almost everything possible to reduce cost and risk. They have very clearly tried to squeeze Metro stations into parks and green fields, similar to Copenhagen and Amsterdam. By doing so they avoid as much as possible having to CPO people's homes.
Choosing to temporarily build in a field of a sporting club in a suburbs is absolutely good example of reducing risk.
It’s really not.
It’s beside schools and a college, closer to homes, on a narrower road with a much greater incline."No reason", there is a very good reason, cost. By putting both the construction site and station in one location it reduces unnecessary cost of a separate station and construction site and thus risk as you like to put it.
Cost. That’s a different argument than you have given to date.
That’s fine if that’s your argument but is that cost reduction worth the likely planning and political risks — it’s very unlikely.How is is not temporary? And how would putting a construction site in Albert College Park, in addition to a Metro Station in Na Fianna not simply increase the "needless" destruction?
Na Fianna would then lose two playing fields instead of one! Never mind the other three sporting clubs, which people seem to not care about!
On that, I was talking generally, not one site.
The city centre stations have far from temporary impacts and all three of the most central ones could be better sited.
But that’s my logic of putting homes in a housing crisis over traffic at Tara St; putting Luas, bus, pedestrians and cycling above having a station on the other side of a junction; and not being so cost conscious on St Stevens Green.0 -
Gaelscoil raises 'grave health concerns' over plan to use grounds for Metrolink supplies. The principal of Scoil Mobhí speaking before the committee. Health concerns, curious children accessing the site and, to top it off, tearing apart an Irish language community. May have overcooked that last one in particular."That such a proposal should have been brought forward in Bliain na Gaeilge...."
That's taking it a bit personally.
I guess you have to assume that people are being sincere and do actually have these fears. The project team has some work to do then, to allay them. Eg someone asked what is the rate of production of spoil. I don't know the answer but I'd say it's a lot less than people might fear, given a typical TBM only travels around 100ft a day.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement