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

FunkyDa2

Would it make it a lot less problematical at this stage, if this line was terminated at St. Stephen's Green?. Resources(money, planning, engineering) could be concentrated on a route running from the Green out to Swords(via the Airport, obviously). :-/

Grandeeod

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

Would it make it a lot less problematical at this stage, if this line was terminated at St. Stephen's Green?. Resources(money, planning, engineering) could be concentrated on a route running from the Green out to Swords(via the Airport, obviously). :-/

I think it would. This conversion of the green line to metro is littered with issues because it was never fully addressed when the green line was designed. The lack of detail re charlemont tie in, length of closure, dunville ave etc. is clear evidence the whole idea was a fudge back then.

antoinolachtnai

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

Would it make it a lot less problematical at this stage, if this line was terminated at St. Stephen's Green?. Resources(money, planning, engineering) could be concentrated on a route running from the Green out to Swords(via the Airport, obviously). :-/

Not really. The cost benefit analysis would come out much weaker because the number of peak time journeys that would transfer to public transport as a result of the new line would be much smaller.

You would also need a larger and more expensive station at St Stephen's Green. You would need a large pit at St Stephen's Green to take the TBM out.

bk

Remember the original Metro North plan required a very large and expensive turn around facility under Stephens Green as it terminated there. This needed to dig up most of Stephens Green to do that and faced lots of opposition.

I suspect the cost of the original Stephen Green site is similar to what the tie-in to the Green line will cost.

Sam Russell

Why not terminate at Charlemont at the bridge. Leave the Green Line alone - for the time being.

There are a few changes that could be done at a leisurely pace (while the tunnelling progresses). For example, St Raephaela's Road needs a grade separation - now. That could be done as a project on its own. Same goes for Dunville Ave - that could be done as a Green Line project.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why not terminate at Charlemont at the bridge. Leave the Green Line alone - for the time being.

How would you do that, you need turn back loop where you terminate the line, so that the train can move from from one tunnel and cross over to the other tunnel for the return journey. Remember, this complicated manoeuvre would need to be done every 90 seconds!

You need lots of space for such turn back loops. I'm not sure where you could put that at Charlemont?

This is a major advantage of the Green Lie Tie-in, it allows them to use the Sandyford Depot above ground for the turn back facilities, making it less complicated. It vastly simplifies what you need to build underground.

marno21

The Green Line mess is a symptom of a project being built as a half baked attempt in order to save pennies and require euros to fix it

Nenagh bypass, Croom bypass, Dunkettle interchange, M50, both Luas lines, the N25 roundabouts in Cork etc.

The engineers who built the flipping thing knew well it was going to turn out this way when they made it Metro capable. A rail line being unfit for purpose 13 years after opening is a typical Irish project that has been riddled with political interference to make it cheaper in pure short term thinking.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

How would you do that, you need turn back loop where you terminate the line, so that the train can move from from one tunnel and cross over to the other tunnel for the return journey. Remember, this complicated manoeuvre would need to be done every 90 seconds!

You need lots of space for such turn back loops. I'm not sure where you could put that at Charlemont?

This is a major advantage of the Green Lie Tie-in, it allows them to use the Sandyford Depot above ground for the turn back facilities, making it less complicated. It vastly simplifies what you need to build underground.

Have a look at the London DLR. They just have cross-over points.

I think the 90 seconds will not be needed for a while. Lets concentrate on getting a TBM in the ground, and the tunnel emerging at Charlemont. It might help to read the pdf on the tie in.

specialbyte

For anyone who's wondering why the upgrade of the green line to metro is included as part of the GDA Transport Strategy 2016-2035 it is because of South East Corridor Study report carried out in 2011. It goes through a series of options in chapter 4 about how to cater for 100% of new travel demand through public transport in 2035. It tries many options like upgraded buses, adding BRT, improving the green line, adding a new green line spur and upgrading the DART. You can find the report here: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/South_East_Corridor_Study1.pdf

It's an interesting read and includes models predicting travel demand in the south east area out to 2035. You can also see a series of related reports that were done in order to prepare the GDA Transport Study 2016-2035 statutory document here: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/background-technical-reports/

It includes corridor studies for the Lucan area, for the Firhouse area and many other interesting reports.

Dats me

When I went to the public consultation I asked about whether it would be easier to just do the "Metro North" part, from Stephen's Green onwards, first. The engineer said quite possibly but it's been set up as one project and now it's all or nothing

antoinolachtnai

Dats me wrote: »

When I went to the public consultation I asked about whether it would be easier to just do the "Metro North" part, from Stephen's Green onwards, first. The engineer said quite possibly but it's been set up as one project and now it's all or nothing

Your informant is just wrong. The project would run into even greater difficulties without the southern part, but these problems would be with economics rather than engineering. This is basically what did for Metro North. The economic case was just not very strong.

The link to the Green line is what makes Metrolink make strong economic sense in a paper analysis. All these issues with the green line, like the link-up, bridging Dunville Avenue and so on are just engineering issues. They are local red flags for sure, but don’t make any real difference to the economic case.

I thought that the team staffing at the public consultation didn’t really have a strong understanding of the economic rationale for the link-up and upgrade. This part needs to be explained much more clearly.

piuswal

bk wrote: »

Looks like a bad location for both a TBM site and even a station.

First of all, those are schools right next to it, so if that is your complaint about Na Fianna, then it is equally the case here.

The roads in and around it are only local two lane roads, so wouldn't be suitable for the trucks going to and from the TBM site, Mobhi Road is a wider 3/4 lane road so could better handle it.

Even as a station location it is very out of the way location.

There is no comparison in how close the schools are; you could centre it at least 200 mtrs from the school boundary as compared to less than 20 at Na Fianna.

The Access lanes can easily be made suitable for truck movements in both directions onto Glasnevin Hill from where there is more direct access to the M50.

It is c 200mtrs from from the main road. It is nearer for all the houses between the Old Finglas Rd along the Tolka Valley to the west and it would provide much closer access to both the Botanic Gardens and Glasnevin Cemetery .

Van.Bosch

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Your informant is just wrong. The project would run into even greater difficulties without the southern part, but these problems would be with economics rather than engineering. This is basically what did for Metro North. The economic case was just not very strong.

The link to the Green line is what makes Metrolink make strong economic sense in a paper analysis. All these issues with the green line, like the link-up, bridging Dunville Avenue and so on are just engineering issues. They are local red flags for sure, but don’t make any real difference to the economic case.

I thought that the team staffing at the public consultation didn’t really have a strong understanding of the economic rationale for the link-up and upgrade. This part needs to be explained much more clearly.

I think politically it helps too that it isn’t just a link on the north side.

CatInABox

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I think politically it helps too that it isn’t just a link on the north side.

They should start selling this as a "Transport Spine", one that all future transport projects in Dublin will hang off/interconnect with. That way they can start talking about how this is step 1 on the plan to start fixing Dublins transport, housing and traffic problems.

Dublin On Track should also start talking to the multinational companies in the city, and get them on record as saying that Metrolink (or the lack of) will be taken on board during any further consideration for investment. It'll probably be only a small consideration, but it'll still be important to politicians, after all, the MNCs are goose laying the golden egg for Dublin and Ireland, anything that might hinder more investment is going to worry politicians.

citizen6

CatInABox wrote: »

They should start selling this as a "Transport Spine", one that all future transport projects in Dublin will hang off/interconnect with. That way they can start talking about how this is step 1 on the plan to start fixing Dublins transport, housing and traffic problems.

Agree completely. At minimum they should be selling Dart Expansion and Metrolink as a single project. And the first talking point every time should be housing. People still think this is about the airport.

The most important statistic is not the cost or journey time but the number of new homes that can be built if Metrolink happens. I haven't seen that number anywhere.

Carlos Orange

citizen6 wrote: »

The most important statistic is not the cost or journey time but the number of new homes that can be built if Metrolink happens. I haven't seen that number anywhere.

People like headlines like peace in our time. Houses in a decade is a harder sell.

antoinolachtnai

psinno wrote: »

People like headlines like peace in our time. Houses in a decade is a harder sell.

The problem is that people who currently have secure housing are not really all that concerned about the people who don’t.

The right network of bus lanes and routes would mean shorter public transport journeys for a large proportion of the city. This is a story that I think will have a bit more resonance.

citizen6

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that people who currently have secure housing are not really all that concerned about the people who don’t.

Yeah there are no votes for local councillors or TDs from people who could or should be able to live in an area, but can't. That said, I think overall people want the housing crisis solved and need to be told that public transport is a big part of the solution.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The right network of bus lanes and routes would mean shorter public transport journeys for a large proportion of the city. This is a story that I think will have a bit more resonance.

I don't think "shorter journey times" cuts it when you're on Prime Time trying to justify spending €3bn to parts of the country that won't benefit from the project. But everyone knows someone affected by the housing crisis. And even if people don't live near the metro, there is a benefit to anyone buying/renting in Dublin when the metro boosts housing supply. And yet Colm McCarthy is going around saying it only benefits one suburb.

antoinolachtnai

I don’t know, shorter journey times means a lot when you think about it. If the public transport commute can be reduced from 50 minutes to 35 minutes, that means a lot.

I think the reality that the Green line is about to run out of capacity will need to be stated more clearly.

The case for concentrating the money on one major line rather than dividing it among 3 or 4 luas lines needs to be more clearly explained.

Sam Russell

I think posters in favour of this need to write/email their TDs to get the message across. Point out that the benefit will be less cars on the roads inside the canals, and that P&R facilities need to be included. etc etc etc.

Lots of communication means they tend to jump in the right direction.

citizen6

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don’t know, shorter journey times means a lot when you think about it. If the public transport commute can be reduced from 50 minutes to 35 minutes, that means a lot.

I think the reality that the Green line is about to run out of capacity will need to be stated more clearly.

The case for concentrating the money on one major line rather than dividing it among 3 or 4 luas lines needs to be more clearly explained.

Reducing journey time from 50 to 35 mins will only win votes from people who expect to use the service. And even then it's not €3bn worth of improvement. People who have two hour commutes because they were priced out of Dublin are the real target for Metro-scale investment.

You're right about the Green line. Again I think the best argument here is how many new houses/apartments are jeopardised if the upgrade doesn't happen.

antoinolachtnai

citizen6 wrote: »

You're right about the Green line. Again I think the best argument here is how many new houses/apartments are jeopardised if the upgrade doesn't happen.

You are right of course but in a way I think it’s simpler than that. People in Ranelagh and Milltown simply wont be able to get on the thing in the morning unless it’s upgraded.

The objections of people near the existing track are a real issue, ably represented by Senator McDowell could be a real issue for this project.

(I don’t think people with two hour commutes will have any problem with this project.)

salmocab

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are right of course but in a way I think it’s simpler than that. People in Ranelagh and Milltown simply wont be able to get on the thing in the morning unless it’s upgraded.

The objections of people near the existing track are a real issue, ably represented by Senator McDowell could be a real issue for this project.

(I don’t think people with two hour commutes will have any problem with this project.)

I think people in places like Ranelagh are going on such short trips that pushing your way on for 3 or 4 stops isnt a big deal, lots probably have a walking/cycling option so oddly even though they are close to the line the congestion doesnt affect them as much as people from say even Dundrum. For me the big sell should certainly be housing, fair enough you have your house in a nice area but a metro will mean your kids have a much better chance of not having to live in another county and commute. That would be my angle.

antoinolachtnai

The issue that has to be dealt with is too many blockers at strategic points. The blockers can derail the project. This is the big issue an infrastructure project like this can face. Issues like Na Fianna and Dunville Avenue have to be dealt with.

I don’t see a shortage of promoters as really being a problem.

Property owners and residents in Ranelagh care about being able to get on public transport. I am pretty sure of that.

Jamie2k9

Saw this on FB yesterday:

Metro North
Submission made to Metrolink's Public Consultation process with respect to redirecting Metro North's line from Charlemont to Sandyford via Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Templeogue, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, Knocklyon, Ballyboden, Churchtown, Ballinteer and Leopardstown.

This proposed alternative route will relieve ongoing heavy congestion in this area of the city, where the city is already at capacity with respect to traffic. Also providing alternative public transport to the communities in the area.

Cllr. Francis Noel Duffy
comhaontas glas

Route Map in link:

https://www.facebook.com/FrancisNoelDuffy/photos/a.718837338146745.1073741828.718141228216356/1908306232533177/?type=3

Sam Russell

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Saw this on FB yesterday:



Route Map in link:

https://www.facebook.com/FrancisNoelDuffy/photos/a.718837338146745.1073741828.718141228216356/1908306232533177/?type=3

More crayon stuff. This should go in the other thread

It would double the cost.

Let us get Metrolink built first before diverting attention from it. Lots of people will have their own favourite diversions.

Zebra3

A simply explainable benefit that can be cast to people far and wide is the economic benefit.

Housing is far too expensive.

Commuting time is far too long.

It’s making the city and country disadvantageous to foreign MNCs.

A lack of serious investment in public transport could lead to us losing FDI which without our economy currently couldn’t survive.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think the reality that the Green line is about to run out of capacity will need to be stated more clearly.

But it isn't running out of capacity.

The last time I used the LUAS Green line on the southside (about 10 days ago), from Ranelagh station to Sandyford, at around 0815, the next tram was due to arrive in 7 minutes! (Perhaps this was a blip, and a tram had broken down somewhere, but 7 minutes I did indeed have to wait).

I know there's a theoretical 4 minute gap along that route. Why not reduce this to 3 minutes, and maybe use the siding at St. Stephen's Green a bit more. Then there's the issue with the 55 metre trams, which as I understand it are currently not being used. When they're back in service that's another whole load of capacity to be filled, and let Dublin have more of them, and let them use the St. Stephen's Green siding if necessary.

There's lots that could be done to improve the service, and it is not obviously clear why an upgrade to 'metro' status is required.

An upgrade to 'metro' status for the southside won't increase speed along the route, because the vehicles will still have to stop at the same stops and the journey into town will be around the same as it currently is. It also won't have a significantly higher capacity over what could be provided by a fleet of 55 metre trams.

There is a strong suspicion that it won't have a higher throughput of vehicles than is currently operating on the route, or that could currently operate on the route. And it introduces an unnecessary complication for people travelling to/from south of Sandyford to/from the centre of the city.

So, what is the point of spending money on the upgrade?

It is very hard to see it.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But it isn't running out of capacity.

The last time I used the LUAS Green line on the southside (about 10 days ago), from Ranelagh station to Sandyford, at around 0815, the next tram was due to arrive in 7 minutes! (Perhaps this was a blip, and a tram had broken down somewhere, but 7 minutes I did indeed have to wait).

I know there's a theoretical 4 minute gap along that route. Why not reduce this to 3 minutes, and maybe use the siding at St. Stephen's Green a bit more. Then there's the issue with the 55 metre trams, which as I understand it are currently not being used. When they're back in service that's another whole load of capacity to be filled, and let Dublin have more of them, and let them use the St. Stephen's Green siding if necessary.

There's lots that could be done to improve the service, and it is not obviously clear why an upgrade to 'metro' status is required.

An upgrade to 'metro' status for the southside won't increase speed along the route, because the vehicles will still have to stop at the same stops and the journey into town will be around the same as it currently is. It also won't have a significantly higher capacity over what could be provided by a fleet of 55 metre trams.

There is a strong suspicion that it won't have a higher throughput of vehicles than is currently operating on the route, or that could currently operate on the route. And it introduces an unnecessary complication for people travelling to/from south of Sandyford to/from the centre of the city.

So, what is the point of spending money on the upgrade?

It is very hard to see it.

Except that you're experiencing the Green Line Luas post upgrade, which included lengthening all trams, buying 8 even longer trams thereby increasing the schedule to what it is now. The minimum time between trams is currently three minutes during peak times. This is basically all the that the Green Line Luas can take, it can't get much better than this without major surgery.

So it's working fine now, but once the projects currently in construction or planning finish up, like Saggart, Cherrywood or Carrickmines, it'll be close to capacity again, if not past it. Then there's all the developments further out that have already been put on hold contingent on a significant upgrade to the Luas capacity.

Looking at any other proposed Metro route, I just don't see any other route that will unlock as much potential new developments as this plan, at least without significantly more cash required. Every other proposal simply lacks the extremely easy boost to housing stock that an upgrade to the Green Line Luas offers. There's just isn't the same amount of Green and Brown field sites that's currently along the existing Luas line.

strassenwo!f

At the stop I recently used, Ranelagh, the peak time figures are as follows:

Morning frequency: minimum 2 minutes, average 4 minutes, maximum 7 minutes

Evening frequency: minimum 3 minutes, average 5 minutes, maximum 9 minutes

It looks like there is plenty of scope for increasing the frequency, and that's before the extra capacity of the 55 metre trams kicks in.