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

Sam Russell

LongboardPro wrote: »

Could somone post a template or an idea of the format of the letter they submitted?

It is better you send in your thoughts in your own format. Any cut and paste efforts will be grouped together and treated as one observation. Sending in 500 copies of the same letter just gets you one letter. They are not stupid.

Heartbreak Hank

My submission (a few robbed from specialbyte. Thanks!):

Overall I am very pleased with the Metrolink EPR. I think it provides a good spine to an expanded public transport network in Dublin and allows good connectivity throughout the area served and with the surrounding regions through the proposed interchanges.

A few suggestions I have:
Integrate extensively with the bus network: provision of stopping bays, easy physical transfer, easy ticket transfer
Provide high-quality (including covered and overnight) secure cycle parking at all metro stops
Cater for segregated cycle paths to all metro stops
Allow bicycles on metro vehicles in line with National Cycle Policy Framework
Design green line metro upgrade without reducing cyclist/pedestrian permeability
Where stations are under, between, or over lanes of traffic, provide segregated access from footpaths to stations without need to cross roads. At a minimum, include future provision of same in the initial build
Protect route from Lissenhall to link with northern line
Do not reduce quality of scheme to pander to Na Fianna GAA or Beechwood residents - mitigate their concerns but not to the determent of the wider population
Build stations to allow easy upgrade to 90m vehicles
Use high floor driverless vehicles
Run 24hr
Release videos showing benefits of scheme
Release "trip planner" tool allowing people to see journey time using PT vs. private car post construction (including DART extension). Useful to gain support among wider regions e.g. journey from Hazelhatch to Santry using IR and Metrolink takes X minutes. Car takes 2X minutes. Should also show costs and carbon differences.

jd

Stuck mine here

specialbyte

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't made a submission yet should make one. The process can take only 2 minutes. You can fill in the form online here: https://www.metrolink.ie/#/public-consultation or you can email your submission to consultations@metrolink.ie

There have been lots of opinions in this thread over the last few months. Are there things you know about your local area they need to consider when advancing the MetroLink scheme to detailed designs? If you support the Metro proposal you need to say it. Most of those motivated to do submissions will either be against the plan or have negative concerns around local issues.

Making your voice heard during these kinds of public consultations is important. It's just like voting. If you don't vote you don't get to complain about what happens afterwards.

The deadline is 5PM today. You have less than 2 hours and 30 minutes left to send in your views.

specialbyte

Here's a copy of the submission from Fingal County Council to MetroLink: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggtes0m5rfq0qe0/FCC%20MetroLink%20Submission.pdf?dl=0

Some interesting points in there particularly around the Estuary/Lissenhall area. They want the depot and another station up in the Lissenhall Metro Economic Corridor lands.

Peregrine

I know it's been said before but please get your submissions in before 5 PM. It doesn't have to be an articulate letter. Even a few bulletpoints will do. It's now or never.

Amirani

Just made a submission supporting the project with a couple of key concerns similar to those expressed here already - driverless, 90m, importance of Whitworth etc.

specialbyte

Here's a copy of the lengthy submission from the Dublin Cycling Campaign to MetroLink: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tqz7tuxykuh11ke/Dublin%20Cycling%20Campaign%20Submission.pdf?dl=0

Summary:
* Cycling Campaign is supportive of the MetroLink scheme generally.
* The CBA hasn't been done for closing the green line for significant amounts of time
* Cycling projects have far better cost benefit ratios than projects like MetroLink. NTA/TII can't keep underfunding cycling.
* How to boost the business case for MetroLink through good integration between cycling and the metro
* Bike parking, bikes on off-peak metros, cycle lanes and the Royal Canal Greenway.
* They highlight that there doesn't seem to be any pedestrian or cycle access to the Estuary stop. (yikes)
* How good plans for segregation need to be figured out for the green line that don't harm pedestrians and cyclists. Otherwise they want to see 90m LFV.
* Part three about the opportunities to improve pedestrian and cyclist permeability in Swords through the MetroLink scheme
* They'd like to see HGVs used for the construction to meet high quality standards like the CrossRail project in the UK did.
* Wraps up with they want to meet with the design team to discuss the issues

A long submission but lots of bits in there.

Edit: If you're thinking of writing a personal submission then you don't need a long essay like Fingal County Council or the Dublin Cycling Campaign. They are organisations with teams of people who live and breathe this stuff. You can write in a few bullet points.

ciaran75

just submitted, kept it brief, 90m platforms, high floor driverless, 24h, don't penny pinch

marno21

Fingal County Council statement is a bit contradictory in relation to the R132 Swords bypass. They don't want to elevate the Metro but instead want it running at grade along the R132 with grade seperation at junctions. They say this is because of community severance and visual intrustion. Visual intrusion ok but how does running the railway at grade along there offer advantages in relation to servance compared to having it run elevated?

specialbyte

marno21 wrote: »

Fingal County Council statement is a bit contradictory in relation to the R132 Swords bypass. They don't want to elevate the Metro but instead want it running at grade along the R132 with grade seperation at junctions. They say this is because of community severance and visual intrustion. Visual intrusion ok but how does running the railway at grade along there offer advantages in relation to servance compared to having it run elevated?

There is a section of the Swords Masterplan, which was essentially prepared in response to Metro North originally, that wants to build a public plaza over the R132 and the Metro tracks at the Swords Central stop. It's called Metro Plaza. The land on either side of the R132 is high ground. So if the track was elevated they'd have issues building the Metro plaza because that too would need to be elevated. I think that's what they are talking about. Maybe. I find their submission hard to follow.

geo88

Submitted as well re: cycle facilities, counter productive opposition from locals, driverless, 90m etc.

LXFlyer

marno21 wrote: »

The part of the Luas Green Line that runs through Ryan's constituency is currently "controversial" due to the Beechwood LC issue and general ignorant comments about RIPPING UP LUAS TRACKS and that kind of bull scutter.

As said before, Metro is Swords-Sandyford. Nowhere else. The lack of investment in the N4 is not a reason not to build the M20.

The potential extended closure of some or all of the Green Line between Sandyford and Charlemont to facilitate the conversion of the line to Metrolink could become a serious issue - a summer closure could be bearable, but longer than that would cause a catastrophic impact on traffic levels and other public transport in south Dublin. We don't know what exactly will be involved but I don't see how a final decision can be made without a detailed assessment of the impact of the closure.

I can see his point to a degree.

bk

My submission should be no surprise, fully support the project and delighted to see it happen. HFV's, driverless, 90m stations underground, platform screen doors, full segregation of people from tracks, 24/7 running, etc.

A little bit about not everyone who lives near Na Fianna support them. Some extra nice to have in terms of cycle parking and paths playing a very important part in solving the last mile problem.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

The potential extended closure of some or all of the Green Line between Sandyford and Charlemont to facilitate the conversion of the line to Metrolink could become a serious issue - a summer closure could be bearable, but longer than that would cause a catastrophic impact on traffic levels and other public transport in south Dublin. We don't know what exactly will be involved but I don't see how a final decision can be made without a detailed assessment of the impact of the closure.

I can see his point to a degree.

Except there is absolutely no suggestion of closing the entire Sandyford to Charelmont section! He was completely wrong about needing to replace tracks along that entire section. No tracks need to be replaced at all!

In the docs there is the suggestion that Charlemont to Ranelagh section may need to close to complete the tie in there. There is a suggestion of running a new section of Luas line to bypass this section to keep the Luas open and running during construction.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Except there is absolutely no suggestion of closing the entire Sandyford to Charelmont section! He was completely wrong about needing to replace tracks along that entire section. No tracks need to be replaced at all!

In the docs there is the suggestion that Charlemont to Ranelagh section may need to close to complete the tie in there. There is a suggestion of running a new section of Luas line to bypass this section to keep the Luas open and running during construction.

There is also a plan the bypass the Stillorgan stop while the bridge is built to cross the St Raephaella's Road. They intend to cause as little disruption as possible. There is no reason why that could not be done ahead of the main construction, or very early.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Except there is absolutely no suggestion of closing the entire Sandyford to Charelmont section! He was completely wrong about needing to replace tracks along that entire section. No tracks need to be replaced at all!

In the docs there is the suggestion that Charlemont to Ranelagh section may need to close to complete the tie in there. There is a suggestion of running a new section of Luas line to bypass this section to keep the Luas open and running during construction.

That is not what one of the project engineers intimated to me - depending on the power option chosen there could be a significantly greater closure in order to rewire the line.

And if the line has to be raised to cross Dunville Avenue (something that is quite possible) then there will have to be a much longer closure as a new raised track bed will have to be installed between Ranelagh and Cowper.

Where would this alternative line run that you mention? How could that be put in place delivering rapid services without serious disruption?

As usual things in reality are not quite as simplistic as you seem to suggest.

While I’m broadly in favour of Metrolink, I’ll wait and see what the detailed plans look like and in particular what planned closures would be required.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

That is not what one of the project engineers intimated to me - depending on the power option chosen there could be a significantly greater closure in order to rewire the line.

Hold on a second, re-wiring is not a major deal at all. Similar has been done overnight and with weekend closures only on DART.

And also re-wiring is not replacing track which is what the Cllr said.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Where would this alternative line run that you mention? How could that be put in place delivering rapid services without serious disruption?

Down Ranelagh Road.

Of course there will be disruption, there always is with any major project. And of course it isn't "simple". But it also isn't the major problem that many people make it out to be. Metro's are built all over the world in much denser cities with much bigger problems. But it is still worked around and made to work.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Hold on a second, re-wiring is not a major deal at all. Similar has been done overnight and with weekend closures only on DART.

And also re-wiring is not replacing track which is what the Cllr said.



Down Ranelagh Road.

Of course there will be disruption, there always is with any major project. And of course it isn't "simple". But it also isn't the major problem that many people make it out to be. Metro's are built all over the world in much denser cities with much bigger problems. But it is still worked around and made to work.

If a different power supply/voltage is to be used, then yes it is. That was what was suggested by the project engineer at the consultation I attended. NOT suggested by me.

Metros are indeed built all over the world but they don’t usually involve converting an operational tram line. This is a lot more difficult and as usual you’re being rather patronising in your approach. You have no more idea than I do about what level of closure would be required. It was not clearly stated. And not regularly commuting in the area, you’ve a lot less idea than those of us that do of the potential impact.

Putting an alternative LUAS line along Ranelagh Road would take a serious amount of time - you would have to re-route all of the utilities - I don’t see that as a practical option at all - that still won’t solve the problem around Dunville Avenue if the line needs to be raised to cross it.

LongboardPro

specialbyte wrote: »

There is a section of the Swords Masterplan, which was essentially prepared in response to Metro North originally, that wants to build a public plaza over the R132 and the Metro tracks at the Swords Central stop. It's called Metro Plaza. The land on either side of the R132 is high ground. So if the track was elevated they'd have issues building the Metro plaza because that too would need to be elevated. I think that's what they are talking about. Maybe. I find their submission hard to follow.

Idealy the Swords section should also be underground. I feel it should be just done right the first time and not as seen to be "penny pinching" as it's called around here.

jd

Na Fianna have their submission here

Amirani

jd wrote: »

Na Fianna have their submission here

Financial Implications - Na Fianna currently has €1.3 million of debt and it meets its repayment and servicing obligations out of funds generated from members subscriptions and activities and events carried on at our Clubhouse. With the loss of membership and the likely collapse of activities and events at the Clubhouse these funding sources will also be severely curtailed (if not ceasing all together in the case of social activities and events)if the MetroLink goes ahead as currently envisaged. Clearly, this would have extremely serious financial consequences for Na Fianna.


Can make that debt go away if we come to a compromise here...?

It's a well put together submission in fairness to them.

salmocab

I’ve said from the very first day an Fianna are right to do what’s best for themselves. If they can have debt wiped out or end up with brand new facilities or both good luck to them. I don’t really care so long as the metro gets built and if that means a slightly altered route to cut out Mobhi road altogether I’m fine with that too, a project this size will have to have compromises and so long as it doesn’t result in inferior network that’s fine too.

jd

Amirani wrote: »

It's a well put together submission in fairness to them.

It is - but they miss the point about Cross guns having two heavy lines to interchange - while Broombridge (!?) only has one (as well as being well away from the boundaries of the study area)

Broombridge - Can you clarify why Broombridge was not considered a possible route
location? We understand the level of interchange traffic was a key factor in deciding to
route the EPR through Phibsboro rather than Drumcondra, which was the key interchange
for both the Original Metro North and the New Metro North. In that context, why was
Broombridge not considered in detail?

marno21

Some excellent submissions to the public consultation, including Na Fianna's which they put considerable work into. That's the whole point of the public consultation after all. Delightful that the submissions are coming in now rather than holding up the project when it gets to An Bord Pleanala.

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

It is - but they miss the point about Cross guns having two heavy lines to interchange - while Broombridge (!?) only has one (as well as being well away from the boundaries of the study area)

In fairness to them, Broombridge also has a Luas line going there. It's definitely not as useful an interchange, but I can see why they'd ask.

Even ignoring the interchange levels, there's plenty of other reasons to reject Broombridge though, such as being so far west as to rule out a Mater stop, the catchment area to the north and west being either a park or a cemetery, etc

monument

Amirani wrote: »

Financial Implications - Na Fianna currently has €1.3 million of debt and it meets its repayment and servicing obligations out of funds generated from members subscriptions and activities and events carried on at our Clubhouse. With the loss of membership and the likely collapse of activities and events at the Clubhouse these funding sources will also be severely curtailed (if not ceasing all together in the case of social activities and events)if the MetroLink goes ahead as currently envisaged. Clearly, this would have extremely serious financial consequences for Na Fianna.


Can make that debt go away if we come to a compromise here...?

It's a well put together submission in fairness to them.

My (basic) understanding of CPOs is that they can’t leave you worse off than before, including temporary CPOs.

CatInABox

monument wrote: »

My (basic) understanding of CPOs is that they can’t leave you worse off than before, including temporary CPOs.

I'd also assume that the CPO would end up above market value as well, to try and head off any desire to go to court over it.

In Na Fiannas case though, would they go the CPO route, seeing as they're giving the pitches back after wards? Go in with an offer of 2/2.5 million, and upgraded pitches post rebuild.

monument

For what it's worth, this is my cycling-focused submission: http://irishcycle.com/2018/05/11/metrolink-public-consultation-submission-from-irishcycle-com/

geo88

monument wrote: »

For what it's worth, this is my cycling-focused submission: http://irishcycle.com/2018/05/11/metrolink-public-consultation-submission-from-irishcycle-com/

An incredible amount of thought and effort went into your submission, kudos to you for the amount of work put in there!