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

MJohnston

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/

Nice work. There's one thing additional I'd mention, and it's only because it's a route I could use every day if it was sorted; I'd like to see the canal path apparently known as "Cross Guns Quay" (on the route alignment drawings anyway) properly surfaced and levelled off a bit to serve as a cycling connection between Mount Bernard Park and a potential future Whitworth station (and additionally, the rest of the Royal Canal cycle paths). It's a section of pathway that isn't going to be used for anything else, and requires a very simple and tiny amount of work to fix up for this use. Right now it's been wrecked at the Phisboro Road end by recent utility works which just left a 'gravel' path with handful sized rocks all over the place. It seems like a small thing to me, but it would provide a really handy connection with the Cabra Luas stop, as there's no way other to cross the canal with a bicycle from the 'good' side of the path until Broombridge.

Zebra3

Delighted that Na Fianna’s position has finally moved from the think of the children position to cash.

A lot easier to deal without all the hysterics.

marno21

Zebra3 wrote: »

Delighted that Na Fianna’s position has finally moved from the think of the children position to cash.

A lot easier to deal without all the hysterics.

Has it ?

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

Has it ?

No, but they've put a number out there now. That's still progress, even if it's small print.

My guess is that they'd be open to allowing a station to be built on their grounds, for the right price. I don't think a TBM site is realistic there.

Zebra3

marno21 wrote: »

Has it ?

Yes, it has.

CatInABox

Apparently the TII have €24 million worth of houses along the old Metro North route, around Drumcondra. Quite funny, I bet that they wished they had a few houses around the Mobhi Rd area right about now.

See the times here.

CatInABox

Not a cyclist myself, but they really need something like this at most of the Metro stations.

mickmmc

The underpasses on the R132 would be of great benefit in Swords.

The problem with Dublin Metrolink is that any investment in cycling & pedestrian infrastructure on the R132 is on hold until Metrolink is built in 9 years time.

Pedestrians are taking short cuts and crossing a 6 lane carriageway; a woman was knocked down a few weeks ago near the Pavillions roundabout. There is poor integration between Pavillions/Swords Main Street and Airside. Tourists and other pedestrians have to cross 5 lanes at Pinnock Hill roundabout to access the Travel Lodge.

I hope nobody will get killed or badly injured crossing the R132 within the next 9 years.

The Muppet

mickmmc wrote: »

Pedestrians are taking short cuts and crossing a 6 lane carriageway; a woman was knocked down a few weeks ago near the Pavillions roundabout. There is poor integration between Pavillions/Swords Main Street and Airside. Tourists and other pedestrians have to cross 5 lanes at Pinnock Hill roundabout to access the Travel Lodge.

I hope nobody will get killed or badly injured crossing the R132 within the next 9 years.

They don't "have" to cross 5 lanes, there is a pedestrian crossing at Airside and a pedestrian bridge at the Pavillions.

mickmmc

Some pedestrians will take the shortest route.

There is no pedestrian crossing at the Pinnock Hill Roundabout bus stop at the back of Carlton Court. Dublin Bus drivers inform passengers to get off at this stop for Travel Lodge as I have heard the announcements on the 41.

When I am walking over from the Dublin Road it means I have to walk up to Borimhe junction to get to Airside.

If I get off at the stop near Pavillions I can use the footbridge and walk up the R132. The footpath ends half way up the R132 and the footpath leads into the commercial business park. You then come out at the back of Ryanair. That is a long walk.

Pedestrian access is poor.

monument

The Muppet wrote: »

They don't "have" to cross 5 lanes, there is a pedestrian crossing at Airside and a pedestrian bridge at the Pavillions.

Are you for real? You want people walking or in wheelchairs to go 1.4 to 2km out of their way to cross the road?

monument

Just a few things I'm only now getting around to replying to:

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?

Maybe it's something to do with their plans for a metro plaza? https://www.herald.ie/news/road-and-rail-links-to-meet-at-new-metroplaza-27905164.html

tom1ie wrote: »

I’m really surprised at the p+r comment from him. A properly laid out p+r will reduce traffic levels south of the metro along the m1 etc.

I don't agree with the Greens on the southside re-rerouting suggestion, but the idea that P&R reduces congestion in more than just the short-term has little evidence to back it up.

I think P&R should be built for the sake of access for people beyond the city and those who live in other parts of the country, but the suggestion P&R lowers congestion has little to no bases in fact.

The evidence is that in and near busy cities, motorists will fill the space given to them.

CatInABox wrote: »

Not a cyclist myself, but they really need something like this at most of the Metro stations.

Yes, and at hubs and central stations where there is space, they should go full Dutch on it: http://irishcycle.com/2014/09/02/a-city-smaller-than-dublin-planning-22000-bicycles-spaces-at-its-train-station/

tom1ie

monument wrote: »

Just a few things I'm only now getting around to replying to:



Maybe it's something to do with their plans for a metro plaza? https://www.herald.ie/news/road-and-rail-links-to-meet-at-new-metroplaza-27905164.html



I don't agree with the Greens on the southside re-rerouting suggestion, but the idea that P&R reduces congestion in more than just the short-term has little evidence to back it up.

I think P&R should be built for the sake of access for people beyond the city and those who live in other parts of the country, but the suggestion P&R lowers congestion has little to no bases in fact.

The evidence is that in and near busy cities, motorists will fill the space given to them.



Yes, and at hubs and central stations where there is space, they should go full Dutch on it: http://irishcycle.com/2014/09/02/a-city-smaller-than-dublin-planning-22000-bicycles-spaces-at-its-train-station/

Yeah this is what I’m talking about though. People traveling from balbriggan and julianstown and further north that have to go to m50 or cc can park at the p+r and get the metro to wherever. This reduces congestion further south of the p+r, as the people don’t have to drive any further.
The p+r should be exclusively for this purpose. That’s why I think it should have more capacity.
People from swords can cycle to the metro stations instead of driving to the p+r.

markpb

tom1ie wrote: »

People from swords can cycle to the metro stations instead of driving to the p+r.

How do you enforce that? Do you really think people won't drive to P&R creating local congestion?

Even if you could achieve it, what happens when lots of people from "approved" areas drive to the P&R and create congestion on the motorway, affecting people who aren't going to the metro?

Sam Russell

The P&R at Stillorgan/Sandyford has signs saying the P&R is for Luas passengers only.

If the P&R at Lissenhall is oversubscribed (as it undoubtedly will be), they will need to extend it. The problem might be people parking for the airport which will require a maximum stay of, say, 18 hours, or significantly higher charges.

The P&R is fundamental to Metrolink if it is to cause modal shift from car to Metrolink/PT.

D14Rugby

markpb wrote: »

How do you enforce that? Do you really think people won't drive to P&R creating local congestion?

I think it's meant as more of a potential guideline not as in a rule.

Even if you could achieve it, what happens when lots of people from "approved" areas drive to the P&R and create congestion on the motorway, affecting people who aren't going to the metro?

Not sure what fault you're trying to find here? What if people going to point B get caught in traffic with people going to point A? That's not really a problem you can ever fix unless congestion just stops being a thing that happens, which is impossible.

I've only just caught up on the goings on over the last few months.
Something that caught my eye was the proposal people are making for having the Metro going to Terenure, Rathfarnham, etc and I can see both sides of it. On one hand it would be a lot more expensive, on the other hand though something needs to be done about that corridor and the argument could be made a metro is the best way to fix that problem and that if it is it would be best (maybe cheaper?) to do everything at once instead of in stages.

Obviously because of where I live my preference would be for it to come out my way but I was wondering, why not both? Go out to Sandyford and out the green's proposed route Would that be impossible or is it something that could realistically happen? Or even extend the Green's route and have the track become a sort of 6 shaped route, would that be doable? I know people are going to say I should have put in a submission but I've been really busy lately and didn't know it was a thing until it was too late.

Also I full agree on all the bike stuff, they should make it as easy as possible to cycle to and from the Metro

tom1ie

markpb wrote: »

How do you enforce that? Do you really think people won't drive to P&R creating local congestion?

Even if you could achieve it, what happens when lots of people from "approved" areas drive to the P&R and create congestion on the motorway, affecting people who aren't going to the metro?

Ok, first point. So you provide proper cycling and feeder bus facilities that would encourage people to cycle and hop on a feeder bus with integrated metro ticket to the station and only provide access to the p+r for cars, via the motorway with dedicated on/off ramps, making it as awkward as possible for local traffic to use the p+r unless they join the motorway upstream or downstream of the p+r. You provide access to the p+r locally for bikes and feeder busses with qbc’s and high quality bike lanes only. No local car access only via the motorway.

Second point, I’ve already said I think the p+r is undersized, but when the p+r is full, traffic just bypasses the p+r (early warning smart signs indicating the amount of parking spaces left available could be installed further north on the m1 maybe?) and continues on the m1 to wherever it’s going, however traffic volumes will have been reduced as 3000 cars (not enough) will be taken off the m1 and sitting in the p+r.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

The P&R at Stillorgan/Sandyford has signs saying the P&R is for Luas passengers only.

If the P&R at Lissenhall is oversubscribed (as it undoubtedly will be), they will need to extend it. The problem might be people parking for the airport which will require a maximum stay of, say, 18 hours, or significantly higher charges.

The P&R is fundamental to Metrolink if it is to cause modal shift from car to Metrolink/PT.

Yeah I think that’s a good idea anything longer than 18 hours gets charged an arm and a leg, to discourage people parking there instead of the airport car parks.

LongboardPro

tom1ie wrote: »

Ok, first point. So you provide proper cycling and feeder bus facilities that would encourage people to cycle and hop on a feeder bus with integrated metro ticket to the station and only provide access to the p+r for cars, via the motorway with dedicated on/off ramps, making it as awkward as possible for local traffic to use the p+r unless they join the motorway upstream or downstream of the p+r. You provide access to the p+r locally for bikes and feeder busses with qbc’s and high quality bike lanes only. No local car access only via the motorway.

Second point, I’ve already said I think the p+r is undersized, but when the p+r is full, traffic just bypasses the p+r (early warning smart signs indicating the amount of parking spaces left available could be installed further north on the m1 maybe?) and continues on the m1 to wherever it’s going, however traffic volumes will have been reduced as 3000 cars (not enough) will be taken off the m1 and sitting in the p+r.

Punishing people because they live near by isn't the right way to go about it either. Busses routes should be adjusted to include a stop at metro stations, sure but, having access to the P+R only via the motorway is not really acceptable. What about off-peak times when buesses are too infrequent or non-existent? Also what about learner drivers? How would they access the P+R then?

L1011

Their fully licensed driver can drive that bit

tom1ie

LongboardPro wrote: »

Punishing people because they live near by isn't the right way to go about it either. Busses routes should be adjusted to include a stop at metro stations, sure but, having access to the P+R only via the motorway is not really acceptable. What about off-peak times when buesses are too infrequent or non-existent? Also what about learner drivers? How would they access the P+R then?

I don’t really agree with the point about the learner drivers, realistically what sort of percentage of the traffic as a whole would learner drivers be? Also they would have the option of cycling or getting the frequent feeder busses that should be set up to feed the p+r. If a leaner is coming from balbriggan how do they get to Dublin now? They cant drive on the motorway anyway so they probably use backroads, so they either continue to use backroads or they’ll get a bus to the p+r. If the leaner is coming from swords they’ll either cycle or get a feeder bus to the p+r.

I don’t understand the comment about punishing people living near by. If you live near by then why can’t you cycle or get the bus or even walk to the p+r? What god given right do they have to take up a space in the p+r when they have 3 other options available (bus, cycle,walk)? That’s why I’d proposed the idea of no local CAR access.
The whole idea of this is to reduce CAR traffic south of the p+r and hence reduce traffic feeding onto the m50 and hence reduce car traffic heading into the cc or business parks within the m50. The p+r achieves this, but as I’ve said before I believe it needs to be a lot bigger.

loyatemu

I agree with Eamon Ryan about extending it to Donabate, seems a missed opportunity not to do so. Open countryside so would be cheap enough, the main expense would be building a bridge over the M1. They should have P&R as well though.

bk

loyatemu wrote: »

I agree with Eamon Ryan about extending it to Donabate, seems a missed opportunity not to do so. Open countryside so would be cheap enough, the main expense would be building a bridge over the M1. They should have P&R as well though.

I'd agree with retaining and protecting the land for a route the to Donabate. But I think it is better to leave it for now as it just opens a can of worms about Metro versus DART, etc.

We need to focus on getting Metrolink built first. Then we can go wild with all the extensions and new lines.

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

I agree with Eamon Ryan about extending it to Donabate, seems a missed opportunity not to do so. Open countryside so would be cheap enough, the main expense would be building a bridge over the M1. They should have P&R as well though.

I would see the extension to Donabate being added before it opens for business. Let all the planning fights be settled first, then it is an easy decision.

Pete_Cavan

Donabate is too restricted in terms of space and the junction at the station is a mess as it is. Rush and Lusk is far more suitable not only for a Metro terminus but it could also become the DART terminus and accommodate a turnback platform.

Sam Russell

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Donabate is too restricted in terms of space and the junction at the station is a mess as it is. Rush and Lusk is far more suitable not only for a Metro terminus but it could also become the DART terminus and accommodate a turnback platform.

But Dart is going to Drogheda, and they can build whatever terminal they want at Donabate. It could also be considered a spur, with only some trains going to Donabate - maybe to coincide with Dart trains and so provide a connection/interchange.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

But Dart is going to Drogheda, and they can build whatever terminal they want at Donabate. It could also be considered a spur, with only some trains going to Donabate - maybe to coincide with Dart trains and so provide a connection/interchange.

Is the rule about not talking about spurs and lines only restricted to the sw spur? Just wondering........

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

Is the rule about not talking about spurs and lines only restricted to the sw spur? Just wondering........

Well, you have a point.

The extension to Donabate could be considered as part of Metrolink as it is only a few Km across green fields, but strictly should be off topic. Mea culpa.

LongboardPro

tom1ie wrote: »

I don’t really agree with the point about the learner drivers, realistically what sort of percentage of the traffic as a whole would learner drivers be? Also they would have the option of cycling or getting the frequent feeder busses that should be set up to feed the p+r. If a leaner is coming from balbriggan how do they get to Dublin now? They cant drive on the motorway anyway so they probably use backroads, so they either continue to use backroads or they’ll get a bus to the p+r. If the leaner is coming from swords they’ll either cycle or get a feeder bus to the p+r.

I don’t understand the comment about punishing people living near by. If you live near by then why can’t you cycle or get the bus or even walk to the p+r? What god given right do they have to take up a space in the p+r when they have 3 other options available (bus, cycle,walk)? That’s why I’d proposed the idea of no local CAR access.
The whole idea of this is to reduce CAR traffic south of the p+r and hence reduce traffic feeding onto the m50 and hence reduce car traffic heading into the cc or business parks within the m50. The p+r achieves this, but as I’ve said before I believe it needs to be a lot bigger.

Realistically speaking some people may not have an alternative to getting to it. Not all areas are served by busses and not everyone would have the ability / willing to cycle to it. Restricting access from the get go just seems stupid.
I do agree that the P+R needs to be a lot bigger and I made that clear at the public consultation.

monument

Sam Russell wrote: »

The P&R is fundamental to Metrolink if it is to cause modal shift from car to Metrolink/PT.

No, it’s really not and if the business case says it is it’s nonsense.

Making or improving walking, cycling and bus connections to stations would be far more beneficial generally and in getting people out of cars.

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah this is what I’m talking about though. People traveling from balbriggan and julianstown and further north that have to go to m50 or cc can park at the p+r and get the metro to wherever. This reduces congestion further south of the p+r, as the people don’t have to drive any further.
The p+r should be exclusively for this purpose. That’s why I think it should have more capacity.
People from swords can cycle to the metro stations instead of driving to the p+r.

You don’t understand how high-capacity roads around cities work — beyond the short term P&R will not reduce congestion further south.

If commuter 100, 105, and 109 switch to MetroLink at the park and ride, commuter 600, 607, and 608 all fill up the space created by the others switching to metro.

The same way that you could keep adding lanes to the M1 and M50
and these would keep filling up.