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
-
LongboardPro wrote: »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.
Number of metro stops where you could fit 1,000-5,000 bicycle parking spaces: nearly all of them. All of them if you tried.
Number of metro stops where you could fit 500 car parking spaces: zero to very few of them without buying land which should be used for higher value development.
As for just Swords: Metro stations will be within easy walking or cycling distance of all of Swords and much of Malahide — the key will be providing safe and attractive walking and cycling routes and providing parking.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.
People, including at least one TD, have made it an issue for public consultation and it is likely to go to ABP as an issue.
And realisticly, so, will Dart vs Metro regardless of Donabate being suggested or not.0 -
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.
Donabate doesn't have space for another DART platform, nevermind a Metro station. Even if electrification is extended to Drogheda, they can't run all serves that far out, it will still need a turnback.0 -
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.
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.
Ok so if the p+r is not built the commuters from Balbriggan (for example) continue to stay on the m1 and drive onto the m50 and into the cc etc.
However if the p+r is built, with the conditions ive stated in previous posts, thats 3000 cars that are potentially taken off the motorway network.
What exactly am I getting wrong here?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19477
Ok so if the p+r is not built the commuters from Balbriggan (for example) continue to stay on the m1 and drive onto the m50 and into the cc etc.
However if the p+r is built, with the conditions ive stated in previous posts, thats 3000 cars that are potentially taken off the motorway network.
What exactly am I getting wrong here?
P&R is part of the solution. If there is not enough, then they will need to build more. There are plans for P&R at Lissenhall, Dardistown, ans it is currently provided at Stillorgan/Sandyford.
It is not the whole solution - re routing buses to become feeder services will be needed as well. Secure parking for bicycles are also needed.
The first part of the solution is to start building it.0 -
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?
Yeah I'm for real. They don't just beam down to that roundabout and there are adequet pedestrian crossing either side of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Muppet wrote: »Yeah I'm for real. They don't just beam down to that roundabout and there are adequet pedestrian crossing either side of it.
Right... in that vain, maybe motorists should be forced to used the motorway instead of the old Swords to Dublin road?
But seriously: no, they don't just beam down to that roundabout, they get left there at bus stops or near there is where they live or where they are coming from — it’s scary to think that there’s people out there who still think people should have to walk 2km to cross a road.Pete_Cavan wrote: »Donabate doesn't have space for another DART platform, nevermind a Metro station. Even if electrification is extended to Drogheda, they can't run all serves that far out, it will still need a turnback.
Unless I’m missing something, there’s ample space beside the tracks south of the current Commuter rail station is for where a MetroLink station could be built, and/or a combined new interchange station.
Turn back can be provided there or in Balbriggan or Skerries. It would make sense to have high enough frequency to Balbriggan or Skerries to town and to the MetroLink interchange.Ok so if the p+r is not built the commuters from Balbriggan (for example) continue to stay on the m1 and drive onto the m50 and into the cc etc.
However if the p+r is built, with the conditions ive stated in previous posts, thats 3000 cars that are potentially taken off the motorway network.
What exactly am I getting wrong here?
First, your figures are massively inflated. There’s highly unlikely 3,000 cars coming from Balbriggan, Skerries and Rush combined and traveling towards the city centre (ie inside the canals). This is a important because inflating such figures makes other people feel like these need to be accomadated.
Secondly, let’s just say if 5,000 parking spaces were built and say if all of those 5,000 car users who fill up the spaces were previously traveling down M1 the M50. Now they park up at the P&R, freeing up space on the motorway.
What happens to the space on the motorway? Unless growth in north Dublin residential and also growth in Dublin City etc jobs all dry up, the space fills up with 5,000 more car commuters.
That’s not something I came up with. This is how urban-linked motorways operate the world over.
Build 10,000 spaces instead? How much is the road widening north of Swords going to cost to allow for that? Wouldn’t a link to the northern line be better?
As I said, P&R is for access. It’s not to get X amount of cars off the motorway.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »P&R is part of the solution. If there is not enough, then they will need to build more. There are plans for P&R at Lissenhall, Dardistown, ans it is currently provided at Stillorgan/Sandyford.
It is not the whole solution - re routing buses to become feeder services will be needed as well. Secure parking for bicycles are also needed.
The first part of the solution is to start building it.
Agree with all this, especially the rerouting of busses. Metrolink really needs to be fed by all other forms of pt to realise its full potential0 -
Right... in that vain, maybe motorists should be forced to used the motorway instead of the old Swords to Dublin road?
But seriously: no, they don't just beam down to that roundabout, they get left there at bus stops or near there is where they live or where they are coming from — it’s scary to think that there’s people out there who still think people should have to walk 2km to cross a road.
Unless I’m missing something, there’s ample space beside the tracks south of the current Commuter rail station is for where a MetroLink station could be built, and/or a combined new interchange station.
Turn back can be provided there or in Balbriggan or Skerries. It would make sense to have high enough frequency to Balbriggan or Skerries to town and to the MetroLink interchange.
First, your figures are massively inflated. There’s highly unlikely 3,000 cars coming from Balbriggan, Skerries and Rush combined and traveling towards the city centre (ie inside the canals). This is a important because inflating such figures makes other people feel like these need to be accomadated.
Secondly, let’s just say if 5,000 parking spaces were built and say if all of those 5,000 car users who fill up the spaces were previously traveling down M1 the M50. Now they park up at the P&R, freeing up space on the motorway.
What happens to the space on the motorway? Unless growth in north Dublin residential and also growth in Dublin City etc jobs all dry up, the space fills up with 5,000 more car commuters.
That’s not something I came up with. This is how urban-linked motorways operate the world over.
Build 10,000 spaces instead? How much is the road widening north of Swords going to cost to allow for that? Wouldn’t a link to the northern line be better?
As I said, P&R is for access. It’s not to get X amount of cars off the motorway.
Have you checked the traffic counters on the m1? I'm pretty sure there is that level of traffic. It doesn't matter if the traffic is heading inside the canals or not, commuters will get on the metro and change onto orbital bus routes to get where they are going which I believe is the overall transport plan (although I'll believe it when I see it!)
If 3000 commuters are taken off the road by the p+r, you reckon they'll be replaced by 3000 more. OK let's go with that argument, if we don't build the p+r that'll mean well have 6000 commuters on the road meaning traffic will be worse again.
If metro combined with orbital brt rotes proves itself people will want to get the metro. How will they get the metro if they live in a rural area north of swords and their only other option is to drive? The answer to that is a p+r0 -
If 3000 commuters are taken off the road by the p+r, you reckon they'll be replaced by 3000 more. OK let's go with that argument, if we don't build the p+r that'll mean well have 6000 commuters on the road meaning traffic will be worse again.
I don't think you understand how induced traffic works.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Secondly, let’s just say if 5,000 parking spaces were built and say if all of those 5,000 car users who fill up the spaces were previously traveling down M1 the M50. Now they park up at the P&R, freeing up space on the motorway.
What happens to the space on the motorway? Unless growth in north Dublin residential and also growth in Dublin City etc jobs all dry up, the space fills up with 5,000 more car commuters.
As far as I know thats how it works when you expand motorways, not as much when you provide alternative transport options, but you may know more about this than I do.
Also I'm curious to know where those 5000 commuters who aren't using the motorway currently in your first example, then begin using it come from. How are they getting into town otherwise? I don't see how providing a park and ride which takes a significant amount of regular commuters does not decrease congestion to some degree.0 -
As far as I know thats how it works when you expand motorways, not as much when you provide alternative transport options, but you may know more about this than I do.
Also I'm curious to know where those 5000 commuters who aren't using the motorway currently in your first example, then begin using it come from. How are they getting into town otherwise? I don't see how providing a park and ride which takes a significant amount of regular commuters does not decrease congestion to some degree.
I think the point is that as people start using the p&r less cars on the road mean the roads move better then over time as people change jobs or start going to college or even join the workforce then depending on where they are headed the car might be a viable option because the roads are a little better and quicker than they were. It’s not an overnight thing but over time the traffic would increase to fill the void left by the people who are using the p&r.
I think in essence we need to find ways to encourage people who are in a situation where they have choices of car or PT that the PT makes more sense.0 -
Have you checked the traffic counters on the m1? I'm pretty sure there is that level of traffic. It doesn't matter if the traffic is heading inside the canals or not, commuters will get on the metro and change onto orbital bus routes to get where they are going which I believe is the overall transport plan (although I'll believe it when I see it!)
If 3000 commuters are taken off the road by the p+r, you reckon they'll be replaced by 3000 more. OK let's go with that argument, if we don't build the p+r that'll mean well have 6000 commuters on the road meaning traffic will be worse again.
If metro combined with orbital brt rotes proves itself people will want to get the metro. How will they get the metro if they live in a rural area north of swords and their only other option is to drive? The answer to that is a p+r
Hey stop that logic!0 -
I think the point is that as people start using the p&r less cars on the road mean the roads move better then over time as people change jobs or start going to college or even join the workforce then depending on where they are headed the car might be a viable option because the roads are a little better and quicker than they were. It’s not an overnight thing but over time the traffic would increase to fill the void left by the people who are using the p&r.
I think in essence we need to find ways to encourage people who are in a situation where they have choices of car or PT that the PT makes more sense.
It will only make more sense so to speak if it's faster and more convenient than using a car, hence the importance of busses feeding into the Metro.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19477
Hopefully, there will be a choice of P&R locations - Dardistown and Lissenhall are currently mentioned. Cost of fare, cost of parking, the likelyhood of getting a space if they are scarce, and the relative travel time by Metro vs by car. All of these will play a part and people will get used to which is best.
They do this with choosing rat-run routes or just sitting in the traffic jam. If enough do the rat-run that the proper route is easier, then fine, but each driver makes their own choice. It will be the same with P&R.
It will be a decade before this matters for Metrolink, and in that decade, traffic will be worse, and PT will not be any better.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,443 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14136
I would have free parking for 24 hours or so and heavy charges after that to discourage airport traffic from using it.
Given the mess that is the M1 I'd hope to see every single car parking space full in that P&R. Make the most use of it. No point in charging high for parking given the P&R will be 10 minutes south of the M1 toll0 -
Have you checked the traffic counters on the m1? I'm pretty sure there is that level of traffic. It doesn't matter if the traffic is heading inside the canals or not, commuters will get on the metro and change onto orbital bus routes to get where they are going which I believe is the overall transport plan (although I'll believe it when I see it!)
If 3000 commuters are taken off the road by the p+r, you reckon they'll be replaced by 3000 more. OK let's go with that argument, if we don't build the p+r that'll mean well have 6000 commuters on the road meaning traffic will be worse again.
Is the M1 not nearing capacity? If so where — in 10 years time when metro opens — are you getting 3,000 extra cars on the motorway without 3,000 others first diverting to the park and ride?
If the 3,000 don’t have viable transport they will do a mix of — relocate be it to another part of the city or country or to another country, or they will find a job where the commute is bearable or they will find other modes to take.
And, no, it’s not me that reckons that any cars taken off the road by a metro is likely to be replaced by other cars — that’s a basic in well-established science of how traffic fills space in it around growing cities.
On the other hand, in you remove space or time from motorists, the numbers driving will drop. Preferably this should always be done in a positive way which enables modal shift — but the reality is a huge chunk of car users commuting into the city are starting their commutes from in and around the city and bus and cycling priority will enable them making a modal change.How will they get the metro if they live in a rural area north of swords and their only other option is to drive? The answer to that is a p+r
If you’re talking about new commuters, could start to stop planning housing in rural areas away from existing and planned rail / bus / metro.
And to be clear once more: although I have my issues, I support P&R on the social principal of access to the city for such people.As far as I know thats how it works when you expand motorways, not as much when you provide alternative transport options, but you may know more about this than I do.
Extra lanes is the most commonly known form of induced demand, but the same principles apply if you just grab 5,000 driver off a motorway into park and ride, the space freed up will be filled in a growing city.
It’s the same with Luas and on popular rail services and even buses — extra capacity doesn’t in the mid-long term benefit existing passengers. Often passengers don’t get to enjoy the extra space much because it’s fill up so quickly.
It’s clearly a different story if there’s no job growth around the city or no houses north of Swords, etc or if any type of road restrictions or transfer of space or road charging comes into effect around the same time.
Think of traffic and human commuting movement more like a gas than it is like water. Water will generally find a flow, while traffic will not, it expands or dissipates depending on conditions.Also I'm curious to know where those 5000 commuters who aren't using the motorway currently in your first example, then begin using it come from. How are they getting into town otherwise? I don't see how providing a park and ride which takes a significant amount of regular commuters does not decrease congestion to some degree.
Your looking at it as if metro capacity and car capacity are (1) the only modes in this corridor and (2) as if commuters or potential commuters only different capacity by mode, rather than seeing any usable capacity and most people not caring too much about what that is as long as it gets them to work / education/ etc.LongboardPro wrote: »Hey stop that logic!
Logic based on flawed information and understanding of traffic.LongboardPro wrote: »It will only make more sense so to speak if it's faster and more convenient than using a car, hence the importance of busses feeding into the Metro.
Based just on current peak traffic, and even with a 10-15 min walk or cycle to a metro station, what trips will be faster by car?
Drumcondra or north of it the city centre? No.
Sandyford to Swords? No.
Sandyford to anywhere south of the Grand Canal? Unlikely.
DCU to Swords? Maybe, in light traffic?
Ballymun to Swords? Yes / maybe.Sam Russell wrote: »It will be a decade before this matters for Metrolink, and in that decade, traffic will be worse, and PT will not be any better.
Public transport no better? BusConnects and extra trains will have no effect? That’s what I fear with Metro, all the eggs in the one basket.I would have free parking for 24 hours or so and heavy charges after that to discourage airport traffic from using it.
Given the mess that is the M1 I'd hope to see every single car parking space full in that P&R. Make the most use of it. No point in charging high for parking given the P&R will be 10 minutes south of the M1 toll
It might be 10 minutes south of the toll, but so are thousands of homes with commuters in them. For those going onto Sandyford etc, the P&R will also be north of the M50 toll.
It doesn’t make sense on any economic level to offer free park and ride and have other metro users subsiding park and ride.0 -
Maybe it's time to start looking at developing Swords into a small city, in it's own right, with it's own financial/IT/insurance business district. The axis of the city could be shifted north towards the airport, with the possibility of developing a logical grid-like network of road and rail transport. :-/0
-
Is the M1 not nearing capacity? If so where — in 10 years time when metro opens — are you getting 3,000 extra cars on the motorway without 3,000 others first diverting to the park and ride?
If the 3,000 don’t have viable transport they will do a mix of — relocate be it to another part of the city or country or to another country, or they will find a job where the commute is bearable or they will find other modes to take.
And, no, it’s not me that reckons that any cars taken off the road by a metro is likely to be replaced by other cars — that’s a basic in well-established science of how traffic fills space in it around growing cities.
On the other hand, in you remove space or time from motorists, the numbers driving will drop. Preferably this should always be done in a positive way which enables modal shift — but the reality is a huge chunk of car users commuting into the city are starting their commutes from in and around the city and bus and cycling priority will enable them making a modal change.
If you’re talking about new commuters, could start to stop planning housing in rural areas away from existing and planned rail / bus / metro.
And to be clear once more: although I have my issues, I support P&R on the social principal of access to the city for such people.
Extra lanes is the most commonly known form of induced demand, but the same principles apply if you just grab 5,000 driver off a motorway into park and ride, the space freed up will be filled in a growing city.
It’s the same with Luas and on popular rail services and even buses — extra capacity doesn’t in the mid-long term benefit existing passengers. Often passengers don’t get to enjoy the extra space much because it’s fill up so quickly.
It’s clearly a different story if there’s no job growth around the city or no houses north of Swords, etc or if any type of road restrictions or transfer of space or road charging comes into effect around the same time.
Think of traffic and human commuting movement more like a gas than it is like water. Water will generally find a flow, while traffic will not, it expands or dissipates depending on conditions.
Your looking at it as if metro capacity and car capacity are (1) the only modes in this corridor and (2) as if commuters or potential commuters only different capacity by mode, rather than seeing any usable capacity and most people not caring too much about what that is as long as it gets them to work / education/ etc.
Logic based on flawed information and understanding of traffic.
Based just on current peak traffic, and even with a 10-15 min walk or cycle to a metro station, what trips will be faster by car?
Drumcondra or north of it the city centre? No.
Sandyford to Swords? No.
Sandyford to anywhere south of the Grand Canal? Unlikely.
DCU to Swords? Maybe, in light traffic?
Ballymun to Swords? Yes / maybe.
Public transport no better? BusConnects and extra trains will have no effect? That’s what I fear with Metro, all the eggs in the one basket.
It might be 10 minutes south of the toll, but so are thousands of homes with commuters in them. For those going onto Sandyford etc, the P&R will also be north of the M50 toll.
It doesn’t make sense on any economic level to offer free park and ride and have other metro users subsiding park and ride.
I'm not getting 3000 extra cars in ten years time I'm saying 3000 cars will be taken off the m1 when the p+r opens. They are not extra cars.
If the p+r opened tomorrow with a fully operational metro the p+r would remove 3000 cars from the m1, not including the swords and its environs commuters who would get a bus or cycle to the p+r as it would be seen as a p+r metro terminal. So that would mean 3000+ extra capacity on the m1.
You say these 3000 extra spaces would be snapped up right away by extra cars. OK let's go with that. The only way to stop that is carrot and stick. Carrot being, offer free p+r parking for 24hrs and a guaranteed time of journey on the metro, plus value for metro tickets. Stick being some disincentive for using the car.....m1 toll south of the p+r perhaps for single occupancy cars. Just a suggestion.0 -
Hi guys,
Just wanted to give an update on to our progress over the last 2 weeks. Delighted to announce that our website is now live - www.dublinontrack.ie/
Massive thanks to specialbyte for building the website, great to see the power of boards!
Have been quite active on twitter building up our following and interacting with concerned parties. Getting a lot of pushback about Scoil Mobhi and Scoil Chaitriona and the plans there, so have been engaging particularly on that matter.
Once again any volunteers are more than welcome!
Thanks!0 -
Advertisement
-
It is good. I would not say though that the capacity of the luas is 8000 people per hour. Without the long tram it is nowhere near that level. Even with long trams, I think it will be lower. It might be a good compromise to write 'up to 8000'.0
-
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10239
Eamon Ryan talks a load of waffle again about tunneling another 4.5 km out to Rathfarnham, but funnily enough, doesn't make any mention of cost.
One of the things that stuck out to me though, was this:Tunnelling to Rathfarnham would mean the Luas green line would not immediately be upgraded to metro status. This would have its advantages as well as disadvantages. With a resolution in prospect to the use of Na Fianna’s grounds as a metro construction site on the north side, the biggest opposition to the project is now likely to be around issues arising from the Luas line upgrade.
Seems like progress is being made behind the scenes, which is great in my opinion. Personally, I was most worried that they'd get hung up on their current plan, and would continue running into brick walls over it, just for the sake of "this is OUR plan, and it's the RIGHT plan, damnit!". I've said before, I don't particularily mind how it's built, so long as it's built, and roughly to plan too.
See his full article here.
Not a mod in this forum, but I put this here to talk about the little nugget above, not about his route out to Rathfarnham. If you want to talk about that, the thread to do it in is here.0 -
I would have free parking for 24 hours or so and heavy charges after that to discourage airport traffic from using it.
Given the mess that is the M1 I'd hope to see every single car parking space full in that P&R. Make the most use of it. No point in charging high for parking given the P&R will be 10 minutes south of the M1 toll
If every single car parking space was full from day one where would additional cars entering the car park go? The car park needs an adequate amount of spaces to ensure it isn't full by 7am.0 -
Eamon Ryan talks a load of waffle again about tunneling another 4.5 km out to Rathfarnham, but funnily enough, doesn't make any mention of cost.
[/URL].
I'm not usually a cynic. But I'm disgusted Ryan gets a full page spread in the Irish Times to promote curtailing the metro line further into his constituency with stops all along his traditional voter base. It's blatant electioneering.
Shame on the Irish Times. They pointed out he is green party leader and a TD but did not mention his constituency.
Also, since when is Dundrum the forgotten quarter?0 -
Eamon Ryan talks a load of waffle again about tunneling another 4.5 km out to Rathfarnham, but funnily enough, doesn't make any mention of cost.
One of the things that stuck out to me though, was this:
Seems like progress is being made behind the scenes, which is great in my opinion. Personally, I was most worried that they'd get hung up on their current plan, and would continue running into brick walls over it, just for the sake of "this is OUR plan, and it's the RIGHT plan, damnit!". I've said before, I don't particularily mind how it's built, so long as it's built, and roughly to plan too.
See his full article here.
Not a mod in this forum, but I put this here to talk about the little nugget above, not about his route out to Rathfarnham. If you want to talk about that, the thread to do it in is here.
He also mentions that the trains will be driverless.
On the other hand, his proposed alternative stations (per his website) don't look big enough for 90m platforms, but I wouldn't read too much into it.0 -
Strange intervention from Ryan. Just as Na Fianna have got their way, he rows in behind the D6 set and proposes adding another billion or two to the cost — a “fraction” of what it would cost if the TBM weren’t in place already, apparently. Of course, if we are going to talk about fractions, the 5% of 3bn cost of upgrading the Green Line is much more significant.
No one at the NTA thinks that a metro line serving Swords and the airport from the city, plus the upgrading of the Green Line, solves Dublin’s transport needs. But, for its cost, it offers by far the best return. And each extra opponent (so far we have the anti-infrastructure lobby, the Glasnevin and D6 Nimby-ists, those proposing various alternate routes) decreases the likelihood of delivering anything.
Here’s a letter in the Irish Times a week or two ago that, I imagine, heralds the next focus of Metro opposition:
Sir, – I am one of the many, many people firmly opposed to the MetroLink route extension south beyond Charlemont above ground. Along with the vital access issues and noise pollution, the proposal strikes at the very heart of community. Charlemont is a business and commercial stop for the city centre, after that the Luas route continues largely through neighbourhoods. Beechwood and Cowper are very residential areas made up of families and older people and the proposal will destroy the heart of an established, close-knit community. The proposal is an endorsement of urban sprawl representing the bifurcation of Ranelagh as a residential suburb and its segregation from Dunville Avenue and Rathmines.
The proposed extension south has entailed a markedly poor consultation process and a lack of clear answers for a proposal with only one option. The lack of consultation is marked by the abject failure to contact directly the people and communities affected. The lack of clear answers at the public consultation or in subsequent requests for information is deeply disturbing.
Problems inherent to the proposal include the alarming frequency with attendant noise pollution and vibration levels of the proposed service. Permeability is a key issue. Road closures will obstruct essential services (fire and ambulance services); safe school routes; and access to vital community and commercial services for older people. Confused options for a Dunville crossing provided at the consultation ranged from lifts to an underpass – both have attendant known social order problems that will degrade the neighbourhood.
Luas infrastructure has recently been upgraded and extended at great expense, even if the process was mishandled and remains incomplete. Agenda-setting claims that the MetroLink lines were prepared for by the Luas are undermined by the absence of consultation for those preparations.
MetroLink represents the forcing of all capacity onto one line, no proper studies have been conducted and strategic issues of connectivity are not being addressed. Other areas need transportation, which would relieve pressure on the green route. Alternative routes linking up key hubs such as Aviva Stadium, St Vincent’s Hospital and UCD have not been explored. Instead of spreading the load, the proposal is forcing it onto one rail line and an already overly congested road between Ranelagh and Rathmines.
Popular support is for the much-needed link between the city and the airport and not for heavy-duty train lines causing the destruction and segregation of residential areas and established close-knit communities.
Despite the potential impact of the proposal on an established community and the segregation of Ranelagh from Rathmines, the one benefit of the MetroLink proposal has been to galvanise a community and an electorate. – Yours, etc
Concision is obviously not one of the conditions on being published, but, as ever, painfully-forced formal writing would seem to be!
So, what’s wrong with the metro? Well, it will “destroy the heart of an established, close-knit community,” and “obstruct essential services (fire and ambulance services), safe school routes, and access to vital community and commercial services for older people.” It “is an endorsement of urban sprawl” that supposedly the existing Green Line wasn’t.
I don’t really know where to start with these people. But everyone in opposition claims that the metro was badly thought out, ignores alternatives, etc. Most people on this thread know that to be untrue. Sometimes it’s hard to argue against climate change deniers. But if they also believe in a deep state and believe the moon landing was a hoax, you’re justified in dismissing their other positions.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,443 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14136
This is absolutely fantastic. Fair play to all invovled.DublinOnTrack wrote: »Hi guys,
Just wanted to give an update on to our progress over the last 2 weeks. Delighted to announce that our website is now live - www.dublinontrack.ie/
Massive thanks to specialbyte for building the website, great to see the power of boards!
Have been quite active on twitter building up our following and interacting with concerned parties. Getting a lot of pushback about Scoil Mobhi and Scoil Chaitriona and the plans there, so have been engaging particularly on that matter.
Once again any volunteers are more than welcome!
Thanks!0 -
This is absolutely fantastic. Fair play to all invovled.
There is still tons to do and lots of content to write for that website. There's many sections that need to get fleshed out and tons more to do on with the Dublin On Track group. If this is something people are interested in then sign up on the website.
Some of the content might even be helpful to Eamon Ryan. Who is either ignorant of the plans that have existed for a decade or he is suggesting a ridiculous route idea in crayon in some sort of electioneering move that he never expects will be built but will win him votes short term.0 -
That letter just smacks of “We're fine with our links close to town, screw everyone else”.0
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement