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

LXFlyer

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

if you're elevating the track over dunville avenue you're probably looking at 500m of trackworks or more, as well as rebuilding the station entirely.

if you elevate the road over the track you're looking at about 100m of roadworks, but 16 houses lose access from their driveways to the road, and there's not really a handy place to leave their cars.

For me, the most obvious solution is to split the road into two cul-de-sacs, and have pedestrian/cyclist bridges. Anything else is a waste of money, and high capacity rail takes priority over local road

Closing that road to through traffic will make Ranelagh an even worse traffic black spot thannit already is. I think it would be a very retrograde step. You want to bring communities with you on projects like this, not get them against it from the word go.

There has to be balance in the approach to this.

marno21

LXFlyer wrote: »

Closing that road to through traffic will make Ranelagh an even worse traffic black spot thannit already is. I think it would be a very retrograde step. You want to bring communities with you on projects like this, not get them against it from the word go.

There has to be balance in the approach to this.

I agree with this even comparing the volumes using the Metro vs the road

The Harcourt line is a significant division along there and closing Dunville Avenue would cause substantial issues trying to route across that alignment. It would be a significant problem for local residents

The main issue here is that whilst the construction of the Green Line provided most of what's required for Metro running, this is a massive weak link and needs to be sorted properly. It's a pity it wasn't bridged when the Luas was being built

CreativeSen

Probably a stupid question. I dont really know the southside. Based on the way the traffic flows, quite a lot of one ways around Ranelagh and they seem to flow toward Rathmines I am assuming that traffic along Dunville is primarily in the direction of Ranelagh to Rathmines?

Could you not just reverse the flow of traffic on Oakley Rd, making it a one way in the other direction? Then you could turn Dunville in to two Cul de Sacs....

Sam Russell

Another option, looking at the map, would be to build a bridge further north at say Oakley Park that would provide a connection to Beechwood Ave Lower. Depending on what is built, it could provide a crossing for cycles and pedestrians, or with significant cpo, a car crossing.

The minimum would be a pedestrian/cycle bridge with ramp access. It would be about 80 m long and go between the houses. For cars, about four houses would have to go.

Just an idea. I would assume the locals might prefer to go for something quite different.

LXFlyer

CreativeSen wrote: »

Probably a stupid question. I dont really know the southside. Based on the way the traffic flows, quite a lot of one ways around Ranelagh and they seem to flow toward Rathmines I am assuming that traffic along Dunville is primarily in the direction of Ranelagh to Rathmines?

Could you not just reverse the flow of traffic on Oakley Rd, making it a one way in the other direction? Then you could turn Dunville in to two Cul de Sacs....

It’s two way - no real difference between the two directions - most of the traffic is coming from/going to the Sandford Rd/Marlborough Rd junction.

donvito99

If anything the existence of that crossing makes the traffic worse, sucking in people who would otherwise be sticking to routes that can take high volumes of traffic. It is a convenient rat run through tiny residential single carriageway lanes, it's not a trunk road.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

If anything the existence of that crossing makes the traffic worse, sucking in people who would otherwise be sticking to routes that can take high volumes of traffic. It is a convenient rat run through tiny residential single carriageway lanes, it's not a trunk road.

What would be the local routes that can take high volumes that doesn’t involve a major diversion?

This is something that’s coming from the local community - I don’t think telling people that you know better than them about local access is really a strong argument?

Grandeeod

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem with Metro North and DU was that they were thought out in great detail but the schemes basically didn’t make sense and the CBAs were very weak. That’s why they got cancelled.

How to bridge a critical junction with a short possession is ultimately just a technical problem. They should have anticipated the issue a bit better, but so what?

They have also assessed options for joining to the green linesouthof Dunville Avenue and they can go back to those.

This scheme just makes a lot more economicsense overall than what went before and is a lot more recession-proof for that reason.

You really believe that MN and DU were cancelled because of weak CBA's? Seriously? Is the CBA for Metrolink really so different? Both were cancelled because the recent FG lead Governments specifically looked for cheaper options and clearly want to impose their stamp on things. That is how it has always worked and that is why Dublin lags well behind in terms of developing decent rail based PT.

monument wrote: »

Your posts a parody of the nothing is going to happen point of view.

Anybody who has spent more than five seconds looking at the MetroLink documents — especially the drawings of the interchange stations and the green line portal — should know that the project has really strongly been thought about.

It’s a spoof job to have access to those documents and say otherwise.

Monument, please don't get so hung up on my view that "nothing is going to happen" by describing it as a parody. Nor suggest that I'm actually spoofing.:rolleyes: I have consistently explained my viewpoint and backed it up. Whether you like it not Monument, at this point in time, I'm right and you are wrong.

I have spent far more than five seconds looking at the MetroLink documents. I've spoken to the TII people at the meetings and despite all the drawings etc. nobody actually knows exactly how the Green line upgrade is going to happen or what it will cost. There is a whole list of issues that need addressing. Lots of theories and plans, but nothing concrete. This all goes back to the original planning of the Green line, which was a political fudge. No real thought went into the long term (at the time) plan to make it capable of a fairly easy and cost effective upgrade. The Government of the day were told all this.

I spent 15 years of my life trying to make rail based transport in Dublin better. It was at the coalface and not just on Boards or at stupid meetings with politicians acting like they gave a damn. I did private consultations and had to battle my way in to get heard. One of those consultations has resulted in the much lauded and current plan to link metro with commuter rail in Phisboro/Glasnevin. I predicted a complete reinvention of the wheel in terms of MN and DU years ago. It happened. It will happen again, because its been happening for 40 odd years now and there are absolutely no signs of it changing. I would love to be proven wrong. I really would. To see some kind of underground system in Dublin before I die would be a dream come true, because for virtually all of my life, it has been planned in some shape or form.

You can disagree with my view all you like. I don't mind at all. But when I read your quoted post above and it's insinuations, it angered me. When you've done what I've done, you can talk to me like that.

donvito99

LXFlyer wrote: »

What would be the local routes that can take high volumes that doesn’t involve a major diversion?

This is something that’s coming from the local community - I don’t think telling people that you know better than them about local access is really a strong argument?

I am local so I would be knowing better than myself? This is a rat run for people, despite being a residential area.

Take the morning rush hour for instance. People travelling from the west will, instead of going via Charleston Road, or even going via Miltown, jam themselves down Dunville Ave and make Cullenswood Gardens in particular impassable.

'Local' access - to cars - is of course impeded. then again, we have a Luas on our doorsteps. Take it away and, if today's times is to be believed, people will lose 100k in the value of their homes. I think value would be further improved if the area wasn't so congested.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

I am local so I would be knowing better than myself? This is a rat run for people, despite being a residential area.

Take the morning rush hour for instance. People travelling from the west will, instead of going via Charleston Road, or even going via Miltown, jam themselves down Dunville Ave and make Cullenswood Gardens in particular impassable.

'Local' access - to cars - is of course impeded. then again, we have a Luas on our doorsteps. Take it away and, if today's times is to be believed, people will lose 100k in the value of their homes. I think value would be further improved if the area wasn't so congested.

It would still mean a lot of traffic being moved onto those other routes. They don’t exactly have a lot of free space do they?

And for the record I don’t drive, but I do on occasion use local buses and shoving more cars onto the likes of Charleston Road isn’t really feasible without causing serious problems.

antoinolachtnai

Grandeeod wrote: »

You really believe that MN and DU were cancelled because of weak CBA's? Seriously? Is the CBA for Metrolink really so different? Both were cancelled because the recent FG lead Governments specifically looked for cheaper options and clearly want to impose their stamp on things. That is how it has always worked and that is why Dublin lags well behind in terms of developing decent rail based PT.

The CBA for Metrolink is between 50 and 100 percent better than MN.

The reason is that it has two overground tails rather than just one.

FF stopped Metro North, not FG. They would have loved to proceed. It just didn’t make sense. They just couldn’t get the money. If the project had had a much stronger business case then maybe things would have been different. Who knows?

All these projects are borne of political compromise. That’s just how it goes.

Grandeeod

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The CBA for Metrolink is between 50 and 100 percent better than MN.

The reason is that it has two overground tails rather than just one.

FF stopped Metro North, not FG. They would have loved to proceed. It just didn’t make sense. They just couldn’t get the money. If the project had had a much stronger business case then maybe things would have been different. Who knows?

All these projects are borne of political compromise. That’s just how it goes.

I cannot roll my eyes enough at your post. While I despise the political attitude towards rail transport and have absolutely no political allegiance, FF did not stop Metro North and FG are currently wrapped up in a MetroLink project that is very much uncosted considering the issues. If your post is representative of the opinion on this forum, then it's discredited entirely. Your opinion on the political involvement is either ignorant or heavily swayed on the current FG side.

Some links to a micro example of whats going on.

https://irishelectionliterature.com/2011/11/15/for-the-record-i-strongly-support-metro-north-letter-from-leo-varadkar-fine-gael-dublin-west-2011-general-election/

https://www.fiannafail.ie/varadkar-election-letter-reveals-level-of-betrayal-on-metro-north-mcguinness/

Political compromise in Ireland = the other side want to do it differently, which means we go around in circles again and again.

antoinolachtnai

You have your opinions and that is fine. I am just telling you the way it is as I see it based on actual facts. You want to personalize it and politicize it (more than it is already political) and I don’t see the benefit of doing that.

lucernarian

CatInABox wrote: »

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.

If you consider what he said a load of waffle, why elaborate on one of his waffley points? If you, as you say, don't particularly mind how it's built, it's a strong position to take on auld Eamonn's views no? You've dissed his point about his thoughts on an alternative *in this thread* so it's kinda hard to respond to that in kind, if you are directing the replies to an entirely different thread

There's been several posts calling out for a while that by extending the scheme to Sandyford, it jeopardises the chances of it being built at all. Extending the scope to Green line upgrade may increase support from the wider community, but at the expense of several, often wealthy, affected residents who will have legitimate objections to increased rail traffic, noise, disruption to road and station access and whatnot.

As is now becoming obvious, those objectors are starting to make their voice heard and this is a direct consequence to lump in a tie-in into the green line.

Upgrades to the Green Line DO NOT need a tunnel/metro built simultaneously. I won't discuss alternatives here per rules but the lumping of two discrete issues as one project will increase the chances for NIMBY problems, legal action, and an eventual excuse for yet another bloody redesign after the next election.

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The CBA for Metrolink is between 50 and 100 percent better than MN.

The reason is that it has two overground tails rather than just one.

FF stopped Metro North, not FG. They would have loved to proceed. It just didn’t make sense. They just couldn’t get the money. If the project had had a much stronger business case then maybe things would have been different. Who knows?

All these projects are borne of political compromise. That’s just how it goes.

That is incredibly disingenuous.
Here's the MN business case published in 2010:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Metro-North-Business-Case11.pdf

Here's the Metrolink business case published recently:
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/cost-benefit-analysis/metrolink-cost-benefit-analysis.pdf

Differences:
The appraisal period for MN was 30 years, the Metrolink appraisal is 60(!) years.

The discount rate used for the costs during Metro North's detailed business case was 4%. The DPER has changed the discount rate for such long term projects to 5%, and that is what was used for MetroLink so far. In the words of the Department:

In general, the effect of the increased discount rate in some cases will be to reduce the NPV of projects
with upfront costs and longer term benefits. While this will increase the threshold for projects to pass a CBA test, it will also help ensure that projects with a positive net present value or benefit cost ratio
are robust projects for investment.

The CBA values used for Metro North were simply taken from the preferred PPP bidders, with the lower cost:benefit ratios then selected for that report. Metrolink uses modelling and parameters provided by the NTA, and specifically TUBA software which was fed with some "high-level assumptions" to quote the NTA on things like annual operating cost, along with capex - where 3 billion is at the lowest end of estimates, and 4 billion is the highest.

It's worth noting that more detailed business cases will be made at the detailed design stage - when the NTA actually have the specifics. We'll see just how likely it is a scheme can be nearly doubled in length, with more tunnelling and disruption, for just a few hundred million more. Then reality might start hitting home here.

antoinolachtnai

lucernarian wrote: »

That is incredibly disingenuous.
Here's the MN business case published in 2010:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Metro-North-Business-Case11.pdf

Here's the Metrolink business case published recently:
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/cost-benefit-analysis/metrolink-cost-benefit-analysis.pdf

Differences:
The appraisal period for MN was 30 years, the Metrolink appraisal is 60(!) years.

EDIT: This is not really correct. The Metrolink appraisal is 30 years. There is a residual value period, certainly, but there is also a residual value accounted for in the MN CBA.

The discount rate used for the costs during Metro North's detailed business case was 4%. The DPER has changed the discount rate for such long term projects to 5%, and that is what was used for MetroLink so far. In the words of the Department:


The CBA values used for Metro North were simply taken from the preferred PPP bidders, with the lower cost:benefit ratios then selected for that report. Metrolink uses modelling and parameters provided by the NTA, and specifically TUBA software which was fed with some "high-level assumptions" to quote the NTA on things like annual operating cost, along with capex - where 3 billion is at the lowest end of estimates, and 4 billion is the highest.

It's worth noting that more detailed business cases will be made at the detailed design stage - when the NTA actually have the specifics. We'll see just how likely it is a scheme can be nearly doubled in length, with more tunnelling and disruption, for just a few hundred million more. Then reality might start hitting home here.

Well, 5 percent is a lot harder to achieve than 4 percent.

Longer time period is a fair point. It's not a slam dunk helper for the case though, because you end up taking a lot of maintenance into account when you pass 30 years.

It is true to say that the studies aren't directly comparable. But the difference in benefits is massive, for more or less the same cost. The simple reason is that it delivers a 26km metro for around the same price that MN was delivering a 17km Metro. So I am still saying that MN had a much weaker business case than MetroLink will have.

I can see how they might have knocked some costs out of the project by simplifying it. Metro North had some big engineering challenges. Blasting a giant cavern under a 40m-wide river was going to be an exciting one for sure.

the Burghers of Dunville Avenue and Surrounds seem like a fairly easy challenge to deal with to me. At the end of the day it's half a kilometre of elevated track or an extension of the underground section to south of the junction. It can be solved.

The Green Line connection seems like a great idea to me. It solves a lot of problems that Metro North had. St Stephen's Green is much more simple. It serves a lot of demand right away and indirectly frees up road space by easing demand on Luas Cross City. It deals with the problems with the Green Line, which would have had to be dealt with anyway.

It is far from a perfect project. The route is a big political mess. It is solving problems that we shouldn't really have. It would feel be better to be running the Metro to more underserved areas and to have stations at more major road junctions. But where do you get perfect projects?

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Longer time period is a fair point. It's not a slam dunk helper for the case though, because you end up taking a lot of maintenance into account when you pass 30 years.

It is true to say that the studies aren't directly comparable. But the difference in benefits is massive, for more or less the same cost. The simple reason is that it delivers a 26km metro for around the same price that MN was delivering a 17km Metro. So I am still saying that MN had a much weaker business case than MetroLink will have.

You can be damn well sure the companies involved in PPPs would emphasise the maintenance/depreciation aspects for accounting/profitability purposes, at least if they're in a extended contract that involves maintenance (like the LUAS is currently I think?) - For Metrolink, the NTA may well be tempted to "be optimistic" or simplify the numbers to get their project over the line.

Of course, my points about the highly different methodologies are also there to pick apart Metrolink's purported and unproven price tag of "3 billion" which is as good as fiction at this stage. Even the simplistic CBA done for Metrolink so far has picked €3 billion as the lowest estimate of capex for the project. €3 billion is what our slightly-longer-than-luas underground tram system would cost (and I think that's optimistic even).

Look at what's being said here. On what planet can a 26km standard-gague metro system be suddenly delivered for a small amount more than a 17km system? Are we convincing ourselves that (Green line upgrades + MORE TUNNELLING - €500 million) < (O'Connell Bridge station cost - cheaper Tara St. station cost)? Of course if it were true, it sounds like a fantastic bargain and we should wholeheartedly support it. We have more info now than when this article was released (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/academic-casts-doubt-on-costs-of-wonderful-metro-north-36617529.html) but I think the scepticism is justifiable.

tom1ie

Has the detail been released on what type of tunneling system we will have, ie twin bore, or single large bore?

tallaghtfornia

Just looking at the option of the Elevated track over Dunville Avenue and my thinking is the reason for not leaving the track as it was when the old Harcourt Street Line ran though there was the bridge was far to small for the modern world.

When the Harcourt Street line was originally built there would have been no motorized vehicles and this would have not been planed for.

Also think the option of doing this now would give a rise to a lot of bridge strikes and no Double deck buses been able to access Dunville Avenue.

Attached a picture of the old bridge on Dunville Avenue.

IMG_1002.JPG

LXFlyer

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Just looking at the option of the Elevated track over Dunville Avenue and my thinking is the reason for not leaving the track as it was when the old Harcourt Street Line ran though there was the bridge was far to small for the modern world.

When the Harcourt Street line was originally built there would have been no motorized vehicles and this would have not been planed for.

Also think the option of doing this now would give a rise to a lot of bridge strikes and no Double deck buses been able to access Dunville Avenue.

Attached a picture of the old bridge on Dunville Avenue.

IMG_1002.JPG

No double deck buses go anywhere near Dunville Avenue any more and haven’t done for 10 years +!!

AAAAAAAAA

tom1ie wrote: »

Has the detail been released on what type of tunneling system we will have, ie twin bore, or single large bore?

There is a tunnel configuration study completed but I don't believe it has been chosen yet. Twin Bore was the first option recommended.

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/tunnel-configuration-study/metrolink-tunnel-configuration-study.pdf

antoinolachtnai

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Just looking at the option of the Elevated track over Dunville Avenue and my thinking is the reason for not leaving the track as it was when the old Harcourt Street Line ran though there was the bridge was far to small for the modern world.

I think another issue may have been the extra cost and impact of having an elevated station.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think another issue may have been the extra cost and impact of having an elevated station.

I think cost was a primary driver in the decision. I hope they do not repeat the mistake with penny pinching with Metrolink.

antoinolachtnai

lucernarian wrote: »

You can be damn well sure the companies involved in PPPs would emphasise the maintenance/depreciation aspects for accounting/profitability purposes, at least if they're in a extended contract that involves maintenance (like the LUAS is currently I think?) - For Metrolink, the NTA may well be tempted to "be optimistic" or simplify the numbers to get their project over the line.

Of course, my points about the highly different methodologies are also there to pick apart Metrolink's purported and unproven price tag of "3 billion" which is as good as fiction at this stage. Even the simplistic CBA done for Metrolink so far has picked €3 billion as the lowest estimate of capex for the project. €3 billion is what our slightly-longer-than-luas underground tram system would cost (and I think that's optimistic even).

Look at what's being said here. On what planet can a 26km standard-gague metro system be suddenly delivered for a small amount more than a 17km system? Are we convincing ourselves that (Green line upgrades + MORE TUNNELLING - €500 million) < (O'Connell Bridge station cost - cheaper Tara St. station cost)? Of course if it were true, it sounds like a fantastic bargain and we should wholeheartedly support it. We have more info now than when this article was released (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/academic-casts-doubt-on-costs-of-wonderful-metro-north-36617529.html) but I think the scepticism is justifiable.

It is hard to forecast the costs of doing a project 5 years in advance. But even if the cost is 6 billion rather than 3 billion, which would be 350 million a kilometre for the new line) the CBA looks OK.

Morgenroth's point is still a good one. Can we really justify the cost of the underground tunnel?

We can argue about that, but it is fairly certain that a 26km metro is more likely to be justifiable than a 17km metro at the same sort of cost.

tom1ie

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is hard to forecast the costs of doing a project 5 years in advance. But even if the cost is 6 billion rather than 3 billion, which would be 350 million a kilometre for the new line) the CBA looks OK.

Morgenroth's point is still a good one. Can we really justify the cost of the underground tunnel?

We can argue about that, but it is fairly certain that a 26km metro is more likely to be justifiable than a 17km metro at the same sort of cost.

350 million a km! I hope not! The Gotthard base tunnel checks in at approx 150 million a km so if we are hitting that figure somethings going very wrong.

antoinolachtnai

tom1ie wrote: »

350 million a km! I hope not! The Gotthard base tunnel checks in at approx 150 million a km so if we are hitting that figure somethings going very wrong.

Well, it's not a great comparison, because the cost is as much in the stations as the tunnel, and the cost of rolling stock and a depot is significant too. But 3-5 billion seems like it is probably an adequate enough budget.

We can also say for sure a few things that will make the project less economically attractive:

- making the overall length of the line shorter
- making the tunnel longer
- leaving the problem of the Green Line's capacity to be solved by another project

monument

Grandeeod wrote: »

Monument, please don't get so hung up on my view that "nothing is going to happen" by describing it as a parody. Nor suggest that I'm actually spoofing.:rolleyes: I have consistently explained my viewpoint and backed it up.

My post is not based on your past campaigning. It is based on the statement in your last post. Your post said: "You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job."

The documents show that MetroLink has been thought out in a huge amount of detail and that you are wrong.

Note: Your claim that you have "consistently explained my viewpoint and backed it up" but you have nowhere backed up "this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much".

Grandeeod wrote: »

Whether you like it not Monument, at this point in time, I'm right and you are wrong.

Nope. You have not backed up your point re that the project has not been has not been "thought out too much".

Grandeeod wrote: »

I have spent far more than five seconds looking at the MetroLink documents. I've spoken to the TII people at the meetings and despite all the drawings etc. nobody actually knows exactly how the Green line upgrade is going to happen or what it will cost.

They actually have outlined options and they are rightly not telling anybody at this point when the choice has not been made and likely to change -- dealing with people worked up about an option they don't like is massively time consuming and there's little point doing that when they have still options to pick from.

Grandeeod wrote: »

There is a whole list of issues that need addressing. Lots of theories and plans, but nothing concrete.

To be concrete about proposals which have not fully been assessed would be premature at this stage, and would be against best practice.

As antoinolachtnai said: "How to bridge a critical junction with a short possession is ultimately just a technical problem. They should have anticipated the issue a bit better, but so what? ...They have also assessed options for joining to the green linesouthof Dunville Avenue and they can go back to those."

You're making a mountain out of a technical problem which has a number of options to solve it.

Grandeeod wrote: »

This all goes back to the original planning of the Green line, which was a political fudge. No real thought went into the long term (at the time) plan to make it capable of a fairly easy and cost effective upgrade. The Government of the day were told all this.

Holding onto such is great when it is used to learn from mistakes of the past. Holding onto such in an non-productive way is not so great.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I spent 15 years of my life trying to make rail based transport in Dublin better. It was at the coalface and not just on Boards or at stupid meetings with politicians acting like they gave a damn. I did private consultations and had to battle my way in to get heard. One of those consultations has resulted in the much lauded and current plan to link metro with commuter rail in Phisboro/Glasnevin.

That's great. Really. But why are you not happy that they are now going with the suggestion?

Grandeeod wrote: »

I predicted a complete reinvention of the wheel in terms of MN and DU years ago. It happened. It will happen again, because its been happening for 40 odd years now and there are absolutely no signs of it changing. I would love to be proven wrong. I really would. To see some kind of underground system in Dublin before I die would be a dream come true, because for virtually all of my life, it has been planned in some shape or form.

It's very understandable how all of that with no solid movement would cause most people to be bitter about current plans.

Grandeeod wrote: »

You can disagree with my view all you like. I don't mind at all. But when I read your quoted post above and it's insinuations, it angered me. When you've done what I've done, you can talk to me like that.

You're actually mixing up a few issues:

• If MetroLine hasn't really been thought out too much or not.
• A technical problem which has a number of options to solve it.
• The green line not being planned with easy upgrade to metro.
• Plans never being developed into building the projects.

These are largely different issues, but your anger is understandable.

Carawaystick

tom1ie wrote: »

Has the detail been released on what type of tunneling system we will have, ie twin bore, or single large bore?

I thought any new railway tunnels are required to be twin bore to meet CRR or whatever they are these days rules

Sam Russell

Carawaystick wrote: »

I thought any new railway tunnels are required to be twin bore to meet CRR or whatever they are these days rules

Well, they are considering various options, one with an internal wall separating the two directions.

I got the impression that twin bore was favoured as it would make station building easier as the station would be a simple platform between the two tunnels, and access would be from either end.

Also twin bore would give rise to less spoil because total cross-section was less, and allow shallower tunnel depth, meaning cheaper stations.

Twin bore.

Grandeeod

monument wrote: »

My post is not based on your past campaigning. It is based on the statement in your last post. Your post said: "You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job."

The documents show that MetroLink has been thought out in a huge amount of detail and that you are wrong.

Note: Your claim that you have "consistently explained my viewpoint and backed it up" but you have nowhere backed up "this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much".




Nope. You have not backed up your point re that the project has not been has not been "thought out too much".



They actually have outlined options and they are rightly not telling anybody at this point when the choice has not been made and likely to change -- dealing with people worked up about an option they don't like is massively time consuming and there's little point doing that when they have still options to pick from.




To be concrete about proposals which have not fully been assessed would be premature at this stage, and would be against best practice.

As antoinolachtnai said: "How to bridge a critical junction with a short possession is ultimately just a technical problem. They should have anticipated the issue a bit better, but so what? ...They have also assessed options for joining to the green linesouthof Dunville Avenue and they can go back to those."

You're making a mountain out of a technical problem which has a number of options to solve it.




Holding onto such is great when it is used to learn from mistakes of the past. Holding onto such in an non-productive way is not so great.




That's great. Really. But why are you not happy that they are now going with the suggestion?




It's very understandable how all of that with no solid movement would cause most people to be bitter about current plans.




You're actually mixing up a few issues:

• If MetroLine hasn't really been thought out too much or not.
• A technical problem which has a number of options to solve it.
• The green line not being planned with easy upgrade to metro.
• Plans never being developed into building the projects.

These are largely different issues, but your anger is understandable.

Everything I said went right over your head Monument. I may have time soon to decode your response because many of your quoted responses had no relevance to much of what I said.