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

CatInABox

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

These concerns and negative views are pretty widespread.

Metrolink has not done a great job of addressing them.

To a certain extent, they can't really do anything until a final plan is agreed and pushed forward. No point in expending politic capital when the plan might be changing behind the scenes.

At least, that's what I hope is going on. If they don't come out with a major charm offensive at the same time as publishing the plan, then the guys in charge have obviously got no experience with getting people on board. It's not enough to publish a good plan, they've got to sell it at the same time to people who will be reluctant to understand the potential benefits.

antoinolachtnai

I don’t think it’s a matter of a charm offensive. The overall rationale for the project just needs to be explained a lot more clearly.

roadmaster

The media have explained it very well its a link to the airport! They just leave out the most important bit that its also a link from swords and will open up vast amounts of land for housing developments which will be slightly more affordable for people to live

Markcheese

I think Colm McCarthy has been going on about social capital spending for years.. ( rightly in a lot of cases), so long in fact that I don't think that he can see the wood for the trees.. If the luas ( which he was initially against) is over capacity, then how does he propose increasing capacity..
If there's a much cheaper way to up the capacity,( frequency maybe? ) and connectivity... Then Brilliant...

bk

KD345 wrote: »

The Dunville Avenue problem is in the news again today, with a Fine Gael dispute in play between Kate O’Connell and Eoghan Murphy.

This looks set to rumble on... perhaps this earlier suggestion by BK to use Beechwood instead of Charlemont has some merit.

Yes, the engineers actually looked at over a dozen different options according to the documents on the Metrolink website. Each option is possible, but has different pros and cons. Charlemont was on balance their preferred option between a balance of cost and utility.

The Beechwood options (there are a few variants) were very close runner ups to the Charlemont option, making up 2 of the 4 short listed as far as I remember.

They were only very slightly more expensive then Charlemont, due to slightly longer tunnel, but not significantly so in the greater scheme of things in a project like this. They rated highly in every other regard.

So if sewage tunnel raises the cost of the Charlemont option, then Beechwood might become as cheap and helps resolve the Dunville Avenue and some other objections.

Milltown was a option too, but I think it significantly raised the cost in the order of a couple 100million extra. So it wasn't short listed.

BTW the above is all based on my fuzzy memory of reading these docs over a month ago, I might be a bit off. You can double check if interested. There is a lot of really good info there.

citizen6

Markcheese wrote: »

I think Colm McCarthy has been going on about social capital spending for years.. ( rightly in a lot of cases), so long in fact that I don't think that he can see the wood for the trees.. If the luas ( which he was initially against) is over capacity, then how does he propose increasing capacity..
If there's a much cheaper way to up the capacity,( frequency maybe? ) and connectivity... Then Brilliant...

Colm McCarthy is afraid of doing anything big or difficult because there's a chance these expensive projects will fail. If you follow his logic we'd have no canals, no railway lines, no motorways, no airports ... You'd think an economist would understand taking calculated risks.

youre boring me now

I’m starting to wonder might Metrolink be indefinitely-postponed. D6 looks like it could sink the project. Many are probably unaware that there is a fierce rivalry between Eoghan Murphy and Kate O’Connell, the two Fine Gael TDs for Dublin Bay South. And she threatens to start a public campaign against him (and, indirectly, her own government), by establishing a cross-party group to meet fortnightly to discuss their opposition, at a time when the threat of an election is constantly on the horizon.

Here are some quotes from the Mail on Sunday article mentioned before...

A “source” at a meeting between the constituency’s “top politicians and representatives” said: “You could cut the tension between the two with a knife, and that was before Michael McDowell entered the room to a mini ovation. Metro could cost Fine Gael a seat here and return McDowell to the Dail if he wanted.” (And he definitely wants it!) O’Connell’s own personal strategy is said to be to paint herself as the “humble backbencher” (her words) just representing her constituents, while Murphy, the one at cabinet, has actual influence, and should be blamed if the metro goes ahead as planned. Murphy’s cabinet position is already insecure, with Sinn Fein continually threating a no-confidence motion, and his stock in the constituency would fall hugely if he were to lose his seat at cabinet and fail to deliver concessions. He is quoted as saying, “I have major concerns about the proposal as it currently stands” and that alleviating gridlock “involves a different design solution and outcome.”

A Fine Gaeler at the meeting said, “All the people want is for Eoghan to do what Paschal and Leo did and get the thing put underground. We just want equality with the Northside.” Note the use of first names and the astonishing level of accidental irony in calling for equality with Dublin’s inner-city, Phibsborough, Ballymun, Santry…

Kevin Humprhies, the Labour Senator, said, “This line will separate parts of our constituency in a manner similar to East and West Berlin. Parents will be cut off from schools. Beware the risen Ranelagh. The public meetings are the largest I have seen for two decades.”

No single group’s objection will sink the project. But as they accumulate, the political will for a metro line delivered 10+ years into the future, when BusConnects will follow the line above ground and take some of the pressure of the Luas Green line, will diminish worryingly.

CatInABox

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don’t think it’s a matter of a charm offensive. The overall rationale for the project just needs to be explained a lot more clearly.

Yes, but it's not enough to just explain it a lot more clearly in a PDF and publish it on a website somewhere, they have to have people appearing on any TV show or Radio show that features anything to do with Metrolink, and explaining it in depth there.

tom1ie

youre boring me now wrote: »

I’m starting to wonder might Metrolink be indefinitely-postponed. D6 looks like it could sink the project. Many are probably unaware that there is a fierce rivalry between Eoghan Murphy and Kate O’Connell, the two Fine Gael TDs for Dublin Bay South. And she threatens to start a public campaign against him (and, indirectly, her own government), by establishing a cross-party group to meet fortnightly to discuss their opposition, at a time when the threat of an election is constantly on the horizon.

Here are some quotes from the Mail on Sunday article mentioned before...

A “source” at a meeting between the constituency’s “top politicians and representatives” said: “You could cut the tension between the two with a knife, and that was before Michael McDowell entered the room to a mini ovation. Metro could cost Fine Gael a seat here and return McDowell to the Dail if he wanted.” (And he definitely wants it!) O’Connell’s own personal strategy is said to be to paint herself as the “humble backbencher” (her words) just representing her constituents, while Murphy, the one at cabinet, has actual influence, and should be blamed if the metro goes ahead as planned. Murphy’s cabinet position is already insecure, with Sinn Fein continually threating a no-confidence motion, and his stock in the constituency would fall hugely if he were to lose his seat at cabinet and fail to deliver concessions. He is quoted as saying, “I have major concerns about the proposal as it currently stands” and that alleviating gridlock “involves a different design solution and outcome.”

A Fine Gaeler at the meeting said, “All the people want is for Eoghan to do what Paschal and Leo did and get the thing put underground. We just want equality with the Northside.” Note the use of first names and the astonishing level of accidental irony in calling for equality with Dublin’s inner-city, Phibsborough, Ballymun, Santry…

Kevin Humprhies, the Labour Senator, said, “This line will separate parts of our constituency in a manner similar to East and West Berlin. Parents will be cut off from schools. Beware the risen Ranelagh. The public meetings are the largest I have seen for two decades.”

No single group’s objection will sink the project. But as they accumulate, the political will for a metro line delivered 10+ years into the future, when BusConnects will follow the line above ground and take some of the pressure of the Luas Green line, will diminish worryingly.

It was always going to turn into a political football wasn’t it. This is why I can’t see the project going ahead in its current form. McDowell sees this as his ticket back into the big time. It’s a ****ing disgrace to be honest.

tom1ie

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. If people in the privileged areas of Dublin don’t want a metro then good enough for them. Run the metro to rathmines and terminate it there. Continue tunneling to sw in the meantime. If people on the green line want to get the metro, they can change at ssg. When the metro and the bus connects radial route going out sandyford direction are bursting at the seams, make it clear whose fault it was that metrolink didn’t join up with the green line at charlemount or beechwood.

marno21

youre boring me now wrote: »

I’m starting to wonder might Metrolink be indefinitely-postponed. D6 looks like it could sink the project. Many are probably unaware that there is a fierce rivalry between Eoghan Murphy and Kate O’Connell, the two Fine Gael TDs for Dublin Bay South. And she threatens to start a public campaign against him (and, indirectly, her own government), by establishing a cross-party group to meet fortnightly to discuss their opposition, at a time when the threat of an election is constantly on the horizon.

Here are some quotes from the Mail on Sunday article mentioned before...

A “source” at a meeting between the constituency’s “top politicians and representatives” said: “You could cut the tension between the two with a knife, and that was before Michael McDowell entered the room to a mini ovation. Metro could cost Fine Gael a seat here and return McDowell to the Dail if he wanted.” (And he definitely wants it!) O’Connell’s own personal strategy is said to be to paint herself as the “humble backbencher” (her words) just representing her constituents, while Murphy, the one at cabinet, has actual influence, and should be blamed if the metro goes ahead as planned. Murphy’s cabinet position is already insecure, with Sinn Fein continually threating a no-confidence motion, and his stock in the constituency would fall hugely if he were to lose his seat at cabinet and fail to deliver concessions. He is quoted as saying, “I have major concerns about the proposal as it currently stands” and that alleviating gridlock “involves a different design solution and outcome.”

A Fine Gaeler at the meeting said, “All the people want is for Eoghan to do what Paschal and Leo did and get the thing put underground. We just want equality with the Northside.” Note the use of first names and the astonishing level of accidental irony in calling for equality with Dublin’s inner-city, Phibsborough, Ballymun, Santry…

Kevin Humprhies, the Labour Senator, said, “This line will separate parts of our constituency in a manner similar to East and West Berlin. Parents will be cut off from schools. Beware the risen Ranelagh. The public meetings are the largest I have seen for two decades.”

No single group’s objection will sink the project. But as they accumulate, the political will for a metro line delivered 10+ years into the future, when BusConnects will follow the line above ground and take some of the pressure of the Luas Green line, will diminish worryingly.

Reading posts like this would make you want to emigrate.

Comparing much improved public transport to the Berlin Wall. Especially a line that has been there long before any of these cranks.

tom1ie wrote: »

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. If people in the privileged areas of Dublin don’t want a metro then good enough for them. Run the metro to rathmines and terminate it there. Continue tunneling to sw in the meantime. If people on the green line want to get the metro, they can change at ssg. When the metro and the bus connects radial route going out sandyford direction are bursting at the seams, make it clear whose fault it was that metrolink didn’t join up with the green line at charlemount or beechwood.

The solution here is how we are going to get this project built in the face of blatantly selfish people, because it's happening all over Ireland and is holding the country back. The Metro is either going from Swords-Sandyford or it's not happening at all. The people living south of Ranelagh should not have to suffer because a few people aren't happy about upgrades to a rail line that should never have been closed down in the first place and that predates them by several generations.

The children of tomorrow are going to suffer from the current anti development agenda being pushed by the "I've had my fun and that's all that matters" brigade.

markpb

tom1ie wrote: »

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. If people in the privileged areas of Dublin don’t want a metro then good enough for them.

This isn't a class/wealth issue. When Metro North was planned to run through Ballymun, we had cranks complaining about passengers being able to look into their bedroom windows and campaigning to have it run underground instead of on a raised track. People take the short term view and building a major project like this will always be painful in the short term.

tom1ie

markpb wrote: »

This isn't a class/wealth issue. When Metro North was planned to run through Ballymun, we had cranks complaining about passengers being able to look into their bedroom windows and campaigning to have it run underground instead of on a raised track. People take the short term view and building a major project like this will always be painful in the short term.

Noted. But my general point is if an area that has access to light rail (I know it will soon be at capacity again and I agree with the argument for upgrading the green line) objects to getting a metro built in the vicinity, well then fine. Build it where there is no access to light rail and where a bus connects corridor is going to be located.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Noted. But my general point is if an area that has access to light rail (I know it will soon be at capacity again and I agree with the argument for upgrading the green line) objects to getting a metro built in the vicinity, well then fine. Build it where there is no access to light rail and where a bus connects corridor is going to be located.

No matter where it goes people will object though, the problem in here is pretty much everyone agrees with metro (maybe not the route) but outside this forum plenty need to be persuaded.

Peregrine

tom1ie wrote: »

Noted. But my general point is if an area that has access to light rail (I know it will soon be at capacity again and I agree with the argument for upgrading the green line) objects to getting a metro built in the vicinity, well then fine. Build it where there is no access to light rail and where a bus connects corridor is going to be located.

Your general point may have some merit if the costs and benefits of both options were the same or even comparable and if the loudest objectors actually represented the entire area or even the majority. Neither of those two things are true.

tom1ie

Peregrine wrote: »

Your general point may have some merit if the costs and benefits of both options were the same or even comparable and if the loudest objectors actually represented the entire area or even the majority. Neither of those two things are true.

Yes but the problem is the general public are only hearing one side of the argument from certain areas of ranelagh which gives the impression that the there’s massive public backlash against it, when you combine this with the na fianna dispute. We are not hearing the nta, politicians in the sandyford area or the housing minister for example talking about the positives. The argument needs to be balanced and unfortunately at the moment it is heavily negative, which will lead to the loud few (or majority I don’t know) in ranelagh, getting there way and the nta going back to the drawing board.

antoinolachtnai

You can't just allow the people in Ranelagh (or wherever) block progress for the people in Dundrum and beyond.

And there just isn't an alternative project that will have anything like as strong a cost-benefit analysis as this one. Linking the green line in just makes profound economic sense.

With these things you just have to bring people along.

Zebra3

youre boring me now wrote: »

Kevin Humprhies, the Labour Senator, said, “This line will separate parts of our constituency in a manner similar to East and West Berlin.

What a vile, disgusting human being. People lost their lives trying to cross the Berlin Wall. Some drowned. Some were shot. Some were left to die in no man’s land.

But it seems it’s worth exploiting for a few votes, it seems.

Utterly shameless.

tom1ie

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can't just abandon the people in Ranelagh (or wherever) block progress for the people in Dundrum and beyond.

And there just isn't an alternative project that will have anything like as strong a cost-benefit analysis as this one. Linking the green line in just makes profound economic sense.

With these things you just have to bring people along.

Agreed and I would be in favor of having the tie in north of windy Arbour @ milltown gc. Sorts out a lot of problems but will cost more of course. But I reckon the lack of positivity from the nta and politicians in the area and the fact the ranelagh and an fianna negativity will be so loud is going to put the project in serious jeopardy. At least with the windy Arbour site your dealing with a smaller number of landowners and your opening up the option of a station in rathmines which in my opinion is massive.

marno21

Zebra3 wrote: »

What a vile, disgusting human being. People lost their lives trying to cross the Berlin Wall. Some drowned. Some were shot. Some were left to die in no man’s land.

But it seems it’s worth exploiting for a few votes, it seems.

Utterly shameless.

And the conditions around the Berlin Wall, and living a tough life, and being split from families and movement being restricted

These jokers don't know how good they have it

antoinolachtnai

tom1ie wrote: »

Agreed and I would be in favor of having the tie in north of windy Arbour @ milltown gc. Sorts out a lot of problems but will cost more of course. But I reckon the lack of positivity from the nta and politicians in the area and the fact the ranelagh and an fianna negativity will be so loud is going to put the project in serious jeopardy. At least with the windy Arbour site your dealing with a smaller number of landowners and your opening up the option of a station in rathmines which in my opinion is massive.

You could do that and I am sure it will be looked at but as you make the underground section longer and increase the number of underground stations, you gradually undermine the cost benefit analysis.

prunudo

It might not technically be a class issue but the people who are shouting the loudest are the people who can afford to live closer to the city and to some extent won't really feel the benefit of the metro. Its the poeple who have to move to the suburbs and commute back to the city for work that are being held to ransom by the objectors.

antoinolachtnai

jvan wrote: »

It might not technically be a class issue but the people who are shouting the loudest are the people who can afford to live closer to the city and to some extent won't really feel the benefit of the metro. Its the poeple who have to move to the suburbs and commute back to the city for work that are being held to ransom by the objectors.

I don’t really think that is true.

A small group of people are very vocal. A lot of these are older people. Having the consultation mainly during working hours does make their voice louder.

There is a very real practical provlem at dunville Avenue. It is not just someone’s imagination.

Besides, it will be very handy for getting to the airport ...

The bigger problem is that the economic case has not been explained. There are a lot of people all over the city who can’t inderstand why the proposal is to cut up the green line to extend the metro down an area that they see as already well serviced.

citizen6

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You could do that and I am sure it will be looked at but as you make the underground section longer and increase the number of underground stations, you gradually undermine the cost benefit analysis.

Does the CBA take account of the economic impact of an extended Green line closure during construction? Tunnelling at least to south of Dunville Ave seems a no-brainer if it avoids a lengthy closure.

marno21

The NTA and TII need to make it crystal clear that all that is happening with the Green Line is the tracks will be diverted into a tunnel, presently at Charlemont and the rest of the track to Sandyford will remain as is. The only difference is they will be swapping the trains from Sandyford-Charlemont (and other minor changes along with the grade separation).

The issue is the media and certain politicians rambling on about "cannibalising" and "ripping up Luas tracks". This horse**** needs to be a full rebuttal

antoinolachtnai

citizen6 wrote: »

Does the CBA take account of the economic impact of an extended Green line closure during construction? Tunnelling at least to south of Dunville Ave seems a no-brainer if it avoids a lengthy closure.

A few months of closure for a section of line is just not going to make a lot of difference to a 30+ year CBA for the whole system.

But long closures are going to be very hard to sell politically. No doubt about it.

antoinolachtnai

marno21 wrote: »

The NTA and TII need to make it crystal clear that all that is happening with the Green Line is the tracks will be diverted into a tunnel, presently at Charlemont and the rest of the track to Sandyford will remain as is. The only difference is they will be swapping the trains from Sandyford-Charlemont (and other minor changes along with the grade separation).

The issue is the media and certain politicians rambling on about "cannibalising" and "ripping up Luas tracks". This horse**** needs to be a full rebuttal

They should do that but it is not really enough. The reality that the Green Line is near capacity has to be spelt out.

I think it is a fair criticism that it also hasn’t been spelt out how the Metro could be ‘fed’ from other suburbs using prioritized buses. (This can’t be done with the Luas at the moment because there is little or no capacity.)

tom1ie

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

They should do that but it is not really enough. The reality that the Green Line is near capacity has to be spelt out.

I think it is a fair criticism that it also hasn’t been spelt out how the Metro could be ‘fed’ from other suburbs using prioritized buses. (This can’t be done with the Luas at the moment because there is little or no capacity.)

Yep this is a great point. If we tie in north of windy Arbour and create a station in rathmines you have the following positives,
A station that bus connects can be run to from the sw which then gives people the option of swords/airport or sandyford. Plenty of students living in rathmines that will be connected to dcu and matter etc.
milltown gc cpo’ed,this is a massive area just south of cc that can be used for high density (not skyscraper but realistic) housing, with a high frequency and capacity pt service on its doorstep. Surely the cba has to take that into account.
It will get rid of the at grade issues on the green line so sorts out the threat of a lengthy green line closure.
Cut and cover method can be used through milltown gc.
Rathmines station can be used as a future “spur” station for metro sw, but in the meantime can be a feeder hub for bus connects and cycling due to its close proximity to well established cycling paths on the canals and its close proximity to cc.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Yep this is a great point. If we tie in north of windy Arbour and create a station in rathmines you have the following positives,
A station that bus connects can be run to from the sw which then gives people the option of swords/airport or sandyford. Plenty of students living in rathmines that will be connected to dcu and matter etc.
milltown gc cpo’ed,this is a massive area just south of cc that can be used for high density (not skyscraper but realistic) housing, with a high frequency and capacity pt service on its doorstep. Surely the cba has to take that into account.
It will get rid of the at grade issues on the green line so sorts out the threat of a lengthy green line closure.
Cut and cover method can be used through milltown gc.
Rathmines station can be used as a future “spur” station for metro sw, but in the meantime can be a feeder hub for bus connects and cycling due to its close proximity to well established cycling paths on the canals and its close proximity to cc.

The roads around Milltown gc especially the one it’s on are a traffic nightmare lower churchtown road is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the city there is no way a massive amount of apartments could be built there without some massive roads changes. Also I’d suspect that the members are also the sort who would be able to tie these things up for a long time. Possibly getting some land for a portal is possible but can’t see anyway the whole gc is taken.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

They should do that but it is not really enough. The reality that the Green Line is near capacity has to be spelt out.

I think it is a fair criticism that it also hasn’t been spelt out how the Metro could be ‘fed’ from other suburbs using prioritized buses. (This can’t be done with the Luas at the moment because there is little or no capacity.)

Are you still peddling this line that the Green LUAS is near capacity?

They are currently running trams at an average of 4 minutes at peak morning times, and an average of 5 minutes at peak evening times. Gaps can, however, be up to 7 minutes at those times. (All these figures are from the LUAS website, using Ranelagh as the sample station).

By upping the average throughput to 3 minutes in the morning, you automatically increase the capacity by 25%. Very doable.

By running trams every two minutes on the Charlemont - Sandyford section (and using the St. Stephen's Green siding as a terminus for every third tram) you increase capacity for much of the southside to around 50% over what it is now, and have a very manageable 3 minute service over O'Connell Bridge.

Neither of those simple measures have been adopted, yet we are still expected to believe that this line is anywhere remotely near capacity?

This part of the proposed metrolink is a line which does not need to be upgraded.