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

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

Was milltown ruled out as too expensive due to the complexity of the tie in and lack of space, or because of the extra tunnel? If stations at rathmines and dartry were added in surely this would improve the cba, albeit it increasing the cost. In a project of 3 bill + is 600 mill going to tip the scales?

Extra tunnelling and CPO AFAIR. Extra stations would like ramp up the cost even further and would likely make this option more like 1billion extra rather then 600m extra without the stations.

Either way, Beechwood option is only a little more expensive then Charlemont and largely resolves all the objections.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd forgotten the alternative tie-in options were still available online.



If Eamon Ryan is going to crow about Dunville Avenue, then Beechwood South option is an easy, already studied alternative that wasn't too far behind the selected Ranelagh option in desirability factors.

The Beechwood South option is a real option, already in the published plans.

If that option is chosen, then an underground station is likely to be needed, and the obvious choice is on the canal, between Portobello Bridge and Leeson St Bridge, with Charlemont Bridge being a third choice.

If Portabello Bridge is chosen, then a large area of the SW area gets to be with 1 km of the Metrolink, including the whole of Rathmines, and as far as Harold's Cross Bridge.

There is no logic in putting this extra underground station at Charlemont, as it is already served by the GL, and is, of itself, no generator of traffic.

The Portabello stop could be a good branch off point for the Metro II line towards the SW.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

No we don't, we don't need to be delaying Metrolink by years in the best case scenario or risk getting it cancelled completely in a worst case scenario.

We just need to get on with building the damn Metrolink as planned.

Then we can look at SW, etc.

Well bk not for the first time you and I will fundamentally disagree. I really don’t think you have a clue of how bad the problems in south central Dublin are right now.

As someone who on most weeks takes an evening peak bus trip on different corridors across the Dublin Bus network to see how the city is moving, I get a good idea of the traffic levels in the city and how the transport is coping (or not), and I can quite honestly say nowhere even comes close to the problems faced by that area.

That area is being shafted, and frankly there’s no other way of putting it.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Extra tunnelling and CPO AFAIR. Extra stations would like ramp up the cost even further and would likely make this option more like 1billion extra rather then 600m extra without the stations.

Either way, Beechwood option is only a little more expensive then Charlemont and largely resolves all the objections.

Where are you getting 1bill from?! It’s 80 mill per station. 3x80= 240 mill
Tunnel from charlemount to windy arbour via rathmines is approx 3.5 km. 100 millx3.5 = 350 mill. 240+350= 590 mill. Cut and cover can be used in milltown gc portal which would reduce price further. Haven’t factored in cpo of part of milltown gc but it’s still far shorter than 1 bill.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well bk not for the first time you and I will fundamentally disagree. I really don’t think you have a clue of how bad the problems in south central Dublin are right now.

As someone who on most weeks takes an evening peak bus trip on different corridors across the Dublin Bus network to see how the city is moving, I get a good idea of the traffic levels in the city and how the transport is coping (or not), and I can quite honestly say nowhere even comes close to the problems faced by that area.

That area is being shafted, and frankly there’s no other way of putting it.

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Beechwood South option is a real option, already in the published plans.

If that option is chosen, then an underground station is likely to be needed, and the obvious choice is on the canal, between Portobello Bridge and Leeson St Bridge, with Charlemont Bridge being a third choice.

If Portabello Bridge is chosen, then a large area of the SW area gets to be with 1 km of the Metrolink, including the whole of Rathmines, and as far as Harold's Cross Bridge.

There is no logic in putting this extra underground station at Charlemont, as it is already served by the GL, and is, of itself, no generator of traffic.

The Portabello stop could be a good branch off point for the Metro II line towards the SW.

Yeah this would seem feasible but would have to have integration with bus connects passengers coming from rathfarnham and firhouse corridors and a massive secure bike park.

MJohnston

tom1ie wrote: »

Where are you getting 1bill from?! It’s 80 mill per station. 3x80= 240 mill
Tunnel from charlemount to windy arbour via rathmines is approx 3.5 km. 100 millx3.5 = 350 mill. 240+350= 590 mill. Cut and cover can be used in milltown gc portal. Haven’t factored in cpo of part of milltown gc but it’s still far shorter than 1 bill.

No guessing required:

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

I think we need to have an urgent discussion about it.

I’ll say it again - the BusConnects ideas just simply won’t happen for political reasons. Do you honestly think that Templeogue Rd and Kimmage Rd Lower are going to be closed to general traffic (partially or completely) and that all the necessary CPO activity will happen?

I just don’t see that ever happening.

Therefore we need to see what is viable. Otherwise it’s just going to get worse and worse, and my view is that should take precedence.

I’m also concerned about the prospective impact of any Green Line closure - we need more information on exactly how long that may be.

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

So because of this we should delay and ultimately cancel the entire Metrolink project? Because that's the realistic alternative here.

Lol that’s a bit of a jump isn’t it! At the very least the tbm’s can be in the ground at the northern end digging towards ssg before the final decision is taken. I think this forum is turning into a “it’s the idea that’s on paper and no other alternatives will be entertained forum. “
It’s good to trash out these things.

marno21

MetroLink is already achieving an awful lot and ticking a lot of boxes compared with previous built projects in Dublin. This project is 7km longer than the Luas Green Line which took 3 stages to be built, and was significantly cheaper. The project already serves quite a wide area which badly needs it. It's not doubting the need for Metros or improved public transport in other parts of Dublin, but there has to be a certain element of trying not to bite off more than you can chew also.

MJohnston

tom1ie wrote: »

Lol that’s a bit of a jump isn’t it! At the very least the tbm’s can be in the ground at the northern end digging towards ssg before the final decision is taken. I think this forum is turning into a “it’s the idea that’s on paper and no other alternatives will be entertained forum. “
It’s good to trash out these things.

I've stated numerous times on this thread that I believe the addition of the Green Line upgrade to the Metrolink North portion is what pushed this project from moderately politically and economically viable into extremely politically and economically viable.



In other words, I think that the GL upgrade adds a lot of political weight at a very cheap price. Without it, this project as a whole won't happen, imo.



So yes, when I hear people wanting to revise the plans to remove the Green Line upgrade (which is by itself a vital piece of infrastructure), to me they're talking about killing the project.

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

No guessing required:

I’m not really following that table.
So to get to milltown will cost an extra 478 million?

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

Lol that’s a bit of a jump isn’t it! At the very least the tbm’s can be in the ground at the northern end digging towards ssg before the final decision is taken. I think this forum is turning into a “it’s the idea that’s on paper and no other alternatives will be entertained forum. “
It’s good to trash out these things.

Mod: There is another thread for wielding the crayons. This thread is for discussion of the plans published, alternative routes are to be discussed in the other thread.

Can posters please respect this.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think we need to have an urgent discussion about it.

I’ll say it again - the BusConnects ideas just simply won’t happen for political reasons. Do you honestly think that Templeogue Rd and Kimmage Rd Lower are going to be closed to general traffic (partially or completely) and that all the necessary CPO activity will happen?

I just don’t see that ever happening.

Therefore we need to see what is viable. Otherwise it’s just going to get worse and worse, and my view is that should take precedence.

I’m also concerned about the prospective impact of any Green Line closure - we need more information on exactly how long that may be.

You're not answering the questions being put to you. I'll ask some different ones - do you believe the Green Line upgrade is necessary? Do you think Metro North by itself would have as good a chance of being built as it would with the combined MN + GL Upgrade project?

MJohnston

tom1ie wrote: »

I’m not really following that table.
So to get to milltown will cost an extra 478 million?

I believe it's the additional capital costs beyond the "Metro North" portion of the project.



Here's the appraisals of all the options by the way:





You can see how heavily weighted the economic impacts are in comparison to the other categories.

monument

LXFlyer wrote: »

With respect Bray Head - this is about the whole transport solution for south central Dublin.

It’s getting critical at this point in the whole swathe of the city between the Crumlin Road and the LUAS green line.

I just don’t think the BusConnects plan is ever going to be delivered in that area - it’s just too radical in terms of CPO activity and fairly major road closures to general traffic, and will still have major pinch points. I just cannot see it happening in anywhere near the required form to deliver real improvements, as politically it’s a time bomb.

I’ve been consistent all along in my view that a Metro Line is the only realistic solution for the area.

As for the Green Line, there are two significant elements in my view:

1) Closing Dunville Avenue to through traffic will have significant negative impact on the already clogged roads of Ranelagh and Milltown. Traffic levels are anything but minor. I think a bridge or an extended tunnel is going to be needed there.

2) The potential closure of the Green Line for the upgrade, both in terms of distance and time. Any lengthy closure (longer than three months in the summer) is going to have a massively negative impact on traffic in south Dublin. There’s nowhere for it to go and the amount of replacement buses required could be phenomenal at peak times.

If a south central Metro were in place then there would be some possibility of transferring Green Line passengers to it during a closure while it is upgraded.

I honestly do think that Eamon Ryan is right to raise this now frankly.

What you may think is minor will have massive impacts on all of south Dublin.

LXFlyer wrote: »

I still think it’s right that we have this discussion now.

I’ll respectfully continue to disagree regarding which should be built first - I think that a large swathe of south Dublin is just going to become a car park if a Metro is not built in the south central area as I don’t see the BusConnects project being delivered in the form necessary to transform journey times.

Have you looked at how any city comparable to Dublin has switched to sustainable and active transport?

Both closing roads to cars (keeping walking and cycling access can be done with relative ease given the scale of the project), and giving more space to cycling and buses doesn’t result in what you think.

Nor does building metros remove cars from roads in the mid to long term — even where some switch to Metro, if the space / time isn’t restricted new commuters in cars will take up that space.

Cities like Utrecht have filtered the private traffic in the centre, removed 1970s central motorways and reduced such roads and are now moving onto reducing its inner urban ring (a cross between Dublin’s Circular Roads and outer ring) from two lanes to one.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: There is another thread for wielding the crayons. This thread is for discussion of the plans published, alternative routes are to be discussed in the other thread.

Can posters please respect this.

In addition to this, I have put a post in the other thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057870902

on policy regarding Metros and why Rathfarnham won't be considered.

As per Sam, please discuss this in that thread and leave this thread for Metrolink (Metro North + Metro South - Swords to Sandyford)

tom1ie

marno21 wrote: »

In addition to this, I have put a post in the other thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057870902

on policy regarding Metros and why Rathfarnham won't be considered.

As per Sam, please discuss this in that thread and leave this thread for Metrolink (Metro North + Metro South - Swords to Sandyford)

I AM discussing metrolink. I’m discussing the tie in. If we can’t discuss the drawbacks of the tie in at charlemount and look for alternatives that apply to the METROLINK project then what is this forum for?

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

I believe it's the additional capital costs beyond the "Metro North" portion of the project.



Here's the appraisals of all the options by the way:





You can see how heavily weighted the economic impacts are in comparison to the other categories.

So 478 mill extra to get to milltown, so 600 mill to get to windy arbour doesn’t seem way off. Which would include stations. Then add in the benefit off arcing to rathmines.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

I AM discussing metrolink. I’m discussing the tie in. If we can’t discuss the drawbacks of the tie in at charlemount and look for alternatives that apply to the METROLINK project then what is this forum for?

Mod:
This thread is for discussing the published plans based on the emerging preferred rote. Windy Arbour is not on that emerging route so should be discussed on the other thread.

I know you wish to make valid points, but they need to be made on the other thread.

Please respect the Mod instructions already given.

Amirani

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Beechwood South option is a real option, already in the published plans.

If that option is chosen, then an underground station is likely to be needed, and the obvious choice is on the canal, between Portobello Bridge and Leeson St Bridge, with Charlemont Bridge being a third choice.

If Portabello Bridge is chosen, then a large area of the SW area gets to be with 1 km of the Metrolink, including the whole of Rathmines, and as far as Harold's Cross Bridge.

There is no logic in putting this extra underground station at Charlemont, as it is already served by the GL, and is, of itself, no generator of traffic.

The Portabello stop could be a good branch off point for the Metro II line towards the SW.

I very much like the idea of a station at Portobello Bridge. It would add a good bit of connectivity to a pretty busy area of the city and is a reasonably big trip generator. I'm not sure how feasibly it is in engineering and/or cost terms, as it would be a good deal less direct way of going SSG East > Beechwood? Has it been costed?

Even if this hypothetical extra station has to move East to Charlemont, I still think there's a reasonable amount of value to this. There is significant residential development underway at Charelmont that will significantly increase the density of this area. This would also become the closest Metrolink station a big area of employment in Harcourt Centre and the newer developments around Adelaide Road. Yes these will still be served by Green Line, but for people coming from Southside Metro, this would involve quite an inconvenient change. Charlemont here becomes a useful interchange.

Leeson Street Bridge is less served by public transport, but I think is generally not a great option for Metrolink. The more prominent areas will be well served by SSG East, and there's just not much at all on the other side of the canal. May also involve extra tunneling.

Sam Russell

Amirani wrote: »

I very much like the idea of a station at Portobello Bridge. It would add a good bit of connectivity to a pretty busy area of the city and is a reasonably big trip generator. I'm not sure how feasibly it is in engineering and/or cost terms, as it would be a good deal less direct way of going SSG East > Beechwood? Has it been costed?

No, but the Beechwood tie in has been costed, with both a north and south variant. It is not much different in tunnel length - about 2 km whichever way they go, and it is 2.2 km via Portabello Bridge, and 2 km via Charlemont.

Even if this hypothetical extra station has to move East to Charlemont, I still think there's a reasonable amount of value to this. There is significant residential development underway at Charelmont that will significantly increase the density of this area. This would also become the closest Metrolink station a big area of employment in Harcourt Centre and the newer developments around Adelaide Road. Yes these will still be served by Green Line, but for people coming from Southside Metro, this would involve quite an inconvenient change. Charlemont here becomes a useful interchange.

It is not far from any of the Metro stations, since they are about 1 km apart. If Portabello Bridge was the chosen new station location, either walk from there or walk from SSG East, or grab a bike.

Leeson Street Bridge is less served by public transport, but I think is generally not a great option for Metrolink. The more prominent areas will be well served by SSG East, and there's just not much at all on the other side of the canal. May also involve extra tunneling.

145, 46A, plus others - 11 bus routes.

The difference in tunnelling is small.

People will pick the nearest and most convenient stop that suits their destination, with as little transfers as possible. If it existed today, everyone would be delighted with it, and the pain of its construction will be soon forgotten - if it works as it should.

madbeanman

Does anyone know where they are planning on putting the airport stop?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/metro-could-be-derailed-by-location-of-airport-stop-1.3518197?mode=amp

I agree that the airport stop should be as close to arrivals as possible and linked by underground tunnels if further away.

LongboardPro

madbeanman wrote: »

Does anyone know where they are planning on putting the airport stop?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/metro-could-be-derailed-by-location-of-airport-stop-1.3518197?mode=amp

I agree that the airport stop should be as close to arrivals as possible and linked by underground tunnels if further away.

Yeah it needs to be as close as possible to the arrivals. Is it known whether or not that an entrance down to platform level will be accessible from within the airport terminals themselves or from an external building?

Also, I think that it might be work considering having another stop somewhere near some of the car parks that are a good bit away from the airport which currently require a shuttle bus.

Dats me

Lads just take a look at the plans on metrolink.ie

Kevtherev1

From the plans the airport station will be



Underneath the current Terminal 2 Surface Carpark beside where all the current Bus shelters and stops are for various buses, Expressway, Go Bus , Bus Eirenn, Dublin Bus. (For interchange with buses)



You come up from station here. Dont know if a underground pedestrian tunnel will go from station location to inside airport terminals

madbeanman

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

From the plans the airport station will be



Underneath the current Terminal 2 Surface Carpark beside where all the current Bus shelters and stops are for various buses, Expressway, Go Bus , Bus Eirenn, Dublin Bus. (For interchange with buses)


You come up from station here. Dont know if a underground pedestrian tunnel will go from station location to inside airport terminals

I hope they do have a tunnel. If you are gonna spend as much money on something as they are going to on this I feel like it is important to do it to the best standard they can.

Sam Russell

madbeanman wrote: »

I hope they do have a tunnel. If you are gonna spend as much money on something as they are going to on this I feel like it is important to do it to the best standard they can.

They could also build a proper bus station for all buses and turn it into a public transport hub, properly signed with a destination board - a bit like the way aircraft are treated - like at an airport.

Brian CivilEng

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

You come up from station here. Dont know if a underground pedestrian tunnel will go from station location to inside airport terminals

The original plan for T2 (from T2 construction time) was a bridge across from the Metro to the T2 car park, joining in where the car rental desks are, allowing you to then cross the existing bridge over the T2 forecourt.

Not sure what the plan for T1 was/is.

bk

abitofacomedian wrote: »

The original plan for T2 (from T2 construction time) was a bridge across from the Metro to the T2 car park, joining in where the car rental desks are, allowing you to then cross the existing bridge over the T2 forecourt.

Not sure what the plan for T1 was/is.

Well there is now a passage between T1 and T2 before security. Though it needs to be better sign posted.