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

Qrt

bk wrote: »

Might be down to the issues BusConnects and Dart are having at the moment. There is an awful lot going on at the moment!

I guess trying to get the Liffey Cycle Route report would be a long shot then.

madbeanman

bk wrote: »

Might be down to the issues BusConnects and Dart are having at the moment. There is an awful lot going on at the moment!

It’s interesting that all of that is centered on the greater Dublin area.

You’d think if they wanted to really try to concentrate growth outside of Dublin they’d start looking at infrastructure outside the capital too.

Although they did approve the Galway ring road and the Limerick to Cork motorway.

Aaanways yeah, there is a lot going on ^^

Sam Russell

Mod: Metrolink - only.

D.L.R.

madbeanman wrote: »

It’s interesting that all of that is centered on the greater Dublin area.

You’d think if they wanted to really try to concentrate growth outside of Dublin they’d start looking at infrastructure outside the capital too.

A focus on Dublin and the other cities is long overdue after 20 years of rural motorway construction. Metro is a decade late.

cgcsb

Qrt wrote: »

I guess trying to get the Liffey Cycle Route report would be a long shot then.

I'd expect this to be integrated into BusConnects.

annfield1978

Sam Russell wrote: »

What kind of project can be accomplished without consultants, who provide expertise not in house? I assume this includes engineering, and not just PR.

Has the NTA published these numbers anywhere that the article refers to?

madbeanman

Is there any comparable project in terms of scale and investment which this project could be compared with in terms of condultancy fees so that you could actually start to determine in an evidence based fashion the value of the fees? Of course variables would need to be considered but it might take some of the nastiness out of the debate here.

bk

Honestly it isn't even worth debating, it is a completely idiotic topic.

We have never built a Metro before, we simply have no experience in it. Bringing in international experts who have built multiple Metros seems like a damn good idea too me. If we tried doing it ourselves, I've no doubt it would be a disaster.

Pretty much every major infrastructure project in Ireland we bring in international experts, because being a small country we don't have enough experience ourselves. Motorways, Luas, Port Tunnel, etc. all built with the help of consultants.

madbeanman

bk wrote: »

Honestly it isn't even worth debating, it is a completely idiotic topic.

We have never built a Metro before, we simply have no experience in it. Bringing in international experts who have built multiple Metros seems like a damn good idea too me. If we tried doing it ourselves, I've no doubt it would be a disaster.

Pretty much every major infrastructure project in Ireland we bring in international experts, because being a small country we don't have enough experience ourselves. Motorways, Luas, Port Tunnel, etc. all built with the help of consultants.

The question isnt whether experts are needed though, I think everyone would agree that some level of consultancy is needed and that as you said we have never built an underground transport system before so maybe they will be needed to be brought in from abroad.

Also I read the linked article and it is written in a very neutral tone. It reports the small fees of 5,000 euro received by smaller companies as well as the larger fees.

It may be the case that the 3 million fee is a bargain, Id just like to know what this sort of stuff has cost other countries. Im a tax big, spend big kind of guy but I dont believe in the infallibility of consultants leading them to be given blank cheques.

MJohnston

You would have to cobble together a comparison with Luas Cross City, Luas' original Green Line, the Port Tunnel, and so on. There's no good way of doing that really.

What you actually have to look at is - was the tendering process competitive, transparent, and legitimate? Because if the answer to all of that is yes, then you weren't going to get consultation for any cheaper, and your objection really becomes about the whole idea of the project.

It's also really complex because what do you specify as being the consultation costs of MetroLink specifically? You can't just say it's everything past a certain date because even that is still building on all the previously abandoned Metro North versions, and their own consultation aspects. You also can't saddle MetroLink with the blame for all the prior costs from previous attempts either (you can certainly blame the politicians though).

Realistically, it wouldn't matter what the figure for consultants was anyway, the Irish media thrive on rabble-rousing clickbait these days, and they write their pieces thusly - people have a strange natural aversion to the idea of a consultant being paid for doing their jobs (same with designers, artists, branding experts, etc.), and so it's easy to just drop a story with negative sentiment and literally any figure of money, and people will be annoyed.

We won't make the kind of progress we should in this country until our media is burned down and rebuilt under a different model.

madbeanman

MJohnston wrote: »

You would have to cobble together a comparison with Luas Cross City, Luas' original Green Line, the Port Tunnel, and so on. There's no good way of doing that really.

What you actually have to look at is - was the tendering process competitive, transparent, and legitimate? Because if the answer to all of that is yes, then you weren't going to get consultation for any cheaper, and your objection really becomes about the whole idea of the project.

It's also really complex because what do you specify as being the consultation costs of MetroLink specifically? You can't just say it's everything past a certain date because even that is still building on all the previously abandoned Metro North versions, and their own consultation aspects. You also can't saddle MetroLink with the blame for all the prior costs from previous attempts either (you can certainly blame the politicians though).

Realistically, it wouldn't matter what the figure for consultants was anyway, the Irish media thrive on rabble-rousing clickbait these days, and they write their pieces thusly - people have a strange natural aversion to the idea of a consultant being paid for doing their jobs (same with designers, artists, branding experts, etc.), and so it's easy to just drop a story with negative sentiment and literally any figure of money, and people will be annoyed.

We won't make the kind of progress we should in this country until our media is burned down and rebuilt under a different model.

Thank you for informing me as to the difficulty of adequately assessing costs.

However, is it ok for me to be a little disturbed by the fact that 6 people gave thanks to a post that advocated for the burning down of the issue media? I feel like it is.

I have zero problem with being told in a very neutral news piece by the Irish Times how much consultants are being paid out of the public coffers. I understand that there are necessary consultancy fees and the fees quoted don't give me pause at all because I see them in the context of the scale and scope of the project and the perceived benefits of it for the economy and quality of life of the citizenry. But of course in a free and open democracy any Tom Dick or Harry can ring Joe about it and hopefully the NTA will argue back and the Government won't pander to their base.

However, I think the idea that even the most basic monetary oversight by a large national newspaper in reporting the facts regarding expenditure on consultancy is totally fine and indeed their duty.

MJohnston

madbeanman wrote: »

Thank you for informing me as to the difficulty of adequately assessing costs.

However, is it ok for me to be a little disturbed by the fact that 6 people gave thanks to a post that advocated for the burning down of the issue media? I feel like it is.

I have zero problem with being told in a very neutral news piece by the Irish Times how much consultants are being paid out of the public coffers. I understand that there are necessary consultancy fees and the fees quoted don't give me pause at all because I see them in the context of the scale and scope of the project and the perceived benefits of it for the economy and quality of life of the citizenry. But of course in a free and open democracy any Tom Dick or Harry can ring Joe about it and hopefully the NTA will argue back and the Government won't pander to their base.

However, I think the idea that even the most basic monetary oversight by a large national newspaper in reporting the facts regarding expenditure on consultancy is totally fine and indeed their duty.

They aren't just reporting facts though. This is the problem - most Irish people aren't properly calibrated to spot minor bias words and phrases in news stories that subtly influence perceptions.

Look at the headline about the BusConnects consultancy - they're using the word 'exorbitant' in scare quotes because they sought out that kind of sound bite from an easy source.

What would be an unbiased version of that headline? "Sinn Fein TD calls consultancy figures exorbitant" would be much more accurate. But instead they've pulled out a super negative word, and framed the entire story around that being objectively true. They've turned what could be an objective story into a more editorialised, opinionative piece - in other words it looks like the Irish Times are calling the costs exorbitant themselves. It stirs up a few extra clicks, but it's very cynical journalism.

Not to mention, they simply report that exorbitant quote from the TD, and they don't do anything to interrogate whether it is an accurate statement, so most people reading will simply accept it.

It's all part of click-based journalism, and none of the main media companies in Ireland seem up to standing strong in the face of it. That's why I'm a big fan of Dublin Inquirer, because they actually do some digging and investigative work.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone else think the Airport station should be accessed from within the terminals?

I don't think people should have to walk outside to access.

madbeanman

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else think the Airport station should be accessed from within the terminals?

I don't think people should have to walk outside to access.

Yes, I do.

Although it’s not completely without precedent in other countries for this to happen. I was in Barcelona very recently and the local train to the city and the metro were both a five minute walk from the terminal buildings over an overpass

Kermit.de.frog

Surely it's very doable to have underground passages from both terminals without changing the station location.

Alternatively just change the location to in between both terminals.

MJohnston

Isn't it already planned to do that anyway?

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

Isn't it already planned to do that anyway?

No, not according the the Metrolink docs.

I can see why they've chosen not to go down that route though, it should be far easier to get this through design, planning and construction without having to worry about working on and under the two terminal buildings. Almost every part of the Metrolink design has been made so that ease of construction is a priority.

That said, I'd much prefer a connection to the terminals myself. Hopefully they design in an option for a connecting tunnel, so that it's easier to add one in eventually.

Shedite27

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone else think the Airport station should be accessed from within the terminals?

I don't think people should have to walk outside to access.

Looking at the map, the track seems to pass right through the ideal spot (the space between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. Looks like they've purposely built the terminal 100m north of that point. It's not a huge distance but definitely looks to be built there intentionally. Any idea why?
Security issues?
Crowd issues?
Harder to build under a terminal?

markpb

Shedite27 wrote: »

Looking at the map, the track seems to pass right through the ideal spot (the space between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. Looks like they've purposely built the terminal 100m north of that point. It's not a huge distance but definitely looks to be built there intentionally. Any idea why?
Security issues?
Crowd issues?
Harder to build under a terminal?

Potential T3?

MJohnston

I don't know, from what I can see in the Metrolink docs, the station will be overlapping with the existing T2 multi-storey car park:



I thought I remembered reading here that the MSCP had an underground section constructed for integration with this in the future?

MJohnston

Regardless, there are 30m of distance between the Metro station and the T2 MSCP, so they just need to connect those 30m if they haven't already planned to do so. Then it's a short walk to T2, and you can I believe access T1 from within T2 now? Easily sorted.

CatInABox

Shedite27 wrote: »

Looking at the map, the track seems to pass right through the ideal spot (the space between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. Looks like they've purposely built the terminal 100m north of that point. It's not a huge distance but definitely looks to be built there intentionally. Any idea why?
Security issues?
Crowd issues?
Harder to build under a terminal?

Cost, most likely. Building the station under the terminal would rule out their favoured method for building, which is to just dig a big hole the length of the station.

With a project as needed as this, it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A station that requires a short walk outside will be good enough, particularly if it knocks years off the construction time. Again, an underground tunnel may be added once construction is finished. More expensive, yes, but it has the benefit of making the project easier/quicker.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

Cost, most likely. Building the station under the terminal would rule out their favoured method for building, which is to just dig a big hole the length of the station.

With a project as needed as this, it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A station that requires a short walk outside will be good enough, particularly if it knocks years off the construction time. Again, an underground tunnel may be added once construction is finished. More expensive, yes, but it has the benefit of making the project easier/quicker.

It could also very easily be a covered walk outside, as there are lots of existing covered walkways.

salmocab

MJohnston wrote: »

It could also very easily be a covered walk outside, as there are lots of existing covered walkways.

A raised walkway from departures level T1 with lifts and escalators down could be built afterwards. With a small building over the opening in the ground. I wouldn’t be too worried about the initial design I’d be very much of the opinion of get it built quick before anything happens to stop it.

MetroLinker

Not to drag conspiracy theories into this thread but an interesting boards topic regarding this from 2005:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2378547&postcount=11

Regarding the original question on Dublin Airport I used to work down there and there is a place under the main basement called the "Train Station".

It's about the size of a large warehouse and under the newer end of the train station [Edit: Terminal Building]. The lift shafts that serve the main terminal at the northern end of the building do go down to it.

I was a student at the time, studying in the engineering/architectural field and the original posters statement about AerRianta starting to implement something and being stopped seems accurate considering whats down there at present. Where the train station was going to go appears to have just been squared off into a space with room for future development.

Because there's no other reason for something the size of an aircraft hanger under there as far as I can see other than it would save a whole lot of hassle for the future development of a train station. When I was last there one of the bar's was occupying one tiny corner of the place while the rest of it was filled with material and rubbish you'd get off a couple of large building sites. Spares and the likes for the construction work that was still going on while I was there.

Stephen Strange

@Metrolinker, I'm pretty sure Area 14 Checkin is a large part, if not all of that space under T1. Not in use at the moment, but rumours that they will start using it again very soon.

marno21

Political interference sought to prevent destruction of apartment block

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-urged-to-reverse-townsend-street-block-demolition-plans-1.3657228

MJohnston

Did they all just wake up from doing absolutely fúck all during the consultation? Nothing highlights the incompetence of politicians better.

prunudo

Heres the thing, there's no space in the city. Something has to give way for a metro, whether its a gaa pitch, a building or part of somebodies garden (or all 3).
Either we as a society want a proper modern city with normal public transport options or the city grinds to a halt.
The politicians can't see beyond their next election.

Rulmeq

marno21 wrote: »

Political interference sought to prevent destruction of apartment block

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-urged-to-reverse-townsend-street-block-demolition-plans-1.3657228

The artists impression picture is not from metrolink, it's from the original metro north project.