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

BonnieSituation

DCC barely represent what area they have jurisdiction over.

marno21

roadmaster wrote: »

The way politicians operate in this country a mayor with power could be worse they may side against any big project for fear of upsetting voters and not getting re-elected

One benefit is that a city wide mayor who blocks a project to facilitate a small bunch of people in one area risks upsetting large swathes of the city. The present system eg Eoghan Murphy's issue in Rathmines would be diluted somewhat if he wasn't in such a small constituency relative to the footprint of Metrolink

MetroLinker

MJohnston wrote: »

Ah but then you're adding big costs - CPOing the same number of buildings as the current station plan as well as the extra costs of a connection tunnel to Tara Street (and some kind of payoff to Ronan for permission to use part of his Tara House site, potentially).

Just for clarity, that site isn't under Ronan's ownership according to the planning documents (you can see these online):

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

Here are some of the criteria:
1. 105m long
2. 27.5m wide
3. It has to be situated beside the Irish Rail station for connectivity
4. The current Irish Rail station has to remain operational
5. It has to be cost effective

MetroLinker wrote: »

These sites would appear to be match apart from cost effectiveness which I woulnd't really be able to say. The trade is commercial accommodation for residential. Commercial vacancy rate is currently 12.4% in Dublin 2018.

I'm genuinely trying to be as informed as possible about the Metrolink and appreciate all the comments and info on this thread.

I appreciate that but this is such a complex planning and engineering problem. If there was a better and cheaper option than demolishing that many apartments, they would have gone for it. That's not to say they won't come up with a (more expensive) solution.

Let's look at those sites in detail:

Sites 1, 2 and 3 simply does not meet the third criteria. There are other problems too but I'll mention them later on for the other sites.



Site 4 was was in route option A8. Firstly, it's a short walking distance from the Irish Rail station. Yes, you could provide underground walkways but it's just not the same as having both lines in one hub. Secondly, Tara Street can't be considered in isolation. If you change the stop at Tara Street, you have to change the alignment before and after the stop. A stop in that direction would mean there would be no stop on O'Connell Street. Indeed, in route A8, it was Tara Street -> Mountjoy Square -> Drumcondra. No O'Connell Street, no Mater, no Whitworth. It might be possible to still have a stop north of O'Connell Street and still make it to Whitworth but you run the risk of making the route longer and more curved while also missing the opportunity to put a stop in the O'Connell Street/Henry Street region. Overall, I think that route would be much worse than the proposed route and the connectivity at Tara Street would also be worse.





Site 5 is a little better but you would probably have to demolish both Ashford House and the existing Irish Rail station for construction as well as the offices immediately south of Poolbeg Street. Also major disruption to Tara Street. So probably the same level of demolition and a larger level of disruption than what you're trying to avoid. Another point that affects sites 4, 5 and 6 is the river bed. The track level at the Liffey needs to be at least 0.5m below the track level at Tara Street. In the proposal, it's 1.4m lower. If the station is that close to the river then the tunnel couldn't dip after the stop so the entire stop would have to be built a little lower. 1.4m might seem like a small amount but it adds up to the other problems.

Site 6 would have the same alignment issues as site 4, would require the demolition of the station and could possibly disrupt the railway line.

Site 7 would require the same level of demolition as the current proposal and, assuming you don't want to close Townsend Street permanently, I don't know if you could fit all of the metro and DART station elements either side of the Townsend Street.

Site 8 would require much more demolition than the current proposal and is just too far away from the central areas. Major disruption to Townsend Street. It would leave the new Irish Rail station a distance of just one eight car DART away from Pearse Street station!

This is the underground outline of the stop. Not including the construction site areas around it. It's already the most constrained site in the project.

Peregrine

monument wrote: »

1 + 2: Those are the measurements of the location they had beside Tara, the station box can be narrower (ie the width of Tara Street)

An island station box the width of Tara Street? What's that, 16-18m? Is that a joke?

Pete_Cavan

marno21 wrote: »

One benefit is that a city wide mayor who blocks a project to facilitate a small bunch of people in one area risks upsetting large swathes of the city. The present system eg Eoghan Murphy's issue in Rathmines would be diluted somewhat if he wasn't in such a small constituency relative to the footprint of Metrolink

The problem with this theory is that it has the potential to affect anyone in the city and people are more than happy to jump on any perceived injustice, even if it doesn't affect them. Also, in a city like Dublin, a lot of people will hear the whining of those that are and will side with them.

D.L.R.

We rehouse social housing residents when we redevelop council estates, eg Charlemont St/St Teresas Gardens/Dominick St/etc

1. New block is built
2. Residents are moved to the new block
3. Old block is demolished or renovated

Why can't we apply that logic here? The area is semi-derelict, there's plenty of sites nearby.

MJohnston

D.L.R. wrote: »

We rehouse social housing residents when we redevelop council estates, eg Charlemont St/St Teresas Gardens/Dominick St/etc

1. New block is built
2. Residents are moved to the new block
3. Old block is demolished or renovated

Why can't we apply that logic here? The area is semi-derelict, there's plenty of sites nearby.

I think the problem is that most of the complaints are not going to be coming from the owners of apartments in this block, who will no doubt be handsomely compensated. They're coming from people renting in the block, who will have no real legal basis to be looked after in terms of rehousing.

D.L.R.

MJohnston wrote: »

I think the problem is that most of the complaints are not going to be coming from the owners of apartments in this block, who will no doubt be handsomely compensated. They're coming from people renting in the block, who will have no real legal basis to be looked after in terms of rehousing.

I don't see the difficulty in offering these renters generous packages. The Metro budget could absorb these costs. There was no legal basis for the bank guarantee, yet the govt did it anyway. If the political will is there...

Having a metro station in the best available site is the most important consideration. DCC use fuzzy terms like "community" but this is a semi derelict inner city area which feels actually quite sketchy after dark.

DCC looking a gift horse in the mouth here.

MJohnston

The problem is that you could argue the same for any renter kicked out of their accommodation by a landlord looking to do "renovation".

Pete_Cavan

The majority of the people renting there will have moved elsewhere in four years time anyway. Even those who are still there and want to stay have no entitlement to do so beyond the length of their lease. They will have much longer notice that their lease will not be renewed at a certain point, they will have years notice while most only get months. You could argue that renters there are at an advantage over the rest of the market in that they are in a good rent negotiating position because the landlord will struggle to find other tenants due to the building being earmarked for demolition.

Peregrine

Anyway, it looks like they're going with a 9.5m single bore tunnel. Tracks side by side and no dividing wall. We'll see how that changes things.

LeinsterDub

ricimaki wrote: »

Designing an underground metro isn't as simple as choosing where the stations go and joining the dots. Having enough space for a station box doesn't mean you can just pop a station in there. They'll be running TBM's through there, so nearby structures with deep foundations could be effected. Any underground water, electricity, gas piping etc. has to be well understood and moved, which can have significant costs. Moving a station a few meters can effect 100+ meters of tunnel leading into the station. Whilst it is more than likely possible to build at any of those red boxes, there can be significant costs to make it possible, and have side effects for several surrounding premises.

And yet the British managed to thread the eye of an needle. I'm not completely dismissing you're post but you may be over egging the custard

Qrt

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And yet the British managed to thread the eye of an needle. I'm not completely dismissing you're post but you may be over egging the custard

Crossrail is also costing £15bn with many overruns...

LeinsterDub

Qrt wrote: »

Crossrail is also costing £15bn with many overruns...

It's delayed by 6 months I believe which is the the only over overrun. The point is we've nothing a complex as London .

Dats me

How do we know about the Single Bore? And if they're doing Single, why not use the monotube option? Seemed to be what the study recommended.

strassenwo!f

It is very relevant to know what Irish Rail's long-term plans are, for that central part of the city, and the east-west and north-south lines which may go through threre.

Under the earlier plan, with the interconnector and metro, Tara Street station would not have played a significant role. Indeed, as I recall, one committee member of a prominent lobby group was asking why we would need the Tara Street station at all.

Now there's a plan to make it a very central station, with metro, DART and buses all interchanging.

I think that all sounds very good, and I can't see any reason to oppose it.

But i would like to see what IE's current plans are, for their cross-city line. They did, after all, get planning permission, for a cross-city line. If they were to get permission for another cross- city line, would it be so desperately necessary to build via Tara Street?

For the Metrolink people it obviously is.

For Dublin, in the longer term, I am not so sure.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It is very relevant to know what Irish Rail's long-term plans are, for that central part of the city, and the east-west and north-south lines which may go through threre.

Under the earlier plan, with the interconnector and metro, Tara Street station would not have played a significant role. Indeed, as I recall, one committee member of a prominent lobby group was asking why we would need the Tara Street station at all.

Now there's a plan to make it a very central station, with metro, DART and buses all interchanging.

I think that all sounds very good, and I can't see any reason to oppose it.

But i would like to see what IE's current plans are, for their cross-city line. They did, after all, get planning permission, for a cross-city line. If they were to get permission for another cross- city line, would it be so desperately necessary to build via Tara Street?

For the Metrolink people it obviously is.

For Dublin, in the longer term, I am not so sure.

I'd like to know too, but they're swamped with all the work they're doing right now, so we won't hear anything about this until the Metrolink project is winding down.

I've no strong feeling on the location of the interchange one way or the other. Tara St makes a certain amount of sense, but then so too does an interchange at St Stephens Green and Pearse, giving a "Transport Triangle" of Tara St, St Stephens Green, and Pearse.

D.L.R.

Metrolink will interchange with DU at SSG presumably with an updated design further to the east. The expensive MN-DU interchange is history at this stage.

Qrt

D.L.R. wrote: »

Metrolink will interchange with DU at SSG presumably with an updated design further to the east. The expensive MN-DU interchange is history at this stage.

is there a price difference between different corners of the green?

strassenwo!f

Qrt wrote: »

is there a price difference between different corners of the green?

It seems extremely unlikely that there would be, and the poster DLR is most probably talking through his hat, as there are no plans for an underground cross-city DART project at the moment.

I would think it is now less likely, if any DU plans do eventually surface, that it would take a longer route (than a pretty much direct one) via St. Stephen's Green, now that it's not necessary to go there to link up with the LUAS. And it would be a seriously compromised location in terms of passenger uptake.

I've no major problems with the Tara Street route, though I am of course sad to see that people will need to move their homes and that the swimming pool will go (at least temporarily). My main concern is that it may be unnecessary, if plans for an underground cross-city DART do emerge at some stage.

(Long-term readers of this board may remember that College Green would have been, or would be, my favoured location for a metro-DART interchange, and I closely watch the city's plan to pedestrianise that area).

MJohnston

Qrt wrote: »

is there a price difference between different corners of the green?

The two westmost corners of the Green already contain Luas tracks. So yes, there is a price difference.

D.L.R.

Qrt wrote: »

is there a price difference between different corners of the green?

Grafton St would obviously be more difficult with all the extra constraints there, but no station is planned there now.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

The two westmost corners of the Green already contain Luas tracks. So yes, there is a price difference.

There almost certainly would be some price difference, but it would be very hard, nigh impossible, for any of us on this board to quantify it. Assuming you were building a DART Underground via St. Stephen's Green to link with the metrolink there - not a good idea, in my opinion - a connection at or near the top of Grafton Street would require building under operating LUAS tracks. Difficult, but going on what we've seen in other cities, very doable.

If you were to build it with a decent connection to a metrolink station on St. Stephen's Green East it would certainly require an even longer route for the DART project, and more expense, as it travelled between St. Stephen's Green East and, say, Pearse. If it were even possible.

The curves on the original DART underground project were massive in the section between St. Stephen's Green (West) and Pearse station, and those of a proper DART/metrolink connection at St. Stephen's Green East would be totally ridiculous. Thankfully, neither of the scenarios illustrated are likely to happen, now that the LUAS has been extended beyond St. Stephen's Green.

strassenwo!f

D.L.R. wrote: »

Grafton St would obviously be more difficult with all the extra constraints there, but no station is planned there now.

So, yes, you were talking through your hat, with your comment that:

D.L.R. wrote: »

Metrolink will interchange with DU at SSG presumably with an updated design further to the east. The expensive MN-DU interchange is history at this stage.

MJohnston

Why are you talking about DU?

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

Why are you talking about DU?

You were too!

Like you, I want to see a properly integrated public tansport system in Dublin. The metrolink is a very welcome part of that, particularly in its reach into areas of the northside which don't currently have a very rapid connection with the city centre.

How the metrolink ties in with other public transport in the city is also very important. It was considered important enough for the city, a few years ago, for Irish Rail to apply to build an underground DART line between Heuston and the East of the city.

That proposal was given approval, and although the economic situation in Ireland didn't allow it to happen at that time it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that something akin to the original DART Underground proposal may appear again.

My original point was that it would be very helpful to know if it is likely to do so, and, if possible, to adjust the planning for the metrolink project accordingly.

CatInABox

I'm sorry I replied, to be honest.

Grandeeod

DU is dead. Metrolink is the current big spend. DU is dead under a FG lead Government going back to 2003. I may have explained why in this or a different thread. The routing of ML via Tara street and its link up with IE rails in Phisboro is the current Governments plan to negate the need for DU combined with their planned DART extension. Its all very simple, not that I agree with it.

bk

CatInABox wrote: »

He's saying that the construction work for Metrolink at OCS will be more disruptive than any Metrolink work at Tara St.

Ah, thanks, I didn't understand that, partly because it doesn't make any sense.

The construction of Metrolink station on OCS won't require the closure of OCS. OCS is a very wide street and there is plenty of space there for both the station box and for buses, etc. to continue to operate down the street.

Of course there will be work to do that, maybe narrowing footpaths, moving around lanes, traffic management, etc. but OCS definitely wouldn't need to be closed for Metrolink construction.