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

strassenwo!f

It now seems there is a plan to tunnel beyond Dunville Avenue, rather than just to Charlemont, which would add to the cost of the unnecessary upgrade of the Green LUAS. And the level crossing at Stillorgan hasn't been discussed here for a while, but the cost of dealing with that will add more again.

I can get that cities like Munich are now tinkering with their systems, to make things even better on a network which covers pretty well everywhere. Is Dublin in a position where money should be invested on unnecessary upgrades of a line which is already fine but basically just needs a higher level of service?

I doubt it.

MJohnston

I won't quote to spare anyone using the ignore function, but it has been said over and over again: there's a political calculus in the Green Line Metro upgrade that is a major part of the equation as to whether the whole project proceeds or not. That is to say: the additional cost of that upgrade, compared to the cost of doing the northern section alone, is outweighed by the importance and political brownie points of the upgrade being done.

Given that the plans included options which involved tunnelling beyond Dunville Ave, and one of those options, iirc, actually had benefits over the Charlemont option, this eventuality was obviously well within the bounds of the project.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

I won't quote to spare anyone using the ignore function, but it has been said over and over again: there's a political calculus in the Green Line Metro upgrade that is a major part of the equation as to whether the whole project proceeds or not. That is to say: the additional cost of that upgrade, compared to the cost of doing the northern section alone, is outweighed by the importance and political brownie points of the upgrade being done.

Given that the plans included options which involved tunnelling beyond Dunville Ave, and one of those options, iirc, actually had benefits over the Charlemont option, this eventuality was obviously well within the bounds of the project.

So, I think you're saying that the unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line is included in the project for political reasons. Basically, the NTA can say 'We are delivering a 31 km metro for not much more than the price of a metro between Swords and the City'.

Is that correct?

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So, I think you're saying that the unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line is included in the project for political reasons. Basically, the NTA can say 'We are delivering a 31 km metro for not much more than the price of a metro between Swords and the City'.

Is that correct?

The upgrade of the Green Line (it's actually Metro South) is part of the GDA 2016-35 Transport Strategy. It wasn't pulled out of the blue

MJohnston

Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.

MJohnston

And to simplify, if you imagine scales of Metrolink's favourability for politicians - on the positive side is:
1) needed capacity upgrade for South Green Line.
2) a wider swathe of the city (and therefore voters) positively affected by the project.
3) a richer demographic of voters positively affected by the project.
4) looks like a longer term vision.
5) gives a better end result in terms of actual infrastructure to point to at election time.
6) is a more efficient long term use of funds.

On the negative side:
1) Costs more
2) NIMBYs.

There's no disputing that the cost negative is a biggie, but it's currently not enough to outweigh the positives, and is probably still not enough even after adding 1 or 2km more tunnelling to the south end (especially if this negates a lot of the NIMBY complaints).

salmocab

MJohnston wrote: »

Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.

To be fair it’s just one poster who thinks by repeating it it’s true. He does this constantly and then tells us about something in Germany. It’s probably best to give it no more oxygen.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.

That's going to be a bit difficult.

Tram systems in several European cities are running 36 trams per hour in each direction, with several road crossings.

On the Green Line proper, between Charlemont and Cherrywood, there are just two minor road crossings (at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan), and a throughput of 20 trams per hour. That's just a little bit over half what is being done in other European cities with their trams.

It is clearly unneceessary, at this stage, to upgrade the Green Line to a metro. Yes, more services are required on the line, and with a bit of investment that should be achievable.

I wasn't aware, until you mentioned it in your post above, that there was a bit of politics involved in the push for this unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

To be fair it’s just one poster who thinks by repeating it it’s true. He does this constantly and then tells us about something in Germany. It’s probably best to give it no more oxygen.

In fairness, I have mentioned Germany on this and other threads, because it's a country I know reasonably well and the Germans do place a high value on public transport, as do most countries in continental Europe. The idea of an unnecessary upgrade of a tram line running at about half its capacity would be, I am sure, a major source of discussion in any city in the continental part of the European Union.

strassenwo!f

strassenwo!f wrote: »

On the Green Line proper, between Charlemont and Cherrywood, there are just two minor road crossings (at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan), and a throughput of 20 trams per hour. That's just a little bit over half what is being done in other European cities with their trams.

Not to be a pedantic peter, but there are more than 2. Theres one at laughinstown, and two at leopardstown valley.

strassenwo!f

Forgive me, I should perhaps have spelt it out.

Tram services in many cities in continental Europe are running 36 (thirty-six) trams per hour in each direction, and with several road crossings along the way.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In fairness, I have mentioned Germany on this and other threads, because it's a country I know reasonably well and the Germans do place a high value on public transport, as do most countries in continental Europe. The idea of an unnecessary upgrade of a tram line running at about half its capacity would be, I am sure, a major source of discussion in any city in the continental part of the European Union.

You just keep repeating unnecessary like if you type the word enough it will be true. People have explained to you repeatedly why it’s necessary in the near future but you keep telling us about what other cities do and then tell us something about the siding in Stephens green.

strassenwo!f

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to be a pedantic peter, but there are more than 2. Theres one at laughinstown, and two at leopardstown valley.

Yes, my mistake. I intended to talk only about the Charlemont - Sandyford section of this proposed upgrrade,

As far as I know, there are just two at-grade road crossings (and several pedestrian crossings) between Charlemont and Sandyford being talked about extensively here. There are a number of other rarely-used road crossings (at Alexandra College, for example) and several pedestrian crossings, and we will have to see what the plans might be to deal with these.

The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre , is surely unsustainable. In most cities I've seen, the default option is the centre, and if you want to go somewhere else, you change.

It is my opinion that the current Cherrywood - Broombridge LUAS is pretty good, and there is no need for an upgrade for the service at this stage. The figures for the metro, produced by the NTA, indicate that the Broombridge - Cherrywood line should probably be due for an upgrade to a metro in around 2040, or shortly after.

Hopefully, by which time, lots of other stuff will have been been done in Dublin.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre , is surely unsustainable. In most cities I've seen, the default option is the centre, and if you want to go somewhere else, you change.

Only one change to get into the city and it’s from the terminus so will be completely hassle free everyone will likely get a seat.

prunudo

Dont forget that it will be extended beyond Cherrywood to Bray and beyond Broombridge onto Finglas in time.
Bray to Finglas is too long for a single tram line.
As Sandyford and Cherrywood expend it will be a great commuter line from Bray, and should people want to continue north they can switch at Sandyford, don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.

salmocab

Actually forgive me I should have spelt it out 1 (one) change into the city.

Lord Glentoran

jvan wrote: »

Dont forget that it will be extended beyond Cherrywood to Bray and beyond Broombridge onto Finglas in time.
Bray to Finglas is too long for a single tram line.
As Sandyford and Cherrywood expend it will be a great commuter line from Bray, and should people want to continue north they can switch at Sandyford, don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.

In my experience, folk need to be shown how making connecting changes are 1. as cheap as their existing journey; 2. are completely reliable. If so, general acceptance of making connecting changes will become acceptable to Joe and Mary Public.

markpb

jvan wrote: »

don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.

Really? It should be fairly obvious why. People don’t like making connections if they’re not confident that the second bus, tram, train will show up and how long they’ll have to wait. If you’re connecting from 46a to 39a, most people would be fine with that but the reality is that most connections in Dublin would have at least one leg on an infrequent, irregular or unreliable mode of transport. Dart to DB feeder buses like the 114 are a great example. Connecting from anything to a suburban train is another. Even connecting between buses was a terrible experience for a long time. RTPI helps a lot with this although it’s only useful if your connection is close to the start of your trip, otherwise you’re working off timetables instead of real time information.

People will connect when they know their journey is reliable and predictable.

strassenwo!f

At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

That's great.

What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.

SeanW

How many more trams? How long should the trams be? Most importantly, what would all the newer/longer trams do above St. Stephen's Green, where even the existing ones make the whole Dolier/Westmoreland Street a complete mess?

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

That's great.

What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.

How many more times do you have to be told that the Green Line upgrade is not to cater for current demand but forecasted demand in 2027 when it opens?

strassenwo!f

marno21 wrote: »

How many more times do you have to be told that the Green Line upgrade is not to cater for current demand but forecasted demand in 2027 when it opens?

This has been discussed at length on the Dublin metrolink - alternative routes thread.

Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

This throughput is still quite a bit below what other cities are doing with their trams.

I stress that I am not against an upgrade of the Green Line per se. But it does seem to be unnecessary, and wasteful, at this stage of Dublin's development.

Rulmeq

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This has been discussed at length on the Dublin metrolink - alternative routes thread.

Which is where this entire conversation should have remained. Why are you insisting on discussing this in this thread, when a dedicated thread was created for off topic discussions.

MICKEYG

strassenwo!f wrote: »

At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

That's great.

What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.

You sure. I think it is north of 40.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

.

What cities I'd be interested in seeing there systems?

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

This throughput is still quite a bit below what other cities are doing with their trams.

No it is not, you are wrong about that..

Your example of 36 trams per hour is across 3/4 parallel tram lines. We discussed this earlier and I proved you wrong on this. The maximum for a two line tram system is 24 trams, which Luas is already hitting.

Here is what the folks at Transport for Ireland, you know the professional engineers who actually built and operate the Luas have to say on the matter:

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

5.1
Line B (Ranelagh to Sandyford)/Segregation
The existing Luas Green Line is limited to running a maximum of 24 TPH. This limitation is driven by the non-segregated nature of the line and in particular the need for vehicles to stop at at-grade crossings at Dunville Avenue and St Raphaela’s Road.

In order to achieve the increased frequency of services to 30/40 TPH required for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, it will be necessary to completely segregate the line from any interface with road and pedestrian traffic. This will involve taking steps to remove the at-grade crossings and, in addition, closing an existing signalised junction at the access to Alexandra College.

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/metrolink-nta-tii-public-consultation-document.pdf

page 10:

"The extension of the Green Line in December 2017 to include Luas Cross City has already seen a significant increase in passenger numbers over the entire route of the Green Line. In addition, as areas such as Cherrywood and Sandyford are further developed in the coming years, the passenger demand on the Green Line will further increase. Analysis undertaken with the NTA’s Regional Transport Model indicates that by 2027, the level of demand on the line will exceed the carrying capacity of the Luas system, even with the introduction of longer trams."

Are you saying that you, some random person on the internet, knows better then the professional engineers at TII who build and operate the Luas!!!!

That is pretty insane :eek:

tom1ie

So where are we now with this project design? Am I right in thinking that the tunnel may be extended further south to beechwood?
If so what are the pros and cons?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

So where are we now with this project design? Am I right in thinking that the tunnel may be extended further south to beechwood?
If so what are the pros and cons?

Yes, it sounds like it will be extended further south.

The Metrolink documents include lots of info about this (and other) options if your interested.

Pros: It avoids needing to close Dunville Avenue.

Cons: Longer and more expensive, but only slightly so.

MJohnston

We went over all this (with the exact same posters!) back in June ffs:

Here are the costs:



Here were the overall appraisals of each option:



I believe the 'current' option is 4B, so you can see how options 5 and 6 weren't actually all that much less favourable than the selected route in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I reckon 4B was only picked because it was the cheapest desirable option.

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

We went over all this (with the exact same posters!) back in June ffs:

Here are the costs:



Here were the overall appraisals of each option:



I believe the 'current' option is 4B, so you can see how options 5 and 6 weren't actually all that much less favourable than the selected route in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I reckon 4B was only picked because it was the cheapest desirable option.

Don’t bother posting if it annoys you so much.
The point was things might have moved on since June but I suppose you missed that point.