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

marno21

So here we have an article at the outrageous idea of CPOing 90 apartments in order to construct Ireland's biggest rail interchange, which would serve thousands of people daily

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/college-gate-apartments-metro-demolition-15375026

Which is followed by their top article:

"90 minute delays and 11km queues reported following multi-vehicle collision on popular commuter route into capital"

*sigh*

Idbatterim

what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!

strassenwo!f

bk wrote: »

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.

We did indeed discuss this on the alternative routes thread, and it is quite true that both of the cities discussed (Berlin and Vienna, as far as I recall) do have central sections where several lines converge, which would be quite different from the situation in Dublin. No one line would have more than around 10 trams per hour (and the reasons for that are also discussed on that thread).

In the central sections in those cities, however, there are several road crossings and they are running up to 36 trams per hour in each direction. (In Berlin, for example, the central section I was talking about has around 12 stops, perhaps a dozen road crossings, and that level of throughput).

bk wrote: »

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

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

page 10:

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:

I absolutely do not claim to know more than the people at TII, and I am very disappointed that you or other readers might get the impression that I am claiming such extra expertise.

There is, however, a clear discrepancy between what the above documentation says is the limit for a tram system with road crossings (24) and what the corresponding documentation in those other cities must say is the limit for a similar system (at least 36).

I have no idea why there should be this discrepancy, but pointing it out to the board is not me claiming some special knowledge. It is simply a reminder of what we know is happening in some other cities. It's not some special inside information which only I am privy to.

salmocab

As was pointed out a long time ago 2 cities can’t be compared like this, they have different rates of traffic flow different layouts different alternative routes even different rules on what’s acceptable for safe crossings for pedestrians. They are just too different to keep saying city A can do this so surely city B can too.

MJohnston

tom1ie wrote: »

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.

No, those route options haven't changed since June. What has changed is it now seems like option 5 (or maybe 6) are more favoured - so it makes perfect sense to post those graphics again. But they won't be going back to the drawing board again, as your post seems to suggest.

madbeanman

Guys, we don’t really know what’s happening at the moment as nothing has been officially announced since the closure of the public consultation so no need to be getting so pissy with each other

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is, however, a clear discrepancy between what the above documentation says is the limit for a tram system with road crossings (24) and what the corresponding documentation in those other cities must say is the limit for a similar system (at least 36).

I have no idea why there should be this discrepancy, but pointing it out to the board is not me claiming some special knowledge. It is simply a reminder of what we know is happening in some other cities. It's not some special inside information which only I am privy to.

What is so hard to understand, there is no way possible to operate 36 trams per hour down just one tram route. Why do you keep repeating this when you have been proven to be wrong about this!

The example you pointed out of 36 trams per hour is actually 6 different tram lines, each operating at a frequency of 6 trams per hour (pretty poor), that happen to merge for 1km in a city center street where there are 3/4 parallel tram lines on the same street that they all use. It isn't at all the same thing.

And interestingly, the same city is now replacing those trams lines with a Metro!! LOL you couldn't make it up.

Unless you can find the space to build 3/4 lines down the entire length of the Luas green line, then the maximum capacity of a single tram line is 24 TPH.

This is what the professional engineers at TII who built the Luas say, end of story.

strassenwo!f

They don't have 3/4 parallel tram lines in the places I'm talking about. They have 2, just like the LUAS. And they run 36 trams per hour at peak times, in each direction.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

They don't have 3/4 parallel tram lines in the places I'm talking about. They have 2, just like the LUAS. And they run 36 trams per hour at peak times, in each direction.

They absolutely do, I looked into the details of the city you were talking about.

We discussed this in detail already.

MJohnston

Is there not something in this subforum charter about soapboxing?

Sam Russell

MOD:

@ Strassenwolf
The Metrolink documentation was produced by experts in railways, metros, and tram systems. If they say 24 trams per hour per direction is the most that can be accommodated then that should be accepted as true.

This thread is to be based on the Metrolink documentation as published. Any deviation goes on the other thread.

Further discussion on the mythical 36 trams per hour will be deleted and bans will be handed out. This will apply to replies as well.

loyatemu

Idbatterim wrote: »

what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!

One reason - you're reliant on the council to ensure priority. The Luas was supposed to have priority through the city-centre but it doesn't because the council feared it would cause tailbacks, so instead it sits at junctions while cars go through.

markpb

Idbatterim wrote: »

what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!

Green line trams have priority along Ballyogan road but what it means is that a tram approaching the junction will get a proceed signal at the next change in cycle, i.e. it won't have to wait for a full cycle. It does not always mean than that they can proceed through the junctions without stopping, just that the delay is minimised.

There's also the safety aspect to be considered, when when a tram gets a proceed signal approaching a junction, the driver still has to proceed with caution.

patrickbrophy18

marno21 wrote: »

So here we have an article at the outrageous idea of CPOing 90 apartments in order to construct Ireland's biggest rail interchange, which would serve thousands of people daily

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/college-gate-apartments-metro-demolition-15375026

Which is followed by their top article:

"90 minute delays and 11km queues reported following multi-vehicle collision on popular commuter route into capital"

*sigh*

I can't help but notice on the map that Hawkins House is a stones throw away. See the below map:


https://goo.gl/maps/8VHRgNmUjx22


Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?

I guess the developers idea of imminent and the governments idea of imminent are very different. Hawkins House will most likely be demolished and replaced before any work is done on the metro. The government would have to CPO prime development land in the city centre and sit on it for years waiting for the metro to be built. You could argue that it would be a good investment but it would be expensive, especially if a decision is made to delay the metro.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

I guess the developers idea of imminent and the governments idea of imminent are very different. Hawkins House will most likely be demolished and replaced before any work is done on the metro. The government would have to CPO prime development land in the city centre and sit on it for years waiting for the metro to be built. You could argue that it would be a good investment but it would be expensive, especially if a decision is made to delay the metro.

If that's the case, it is a very small window of opportunity to make a minor tweak to the plans so that they can kill 2 birds with one stone.


But, yes. Knowing the planning history of our country, they will almost definitely squander this opportunity and that one of the most important infrastructure projects for Dublin will be put on the long finger indefinitely.

Qrt

Bit off topic but still Metrolink orientated:

With the whole Markievicz pool thing in discussion, it got me thinking: what would people think of renaming Tara Street Station to Markievicz station? Worth noting that she died in 1927, so the projected year of the completion of the Metrolink would be the centenary of her death...

BonnieSituation

Qrt wrote: »

Bit off topic but still Metrolink orientated:

With the whole Markievicz pool thing in discussion, it got me thinking: what would people think of renaming Tara Street Station to Markievicz station? Worth noting that she died in 1927, so the projected year of the completion of the Metrolink would be the centenary of her death...

Actually is a good idea tbh.

It has always annoyed me that Tara St Station isn't really on Tara St anyway.

Zebra3

Stations should be named after their geographical locations.

Donaghmede > Howth Junction.

Sam Russell

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't help but notice on the map that Hawkins House is a stones throw away. See the below map:


https://goo.gl/maps/8VHRgNmUjx22


Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?

Would it not be an opportunity to add a requirement that the equivalent number of apartments be built as part of the redevelopment. That way, the occupiers of the block to be demolished would simply move over. The swimming pool could also be added.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would it not be an opportunity to add a requirement that the equivalent number of apartments be built as part of the redevelopment. That way, the occupiers of the block to be demolished would simply move over. The swimming pool could also be added.

That's the proposed plan anyway, at least in regard to the apartments. Not sure about the swimming pool.

Putting it at the Hawkins House site has a few more problems anyway, first and foremost that planning permission on the site has already been granted. Going back and amending that would require delays, which might result in lawsuits.

It's also going to have an effect on the curve of the tunnel, which will impact upon the location/construction of both O'Connell St station and St Stephens Green stations.

There's also the fact that having it at the Hawkins House site is a terrible interchange location. People will be forced to leave the station, exit onto Tara St, wait at the lights to cross the road, enter Tara St station. If half the people on a metro train wanted to get onto a Dart, that's hundreds of people attempting to cross the road at once, and that's not even including people who want to go Dart > Metro.

Neworder79

Come on there would obviously be an underpass tunnel in that scenario, it's max 40m or so and exit position could be optomised to minimise distances, as is the norm in any other city.

CatInABox

Neworder79 wrote: »

Come on there would obviously be an underpass tunnel in that scenario, it's max 40m or so and exit position could be optomised to minimise distances, as is the norm in any other city.

In a project optimised to reduce cost, I wouldn't be so sure.

Anyway, an underpass tunnel just under Tara St itself wouldn't cut it, it wouldn't reduce the crowding issues, and then wheelchair access would be a problem as well.

They're not going to manually dig a tunnel 20 metres under the ground, so it'd be a mezzanine level tunnel all the way from the Hawkins St station across to the Tara St station, most likely following Poolbeg St, which would be closed during construction, along with a phased closure of Tara St, probably reduced to two lanes at a time.

Then you're dealing with a new crowding issue at Tara St Station itself, in that all of the Metro people joining the Dart will be dumped at the current Tara St station entrance, meaning that they've got to deal with the current usage along with the all the extra who'll be interchanging. The current Metro plans have all these people joining at the opposite end of the station, spreading out the crowd.

MetroLinker

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would it not be an opportunity to add a requirement that the equivalent number of apartments be built as part of the redevelopment. That way, the occupiers of the block to be demolished would simply move over. The swimming pool could also be added.

I think this would have been a more nuanced and better approach compared with using the CPO to get the apartments.

When looking at the public swimming pool, the big risk is that the council get a big load of cash for the pool but assign it to some other project and the area loses a valuable public amenity. I'm sure the council have a number of projects that they would love to see given the green light. With the current housing shortage, they probably have a number of schemes that are just awaiting funding.

From a historical perspective, the Dublin Corporation Baths and Wash Houses were originally built in 1885 and were replaced by the current pool back in the 1990s. Image from DCC website below:

CatInABox

MetroLinker wrote: »

I think this would have been a more nuanced and better approach compared with using the CPO to get the apartments.

In an ideal world it would be, I think everyone would agree on that. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that has been proven to be a stumbling block over the years. If one resident doesn't want to move, then everything is held up while negotiations take place, then it goes to court anyway. It'll be faster and more efficient to just use the CPO method, even if it does discommode 150 odd residents. The owners will be amply compensated, but tenants will be shafted unfortunately.

I'd be all in favour of the NTA, as part of this process, making every effort to reasonably help those tenants, i.e. helping with childcare during the move, compensating those who have to take days off for viewings, etc.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

In a project optimised to reduce cost, I wouldn't be so sure.

Anyway, an underpass tunnel just under Tara St itself wouldn't cut it, it wouldn't reduce the crowding issues, and then wheelchair access would be a problem as well.

They're not going to manually dig a tunnel 20 metres under the ground, so it'd be a mezzanine level tunnel all the way from the Hawkins St station across to the Tara St station, most likely following Poolbeg St, which would be closed during construction, along with a phased closure of Tara St, probably reduced to two lanes at a time.

Then you're dealing with a new crowding issue at Tara St Station itself, in that all of the Metro people joining the Dart will be dumped at the current Tara St station entrance, meaning that they've got to deal with the current usage along with the all the extra who'll be interchanging. The current Metro plans have all these people joining at the opposite end of the station, spreading out the crowd.

Bear in mind that it’s planned to redevelop Tara St station with a new entrance onto Tara St as part of the CIE property redevelopment of the site.

CatInABox

LXFlyer wrote: »

Bear in mind that it’s planned to redevelop Tara St station with a new entrance onto Tara St as part of the CIE property redevelopment of the site.

That's if Johnny Ronan ever gets planning permission for it though, it seems his ambition is several stories higher than what CIE originally had in mind.

While it'll be able to deal with more passengers after the redevelopment, it'll still be putting all passengers onto the north end of two platforms though. A Metro, arriving every 90 seconds (that's one direction only), pushing passengers into Tara St, which has a Dart leaving every ten minutes?

Not everyone is going to be interchanging of course, but as soon as this opens, this is going to be the most used interchange station in Dublin, tieing together two separate mass transit lines in the centre of the city. Why should we put impediments in the way of this?

Zebra3

Sounds like they are gonna need to widen the footpaths in the area.

CatInABox

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sounds like they are gonna need to widen the footpaths in the area.

Even if the metro station is built at current favoured location, the Townsend St apartments, the footpaths should be widened. It's already crazy to have such a busy station and be so completely pedestrian unfriendly all around it, adding a Metro into the equation would be just silly.

The two developments that are to be built there will go some way to improving things actually. All the plans I've seen for the Tara St development include the ground floor being set back from the edge of the site, with an overhang above.

The Hawkins house development will also open up a path going from the corner of Poolbeg St and Tara St across towards Trinity.

Dats me

@MetroLinker I saw in some article that the NTA had met with residents from your apartment block. Were you there or have you heard anything interesting?