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

salmocab

marno21 wrote: »

Swimming pool users to hold protest that their leisure needs trump the needs of 1 million+ people

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/protesters-hold-rush-hour-demonstration-15532561

A simple commitment to build a new pool with better facilities and more apartments in the new complex should be enough to head that one off. There will still be opposition but sure somebody will always complain.

madbeanman

marno21 wrote: »

Swimming pool users to hold protest that their leisure needs trump the needs of 1 million+ people

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/protesters-hold-rush-hour-demonstration-15532561

It is very dumb that this new building needs to be abolished. I’m not saying that means it shouldn’t be. It means it’s never should have been refurbished in the first place with Metrolink on the horizon. So surely you can understand how it’s users would feel slighted?

Also (side point) how is the plural of nimby nimbys and not nimbies? I dislike it as a word . It sounds like something David McWilliams would invent to delegitimaize human individualism

marno21

madbeanman wrote: »

It is very dumb that this new building needs to be abolished. I’m not saying that means it shouldn’t be. It means it’s never should have been refurbished in the first place with Metrolink on the horizon. So surely you can understand how it’s users would feel slighted?

Also (side point) how is the plural of nimby nimbys and not nimbies? I dislike it as a word . It sounds like something David McWilliams would invent to delegitimaize human individualism

I agree that it's regrettable that money was spent on refurbishing the pool before Metrolink came along. Metrolink's route wasn't decided when the pool was being refurbished, and there would have been similar moaning if the refurbishment of the pool was held up in case Metrolink was routed through the area.

However, €1m spend on a swimming pool refurbishment should not stop the construction of a key interchange that's part of a €3bn transport project. This is a classic case of the needs of a large volume of people being jockeyed to facilitate a minority. In the grand scheme of things, which is more important for Dublin as a whole, Metrolink (which will be always with us) or losing access to a swimming pool for a short (5-6 max) number of years?

antoinolachtnai

Or they might find an alternate site. The main thing is that these issues have been ventilated early, so they can be dealt with well ahead of time.

Using the monotube method with stations in the bore would be a way to reduce the 'take'.

Lord Glentoran

madbeanman wrote: »

It is very dumb that this new building needs to be abolished. I’m not saying that means it shouldn’t be. It means it’s never should have been refurbished in the first place with Metrolink on the horizon. So surely you can understand how it’s users would feel slighted?

Also (side point) how is the plural of nimby nimbys and not nimbies? I dislike it as a word . It sounds like something David McWilliams would invent to delegitimaize human individualism

Nimbys it is. Because they deserve an annoying plural

Sam Russell

Mod: Posts moved to [Home Topics Science, Health & Environment Environment & Infrastructure Infrastructure New Luas/Metro lines we might like.]

Please leave the number of trams per hour in another thread. The Metrolink documentation is considered to be fact, any greater number is considered to be a ban. Take this as a final warning.

Bray Head

salmocab wrote: »

A simple commitment to build a new pool with better facilities and more apartments in the new complex should be enough to head that one off. There will still be opposition but sure somebody will always complain.

The refurb is still not wasted investment. The facilities in there were really grotty the last time I was there (2010) and there'll be another three good years of use before anything has to be demolished.

CatInABox

According to the Irish Times video report here, there's now 12,000 passengers using the Luas Green Line, which is ahead of the NTAs projections. In fact, it's so far ahead that I think it's probably wrong. See edit below.

Even so, some of the info contained within is still stark. People are already getting the Luas out towards Cherrywood to get onto a city bound Luas. Passengers waiting 25 minutes. I've maintained for quite some time that the NTAs project passenger numbers were hopelessly optimistic, and this seems to bear it out. The planned extra trams and extension of all trams to 55m will help, but I think only for a couple of years at best.

Metro upgrade is required now more than ever.

EDIT: Just realised that the 12,000 is probably talking about both directions, while the upgraded capacity (post tram lengthening) will be 8000, so around 6000 right now is actually about right.

markpb

CatInABox wrote: »

The planned extra trams and extension of all trams to 55m will help, but I think only for a couple of years at best.

There was an article in the Irish Times a few days which said (I think) that it'll take several years for all trams to be extended to 55m. By the time it happens, capacity will grow from approx. 6k PHPD to 8.3k PHPD but I'd be surprised if demand didn't outgrow this faster than the upgrade plan can be carried out.

strassenwo!f

Yes, vehicles per direction per hour and the capacity of those vehicles would be the most important factors in a discussion such as this, while the regular Irish Times reader is probably looking for an overall figure.

A reminder of the relevant figures from the metrolink documentation:

metrolink.ie wrote:

During 2017, the numbers carried by the Luas Green Line in the busiest morning peak hour was approximately 5,000 passengers in the northbound direction. The introduction of new 55 metre length trams, and the extension of the existing trams, will increase the Green Line capacity up to approximately 8,000 passengers per direction per hour based on a three minute frequency.

...

Over the next two decades, passenger demand levels on the Green Line will reach approximately 11,000 passengers in the northbound direction, and expected to grow to approximately 13,000 passengers by 2057.

antoinolachtnai

Making trams longer increases capacity on the ‘shoulders’ (the third and forth most busy quarter hours of the peak, either side of the busiest half hour) but it wont do anything it increase capacity during the busiest half-hour itself.

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

Swimming pool users to hold protest that their leisure needs trump the needs of 1 million+ people

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/protesters-hold-rush-hour-demonstration-15532561

So they had their protest, and managed to get 50 people out, according to the Irish Times. Considering that there's 70 apartments there, plus presumably thousands of users of the gym, that has got to be considered a pretty poor turnout.

AlmightyCushion

CatInABox wrote: »

So they had their protest, and managed to get 50 people out, according to the Irish Times. Considering that there's 70 apartments there, plus presumably thousands of users of the gym, that has got to be considered a pretty poor turnout.

It would be a terrible shame to see this demolished for no good reason

You'd swear they were tearing it down for fun. There is a very good reason for it to be demolished.

marno21

Dessie Ellis raised Metrolink at the Transport Committee yesterday, asking why for such an important project with such clear defined benefits that it isn't being highly prioritised.

NTA confirmed that the public consultation on the revised preferred route will be in late January/early February.

MetroLinker

Regarding the pool:
1. There is no current proposal for the replacement of the swimming pool and gym in the area. There is a real risk that any money paid for the facility will just disappear into the DCC budget.
2. In my opinion, public facilities trump private facilities as an amenity. Private facilities (e.g. Trinity) can stop taking membership if they ever liked.
3. Cost - Trinity Gym costs €519/year (€429 subsequent years). Markievicz costs €299/year.
4. There are now new proposals to build public toilets again in Dublin. I don't think people always realise the benefits of a public facility until it is gone.

I understand there is frustration on this forum about people putting obstacles in the way of Metrolink. There was always going to be obstacles with any proposal. If the proposal shifts, I'd expect the obstacles to shift as well.

In Ireland, a huge aggravation for people is when the greater good is trumped by minor elements of large importance. However, our planning system isn't set up in this manner and it doesn't matter if somebody is building 1 units or 1000 units if they are in breach of that system. There are a huge number of environmental factors that can impact large projects - windfarms affects by river mussels. The small impact on a plant or animal species outweighs the large environmental saving of building a large windfarm. These decisions can be tough to accept if you land on the wrong side of them.

I am, however, looking forward to the new proposal in January. Hopefully, Father Christmas will have delivered a fantastic engineering solution to the NTA on December 25th that solves all the problems.

Elessar

MetroLinker wrote: »

Regarding the pool:
1. There is no current proposal for the replacement of the swimming pool and gym in the area. There is a real risk that any money paid for the facility will just disappear into the DCC budget.
2. In my opinion, public facilities trump private facilities as an amenity. Private facilities (e.g. Trinity) can stop taking membership if they ever liked.
3. Cost - Trinity Gym costs €519/year (€429 subsequent years). Markievicz costs €299/year.
4. There are now new proposals to build public toilets again in Dublin. I don't think people always realise the benefits of a public facility until it is gone.

I understand there is frustration on this forum about people putting obstacles in the way of Metrolink. There was always going to be obstacles with any proposal. If the proposal shifts, I'd expect the obstacles to shift as well.

In Ireland, a huge aggravation for people is when the greater good is trumped by minor elements of large importance. However, our planning system isn't set up in this manner and it doesn't matter if somebody is building 1 units or 1000 units if they are in breach of that system. There are a huge number of environmental factors that can impact large projects - windfarms affects by river mussels. The small impact on a plant or animal species outweighs the large environmental saving of building a large windfarm. These decisions can be tough to accept if you land on the wrong side of them.

I am, however, looking forward to the new proposal in January. Hopefully, Father Christmas will have delivered a fantastic engineering solution to the NTA on December 25th that solves all the problems.

Will it though? Even with the best planners in the world, a project of this scope will require sacrifices for the greater good. Someone somewhere (likely many people, in many places) will be affected. Already we saw political interference at the highest level to prevent the temporary reduction of playing pitches at a GAA club of all places. What hope has the project of CPOing 70 apartments at Tara street in the midst of a housing crisis? In the constituency of the Minister for Housing no less!

The moral zeitgeist here is to always side with the "little" guy. That and the ability for every Tom Dick and Harry to have a say in every critical infrastructure project means we've to fight tooth and nail to get anything done. Look at the proposed Apple datacenter in the west; a couple of people mothballed the whole project, to the detriment of the whole country. And when it comes to MetroLink the government won't want to be seen to go against the people and so, for votes, they will work the populist agenda.

What could happen is that the whole plan will be disjointed in an attempt to please naysayers, leaving everyone with sub par transport and missed opportunities. I'm really hoping this will not be the case...there's just too many people with the potential to be affected for me to be positive about it. Can't wait to hear the latest round of outrage when the new plans are released.

Dats me

MetroLinker wrote: »

Regarding the pool:
1. There is no current proposal for the replacement of the swimming pool and gym in the area. There is a real risk that any money paid for the facility will just disappear into the DCC budget.
2. In my opinion, public facilities trump private facilities as an amenity. Private facilities (e.g. Trinity) can stop taking membership if they ever liked.
3. Cost - Trinity Gym costs €519/year (€429 subsequent years). Markievicz costs €299/year.
4. There are now new proposals to build public toilets again in Dublin. I don't think people always realise the benefits of a public facility until it is gone.

I understand there is frustration on this forum about people putting obstacles in the way of Metrolink. There was always going to be obstacles with any proposal. If the proposal shifts, I'd expect the obstacles to shift as well.

In Ireland, a huge aggravation for people is when the greater good is trumped by minor elements of large importance. However, our planning system isn't set up in this manner and it doesn't matter if somebody is building 1 units or 1000 units if they are in breach of that system. There are a huge number of environmental factors that can impact large projects - windfarms affects by river mussels. The small impact on a plant or animal species outweighs the large environmental saving of building a large windfarm. These decisions can be tough to accept if you land on the wrong side of them.

I am, however, looking forward to the new proposal in January. Hopefully, Father Christmas will have delivered a fantastic engineering solution to the NTA on December 25th that solves all the problems.

Is there anyone living there who wants the project built and is trying to sort the issue out?

Surely if money is given for a new pool it should be built, or a stipulation that the new building will have to include a public pool? Maybe in the mean time current members and locals could be given a subsidy to make up the gap in the membership fee for Trinity's pool?

If the pool is the major issue, allowing 18 months for station construction (that's the figure they gave Home Farm anyway) and say 18 months for new building construction there could be a (maybe better!) pool there, and say a public gym also in 3 years from demolition? Subsidised access to Trinity as a temporary measure. For a huge infrastructure project, a swimming pool being unavailable from 2022-2025 seems acceptable to me.

If we get a substandard interchange instead of a world-class one due to temporary loss of a pool it would be incredibly disappointing, and that's as someone who completely agrees about public facilities > private ones.

HatchSt

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Making trams longer increases capacity on the ‘shoulders’ (the third and forth most busy quarter hours of the peak, either side of the busiest half hour) but it wont do anything it increase capacity during the busiest half-hour itself.

How do you make that out? Longer trams fit more people regardless of what time of day it is.

HatchSt

marno21 wrote: »

Dessie Ellis raised Metrolink at the Transport Committee yesterday, asking why for such an important project with such clear defined benefits that it isn't being highly prioritised.

NTA confirmed that the public consultation on the revised preferred route will be in late January/early February.

Well it would help if people like him could park the Nimbyism for a while and let the project proceed!

He also suggested that transport projects should be tackled sequentially, in other words that one should be completed entirely before the next one gets underway.

So no investment in bus infrastructure until Metrolink is finished in 2027 or whenever.

antoinolachtnai

How do you make that out? Longer trams fit more people regardless of what time of day it is.

Not really.

At the peak quarter hour there are already long trams in use. (Say, 5 long trams every 3 minutes).

When you add an additional long tram, it cannot bring any benefit at the peak quarter hour. There will still only be 5 long trams during the peak 15 minutes. The additional long tram has to run either before or after the peak quarter hour.

So the peak capacity is really not increased by adding further long trams.

D.L.R.

Bit of breathing space for the govt will help. Just Tara and Green tie in to resolve really.

HatchSt

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not really.

At the peak quarter hour there are already long trams in use. (Say, 5 long trams every 3 minutes).

When you add an additional long tram, it cannot bring any benefit at the peak quarter hour. There will still only be 5 long trams during the peak 15 minutes. The additional long tram has to run either before or after the peak quarter hour.

So the peak capacity is really not increased by adding further long trams.

15 mins? That’s a very narrow definition of ‘peak’. What’s your calculation as to whether longer trams will have an impact on capacity over, say a two hour peak period?

antoinolachtnai

Yes that is true. But in practice the peak, the time people want to travel, is quite narrow. An awful lot of people want to arrive in the city a short time before 9 o’clock.

Adding more tram capacity either side of the peak won’t change the fact that people are being left behind on platforms during the peak time.

Lord Glentoran

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes that is true. But in practice the peak, the time people want to travel, is quite narrow. An awful lot of people want to arrive in the city a short time before 9 o’clock.

Adding more tram capacity either side of the peak won’t change the fact that people are being left behind on platforms during the peak time.

As an aside, I am amused remembering former posters on boards around 2003 who were adamant that buses were adequate for all future demand on the Green Line. How times change.

roadmaster

From a selfish point of few they can not build this metro quick enoght so i can dump the car when in dardistown and be quickly in the city rather than use the dunboyne/maynooth train. Last Thursday the train took of so slow from the stations i taught we where going in reverse . It is scandalous how slow the train is roll on the metro

Qrt

roadmaster wrote: »

From a selfish point of few they can not build this metro quick enoght so i can dump the car when in dardistown and be quickly in the city rather than use the dunboyne/maynooth train. Last Thursday the train took of so slow from the stations i taught we where going in reverse . It is scandalous how slow the train is roll on the metro

Between the diesel locomotives, the Connolly bottleneck, the ancient level crossings and the ongoing drama with the residents of a cul-de-sac, and conflicts with the Sligo Intercity Services, it’s clearly one of the the worse Dublin commuter routes. Hopefully electrification will sort it out a bit.

madbeanman

roadmaster wrote: »

From a selfish point of few they can not build this metro quick enoght so i can dump the car when in dardistown and be quickly in the city rather than use the dunboyne/maynooth train. Last Thursday the train took of so slow from the stations i taught we where going in reverse . It is scandalous how slow the train is roll on the metro

I road the train from Maynooth to Connolly for the first time ever. It arrived 15 minutes early at minute and was on time in Connolly. No problems here.

So yes, complaining about needing an extra choice of service is fairly selfish ^^

Van.Bosch

madbeanman wrote: »

I road the train from Maynooth to Connolly for the first time ever. It arrived 15 minutes early at minute and was on time in Connolly. No problems here.

So yes, complaining about needing an extra choice of service is fairly selfish ^^

So your first experience being grand means it’s a great service and a regular user who points out issues with it is wrong?

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep to Metrolink. Maynooth is not on the plan.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we keep to Metrolink. Maynooth is not on the plan.

Don't let Eamon Ryan hear that, he'll be rerouting it out there before it goes to the airport next.....