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

salmocab

froinky wrote: »

This is great news,

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through. Quite frankly, it presented an entirely unworkable solution - (which is what happens when you don't invest in proper planning).

Lets build a decent underground transport system in Dublin. Starting with the link from SSG to the airport (I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options).

This will provide time to plan the next phase - and keep it underground.

It was a very good plan in fact it was one of the better plans we’ve had with future proofing built in. It allowed for development in areas further out that would give us much needed housing.

Stopping in SSG limits future routes by the way as there is nowhere to start tunneling from.

TheChrisD

I mean, I can see the reasoning from both sides on this whole thing. Yes, as a whole the system would work a lot better if the south half of the Green line was upgraded to metro; but there is also a point in that everyone who currently uses the Green line would have a couple years of madness with it being out of action for the upgrades, especially since other methods of PT probably can't cope with all the extra people, at least not in their current state.

I think the best thing that needs to be done before upgrading the Green line is even mooted in the future is to build some alternative PT in that area. Or even just implement BusConnects so it can take up some of the slack.

markpb

froinky wrote: »

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through.

You mean they had no consultation except for the public consultation process? The website, the news articles, the road show, etc. Did you want someone to come to your door and go through the plan with you in secret before it was announced to the public?

Pete_Cavan

TheChrisD wrote: »

I mean, I can see the reasoning from both sides on this whole thing. Yes, as a whole the system would work a lot better if the south half of the Green line was upgraded to metro; but there is also a point in that everyone who currently uses the Green line would have a couple years of madness with it being out of action for the upgrades, especially since other methods of PT probably can't cope with all the extra people, at least not in their current state.

That suggests that, rather than seeing the the reasoning from both sides, you are believing the misinformation from one side.

marno21

froinky wrote: »

This is great news,

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through. Quite frankly, it presented an entirely unworkable solution - (which is what happens when you don't invest in proper planning).

Lets build a decent underground transport system in Dublin. Starting with the link from SSG to the airport (I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options).

This will provide time to plan the next phase - and keep it underground.

Ok

There is no next phase. There was one option - connect New Metro North to the Green Line

There is no alternative routes, that was the only proposal

LeinsterDub

froinky wrote: »

This is great news,

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through. Quite frankly, it presented an entirely unworkable solution - (which is what happens when you don't invest in proper planning).

Lets build a decent underground transport system in Dublin. Starting with the link from SSG to the airport (I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options).

This will provide time to plan the next phase - and keep it underground.

And while you're waiting for your underground for the next 25 years enjoy the Luas being at wedge capacity after 2027

MJohnston

TheChrisD wrote: »

I mean, I can see the reasoning from both sides on this whole thing. Yes, as a whole the system would work a lot better if the south half of the Green line was upgraded to metro; but there is also a point in that everyone who currently uses the Green line would have a couple years of madness with it being out of action for the upgrades, especially since other methods of PT probably can't cope with all the extra people, at least not in their current state.

I think the best thing that needs to be done before upgrading the Green line is even mooted in the future is to build some alternative PT in that area. Or even just implement BusConnects so it can take up some of the slack.

You're being misled by the bad reporting of this issue!

The only reason a 2-4 year disruption (not "shut down" as Rethink Metrolink have been spreading) of the Green Line would have to happen would be to keep Dunville Avenue open.

Remove the Dunville Avenue issue from the table, and the disruption to the Green Line drops to a matter of months, not years. The NTA even suggested alternatives to keep that street open and avoid Luas disruption, such as an overbridge - but locals refused.

cgcsb

froinky wrote: »

This is great news,

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through. Quite frankly, it presented an entirely unworkable solution - (which is what happens when you don't invest in proper planning).

Lets build a decent underground transport system in Dublin. Starting with the link from SSG to the airport (I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options).

This will provide time to plan the next phase - and keep it underground.

wtf?

froinky

markpb wrote: »

You mean they had no consultation except for the public consultation process? The website, the news articles, the road show, etc. Did you want someone to come to your door and go through the plan with you in secret before it was announced to the public?

Consultation implies dialogue prior to action.

I attended the 'Public roadshow'
- it was embarrassing how few answers the engineering team had to serious questions.
- I was first told by an engineer present "this is a fait accompli - there is no point in trying to change anything" - not very consultative
- No traffic management study had been completed to assess the impact of road closures at Dunville
- No study had been conducted to assess the impact of a temporary closure of the Luas green line
- The feedback form had a 2 week deadline - later extended.
- The ppt download of the proposed route does not even mention the Dunville Crossing.

So not a great way to 'consult' with the community in my opinion.

cgcsb

TheChrisD wrote: »

I mean, I can see the reasoning from both sides on this whole thing. Yes, as a whole the system would work a lot better if the south half of the Green line was upgraded to metro; but there is also a point in that everyone who currently uses the Green line would have a couple years of madness with it being out of action for the upgrades, especially since other methods of PT probably can't cope with all the extra people, at least not in their current state.

I think the best thing that needs to be done before upgrading the Green line is even mooted in the future is to build some alternative PT in that area. Or even just implement BusConnects so it can take up some of the slack.

but it was never going to be closed for years, or even months.

MJohnston

froinky wrote: »

I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options

Oh well, if you think that, it's all good then! I was worried about all those detailed technical studies that said otherwise, but someone ought to email the NTA and let them know that froinky off of boards.ie has said it's pointless.

Idbatterim

“Remove the Dunville Avenue issue from the table, and the disruption to the Green Line drops to a matter of months, not years. The NTA even suggested alternatives to keep that street open and avoid Luas disruption, such as an overbridge - but locals refused.”

You mean the locals didn’t agree? What can they refuse?! Why not just Continue the tunnel out past dunville, given the alternative? If they really are that pathetically weak minded...

loyatemu

it can't be a coincidence that this is coming hot on the heels of the NCH debacle. It's an easy decision for the govt to make now - as others have said, overcrowding on the green line will force through the southern section eventually. In the meantime get on with the tunnelling.

cgcsb

Just to be clear the tie in works could be done in weeks and there are even ways to total avoid closure during that time. A temporary track switch for example could allow the contractor to connect one track at a time. Where would you be going with 4 years??

Close Dunville avenue and put in a bike/ped lift and ramp. It's a simple job.

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

“Remove the Dunville Avenue issue from the table, and the disruption to the Green Line drops to a matter of months, not years. The NTA even suggested alternatives to keep that street open and avoid Luas disruption, such as an overbridge - but locals refused.”

You mean the locals didn’t agree? What can they refuse?! Why not just Continue the tunnel out past dunville, given the alternative? If they really are that pathetically weak minded...

If the residents raise €100m for the tunneling cost, I'd be in favour, I won't be paying for their small mindedness however.

cgcsb

loyatemu wrote: »

it can't be a coincidence that this is coming hot on the heels of the NCH debacle. It's an easy decision for the govt to make now - as others have said, overcrowding on the green line will force through the southern section eventually. In the meantime get on with the tunnelling.

Why pay now when you can double the cost and disruption in 10 years, yeah sounds like a good solution, worked for the luas I suppose.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

Just to be clear the tie in works could be done in weeks and there are even ways to total avoid closure during that time. A temporary track switch for example could allow the contractor to connect one track at a time. Where would you be going with 4 years??

Close Dunville avenue and put in a bike/ped lift and ramp. It's a simple job.

The "2-4 years" figure being bandied about is in relation to a mystery NTA alternative option that was apparently presented to ministers recently. But the public never got a chance to see that option, so no clue what it actually involved.

None of the original Metrolink route options presented by the NTA involved anything close to a 2 year disruption. The worst in that regard was 4B which would have closed between SSG and Beechwood for circa 1 year.

Rethink Metrolink have also heavily misled people by calling a sectional closure a "shut down" of the entire line.

AAAAAAAAA

Idbatterim wrote: »

Why not just Continue the tunnel out past dunville, given the alternative?

Because that would cost hundreds of millions more and require the track bed to be demolished and reinstated, leaving the green line entirely out of action for at least a year, probably more.

The Charlemont Tie-in is an elegant solution because it requires very little trackworks and so the green line can be left in almost continuous operation

dubhthach

froinky wrote: »

This is great news,

The overground Metrolink was poorly planned from the start, and had zero consultation with the communities it ran through. Quite frankly, it presented an entirely unworkable solution - (which is what happens when you don't invest in proper planning).

Lets build a decent underground transport system in Dublin. Starting with the link from SSG to the airport (I think the Charlemont section is pointless as it adds little immediate value and limits future route options).

This will provide time to plan the next phase - and keep it underground.

Pass me that crack pipe of yours, I'm in need of a good hit.

salmocab

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

Because that would cost hundreds of millions more and require the track bed to be demolished and reinstated, leaving the green line entirely out of action for at least a year, probably more.

The Charlemont Tie-in is an elegant solution because it requires very little trackworks and so the green line can be left in almost continuous operation

Just on the language used here the green line would never be entirely out of action at any stage just sections of it.

AAAAAAAAA

salmocab wrote: »

Just on the language used here the green line would never be entirely out of action at any stage just sections of it.

I would consider the Green Line to be functionally out of action if the 4 stations between Cowper and Harcourt are closed for over a year to construct a tunnel, when the alternative is numbering in weeks to do the Charlemont tie-in

salmocab

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

I would consider the Green Line to be functionally out of action if the 4 stations between Cowper and Harcourt are closed for over a year to construct a tunnel, when the alternative is numbering in weeks to do the Charlemont tie-in

Yes the southern part is effectively out of action, I was making a point about the language that is being used, the green line will never be out of use as the northern section will still be very usable all the way too SSG at least and the outer bit on the south.

dubhthach

I wouldn't mind it was flagged in 2001, 3 years before the Green Line even opened that it would eventually need to be upgraded to "Metro standard"

A Platform for Change
Final Report
An integrated transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2000 to 2016
Dublin Transportation Office
November 2001

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/platform_for_change_2001.pdf

CatInABox

The more I think about this, the more that this looks like the ultimate Pyrrhic victory for Rethink Metrolink.

The TBM will surface at Charlemont, mere metres from the Luas line. When it comes time to upgrade the Green Line, there's now no possibility of tunnelling, and the two lines are less than 100 metres apart at Charlemont. There's simply no way that the tie in would be any place but Charlemont now.

Anyway, none of the work on the Luas line was going to take place until 2025. By that stage, most of Cherrywood will be completed (the current plan is to have it all finished by 2026), with most of the predicted 25,000 people living there. Not everyone will be hopping on the luas, but enough will. At that stage, will there be any special consideration given to Dunville Avenue? I don't think so. I think that they'll just close the road, and be done with it.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

The more I think about this, the more that this looks like the ultimate Pyrrhic victory for Rethink Metrolink.

The TBM will surface at Charlemont, mere metres from the Luas line. When it comes time to upgrade the Green Line, there's now no possibility of tunnelling, and the two lines are less than 100 metres apart at Charlemont. There's simply no way that the tie in would be any place but Charlemont now.

Anyway, none of the work on the Luas line was going to take place until 2025. By that stage, most of Cherrywood will be completed (the current plan is to have it all finished by 2026), with most of the predicted 25,000 people living there. Not everyone will be hopping on the luas, but enough will. At that stage, will there be any special consideration given to Dunville Avenue? I don't think so. I think that they'll just close the road, and be done with it.

My only concern is turning trains around at Charlemont. If it were me I'd put the 'save Dunville Ave.' lot into a locked room with Sandyford(and further south) commuters with some foam bats to work things out for an hour. Winner gets their way.

marno21

The other thing that's important is that the final route isn't published yet so all this kite flying may not have led to a conclusion yet.

I hope we got some good news so I don't have to apologise to Grandeeod on thread.

lucernarian

southside tie in at charlemont was always a fanciful notion with significant engineering and land space challenges.

It's only been deferred in any case (and rightly so in my opinion). Capacity upgrades along the green line as far as Charlemont could and should still happen in the next few years - specced to the same standard as whatever is chosen for "Metrolink".


Only very specific choices could ever have led to minimal luas disruption. E.G If high floor vehicles were implemented, that involves all stations closing for lengthy periods. I think it would be wrong to delay a desperately needed rail project on the northside for the sake of green line upgrades that are mostly relevant >5 years from now

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

My only concern is turning trains around at Charlemont. If it were me I'd put the 'save Dunville Ave.' lot into a locked room with Sandyford(and further south) commuters with some foam bats to work things out for an hour. Winner gets their way.

With only the north side to cater for, they won't need as high a frequency. A crossover will do until the southside portion is brought in.

salmocab

lucernarian wrote: »

southside tie in at charlemont was always a fanciful notion with significant engineering and land space challenges.

It's only been deferred in any case (and rightly so in my opinion). Capacity upgrades along the green line as far as Charlemont could and should still happen in the next few years - specced to the same standard as whatever is chosen for "Metrolink".


Only very specific choices could ever have led to minimal luas disruption. E.G If high floor vehicles were implemented, that involves all stations closing for lengthy periods. I think it would be wrong to delay a desperately needed rail project on the northside for the sake of green line upgrades that are mostly relevant >5 years from now

We should pray for high floor, the stations could be done in stages as they need to be lengthened anyway basically you extend to the higher level then when the new stock starts being used the metro stops at the high part in the centre and only opens those doors. Meanwhile the rest of the platform is raised. It’s not a huge issue.

cgcsb

lucernarian wrote: »

Only very specific choices could ever have led to minimal luas disruption. E.G If high floor vehicles were implemented, that involves all stations closing for lengthy periods. I think it would be wrong to delay a desperately needed rail project on the northside for the sake of green line upgrades that are mostly relevant >5 years from now

High floor is a shoe in, way too much wasted space on low floor. Raising platforms is a non issue. It's possible to do in sections, and there's space for temporary platforms at many stations. The current luas has stops very close together, even if you had to close one stop in one direction for a few days on a rolling basis this wouldn't constitute major disruption.