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

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

I’d have thought the overhead lines are more than 5 mts? A double decker fits under them. Need clearance over them too

The pantograph can be lowered or raised as required. Double deckers are less than 5m - 4.7 m if I reacall.

hmmm

froinky wrote: »

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

So we have to balance the slight inconvenience to a few hundred people, versus the tens of thousands of people who will be affected along the line. Even today the council has decided to build over 100 houses in Ballyogan, and recently the council sent back a planning application because instead of the proposed plans they wanted an even bigger tower built alongside the LUAS line in Carrickmines.

On one hand we have the planners, who are approving lots of high density housing on the assumption it will be served by a metro, and on the other hand it appears it will remain a light rail line. Planners need to look at the news and put a halt to their plans, and Eoghan Murphy & co can explain to Dublin why he is opposing the infrastructure which will allow for high density housing along the LUAS line.

Idbatterim

They don’t need to call a halt to any plans. The morons will only act when the green line hits the farcical scenes we have already experienced again. The quicker that happens , the better. 600 apartments now planned for old dundrum shopping centre. 262 nearly complete beside dundrum luas stop , a further 90 up beside new shopping centre. A thousand apartments planned for two developments in sandyford business park alone.

If they go with a termination at charlemont. Lol! I can’t wait to see the fallout in a few years!

hmmm

Idbatterim wrote: »

If they go with a termination at charlemont. Lol! I can’t wait to see the fallout in a few years!

It's a bit like Brexit - yes on the one hand I'd love them to go ahead just to show them how wrong they would be, but those responsible for this won't feel the pain. A small group of wealthy people in their low density houses near the city centre will go on driving to the local supermarket at 11am, while tens of thousands of commuters will suffer from trying to pack themselves onto a light rail system. Even better, they can get on the new metro at Charlemont and be completely untroubled by what is happening further down the line, so ironically they will have a superb public transport system provided for them.

Planners need to stop approving high density builds along the line, at least until we have clarity. Let the developers put pressure on the government.

strandroad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Going up needs 5m but going down only requires about half that, so much less ramp needed. That is for pedesrians - cars would need 5m up or down.

5m is not sufficient for wheelchairs I think?
Underpass wouldn't pass anyway, imagine if (pearls firmly clutched) graffiti appears or someone smokes a joint there.

Sam Russell

strandroad wrote: »

5m is not sufficient for wheelchairs I think?
Underpass wouldn't pass anyway, imagine if (pearls firmly clutched) graffiti appears or someone smokes a joint there.

If you want to see what would work for an nderpass, look up the Merrion Gates proposal and in particur the pedestrian underpass that was to go under the Merrion Gates.

froinky

hmmm wrote: »

So we have to balance the slight inconvenience to a few hundred people, versus the tens of thousands of people who will be affected along the line. Even today the council has decided to build over 100 houses in Ballyogan, and recently the council sent back a planning application because instead of the proposed plans they wanted an even bigger tower built alongside the LUAS line in Carrickmines.

On one hand we have the planners, who are approving lots of high density housing on the assumption it will be served by a metro, and on the other hand it appears it will remain a light rail line. Planners need to look at the news and put a halt to their plans, and Eoghan Murphy & co can explain to Dublin why he is opposing the infrastructure which will allow for high density housing along the LUAS line.

exactly right - balance is the word. The suggested route runs through a lot of communities and those communities have justifiable concerns and rights, these need to be balanced with the need for a broader transport solution. There were (unofficially) tens of thousands of objections to the suggested route - not a few hundred, hence the length of time required to rethink the plan. The objections stretch all along the route, not just Dunville, and in fairness the onus is on the NTA to design a solution that works for everybody. The overground element of the plan is very contentious with grave noise concerns, access issues, and traffic problems. All of which could be solved by keeping the boring machine underground south of charlemont. The only reason for not doing this is cost and cost alone. As the problem increases over time the cost-benefit argument will shift and ultimately the budget to keep tunnelling will be found.

AlmightyCushion

froinky wrote: »

exactly right - balance is the word. The suggested route runs through a lot of communities and those communities have justifiable concerns and rights, these need to be balanced with the need for a broader transport solution. There were (unofficially) tens of thousands of objections to the suggested route - not a few hundred, hence the length of time required to rethink the plan. The objections stretch all along the route, not just Dunville, and in fairness the onus is on the NTA to design a solution that works for everybody. The overground element of the plan is very contentious with grave noise concerns, access issues, and traffic problems. All of which could be solved by keeping the boring machine underground south of charlemont. The only reason for not doing this is cost and cost alone. As the problem increases over time the cost-benefit argument will shift and ultimately the budget to keep tunnelling will be found.

However, it doesn't solve the green line capacity issues. The only real way to solve that is to upgrade the green line to metro.

prunudo

The Taoiseach was on Newstalk breakfast earlier. He briefly mentioned both Metrolink and bus connects and while not directly saying they would go ahead regardless he did say he wouldn't allow local politics hold up infrastructure projects that are for the greater good of public transport commuters who even at present are spending too long stuck in traffic.

salmocab

jvan wrote: »

The Taoiseach was on Newstalk breakfast earlier. He briefly mentioned both Metrolink and bus connects and while not directly saying they would go ahead regardless he did say he wouldn't allow local politics hold up infrastructure projects that are for the greater good of public transport commuters who even at present are spending too long stuck in traffic.

Obviously it’s just words but at least it’s the right words

salmocab

froinky wrote: »

exactly right - balance is the word. The suggested route runs through a lot of communities and those communities have justifiable concerns and rights, these need to be balanced with the need for a broader transport solution. There were (unofficially) tens of thousands of objections to the suggested route - not a few hundred, hence the length of time required to rethink the plan. The objections stretch all along the route, not just Dunville, and in fairness the onus is on the NTA to design a solution that works for everybody. The overground element of the plan is very contentious with grave noise concerns, access issues, and traffic problems. All of which could be solved by keeping the boring machine underground south of charlemont. The only reason for not doing this is cost and cost alone. As the problem increases over time the cost-benefit argument will shift and ultimately the budget to keep tunnelling will be found.

I’ve said here many times that Dunville is an issue, it’s a bigger issue than some here think it should be but also less of an issue than media would have us think. I believe an engineering solution can be found the rest of the local concerns are pretty trivial in the grand scheme.

Once the tunneling stops it won’t be restarted. We don’t have space to start tunneling from a city location. If we balls this up now we will live with it for a very long time.

prunudo

salmocab wrote: »

Obviously it’s just words but at least it’s the right words

Hopefully they're not just politicians words but there were reports he was fairly upbeat about it at the Dublin Chamber gathering a few weeks back so fingers crossed he's true to his words.

Marcusm

hmmm wrote: »

So we have to balance the slight inconvenience to a few hundred people, versus the tens of thousands of people who will be affected along the line. Even today the council has decided to build over 100 houses in Ballyogan, and recently the council sent back a planning application because instead of the proposed plans they wanted an even bigger tower built alongside the LUAS line in Carrickmines.

On one hand we have the planners, who are approving lots of high density housing on the assumption it will be served by a metro, and on the other hand it appears it will remain a light rail line. Planners need to look at the news and put a halt to their plans, and Eoghan Murphy & co can explain to Dublin why he is opposing the infrastructure which will allow for high density housing along the LUAS line.

Ballyogan is not being served by a metro under any version of the plan.

Idbatterim

How many people will use the new line on opening, even if it terminates at charlemont? 30-40 million or more?

salmocab

Marcusm wrote: »

Ballyogan is not being served by a metro under any version of the plan.

I think the point is plenty of those people will use the luas which makes the green line busier. If there was a metro from sandyford in it would easily take the extra numbers.

salmocab

Idbatterim wrote: »

How many people will use the new line on opening, even if it terminates at charlemont? 30-40 million or more?

The numbers coming from the NS wouldn’t be reduced too much in fairness as it would be used mainlyforctrips to the CC and still useable to commute to sandyford area.

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

I’ve said here many times that Dunville is an issue, it’s a bigger issue than some here think it should be but also less of an issue than media would have us think. I believe an engineering solution can be found the rest of the local concerns are pretty trivial in the grand scheme.

Once the tunneling stops it won’t be restarted. We don’t have space to start tunneling from a city location. If we balls this up now we will live with it for a very long time.

That is correct.

Either raise the rails or lower the road, or raise the road - but that is not possible given the spaces available.

Alternatively, bring the tunnel south of Beechwood. Now if that is done, dropping some of the underground stations north of Beechwood might save the extra cost of the tunnel extension.

I have suggested before that diverting the tunnel to Portabello with a station there near the bridge, and then the next station at Cowper, with the Luas turnaround at Beechwood. Cowper is not far from Beechwood - just 500 m along the track. Portabello bridge is 300 m west of Charlemont. Perhaps a station at Belgrave Sq might be needed. This would provide an extra catchment area for the ML.

The Greenline could also have a spur down Adelaide Road for,say, 50% of the trams, going at least as far as Leeson St, and possibly as far as GCD.

Marcusm

salmocab wrote: »

I’ve said here many times that Dunville is an issue, it’s a bigger issue than some here think it should be but also less of an issue than media would have us think. I believe an engineering solution can be found the rest of the local concerns are pretty trivial in the grand scheme.

Once the tunneling stops it won’t be restarted. We don’t have space to start tunneling from a city location. If we balls this up now we will live with it for a very long time.

I agree with you that the tunnelling has to continue to the right point, personally I think that should be south if Beechwood. There are strongly expressed views here that a closure at Dunville Avenue affects only local residents but that’s naive. It is the only point at which the Green Line can be crossed between Milltown Road and Charleston Road. As a result it&s a morning commuter rat run for people in the (underserved) suburbs such as Harold’s across and west of there and Terenure and southwest of there heading eastwards towards the Georgian core business district and Grand Canal Docks. While the traffic could be rerouted to Charleston Road, that will be impacted by Bus Connects and the rerouting of inbound traffic from Rathmines Road.

While it is hoped that there will be a reduction in commuter car traffic, it’s not realistically going to happen. Creating further unnecessary pinch points is short sighted.

While tunnellling beyond Beechwood has an identifiable cost, I am willing to get that surfacing at Charlemont will have hidden unexpected costs, tunnel rising up adjacent to canal, underneath a mid rise protected structure etc. Beechwood area houses will not have water courses with the Grand Canal and what housing might need to be taken is lower rise and thus less costly.

Marcusm

salmocab wrote: »

I think the point is plenty of those people will use the luas which makes the green line busier. If there was a metro from sandyford in it would easily take the extra numbers.

Presupposes everyone heads to town. Increasing numbers of offices blocks being built in Sandyford and south thereof may very well compensate for the additional residential spaces.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is correct.

Either raise the rails or lower the road, or raise the road - but that is not possible given the spaces available.

Alternatively, bring the tunnel south of Beechwood. Now if that is done, dropping some of the underground stations north of Beechwood might save the extra cost of the tunnel extension.

I have suggested before that diverting the tunnel to Portabello with a station there near the bridge, and then the next station at Cowper, with the Luas turnaround at Beechwood. Cowper is not far from Beechwood - just 500 m along the track. Portabello bridge is 300 m west of Charlemont. Perhaps a station at Belgrave Sq might be needed. This would provide an extra catchment area for the ML.

The Greenline could also have a spur down Adelaide Road for,say, 50% of the trams, going at least as far as Leeson St, and possibly as far as GCD.

Portobello is just pie in the sky though as there are no obvious spaces for a station, there is huge ongoing construction and it was not included in any of the options. That’s one for the “alternative routes” thread as if anyone seriously considers that option it really means the whole project is put on the long finger while the design and evaluation work commences all over again.

prunudo

salmocab wrote: »

The numbers coming from the NS wouldn’t be reduced too much in fairness as it would be used mainlyforctrips to the CC and still useable to commute to sandyford area.

In theory it could reduce congestion on the M50 where somebody living in Swords would now be able to commute to Sandyford or somebody living in Dundrum could commute to the airport via Metrolink. While when finished in its current plans won't be beneficial to me, it will be a great asset to both the Dublin and the country.

Idbatterim

With the national broadband plan likely to be axed, correctly in my opinion. They can afford to do key projects right for once!

salmocab

Marcusm wrote: »

Presupposes everyone heads to town. Increasing numbers of offices blocks being built in Sandyford and south thereof may very well compensate for the additional residential spaces.

It doesn’t presuppose anything, more people living on the lines catchment will mean more people using the line. It doesn’t matter that some only go to sandyford some will go into town making an already busy line busier.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is correct.

Either raise the rails or lower the road, or raise the road - but that is not possible given the spaces available.

Alternatively, bring the tunnel south of Beechwood. Now if that is done, dropping some of the underground stations north of Beechwood might save the extra cost of the tunnel extension.

I have suggested before that diverting the tunnel to Portabello with a station there near the bridge, and then the next station at Cowper, with the Luas turnaround at Beechwood. Cowper is not far from Beechwood - just 500 m along the track. Portabello bridge is 300 m west of Charlemont. Perhaps a station at Belgrave Sq might be needed. This would provide an extra catchment area for the ML.

The Greenline could also have a spur down Adelaide Road for,say, 50% of the trams, going at least as far as Leeson St, and possibly as far as GCD.

So you're talking about hundreds of millions of euros so that a small number of cars can continue to rat run through Dunville.

salmocab

cgcsb wrote: »

So you're talking about hundreds of millions of euros so that a small number of cars can continue to rat run through Dunville.

Whilst I wouldn’t be too bothered about rat runners as such the locals do use that route and forcing them and the rat runners onto Ranelagh Main Street is probably not a good idea as that’s already a very busy route.

MJohnston

salmocab wrote: »

Whilst I wouldn’t be too bothered about rat runners as such the locals do use that route and forcing them and the rat runners onto Ranelagh Main Street is probably not a good idea as that’s already a very busy route.

The plan doesn't really force drivers to do anything, to be fair, in the sense that most of them aren't forced to drive (especially in this part of the city).

Car congestion is only going to get worse, and the only way to tackle it is with better public transport.

cgcsb

salmocab wrote: »

Whilst I wouldn’t be too bothered about rat runners as such the locals do use that route and forcing them and the rat runners onto Ranelagh Main Street is probably not a good idea as that’s already a very busy route.

What? a trip from Dunville to Ranelagh main st should never be done by car. If anything this will encourage more people to leave the car behind. It isn't forcing anyone to spend an additional 90 seconds in their car for a sub 1km journey if they don't want to. It's a non issue. If these people are THAT lazy they can get metro from Beechwood to Ranelagh.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

Portobello is just pie in the sky though as there are no obvious spaces for a station, there is huge ongoing construction and it was not included in any of the options. That’s one for the “alternative routes” thread as if anyone seriously considers that option it really means the whole project is put on the long finger while the design and evaluation work commences all over again.

You are right, but the main point I am making is that dropping the underground stations between SSG and Cowper would save the extra cost of the tunnelling.

It would also reduce travelling time from Sandyford to SSG by some significant time.

They need to get on with looking for potential contractors capable of doing the job, with some weighting given to speedy opening of the line.

salmocab

cgcsb wrote: »

What? a trip from Dunville to Ranelagh main st should never be done by car. If anything this will encourage more people to leave the car behind. It isn't forcing anyone to spend an additional 90 seconds in their car for a sub 1km journey if they don't want to. It's a non issue. If these people are THAT lazy they can get metro from Beechwood to Ranelagh.

I meant the people who drive to work, not everyone living there works in town or sandyford, people heading to south west Dublin would need to go out onto Ranelagh Main Street further slowing that traffic down.

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

I meant the people who drive to work, not everyone living there works in town or sandyford, people heading to south west Dublin would need to go out onto Ranelagh Main Street further slowing that traffic down.

But will the ML not reduce the congestion in Ranelagh? If the ML is going to be so busy, where will the passengers come from? Will it not be the car drivers and their passengers sick of spending ages in traffic congestion in Ranelagh?