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

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

Closing Dunville to cars was never going to prevent a pedestrian/cyclist overpass though, was it?

Nope! In fact, if a high-floor rolling stock option is selected, pedestrian overpasses and lifts will be part and parcel of the station upgrades.

BonnieSituation

Whole city wedged to a standstill this morning. The amount of people who just had to get off buses from Arran Quay onwards and walk was ridiculous.

How these lads get away with it and yet no one can look at how the city is right now is beyond comprehension!

cgcsb

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Whole city wedged to a standstill this morning. The amount of people who just had to get off buses from Arran Quay onwards and walk was ridiculous.

How these lads get away with it and yet no one can look at how the city is right now us beyond comprehension!

Bus driver had a heart attack this morning. Everyone's aware it's bad. Property owners don't care.

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

Nope! In fact, if a high-floor rolling stock option is selected, pedestrian overpasses and lifts will be part and parcel of the station upgrades.

So basically the article is entirely false.

BonnieSituation

cgcsb wrote: »

Bus driver had a heart attack this morning. Everyone's aware it's bad. Property owners don't care.

Is everyone aware? Seems like if they were such things like Metrolink would be welcome without delay.

A bus driver having a heart attack should not cause a snarl up that blocks off A WHOLE CITY.

markpb

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well this is great...
https://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-quietway-for-dublins-southside-revived-after-metrolink-route-scrapped-4515123-Mar2019/?amp=1
It is important that the southside has some cycleways now that Metrolink is cancelled. I mean, really...

If we're not going to get a metro upgrade in the area, why not start talking about alternatives? Should we sit and do nothing instead?

marno21 wrote: »

It's a waste of time any of this stuff until Metrolink's revised route is confirmed.

The article says the councillor wants it raised at a meeting in April. We should have an announcement from the NTA about MetroLink before then. Assuming the leaks are right and the southern end of it is cancelled, there should be no problem discussing a cycle path at a meeting in April.

cgcsb

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is everyone aware? Seems like if they were such things like Metrolink would be welcome without delay.

A bus driver having a heart attack should not cause a snarl up that blocks off A WHOLE CITY.

Yep, Bachelors walk was to be car free 2 years ago, Arnotts and Mannix Flynn said no, so everyone else has to put up or shut up. That's how things work around here.

CatInABox

markpb wrote: »

If we're not going to get a metro upgrade in the area, why not start talking about alternatives? Should we sit and do nothing instead?

Realistically, there's no real alternative that will solve the problems that are coming for the Green Line. In this case, it may actually serve best to sit and do nothing. In three or four years, the Green Line will be significantly beyond capacity, and once that happens, complaints about a road closure will be drowned out by complaints about taking three hours to get home. This is going to happen even if the Southside Metro gets the go ahead tomorrow, the green line will be beyond capacity way before the Metrolink is brought to Charlemont.

The Metrolink upgrade wouldn't have caused a significant problem with this greenway either. An overpass was almost certainly going to be provided there anyway, so the complaining about it is a bit off base.

prunudo

A positive piece about Metrolink before 5 with Ivan Yates on Newstalk. Had a contributor from Trinity college, didn't catch his name but basically saying that the city shouldn't be held to ransom by differnet vested interests.
He laid out the facts as they are and as we see them here, not the misleading articles in the media of late.
Ivan was getting stuck into the nimbys and calling out the well connected people in Dublin who are holding up projects for the greater good.

Idbatterim

yeah Ivan yates talk a lot of sense. Catinabox- what you say is true, I have said it a while ago, it will be hilarious in a way to see the carnage that would happen, if you dont connect the lines BUT BUT, it will take them years to do anything about it, if they dont sort it until the realise what an idiotic mistake it was. If it was something that could be rectified in a few weeks, Id prefer that, show the morons up for what they are!

The alternative if they terminate at charlemont, is Id guess 2-3 years from now, they start metrolink, realise terminating it at Charlemont is non runner and apply for planning / change of planning early enough in the project. Madness, but you are dealing with idiots...

ncounties

The idea of bringing a new high capacity piece of infrastructure above ground so early on the south-side is absurd. Another cheap half as job. Build Metro North as originally planned, well except for the overground part near Ballymun (large yes, for now - future proof, yes also). Extend it south at the same standard when the money is there. Build DART Underground in between.

As for government clout etc. the problem is how parochial we all bloody are. Separate infrastructure and politics. Give an institute a mandate, and a guaranteed budget, and keep this from changing parties, and vote fearing TDs.

Synode

ncounties wrote: »

The idea of bringing a new high capacity piece of infrastructure above ground so early on the south-side is absurd. Another cheap half as job.

What's absurd about it? It costs far less than tunneling underground

MetroLinker

Idbatterim wrote: »

The alternative if they terminate at charlemont, is Id guess 2-3 years from now, they start metrolink, realise terminating it at Charlemont is non runner and apply for planning / change of planning early enough in the project.

You'd have to plan a whole termination of Metrolink at Charlemont (and everything that entails) and all the disruption surrounding this, get it through An Bord Pleanála and then bank on the fact that you'd be able to change it at a later date. They should do it right first time or risk never doing the connection it at all.

hmmm

Synode wrote: »

What's absurd about it? It costs far less than tunneling underground

From reading a lot of comments around this, I think a lot of people do not realise just how expensive it is to tunnel a metro. It's all "don't knock that outhouse, just tunnel under it for goodness sake", "don't run it overground, simply tunnel to Bray".

salmocab

MetroLinker wrote: »

You'd have to plan a whole termination of Metrolink at Charlemont (and everything that entails) and all the disruption surrounding this, get it through An Bord Pleanála and then bank on the fact that you'd be able to change it at a later date. They should do it right first time or risk never doing the connection it at all.

I agree with this, it’s now or run a serious risk of never. Even when it’s rammed and completely at capacity we will end up chucking deck chairs off the titanic trying to fix it.

Grandeeod

MetroLinker wrote: »

You'd have to plan a whole termination of Metrolink at Charlemont (and everything that entails) and all the disruption surrounding this, get it through An Bord Pleanála and then bank on the fact that you'd be able to change it at a later date. They should do it right first time or risk never doing the connection it at all.

Absolutely. We are in this position because of decisions made in the late 90s. The Green line was built to accommodate a Metro upgrade, but realistically it wasn't. Plans for tunnel tie ins etc. should have been explored back then. They weren't. If another fudge happens, the Green line will never become a Metro. It will become an example of ineptitude.

marno21

Grandeeod wrote: »

Absolutely. We are in this position because of decisions made in the late 90s. The Green line was built to accommodate a Metro upgrade, but realistically it wasn't. Plans for tunnel tie ins etc. should have been explored back then. They weren't. If another fudge happens, the Green line will never become a Metro. It will become an example of ineptitude.

Even without the tunnel plans back then, not bridging Dunville Avenue at the time was a bizarre decision. For such a small issue the hassle it's causing now is huge.

salmocab

marno21 wrote: »

Even without the tunnel plans back then, not bridging Dunville Avenue at the time was a bizarre decision. For such a small issue the hassle it's causing now is huge.

The original green line was pretty much done in the easiest fashion for whatever reasons. Terminating in SSG was beyond dumb, who builds almost to the city center?

marno21

salmocab wrote: »

The original green line was pretty much done in the easiest fashion for whatever reasons. Terminating in SSG was beyond dumb, who builds almost to the city center?

In Ireland you can take that to be cost unless otherwise stated.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

Even without the tunnel plans back then, not bridging Dunville Avenue at the time was a bizarre decision. For such a small issue the hassle it's causing now is huge.

I agree. The decision to not bridge Dunville Avenue was based on keeping it open to higher vehicles and the objections of lineside homeowners to a higher embankment. It was part of the original public consultations. Despite the fact that the original line overlooked these gardens, Nimbys got there way. Here we are again.

marno21

jvan wrote: »

A positive piece about Metrolink before 5 with Ivan Yates on Newstalk. Had a contributor from Trinity college, didn't catch his name but basically saying that the city shouldn't be held to ransom by differnet vested interests.
He laid out the facts as they are and as we see them here, not the misleading articles in the media of late.
Ivan was getting stuck into the nimbys and calling out the well connected people in Dublin who are holding up projects for the greater good.

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/metrolink-debacle-nimbyism-play

salmocab

jvan wrote: »

A positive piece about Metrolink before 5 with Ivan Yates on Newstalk. Had a contributor from Trinity college, didn't catch his name but basically saying that the city shouldn't be held to ransom by differnet vested interests.
He laid out the facts as they are and as we see them here, not the misleading articles in the media of late.
Ivan was getting stuck into the nimbys and calling out the well connected people in Dublin who are holding up projects for the greater good.

In fairness to Yates Ive heard him give out about nimbys plenty of times about different topics, particularly housing objections.

salmocab

I wonder is Ross playing this quite smart, he’s announced nothing and if the plans released in a few weeks are substantially the same with a few tweaks for objections he could make a lot of people who jumped the gun look quite foolish. Plenty of vested interests have declared victory on this matter and will hopefully end up looking like the half wits they are.

strandroad

salmocab wrote: »

I wonder is Ross playing this quite smart, he’s announced nothing and if the plans released in a few weeks are substantially the same with a few tweaks for objections he could make a lot of people who jumped the gun look quite foolish. Plenty of vested interests have declared victory on this matter and will hopefully end up looking like the half wits they are.

Isn't his constituency on the green line where people can't board the luas in the morning already? Perhaps mainframe infrastructure and the parish pump turn out to be one and the same for once!

salmocab

strandroad wrote: »

Isn't his constituency on the green line where people can't board the luas in the morning already? Perhaps mainframe infrastructure and the parish pump turn out to be one and the same for once!

Yeah pretty much, expect a station in Stepaside so. I think he has it in him to be shrewd enough and hopefully he plays a blinder on this regardless of his motives.

hmmm

strandroad wrote: »

Isn't his constituency on the green line where people can't board the luas in the morning already? Perhaps mainframe infrastructure and the parish pump turn out to be one and the same for once!

I'm sure he knows full well what the electoral consequences will be if he allows Metro South to be postponed at huge cost to his constituency, in order to keep a small group happy in a different constituency. He'll be hearing about this for the rest of his life - "but weren't you Minister for Transport when the decision was made not to convert the LUAS line to Metro?"

Idbatterim

Going to check what it costs on Facebook tomorrow to put up sponsored posts. Could really kick off the pandemonium then! Come up with our own headlines. “Green line to be unusable “ “ Ross abandons own constitutents” etc ...

L1011

Try to do better geofencing than the Shankill anti Busconnects group that set an ad that showed to me in Kildare

paddar

salmocab wrote: »

I wonder is Ross playing this quite smart, he’s announced nothing and if the plans released in a few weeks are substantially the same with a few tweaks for objections he could make a lot of people who jumped the gun look quite foolish. Plenty of vested interests have declared victory on this matter and will hopefully end up looking like the half wits they are.

I'll take one Metro with a side of schadenfreude please.

Marcusm

strandroad wrote: »

Isn't his constituency on the green line where people can't board the luas in the morning already? Perhaps mainframe infrastructure and the parish pump turn out to be one and the same for once!

I think he covers most of the stations between The Gallops and Windy Arbour.