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

gjim

ncounties wrote: »

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

No, please no. Bringing it above ground near Cowper - as some of the NIMBYs suggest - is a terrible idea.

It would cost a great deal more.

What's worse is that anyone coming to/from Charlemont, Ranelagh or Beechwood to the airport (for example) would have to have to get a (slow) tram to O'Connell St and then manhandle their luggage down escalators. Given average wait times and the walking/lugging involved, this could easily add 20 minutes to the journey.

Linking at Charlemont maximises the utility of the metro by providing direct access to it from those three stations. Why would anyone suggest spending a LOAD of money tunnelling under an existing compatible line to make the system less useful and slower for lots of users?

It also terminates the Green line at a point which would support useful future extension. The line could be extended for example NE along the canal towards Grand Canal Dock/the Irish Bottle site or SW towards Terenure.

ricimaki

All of the tie in options are discussed in great detail in the green line tie-in PDF:
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-2/metrolink-1-gl-tie-in-options-appraisal-report.pdf

Here is a good summary between the various options, on pages 82/83 in the PDF. Appendix G on pages 143-152 give a much more detailed comparison of the Adelaide, Ranelagh and Beechwood tie-ins.



Tunnelling south of Beechwood is a waste of money. There would be duplication of tracks with no benefit to either the Luas or Metrolink lines.
Ranelagh offers a good financial benefit, but would involve closing that particular stretch of the green line for a year during construction.
Beechwood is more expensive than ranelagh, but with much less disruption during construction.

I personally hope they select the Beechwood south proposal. It is the tie-in option that is least likely to be NIMBY-ed out of the equation... (I'm sure they'll still try though)

antoinolachtnai

I think this is a good option and solves a lot of problems. There might be room for finessing the design too.

Maybe the land take could be reduced a bit by stacking the lines (northbound line below, southbound line on top) rather than having the lines on the same level. It would allow a narrower site and shorter ramps.

It might even be possible to save 1, 3, 5 Dunville Avenue (though I wouldn't want to be living in them whilst construction is underway).

Sam Russell

Beechwood South does have a lot going for it. It would cause little disruption to the Luas during tie in, not 4 years - more like 3 months.

Also, if the Metro dropped some of the stations between Beechwood and SSG, then that would save a considerable amount. The stations on the Luas are far too close together anyway.

Dropping unnecessary stations would improve travel time.

If the tie-in was Beechwood south, then the GL could split after Harcourt and some trams could go down Adelaide Rd towards Leeson St and onto (eventually) GCD. Demand for Harcourt to Beechwood would not justify trams every few minutes.

Marcusm

ricimaki wrote: »

All of the tie in options are discussed in great detail in the green line tie-in PDF:
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-2/metrolink-1-gl-tie-in-options-appraisal-report.pdf

Here is a good summary between the various options, on pages 82/83 in the PDF. Appendix G on pages 143-152 give a much more detailed comparison of the Adelaide, Ranelagh and Beechwood tie-ins.



Tunnelling south of Beechwood is a waste of money. There would be duplication of tracks with no benefit to either the Luas or Metrolink lines.
Ranelagh offers a good financial benefit, but would involve closing that particular stretch of the green line for a year during construction.
Beechwood is more expensive than ranelagh, but with much less disruption during construction.

I personally hope they select the Beechwood south proposal. It is the tie-in option that is least likely to be NIMBY-ed out of the equation... (I'm sure they'll still try though)

I agree that Beechwood Southbis preferable. It also has the advantage that Green Line vehicles can continue to access the Sandyford depot for maintenance and sleepy time.

I also think that there are likely to be fewer surprises in surfacing at lis rise Beechwood than at mid rise Charlemont close to the canal.

Idbatterim

I forgot about the Dundrum centrAl mental hospital site, don’t know if the yimby picture on Twitter Had it either. Meant to be one thousand + apartments planned for it and it’s a sub five minute walk to windy arbour luas. That’s two thousands apartments in three big and one big enough developments in dundrum / churchtown alone that are on top of luas lines...

gjim

ricimaki wrote: »

All of the tie in options are discussed in great detail in the green line tie-in PDF:
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-2/metrolink-1-gl-tie-in-options-appraisal-report.pdf

Thanks for the link - very informative.

I still prefer the 4B option 'though as it maximises the utility of the system for me - Ranelagh (and Beechwood) become metro stations which would be a huge upgrade for commuters coming to/from that cachment area (which is quite large effectively including a large part of Rathmines). The alternative means, for example, having to get a slow tram to Upper O'Connell St (or Stephen's Green with a walk?) in order to access a northbound metro.

Metrolink will become the most important PT artery in Dublin in terms of capacity and connectivity and the more people and destinations with direct access to it, the better and the more value the project will provide.

I'm not fully convinced either that the other options are more NIMBY-proof although you may have a point. The metrolink objectors are a bit like Brexit supporters - when asked about specifics, every one of them has a different idea of what the alternative to the emerging preferred route should look like (everything from tunnelling to Terenure to re-instating the embankment under the line). When you shift the works to somewhere else, it's likely you're just going to provoke a different bunch of NIMBYs - the more southern link-up options all will require heavy engineering works and property demolition in a leafy well-to-do area.

jd

More crayons. Metro to...Sandymount.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/fasttrack-metro-north-now-37852660.html

The Northern section of Metrolink must now be 'fast-tracked' after reports that the NTA has decided to drop the southern section of the line.

Labour TD for Fingal, Brendan Ryan, has reiterated his call for the Northise of the Metrolink development to be fast-tracked. Following reports today that the NTA is to abandon the Southline section of the proposed light rail development. The Northside section should continue ahead as planned.

..

'I would be of the opinion that a MetroLink connecting Sword to Sandymount would be of immense benefit to the entire city, for both Dublin locals and tourists.

(edit) Ok, in fairness it looks like a typo in the Indo.

AlmightyCushion

jd wrote: »

More crayons. Metro to...Sandymount.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/fasttrack-metro-north-now-37852660.html

Do you think he means Sandyford. That's the only logical reason I can see for why he said Sandymount.

salmocab

jd wrote: »

More crayons. Metro to...Sandymount.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/fasttrack-metro-north-now-37852660.html

So he wants this done in a hurry so suggests a new route. He sounds like one smart cookie. Wish he was my local TD.

Sam Russell

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Do you think he means Sandyford. That's the only logical reason I can see for why he said Sandymount.

It is in the Indo - do not believe the Indo. As the old joke goes - 'Believe nothing in the Indo, bar a good portion of chips - and even then only with a pinch of salt'.

The NTA have made no announcement about abandoning the South side Metrolink. They have made NO announcement about Metrolink. The Minister said he would not countenance a severance of the Luas of four years - or even two years. He did not mention the Metrolink not serving Sandyford - or even Sandymount. This is all speculation.

Idbatterim

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is in the Indo - do not believe the Indo. As the old joke goes - 'Believe nothing in the Indo, bar a good portion of chips - and even then only with a pinch of salt'.

The NTA have made no announcement about abandoning the South side Metrolink. They have made NO announcement about Metrolink. The Minister said he would not countenance a severance of the Luas of four years - or even two years. He did not mention the Metrolink not serving Sandyford - or even Sandymount. This is all speculation.

I agree. Probably just click bait and kite flying. When the nta let us know their preferred option , will there be another public consultation or whAt happens then ?

cgcsb

They'll never announce the cancellation of the southern portion. They'll break the project into a 'phase 1' and 'phase 2'. With Phase 2 being on the never never. If that does happen, it'll confirm that the country is run by a small well connected group of people and that 'public consultation' is basically a wealthy folks in FFG consultation.

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree. Probably just click bait and kite flying. When the nta let us know their preferred option , will there be another public consultation or whAt happens then ?

Here:

It is intended that NTA/TII will then publish a “Preferred Route” for the scheme later in the year, on which the public will again be invited to submit their views. The Preferred Route will then proceed to planning and it is anticipated that a Railway Order Application to An Bord Pleanála will be made in Q3 2019.

That was the original plan, but with the amount of delays, I'd be surprised to see the application this year.

Idbatterim

Good to know. Not upgrading green line as part of project immediately, isn’t even an option afaic! The **** is going to hit the fan before metrolink is built, even if it were on schedule.

It’s not like they can simply run a few more buses down the parallel qbc etc at that point. Roads In the area are choked!

Pete_Cavan

The NTA should spin all the NIMBY nonsense to their advantage at the release of the preferred route. "Following extensive engagement with the local communities, the final routing of Metrolink has allowed us to avoid several years of Green Line closures. The disruption will be limited to a three month period and Luas services will continue as much as possible. We would like to thank everyone for their participation in overcoming the concerns highlighted during this process".

Blow smoke up their holes and make them feel like they won. Of course, many will still be trying to derail the project but the NTA can say "we listened and took what you said on board". For all those not actually affected by Metrolink but believed the four year closure, get them on side by making it sound like they found engineering solutions to appease locals.

Idbatterim

Telling people that they won’t be getting on from dundrum or sandyford in a few years , is more than enough I’d say!

marno21

Idbatterim wrote: »

Telling people that they won’t be getting on from dundrum or sandyford in a few years , is more than enough I’d say!

Why this hasn't been made abundantly clear from the get go is astonishing.

The lack of publicising the necessity of the critical green line upgrade has allowed a bull**** fest to form from the information vacuum.

LXFlyer

Idbatterim wrote: »

Telling people that they won’t be getting on from dundrum or sandyford in a few years , is more than enough I’d say!

As I posted before, that is not really where the problem will be. Perhaps look at the service pattern before you post!

Remember that unless additional trams are purchased, the current timetable will be maintained which means that over half the trams actually start at Sandyford and not Brides Glen.

The inner stops will still be served by trams where people should be able (just!) to get on those Sandyford starters.

The problem will be (as it was last year) on the outer section between Brides Glen and Central Park where people simply wont be able to get on the trams that come in from Brides Glen.

Idbatterim

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I posted before, that is not really where the problem will be. Perhaps look at the service pattern before you post!

Remember that unless additional trams are purchased, the current timetable will be maintained which means that over half the trams actually start at Sandyford and not Brides Glen.

The inner stops will still be served by trams where people should be able (just!) to get on those Sandyford starters.

The problem will be (as it was last year) on the outer section between Brides Glen and Central Park where people simply wont be able to get on the trams that come in from Brides Glen.

You are right. But here is what actually matters. That line will be at capacity again in a few years , if what they actually plan on building now , gets built. This spinning that the green line upgrade is a luxury, it isn’t, it’s a necessity! Look I have flexibile hours , self employed, it won’t hugely effect me, I won’t use it at crush times, but when scenes of luas green line opening repeat themselves, people are going to be very angry for being intentionally misled or for listening to idiots ...

I read an article earlier that said more trams and extension of existing shorter green line trams on way, that will give capacity of 8160 passenger each direction. Will that be it then , in terms of their low hanging fruit? The number before they actually need a proper solution like metro?

cgcsb

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The NTA should spin all the NIMBY nonsense to their advantage at the release of the preferred route. "Following extensive engagement with the local communities, the final routing of Metrolink has allowed us to avoid several years of Green Line closures. The disruption will be limited to a three month period and Luas services will continue as much as possible. We would like to thank everyone for their participation in overcoming the concerns highlighted during this process".

Blow smoke up their holes and make them feel like they won. Of course, many will still be trying to derail the project but the NTA can say "we listened and took what you said on board". For all those not actually affected by Metrolink but believed the four year closure, get them on side by making it sound like they found engineering solutions to appease locals.

That's how it should work but the TDs will be making unqualified decisions.

cgcsb

In my experience the red line is more over crowded but there are no plans to metro-ise it.

The reality is, on street trams were never meant to provide long distance services to outer suburbs. Tallaght should have been served by DARTS every 10 minutes, with a supplemental tram service. The only way to relieve the red line in the future is:

- a future metroline, possibly from Talaght to Beaumont via Rathmines and Marino.
- Dart Underground from Heuston to Docklands.

both of which are now beyond 2040 realistically. West Dublin will just have to shrink it's population I guess.

LuckyLloyd

cgcsb wrote: »

In my experience the red line is more over crowded but there are no plans to metro-ise it.

The reality is, on street trams were never meant to provide long distance services to outer suburbs. Tallaght should have been served by DARTS every 10 minutes, with a supplemental tram service. The only way to relieve the red line in the future is:

- a future metroline, possibly from Talaght to Beaumont via Rathmines and Marino.
- Dart Underground from Heuston to Docklands.

both of which are now beyond 2040 realistically. West Dublin will just have to shrink it's population I guess.

I'd be interested in seeing some official data on the question of capacity / over capacity, but I completely agree that the red line feels like it's there or will soon be there with building of additional mass office space capacity at the Point end and housing capacity at the Tallaght / City West end.

We have a very interesting evolution in public perception of LUAS to come. At present it's all sunshine and lollipops, a great success. In five years, both lines will be unboardable at many stations during peak hours and offer a completely miserable experience for those able to onboard at a terminus. It will be interesting to see the change when people realise that trams are not the solution to everything (or counterpoint for those wishing to do nothing).

Pete_Cavan

Idbatterim wrote: »

Telling people that they won’t be getting on from dundrum or sandyford in a few years , is more than enough I’d say!

That's how Remain lost the Brexit vote, too easy to dismiss as "project fear" or whatever and can come across as a threat. Tell them that you specifically addressed the issues they raised, you won't get the militant NIMBYs onside but you can get the general public who previously believed the four year closure nonsense. Turn a negative into a positive, unless address it it will still be sitting there as a negative in people's heads.

Idbatterim

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That's how Remain lost the Brexit vote, too easy to dismiss as "project fear" or whatever and can come across as a threat. Tell them that you specifically addressed the issues they raised, you won't get the militant NIMBYs onside but you can get the general public who previously believed the four year closure nonsense. Turn a negative into a positive, unless address it it will still be sitting there as a negative in people's heads.

You are right, I am just sick of the idiots, kids gloves and cotton wool. I don’t even read most of the newspaper articles about the project any more. It’s been discussed to death. Suggest a new route and you simply delay it again and have other nimbies fighting the same battle.

Very good point about the luas being the darling of public transports image here and how that will change in a few years. There is no vision here, so everything has to be proven not to be a white elephant first (and run past joe soap public experts ), then all of the issues associated with that , raise their head.

CatInABox

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I posted before, that is not really where the problem will be. Perhaps look at the service pattern before you post!

Remember that unless additional trams are purchased, the current timetable will be maintained which means that over half the trams actually start at Sandyford and not Brides Glen.

The inner stops will still be served by trams where people should be able (just!) to get on those Sandyford starters.

The problem will be (as it was last year) on the outer section between Brides Glen and Central Park where people simply wont be able to get on the trams that come in from Brides Glen.

The problem isn't just confined to that area though, people are already getting left behind at stops like Windy Arbour, far closer to town.

It also doesn't deal with the evening problem either, getting home in the evening rush hour will be a free for all disaster

Idbatterim

That’s likely what it will take. Disaster! It’s why I believe it will eventually be built, not because it should be or needs to be. But Because those morons eventually will run out of road on the “do nothing option” at that stage, a few other morons petty concerns will be totally eclipsed!

I remember ages bank in this thread or another. Grandeeod predicted it would be decades away if ever iirc. I said I reckon it would be done and am fairly confident, but only because eventually they won’t have a choice ... so they aren’t going to get a bit of credit from me one way or another ...

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

Beechwood South does have a lot going for it. It would cause little disruption to the Luas during tie in, not 4 years - more like 3 months.

Also, if the Metro dropped some of the stations between Beechwood and SSG, then that would save a considerable amount. The stations on the Luas are far too close together anyway.

Dropping unnecessary stations would improve travel time.

If the tie-in was Beechwood south, then the GL could split after Harcourt and some trams could go down Adelaide Rd towards Leeson St and onto (eventually) GCD. Demand for Harcourt to Beechwood would not justify trams every few minutes.

What stations are unnecessary on Metrolink?

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What stations are unnecessary on Metrolink?

I think that there is no need to duplcate Luas and Metro station from the tie in to SSG. If the tie in is south of Beechwood, than a change point at Beechwood is enugh, then why have staions every 500m duplicating the Luas. In fact why have any when ommiting them improves travel time, and reduces costs.

If a station is needed, why not make it further east = say at Portabello? This would significantly increase the capture area for the Metro.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

The problem isn't just confined to that area though, people are already getting left behind at stops like Windy Arbour, far closer to town.

It also doesn't deal with the evening problem either, getting home in the evening rush hour will be a free for all disaster

They may be unable to get onto trams coming from Brides Glen on occasion, but they are by and large getting onto the Sandyford starters. If they weren’t there would be a lot more publicity about it, like the chaos of the first six months of last year when peak capacity was cut.

Agree re the evening to an extent, but commutes home are far more staggered than in the am peak and it is by no means as concentrated as in the morning.

I’ll stand by my comment that the main problem if nothing happens will be south of Sandyford in the morning.