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

CatInABox

plodder wrote: »

Good piece in the IT today.

MetroLink rethink a hammer to crack a nut

Analysis: Ranelagh residents may not get what they want as metro issue postponed

Makes same point that the existing junction will be significantly more congested now if tram frequency increased. Still, it can't be allowed to hold up the project now. It may be a mistake, but it's one we'll have to live with for the forseeable future.

I don't understand the point about disconnecting the power for 2 to 4 years though. That surely couldn't be true. If roads can be temporarily rerouted, as will happen in Ballymun, surely it's possible (and easier) with a power connection.

Olivia Kelly is very good with public transport projects.

Her point about the power cables is technically true, but missed a fair bit of it. The tie in works in that section were going to be "in line", meaning that all of the work would take place in the existing footprint of the Luas tracks, i.e. close the Luas in that section, remove cables, remove tracks, dig downwards to connect with the Metrolink tunnel, lay new tracks, replace cables. That plan is the one with the worst closures, and one that was never going to take place because of it.

paddar

plodder wrote: »

My understanding is that section is to be in a cutting, but without a "cover". Something I never understood before is how they planned to switch from underground to elevated without making a roller coaster out of it. Keeping that section below ground level deals with that problem. If it isn't covered, at least the foundation work should be done to allow for a cover in future.

I think the last paragraph shows what a Pyrrhic victory it has been for the concerned Dunville Avenue crew. Oh well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

''To compensate for the decision not to convert the Luas to a metro, the NTA plans to run 30 trams an hour, in each direction, on the Green line by 2028. That will mean a tram every minute going though the level crossing at Dunville Avenue, which will in effect make it an unusable route for motorists.

Idbatterim

paddar wrote: »

I think the last paragraph shows what a Pyrrhic victory it has been for the concerned Dunville Avenue crew. Oh well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

''To compensate for the decision not to convert the Luas to a metro, the NTA plans to run 30 trams an hour, in each direction, on the Green line by 2028. That will mean a tram every minute going though the level crossing at Dunville Avenue, which will in effect make it an unusable route for motorists.

Imagine the noise aswell on adjoining properties, particularly in back gardens! What would the frequency have been otherwise? One every minute and a half?

Idbatterim

paddar wrote: »

I think the last paragraph shows what a Pyrrhic victory it has been for the concerned Dunville Avenue crew. Oh well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

''To compensate for the decision not to convert the Luas to a metro, the NTA plans to run 30 trams an hour, in each direction, on the Green line by 2028. That will mean a tram every minute going though the level crossing at Dunville Avenue, which will in effect make it an unusable route for motorists.

I thought those liars said they couldn’t run more than 24ttph not so long ago ?

Idbatterim

Councillor shay Brennan is holding a meeting this day week , about the farce of not continuing it to sandyford. His dad Seamus Brennan was a good man , one decent ff td! Needle in a hay stack...

rameire

cgcsb wrote: »

Aside from Ikea there's no much out there. The nct centre maybe

Decathlon is going to be built beside Ikea.
Dublin City Council are to build a new centre there on Fingal Lands.
In beside the Circle K there are new apartments and houses going in.
Within Northwood on the lands beside Homebase and Lidl they are currenty building housing, there is also more planning in for accommodation for thousands of people within this area in Northwood, and there are stables nearby, the horses will be using the Metro.

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

I thought those liars said they couldn’t run more than 24ttph not so long ago ?

24tph on-street in the city is still the max they're intending to do and indeed the max practicable.

The 30tph will be Sandyford-Charlemont with turnback (presumably a third platform) at Charlemont

Idbatterim

When people say it’s at peak capacity , isn’t it a bit misleading? It’s over peak. People are using other modes at peak times , as it’s crushed!

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

I don't understand the point about disconnecting the power for 2 to 4 years though. That surely couldn't be true. If roads can be temporarily rerouted, as will happen in Ballymun, surely it's possible (and easier) with a power connection.

I think the problem is the way they intend to tunnel past Charlemont. I believe that they intend to tunnel underneath the existing track so as to avoid any disruption from adjacent property. To do this they will shut the GL during construction which could extend for quite some time. The alternative is to approach Beehwood from the west, and come up south of Beechwood.

There is also the question of whether they can use the overhead wires currently powering the trams, or whether these would need replacing - not an issue.

riddlinrussell

L1011 wrote: »

24tph on-street in the city is still the max they're intending to do and indeed the max practicable.

The 30tph will be Sandyford-Charlemont with turnback (presumably a third platform) at Charlemont

Having a turnback platform at Charlemont for this would be a very sensible investment, it can be used for increasing the frequency of the Charlemont-Sandyford section for now, then when the (almost) inevitable tie-in happens it can be used to aid turnback for the truncated green line Charemont-Broombridge/Finglas

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

L

There is a final issue, the media are useless, many of here agree with each other and are like an echo chamber. You would need crowd funding an organization on social media and in the press to fight this garbage head on in my opinion, they will keep winning until that point... it’s not about right or wrong with them , it’s about votes, the nimbys use pressure and there isn’t enough kick back from the likes of us yet, there isn’t the numbers, because a huge amount of people wouldn’t be on boards or as into these projects as we are or as relatively knowledgeable , it’s those massive numbers who would need to be properly informed and those rats would think twice then !

https://www.facebook.com/groups/dublincommuters/ is winning a few battles.

plodder

CatInABox wrote: »

Olivia Kelly is very good with public transport projects.

Her point about the power cables is technically true, but missed a fair bit of it. The tie in works in that section were going to be "in line", meaning that all of the work would take place in the existing footprint of the Luas tracks, i.e. close the Luas in that section, remove cables, remove tracks, dig downwards to connect with the Metrolink tunnel, lay new tracks, replace cables. That plan is the one with the worst closures, and one that was never going to take place because of it.

So, really the point is that there would be "disruption" to the Luas for 2-4 years; not that it would completely close down. That would be absurd. You could close a section for a period of weeks/months and run shuttle buses. Presumably that would have to be done to raise/lengthen platforms all along the whole route anyway.

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Having a turnback platform at Charlemont for this would be a very sensible investment, it can be used for increasing the frequency of the Charlemont-Sandyford section for now, then when the (almost) inevitable tie-in happens it can be used to aid turnback for the truncated green line Charemont-Broombridge/Finglas

Could they not use the SSG turnback? Charlemont stop is on top of a bridge.

Also, how does St Raphaela's Road manage with a tram every minute? They could deal with that now, mind you that gets another stop on a bridge.

CatInABox

Trawling through the Metrolink website, I just noticed that Boards.ie gets a mention.

It's in the media notice, here. They may include posts from here in any report that they do, like the tweets they put into the Public Consultation report.

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could they not use the SSG turnback? Charlemont stop is on top of a bridge.

Significant traffic interaction Harcourt Road/Harcourt Street/SSG south and an increased peak vehicle requirement the longer they run.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could they not use the SSG turnback? Charlemont stop is on top of a bridge.

Also, how does St Raphaela's Road manage with a tram every minute? They could deal with that now, mind you that gets another stop on a bridge.

I'd say it's almost certainly going to be SSG. That'll make the junctions down there interesting, to say the least.

They're still planning to do a bridge over St Raphaela's Road, just as a separate project now.

Idbatterim

That new document says it would carry fifty million terminating at Charlemont. What was it expected to be if terminating at sandyford ?

Also they neednt make me laugh. They want as many views as possible etc. if they are saying it’s a popularity contest , then we get metrolink to sandyford!

Not metronorthnabit!

Idbatterim

CatInABox wrote: »

I'd say it's almost certainly going to be SSG. That'll make the junctions down there interesting, to say the least.

They're still planning to do a bridge over St Raphaela's Road, just as a separate project now.

Anything that removes cost from the main project is to be welcomed!

CatInABox

plodder wrote: »

So, really the point is that there would be "disruption" to the Luas for 2-4 years; not that it would completely close down. That would be absurd. You could close a section for a period of weeks/months and run shuttle buses. Presumably that would have to be done to raise/lengthen platforms all along the whole route anyway.

No, under the in line plan the Luas would effectively be cut off at that section. The tracks simply wouldn't exist, it'd just be a hole in the ground. Trams could still run up to the works, so it wouldn't be totally closed, but that's causes a different problem, how do you deal with several hundred people getting off a tram every 4 minutes or so? Buses would be swamped in no time.

Actually, thinking about it now, depending on where the split in the line is, it may actually cause problems with the power being provided to the cables. It may have potential problems further afield than just the split.

PhilOssophy

Not reading the whole thread, but I honestly can't wait to see the whinging and moaning of people of the people of Ranelagh when every Luas arrives is packed with people from Cherrywood.

It'll be akin to the people beside the airport complaining about the proposed runway which was proposed well before even 1 of them was in their house.

Idbatterim

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Not reading the whole thread, but I honestly can't wait to see the whinging and moaning of people of the people of Ranelagh when every Luas arrives is packed with people from Cherrywood.

It'll be akin to the people beside the airport complaining about the proposed runway which was proposed well before even 1 of them was in their house.

The thing is though. The people attempting to block it , won’t use it at peak hours, if at all. It’s middle class middle aged to old tosssers, attempting to block it.

jd

Idbatterim wrote: »

I thought those liars said they couldn’t run more than 24ttph not so long ago ?

Keeping Dunville Avenue open to access across the line limits it to 24ttph.
Close Dunville Avenue to traffic and frequency can increase.
You could close roads to vehicular traffic between Charlemont and SSG to increase capacity too.

Idbatterim

jd wrote: »

Keeping Dunville Avenue open to access across the line limits it to 24ttph.
Close Dunville Avenue to traffic and frequency can increase.
You could close roads to vehicular traffic between Charlemont and SSG to increase capacity too.

That have quoted 30btph with dunville open!

PhilOssophy

Idbatterim wrote: »

The thing is though. The people attempting to block it , won’t use it at peak hours, if at all. It’s middle class middle aged to old tosssers, attempting to block it.

Usual story so, those with too much time on their hands!

Idbatterim

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Usual story so, those with too much time on their hands!

Yeah. And who do the politicians pander to the most as a demographic? The elderly as they pretty much all vote.

jd

Idbatterim wrote: »

That have quoted 30btph with dunville open!

30 ttph and it is effectively closed to vehicular traffic

Kevtherev1

Transport and sport committee are now live discussing metrolink in committee room 4

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr4-live/

Idbatterim

jd wrote: »

30 ttph and it is effectively closed to vehicular traffic

That’s what’s coming from the” experts “ who make it up as they go along ...

Marcusm

MJohnston wrote: »

Nah, pedestrians and cyclists had already been covered by the underpass solution. It wasn't acceptable to residents. This was 100% about car access.

Nope; the underpass would require either raising the Luas which would have resulted in the train passengers overlooking the gardens or would have been impossible for restricted mobility. The LOCAL opposition is substantially concerned with non motorised traffic.

Marcusm

CatInABox wrote: »

Olivia Kelly is very good with public transport projects.

Her point about the power cables is technically true, but missed a fair bit of it. The tie in works in that section were going to be "in line", meaning that all of the work would take place in the existing footprint of the Luas tracks, i.e. close the Luas in that section, remove cables, remove tracks, dig downwards to connect with the Metrolink tunnel, lay new tracks, replace cables. That plan is the one with the worst closures, and one that was never going to take place because of it.

That’s also what will be required when they are ultimately joined up which I personally think is short sighted. I think they should plan the tie in south of Beechwood not in line.