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

marno21

jd wrote: »

Some More documents appearing on the Metrolink site

eg
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/Metrolink_Green_Line_Construction_Methodology.pdf

Rest will appear at
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports

Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

MJohnston

That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace

AAAAAAAAA

Well, I was right about Beechwood being the last luas stop on the Northern section at least, and Ranelagh not having a metro stop.

Considering the major level of disruption to construct the new Beechwood station I should have been right about that too

Dats me

marno21 wrote: »

Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

Many pedestrian and cycling underpasses to be constructed which is nice. But yeah, nearly a year and a half Sandyford to Ranelagh closure is grim.

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace

Read the report again it’s not closing for 50 months!!!!

ted1

marno21 wrote: »

Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

19 month closure between charlemount and ranelagh.

If the leave the TBM in the ground then there’s no need for the additional 12.

Where’s the multi year ?

froinky

marno21 wrote: »

Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

Actually it looks like it would have been an ok solution - with the luas terminating at beechwood and metro going underneath.

I don't see any way that the green line tie in can be done without similar closures in the future.

D.L.R.

The time to do all this was in 1998 when there was no service to disrupt.

But the wasters in FF opted to build the cheapest possible system in Dublin while they went mad for rural motorways and ghost estates down the country where their voters live. Any spare millions were guzzled up fixing the M50 shambles of course.

Cars cars cars cars cars.

And the chumps in FG as usual left holding the turd sandwich. And Dubliners as usual the ones bearing the real cost.

MJohnston

ted1 wrote: »

Read the report again it’s not closing for 50 months!!!!

I'm talking about the Green Line Methodology Report, which on page 52 has a figure (24.1) which shows that in order to accommodate Dunville Avenue, the Green Line would be:

• Closed between Ranelagh and Beechwood for 32 months, then
• Closed between Ranelagh and Cowper for 2 months, then
• Closed between Ranelagh and Sandyford for 8 months, then
• Closed between Beechwood and Sandyford for 9 to 12 months.

dubhthach

D.L.R. wrote: »

The time to do all this was in 1998 when there was no service to disrupt.

But the wasters in FF opted to build the cheapest possible system in Dublin while they went mad for rural motorways and ghost estates down the country where their voters live. Any spare millions were guzzled up fixing the M50 shambles of course.

Cars cars cars cars cars.

And the chumps in FG as usual left holding the turd sandwich. And Dubliners as usual the ones bearing the real cost.

Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's

MJohnston

froinky wrote: »

I don't see any way that the green line tie in can be done without similar closures in the future.

In the future, presumably the hope is that there will be more money for the project, which could give them more options to reduce the amount of online work, and therefore closures, that would need to be done.

Tunneling further than Beechwood, down to the Dodder valley for example, would be significantly more costly, but would avoid having to do any disruptive tie-in work, or close Dunville Avenue.

Of course, if it gets to the point where we're able to spend much more money on more tunneling, then something like the Green Party's hypothetical UCD detour might make more sense.

This is all 20 years at least down the line though, sadly.

MJohnston

dubhthach wrote: »

Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's

It was still there in 2003, I believe.

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm talking about the Green Line Methodology Report, which on page 52 has a figure (24.1) which shows that in order to accommodate Dunville Avenue, the Green Line would be:

• Closed between Ranelagh and Beechwood for 32 months, then
• Closed between Ranelagh and Cowper for 2 months, then
• Closed between Ranelagh and Sandyford for 8 months, then
• Closed between Beechwood and Sandyford for 9 to 12 months.

Which is is only a partial closure it is very different than saying the green line is closed for 50 months.
Also if they tunnelled a little but further they could leave the machine there.

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

In the future, presumably the hope is that there will be more money for the project, which could give them more options to reduce the amount of online work, and therefore closures, that would need to be done.

Tunneling further than Beechwood, down to the Dodder valley for example, would be significantly more costly, but would avoid having to do any disruptive tie-in work, or close Dunville Avenue.

Of course, if it gets to the point where we're able to spend much more money on more tunneling, then something like the Green Party's hypothetical UCD detour might make more sense.

This is all 20 years at least down the line though, sadly.

It’d be cheaper to CPO every house on dunville avenue

Consonata

ted1 wrote: »

It’d be cheaper to CPO every house on dunville avenue

Not a bad idea tbh.

froinky

Consonata wrote: »

Not a bad idea tbh.

i doubt it would be cheaper.
you would not be long spending 500m around there

D.L.R.

dubhthach wrote: »

Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's

Can you imagine the idea of rebuilding that bridge?

"But but.. what about the light levels in Mr O'Malley's back garden at no.25? Surely that's the national priority here."

cgcsb

I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

-Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption


-Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace

no its down to spineless politicians and appalling planning!

Idbatterim

say you come out past dunville avenue, what is the cost to that and how long would the parts of the green line still be closed?

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

-Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption


-Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.

Idbatterim wrote: »

no its down to spineless politicians and appalling planning!

That's more or less it. This is the second time the can has been kicked down the road in this area. How long can they keep kicking it? Rhetorical question.:D

KD345

jd wrote: »

Some More documents appearing on the Metrolink site

eg
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/Metrolink_Green_Line_Construction_Methodology.pdf

This report really clears up any confusion on the work involved and the planned closures on the Green Line. I really hope this is what’s referenced in any future discussions on the link to Sandyford.

The more I read about the project I cannot understand why they’re not pushing ahead with the line to Sandyford. The solution at Beechwood should keep everyone happy and restores Dunville Avenue to its current state once the work is complete.

The closure of the Green Line between Ranelagh and Sandyford will be disruptive but can be managed with the right traffic planing. Whether that’s a special shuttle bus service with dedicated lanes, it can be done.

Have the NTA said absolutely no to the Sandyford extension, or is it still possible pending this consultation phase?

VeryOwl

jd wrote: »

Some More documents appearing on the Metrolink site

eg
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/Metrolink_Green_Line_Construction_Methodology.pdf

Rest will appear at
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports

That report link is broken on the site. Very amateur.

CatInABox

VeryOwl wrote: »

That report link is broken on the site. Very amateur.

I believe that they're taking them down to do last minute revisions.

Consonata

So is there still a chance of the tie in happening? Or is it completely out of the question at this point

salmocab

Consonata wrote: »

So is there still a chance of the tie in happening? Or is it completely out of the question at this point

As part of this project no it’s not happening.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

-Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption

-Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.

As I pointed out before, you don't have anywhere near as much disruption if you don't have to accommodate Dunville Avenue.

Cost wise - maybe, but we'll never know really.

As to the ultimate fate of Dunville Avenue, I certainly do hope it gets closed to through traffic one way or another.

Idbatterim

Say there was no dunville road to deal with, remove it from the equation. How long would the green line be partially closed for?

MJohnston

Idbatterim wrote: »

Say there was no dunville road to deal with, remove it from the equation. How long would the green line be partially closed for?

We don't really know.

The problem is, the report with the 50 month 'blockade' of the Green Line makes a few other choices that also influence duration of construction. These lengthen the partial closure period, but you might not make those choices if you don't start off by having to close the line for 30 odd months to accommodate Dunville Avenue anyway (essentially, 30 months is a tremendous sunk cost in terms of disruption, so an additional 12-18 months on top of that is far less significant, so the planning choices become less oriented towards reducing disruption time).

So, you decide that Dunville will be closed to traffic, removed from the equation. Then you might also decide that this gives you more flexibility as to where to place the tunnel portal and tie-in, and you might make different choices that tighten the partial closure period (such as being able to upgrade platforms during Green Line overnight downtime and keep the GL functioning continually). You might decide that it's better to go with a non-automated train system because it will mean far less disruptive work on the platforms. You might go with low-floor vehicles because it would mean NO disruptive work at all to platforms.

The hypothetical disruption timeline figures for the Green Line upgrade were as low as 3 months, in the original Emerging Preferred Route report.

Fian

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-luas-green-line-closure-metrolink-4563457-Mar2019/


Jounral.ie reporting that NTA confirm 2-4 year closure would have occurred, had the alternative of tunnelling under dunville avenue been pursued. Of course that would not have occurred if dunville avenue had been closed to mechanical traffic.