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

Idbatterim

This entire thing is a clusterf**k. The closure periods seem insane to me. On similar projects in other countries , are they of a similar time frame ?

Can the tbm be effective “turned back on” years after it might not have been used ? Would running it to Charlemont as planned and then veering off to rathmines and terminating there make sense ? Tunnel length would be pretty much the same as planned now and would allow for extension to sw in future...and give rathmines a metro stop!

prunudo

I'm surprised that the work they planned would take so long. I really don't know how it could take 4 years given we were told it was built with metro in mind. 4 years is a lot of construction work.

jd

jvan wrote: »

I'm surprised that the work they planned would take so long. I really don't know how it could take 4 years given we were told it was built with metro in mind. 4 years is a lot of construction work.

Probably because it is an inline tie in that keeps Dunville Avenue open and minimises property acquisition.

Idbatterim

With those insane timelines, property acquisition would be more palatable. Effectively from what I make of this with the farcical timelines, if they are to be believed. That metro might never make it past Charlemont! The partial closure of the green line on those farcical time scales , isn’t remotely practical in my opinion...

marno21

Lads ye have to remember that any inconvenience to Ranelagh residents that may impact FG votes in Dublin Bay South is the primary consideration here. Closing roads and buying up gardens is out of the question.

On a more serious note, it may be worthwhile if they get Metrolink through planning and then start work on a separate Green Line tie in that does require property acquisition. That way objections in the Ranelagh area can't slow down the main project

cgcsb

The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

marno21

Solutions are available but they aren't compatible with people who want quicker access to Mortons.

Funny thing is they will be getting quite used to red lights at Dunville Avenue if the Luas frequency increase goes ahead.

PhilOssophy

cgcsb wrote: »

The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

Its called shock and awe, go in saying the worst possible scenario and then row it back....

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

Did you read the report? The 4 year figure is a direct result of the work of the likes of Rethink Metrolink to keep Dunville Avenue open to cars.

The demands that this happen meant that an alternative route was drawn up that would involve far more work than just platform upgrades and track relaying at the tie-in spot. The bulk of time for the closure would have been taken up by excavating for the Beechwood cut-and-cover, and then rebuilding Beechwood station.

Now, I do agree that even with all that, 4 years seems like an excessive estimate for closure, but I'd imagine the same locals would have complaints about construction hours, limiting it to a very small window on weekdays. (Ironically Dunville Avenue would have been closed during construction too!).

Jamie2k9

‪ https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0329/1039403-metrolink/‬

Idbatterim

Ff Councillor says the below. Is it true ? Holding a meeting on Wednesday in the goat pub ...


So options are:

1) Close minor rd in Ranelagh, disrupt Luas for 3mts, have full metro to Sandyford

2) Keep minor rd in Ranelagh open, increase costs to lengthen tunnel, disrupt Luas for 4yrs, have full Metro

3) Keep minor rd in Ranelagh open, increase costs to lengthen tunnel, disrupt Luas for 8mts – 12 mts to lengthen platforms for longer trams, have no Metro

Looks like we’re heading for option 3!!!

Idbatterim

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

‪ https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0329/1039403-metrolink/‬;

Your link is dead Jamie. Here is what I assume you were linking too. Boo hoo , a few duplex in the city centre get knocked. They’ll be given somewhere else free to live. My heart breaks!

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0329/1039403-metrolink/

L1011

DCC should be looking medium term at densifying all the Gregory Deal and similar era duplex and townhouse units it owns in D1/2/4 anyway. They have more pressing housing matters now though

CatInABox

L1011 wrote: »

DCC should be looking medium term at densifying all the Gregory Deal and similar era duplex and townhouse units it owns in D1/2/4 anyway. They have more pressing housing matters now though

In fairness to DCC, they seem to be positive about Metrolink, at least judging from what the Deputy Chief Executive said about the tenants being looked after and "re-accommodated".

I've always found DCC to be quite good at being realistic, and I'm pretty sure that TII, NTA, and DCC are hammering out an agreement around the gym as well.

PhilOssophy

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness to DCC, they seem to be positive about Metrolink, at least judging from what the Deputy Chief Executive said about the tenants being looked after and "re-accommodated".

I've always found DCC to be quite good at being realistic, and I'm pretty sure that TII, NTA, and DCC are hammering out an agreement around the gym as well.

Professional organisations are generally realistic people. Unfortunately, they get met with politicians of protest, NIMBYist groups and people who just want to stifle progress.

Idbatterim

Dcc are a pisstake beyond comprehension!

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

Dcc are a pisstake beyond comprehension!

Hmmm.... Perhaps I should have clarified that they can be realistic when it makes sense for them.

cgcsb

The same DCC who, in the 6 years leading up to the completion of luas cross city, done NOTHING to mitigate against the predicted traffic impacts such as closing the quays to cars and pedestrianising College Green. Wasn't it 6 weeks before the LCC opening date they actually decided to apply to close the Green to cars?

Busman Paddy Lasty

Idbatterim wrote: »

Your link is dead Jamie. Here is what I assume you were linking too. Boo hoo , a few duplex in the city centre get knocked. They’ll be given somewhere else free to live. My heart breaks!

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0329/1039403-metrolink/

No mention of the old buildings on Luke st and Townsend st. Presumably they'll get the chop.

IT notes them in an article about early social housing projects circa 1917. Half expecting some form of protest!

MetroLinker

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

No mention of the old buildings on Luke st and Townsend st. Presumably they'll get the chop.

IT notes them in an article about early social housing projects circa 1917. Half expecting some form of protest!

I think they are older than that - you can see them in the background of this blockade image from the 1916 Rising:


Image looks like it's taken outside the current Irish Times building.

jd

Some reports are available again, for those who didn't get them earleir.
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports

Tara Street Option Report
Preferred Route Design Development Report (Summary)

Busman Paddy Lasty

MetroLinker wrote: »

I think they are older than that - you can see them in the background of this blockade image from the 1916 Rising:


Image looks like it's taken outside the current Irish Times building.

Nice! Note scaffold and hoarding surround the building. Could have been not yet finished or up for another reason.

Either way, hopefully the Metro and station can plough on.

Pete_Cavan

With time, I would expect Dunville Avenue to close to cars. As Luas frequency increase, the closing will be closed for extended periods. Initially it will be closed for a couple of hours in the morning and evening commuter peaks. These hours will get extended and it will become a route to be avoided for most of the day (imagine the hassle of cars trying to do U turns because it is closed, or the queue of traffic when it reopens not clearing it before it closes again for the next Luas). A pedestrian bridge will probably have to be put in to appease the locals when the temporary closure is first introduced.

Rather than tunneling directly under the Green Line, if the end section of the tunnel was slightly to the west, it would allow for future extension (be that tying in to the Green Line or another tunnel along another route). The Oakley Court apartments would become the future College Gate, no choice but to demolish them as part of the next phase. If a new route is pursued, tunnel from its southern end to Oakley Court and connect the tunnels and extract the TBM there. If tying in to the Green Line, it becomes the tunnel portal (along with a few houses) and bring the tracks up to ground level and tie in without the need to excavate under the existing Green Line tracks, minimising disruption. These are all future problems, at this stage we just need to make future extension possible by not ending the tunnel directly under the Green Line.

L1011

The capacity isn't there for an extension to anywhere else - as the Green Line passengers will all be piling on regardless.

If there's to be a metro line to the south west, it'll have to be an entirely new line. Which is only a problem for funding.

Pete_Cavan

L1011 wrote: »

The capacity isn't there for an extension to anywhere else - as the Green Line passengers will all be piling on regardless.

That may be but residents along the Green Line fought to prevent it from being upgraded now, they will have to fight to have it upgraded in the future. My point was that ending the tunnel under the Green Line prevents any kind of extension without ripping up a chunk of the Green Line for several years which will never be accepted. If the tunnel terminates beside the Green Line and is accessible without closing the Green Line, knocking a few houses and apartments and closing Dunville Avenue will likely become acceptable as the Green Line exceeds capacity.

Idbatterim

L1011 wrote: »

The capacity isn't there for an extension to anywhere else - as the Green Line passengers will all be piling on regardless.

If there's to be a metro line to the south west, it'll have to be an entirely new line. Which is only a problem for funding.

what about my idea of initially running it to charlemont as currently proposed and then stopping the tbm in rathmines, no extra distance over current proposal, so no cost issue and it could be extended further south later and it would give rathmines a metro stop. I dont know if I understand you correctly or just am not sure you are right, but the 60m driverless metro, that can operate at 90 second intervals and can be lengthened to 90m. They can take massive capacity, how would metro be swamped?

the vast majority on green line are going to the cbd, so they would stay on the green line and get off at charlemont, harcourt or SSG...

Pete_Cavan

Idbatterim wrote: »

what about my idea of initially running it to charlemont as currently proposed and then stopping the tbm in rathmines

I'm going to have to stop you right there. We want the project to proceed, bringing another bunch of entitled headbangers into the mix is not going to help.

Idbatterim

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I'm going to have to stop you right there. We want the project to proceed, bringing another bunch of entitled headbangers into the mix is not going to help.

but would it be that contentions? there wouldnt be another dunville scenario in terms of road closure and the cost, would be virtually the same. cost benefit could be better... I do agree that I am only putting that out there to get a feeler? Look metro north was sank by timing, and I wouldnt be surprised if this is too. All I can hope is, that if this bloody project gets snookered again F**K reinventing the wheel, park it until there is the political will to get it done. Can you imagine us discussing metro north V3 here in a decade? no thanks!

salmocab

A stopped tbm can’t just start up and keep going it needs a huge compound to extract spoil and insert Labour and materials. There is no way we will have hundreds of trucks a week leaving rathmines/Ranelagh or anywhere else near there.

Dats me

I do agree that an "in-line" tie-in that requires excavating tracks is a poor option. Since Dunville Avenue will be effectively closed anyway given the increased frequency there's no point in trying to save it, I think I'll put in my submission that the tunnel should stop west of Beechwood, let the tie-in take only a shirt time.

I don't think it's ridiculous that they're not taking this option however. Tunnelling under people's houses and publishing that "these apartments may be CPO'd sometime in the next 20 years" will not go down well at all. Very likely to decrease property value etc. In many places they've made the route and project worse to appease people ad increase the chance of the yoke getting built. Nowhere more so than on the Green Line. There would be little political sense in making all those changes if you're going to make other changes that make new people angry and whinging to their politicians