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

Muahahaha

Vast majority of the submissions were related to Beechwood station and Dunville Avenue

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1112648013955112960

PhilOssophy

We need to stop politicians from interfering in our infrastructural decisions. Be it apartments, roads, rail, whatever. These decisions should be made without the consideration of politicians.
But of course in Ireland, they love to be heroes – saving Na Fianna’s pitch, saving Dunville Avenue, protesting about apartment developments, St. Annes Park, etc.
Until we all stop whinging and moaning to these self-serving tools, we will get the Ireland we deserve – an inefficient, traffic jammed one. Because the needs of the many should always outweigh the needs of the few.

Shedite27

In fairness Phil, if there were no regular people upset by these things, the politicians wouldn't be involved. They're not doing it for the sake of it.

Consonata

Shedite27 wrote: »

In fairness Phil, if there were no regular people upset by these things, the politicians wouldn't be involved. They're not doing it for the sake of it.

The people who are against the line are being amplified though, just because people who aren't for something kick up a larger fuss than people who benefit from something. Like its pretty much exclusively Dunville avenue who are why this line is getting kicked to the curb.

salmocab

PhilOssophy wrote: »

We need to stop politicians from interfering in our infrastructural decisions. Be it apartments, roads, rail, whatever. These decisions should be made without the consideration of politicians.
But of course in Ireland, they love to be heroes – saving Na Fianna’s pitch, saving Dunville Avenue, protesting about apartment developments, St. Annes Park, etc.
Until we all stop whinging and moaning to these self-serving tools, we will get the Ireland we deserve – an inefficient, traffic jammed one. Because the needs of the many should always outweigh the needs of the few.

I agree broadly but as I keep saying around here these protests and objections are okay and many legitimate but it’s how we deal with them that’s important, not all objections are nimby some are legitimate. We need to be able to cut through the nonsense objections and deal with the legitimate ones.

antoinolachtnai

I think they have done an ok job with the politics. They haven’t got everything they want, but they might just have what they need.

MetroLinker

The Tara Street assessment is now online:
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development_Appendix_M.pdf

On page 26, in the Assessment Summary section, they seem to indicate that the proposed development for Tara Street isn't a suitable option for the Metrolink.

From my understanding, the preferred route option is Option 0 in the Appendix. This option is rated as having a 'significant impact' - two of the proposed alternatives also have this impact rating.

In the Assessment Summary on Page 26, the following is noted (I've put the line in bold):

Option 0 – This was the original solution proposed for the EPR ... However, this option has significant property impacts on the College Gate Apartment building and would result in a loss of important leisure facilities at the Markievicz Centre. This option is not recommended.

All the other options have a similar note - do you think TII are going to abandon the Tara Street stop if they are all 'not recommended'? As in, will they will just straighten the line between O'Connell Street and Stephen's Green and omit the stop?

They come to the conclusion that Option 0 is their chosen option but don't address the issue of it being not recommended. Surely the option being chosen should be recommended?

salmocab

MetroLinker wrote: »

The Tara Street assessment is now online:
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development_Appendix_M.pdf

On page 26, in the Assessment Summary section, they seem to indicate that the proposed development for Tara Street isn't a suitable option for the Metrolink.

From my understanding, the preferred route option is Option 0 in the Appendix. This option is rated as having a 'significant impact' - two of the proposed alternatives also have this impact rating.

In the Assessment Summary on Page 26, the following is noted (I've put the line in bold):


All the other options have a similar note - do you think TII are going to abandon the Tara Street stop if they are all 'not recommended'? As in, will they will just straighten the line between O'Connell Street and Stephen's Green and omit the stop?

They come to the conclusion that Option 0 is their chosen option but don't address the issue of it being not recommended. Surely the option being chosen should be recommended?

Tara street is one of the most important stops on the whole thing it won’t be getting dropped

CatInABox

MetroLinker wrote: »

They come to the conclusion that Option 0 is their chosen option but don't address the issue of it being not recommended. Surely the option being chosen should be recommended?

It's actually indicative of how difficult it is to find a satisfactory option for Tara St, which is noted as being one of the key interchange stations on the Metrolink line, and is predicted to be the busiest station.

From my read of it, they acknowledge that the building take at Tara St is a "serious impact", but seeing as all other possible options are worse in various ways, they're left with no choice but to go with Option 0.

So no, they're not going to skip building quite possibly the most important station in Dublin.

D.L.R.

Summary of Tara St Assessment, in layman's language:

"We've looked at all the options the gobshytes with no expertise have proposed, just to humour them, and we've concluded that, yes, the professionally drafted option we spent years considering is still better than all the gobshyte back of a beer mat suggestions"

Muahahaha

Would be madness if they abandoned the Tara St interchange over 70 apartments that are going to be rebuilt anyway. Better to think about the millions of journeys per year that will be able to easily interconnect between Metro and Dart.

Sam Russell

Are there not elections coming - a GE and local elections. Once they are out of the way, the crayons will be back in the box and the real options will be pulled from the drawer with a 'here are some plans we prepared earlier' type statement from the NTA.

I think the '4 year closure' of the GL is just a sop to the NIMBY crowd, who when push comes to shove, will be shoved out of the way.

Shedite27

salmocab wrote: »

I agree broadly but as I keep saying around here these protests and objections are okay and many legitimate but it’s how we deal with them that’s important, not all objections are nimby some are legitimate. We need to be able to cut through the nonsense objections and deal with the legitimate ones.

Totally agree. "Nimby" is a word people use when they just want to put down the other side's argument without understanding them. Think most on here are very much pro-development and pro-metrolink, it's easy to get suckered into a "we're the majority" mindset

Sam Russell

Shedite27 wrote: »

Totally agree. "Nimby" is a word people use when they just want to put down the other side's argument without understanding them. Think most on here are very much pro-development and pro-metrolink, it's easy to get suckered into a "we're the majority" mindset

I think the term NIMBY is used for objectors that only object to the parts of a project that actually negatively impinges on their back yard.

How many Dunville Ave objectors were from the parts of the project that was outside 2 km of Beechwood stop? I would think - none. They are NIMBY objectors.

I could object to a plan the severs the Luas GL so that the Sandyford depot is separated from the CC and the northern part of the GL, maybe because I think it introduces a loss of flexibility. I would not be affected personally by such a plan, and therefor am not a NIMBY. If I objected because it would put the Metro just 2 metres from my Kitchen window or took 5 metres from my garden, then that is NIMBY.

I am in favour of Metrolink because it is a very good plan. It could be tweaked but overall it is much needed - and needed now.

Build it as planned - now.

MJohnston

salmocab wrote: »

Tara street is one of the most important stops on the whole thing it won’t be getting dropped

CatInABox wrote: »

So no, they're not going to skip building quite possibly the most important station in Dublin.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Would be madness if they abandoned the Tara St interchange over 70 apartments that are going to be rebuilt anyway. Better to think about the millions of journeys per year that will be able to easily interconnect between Metro and Dart.

I agree it would fairly bad to leave out Tara Street, but let's not forget that Metro North didn't have a Tara Street station, and that one got a railway order.

marno21

MJohnston wrote: »

I agree it would fairly bad to leave out Tara Street, but let's not forget that Metro North didn't have a Tara Street station, and that one got a railway order.

Metro North was designed with DART connectivity in mind at Drumcondra and SSG.

Metrolink has DART connectivity with existing railway lines rather than planned ones. (Yes there is work to be done at Glasnevin but the railway lines themselves are there)

Sam Russell

Mod: Please keep this thread to the published plans for Metrolink. Off topic posts moved to this thread where they fit. .

Sorry for any inconvenience.

MetroLinker

D.L.R. wrote: »

Summary of Tara St Assessment, in layman's language:

"We've looked at all the options the gobshytes with no expertise have proposed, just to humour them, and we've concluded that, yes, the professionally drafted option we spent years considering is still better than all the gobshyte back of a beer mat suggestions"

While humorous, this is a poor conclusion to read from the report. Like all these reports, they have a matrix of impacts and it is the weighting of the impacts that gives their final outcome. If you set different weighting, you can get a different result.


For example, they admit that it is definitely feasibile to construct the station under the Markievicz Gym and College Gate building, but (p.21):

It should be noted that this method of construction typically carries higher construction safety risks than the open box construction and is thus a less preferable form of construction if other options are available.

Also, I am absolutely convinced that posters on this board would be able to give meaningful input into the design of the Metrolink. Remember that the "professionally drafted option" passes through other parties before arriving on your screen. You might not see the 'best' option if they don't want you to.

Dats me

MetroLinker wrote: »

While humorous, this is a poor conclusion to read from the report. Like all these reports, they have a matrix of impacts and it is the weighting of the impacts that gives their final outcome. If you set different weighting, you can get a different result.


For example, they admit that it is definitely feasibile to construct the station under the Markievicz Gym and College Gate building, but (p.21):

Also, I am absolutely convinced that posters on this board would be able to give meaningful input into the design of the Metrolink. Remember that the "professionally drafted option" passes through other parties before arriving on your screen. You might not see the 'best' option if they don't want you to.

Surely you can agree that they know at this stage that they're taking the most controversial option and the only political problem that they've left in the route. They state clearly why they've chosen this and they've clearly put a lot of work in. With the passenger numbers the interchange absolutely has to be of high quality.


Do you have any reason to think that they're lying so that they get to knock college gate? Or maybe an option can be the best option and and still have downsides.

salmocab

I don’t see why they would be picking this option if there was a better option. This involves demolishing 70 apts and a swimming pool, whilst other options would have been easier to get through.
It seems to me they are picking the best long term option which is what should be happening not the politically easiest one.

MetroLinker

For example, just take a look at the review of Option 1 - Station under Hawkins House.

They reject this option based on (p.16) "the unacceptably low track radii needed to align both stations, which are incompatible with TBM tunnel construction" but this argument is based trying to align the tracks with they previous vertical scheme for the Hawkin's House site, which had a different track layout.

If you took their baseline option and shift it across to the Hawkin's House site (link to larger image):


You can see that the track radius is actually improved on the baseline option as it lines up closer to O'Connell Street. The underground tunnel is reduced by ~120m. By just discounting this option due to the original station alignment (which was their own), they didn't even run their analysis on the other aspects of this Option - utilities, urban integration, traffic impacts, demolition of buildings, etc.

I totally understand all the arguments regarding direct connectivity into the DART station. However, my point is that the report should be read with a critical eye.

Amirani

MetroLinker wrote: »

t.
If you took their baseline option and shift it across to the Hawkin's House site (link to larger image):


You can see that the track radius is actually improved on the baseline option as it lines up closer to O'Connell Street. The underground tunnel is reduced by ~120m. By just discounting this option due to the original station alignment (which was their own), they didn't even run their analysis on the other aspects of this Option - utilities, urban integration, traffic impacts, demolition of buildings, etc.

Your alignment closes Poolbeg Street and probably Hawkins Street, so the Green Line Luas can't run during construction; this isn't an acceptable option.

Muahahaha

I was just thinking earlier that there must be engineers employed today within TII/NTA and from the former RPA who worked on the initial Luas project from 1999 onwards and are now 20 years further into their career and likely in senior decision making roles. Back during the Green Line construction they were probably young lads patting themselves on the back at having the foresight to make the Green Line easily upgradable to Metro standard.

And here they are now 20 years later in their 50's and it is not going to be upgraded to Metro for another 20 years, 2038 they say. They'll be retired before a decision taken at the very beginning of their career actually gets implemented 40 years later. Now there's a story they can bore their grandkids with.

Grandeeod

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was just thinking earlier that there must be engineers employed today within TII/NTA and from the former RPA who worked on the initial Luas project from 1999 onwards and are now 20 years further into their career and likely in senior decision making roles. Back during the Green Line construction they were probably young lads patting themselves on the back at having the foresight to make the Green Line easily upgradable to Metro standard.

And here they are now 20 years later in their 50's and it is not going to be upgraded to Metro for another 20 years, 2038 they say. They'll be retired before a decision taken at the very beginning of their career actually gets implemented 40 years later. Now there's a story they can bore their grandkids with.

I'd say most of them left for bigger and better things........abroad!

Muahahaha

I'd say many did head abroad Grandeeod no doubt attracted by the opportunity to work on large scale projects like the Jubilee Line, Olympic Stadia, Crossrail,etc. But somewhere within TII/NTA I'd bet theres a few homebird engineers who've been there since the Luas days and who are now looking at this Green Line Metro fudge and they're shaking their heads that the prescient plans put in place to easily upgrade to Metro two decades ago now won't come to fruition for a further two decades. Over a 40 year career in transport design this latest fudge must be a some kind of standout head scratching WTF moment for them.

Marcusm

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'd say many did head abroad Grandeeod no doubt attracted by the opportunity to work on large scale projects like the Jubilee Line, Olympic Stadia, Crossrail,etc. But somewhere within TII/NTA I'd bet theres a few homebird engineers who've been there since the Luas days and who are now looking at this Green Line Metro fudge and they're shaking their heads that the prescient plans put in place to easily upgrade to Metro two decades ago now won't come to fruition for a further two decades. Over a 40 year career in transport design this latest fudge must be a some kind of standout head scratching WTF moment for them.

The Jubilee line was well built before the Luas. I suspect any serious engineer on the Luas project is long gone - what would they have been doing between them and now. Much better to have engineers moving from active project to active project gaining execution/construction experience rather than theoretical desktop design.

marno21

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'd say most of them left for bigger and better things........abroad!

Indeed. It wouldn't be nice at the pinnacle of your career to be tasked with designing a fudge to not annoy people who could vote for Eoghan Murphy and don't want their route to Morton's impacted.

Pixel Eater

Why doesn't the NTA just come out and say definitely that the demolished building will be rebuilt with an expanded gym, a few stories taller and with extra apartments? I know this is the assumption but no one has actually come out and said it, as far as I'm aware. Allay a lot of the fears.

CatInABox

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Why doesn't the NTA just come out and say definitely that the demolished building will be rebuilt with an expanded gym, a few stories taller and with extra apartments? I know this is the assumption but no one has actually come out and said it, as far as I'm aware. Allay a lot of the fears.

Once construction of the station has finished, they'll sell off the land to be redeveloped. It's up to whoever buys it to make the most use of the land, and I'm not sure that the NTA can put restrictions on what can and can't be built there.

I'd eat my hat if An Bord Pleanala don't make expanded leisure facilities a requirement of any development there though. They'll probably make reference to it in the railway order, just so that any buyer knows exactly what they're getting into.

wowy

https://twitter.com/electionlit/status/1113531530285076480


Has this LE candidate not got this totally wrong? He's saying that the Charlemont-Sandyford section is being upgraded to a segregated metro service? Isn't the revised proposal for that section to just increase existing luas frequency to every 2 minutes?

Also, unsurprising to see the "2-4 year disruption" line still being peddled by politicians and candidates.