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

spacetweek

Deedsie wrote: »

Especially when you add the 7000 expected employees etc that the new runway is expected to bring in. As if it remotely needed it but the case for Metro North with appropriate sized platforms is even stronger now.
Just get on with it.

In fact, since the employees have to get there and back every day, they are an even bigger potential user base than the airplane passengers.

Agree that 60m for surface stations is a good compromise but 90 is essential for underground ones.

I'm still not 100% on surface through Ballymun either, too many road junctions (6 I think). It'll be a luas getting blocked by cars in the middle of intersections.

Idbatterim

Could they elevate it through Bakunin to bring it over junctions but keep the cost down m? Not sure aesthetically of its a goer though...

I have emailed the NTA to find out when the public hearing for this scheme is. Building 60m platforms instead of 90m , when the user numbers are based on a lie to suit them, isn't on...

MJohnston

Idbatterim wrote: »

Could they elevate it through Bakunin to bring it over junctions but keep the cost down m? Not sure aesthetically of its a goer though...

I have emailed the NTA to find out when the public hearing for this scheme is. Building 60m platforms instead of 90m , when the user numbers are based on a lie to suit them, isn't on...

Worrying about aesthetics in Ballymun is a bit late

jd

Idbatterim wrote:

Could they elevate it through Bakunin to bring it over junctions but keep the cost down m? Not sure aesthetically of its a goer though...

Residents had a fit when this was in the original plans for metro through Ballymun. It was then proposed to tunnel as far as Northwood, which added a lot to the costs..

plodder

MJohnston wrote: »

Worrying about aesthetics in Ballymun is a bit late

It's actually not that bad. Nearly all the buildings on the main street are modern, decently designed. Running an elevated line through it would turn it into a wasteland again. A surface line would be far better. Underground tunnel best of all obviously.

MJohnston

plodder wrote: »

It's actually not that bad. Nearly all the buildings on the main street are modern, decently designed. Running an elevated line through it would turn it into a wasteland again. A surface line would be far better. Underground tunnel best of all obviously.

Its the fact that lots of the old Ballymun buildings are still around that makes it look so awful, although some of new flats aren't great either imo.

But it's funny you say that, the only other place in Dublin I can think of with an elevated light rail like are Charlemont/Ranelagh, probably two of the most fantastic parts of the city visually. I think it'd be less about elevated vs not than how you design it.

plodder

MJohnston wrote: »

Its the fact that lots of the old Ballymun buildings are still around that makes it look so awful, although some of new flats aren't great either imo.

The old shopping centre and adjoining pub are the only ones I can think of. There is some not very attractive open space as well, but I would guess that will be built on eventually

But it's funny you say that, the only other place in Dublin I can think of with an elevated light rail like are Charlemont/Ranelagh, probably two of the most fantastic parts of the city visually. I think it'd be less about elevated vs not than how you design it.

Not too familiar with the area, but from looking at a map, it's not quite the same. It's not a case of a light rail on stilts going down the main street. Those things work fine in big wide open spaces perhaps, but not on narrow-ish streets. The big mistake made in North America (in particular) with elevated highways and railway lines was fooling themselves into thinking the spaces underneath would be useful and not turn into unpleasant wastelands.

spacetweek

plodder wrote: »

The big mistake made in North America (in particular) with elevated highways and railway lines was fooling themselves into thinking the spaces underneath would be useful and not turn into unpleasant wastelands.

In Japan they opened shop units under the expressways in places like Osaka. It was successful and these are still trading.

Idbatterim

so we have a housing crisis in dublin, lets be honest, we all know that high capacity rail is the only answer to dublins problems. MN that has planning has been knocked on the head for a cheaper and inferior scheme. How much will this new cheaper scheme "save"?

if the existing scheme were to go ahead, less rolling stock could be ordered initially, to keep cost down a bit.

We are now faced with a situation, where MN has been scrapped based on a lie, that growth figures were too ambitious, yet listen to FG etc bang on about our great growth figures etc! Eh the dublin property crisis is worse than the boom, m50 busier than EVER, dublin airport busier than EVER and numbers growing massively...

If politically that figure cannot be stomached. Does it really take 5 bloody years of planning for a new scheme. Maybe scrap one underground city centre station as proposed (I am not saying this is idea, I would need to look into it more), go with less rolling stock (can be rectified easily) and maybe surface running in ballymun. Surely this is so close to the original scheme, that planning could be ready in a few months?

Also at this point, its beyond obvious that it is madness not to bring the tunnel out to ranelagh to hook up with metro south, which should be and is planned to be extended to bray. Dublin needs a high capacity north to south line asap.

forget metro west or any m50 upgrading on the recently upgraded bit, its a waste of time...

Idbatterim

Actually in ballymum, what was the opposition to it running at street level?

marno21

I genuinely can't see how everyone bar the Government sees that there needs to be massive investment in transport before the country grinds to a halt.

It's obscene how little investment there is in the country and there's a lot more suffering before anything is done.

markpb

Idbatterim wrote: »

Actually in ballymum, what was the opposition to it running at street level?

About four thousand at-grade junctions.

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

so we have a housing crisis in dublin, lets be honest, we all know that high capacity rail is the only answer to dublins problems. MN that has planning has been knocked on the head for a cheaper and inferior scheme. How much will this new cheaper scheme "save"?

if the existing scheme were to go ahead, less rolling stock could be ordered initially, to keep cost down a bit.

We are now faced with a situation, where MN has been scrapped based on a lie, that growth figures were too ambitious, yet listen to FG etc bang on about our great growth figures etc! Eh the dublin property crisis is worse than the boom, m50 busier than EVER, dublin airport busier than EVER and numbers growing massively...

If politically that figure cannot be stomached. Does it really take 5 bloody years of planning for a new scheme. Maybe scrap one underground city centre station as proposed (I am not saying this is idea, I would need to look into it more), go with less rolling stock (can be rectified easily) and maybe surface running in ballymun. Surely this is so close to the original scheme, that planning could be ready in a few months?

Also at this point, its beyond obvious that it is madness not to bring the tunnel out to ranelagh to hook up with metro south, which should be and is planned to be extended to bray. Dublin needs a high capacity north to south line asap.

forget metro west or any m50 upgrading on the recently upgraded bit, its a waste of time...

I think I've been around this ****e too long.:rolleyes:

The state does not want to build any form of Metro. It is not going to happen during our latest traffic crisis just like it didn't happen during our last traffic crisis. Dublin traffic has been a political topic since the 1960s believe it or not. We closed down the Harcourt street line in 1959 and the road lobby moaned about the increased traffic after areas along the route expanded housing wise. It took Dublin a further 45 ****ing years to actually do something with that particular alignment, after 32 bloody years talking about it.

Why?

Because Irish politicians do not care about rail transport as a solution where necessary in a capital city like Dublin. They couldn't even build luas without a tonne of BS going on and leaving it unlinked until the current works. Lets go back 33 years to the DART. Do you know what crap went on with that? How about the Maynooth line? Do you want to hear how that came about? Maybe we could look at the extension of the DART to Greystones for another example of how the politicians do things??

Nothing has changed.

monument

markpb wrote: »

About four thousand at-grade junctions.

There's relatively few junctions per km along the Ballymun Road between DCU and the M50.

Idbatterim

I read an article the other day, asking simply how long can this go on for, how much longer can these clowns bury their heads in the sand, with their do nothing approach.

I was reading an article in the times earlier about a development on falls road in shankill, it mentioned no footpaths, neighbours objections, the usual. I went onto street view and in fact, it is one lane with no footpaths. I then zoomed out, the amount of land down that area is incredible, Dublin is going to just keep on expanding, we can develop it at low densities like now or we can serve it with proper public transport and build at way higher densities.

If you look down that neck of the woods, land should be reserved for one or two luas spurs off the cherrywood line and build high density developments along it. The alternative is do the spread out a little more every few years with no proper infrastructure and use several times the land...



that image is just an example, but just further south from it, there is nothing but mostly fields and the land looks relatively flat...

cgcsb

markpb wrote: »

About four thousand at-grade junctions.

There are 3 crossroad type junctions and 8 other junctions where access is provided across the central median. Most of those 8 junctions can easily be re-arranged to provide alternate access and the 3 cross road junctions can be managed, initially with traffic light priority for metro or future road fly overs, for which there is ample room and the net result will be far cheaper than tunneling through Ballymun with the same speed and capacity. The only substantial issues with the revised metro north are:

1) the short platforms, which will cost untold millions(billion??) to fix and
2) The removal of the most import station at O'Connell Bridge which was to be the jewel in the crown of good connectivity.

Idbatterim

2) The removal of the most import station at O'Connell Bridge which was to be the jewel in the crown of good connectivity.

if they put that station under that hawkins house, the screen cinema etc, which is about to be redeveloped and put a pedestrian tunnel under the liffey to oconnell street.

I mean if planners agree with you eventually about the OC bridge stop, the only cost saving will have been to potentially save going underground in ballymun. The bull**** rolling stock argument, they can simply order less rolling stock initially, I mean its based on a lie, but if they want to keep initial headline price down...

A few things in my opinion have become obvious since the original metro north scheme 1. they wont fund the cost of the original scheme 2. not running the new scheme to ranelagh in tunnel is total bull**** 3. 60m platforms are beyond a joke, probably even for demand now, never mind the ten + years the currently hope or dont hope to have it running by...

My question is, are they now designing some bull****, that is going to have to be redesigned, when they release their proposals? This could be going on for god knows how long, so the government argument is, it was higher capacity than needed ( a lie) it now appears they are going to design an undercapacity line, which will be objected to because it is madness,

I wonder will they have some balls when a government is agreed upon and you would hope there is a few years until the next election. I doubt it...

say they decided, they would keep original scheme and just change to surface running in ballymun, could they begin construction on the scheme that has planning and reapply for permission changes only to the ballymun section?

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

There are 3 crossroad type junctions and 8 other junctions where access is provided across the central median. Most of those 8 junctions can easily be re-arranged to provide alternate access and the 3 cross road junctions can be managed, initially with traffic light priority for metro or future road fly overs, for which there is ample room and the net result will be far cheaper than tunneling through Ballymun with the same speed and capacity. The only substantial issues with the revised metro north are:

1) the short platforms, which will cost untold millions(billion??) to fix and
2) The removal of the most import station at O'Connell Bridge which was to be the jewel in the crown of good connectivity.

In fairness to markpb, I think he was jokingly referring to the fact that there are junctions and regardless of the actual amount, they were an issue and subsequently it was decided to put it underground.

I also disagree with you in relation to your substantial issues being only 2. All changes to apparently save money, will cost money eventually.

Rojomur

I cant help thinking that once again planners are missing the coveted interconnections that are possible between Metro N-luas-Dart-Dublin Bus. When hawkins house is demolished another station could be included between o Connell street and st stephens green stations under the new development where subterranean pedestrian links could connect the Dart at Tara street, the Luas at Trinity/Westmorland and also connect with all the Dublin Bus routes running through this general area. It would offer true city centre interconnectivity between all mass transport options with only a few short pedestrian tunnels. The land is already Government owned and these pedestrian tunnels are what make the likes of london tube stations accessable from different directions.

murphaph

We don't do public transport. The Interconnector design also severely reduces it's own catchment area by having far too few exits from each station. The catchment area of a multi billion Euro tunnel reduced by about a third simply because they skimped on the exits (should be AT LEAST one exit at each platform end and that exit should lead up to a mezzanine level which then splits AT LEAST left and right to surface on opposite sides of the road.

If we can't even design proper exits, we have no chance of designing underground walkways and other such 19th century space age ideas.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

If we can't even design proper exits, we have no chance of designing underground walkways and other such 19th century space age ideas.

We specialise in design, and re-design, and re-re-design. Not so good at building though so I suppose it does not matter whether the design is any good or not.

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

The only substantial issues with the revised metro north are:

1) the short platforms, which will cost untold millions(billion??) to fix and
2) The removal of the most import station at O'Connell Bridge which was to be the jewel in the crown of good connectivity.

3) It will allow the politicians to kick the MN can further down the road.

Grandeeod

Rojomur wrote: »

I cant help thinking that once again planners are missing the coveted interconnections that are possible between Metro N-luas-Dart-Dublin Bus. When hawkins house is demolished another station could be included between o Connell street and st stephens green stations under the new development where subterranean pedestrian links could connect the Dart at Tara street, the Luas at Trinity/Westmorland and also connect with all the Dublin Bus routes running through this general area. It would offer true city centre interconnectivity between all mass transport options with only a few short pedestrian tunnels. The land is already Government owned and these pedestrian tunnels are what make the likes of london tube stations accessable from different directions.

When the public consultation stage for the "revised" MN begins, you can put that case across. But expect the Hawkins House site to be already re-developed.

Sheep in a field

So how does this Dublin Metro North Line plan compare with London Underground's first line which opened in 1863??

L1011

Sheep in a field wrote: »

So how does this Dublin Metro North Line plan compare with London Underground's first line which opened in 1863??

It might make the 200th anniversary. Just

Rojomur

To reply to Grandeeod, i agree it would be too late as in the opportunity will have passed and in all honesty ive never been to any planning consultation and unlikely to make any in the future. Ive no engineering or planning qualifications but my post came from looking at a map of the proposed Metro N. It comes Soooo close to the DART that it seems criminal not to connect directly.Im not a native but Ive lived in Dublin for 13 years now and love it but having lived in other large cities which have interconnected heavy rail, light rail, bus etc... i cant help feeling that shortsighitness by planners hampered by funding and lack of government support meant that in the future when these projects are being built, future generations are going to see a blatent missed opportunity......red and green luas lines anyone???

Rojomur

And forgot to say,they will bemoan the fact they have to pick up the tab to rectify and properly connect the mass transport systems!!!🚍🚉🚋🚃😤😤😤

murphaph

Sure a connection between the Maynooth line and MN wasn't even seen as particularly necessary, despite them crossing at right angles. A continental or UK transport planner would be shot at dawn for even suggesting such a thing. It's like disconnected public transport is the norm in Ireland.

MN also comes agonisingly close to Donabate station, separated by some tricky green fields and again no planned connection. It's embarrassingly poor stuff.

Idbatterim

yeah murphaph when this opens for public consultation, not linking it to donabate and actually continuing tunnel to ranelagh will be a joke. At least there is a second chance to take a bit at the apple and a new scheme has the potential to be far better, if anything can be taken from the redesigning of the original scheme.

Also despite their best attempts to shaft us with that on street luas joke out to swords, if they couldnt do it despite their best attempts and just coming out of recession, good luck to them in future.

So we arent getting the joke option or the original scheme. So when this next scheme has been decided upon, they may try kick the can down the road in terms of when it will commence, but even out shower of gob****es, wont be able to dream up more tyre kicking, by creating another bloody cheaper hybrid scheme...

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah murphaph when this opens for public consultation, not linking it to donabate and actually continuing tunnel to ranelagh will be a joke. At least there is a second chance to take a bit at the apple and a new scheme has the potential to be far better, if anything can be taken from the redesigning of the original scheme.

Also despite their best attempts to shaft us with that on street luas joke out to swords, if they couldnt do it despite their best attempts and just coming out of recession, good luck to them in future.

So we arent getting the joke option or the original scheme. So when this next scheme has been decided upon, they may try kick the can down the road in terms of when it will commence, but even out shower of gob****es, wont be able to dream up more tyre kicking, by creating another bloody cheaper hybrid scheme...

There wasn't anything particularly wrong with the original scheme. It's final version was based on lots of public consultation and that included the link up with the Maynooth line. Only the Donabate link up was omitted.

So when this next scheme has been decided upon, they may try kick the can down the road in terms of when it will commence, but even out shower of gob****es, wont be able to dream up more tyre kicking, by creating another bloody cheaper hybrid scheme.

Wanna bet?