Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

mfceiling

MJohnston wrote: »

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

donvito99

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

A metro is unlikely to relieve the traffic though. If there's space for a car to fill, it'll be filled.

D.L.R.

lucernarian wrote: »

Sure, but I wanted to set the record straight. It's quite a jump to say this has never been done in any other country. Another one that springs to mind is converting the Hoek van Holland train line to light metro, but that's not being described as a tram so I left that out.

The luas system is, and always was, a cheap cop out by a gombeen govt more interested in land banking half of rural Ireland.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

A metro is unlikely to relieve the traffic though. If there's space for a car to fill, it'll be filled.

A metro is far more likely to get people out of their cars than buses, particularly when you consider that the area has the worst traffic congestion and the lowest bus speeds in the city, and it has the highest proportion of people commuting by car.

With even more apartment developments being built in Dublin 16 and Dublin 24 this is only going to get worse.

D.L.R.

Regards Charlemont as an end point.

To play devil's advocate a bit, if the route were indeed go SW or SE instead of linking into the Green line, then why go to Charlemont at all?

Why not serve a district east or west of it instead, such as Leeson Street or Portobello.

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where the line is even headed yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

gjim

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where you're even going yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

Agree completely - there's absolutely no point progressing past SSG without an actual plan. I presume the TBM can just be left underground a bit south of the station box.

MJohnston

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

I'm sure there's plenty of support in Terenue and Rathgar — by those arseholes I'm referring to the "communities not corridors" idiots.

Sam Russell

I am coming to the conclusion that connecting to the GL north of Charlemont as it solves the problem of the sewer, and the long term closure of the GL. This would mean that all current Luas stops south of Charlemont would become ML stops. Dunville Ave would close and as for St Raphaela's Road, that needs to be bridged, which is needed anyway, and could be done now..

Alternatively, route the ML to Portobello bridge, with a underground station, then take it south to Beechwood, just west of the station, coming to surface just adjacent to the line. The Metrolink station would be just South of the Beechwood Luas, with perhaps an underground station there, or alternatively, a surface station just south. Only one stop from SSG to Beechwood/Cowper.

Basically, SSG would be the interchange for Luas/Metrolink for passengers south of SSG, unless they walk a few hundred metres from Beechwood, or Cowper, or from Harcourt to Charlemomt.

lucernarian

D.L.R. wrote: »

The luas system is, and always was, a cheap cop out by a gombeen govt more interested in land banking half of rural Ireland.

That's fine, but inaccurate claims are not. Is that hard to understand or what is the issue here?

MJohnston

D.L.R. wrote: »

Regards Charlemont as an end point.

To play devil's advocate a bit, if the route were indeed go SW or SE instead of linking into the Green line, then why go to Charlemont at all?

Why not serve a district east or west of it instead, such as Leeson Street or Portobello.

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where the line is even headed yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

So then, you're leaving Charlemont, which had a Luas stop and has developed as such, without a Luas stop. Harcourt would be impacted too, which is a problem as there are lots of big offices being constructed here.

Whereas, if you terminate the Metrolink at an underground Charlemont station, with a new canal footbridge from the station entrance to Harcourt Terrace, you've provided a solution that let's you remove both Harcourt and Charlemont Luas stops in the future.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

So then, you're leaving Charlemont, which had a Luas stop and has developed as such, without a Luas stop. Harcourt would be impacted too, which is a problem as there are lots of big offices being constructed here.

Whereas, if you terminate the Metrolink at an underground Charlemont station, with a new canal footbridge from the station entrance to Harcourt Terrace, you've provided a solution that let's you remove both Harcourt and Charlemont Luas stops in the future.

I would think the Luas should go along Adelaide Road as far as Leeson St or even further - maybe as far as Grand Canal Dock. Even if they allow the GL to go as far as Ranelagh, some could go on the Adelaide Rd extension - perhaps 50% or more. GCD is less than 2 km from Charlemont.

gjim

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am coming to the conclusion that connecting to the GL north of Charlemont as it solves the problem of the sewer, and the long term closure of the GL. This would mean that all current Luas stops south of Charlemont would become ML stops. Dunville Ave would close and as for St Raphaela's Road, that needs to be bridged, which is needed anyway, and could be done now..

Great! I think that makes two of us.

The downsides identified previously by the old MN team are the technical and engineering challenges of cut n' cover along Earlsfort terrace.

But the upsides are compelling for me - never mind the extra tunnelling, you save all the cost and disruption of building/mining underground stations from Charlemont potentially to Milltown. You're talking about 3 to 5 underground stations to replicate the catchment of the existing Luas. And you extract maximum value of the existing alignment for metro.

This leaves the Luas terminating in Harcourt St which offers natural paths for extension for an on-street tram - down Adelaide Rd to Irishtown, Ballsbridge or Donnybrook or west to Terenure - places where I think on street tram makes a lot more sense.

gjim

MJohnston wrote: »

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

Actually when they evaluated connecting the metro to the existing Luas alignment north of Charlemont, they suggested the Harcourt St stop as the new Green Line terminus with turn-back facilities around the corner on Adelaide Rd. So there'd be little/no waste of existing infrastructure.

Sam Russell

gjim wrote: »

Great! I think that makes two of us.

The downsides identified previously by the old MN team are the technical and engineering challenges of cut n' cover along Earlsfort terrace.

But the upsides are compelling for me - never mind the extra tunnelling, you save all the cost and disruption of building/mining underground stations from Charlemont potentially to Milltown. You're talking about 3 to 5 underground stations to replicate the catchment of the existing Luas. And you extract maximum value of the existing alignment for metro.

This leaves the Luas terminating in Harcourt St which offers natural paths for extension for an on-street tram - down Adelaide Rd to Irishtown, Ballsbridge or Donnybrook or west to Terenure - places where I think on street tram makes a lot more sense.

In fact I would put a new Luas line from GCD to Dolphins Barn following the canal to Portabellow and then the South Circular to meet up with the Red Line, with facilities for trams to go to Parnell from either end.

It would transform travel along that route.

salmocab

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

Paddico

salmocab wrote: »

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

What a load of Christmas cake.
Typical BS from politicians

strassenwo!f

The simple thing is, of course, to build the metrolink from Swords/The Airport to the city, via Ballymun, Drumcondra, Mountjoy Square. O'Connell Street (and this time with a decent connection to the LUAS red line), College Green , St. Stephen's Green West (Green LUAS), and on to points in the south-west of the city:Camden Street, Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, etc.

You'd then have an obvious target, College Green, which the city is struggling to pedestrianise, as a potential metrolink/DART/LUAS interchange for any east-west DART Underground project which might happen in the future.

iffandonlyif

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The simple thing is, of course, to build ... to points in the south-west of the city: Camden Street, Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, etc.

Am I missing something? The simplest thing is surely what they’re doing, i.e. converting pre-existing track? SW is a massive undertaking.

1huge1

iffandonlyif wrote: »

Am I missing something? The simplest thing is surely what they’re doing, i.e. converting pre-existing track? SW is a massive undertaking.

You must be new here (You are 100% correct by the way)

GerardKeating

salmocab wrote: »

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

In the original "Platform for Change" Metro South was the continuation of Metro North to Tallaght, via Kimmage, Harold Cross etc.

bk

GerardKeating wrote: »

In the original "Platform for Change" Metro South was the continuation of Metro North to Tallaght, via Kimmage, Harold Cross etc.

On that Map, there are two Metro lines to the South. The Green Luas line upgraded to Metro and extended to Bray and a second south west one heading to Tallaght.

I've always said it makes sense to build two separate Metro lines like this, with the obvious priority being on upgrading the Green line as it is the cheap and relatively easier option. The SW line (and the resulting orbital metro) would come after.

BTW I have to say I would have love to have gotten the system in that Map, I'd have a Luas almost outside my door.

tom1ie

GerardKeating wrote: »

In the original "Platform for Change" Metro South was the continuation of Metro North to Tallaght, via Kimmage, Harold Cross etc.

I note that its surface metro from kimmage on. Where were they planning on finding the space for this? Knocking down estates was it!

Telchak

tom1ie wrote: »

I note that its surface metro from kimmage on. Where were they planning on finding the space for this? Knocking down estates was it!

Along the Poddle I think. There was some talk of running a Luas line that way in one of the more recent strategies.

yascaoimhin

bk wrote: »

On that Map, there are two Metro lines to the South. The Green Luas line upgraded to Metro and extended to Bray and a second south west one heading to Tallaght.

I've always said it makes sense to build two separate Metro lines like this, with the obvious priority being on upgrading the Green line as it is the cheap and relatively easier option. The SW line (and the resulting orbital metro) would come after.

BTW I have to say I would have love to have gotten the system in that Map, I'd have a Luas almost outside my door.

That plan may have made sense when it was envisaged. But in the future Metro South from SSG to Sandyford will require full service capacity, not half service serving it and half serving Tallght.

bk

yascaoimhin wrote: »

That plan may have made sense when it was envisaged. But in the future Metro South from SSG to Sandyford will require full service capacity, not half service serving it and half serving Tallght.

Yes, I see what you mean, at first glance it looks like two separate lines but at a closer look they share the core city center section. Looks like they are like 90% separate.

I'd prefer a Metro 2 being a separate North-East to South-West line or something similar. The above ground running sections of the Tallaght line in the map aren't realistic anyway.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Yes, I see what you mean, at first glance it looks like two separate lines but at a closer look they share the core city center section. Looks like they are like 90% separate.

I'd prefer a Metro 2 being a separate North-East to South-West line or something similar. The above ground running sections of the Tallaght line in the map aren't realistic anyway.

The above ground sections were I think using the land that had been reserved for a busway to Tallaght since the 1970s, another abandoned idea.

strassenwo!f

I was in the centre of Dublin at the weekend - and finally saw the massive areas around Poolbeg Street and Tara Street where old buildings have been knocked down and new ones will be reconstructed.

It is a puzzle that it appears nothing could have been done to build an underground metro station, within 50-100 metres of Tara Street overground station, in that large block. A couple of underpasses could have connected them nicely, and such a metro station would have had a closer connection to the city centre and the LUAS.

Imstead, the plan is that the metrolink (coming from O'Connell Street) will go beyond the Tara Street station, have a poorer connection with the LUAS and the city centre, and will necessitate demolition of a perfectly fine apartment block and sports centre.

I, for one, am flummoxed.

TheW1zard

They should combine a bus interchange for bus connects, a metro station to the airport, with the dart underground all at Heuston Station. It would also link up the train lines with Dart.

How?

Build over Heuston Station and make it a transport hub for the city. Make the surrounding roads an orbital loop and enclose the train station and yard. It would be an entire new commercial hub while you're at it.

strassenwo!f

I agree with some, but not all, of that, but it certainly does raise questions re the DART Underground project and the metro.

If DART Underground ever happens, it shouldn't be a problem to find space to incorporate it into the whole Heuston environment, given the space that is there - and, as you sensibly suggest, add serious bus capabilities there too.

But you have, currently, in a very central block in Dublin, a vast space where a large swathe of former office blocks and other buildings have been razed. I'm not aware that this area beside Tara Street Station has been appraised for its potential use public transport hub.

I have always been in favour of the DART Underground project, for several reasons but particularly as I see it as a way to vastly improve transport between the western suburbs and the city centre. The original route, with a big loop via St. Stephen's Green (where the LUAS was stuck for a few years) was clearly a half-assed back-of-a-fag-packet job to make sure that the underground DART would connect with the LUAS.

My position (15 years ago, or so) was that the LUAS would be extended, which indeed it now has been, and that a DART Underground route through College Green would make sense, as the city was looking at pedestrianising that area. The city is now, still, actively trying to pedestrianise that area, and I have seen nothing yet to change my view that a metro/DART underground interchange there would be the way to help it replicate, or probably much exceed, its current public transport function. Even as a pedestrianised location - look at dozens of pedestrianised locations in Europe with metros and stuff running under them.

Even if College Green were deemed too difficult, the whole area around Tara Street might have presented the authorities with an opportunity to develop an interchange or hub, yet that enormous chunk around Tara Street seems to have been razed and rebuilding has started, without so much as a whimper.

strassenwo!f

It's still quite difficult getting around this new boards.ie arrangement - I can't really see how it's an improvement, especially if you want to quote somebody. But, hopefully they are getting there.

Catinabox: Population density around Glasnevin isn't significantly lower than at Drumcondra, perhaps slightly, but not significantly.

Strassenwo!f: Despite you saying there was no difference, it has been categorically shown on this board, in the last few days, that the population density in Drumcondra is about 40% higher than it is at Glasnevin, and the population is also considerably higher. A moderator says that the density issue will eventually take care of itself: this seems unlikely, to me, when much of the normal catchment area you'd expect around a station is made up of a very large graveyard which is probably going to remain there for the life of this metro, but we shall see.

Catinabox: Engineering wise, Drumcondra is a worse place to put it, it either involves significantly more CPO activity, including those businesses you talk of, or shutting down a main road for a significant amount of time. Neither of those two options are possible. It's also possible to mine out the station, but seeing as they're avoiding that at all costs, including demolishing an apartment block in a housing crisis, then that's not happening either.

Strassenwo!f: Many metro stations, in many metro systems I've seen, have stations which are built under roads. Most of the ones I've seen were built by restricting (not closing) a section of main road for a period of time during construction, then restricting another bit during the later phase. All quite normal in construction of a metro. It should be quite straightforward, and I would certainly query why such construction can be done in many other cities, yet in Dublin it is deemed to be, by the poster Catinabox, 'Not Possible'.

I'm afraid I do seem to get the impression that the metrolink project is being broadly run by engineers, who naturally look for the easiest engineering solution, like the Glasnevin idea, even if it involves cannabilisation of the LUAS. The urban planners are not having much of a say here, or if they are, they seem to be doing little with it.