Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

salmocab

bk wrote: »

True, though it could be ok in the short term, with still having enough capacity.

After all I would hope that it doesn't open to full capacity on day one and that it will be designed with room to grow as the population increases over the next 50 to 100 years.

Say a frequency of 3 minutes on each branch, 90 seconds on the shared section, could be ok in the short term.

But then also continue the tunnel North West so that eventually the SW tunnel is completely separate and the Metrolink tunnel goes back to full capacity.

Something like:
- Open the planned Metrolink is 2027.
- Keep the TBM in the ground and immediately start building a SW tunnel to open in 2030 - 2032. Sections shared
- Keep the TBM in the ground and continue the SW tunnel through the city to the NW for opening in 2035 to 2037. The two lines now are separated and full capacity.

Not a bad idea. I've always said that my hope for Metrolink is that it proves underground Metro's to the Irish people and that it will be only the first of many.

BTW I won't even bother to comment on the absolutely mad idea of cut and cover Metro through the SW :eek:

To go NW after the SW tunnel is done the TBM needs to be turned around and it can’t go back through the open part of the tunnel so really it needs to be extracted and put back in elsewhere.

CatInABox

salmocab wrote: »

To go NW after the SW tunnel is done the TBM needs to be turned around and it can’t go back through the open part of the tunnel so really it needs to be extracted and put back in elsewhere.

At that stage, it'll probably be easier to bring it out to the NW and put it into the ground there, be easier for removing the spoil.

bk

salmocab wrote: »

To go NW after the SW tunnel is done the TBM needs to be turned around and it can’t go back through the open part of the tunnel so really it needs to be extracted and put back in elsewhere.

Sorry, I meant North East! The North West should be well covered by DART Expansion and an eventual Dart Underground tunnel.

Basically take the TBM out once Metrolink is finished, start the SW tunnel from the furthest SW point towards the city, open the SW section once done, but keep the TBM in the ground and keep it going NE for the second phase.

D.L.R.

The SW branch is a non starter, economically. Sandyford to Airport needs to be a dedicated line and any branches outside that core section.

A SW-NE metro line is an interesting idea but fantasy football at this stage.

tom1ie

D.L.R. wrote: »

The SW branch is a non starter, economically. Sandyford to Airport needs to be a dedicated line and any branches outside that core section.

A SW-NE metro line is an interesting idea but fantasy football at this stage.

Why is it a non starter economically?

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Why is it a non starter economically?

There isn’t the money to pay for it, the Metrolink is already an expensive outlay, no government are going to add more into it before there is so much as a shovel turned on it.

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

There isn’t the money to pay for it, the Metrolink is already an expensive outlay, no government are going to add more into it before there is so much as a shovel turned on it.

Sorry I presumed the other poster meant there wasn’t a good business case for a S.W. line as opposed to there not being any money to build it. I agree there’s no money to be spent on it at the moment, but there is a good business case for it.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Sorry I presumed the other poster meant there wasn’t a good business case for a S.W. line as opposed to there not being any money to build it. I agree there’s no money to be spent on it at the moment, but there is a good business case for it.

Maybe he was to be fair. There is a strong case for it and I know this thread is for alternative routes etc but there is only one route that has a chance of happening currently and until there is a TBM in the ground I am just hoping that there is no attempt to change plans, as plans mean delays.

D.L.R.

tom1ie wrote: »

Sorry I presumed the other poster meant there wasn’t a good business case for a S.W. line as opposed to there not being any money to build it. I agree there’s no money to be spent on it at the moment, but there is a good business case for it.

There's a case for a SW line in some form, at some point. But the business case for the Green upgrade - for this project - is much stronger.

donvito99

Kow-towing to an idea of another alignment will ensure that both MetroLink or Metro to the south west city are shelved.

ncounties

What stations would be on the SW-NE Line?

bk

Just to be clear, I agree totally that we need to focus now completely on getting the planned Metrolink including green line built. That is priority number 1.

My suggestion is what will happen after Metrolink is built, not an alternative. A SW to NE Metrolink Line 2 you might call it.

I've always said that Metrolink will hopefully be just the first of a network of Metros built over the decades to come. Once Metrolink begins construction (actual TBM in the ground), then it would be good for the planners to start thinking about what comes next and if it makes sense to keep the equipment/TBM from Metrolink 1 to start on a Metrolink 2 once 1 is complete.

I think it would be a mistake, to say once Metrolink is done, to just say job done and then lose all the experience, talent and equipment built up for it by waiting say another decade before looking at a second line. Of course plans for a DART Underground tunnel needs to play into all this too.

But yes, lets get Metrolink built first.

Qrt

ncounties wrote: »

What stations would be on the SW-NE Line?

I'd say Leonard's Corner, Harold's Cross, Terenure Village, Bushy Park, Templeogue Bridge, Firhouse, Old Bawn Rd, Tallaght Square. Possible stations at Jobstown and Citywest (cos I live there)

salmocab

Qrt wrote: »

I'd say Leonard's Corner, Harold's Cross, Terenure Village, Bushy Park, Templeogue Bridge, Firhouse, Old Bawn Rd, Tallaght Square. Possible stations at Jobstown and Citywest (cos I live there)

Leonard’s corner, Harold’s cross, terenure, Rathfarnham,Ballyboden,Knocklyon, Firhouse, old bawn. Probably hits a lot more people. North side I’d imagine from Clontarf it would basically go north splitting the difference between dart and metro link but I don’t know it well enough to suggest the areas.

Rulmeq

Qrt wrote: »

I'd say Leonard's Corner, Harold's Cross, Terenure Village, Bushy Park, Templeogue Bridge, Firhouse, Old Bawn Rd, Tallaght Square. Possible stations at Jobstown and Citywest (cos I live there)

Might be nice to have a few extra stops:
Harold's cross -> Dolphin's Barn -> Crumlin -> Kimmage -> Terneure (and follow your route), although that might just turn it into a meandearing farce (and add massively to the cost, as that's all under ground, probably also add 20 minutes to the journey times, so I guess I've just argued against my idea)

Sam Russell

If you are looking to route the SW Metro, first the line must join up with the Metrolink. Either at SSG, Tara, or Whitworth Rod, or where you like. The aim must be to have maximum interchange for passengers.

Then decide the best places to have stops. Metros get a stop about 1 km apart. and need to be above ground to reduce costs.

Qrt

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you are looking to route the SW Metro, first the line must join up with the Metrolink. Either at SSG, Tara, or Whitworth Rod, or where you like. The aim must be to have maximum interchange for passengers.

Then decide the best places to have stops. Metros get a stop about 1 km apart. and need to be above ground to reduce costs.

Taking note of that, the whole thing could just go up the N81 tbh

Sam Russell

Qrt wrote: »

Taking note of that, the whole thing could just go up the N81 tbh

I think that myself (up the N81).

If Whitwort was chosen as the link with Metrolnk, it makes a good network. All the interchanges are quite close to each other, and if Dublin grows like it should, a few Km apart will be nothing, but fast Metros will be everthing.

ncounties

I personally think a future addition to the Metro Link project would be a circular line. Starting at Harolds Cross, it would go east via Rathmines, Ranelagh, Ballsbridge, up through Ringsend, Grand Canal Dock, Spencer Dock, Drumcondra and Whitworth Road. In time, the Western Edge could be connected via Stoneybatter. I think this would give good connectivity to what should be the outer reaches of a densely populated Dublin centre.

Equium

I played around with creating a routemap for a second metro line a while back. My major constraints were:

- Circa 1km spacing between stations (sometimes less in city centre)
- Stations to be built on open plots of land for ease of construction (i.e currently greenfield/brownfield sites)
- Provide at least one major P&R facility
- The line must interchange with metrolink, Irish Rail services and the LUAS

The route runs from the Tallaght, in the southwest, to Howth in the northeast. The northernmost section runs overground along the current DART spur to Howth, interchanging with the Malahide-bound DART line at Howth Junction/Donaghmede. An interchange with Metrolink is provided at O'Connell Street as I feel the alternative at Whitworth, whilst well connected, is not a destination in itself.

My proposed stations, from south to north, are as follows:

- The Square Tallaght (Interchange: Luas Red Line)
- Tallaght IT
- Tymon Park (P&R)
- Tempelogue Rd
- Rathfarnham West
- Rathfarnham Village
- Terenure
- Brighton Square
- Harold's Cross
- Clanbrassil Street/Leonard's Corner
- Christchurch/Wood Quay (Interchange: DART Underground*)
- Wolfetone Square (Interchange: Luas Red Line)(Could be left out)
- O'Connell Street (Interchange: Metrolink, Luas Green Line)
- Mountjoy Square
- Croke Park (Interchange: Irish Rail*)
- Philipsborough Avenue
- Whitehall
- Beaumont
- Kilmore
- Coolock
- Millbrook
- Howth Junction/Donaghmede (Interchange: Irish Rail, DART)
- Bayside
- Sutton
- Howth

A future northern spur from Kilmore to Northern Cross and beyond, via Danrndale, is certainly feasible should there be more development in that area.

antoinolachtnai

The point of building metros is really to open up development land so more people and businesses can be accommodated in the city. It is a big weakness of Metrolink is that it does this to only a limited extent.

Future metros and extensions will have to take that into account.

It is not really about serving today's neighbourhoods. It's really about creating new neighbourhoods to serve the next generation of Dubliners.

There is no real point in building multiple metro tunnels under historical areas where the density can't really be increased much.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The point of building metros is really to open up development land so more people and businesses can be accommodated in the city. It is a big weakness of Metrolink is that it does this to only a limited extent.

Ideally you want a bit of both. No point in running a Metro through nothing but greenfields either (see the WRC). You want a mix of them running through existing high density locations, major transport destinations (City Center, Airport, Universities, Hospitals, Stadiums, etc.) and yes green or brown field locations for lots of new high density development.

That is why Metrolink has such a good economic return, it is a very good mix of all of the above.

- It goes through some of the highest density neighbourhoods in the country (North Dublin City).
- It connects Irelands largest commuter town, Swords and one of biggest urban areas in the country, which currently has no rail based transport.
- It hits major transport destinations, the City, the Airport, DCU, Somewhat Croker, the Mater Hospital.
- But it also passes through lots of green fields sites with lots of development potential, both at it's Northern end around Swords and Southern end around Cheerywood SDZ.

It is actually almost the ideal balance of type of areas for a Metro.

Equium's suggested route looks nice, though it does lack new development locations and that is a weakness.

As an aside, for Equium's suggestion, if you went a bit further East to Hueston and then West to Connolly, it could almost get rid of the need for the DART Underground tunnel.

On the other hand, maybe the SW tunnel could be a spur off the DU tunnel instead.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The point of building metros is really to open up development land so more people and businesses can be accommodated in the city. It is a big weakness of Metrolink is that it does this to only a limited extent.

Future metros and extensions will have to take that into account.

I can understand how you might see it that way. Recent Irish Governments have a history of doing what developers want, adding extensions to the Red Line to Citywest to facilitate developers, and to the Point Depot to facilitate developers, long before they contemplated the LUAS cross-city line, which is enhancing lives in mature areas of north Dublin.

Other cities see metros as a way to reduce journey times between key points in their city, to reduce the carbon footprint, and generally to improve the quality of life.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is not really about serving today's neighbourhoods. It's really about creating new neighbourhoods to serve the next generation of Dubliners.

Today's neighbourhoods will also be lived in in the future, by the next generation of Dubliners. Do you expect that Harold's Cross is going to gradually disappear, as the current residents die?

There probably is a need to build new neighbourhoods for some of the next generation of Dubliners, but the old neighbourhoods will be there, and will need to have public transport.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is no real point in building multiple metro tunnels under historical areas where the density can't really be increased much.

It's true that you probably can't increase the density much in the city centre. But most cities with metros try to connect the different parts of the city in the most efficient way possible, and that often, or usually, involves building via the centre.

antoinolachtnai

This is the ‘i’m Alright Jack’ school of urban planning. There is so much wrong with this in a city which is running out of places for people to live.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can understand how you might see it that way. Recent Irish Governments have a history of doing what developers want, adding extensions to the Red Line to Citywest to facilitate developers, and to the Point Depot to facilitate developers, long before they contemplated the LUAS cross-city line, which is enhancing lives in mature areas of north Dublin.

Hold on there a second! Those extensions happened first because they were relatively speaking super cheap and easy to do while opening up significant new housing.

By comparison Luas Cross City went through the very heart of the city and was thus a vastly more expensive and difficult project then the extensions.

The extensions were basically high value, low hanging fruit.

You do know that the housing crisis is the biggest national issue at the moment?!

Any infrastructure projects that open up significant new housing will as a result get priority. That isn't to say that we won't eventually come back and do other missed mature areas too, we will definitely. But just that they won't be a priority until the housing crisis gets brought under control.

The housing crisis isn't just a crying shame for those directly effected, but it is also hurting our ability to attract IT multinationals and post-Brexit financial sector companies due to lack of housing for their employees, which hurts our competitiveness and economy in the long term.

The focus for the next 10 years has to be on lots of new housing and the infrastructure to support it. That is the simple reality.

ncounties

bk wrote: »

You do know that the housing crisis is the biggest national issue at the moment?!

Any infrastructure projects that open up significant new housing will as a result get priority. That isn't to say that we won't eventually come back and do other missed mature areas too, we will definitely. But just that they won't be a priority until the housing crisis gets brought under control.

The housing crisis isn't just a crying shame for those directly effected, but it is also hurting our ability to attract IT multinationals and post-Brexit financial sector companies due to lack of housing for their employees, which hurts our competitiveness and economy in the long term.

And how does good infrastructure within the canals not open up new housing? The city within the canals needs to flow more than the areas outside the M50, so that land prices continue to rise in the city centre, and it becomes more economical to redevelop land that is currently taken up by low-density, un-archecturally significant property.

We are not going to attract IT and Bank professionals because they can get a Luas to Stamullen. Nor do we need more urban sprawl with a hodge podge of random transport links that ultimately result in the vast majority in these newly found green field developments turning to their cars and making our road networks even more congested!!

roadmaster

bk wrote: »

Hold on there a second! Those extensions happened first because they were relatively speaking super cheap and easy to do while opening up significant new housing.

By comparison Luas Cross City went through the very heart of the city and was thus a vastly more expensive and difficult project then the extensions.

The extensions were basically high value, low hanging fruit.

You do know that the housing crisis is the biggest national issue at the moment?!

Any infrastructure projects that open up significant new housing will as a result get priority. That isn't to say that we won't eventually come back and do other missed mature areas too, we will definitely. But just that they won't be a priority until the housing crisis gets brought under control.

The housing crisis isn't just a crying shame for those directly effected, but it is also hurting our ability to attract IT multinationals and post-Brexit financial sector companies due to lack of housing for their employees, which hurts our competitiveness and economy in the long term.

The focus for the next 10 years has to be on lots of new housing and the infrastructure to support it. That is the simple reality.

One thing that gets thrown around alot is a national housing crisis. This is completely false its a Dublin housing crisis really only. You can buy a brand new house in navan for only 275k which is not bad. Apart from just having high rise in dublin standard apartment i cant understand how we dont build studio apartments. Everyother normal country has them and are perfect for people starting of in there careers and younger couples. I believe under the new housing strategy this being considered but they are not fully behind it in the government

marno21

roadmaster wrote: »

One thing that gets thrown around alot is a national housing crisis. This is completely false its a Dublin housing crisis really only. You can buy a brand new house in navan for only 275k which is not bad. Apart from just having high rise in dublin standard apartment i cant understand how we dont build studio apartments. Everyother normal country has them and are perfect for people starting of in there careers and younger couples. I believe under the new housing strategy this being considered but they are not fully behind it in the government

There's your problem. Lots of housing built in Navan because "it's 5 minutes from the M3!". More effective use of land in Dublin is what's needed. Build up not out.

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

There's your problem. Lots of housing built in Navan because "it's 5 minutes from the M3!". More effective use of land in Dublin is what's needed. Build up not out.

Same happening in Dunshaughlin as well, hundreds of houses going up in a one street town.

Keep it up like this and in a few years, they'll both be considered an ill-planned suburb of Dublin.

marno21

The way things are going, we'll have no room for suburbs on the M11 corridor because Wexford Town is effectively the only place that's no longer a commuter town on the M11.