Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Rulmeq

Sam Russell wrote: »

Dunville Ave is a problem because the design of the Luas Green Line went for the cheap option of a level crossing instead of a proper bridge. The original line had a low bridge that could accommodate cars but not buses. It is a case of cheap today costs more tomorrow.

Let us not repeat the cheapskate option with Metrolink. The extra tunnel to pass Dunville Ave is small beer compared to cost of raising the track. The interchange at Tara might cost a block of flats and a swimming pool, but they could be built locally on another site, but trains cannot swerve out of the way.

You can forgive them going for the cheap option, knowing that the plan always was to upgrade it to metro. But the metro is the last upgrade, so it should be treated as the 100 year infrastructure that it is, instead of worrying about the short term.

Idbatterim

There has been talk of the experts here in the Nra. They have no experience of building or running a mass transit system. So to think they are beyond questioning or criticism is laughable!

Podge_irl

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But this board allows people to remind readers of what is happening in other places. In this case, that there are are tram systems, with several car interactions, which are running 30+ trams per direction per hour.

There are tram systems where, on a brief section, multiple routes come together to run at a 30tph rate. That is not the same as running at 30tph on a 19km track. It is also not the same doing it with 30m trams as it is with 50m trams.

There are a huge number of parameters that will define the maximum capacity of a line. The fact you can find the odd example of a higher tram rate under completely different circumstances is not that relevant.

JohnC.

Idbatterim wrote: »

There has been talk of the experts here in the Nra. They have no experience of building or running a mass transit system. So to think they are beyond questioning or criticism is laughable!

Do you know everyone involved in this project and their previous professional experience?

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

There has been talk of the experts here in the Nra. They have no experience of building or running a mass transit system. So to think they are beyond questioning or criticism is laughable!

Nra? National Rifle Association?

You are right they definitely know nothing about public transport :P

Do you mean National Roads Authority which no longer exists and have nothing to do with public transport.

The RPA (Railway Procurement Agency) built the Luas, and they are now part of TII along with the old NRA. The planners from the RPA who built the Luas are those now building the Metro.

You know the Luas, the most successful mass transit system in Ireland and one of the highest capacity tram systems in the world.

And BTW the RPA was formed originally as a division of rail planners within Irish Rail, before being made independent.

Idbatterim

I meant the nta ...

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

I meant the nta ...

The NTA projects are designed by international consultants.

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

I meant the nta ...

But Metrolink is being designed and built by Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), not the NTA.

TII, via the old RPA, designed, built and operate the Luas and now the same people are designing the Metrolink, with the help of international consultants.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

But Metrolink is being designed and built by Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), not the NTA.

TII, via the old RPA, designed, built and operate the Luas and now the same people are designing the Metrolink, with the help of international consultants.

I’m pretty sure I read someone on here saying the nta were completely overwhelmed with work as they were doing bus connects, metrolink, Dublin airport runway 2 all at the same time?
Something about them only having 60 staff?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

I’m pretty sure I read someone on here saying the nta were completely overwhelmed with work as they were doing bus connects, metrolink, Dublin airport runway 2 all at the same time?
Something about them only having 60 staff?

Well strictly speaking those three projects are being run by different groups.

NTA - BusConnects, both network redesign, infrastructure side, rollout of GA services, new ticketing, 90minute ticket, etc.
NTA also seem to be heavily involved with DART changes, etc.
TII - Metrolink, Luas new trams, various motorway projects.
DAA (Dublin Airport Authority) - the 2nd runway

Folks seem to mix NTA and TII up quiet a bit. Of course they are sister organisations and work closely together, but they are separate.

So strictly speaking different people, but yes, an awful lot going on at the same time and massive amounts of feedback from consultations, etc. to work through.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Well strictly speaking those three projects are being run by different groups.

NTA - BusConnects, both network redesign, infrastructure side, rollout of GA services, new ticketing, 90minute ticket, etc.
NTA also seem to be heavily involved with DART changes, etc.
TII - Metrolink, Luas new trams, various motorway projects.
DAA (Dublin Airport Authority) - the 2nd runway

Folks seem to mix NTA and TII up quiet a bit. Of course they are sister organisations and work closely together, but they are separate.

So strictly speaking different people, but yes, an awful lot going on at the same time and massive amounts of feedback from consultations, etc. to work through.

While we are on the subject we also have a tfi (transport for Ireland). Are these a separate transport company or is it a project from the nta or tii?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

While we are on the subject we also have a tfi (transport for Ireland). Are these a separate transport company or is it a project from the nta or tii?

It is a brand owned by the NTA. Similar to Transport For London, though in the TfL's case it is both a brand and the actual transport agency.

RandomName2

bk wrote: »

It is a brand owned by the NTA. Similar to Transport For London, though in the TfL's case it is both a brand and the actual transport agency.

Would you be able to fix the OP? It's a bit illegible at the moment.

strassenwo!f

Podge_irl wrote: »

There are tram systems where, on a brief section, multiple routes come together to run at a 30tph rate. That is not the same as running at 30tph on a 19km track. It is also not the same doing it with 30m trams as it is with 50m trams.

I've thought about this particular post for a number of days, and I've finally got a chance to reply to it.

We know there are tram systems operating, in city centres in Europe, where they're running 30+ trams per hour per direction, with several road interactions. The fact that several tram lines merge somewhere along or around there is irrelevant: the key thing is that along those merged city centre sections, 30+ tphpd are being done.

Those cities have been able to develop and provide a very good tram service along several lines, for many of their areas, albeit over many years of development.

Developing a 30 tph capacity in Dublin should probably be even easier than in those cities, if the current LUAS Green Line operations were to be combined with construction of a short LUAS link to Baggot Street Bridge, as mentioned above.

That would allow, say, an initial morning peak service of 10-12 trams from Cherrywood to the city area, and 22 trams (including the 10-12 Cherrywoods) from Sandyford to the city area, of which 18 might go along their current route through the city and 4 would initially go to Baggot Street Bridge.

We'd obviously have to see how that all might develop, but an eventual service in the morning peak of 20 tph (just like it is now) on the main route between the Sandyford and the centre, and up to 10 tph on a spur LUAS route to Baggot Street Bridge.

(My feeling is that Dublin's peak time in the evening is a bit more stretched out than it is in the morning - you might have to run 30 (20:10) tph between 8 and 9 in the morning, but only 26 (20:6) for two hours in the evening. But we shall have to see).

Podge_irl wrote: »

There are a huge number of parameters that will define the maximum capacity of a line. The fact you can find the odd example of a higher tram rate under completely different circumstances is not that relevant.

There are indeed many parameters to be considered.

But an important consideration is what we've seen what other cities have already done. Several cities mentioned on this thread are doing throughputs of 30+, on city centre streets. Development of other areas should be the main focus of the metro.

salmocab

You are just repeating yourself without addressing the 2 at grade crossings, in fact this time you haven’t even mentioned them.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

You are just repeating yourself without addressing the 2 at grade crossings, in fact this time you haven’t even mentioned them.

The section I mentioned in Berlin - and there are other cities with a similar throughput and similar situations vis a vis road traffic - is a central city section with several street crossings, perhaps a dozen, and they seem to manage.

There was a recent post on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread, from the poster Sam Russell, to the effect that the Stillorgan crossing is something which should be and could be dealt with by a bridge relatively soon.

(I am broadly in favour of underpasses in situations such as this, as the clearance for the vast majority of road traffic is generally up to 3m - other traffic would need to find some other route - while you need to build up to at least 4m for a bridge, to clear the electric lines. Pushing an underpass under rail tracks is now quite common).

Implementing what Sam says would reduce the number of out-of-town street crossings to just one, at Dunville Avenue. It's hard to believe that some appropriate solution cannot be found, other than tunnelling the metrolink to Beechwood, to deal with this situation. After all, you'd only need very high throughput at peak times.

salmocab

So you think divert every 3rd luas down a new baggot street line build the metro elsewhere and build grade separation at the 2 major crossings.
Metro elsewhere is billions extra.
Extra luas line is millions more.
Plus closing the green luas from sandyford to Ranelagh to build the grade separation just to allow some luas to get elsewhere at a cost of millions (albeit some of the works at Stillorgan could be done whilst the line is open).
The current cost of the metro is already more than politicians are comfortable spending. We need to get a metro built and working and when people see the benefits there will be a clamor for more. We can only tinker with the luas now or we can start to build what we needed 15 years ago. The city is at a standstill it doesn’t need more track in it it needs tracks under it.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The section I mentioned in Berlin - and there are other cities with a similar throughput and similar situations vis a vis road traffic - is a central city section with several street crossings, perhaps a dozen, and they seem to manage.

There was a recent post on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread, from the poster Sam Russell, to the effect that the Stillorgan crossing is something which should be and could be dealt with by a bridge relatively soon.

(I am broadly in favour of underpasses in situations such as this, as the clearance for the vast majority of road traffic is generally up to 3m - other traffic would need to find some other route - while you need to build up to at least 4m for a bridge, to clear the electric lines. Pushing an underpass under rail tracks is now quite common).

Implementing what Sam says would reduce the number of out-of-town street crossings to just one, at Dunville Avenue. It's hard to believe that some appropriate solution cannot be found, other than tunnelling the metrolink to Beechwood, to deal with this situation. After all, you'd only need very high throughput at peak times.

Which is also when you'd see the most vehicles trying to cross Dunville Avenue.

Your Modus Operandi is pretty clear at this stage: you say something with little basis in fact, then when others correct with actual real world facts, you disappear for a few days, then reappear, saying much the same thing as last time, but ignoring everything that has been put to you before.

You keep banging on about 30+ trains an hour because of what you have seen on a tiny section of city centre track in Europe, but ignore all the posters that have pointed out that the trams there are much shorter, and that it's in the City Centre, where speeds are much lower than what you'd find out in the suburbs.

strassenwo!f

While here, I would also like to make a comment about Eamon Ryan's recent suggestion for an alternative route for the metro, which was discussed on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread.

I'm sure he made it with the best will in the world, but you couldn't implement his plan in the timescale, or particularly with the costs, currently envisaged by the metrolink plan. He also adds in a totally unnecessary LUAS line between Booterstown and the current LUAS (and beyond) - something which can comfortably be achieved by buses.

A key thing here is that there is no one route on the southside which can compare with the northside part of the metrolink, which has Swords, the Airport, Ballymun, DCU, etc., for passenger uptake. It seems to me that it has to be envisaged as an eventual two-route plan on the southside, developed over several years.

Mr Ryan's proposal of a metro going all the way to Knocklyon, and maybe Tallaght, with the costs involved, would be unfeasible.

I would suggest, on the southside of the city, a timeline such as this:

2021-2027: the metro between Swords and Harold's Cross, via St. Stephen's Green and Camden Street;
2027-2030 (a new funding phase): the start of a branch of the metro between the existing Camden Street station and Rathgar, via Rathmines;
2031-2034/5: continuation of the Harold's Cross branch to Walkinstown Cross;
2034/5-2040: continuation of the Rathmines branch to Terenure, Rathfarnham and perhaps beyond;
2040-2043: development of a LUAS or metro link between Walkinstown Cross and Heuston Station, broadly taking in areas like Crumlin and Dolphin's Barn, and connecting those areas rapidly with the city centre in a number of ways (south to the metro station at Walkinstown Cross and a change to the metro, for example, but implementation of a DART Underground plan could transform this part);
2044-2046: upgrade of the current Green LUAS to a metro, including perhaps a tunnel between Charlemont (or Beechwood) and Broadstone. This would allow that line to stay ahead of the current metrolink.ie projections for passenger uptake up to that time.

It is most certainly not going to happen like that.

But it is an outline of what Dublin might do, on the southside, with small yearly bits of the overall national income, before the LUAS Green line needs to be upgraded to a metro.

salmocab

So leave the green line as it is for 30 more years. This is beyond belief at this stage.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The section I mentioned in Berlin - and there are other cities with a similar throughput and similar situations vis a vis road traffic - is a central city section with several street crossings, perhaps a dozen, and they seem to manage.

There was a recent post on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread, from the poster Sam Russell, to the effect that the Stillorgan crossing is something which should be and could be dealt with by a bridge relatively soon.

(I am broadly in favour of underpasses in situations such as this, as the clearance for the vast majority of road traffic is generally up to 3m - other traffic would need to find some other route - while you need to build up to at least 4m for a bridge, to clear the electric lines. Pushing an underpass under rail tracks is now quite common).

Implementing what Sam says would reduce the number of out-of-town street crossings to just one, at Dunville Avenue. It's hard to believe that some appropriate solution cannot be found, other than tunnelling the metrolink to Beechwood, to deal with this situation. After all, you'd only need very high throughput at peak times.

Perhaps you should contact the Metrolink team because they favour a bridge at Stillorgan because there is insufficient room for any change to the road layout. Whether the chosen solution is over or under (a bridge or underpass), a clearance of 5 metres is required. The Luas is not that hard to raise over the road except for the Stillorgan Luas stop. The stop could be put atop the bridge as is Charlemont, or moved further north. It is very close to the Sandyford stop so perhaps not even keeping it might be an option - the Kilmacud stop is not much further north.

Perhaps making yourself familiar with the area and with the published material on Metrolink might help you.

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I would suggest, on the southside of the city, a timeline such as this:

2021-2027: the metro between Swords and Harold's Cross, via St. Stephen's Green and Camden Street;
2027-2030 (a new funding phase): the start of a branch of the metro between the existing Camden Street station and Rathgar, via Rathmines;
2031-2034/5: continuation of the Harold's Cross branch to Walkinstown Cross;
2034/5-2040: continuation of the Rathmines branch to Terenure, Rathfarnham and perhaps beyond;
2040-2043: development of a LUAS or metro link between Walkinstown Cross and Heuston Station, broadly taking in areas like Crumlin and Dolphin's Barn, and connecting those areas rapidly with the city centre in a number of ways (south to the metro station at Walkinstown Cross and a change to the metro, for example, but implementation of a DART Underground plan could transform this part);
2044-2046: upgrade of the current Green LUAS to a metro, including perhaps a tunnel between Charlemont (or Beechwood) and Broadstone. This would allow that line to stay ahead of the current metrolink.ie projections for passenger uptake up to that time.

It is most certainly not going to happen like that.

But it is an outline of what Dublin might do, on the southside, with small yearly bits of the overall national income, before the LUAS Green line needs to be upgraded to a metro.

That would be a protracted waste of money. You could achieve more or less the same thing by doing Metrolink, leaving the TBM in the ground at the southern end and continuing towards the west. It would cost a lot less money and would avoid continuous major demolition work and road closures in south west Dublin for 25 years.

Additionally a coherent plan could open new development land. The plan above doesn't provide for any new housing.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

So leave the green line as it is for 30 more years. This is beyond belief at this stage.

Probabably not as much as 30 years.

The metrolink.ie documentation says the following:

metrolink.ie wrote:

Green Line Capacity
During 2017, the numbers carried by the Luas Green Line in the busiest morning peak hour was approximately 5,000 passengers in the northbound direction. The introduction of new 55 metre length trams, and the extension of the existing trams, will increase the Green Line capacity up to approximately 8,000 passengers per direction per hour based on a three minute frequency.

The extension of the Green Line in December 2017 to include Luas Cross City has already seen a significant increase in passenger numbers over the entire route of the Green Line. In addition, as areas such as Cherrywood and Sandyford are further developed in the coming years, the passenger demand on the Green Line will further increase. Analysis undertaken with the NTA’s Regional Transport Model indicates that by 2027, the level of demand on the line will exceed the carrying capacity of the Luas system, even with the introduction of longer trams.

Over the next two decades, passenger demand levels on the Green Line will reach approximately 11,000 passengers in the northbound direction, and expected to grow to approximately 13,000 passengers by 2057. This is beyond the carrying capacity of a standard Luas system and an upgrade to a metro system is required.

That, in summary, says that in 2037 the northbound demand on the line is going to increase to 11,000 northbound, and will be 13,000 in 2057. Extrapolating, that gives a northbound morning peak of 12,000 in 2047.

Using the other figures in their documentatation, also shown above in the first paragraph, that would suggest there is a capacity of 400 people per 55m tram, thus a capacity 0f 8000 people now, and a capacity of 12000 if a 30 tram per hour system were implemented (which might be, for example, if a spur to Baggot Street Bridge were implemented).

So, yes, as I have said above, you could build the Baggot Street spur and perhaps take some measures to deal with the Dunville Avenue crossing, and then leave that whole line alone for a couple of decades until around 2040something.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Probabably not as much as 30 years.

The metrolink.ie documentation says the following:



That, in summary, says that in 2037 the northbound demand on the line is going to increase to 11,000 northbound, and will be 13,000 in 2057. Extrapolating, that gives a northbound morning peak of 12,000 in 2047.

Using the other figures in their documentatation, also shown above in the first paragraph, that would suggest there is a capacity of 400 people per 55m tram, thus a capacity 0f 8000 people now, and a capacity of 12000 if a 30 tram per hour system were implemented (which might be, for example, if a spur to Baggot Street Bridge were implemented).

So, yes, as I have said above, you could build the Baggot Street spur and perhaps take some measures to deal with the Dunville Avenue crossing, and then leave that whole line alone for a couple of decades until around 2040something.

Have a good read of the second paragraph where it says by 2027 the capacity will be more than the luas can carry. You saying it can carry more doesn’t make it so. Building an extension in the city to increase capacity in the suburbs for a few years is like chucking deck chairs off the titanic

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That would be a protracted waste of money. You could achieve more or less the same thing by doing Metrolink, leaving the TBM in the ground at the southern end and continuing towards the west. It would cost a lot less money and would avoid continuous major demolition work and road closures in south west Dublin for 25 years.

Additionally a coherent plan could open new development land. The plan above doesn't provide for any new housing.

Antoin, it's only a outine sketch of how things might be done on the southside of Dublin, to use a small amount (perhaps around 0.5%, with a citywide spend of around 1%) of the annual national purse to provide very high quality public transport to areas which don't currently have this.

No city has been able to create metro lines without some road closures and some demolition, and Dublin will be no different. Once the lines are built, it's done, and the benefits are there to be enjoyed for many decades.

The issue of development land is, of course, important, and I haven't closely looked at this along the corridors to Harold's Cross and Walkinstown, or to Rathmines, Terenure, Rathfarnham and Knocklyon, all areas where people are settled and have been paying taxes for decades.

But it also shouldn't be a problem to sell a new apartment to somebody near to the Green LUAS line in Sandyford or Cherrywood, built on new land, with a direct journey time of less than 40 minutes into the city centre. Upgrading that line to a metro, under the current metrolink.ie proposal, would cut perhaps 2-3 minutes off the journey to/from the city centre - effectively nothing.

You may not think that a goal of providing high quality public transport to areas of Dublin in the south-central (in case the poster lxflyer is reading) or south-west of Dublin is one worth posting for. I do.

I freely admit that I probably won't be paying for it, as I am currently paying into a different exchequer, but I have paid into the Irish Exchequer and I may (and hope to) do so again in the future.

antoinolachtnai

Even dublin does not have bad enough planning to come up with proposals as short-sighted as this one.

I don’t know many cities going on mad cut and cover projects on four-lane roads to provide transport services to areas close to the city.

Metrolink is an example of a project that will cost 1 percent of the tax take per year. If we were committing to that level of spending that is the sort of projects we would expect, not rinkydink bits and pieces.

The idea that services should be delivered primarily to areas whose residents once paid a lot of tax seems like a flawed way of financing a growing economy.

Your figures for time saving are plain wrong. Metrolink will get you to o’connell st 10 or maybe 15 minutes faster than the luas today at the peak time. It will save you 45 minutes getting to the airport. (Your proposal by contrast would get a person from Sandyford to Baggot St slower than if they got today’s luas service and just walked along the canal. If they were coming from the north side they’d be a lot better off on the bus).

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Even dublin does not have bad enough planning to come up with proposals as short-sighted as this one.

I don’t know many cities going on mad cut and cover projects on four-lane roads to provide transport services to areas close to the city.

Metrolink is an example of a project that will cost 1 percent of the tax take per year. If we were committing to that level of spending that is the sort of projects we would expect, not rinkydink bits and pieces.

The idea that services should be delivered primarily to areas whose residents once paid a lot of tax seems like a flawed way of financing a growing economy.

Your figures for time saving are plain wrong. Metrolink will get you to o’connell st 10 or maybe 15 minutes faster than the luas today at the peak time. It will save you 45 minutes getting to the airport. (Your proposal by contrast would get a person from Sandyford to Baggot St slower than if they got today’s luas service and just walked along the canal. If they were coming from the north side they’d be a lot better off on the bus).

Could you tell us more?

strassenwo!f

Holy ****. Has this guy completely lost his head.

I meant to open a debate, but I never envisaged a breakdown over it.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Holy ****. Has this guy completely lost his head.

I meant to open a debate, but I never envisaged a breakdown over it.

What?

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Holy ****. Has this guy completely lost his head.

I meant to open a debate, but I never envisaged a breakdown over it.

You've finally gone insane.


Also how could you describe it as wanting to start a debate when all your posting is based on completely ignoring all replies?