Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And is there going to be all that at Beechwood? Where? And the thousands of trucks going along Dunville Avenue?

It's not going to be any easier there than at, say, Harold's Cross.

During Metrolink construction, all of the spoil will be brought the length of the tunnel and out to the tunnel portal at Dardistown. Obviously this can't happen once Metrolink starts operating, so the spoil from a Harold's Cross construction would have to be trucked out from there.

More likely they'd surface the TBM, store it somewhere and then wait for funding for a tunnel from outside the M50 back to Harold's Cross. Or just sell it and buy another one when the time comes.

All very unlikely though.

Rulmeq

CatInABox wrote: »

More likely they'd surface the TBM, store it somewhere and then wait for funding for a tunnel from outside the M50 back to Harold's Cross. Or just sell it and buy another one when the time comes.

Don't they usually just bury TBMs when they're done? Or have I been watching one too many Discovery doccos?

salmocab

Rulmeq wrote: »

Don't they usually just bury TBMs when they're done? Or have I been watching one too many Discovery doccos?

I’d imagine they do cost benefit analysis on it, the cost of taking it out depending on where it is could be massive especially somewhere along the green line. The whole thing would need a massive overhaul and transportation to the next site so all that would have to be considered.
Think the channel tunnel the French took theirs out and the English buried theirs. Could be wrong on that though.

CatInABox

salmocab wrote: »

I’d imagine they do cost benefit analysis on it, the cost of taking it out depending on where it is could be massive especially somewhere along the green line. The whole thing would need a massive overhaul and transportation to the next site so all that would have to be considered.

Yes, in my opinion, there's way too many obstacles to merely stopping the project, and then restarting it in a few years. It's a concept that seems great (well, good at least, if you don't want to go the easy route of including the green line) at first glance, but upon any further thinking on it, horrific problems start appearing out of every part of it.

strassenwo!f

Unfortunately, it still isn't clear, or very easy to find, on the metrolink.ie website how this or these TBMs are going to be used. If it's going to be twin-bore, will there be two machines running side by side from the north to the south of the city, or will there be one machine which will run north to south and then be turned around? In the first of these cases, where (if at all) will they be removed from the ground?

If it's going to be a single-bore tunnel, being constructed in a north-south direction, where (if at all) will it be removed from the ground?

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, in my opinion, there's way too many obstacles to merely stopping the project, and then restarting it in a few years. It's a concept that seems great (well, good at least, if you don't want to go the easy route of including the green line) at first glance, but upon any further thinking on it, horrific problems start appearing out of every part of it.

Really, it could probably be quite simple, though it would help perhaps if the information I'm seeking were readily findable on the metrolink website.

Broadly, what you might do is use the TBM/TBMs to get you to around Harold's Cross, then you might continue on with cut-and-cover through Kimmage, to the KCR, and then along Cromwellsfort Road to Walkinstown Cross. This method is often used to extend metro lines through suburban areas.

Nothing 'horrendous' there, and should be doable in 4-5 years, maximum.

(Though, actually I'd probably be in favour of an elevated section for the last km or 2 to Walkinstown Cross, much as is proposed for the part through Swords. It should be cheaper and could be a welcome addition to the landscape there - better than looking out of your window at a house across the road which is exactly the same as yours. But I appreciate not everyone on Cromwellsfort Road would agree).

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Unfortunately, it still isn't clear, or very easy to find, on the metrolink.ie website how this or these TBMs are going to be used. If it's going to be twin-bore, will there be two machines running side by side from the north to the south of the city, or will there be one machine which will run north to south and then be turned around? In the first of these cases, where (if at all) will they be removed from the ground?

If it's going to be a single-bore tunnel, being constructed in a north-south direction, where (if at all) will it be removed from the ground?



Really, it could probably be quite simple, though it would help perhaps if the information I'm seeking were readily findable on the metrolink website.

Broadly, what you might do is use the TBM/TBMs to get you to around Harold's Cross, then you might continue on with cut-and-cover through Kimmage, to the KCR, and then along Cromwellsfort Road to Walkinstown Cross. This method is often used to extend metro lines through suburban areas.

Nothing 'horrendous' there, and should be doable in 4-5 years, maximum.

(Though, actually I'd probably be in favour of an elevated section for the last km or 2 to Walkinstown Cross, much as is proposed for the part through Swords. It should be cheaper and could be a welcome addition to the landscape there - better than looking out of your window at a house across the road which is exactly the same as yours. But I appreciate not everyone on Cromwellsfort Road would agree).

Could you actually link to a metro that has been built cut-and-cover in the last, say, 20 years? Rather than say "it's often done" and ask people to disprove you. It's archaic

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Nothing 'horrendous' there, and should be doable in 4-5 years, maximum.

Nothing horrendous at all, except for the cut and cover going through housing estates, closing roads, a truck leaving the construction site every 90 seconds or so.

Yes, definitely nothing 'horrendous' there

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

Could you actually link to a metro that has been built cut-and-cover in the last, say, 20 years? Rather than say "it's often done" and ask people to disprove you. It's archaic

There are lots of examples, but Warsaw's line 1 (completed in around 2008) was built entirely by that method. I think the recent northern extension of Munich's U3 was built that way too, as was much of that city's network,

Closer to home, I think around 2 km of the much bigger Port Tunnel in Dublin (2006) was built by that method.

paulkeno

Broadly, what you might do is use the TBM/TBMs to get you to around Harold's Cross, then you might continue on with cut-and-cover through Kimmage, to the KCR, and then along Cromwellsfort Road to Walkinstown Cross. This method is often used to extend metro lines through suburban areas.

Nothing 'horrendous' there, and should be doable in 4-5 years, maximum.

(Though, actually I'd probably be in favour of an elevated section for the last km or 2 to Walkinstown Cross, much as is proposed for the part through Swords. It should be cheaper and could be a welcome addition to the landscape there - better than looking out of your window at a house across the road which is exactly the same as yours. But I appreciate not everyone on Cromwellsfort Road would agree).[/QUOTE]

Where exactly are you going to cut, straight through housing estates, or are you going to elevate over houses. Not sure you've thought this through.

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There are lots of examples, but Warsaw's line 1 (completed in around 2008) was built entirely by that method. I think the recent northern extension of Munich's U3 was built that way too, as was much of that city's network,

Closer to home, I think around 2 km of the much bigger Port Tunnel in Dublin (2006) was built by that method.

From the wikipedia article on the Warsaw Metro:
"Finally, in 1984, the program was approved by the government and the first tunnels built. Lack of funds, technical difficulties, shortage of materials and outdated tunneling methods meant that the work progressed very slowly, sometimes at a speed no greater than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) per day. The Metro was opened on 7 April 1995 with a total of 11 stations."


I can't put my finger on why exactly, but upgrading the Green Line to meet capacity issues seems like a better idea than spending years slowly digging up one of the most densely populated places in the country

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

From the wikipedia article on the Warsaw Metro:
"Finally, in 1984, the program was approved by the government and the first tunnels built. Lack of funds, technical difficulties, shortage of materials and outdated tunneling methods meant that the work progressed very slowly, sometimes at a speed no greater than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) per day. The Metro was opened on 7 April 1995 with a total of 11 stations."

Yes, I was there recently, and it was the first one that came into my head. Very impressive, really, given that the country went through an entire transformation from a Communist system to a Capitalist one during those years of initial construction. The pace of cut-and-cover construction on their initial metro line picked up considerably in later years.

They have, of course, also now already built a second metro line in the city (to go with the many tram lines and suburban rail lines serving the place). They did use a TBM for the second line, but I'd guess that was, to some extent, because the second metro goes under a wide river.

Dats me wrote: »

I can't put my finger on why exactly, but upgrading the Green Line to meet capacity issues seems like a better idea than spending years slowly digging up one of the most densely populated places in the country

A bit glib there, perhaps, Dats me. Perhaps you'd like to now address the pace of cut-and-cover construction on the various U-Bahn lines in Munich, or the Port Tunnel in Dublin, which were also mentioned in my post?

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, I was there recently, and it was the first one that came into my head. Very impressive, really, given that the country went through an entire transformation from a Communist system to a Capitalist one during those years of initial construction. The pace of cut-and-cover construction on their initial metro line picked up considerably in later years.

They have, of course, also now already built a second metro line in the city (to go with the many tram lines and suburban rail lines serving the place). They did use a TBM for the second line, but I'd guess that was, to some extent, because the second metro goes under a wide river.



A bit glib there, perhaps, Dats me. Perhaps you'd like to now address the pace of cut-and-cover construction on the various U-Bahn lines in Munich, or the Port Tunnel in Dublin, which were also mentioned in my post?

I'm sorry, it was a bit glib. Main point again is the €350m for the Green Line is getting you no where for a tunnel (given your SW would terminate underground that's probably most of the €300m blown straight away), and SW Should be serviced by a SW-NE line rather than doubling the cost of MetroLink resulting in it not getting built.


Your insistence on continuing a discussion while disagreeing with every post for 50 pages on this thread gets a bit much, particularly since no one that I can see has said they don't want to see a SW metro.

strassenwo!f

Paulkeno's post is rather difficult to quote, but I hope this will suffice:

paulkeno wrote:

Where exactly are you going to cut, straight through housing estates, or are you going to elevate over houses. Not sure you've thought this through.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture.JPG (241.2 KB, 7 views)

I don't think it's necessary to get into an exact route at this stage. The broad aim is that the metrolink would go to Harold's Cross (or, say, Rathgar) in the first stage. In the case of a Harold's Cross route, it looks like it could be readily continued to Walkinstown by, for example, cut-and-cover (or cut-and-cover with an elevated portion) to the Sundrive Road junction, Kimmage Road to the KCR, under that useful bit of park to Kimmage Road West, and then along Cromwellsfort Road to Walkinstown Cross. All, primarily, under (or elevated over) the existing roads or available green areas. (I can't see that many houses would need to be requisitioned, given the great flexibility of the vehicles involved).

Probably if somebody wanted a metro route to cause as much disruption as possible, or raise as many objections as possible, they'd have come up with the route in the attachment you presented above.

I'm certainly not saying that my suggested route is the best possible. But if the decision were made to build the metro towards (say) Harold's Cross in 2021-2027, especially to reduce journey times to/from the centre and many areas of the south city - which doesn't seem to be on the cards with the current metro proposal - then those years could be used to work out the very best route for the next bit from (say) Harold's Cross.

And hopefully funding can then be found to press on with that chosen route.

paulkeno

My reply was a bit of a mess , I need to brush up on my posting skills, its been a while .
I don't really get the cut and cover part, I live in this area and it is densely populated (Ireland wise). I could understand cut and cover through the phoenix park or something similar, unless you go along the Kimmage road, which would close the road off for a year or two, residents wouldn't be happy. That park you speak of is Crumlin GAA's home ground and stannaway park which has a couple of soccer teams, Na Fianna/Home farm come to mind.
I don't think cut and cover would work.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A bit glib there, perhaps, Dats me. Perhaps you'd like to now address the pace of cut-and-cover construction on the various U-Bahn lines in Munich, or the Port Tunnel in Dublin, which were also mentioned in my post?

There was two cut and covers done on the Dublin port tunnel, one in Fairview, and one from Whitehall to Shantalla.

Fairview was only 500 metres long, and was entirely contained in a park.

Whitehall to Shantalla followed the course of an extremely wide road, one so wide that two lanes of traffic stayed open, all while construction took place between them.



Even if you halved the width of the construction zone, there's no road in the Harold's Cross area that would cater for this kind of construction. The entire road would be closed, with some peoples gardens swallowed up as well.

It's a total non starter.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

There was two cut and covers done on the Dublin port tunnel, one in Fairview, and one from Whitehall to Shantalla.

Fairview was only 500 metres long, and was entirely contained in a park.

Whitehall to Shantalla followed the course of an extremely wide road, one so wide that two lanes of traffic stayed open, all while construction took place between them.



Even if you halved the width of the construction zone, there's no road in the Harold's Cross area that would cater for this kind of construction. The entire road would be closed, with some peoples gardens swallowed up as well.

It's a total non starter.

I think it would have been very difficult for Dublin to have countenanced a situation where the busiest motorway into/out of the city did not have a direct link to the city, however restricted that might have been over the period of construction of the Port Tunnel.

It seems unlikely that any plan to build to Harold's Cross, and then to Walkinstown, and/or to build to (say) Rathgar and eventually Firhouse or Knocklyon, could be done without some disruption. But I'd guess there's possibly no regular viewer of or poster of tthis board who hasn't, at some stage, walked or travelled along a two lane road (one in each direction) in another European city which has an underground line under it. Built by cut-and-cover or some other means. Many cities have several such streets.

It might make it easier for you if I suggested - and I stress that this is not something I actually advocate for Dublin, at this stage, because there are other good public transport options already available - a continuation of the northside part of the metrolink along the N11.

This might go from Tara Street to St. Stephen's Green, under the park at St. Stephen's Green to Leeson Street, on to Donnybrook and then on to UCD - certainly for all the money that it's going to take to tunnel to Beechwood and upgrade the current Green Line all the way to Sandyford.

Along that little bit - for the same amount of tunnelling - you've added two or more new areas of Dublin which don't have a direct rail connection with the city, you've reduced journey times considerably, you haven't had to close down a perfectly good rail connection into/out of the city for a considerable period of time, you've probably reduced the demand on the Green line and you have potentially freed up a whole load of buses (in this case, many 46As) for other work in the city.

As you go out further with this metro route, by whatever means, perhaps eventually to Cherrywood, you continue to do all of these things: adding areas which don't currently have a rail service, reducing journey times, obviously reducing demand for the Green line off-street service and freeing up more buses.

Upgrading the Green line to metrolink status will not add any new areas on the southside which are served by rail, and produces miniscule journey time improvements between southside locations and the city (in some cases they will actually be longer, because of the proposed disruption to the current LUAS route).

I don't think there's any need to do anything like what was illustrated above, on the N11, at this stage, as the 46A provides a very fine service and it will obviously be a relative doddle to build a line like that when it is necessary, as the N11 is very wide.

Routes to Knocklyon and Walkinstown would be tougher, I've no doubt, but on all the above criteria - like delivering rail to new areas, reducing journey times to/from the city, reducing demand for the Green line and freeing buses - those corridors seem to deliver as well as an N11 route would. It's hard to see that upgrading the Green line delivers anything.

Dats me

It's hard to see how building an expensive underground terminus and not upgrading the Green Line to meet the largest growth areas in the south of the city at Sandyford and Cherrywood makes any sense.

riddlinrussell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think it would have been very difficult for Dublin to have countenanced a situation where the busiest motorway into/out of the city did not have a direct link to the city, however restricted that might have been over the period of construction of the Port Tunnel.

It seems unlikely that any plan to build to Harold's Cross, and then to Walkinstown, and/or to build to (say) Rathgar and eventually Firhouse or Knocklyon, could be done without some disruption. But I'd guess there's possibly no regular viewer of or poster of tthis board who hasn't, at some stage, walked or travelled along a two lane road (one in each direction) in another European city which has an underground line under it. Built by cut-and-cover or some other means. Many cities have several such streets.

It might make it easier for you if I suggested - and I stress that this is not something I actually advocate for Dublin, at this stage, because there are other good public transport options already available - a continuation of the northside part of the metrolink along the N11.

This might go from Tara Street to St. Stephen's Green, under the park at St. Stephen's Green to Leeson Street, on to Donnybrook and then on to UCD - certainly for all the money that it's going to take to tunnel to Beechwood and upgrade the current Green Line all the way to Sandyford.

Along that little bit - for the same amount of tunnelling - you've added two or more new areas of Dublin which don't have a direct rail connection with the city, you've reduced journey times considerably, you haven't had to close down a perfectly good rail connection into/out of the city for a considerable period of time, you've probably reduced the demand on the Green line and you have potentially freed up a whole load of buses (in this case, many 46As) for other work in the city.

As you go out further with this metro route, by whatever means, perhaps eventually to Cherrywood, you continue to do all of these things: adding areas which don't currently have a rail service, reducing journey times, obviously reducing demand for the Green line off-street service and freeing up more buses.

Upgrading the Green line to metrolink status will not add any new areas on the southside which are served by rail, and produces miniscule journey time improvements between southside locations and the city (in some cases they will actually be longer, because of the proposed disruption to the current LUAS route).

I don't think there's any need to do anything like what was illustrated above, on the N11, at this stage, as the 46A provides a very fine service and it will obviously be a relative doddle to build a line like that when it is necessary, as the N11 is very wide.

Routes to Knocklyon and Walkinstown would be tougher, I've no doubt, but on all the above criteria - like delivering rail to new areas, reducing journey times to/from the city, reducing demand for the Green line and freeing buses - those corridors seem to deliver as well as an N11 route would. It's hard to see that upgrading the Green line delivers anything.

I won't argue with your ideas strassen, I really like them, I also wont try to argue capacity on the Green line, I haven't done the research there.

My issue continues to be this, say you were successful, metrolink people say today "Strassenwo!f was right, we are going to run it to Harolds cross". This will immediately delay the project, because this was NOT a route that was fully investigated/costed during the feasibility studies (You have studiously ignored people saying that both Charlemont AND Beechwood tunnels were actually included in the feasibility options) The entire study and consultation will need to be redone, adding about 2 years of delay.
This is then followed by politicians complaining about getting 'half the metro for the same price!' and suchlike. Which will very likely result in the whole project getting sidelined until a convenient recession comes along to bin it.

And to create an actual sellable metro to Knocklyon/Tallaght, as has been stated many times, isnt something that can be sold to the public right now as its twice the cost of the current project.
Sell it once work starts on this metro, and when the metro becomes the huge success that a properly built one should be, you will have a much easier sale of a 6 billion euro underground project

CatInABox

So now you're suggesting removing the best Bus Corridor in the country and replacing it with a Metro? And having the Metro line about a kilometre away from the Dart line? Come on....

The Green line needs a capacity upgrade. That's not a nice to have, it needs it. That's just one of the many benefits to the current Metrolink route.

Also, cut and cover is not as attractive as it used to be, due to the current fiasco with the Canada line in Vancouver. The savings made by using cut and cover instead of tunneling were wiped out by the lawsuits brought by businesses along the route.

riddlinrussell

CatInABox wrote: »

So now you're suggesting removing the best Bus Corridor in the country and replacing it with a Metro? And having the Metro line about a kilometre away from the Dart line? Come on....

The Green line needs a capacity upgrade. That's not a nice to have, it needs it. That's just one of the many benefits to the current Metrolink route.

Also, cut and cover is not as attractive as it used to be, due to the current fiasco with the Canada line in Vancouver. The savings made by using cut and cover instead of tunneling were wiped out by the lawsuits brought by businesses along the route.

To be fair CiaB he said he wasn't advocating it, I think he picked it as an idea based on width of road.

CatInABox

riddlinrussell wrote: »

To be fair CiaB he said he wasn't advocating it, I think he picked it as an idea based on width of road.

I know, I actually had "advocating" instead of "suggesting", then I went back and changed it, as he specifically said that he wasn't advocating.

Regardless, every suggestion he comes out with doesn't deal with the facts on the ground, the Green Line needs a capacity upgrade, the budget won't allow for a significant tunnelling on the south side, and the Green line upgrade is always going to be so far ahead of any other proposal on the south side in terms of Cost Benefit Analysis. If he came up with a proposal that beat the green line upgrade on those three points, I'd find it interesting, but so far, it's just casting about, trying to find an idea, any idea, so long as the green line doesn't get upgraded.

riddlinrussell

CatInABox wrote: »

I know, I actually had "advocating" instead of "suggesting", then I went back and changed it, as he specifically said that he wasn't advocating.

Regardless, every suggestion he comes out with doesn't deal with the facts on the ground, the Green Line needs a capacity upgrade, the budget won't allow for a significant tunnelling on the south side, and the Green line upgrade is always going to be so far ahead of any other proposal on the south side in terms of Cost Benefit Analysis. If he came up with a proposal that beat the green line upgrade on those three points, I'd find it interesting, but so far, it's just casting about, trying to find an idea, any idea, so long as the green line doesn't get upgraded.

I'd agree with you there, any alternative that stands a chance of being considered realistically instead of the current proposal needs to either beat or match it for cost:benefit

strassenwo!f

I feel I have to answer some of the points made since I last quoted, just to clarify a few things.

CatInABox wrote: »

So now you're suggesting removing the best Bus Corridor in the country and replacing it with a Metro? And having the Metro line about a kilometre away from the Dart line? Come on....

Well, the current proposal on the southside is to replace what is possibly the best LUAS route in the country with a 'metro' line which will cost a lot of money for a 'new' service which won't deliver rail transport to any new areas on the southside. It's also very hard to say whether it will reduce overall southside journeacry times along that corridor, but it seems very possible that this project will increase journey times, on the southside, for many people.

There are certainly well-developed European cities which have an average gap of 1-2 km between their heavy rail, metro and tram corridors into/out of their city.

Going across the southside, on an arc between the DART and the Hazelhatch line, what is the gap between the rail bridge over the Dodder at Lansdowne Road and the rail service over the Nine Arches at Milltown?

CatInABox wrote: »

The Green line needs a capacity upgrade. That's not a nice to have, it needs it. That's just one of the many benefits to the current Metrolink route.

I know that the Green line needs higher capacity at peak times, and I have tried to illustrate on this board how that might be done, with a fairly small outlay, to use it to serve other areas of the city which are busy at peak times.

It needs an upgrade, to be sure, to allow it to serve the city well until the mid-2040's, but it doesn't need to be replaced.

CatInABox wrote: »

Also, cut and cover is not as attractive as it used to be, due to the current fiasco with the Canada line in Vancouver. The savings made by using cut and cover instead of tunneling were wiped out by the lawsuits brought by businesses along the route.

That's one example where they got it wrong. There are many examples where it has been done right.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, the current proposal on the southside is to replace what is possibly the best LUAS route in the country with a 'metro' line which will cost a lot of money for a 'new' service which won't deliver rail transport to any new areas on the southside. It's also very hard to say whether it will reduce overall southside journeacry times along that corridor, but it seems very possible that this project will increase journey times, on the southside, for many people.

The reason it's the best Luas in the country is because it's a tram running on an alignment designed for Metro upgrade which was originally a segregated heavy rail alignment. It's the best section of tram route in Dublin because it's so overspecced for a tram route. It shouldn't have trams running on it

Nobody is thinking about journey times here. They care about whether they can get on the thing or not. I think you have been reminded of this fact in the past by others.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

I know, I actually had "advocating" instead of "suggesting", then I went back and changed it, as he specifically said that he wasn't advocating.

Regardless, every suggestion he comes out with doesn't deal with the facts on the ground, the Green Line needs a capacity upgrade, the budget won't allow for a significant tunnelling on the south side, and the Green line upgrade is always going to be so far ahead of any other proposal on the south side in terms of Cost Benefit Analysis. If he came up with a proposal that beat the green line upgrade on those three points, I'd find it interesting, but so far, it's just casting about, trying to find an idea, any idea, so long as the green line doesn't get upgraded.

I have suggested a metro route along the N11, on this and other threads, as something which Dublin could plan to do in the long-term, when the more urgent stuff has been done, to improve public transport in the city.

It's clearly not urgent now, with the bus lane and the service from the 46A, but I think it is a good illustration of the improvement which could be achieved in Dublin along one big corridor, in terms of better journey times and better access to the city, compared to the proposed replacement of the Green luas, which doesn't improve access and - it seems - wouldn't significantly improve journey times, for many people, into/out of the city.

Developing metro routes along a couple of tighter corridors to Knocklyon and Walkinstown would clearly require more ingenuity. There are almost certainly significant construction issues which you wouldn't encounter by building an easy route like the N11. But, the obvious corridors to/from, say, Knocklyon/Firhourse have been identified as corridors along which a LUAS cannot be built.

(I still favour an initial route towards Walkinston, via Harold's Cross, for public transport connectivity, but clearly a route towards Knocklyon (eventually) would be better for reducing demand for the Green line, and thus helping to deal with the capacity issues there).

To my mind, the southwest/central is the area where Dublin should focus, with this metro project on the southside. The N11 can surely wait, with the excellent service provided by the 46A and other bus routes, and there are solutions in several European cities for what needs to be done with the Green line tram.
.

strassenwo!f

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I'd agree with you there, any alternative that stands a chance of being considered realistically instead of the current proposal needs to either beat or match it for cost:benefit

It's certainly an interesting one.

There was, I am sure, a cost-benefit analysis carried out for the southside Green LUAS project, when it was to be built. I don't know whether it eventually actually did what it was supposed to do in South Dublin, from the specifics of the original cost:benefit report, but to my mind, it does appear to have done the job.

It has delivered vast amounts of people into the city, more quickly than probably any of them could have imagined in the early years of this century. 22 minutes, or thereabouts.

Very fine.

Is that cost:benefit analysis going to include, in the southside metrolink proposal, an assessment of the costs of development of the original Green LUAS bit between the canal and Sandford?

Or, since much of the Green LUAS will be carved up, and no longer operative as a LUAS line, is that cost going to be ignored. Or did Dublin just happen across a whole free stretch of electrified rail line out to Sandyford,?

strassenwo!f

marno21 wrote: »

The reason it's the best Luas in the country is because it's a tram running on an alignment designed for Metro upgrade which was originally a segregated heavy rail alignment. It's the best section of tram route in Dublin because it's so overspecced for a tram route. It shouldn't have trams running on it

Nobody is thinking about journey times here. They care about whether they can get on the thing or not. I think you have been reminded of this fact in the past by others.

Marno, do you you ever wonder why there is almost certainly no tram line in Europe, which needs to run 20 or more trams per hour to keep up with the demand on the line? Most of them are running at most 12.

Is it because Sandyford is such a special out-of-centre place?

Or is it because other cities have developed tram, metro and suburban rail lines which compete with each other?

Dublin has only one rail line (the Green line) on the entire southside arc between the DART and the Hazelhatch line. That certainly might be one explanation of why the Sandyford line is so busy at peak times.

Other European cities, with developed networks, don't in the main have this problem of chronic overcrowding along any one tram line.

salmocab

Red line is in the dart and hazelhatch arc

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Marno, do you you ever wonder why there is almost certainly no tram line in Europe, which needs to run 20 or more trams per hour to keep up with the demand on the line? Most of them are running at most 12.

Is it because Sandyford is such a special out-of-centre place?

Or is it because other cities have developed tram, metro and suburban rail lines which compete with each other?

Dublin has only one rail line (the Green line) on the entire southside arc between the DART and the Hazelhatch line. That certainly might be one explanation of why the Sandyford line is so busy at peak times.

Other European cities, with developed networks, don't in the main have this problem of chronic overcrowding along any one tram line.

The green line isn't really like a European tram, in that it is mostly off-road. It's not really comparable.

For what you say to be true, it would have to be the case that tens of thousands of people in southwest Dublin are travelling to southeast Dublin to get the Luas.

If this were happening, you would be able to prove it, by reference to census statistics.

But it isn't happening. That's why you can't prove it.

salmocab

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The green line isn't really like a European tram, in that it is mostly off-road. It's not really comparable.

For what you say to be true, it would have to be the case that tens of thousands of people in southwest Dublin are travelling to southeast Dublin to get the Luas.

If this were happening, you would be able to prove it, by reference to census statistics.

But it isn't happening. That's why you can't prove it.

I on occasion travel from Rathfarnham to use the green line but I’d imagine I’m very much an outlier, I park at a mates house and walk to the stop.
It can be quicker alright but with the lack of parking or busses that cross that way I’d say it’s rare enough for someone to do it