Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121640038#Comment_121640038

The space is there to allow construction of a temporary bridge structure to protect the line during the works. It is not there to future proof moving Tara Street platforms.

Taken from the planning docs:

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121640605#Comment_121640605

I would suggest that actually proves the opposite! Why go to all this trouble to build a temporary bridge structure to protect the line when you could as easily build a permanent one and fill in the space in between with more valuable office space.

Such buildings are built right up to the line in places like Japan, basically turning that part of the line into a tunnel. The fact that they go out of their way to leave this space is clearly done on purpose.

Look I’m not saying that they will ever do it, but they have clearly left the space to do it if need be. Good planning for a change.

I don’t understand what the argument is, this is clearly the easy way to straighten and fix the platform at Tara St and better integrate it with Metrolink. Just extend the platform 100 meters south. No need to close the line or even the station, it would be just like when the extended the platforms for 8 carriage DARTs, just weekend works. Certainly vastly easier than knocking and rebuilding the loop line bridge!

Of course they might not bother doing it, just leave it as it is with the unsafe curve and over crowded platforms. But if they want to fix it, this is how they do it and clearly this new building doesn’t stop it from happening.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121641022#Comment_121641022

The planning docs for the development discuss, in detail, the engineering reasons for constructing the bridge in that manner. The bridge is intended to protect the line, and electrified wires, during construction and will be fully incorporated into the final building.

The planning docs also discuss, in extensive detail, the new street cutting diagonally through the site along the dart line, which will incorporate the arches under the line. This new street has been designed to provide a high quality urban realm connecting across to the new plaza at Tara Street.

I can absolutely assure you Irish Rail are not future proofing this building to allow the Dart platforms to be moved 100m south. Any efforts improving the Dart / Metro interchange should focus on widening the current platforms.

Brightlights66

It is abundantly clear, from the metro maps posted on this thread recently, that - with minimal adjustment - it would be possible to build a 'straight' metro station closer to the Red LUAS than the current plan, if the will was there.

A problem in Ireland is that the complaints of that art gallery owner on Harcourt Street, back when the LUAS Green line was being built, seem to have put the shivers into transport planners in Ireland.

Must. Not. Cause. Disruption.

The result, in O'Connell Street, is that the planners build the metro station, behind the closed doors of the erstwhile Carlton cinema, cause almost no disruption and have their PR people tell everyone that there is 'an easy interchange' with the Red line.

The result is 100 years, or whatever the proposed metro lifetime is, of a desperately poor connection.

An alternative is to go through the disruption of building a better interchange, i.e. building a station box further up O'Connell Street and close to the Red line, perhaps even something approaching diagonal across the street.

Then the city could have some disruption, but 100 years (or whatever the metro's lifetime is) of an excellent connection.

It is preposterous to say that the choice is between a station at Tara Street and a station at an appropriate location on O'Connell Street. The city can clearly have both, with a bit of tweaking of the route on the maps we've been shown.

Who now remembers the disruption on, for example, Nassau Street, while the LUAS cross-city was being built?

Given that the metro is underground, the potential for causing even less disruption during construction is there, if the will was.

prunudo

Afair, there was a post (or more) about this. Its not just to do with cost of building or lack of disruption during construction. The distance between stations also has a bearing on location. If stations are too close together or many varying distances, it can impact on the effectiveness of running a tight frequency when the metro is operational.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121647087#Comment_121647087

It is preposterous to say that the choice is between a station at Tara Street and a station at an appropriate location on O'Connell Street. The city can clearly have both, with a bit of tweaking of the route on the maps we've been shown.

But that is the precise reason why the Carlton site was chosen, having it further down OCS would not only have led to much more significant cost as the Street would have had to have been dug up to get the station box in, but also the curve in the tunnel to Tara St would have been much sharper, leading to a slower overall service.

For the sake of a 5 minute walk, I don't think its worth degrading the overall service.

ArcadiaJunction

"A problem in Ireland is that the complaints of that art gallery owner on Harcourt Street,"

Jesus I remember that lunatic and her sending out her Black Servant to stop the tram on the first day of service. She being a prime example of everything wrong with this nation.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121647527#Comment_121647527

Yes, I am aware of why the Carlton site was chosen.

The construction costs should be broadly the same, whether you hide the construction behind a facade, as proposed, or whether you build a station close to the LUAS. You've got to dig a hole which is about two storeys deep, and construct a station there.

There would, of course, be associated costs, because of disruption at street level, but this is normal in development of a city. A probable problem in Dublin is that this has never been done before.

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652047#Comment_121652047

Do you honestly think metro is only 6m below street level? Would barely clear the Liffey river bed if that was the case.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121647087#Comment_121647087

No. You are taking crayons and applying them to a major infrastructure project. The Metrolink stations are 26 metres wide, by 120 metres long. O'Connell Street is not wide enough to angle a station such that you could move it closer to Abbey St and still have a station at Tara St.

Coincidentally, the O'Connell Street station has a total depth of 40 metres, significantly more than 2 storeys.

Do you know where I got these figures? The Metrolink Docs. You still haven't looked at them.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652047#Comment_121652047

I'm genuinely interested in how you would have made the route better, in such a simple way. There is another thread for such discussions which is not off topic in this thread.

Can you post your simple solution there with some details on how exactly it could be executed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058323182/if-metrolink-was-scrapped-what-are-the-alternatives

highdef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121640038#Comment_121640038

Yeah, I agree that there does look to be plenty of room for platforms, using the picture as the reference. Fantastic suggestion, IMO.

I do disagree that the distance between Tara and Pearse is comparable to the distance between bus stops, especially in a rural setting as is the case here. The walking distance between Tara and Pearse stations is similar to the equivalent of having a bus stop at O'Connell bridge with the next one at the Dublin City Council Offices. Personally, I would totally walk that distance as it's virtually nothing to me but there are some (if not many) people who would consider that to be a considerable distance to walk. I'm mid 40's and healthy so would certainly not be in the category to consider that distance to be in any way an issue to walk.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121652765#Comment_121652765

Unfortunately I don't have the necessary skills to do what you ask, but it is worth looking at the following diagram of the relevant area, which was posted two pages ago:

It is patently clear to the naked eye that the curve south of Tara Street station is greater than any of the proposed gentle curves north of that station.

I imagine that a team of people with access to appropriate software, and knowledge of the TBM parameters, etc., would have no difficulty finding a solution on O'Connell Street which would provide much better access to/from the Red line.

The current planners are, without doubt, such a team. I would imagine they could do better, even if it means causing the much-feared 'disruption'.

In the long term, the next 100 years or so, the current metro plan for O'Connell Street is very poor.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655981#Comment_121655981

In 100years we'd hope to have multiple Luas lines crossing the city, plus additional Metro lines, including from Tallaght. Not all of these will have seamless transfers with every Luas, Metro and Dart line.

The solution you're looking for doesn't exist without inflating costs and creating additional risks for delays. The Carlton site on OCS is ready to go.

You should focus your energy on improving the connection once built. There's only 260m between the Metro platform and the actual Luas line (as a crow flies... or burrows!). Obviously longer from platform to platform, but definitely scope to improve.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655981#Comment_121655981

The current planners are, without doubt, such a team.

Indeed, you need only read the actual documentation to see that they have already considered many such parameters.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121655981#Comment_121655981

I imagine that a team of people with access to appropriate software, and knowledge of the TBM parameters, etc., would have no difficulty finding a solution on O'Connell Street which would provide much better access to/from the Red line.

Only a tiny bit patronising.

If you actually read the documentation on the Metrolink website you would see exactly why these avenues were not pursued.

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121619365#Comment_121619365

Disgusting alright- the far left academic “elite” really sicken me. They’re exactly as described. Not a toss given about the greater good or any real environmental benefits

Consonata

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/viewpoints/viewpoints/what-problem-is-being-solved-by-metrolink-and-at-what-cost-800920

Probably needless to say that McCarthy is good friends of the PDs and Sen. McDowell...

Tileman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121661747#Comment_121661747

Infuriating how is constantly given these uncontested platforms to air this shite. TII really need to start a pr programme on this.

prunudo

A dinosaur who has no place to be voicing opinions on the direction of PT for the next 100 years. But alas, paper never refused ink and its a cosy cartel between the old guard and the media.

Sierra Oscar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121661747#Comment_121661747

I remember sitting in on many an economics lecture by McCarthy years ago devoted to attacking renewable energy. He took a particular disliking to wind energy, stating it was a scam and that wind farms would be an economic disaster along with other forms of renewable energy. I think he belongs to a different era, I don't take him too seriously on anything - especially public transport. None of the predictions he made in those lectures have come to pass.

It's very telling that his article appeared in the Farmers Journal.

marno21

An opinion piece about a Dublin public transport project in the Farmers Journal

I wouldn’t be losing too much sleep over it lads

cgcsb

I wonder how these guys got such a grá for the oil industry. What's their trauma? They're certainly not being paid.

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662335#Comment_121662335

Yes and no, its the latest of a long line of opinion pieces that he manages to get published. People unfamiliar with the project will believe its a bad design, and when it comes to being implemented, they'll want 10bn spent on rural projects.

So yes, I and many here won't listen to him, but many up and down the country will and that feeds into the negative narrative around large ticket PT projects and other major infrastructure for that matter.

jumpinsheep

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121593409#Comment_121593409

Does anyone know, if there is any reason for Metrolink's Oral Hearing, to be missing from ABP's website?

View all upcoming Oral Hearings

Had a look through ABP website: the main page at the above link, other sections related to SID, weekly lists, etc., found nothing - and neither in Metrolink's and MetrolinkRO websites. I'm of course aware there were few newspapers talking about this, but I'm looking for updates in the official websites.

marno21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662573#Comment_121662573

Well he certainly shouldn't be censored. If he wants to write opinion pieces against Metrolink he should be free to do so. What shouldn't happen is these pieces having any influence on the project. That's a separate matter altogether. "Many up and down the country" will also have no say about Metrolink. The only say they will have is in an election and they will have their say based on housing, the cost of living crisis and immigration as per recent polling.

If those in power wanted an enflamed war about urban vs rural projects they're going the right way about it by shellacking the roads programme. A pragmatic non ideological leader would have pushed Metrolink ahead and quietly funded the rather unambitious roads programme rather than constantly getting into needless arguments about the roads programme.

marno21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662463#Comment_121662463

Oil does power the world. When economists talk about it vs. renewable energy without regard for climate related externalities, there's a clear case for fossil fuels and not renewable energy. The issue is obviously the side effects of fossil fuels in an environmental context.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662839#Comment_121662839

Politically you might be right but money is not unlimited and the resources in TII and the engineering companies it uses are not unlimited. Time and money spent on roads are time and money that cannot be spent on the metro.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662842#Comment_121662842

Ok but so, we can also use alternatives and reduce our need for energy with petter planning, transport and better building. Why Wed yourself to a particular fuel source and support planning in a way that maximises consumption?

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662842#Comment_121662842

I wouldn't say that there is a clear case for fossil fuels in general. Ignoring externalities, there is only a case for natural gas and 2 or 3 oil-based products as primary energy sources, these days. Coal and the like is dead. Fossil fuels dominate as a primary energy source but a lot of that is legacy - it's had a 150 year head start after all. The patterns of investment, seen globally across different countries, cultures and political climates - from Texas to China, has shown a complete shift into renewables for electricity with 80/90% of new capacity globally being into wind, solar PV or batteries in the last 4 or so years.

Unless you're a tin-foil hat type crank - there are a few here - this isn't the result of some global conspiracy led by a shadowy cabal of internationalist tree-huggers with Eamon Ryan at the top table. This is the market - economics and finance - speaking.

With a large installed legacy of fossil fuel infrastructure, it will take a while for renewables to dominate but this isn't surprising. It took until 1965 for coal to be displaced by oil as the global leader in terms of primary energy source, despite the fact that it had been clear for 30 or 40 years that oil and it's derivatives were superior. But exponential growth (in renewables), even if the exponent is considered small, will overtake linear (or no) growth (in fossil fuels) and this is the pattern we've been seeing for the last 10 or 15 years.