Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Options
1…2223252728…196

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,384 ✭✭✭prunudo


    madbeanman wrote: »
    When people talk about spurs (like this proposal and a seperate one for a spur on the Lucas into Fingal) I always wonder about the length of the line. What is an optimal length for a Metro? How long is too long?

    I'm always skeptical about adding spurs. These should be stand alone lines so as they don't curtail future increase of frequency of the line they are joining.
    By all means integrate with existing lines but not at the expense of limiting existing lines.

    And as a segway to the n11 upgrade thread the fb experts are calling for the Luas to be extended along the n11 as a solution to the traffic without a care for how will effect the current over crowded greenline, not to mention the extra capacity issues when Cherrywood comes on stream.


  • Options
    #723
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: Can we keep to Metrolink please.



    Off topics moved to Metrolink Alternatives thread.


  • Options
    #724
    ncounties
    Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ncounties


    I see on the Metro Link website, the anticipated date for applying for a Railway Order is Q2 2020 - is this still likely?


  • Options
    #725
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    ncounties wrote: »
    I see on the Metro Link website, the anticipated date for applying for a Railway Order is Q2 2020 - is this still likely?

    will there be a public consultation on this issue?


  • Options
    #726
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,521 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    ncounties wrote: »
    I see on the Metro Link website, the anticipated date for applying for a Railway Order is Q2 2020 - is this still likely?

    Definitely not. Late 2020 if it isn't shelved by then


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,384 ✭✭✭prunudo


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Definitely not. Late 2020 if it isn't shelved by then

    Why would it be shelved? Are you just being cynical or the possibility a new administration would look for a re-design?


  • Options
    #728
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    prunudo wrote: »
    Why would it be shelved? Are you just being cynical or the possibility a new administration would look for a re-design?

    It's a possibility.
    FG didn't like the FF metro and redesigned (under guise of recession). If FF are in government next time around they may decide that they don't like FG's design. Who knows.


  • Options
    #729
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,866 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The idea that the Metro plans changed because one political party didn't like the other political party's plan is nonsense. First of all, these plans weren't developed by the political parties in the first place. Metro North was designed in the context of DU being delivered around the same time, that is no longer the case so Metrolink was designed to provide heavy rail connectivity in the absence of DU. It makes perfect sense and Metrolink is a superior plan.


  • Options
    #730
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,384 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The idea that the Metro plans changed because one political party didn't like the other political party's plan is nonsense. First of all, these plans weren't developed by the political parties in the first place. Metro North was designed in the context of DU being delivered around the same time, that is no longer the case so Metrolink was designed to provide heavy rail connectivity in the absence of DU. It makes perfect sense and Metrolink is a superior plan.

    Was there something about them pushing the cross city Luas ahead meant they built over the proposed ssg station for Metro north, or am I mixing things up.


  • Options
    #731
    Qrt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,638 ✭✭✭Qrt


    prunudo wrote: »
    Was there something about them pushing the cross city Luas ahead meant they built over the proposed ssg station for Metro north, or am I mixing things up.

    Sounds fairly plausible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,521 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    prunudo wrote: »
    Why would it be shelved? Are you just being cynical or the possibility a new administration would look for a re-design?

    The state doesn't have the cash. We've committed a blank check to rural broadband which has a minimum cost of 3bn. The children's hospital saga is a minimum of 2bn it again is a blank check. There are numerous rural road schemes that will be required to buy votes. Then there's the threat of a new government which means redesign. So not a snowball's basically.


  • Options
    #733
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,866 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    prunudo wrote: »
    Was there something about them pushing the cross city Luas ahead meant they built over the proposed ssg station for Metro north, or am I mixing things up.

    The monster SSG interchange station was taken off the table anyway, allowing LCC to proceed.


  • Options
    #734
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The state doesn't have the cash. We've committed a blank check to rural broadband which has a minimum cost of 3bn. The children's hospital saga is a minimum of 2bn it again is a blank check. There are numerous rural road schemes that will be required to buy votes. Then there's the threat of a new government which means redesign. So not a snowball's basically.

    Is the National Broadband Plan not a maximum of €2.97bn?

    The rural road schemes aren't going to be an issue for several years yet because there are very few close to construction. The only road scheme not under construction that could possibly start before 2022 is the N5 Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge scheme which will cost around €130m to construct.


  • Options
    #735
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,343 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    marno21 wrote: »
    Is the National Broadband Plan not a maximum of €2.97bn?

    The rural road schemes aren't going to be an issue for several years yet because there are very few close to construction. The only road scheme not under construction that could possibly start before 2022 is the N5 Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge scheme which will cost around €130m to construct.

    Yes, despite the apocalyptic warnings of financial doom, Ireland is still quite flush at the moment, even with the price tag for the NCH and the NBP. If the economy continues as is for another couple of years, Metrolink will definitely get sign off, regardless of who gets elected next time around.


  • Options
    #736
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,653 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I'd also be wary of assuming that it would be Metrolink that would get the boot if the government was to shift to FF, the NBP is on much shakier ground politically.


  • Options
    #737
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,521 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    marno21 wrote: »
    Is the National Broadband Plan not a maximum of €2.97bn?

    The rural road schemes aren't going to be an issue for several years yet because there are very few close to construction. The only road scheme not under construction that could possibly start before 2022 is the N5 Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge scheme which will cost around €130m to construct.
    2.97bn ok, you hardly think it'll be capped at that?

    Even if there were funds available for metrolink, I really doubt that there is a political appetite for another mega project given how politically toxic the latest ones are.


  • Options
    #738
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,920 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'd also be wary of assuming that it would be Metrolink that would get the boot if the government was to shift to FF, the NBP is on much shakier ground politically.

    they've already signed the contract for the NBP


  • Options
    #739
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    cgcsb wrote: »
    2.97bn ok, you hardly think it'll be capped at that?

    Even if there were funds available for metrolink, I really doubt that there is a political appetite for another mega project given how politically toxic the latest ones are.

    I haven't seen the contract but yes, I don't think it'll exceed 3bn. In addition, it's 3bn over 25 years

    There's no other public transport projects in Dublin that can go ahead now and be used as votewinners. They already exhausted the Luas BXD card the last time. There's no more readymeals


  • Options
    #740
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,653 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    loyatemu wrote: »
    they've already signed the contract for the NBP

    I don't think that will matter to a government that actually wants to dump the project.


  • Options
    #741
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,521 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    marno21 wrote: »
    I haven't seen the contract but yes, I don't think it'll exceed 3bn. In addition, it's 3bn over 25 years

    There's no other public transport projects in Dublin that can go ahead now and be used as votewinners. They already exhausted the Luas BXD card the last time. There's no more readymeals

    They have bus connecrs or fuged version of same and they can build a fudged version of DART expansion with some closed level crossings and hybrid trains and it'll be hailed as the height of modern by the Irish Times.

    I think it's naive to assume that a fundamentally flawed project like the nbp will be capped at 3bn. And as for 25 years, companies and governments don't last that long


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,653 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I think it's naive to assume that a fundamentally flawed project like the nbp will be capped at 3bn. And as for 25 years, companies and governments don't last that long

    But that doesn't contradict the point that the contract specifies that the subsidies, etc will be €3bn over 25 years. It doesn't matter if NBI or the government don't last that long, if the contract remains in place, it's not a one-off €3bn lump sum.


  • Options
    #743
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,320 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'd also be wary of assuming that it would be Metrolink that would get the boot if the government was to shift to FF, the NBP is on much shakier ground politically.

    The NBP contract has been signed so very difficult to undo.


  • Options
    #744
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,653 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Marcusm wrote: »
    The NBP contract has been signed so very difficult to undo.

    See above...


  • Options
    #745
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    The real issue is spending unusual levels of certain tax receipts on current funding instead of investing in capital project. FAC has already advised on the risks involved here.


  • Options
    #746
    madbeanman
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭madbeanman


    I think with this kind of stuff, it is important to consider if it is being discussed politically. Leo brought up Metrolink in a Dail speech recently (I don't remember the specific context but it was definitely within the last month) If he was quietly thinking of dropping it he wouldn't do that. Its like how Coveney speaks about the Cork Events Centre any chance he gets when it would be so easy to simply dump it at this stage.


  • Options
    #747
    vladmydad
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭vladmydad


    The next government will likely be a FF Green coalition. Guaranteed the Greens will make some awful anti infrastructure demands.


  • Options
    #748
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,356 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    vladmydad wrote: »
    The next government will likely be a FF Green coalition. Guaranteed the Greens will make some awful anti infrastructure demands.

    Diesel engines for all, not my fault the car industry told me what to do. The greens need to dump Ryan or they’ll struggle for credibility.


  • Options
    #749
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Is it mad though ? I mean any other continental city and I’d assume they’d be delivering a metro to there... the issue is the chronic lack of funds spent on infrastructure here

    Which cities are delivering a metro when light rail has a shocking ROI and is behind about 20 other actually needed projects?


  • Options
    #750
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The state doesn't have the cash. We've committed a blank check to rural broadband which has a minimum cost of 3bn. The children's hospital saga is a minimum of 2bn it again is a blank check. There are numerous rural road schemes that will be required to buy votes. Then there's the threat of a new government which means redesign. So not a snowball's basically.

    The European investment bank are literally begging us to borrow. Which is not to mention the actual billions being spend on roads and road conditions every year


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Uriel. wrote: »
    The real issue is spending unusual levels of certain tax receipts on current funding instead of investing in capital project. FAC has already advised on the risks involved here.

    Odd that risk doesn't seem to affect road building.


Advertisement