Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Zebra3

Grandeeod wrote: »

LOL! and LOL! AGAIN AND AGAIN. Watch as it all gets reinvented and kicked down the road. Once it happens again, I hope some posters here stay around and admit to me and others they were wrong and don't re-reg to hide from it.

Despite what you read here, PT and Metro were not election issues overall. This gives the next Government the next get out clause and that doesn't even factor in any kind of recession coming our way. As a nation we have no problem throwing hundreds of millions at the big ticket rail projects. The billions scare the politicians.

That said, I don't want to disrupt the thread as my views tend to be reported. Hopefully mods leave my post in terms of relevance to the unfolding political scene.

If what you say happens, I can't imagine many re-regging.

People will be gutted/heartbroken, but I doubt people are going to run away and hide.

I'd also like to think if the metro was cancelled or if it went ahead, there wouldn't be gloating from anyone.

Peregrine

Grandeeod wrote: »

LOL! and LOL! AGAIN AND AGAIN. Watch as it all gets reinvented and kicked down the road. Once it happens again, I hope some posters here stay around and admit to me and others they were wrong and don't re-reg to hide from it.

This was announced last year, Grandeod. You also don't seem to be paying much attention to the current plan for someone who claims to know exactly how it will pan out.

It's not a reinvention of anything but a consultation about an element that was omitted from the previous consultation for practical reasons.

You seem glad. It's not a good look.

CatInABox wrote: »

Nothing on Metrolink.ie yet, I assume that means they'll upload docs on Wednesday.

Yes, it'll only be uploaded on Wednesday.

Muahahaha

Grandeeod has a point on the importance of transport as an election issue. In all of the debates I cant recall it being raised as a topic at any point. It just doesnt register highly as an issue for many voters

Anyway hopeful whatever govt we end up with will proceed with this.

Sam Russell

Muahahaha wrote: »

Grandeeod has a point on the importance of transport as an election issue. In all of the debates I cant recall it being raised as a topic at any point. It just doesnt register highly as an issue for many voters

Anyway hopeful whatever govt we end up with will proceed with this.

Metrolink is only a positive issue in Dublin. In 'rural Ireland' it is a negative - 'Why can we not have Metro or at least Luas?'.

Even in Dublin it is mixed as in the Dunville Ave and Na Fianna opposition.

Fian

Grandeeod wrote: »

Despite what you read here, PT and Metro were not election issues overall. This gives the next Government the next get out clause and that doesn't even factor in any kind of recession coming our way. As a nation we have no problem throwing hundreds of millions at the big ticket rail projects. The billions scare the politicians.

Prhaps not election issues "overall" but on a local level I think that Shane Ross lost his seat because he threw his constituents under the Metro in agreeing to stop the metro in Charlemont in order to appease some NIMBYs in the neighbouring constituency. His constituents can't get on the luas into town during peak times to commute.

MJohnston

As I've said before, we need a Transport Minister who is smart enough to connect the dots for the public between the election issues that were top of mind - housing and health - and show how transport can help address those issues.

Build better, more widespread, more efficient transport and you'll have much greater and more diverse areas of cities that are possible for people to commute from.
You'll unlock new parts of the city, previously undeveloped, where you can build high-density housing stock at cheaper prices.
You'll massively reduce emissions that cause deleterious health effects in the short and medium term, and climate problems in the long term.
You'll enable people to ditch cars and take healthier modes to commute.

One (just one, mind you) of the major flaws with Shane Ross' ministry was his utter lack of ability to see this big picture. Get us a transport minister who can make these arguments persuasively, and transport won't need to standalone as an isolated election issue.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

As I've said before, we need a Transport Minister who is smart enough to connect the dots for the public between the election issues that were top of mind - housing and health - and show how transport can help address those issues.

Build better, more widespread, more efficient transport and you'll have much greater and more diverse areas of cities that are possible for people to commute from.
You'll unlock new parts of the city, previously undeveloped, where you can build high-density housing stock at cheaper prices.
You'll massively reduce emissions that cause deleterious health effects in the short and medium term, and climate problems in the long term.
You'll enable people to ditch cars and take healthier modes to commute.

One (just one, mind you) of the major flaws with Shane Ross' ministry was his utter lack of ability to see this big picture. Get us a transport minister who can make these arguments persuasively, and transport won't need to standalone as an isolated election issue.

One health issue that is affected by transport is the ease of staff and patients to get to hospitals. It also affects housing which affects staff as well.

CrabRevolution

I think the reason transport is so low down the agenda of the public is the popular notion of the all-powerful state that governs everything. In their eyes, things like railways and roads are simply tools of the government to increase business and population in a given area.

People see railways not as a means to serve demand, but as a method of creating demand. Instead of building a railway to serve 500'000 that are currently being crammed into a system that can only serve 400'000, they'd rather a railway be built to serve 1000, in the hope that it'll somehow induce demand from 10'000 people and "develop the region".

MJohnston

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think the reason transport is so low down the agenda of the public is the popular notion of the all-powerful state that governs everything. In their eyes, things like railways and roads are simply tools of the government to increase business and population in a given area.

People see railways not as a means to serve demand, but as a method of creating demand. Instead of building a railway to serve 500'000 that are currently being crammed into a system that can only serve 400'000, they'd rather a railway be built to serve 1000, in the hope that it'll somehow induce demand from 10'000 people and "develop the region".

I'll grant you that might be what some of our ridiculous politicians believe, but it doesn't make any logical sense. The majority of the electorate live in cities or within hypothetical public transport range of them, so there's a lot more votes out there for developing cities than developing rural areas.

MrAbyss

MJohnston wrote: »

One (just one, mind you) of the major flaws with Shane Ross' ministry was his utter lack of ability to see this big picture. Get us a transport minister who can make these arguments persuasively, and transport won't need to standalone as an isolated election issue.

Sadly this person does not exist in Ireland.

D.L.R.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think the reason transport is so low down the agenda of the public is the popular notion of the all-powerful state that governs everything. In their eyes, things like railways and roads are simply tools of the government to increase business and population in a given area.

People see railways not as a means to serve demand, but as a method of creating demand. Instead of building a railway to serve 500'000 that are currently being crammed into a system that can only serve 400'000, they'd rather a railway be built to serve 1000, in the hope that it'll somehow induce demand from 10'000 people and "develop the region".

Excellent point and a huge problem with the Irish political culture.

One potential bit of good news for Metrolink is the longer it takes to form a govt, the longer it can quietly continue making progress. And the next govt will be so weak/divided that it might have no choice but to keep the ball rolling.

ncounties

MJohnston wrote: »

As I've said before, we need a Transport Minister who is smart enough to connect the dots for the public between the election issues that were top of mind - housing and health - and show how transport can help address those issues.

Build better, more widespread, more efficient transport and you'll have much greater and more diverse areas of cities that are possible for people to commute from.
You'll unlock new parts of the city, previously undeveloped, where you can build high-density housing stock at cheaper prices.
You'll massively reduce emissions that cause deleterious health effects in the short and medium term, and climate problems in the long term.
You'll enable people to ditch cars and take healthier modes to commute.

One (just one, mind you) of the major flaws with Shane Ross' ministry was his utter lack of ability to see this big picture. Get us a transport minister who can make these arguments persuasively, and transport won't need to standalone as an isolated election issue.

Can you run for office please - then you can be our Transport Minister?

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

As I've said before, we need a Transport Minister who is smart enough to connect the dots for the public between the election issues that were top of mind - housing and health - and show how transport can help address those issues.

Build better, more widespread, more efficient transport and you'll have much greater and more diverse areas of cities that are possible for people to commute from.
You'll unlock new parts of the city, previously undeveloped, where you can build high-density housing stock at cheaper prices.
You'll massively reduce emissions that cause deleterious health effects in the short and medium term, and climate problems in the long term.
You'll enable people to ditch cars and take healthier modes to commute.

One (just one, mind you) of the major flaws with Shane Ross' ministry was his utter lack of ability to see this big picture. Get us a transport minister who can make these arguments persuasively, and transport won't need to standalone as an isolated election issue.

And, we're told the problem with the health service is lack of staff. We had a staff shortage in work. Two different people accepted jobs from abroad and after not being able to get a hotel, gave up looking for a home after a week and declined the offer and went back home.

Transport > housing > Health. All three are linked. Fix the first two and the third will improve.

If you're a nurse in Tallaght hospital and start work at 6am, how do you get to work when the Luas doesn't start until 6?

CatInABox

It's live.

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1227548184915927040

Take the time to take a look and craft a response, even if you're for or against. Even if you think that this consultation on what happens in one large park is irrelevant to you, fill out a form saying that you're broadly supportive of the project overall, and that it shouldn't be overly delayed as a consequence of this consultation

CatInABox

It all looks pretty good and reasonable, in my opinion. I'm sure Gadra.ie will be shouting to the rooftops about how this is practically a criminal activity, but not sure that they'll get anywhere with it.

Peregrine

CatInABox wrote: »

It all looks pretty good and reasonable, in my opinion. I'm sure Gadra.ie will be shouting to the rooftops about how this is practically a criminal activity, but not sure that they'll get anywhere with it.

Some people in the area are under the assumption that a car park is being put in. I wonder who told them that.

ricimaki

Peregrine wrote: »

Some people in the area are under the assumption that a car park is being put in. I wonder who told them that.

Technically they're correct - there's a car park for emergency vehicles.

bk

I regularly use this park (walk, running, play ground). The change looks very minimal to me and is in a part of the park that is relatively minimally used compared to the rest of the park. The playgrounds, tennis courts, adult outdoor gymn, etc. are all over on the other side of the park. So personally I wouldn't have major objections.

The one objection I'm sure that will come up is the need to cut down mature trees. That is always a pity. I know people will ask why the shaft access can't be further East, thus leaving most of the mature trees in place. I'd assume it is because of the tunnel.

Actually now that I look at it, I don't know why they don't flip it around. It wouldn't need as much access road then and could reduce the number of trees that need cutting.

jd

You can see what Gadra are say at
https://www.gadra.ie/latest-news/latest-news.html

bk

jd wrote: »

You can see what Gadra are say at
https://www.gadra.ie/latest-news/latest-news.html

:rolleyes:

Really, they are complaining about it taking 8 tennis courts worth of space!

The National Tennis Center is in the same park with 10 tennis courts and Glasneivn Lawn Club with another 8 tennis courts is like 10 meters away from this location across the road! This area is certainly not lacking in tennis court space! The Drumcondra area probably has the highest density of tennis courts in the whole country.

Actually I'm surprised they aren't complaining about losing the mature trees. The playing fields just east of it and rarely used from what I see and might be a better location for it.

Their complaint about the noise coming from the shaft every two minutes is hilarious given that it is right next to the busy Swords road and all the noise from cars there.

Conchir

Their release ends with this paragraph:

We do not feel that the land take from the park for a shaft should be a point for negotiation and therefore we are not seeking a meeting ourselves with the NTA as we do not feel this would be constructive. We are asking you to make representations directly with NTA on behalf of our residents in order to change the shaft to a station and save our park!

Changing the shaft to a station and 'saving' the park aren't exactly one and the same.

I've written a submission largely supportive of the plan. The majority of submissions on these things tend to be negative, so writing a positive one (if you approve) is vital!

MrAbyss

CatInABox wrote: »

It's live.

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1227548184915927040

Take the time to take a look and craft a response, even if you're for or against. Even if you think that this consultation on what happens in one large park is irrelevant to you, fill out a form saying that you're broadly supportive of the project overall, and that it shouldn't be overly delayed as a consequence of this consultation

"Shocking!!! I once scored a goal there after school in 1979! This is akin to cultural genocide! What will the children of Ireland do now!!!"

Podge_irl

bk wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Really, they are complaining about it taking 8 tennis courts worth of space!

The National Tennis Center is in the same park with 10 tennis courts and Glasneivn Lawn Club with another 8 tennis courts is like 10 meters away from this location across the road! This area is certainly not lacking in tennis court space! The Drumcondra area probably has the highest density of tennis courts in the whole country.

Actually I'm surprised they aren't complaining about losing the mature trees. The playing fields just east of it and rarely used from what I see and might be a better location for it.

Their complaint about the noise coming from the shaft every two minutes is hilarious given that it is right next to the busy Swords road and all the noise from cars there.

I see they are also asking for people to submit to the public consultation to complain about the egregiousness of a section of the park being taken from them without any consultation

matrim

I do have some sympathy for the argument that's it's impossible to get back park land once it's taken but at the same time it's a minimal amount of land and this is a much needed project. The fact that they are arguing for a station instead of the shaft undermines their argument and shows that they don't really care about losing a small amount of the park.

MrAbyss

jd wrote: »

You can see what Gadra are say at
https://www.gadra.ie/latest-news/latest-news.html

This bunch are definitely professional objectors and someone is funding them. Car or Taxi lobbies would be my bet.

Shedite27

MrAbyss wrote: »

This bunch are definitely professional objectors and someone is funding them. Car or Taxi lobbies would be my bet.

Nah,know a few of them, they're mainly retirees who just want everything to stay the same

strassenwo!f

It was interesting to see the PM of Ireland's neighbour say that it would be unacceptable for areas in the North of that country to have no significant improvement in their links with London or Birmingham for 20 years if the second stages of HS2 were not to see progress in delivery.

Dublin is happy to see the metro tunnel built to Charlemont, and then sit around for 20 years or so to extend it if the demand is eventually there, without apparently doing anything else on the Southside.

Even as many other parts of the city could benefit significantly from that tunnel, in that period, and the LUAS Green line could be tweaked a bit, in that period, to increase throughput and to serve other areas of the Southside (like the areas around Baggot Street Bridge and perhaps beyond).

I seriously question the value, and the logic, of Dublin focusing on extending the tunnel from St. Stephen's Green to Charlemont in the initial phase of delivery of the current Metrolink proposal.

MJohnston

Go awaayyyyyyy

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

Go awaayyyyyyy

It's a puzzle. I write a post suggesting that it could be more efficient for Dublin to, maybe, not continue the tunnel as far as Charlemont in the initial phase of metrolink, and not wait around for 20 years for further development on the Southside, and I get the above post.

Yet I read, on page 61, this post:

MJohnston wrote: »

Build better, more widespread, more efficient transport and you'll have much greater and more diverse areas of cities that are possible for people to commute from.
You'll unlock new parts of the city, previously undeveloped, where you can build high-density housing stock at cheaper prices.
You'll massively reduce emissions that cause deleterious health effects in the short and medium term, and climate problems in the long term.
You'll enable people to ditch cars and take healthier modes to commute.

My emboldening.

The two posters seem to have diametrically opposed views. But can there be two MJohnstons on boards.ie? Is that allowed?

Idbatterim

these endless public consultaions , are pathetic! I just saw the photo there of what is proposed, its hardly the bloody poolbeg chimneys! Insufferable!

why dont we run another set of public consultations? more people might have moved into the areas in question...