Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Last Stop

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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.

You’re completely contradicting yourself?!?
Do you want it to stop at St Stephens Green or do you want it to continue further south?
You’ve been told numerous times why the line is going to Charlemont.

strassenwo!f

Last Stop wrote: »

You’re completely contradicting yourself?!?
Do you want it to stop at St Stephens Green or do you want it to continue further south?
You’ve been told numerous times why the line is going to Charlemont.

I don't want the tunnel to stop at St. Stephen's Green, and I want it to continue further, but stopping it at Charlemont confers no benefit on the city, at least until the distant future.

I have indeed been told numerous times why it is stopping at Charlemont. It is because it will apparently eventually be used, 20 years hence (when the demand is there) to extend that tunnel towards Ranelagh and beyond.

So what will happen in those interim years? Everybody on the LUAS Green Line south of the canal will continue to travel on the LUAS into/out of town regardless of whether there is some tunnel under them at Charlemont. The metrolink extension to Charlemont is utterly pointless for that 20-year period. There may be some underground station built at Charlemont or around there, but the time savings will only be relevant for anyone trying to get north of O'Connell Street - a tiny proportion of people on the line: the largest group on any tram are just trying to get in or out of town.

If some extension of the LUAS Green line could be devised - simple enough, you'd think - along perhaps Adelaide Road, or perhaps around the Harcourt Centre and along the Hatch Streets - towards Baggot Street Bridge, principally for peak time services, then there would be no reason to really think about that stretch for 2-3 decades (as metrolink.ie have acknowledged).

So, instead of twiddling thumbs for two decades, why not use this project more efficiently to build a tunnel towards some other areas which could significantly benefit, especially those which seem to have higher population densities than the current Green Line.

I hope that helps.

strassenwo!f

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.

If I could just say, of the two MJohnstons which have recently appeared on this board, this was the MJohnston I really liked. I don't want to diss the other MJohnston, but this guy has much more developed views.

magicbastarder

bk wrote: »

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.

it's the ballymun road, the swords road is a good bit east of there.

Last Stop

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I don't want the tunnel to stop at St. Stephen's Green, and I want it to continue further, but stopping it at Charlemont confers no benefit on the city, at least until the distant future.

Any extension now would add years to the design and billions to the price

So what will happen in those interim years? Everybody on the LUAS Green Line south of the canal will continue to travel on the LUAS into/out of town regardless of whether there is some tunnel under them at Charlemont. The metrolink extension to Charlemont is utterly pointless for that 20-year period. There may be some underground station built at Charlemont or around there, but the time savings will only be relevant for anyone trying to get north of O'Connell Street - a tiny proportion of people on the line: the largest group on any tram are just trying to get in or out of town.

The metrolink extension is not pointless in the interim... it offers a direct interchange point between metro and Luas.
The journey time between Charlemont and O’Connell on a segregated metro with 2 stops will be significantly faster than an on street tram with 4 stops.

If some extension of the LUAS Green line could be devised - simple enough, you'd think - along perhaps Adelaide Road, or perhaps around the Harcourt Centre and along the Hatch Streets - towards Baggot Street Bridge, principally for peak time services, then there would be no reason to really think about that stretch for 2-3 decades (as metrolink.ie have acknowledged).

Not simple enough. The curves and slope from Charlemont make this difficult if not impossible. Add in the lack of demand for such an odd spur, the confusion with more spurs off the green line and the requirement to upgrade sections of the green line.

So, instead of twiddling thumbs for two decades, why not use this project more efficiently to build a tunnel towards some other areas which could significantly benefit, especially those which seem to have higher population densities than the current Green Line.

I hope that helps.

You have been told time and time again that you are wrong about the densities. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it right. Please stop this nonsense.

machaseh

Last Stop wrote: »

You’re completely contradicting yourself?!?
Do you want it to stop at St Stephens Green or do you want it to continue further south?
You’ve been told numerous times why the line is going to Charlemont.

Ending it at charlemont seems kind of pointless, like Charlemont is not a very important destination for further connections to public transport nor is it particularly a very densely populated area or a shopping centre or anything like that.

I understand that this is the best they can currently do politically but for the love of God can they please make sure that it can be easily extended afterwards? Good options would be Rathfarnham (and perhaps on to the M50 so they can build a new park and ride) or perhaps just further down the green line.

Sligo eye

machaseh wrote: »

Ending it at charlemont seems kind of pointless, like Charlemont is not a very important destination for further connections to public transport nor is it particularly a very densely populated area or a shopping centre or anything like that.

I understand that this is the best they can currently do politically but for the love of God can they please make sure that it can be easily extended afterwards? Good options would be Rathfarnham (and perhaps on to the M50 so they can build a new park and ride) or perhaps just further down the green line.

The key point is that places like Terenure, Templeogue and Rathfarnham aren’t going to get the public transport they need for years to come. I get the frustration that many have over endless resigns etc but the hard fact is that the NTA got this fundamentally wrong as with many other bizarre decisions they have made regarding rail and light rail. By all means go ahead with Swords-Charlemont as a phase 1 because at this stage any further design work will push delivery out again. However there should be a clear plan with commitments to extend further.

Meanwhile there still should be a heavy rail link from Clongriffin to the Airport. Add a third road into Connolly to resolve capacity issues. This would be a serious game changer for rail. Perhaps that’s why the NTA put the kibosh on it. After all it would be terrible to have an integrated transport system wouldn’t it.

plodder

Idbatterim wrote: »

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

I was surprised to get another email about this. It's completely ridiculous and sounds like another excuse to avoid actually doing something.

Now the election is over, FF were the only major party not committed to the Metro and they've less than a quarter of the seats in the Dáil now. So, it's time to get it moving.

Shedite27

machaseh wrote: »

Ending it at charlemont seems kind of pointless, like Charlemont is not a very important destination for further connections to public transport nor is it particularly a very densely populated area or a shopping centre or anything like that.

I don't think stations should stop at something important, it should pass through the important bits and then continue onto somewhere quieter. Most European metros don't stop at the centre

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If I could just say, of the two MJohnstons which have recently appeared on this board, this was the MJohnston I really liked. I don't want to diss the other MJohnston, but this guy has much more developed views.

Oh please do fück off. There’s a big difference between what I want, and what I think is pragmatically achievable at any given moment - if you’re unable to hold those two separate strands in your brain at once that’s on you.

As it stands, we have a great plan on the table for a practical, and very useful *first* part of a Metro network.

What I can’t abide is dead eyed morons with ulterior motives deciding that we should have grander visions, thereby putting what little we do have on hold for another 5 plus years. If we reach 2027 and there is no Metrolink because it was pulled to redesign and incorporate some additional spurs, then Dublin as a city will be irretrievably fücked.

machaseh

Sligo eye wrote: »

The key point is that places like Terenure, Templeogue and Rathfarnham aren’t going to get the public transport they need for years to come. I get the frustration that many have over endless resigns etc but the hard fact is that the NTA got this fundamentally wrong as with many other bizarre decisions they have made regarding rail and light rail. By all means go ahead with Swords-Charlemont as a phase 1 because at this stage any further design work will push delivery out again. However there should be a clear plan with commitments to extend further.

Meanwhile there still should be a heavy rail link from Clongriffin to the Airport. Add a third road into Connolly to resolve capacity issues. This would be a serious game changer for rail. Perhaps that’s why the NTA put the kibosh on it. After all it would be terrible to have an integrated transport system wouldn’t it.

I am okay with them building it to charlemont only at this point in time (it will kinda be like ending it in the middle of nowhere but fine), but ONLY IF IT IS EASY TO LATER EXTEND THE TUNNEL.

If they are going to make it super difficult to later extend the tunnel, they should not even bother.

As for clongriffin -> airport, that is a different topic.

machaseh

Shedite27 wrote: »

I don't think stations should stop at something important, it should pass through the important bits and then continue onto somewhere quieter. Most European metros don't stop at the centre

Uhmmmmm.... what ?!

marno21

machaseh wrote: »

Ending it at charlemont seems kind of pointless, like Charlemont is not a very important destination for further connections to public transport nor is it particularly a very densely populated area or a shopping centre or anything like that.

I understand that this is the best they can currently do politically but for the love of God can they please make sure that it can be easily extended afterwards? Good options would be Rathfarnham (and perhaps on to the M50 so they can build a new park and ride) or perhaps just further down the green line.

Charlemont is where the high capacity old Harcourt Line section of the Green Line terminates and the Green Line becomes a low capacity trundling street tram

Depending on a variety of factors, it may be possible to increase services south of Charlemont to feed into Metrolink, and in future when the needs of the city outweigh the needs of a small few, the Green Line can rightfully become a metro line south of here.

CatInABox

plodder wrote: »

I was surprised to get another email about this. It's completely ridiculous and sounds like another excuse to avoid actually doing something.

Now the election is over, FF were the only major party not committed to the Metro and they've less than a quarter of the seats in the Dáil now. So, it's time to get it moving.

A bit of context is missing here.

The recent consultations on BusConnects and Metrolink are down to Ireland adopting the Aarhus convention, meaning that there's now a legal requirement for these in depth consultations. If the consultation doesn't meet the standard required, it could be challenged in court and probably defeated, throwing the entire project into doubt.

The reason they've created a second, smaller consultation for this particular structure, which seems incredibly minor to me in the grand scheme of things, is that the local busybody group, Gadra, had already made legal noises about it not being included in the original consultations. By doing this, they remove the ability of Gadra to sue, so even if this delays the entire project by a couple of weeks (I actually don't think it's affecting the timeline at all), then it'll be worth it in the long run.

cgcsb

It's all a big joke, the NTA have full clown make up on. The siting of emergency exists is a purely engineering mater. The general public can't offer any meaningful input. It's just more money for reports, rinse and repeat.

salmocab

marno21 wrote: »

Charlemont is where the high capacity old Harcourt Line section of the Green Line terminates and the Green Line becomes a low capacity trundling street tram

Depending on a variety of factors, it may be possible to increase services south of Charlemont to feed into Metrolink, and in future when the needs of the city outweigh the needs of a small few, the Green Line can rightfully become a metro line south of here.

This! Charlemont is the last stop before the slow city Center section of the luas so it makes sense to go that far (within the confines of the current plan) it does allow options to turn back at this point in the future or even a spur as strassenwolf has pushed toward baggot street. The second one is pie in the sky but the first could be done relatively easy. Going to Charlemont clears the city Center which is better then just stopping at SSG.

plodder

CatInABox wrote: »

A bit of context is missing here.

The recent consultations on BusConnects and Metrolink are down to Ireland adopting the Aarhus convention, meaning that there's now a legal requirement for these in depth consultations. If the consultation doesn't meet the standard required, it could be challenged in court and probably defeated, throwing the entire project into doubt.

The reason they've created a second, smaller consultation for this particular structure, which seems incredibly minor to me in the grand scheme of things, is that the local busybody group, Gadra, had already made legal noises about it not being included in the original consultations. By doing this, they remove the ability of Gadra to sue, so even if this delays the entire project by a couple of weeks (I actually don't think it's affecting the timeline at all), then it'll be worth it in the long run.

Seems like a prudent thing to do then, but it only illustrates how the legal system here puts sand in the gears of important infrastructure. Despite doing this, objectors can still go to court and possibly cause delay even if they have no chance of winning, as the Apple Athenry case showed.

bk

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's the ballymun road, the swords road is a good bit east of there.

Dohhh, brain fart, of course! I've lived in the area 20 years, so I know it well. Either way equally busy and noisy road.

cgcsb wrote: »

It's all a big joke, the NTA have full clown make up on. The during of emergency exists is a purely engineering mater. The general public can't offer any meaningful input. It's just more money for reports, rinse and repeat.

While you right that the public can't say how an emergency exit is built, there are a few things about it that they could certainly point out:

1) Move it a few meters East, thus saving the mature trees there.

2) The access road going the length of the site seems unnecessary. Either have the access road to the south of it, directly into the "car park" or reverse the whole site and again have the access road going directly into the car park at the northern end. Save on extra space and trees being unnecessary.

I know it isn't a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but it does look sort of poorly thought out and designed.

Pete_Cavan

bk wrote: »

2) The access road going the length of the site seems unnecessary. Either have the access road to the south of it, directly into the "car park" or reverse the whole site and again have the access road going directly into the car park at the northern end. Save on extra space and trees being unnecessary.

I know it isn't a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but it does look sort of poorly thought out and designed.

People evacuating out will be heading north to the northern access onto Ballymun Road while emergency services drive in the southern access and go in doors on that side of the building. It stops people getting in each others way as they are going in different directions.

Shedite27

machaseh wrote: »

Uhmmmmm.... what ?!

bk

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

People evacuating out will be heading north to the northern access onto Ballymun Road while emergency services drive in the southern access and go in doors on that side of the building. It stops people getting in each others way as they are going in different directions.

Seems massively overkill to me. There is an entire park that people can exit into if need be.

MJohnston

bk wrote: »

Seems massively overkill to me. There is an entire park that people can exit into if need be.

I think emergency exit routes by their nature need to be carefully and specifically defined though

Pete_Cavan

bk wrote: »

Seems massively overkill to me. There is an entire park that people can exit into if need be.

Having two entrances makes sense, in an emergency you can operate a one way system so no conflicts. Fire engines are very big and have a massive turning circle, driving in one way and out the other avoids the need to provide space for them to turn around to drive out the way them came in. In an emergency situation, it also makes it easier to have ambulances going in one way and out the other, single flow of traffic. Maintenance vehicles also come in one side so the other side is always free for emergency vehicles.

CatInABox

Shedite27 wrote: »

Your post can be read as advocating building a metro line that goes through the city centre without any stations in the city centre. I realised what you meant after I realised that no one would advocate for something so silly.

LXFlyer

Shedite27 wrote: »

I don't think stations should stop at something important, it should pass through the important bits and then continue onto somewhere quieter. Most European metros don't stop at the centre

Presumably you meant to write Metro lines rather than “stations” when suggesting they should not terminate in the city centre but continue through to terminate at somewhere?

That’s whats confusing people!

Shedite27

CatInABox wrote: »

Your post can be read as advocating building a metro line that goes through the city centre without any stations in the city centre. I realised what you meant after I realised that no one would advocate for something so silly.

Ah right

Yes, was responding to the poster who seemed to suggest it should terminate at SSG, as that was the busiest point.

machaseh

LXFlyer wrote: »

Presumably you meant to write Metro lines rather than “stations” when suggesting they should not terminate in the city centre but continue through to terminate at somewhere?

That’s whats confusing people!

Oh now I get it.

marno21

TII have published a procurement plan for the construction phase of Metrolink.

TII are seeking to finalise the overall procurement strategy for the MetroLink scheme in Q1 of 2020. The estimated date of publication of the contract notice is 30 September 2020 for the above contract opportunities and Q2 of 2021 for the issue of the Invitations to Tender and first appointments in Q4 of 2021, subject to the necessary planning consents being in place.

MetroLink is categorised as Strategic Infrastructure Development and therefore the application for the planning consent, referred to as a Railway Order, will be made directly to An Bord Pleanála and it is expected that An Bord Pleanála will conduct a full oral hearing. It is currently proposed that the application will be made in Q4 of 2020, with the process expecting to take 1 year.

The contracts will be as follows:

* Three large construction contracts (Southern Section, Central Section and Northern Section) for the Civil Engineering and Stations, including all of the civil engineering and stations work within their site boundaries but excluding enabling works (to be procured separately);
* A Linewide Systems contract (Permanent Way and Overhead Line Equipment, Power Distribution, Communications and Automated Fare Collection)
* A proposed PPP with the following scope:
-> The design, manufacture, supply, testing and commissioning and maintenance of Rolling Stock;
-> Fit out of the Depot and Operations Control Centre;
-> The design, manufacture, installation, testing and commissioning of the Platform Screen Doors and Command & Control Signalling; and
-> Operation and maintenance of the automated driverless railway for a period in the range, approximately, of 15 to 25 years from the operations commencement date. In relation to fares, an approach similar to that used for the Luas services in Dublin is intended. In terms of payment mechanism, an availability-based approach is being considered but the detail of this approach is yet to be finalised.

Also:
Responses to the market consultation will assist TII in understanding whether the indicative procurement approach is attractive to the market. TII have proposed this procurement route to manage and minimise interfaces and to ensure (1) deliverability (2) affordability and (3) value for money.

The large construction contracts are proposed to be procured using the NEC4 target price contract to harness a collaborative contracting approach.

It is understood that market consultation is ongoing and TII are continuing to further develop and finalise the procurement strategy for this project.


https://www.philiplee.ie/metrolink-market-update/

Dats me

marno21 wrote: »

TII have published a procurement plan for the construction phase of Metrolink.

TII are seeking to finalise the overall procurement strategy for the MetroLink scheme in Q1 of 2020. The estimated date of publication of the contract notice is 30 September 2020 for the above contract opportunities and Q2 of 2021 for the issue of the Invitations to Tender and first appointments in Q4 of 2021, subject to the necessary planning consents being in place.

MetroLink is categorised as Strategic Infrastructure Development and therefore the application for the planning consent, referred to as a Railway Order, will be made directly to An Bord Pleanála and it is expected that An Bord Pleanála will conduct a full oral hearing. It is currently proposed that the application will be made in Q4 of 2020, with the process expecting to take 1 year.

The contracts will be as follows:

* Three large construction contracts (Southern Section, Central Section and Northern Section) for the Civil Engineering and Stations, including all of the civil engineering and stations work within their site boundaries but excluding enabling works (to be procured separately);
* A Linewide Systems contract (Permanent Way and Overhead Line Equipment, Power Distribution, Communications and Automated Fare Collection)
* A proposed PPP with the following scope:
-> The design, manufacture, supply, testing and commissioning and maintenance of Rolling Stock;
-> Fit out of the Depot and Operations Control Centre;
-> The design, manufacture, installation, testing and commissioning of the Platform Screen Doors and Command & Control Signalling; and
-> Operation and maintenance of the automated driverless railway for a period in the range, approximately, of 15 to 25 years from the operations commencement date. In relation to fares, an approach similar to that used for the Luas services in Dublin is intended. In terms of payment mechanism, an availability-based approach is being considered but the detail of this approach is yet to be finalised.

Also:
Responses to the market consultation will assist TII in understanding whether the indicative procurement approach is attractive to the market. TII have proposed this procurement route to manage and minimise interfaces and to ensure (1) deliverability (2) affordability and (3) value for money.

The large construction contracts are proposed to be procured using the NEC4 target price contract to harness a collaborative contracting approach.

It is understood that market consultation is ongoing and TII are continuing to further develop and finalise the procurement strategy for this project.


https://www.philiplee.ie/metrolink-market-update/

I hope they don't forget to get someone to dig the actual tunnel

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

If we reach 2027 and there is no Metrolink because it was pulled to redesign and incorporate some additional spurs, then Dublin as a city will be irretrievably fücked.

I always post that it won't happen and why history confirms it. In 2005 Transport 21 said it would be built by 2015 along with DU. 2015 has come and gone. (Don't BS me about recession) We are still talking about and re-designing all of it, just like we did years before 2005. I'm delighted that you have put a final date on it in 2027. Hopefully you'll accept an earlier date of around 2023, when still nothing has happened. Hopefully you'll be around in 2027 to accept that your dismissive attitude to doubters was pure baloney because you couldn't agree to differ in opinion and leave it there. Your posts are arrogant. Metro has already been pulled to redesign along with DU and Dublin has been irretrievably ****ed for years.