Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Idbatterim

I think if all the fcuking around has done anything, at least it has proved beyond doubt, that mickey mouse luas, is not a serious solution!

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

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.

Hopefully you’ll stop your sanctimonious bull**** that nobody here cares about...

Idbatterim

I agree with Grandeeod, it nearly feels like they would love a reason to scrap it! Lets hope after decades wasted, we might be in for a shock!

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

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.

To reinforce your point, when my father arrived in Ireland there were big plans afoot for the proposed Dublin Underground.

That was 1958.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Hopefully you’ll stop your sanctimonious bull**** that nobody here cares about...

My sanctimonious BS???:eek: Are you deluded? Your posts have offered nothing positive beyond a belief in a fantasy perpetuated by successive Governments. I really don't mind that and you are entitled to believe it if you want, However you continually put down any opinion that contradicts yours. You refuse to accept that there is an alternative viewpoint to any Metro being built. You actually set out to shoot that viewpoint down. Hence we end up having this chat. Only recently you were promoting a "fact" that voters do actually care about PT as an election issue....in Wicklow.:eek: The national stats on election issues as per RTE's coverage didn't even feature PT issues.

Why don't you try to respect the historically backed up viewpoint, that major rail PT projects are not a Government priority and never will be. Perhaps by 2027 (as you admitted) you will accept Dublin will be ****ed. I'm happy to wait as I been waiting since the 1970s.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

My sanctimonious BS???:eek: Are you deluded? Your posts have offered nothing positive beyond a belief in a fantasy perpetuated by successive Governments. I really don't mind that and you are entitled to believe it if you want, However you continually put down any opinion that contradicts yours. You refuse to accept that there is an alternative viewpoint to any Metro being built. You actually set out to shoot that viewpoint down. Hence we end up having this chat. Only recently you were promoting a "fact" that voters do actually care about PT as an election issue....in Wicklow.:eek: The national stats on election issues as per RTE's coverage didn't even feature PT issues.

Why don't you try to respect the historically backed up viewpoint, that major rail PT projects are not a Government priority and never will be. Perhaps by 2027 (as you admitted) you will accept Dublin will be ****ed. I'm happy to wait as I been waiting since the 1970s.

Sanctimonious: going on and on constantly telling us how your endless defeatism is the truly informed approach, taking sadistic glee in any and all minor delays or seeming delays to the project. I seriously wish you would keep your constant promises to never post in this thread again, but sadly you have yet to.

Pete_Cavan

Wasn't there a recent Mod post declaring that this thread is for discussing what is happening with this project (i.e. the process which is currently underway and continuing to progress) and not why it wont happen? Again the same nonsense has disrupted the thread. Ironically, posters only appear telling us it won't happen whenever there is some bit of actual progress. You would hope at this stage the (serially) offending posters are banned or at least given their own thread where they can wallow in misery.

Pete_Cavan

marno21 wrote: »

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)

Will be interesting to see the extent of these sections. I'd imagine the main tunnel and the associated stations will have to be all one section (the Southern Section) as having different TBMs operated by potentially different contractors and having them meet somewhere doesn't sound like a good idea. Assuming the Southern Section is from the Northwood station south, the Central Section could be the bridge over the M50, the depot and the tunnel under the airport. The Northern Section could be the open cut around Swords and the P&R. Would be great if all three were progressing at the same time.

Sam Russell

Mod: Cut out the personal scrapping. The post - not the poster - is what is called for in the charter.

Any more and sanctions will be applied.

Idbatterim

Where can I submit my comment on the public consultation? Which will say “ just build the fcuking thing”!

Sam Russell

Idbatterim wrote: »

Where can I submit my comment on the public consultation? Which will say “ just build the fcuking thing”!

Try Metrolink.ie

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think if all the fcuking around has done anything, at least it has proved beyond doubt, that mickey mouse luas, is not a serious solution!

It probably was a serious solution when it was first conceived. Like luas is a valid solution for Cork now but optimistic timelines give 2040 as the opening date for the solitary Cork tram line. So even if that optimistic time line comes to pass the citys growth will have stopped and companies will have just moved to other countries where infrastructure already exists or building it isn't an inter generational saga.

geo88

I've now submitted my opinion in support of the project as well!
It's not much, but I don't know if there's anything else at the moment that I can do.

Rulmeq

I keep reading Garda instead of Gadra, and was getting confused

tom1ie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Wasn't there a recent Mod post declaring that this thread is for discussing what is happening with this project (i.e. the process which is currently underway and continuing to progress) and not why it wont happen? Again the same nonsense has disrupted the thread. Ironically, posters only appear telling us it won't happen whenever there is some bit of actual progress. You would hope at this stage the (serially) offending posters are banned or at least given their own thread where they can wallow in misery.

Yeah, but then there’d be nothing to chat about!:D

tom1ie

Was the size of the p+r at the northern end finalised? Do we have any detailed drawings of the p+r yet, ie large car park(S) or a couple of multi storeys built around the terminus with set downs for local busses and bike stations etc etc.

Khuitlio

Just posted this on SSC but thought I'd ask opinions here too:

Was just looking at the area around the proposed link in with Luas Green Line.

Obviously this is just me playing with my crayon but any reason why they couldn't come up through the tennis club? I'm sure the 3 courts could be reinstated on a reconfigured site post construction. Could move the school to the vacant site I've marked in yellow and CPO the front gardens between the luas line and the school (none of the other houses there have front gardens anyway, so wouldn't be unheard of). Would 300m be enough distance to go from underground to the height of the luas line?

CatInABox

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah, but then there’d be nothing to chat about!:D

We were chatting about the latest consultation, before we were once again dragged off into the rather pointless topic of "this will never be built".

Please, for the love of god, please stop posting about how this will never be built. I don't care. I want to talk about the actual project. I don't want to go over the same topic again and again, because it doesn't lead anywhere. "This project will never be built!" Ok, great. Now what? Where does the discussion on this go? Am I meant to try and convince you that it will? I can't predict the future, so I'm not going to do that. It might get built, it might not, I don't really care either way, it's not going to make me depressed if it gets cancelled, and it sure as hell won't solve any of the problems in my life if it does get built.

The thing is, I just want to chat about it with like minded people. I enjoy the chat. Hell, I even enjoy Strassenwo!f and Last Stop arguing about nothing. I don't want to have to wade through pages of posts that invariably crop up after someone posts something like "you young whippersnappers don't realise that nothing in Ireland ever gets built!!!".

It is a pointless type of post, because there's nothing, absolutely nothing, I can do with it. It brings absolutely nothing to the thread. It is minus craic.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

We were chatting about the latest consultation, before we were once again dragged off into the rather pointless topic of "this will never be built".

Please, for the love of god, please stop posting about how this will never be built. I don't care. I want to talk about the actual project. I don't want to go over the same topic again and again, because it doesn't lead anywhere. "This project will never be built!" Ok, great. Now what? Where does the discussion on this go? Am I meant to try and convince you that it will? I can't predict the future, so I'm not going to do that. It might get built, it might not, I don't really care either way, it's not going to make me depressed if it gets cancelled, and it sure as hell won't solve any of the problems in my life if it does get built.

The thing is, I just want to chat about it with like minded people. I enjoy the chat. Hell, I even enjoy Strassenwo!f and Last Stop arguing about nothing. I don't want to have to wade through pages of posts that invariably crop up after someone posts something like "you young whippersnappers don't realise that nothing in Ireland ever gets built!!!".

It is a pointless type of post, because there's nothing, absolutely nothing, I can do with it. It brings absolutely nothing to the thread. It is minus craic.

Ah jaysus, it was tounge in cheek! I did go on to ask about the p+r in my next post.
You don't have to answer every post, if it isn't to your liking.

tom1ie

also where the hell did I say this would never be built?
I happen to think it will be built as the pressure on Dublin's transport system is getting to unbearable levels.
so, ya know, get off your high horse there chief!

Last Stop

Khuitlio wrote: »

Just posted this on SSC but thought I'd ask opinions here too:

Was just looking at the area around the proposed link in with Luas Green Line.

Obviously this is just me playing with my crayon but any reason why they couldn't come up through the tennis club? I'm sure the 3 courts could be reinstated on a reconfigured site post construction. Could move the school to the vacant site I've marked in yellow and CPO the front gardens between the luas line and the school (none of the other houses there have front gardens anyway, so wouldn't be unheard of). Would 300m be enough distance to go from underground to the height of the luas line?

NIMBYISM

CatInABox

tom1ie wrote: »

also where the hell did I say this would never be built?
I happen to think it will be built as the pressure on Dublin's transport system is getting to unbearable levels.
so, ya know, get off your high horse there chief!

Ah, sorry, none of that was directed at you! Absolutely none! It was instead aimed at those who are constantly posting in here about how it'll never be built, and I don't consider you to be one of those people at all.

You're right about ignoring it of course, it's what I do, there's no engaging with it, as I said, it's pointless. I'd question the point of posting it in the first place though. Why tell everyone over and over that it'll never get built? It's all that some people post. I don't get it.

MJohnston

Khuitlio wrote: »

Just posted this on SSC but thought I'd ask opinions here too:

Was just looking at the area around the proposed link in with Luas Green Line.

Obviously this is just me playing with my crayon but any reason why they couldn't come up through the tennis club? I'm sure the 3 courts could be reinstated on a reconfigured site post construction. Could move the school to the vacant site I've marked in yellow and CPO the front gardens between the luas line and the school (none of the other houses there have front gardens anyway, so wouldn't be unheard of). Would 300m be enough distance to go from underground to the height of the luas line?

Sadly I think that if the closure of a single street in Ranelagh was enough to form an entire group seemingly dedicated to ensuring the whole thing never goes ahead, then the CPO of a school and more importantly in Ranelagh, tennis courts is going to be wrapped up in legal complaints forever.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

Sadly I think that if the closure of a single street in Ranelagh was enough to form an entire group seemingly dedicated to ensuring the whole thing never goes ahead, then the CPO of a school and more importantly in Ranelagh, tennis courts is going to be wrapped up in legal complaints forever.

From what I've read about the change to the original metrolink plan, the change was made because the metrolink people have now taken on board the view that a considerably higher tram throughput is feasible along the Green Line south of the canal.

Many European cities are running 30+ trams in each direction per hour, even in sections with road crossings, and the metrolink folk very sensibly see that that should also be doable in Dublin.

I don't recall reading anything in their documentation that the change to their plan was because of local opposition.

Many cities would cry out for a tram line which is mainly built along an off-street corridor as good as the Green Line. Dublin should be grateful that such a corridor has been resurrected for this service.

Last Stop

strassenwo!f wrote: »

From what I've read about the change to the original metrolink plan, the change was made because the metrolink people have now taken on board the view that a considerably higher tram throughput is feasible along the Green Line south of the canal.

Many European cities are running 30+ trams in each direction per hour, even in sections with road crossings, and the metrolink folk very sensibly see that that should also be doable in Dublin.

I don't recall reading anything in their documentation that the change to their plan was because of local opposition.

Many cities would cry out for a tram line which is mainly built along an off-street corridor as good as the Green Line. Dublin should be grateful that such a corridor has been resurrected for this service.

A bit of common sense would tell you that TII are trying to save face and not admit that a group of residents stopped the upgrade.

Can you please provide a source for tram lines running more than 30 trams per hour?

Also, the metrolink website states “However, many people are concerned about the need to close the Green Line now for a prolonged period to allow its conversion to a metro system.” https://www.metrolink.ie/#/TheGreenLine

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

From what I've read about the change to the original metrolink plan, the change was made because the metrolink people have now taken on board the view that a considerably higher tram throughput is feasible along the Green Line south of the canal.

No, entirely false. I don’t know why you feel the need to lie when this is all covered in great detail in this thread. It was because there’s a sewer main running under the Grand Canal in exactly the spot where they wanted to be running the surfacing tunnel through.

Alternative option: years of the Green Line being closed in order to surface the tunnel further south.

There was also massive interference from Dunville Avenue assholes who wanted their precious level crossing preserved, so the plan had to incorporate an even longer duration of Green Line closure for work to cut and cover tracks in order to preserve the road.

Increasing the number of teams is just the last desperate attempt to save the southern Green Line from complete overcrowding. It won’t be enough.

strassenwo!f

Last Stop wrote: »

A bit of common sense would tell you that TII are trying to save face and not admit that a group of residents stopped the upgrade.

Oh. I hadn't considered that.

Last Stop wrote: »

Can you please provide a source for tram lines running more than 30 trams per hour?

The sources you need are the cities themselves, perhaps look at their websites, and several are running 30 tph, some a bit more: I'm not a very well-travelled person, but of the cities I've seen I could direct you to Vienna, Berlin - though I think the central tram section through the city centre there is down to around 26-28 trams per hour because of work out further east, in the Danziger Strasse area - Munich, Helsinki - which I saw for the first time last month (32 trams per hour at one city centre location) - Dresden, Warsaw. Check the websites of those cities yourself.

Last Stop wrote: »

Also, the metrolink website states “However, many people are concerned about the need to close the Green Line now for a prolonged period to allow its conversion to a metro system.” https://www.metrolink.ie/#/TheGreenLine

There shouldn't be any need to close the Green line if Dublin were to focus on developing the Green Line to its potential, and put its efforts for the years to 2040 into other areas.

Come back to the Green Line after that, sometime in the early to mid 2040's or so.

Last Stop

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The sources you need are the cities themselves, perhaps look at their websites, and several are running 30 tph, some a bit more: I'm not a very well-travelled person, but of the cities I've seen I could direct you to Vienna, Berlin - though I think the central tram section through the city centre there is down to around 26-28 trams per hour because of work out further east, in the Danziger Strasse area - Munich, Helsinki - which I saw for the first time last month (32 trams per hour at one city centre location) - Dresden, Warsaw. Check the websites of those cities yourself.

So you’re entire argument is based on anecdotal evidence and not a single fact to support your argument that 30+ trams per hour is feasible?

There shouldn't be any need to close the Green line if Dublin were to focus on developing the Green Line to its potential, and put its efforts for the years to 2040 into other areas.

Come back to the Green Line after that, sometime in the early to mid 2040's or so.

If you actually read my post, I was referring to your incorrect comment that there was nothing in the documentation to suggest that their change was due to local opposition.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

No, entirely false. I don’t know why you feel the need to lie when this is all covered in great detail in this thread. It was because there’s a sewer main running under the Grand Canal in exactly the spot where they wanted to be running the surfacing tunnel through.

Alternative option: years of the Green Line being closed in order to surface the tunnel further south.

There was also massive interference from Dunville Avenue assholes who wanted their precious level crossing preserved, so the plan had to incorporate an even longer duration of Green Line closure for work to cut and cover tracks in order to preserve the road.

Increasing the number of teams is just the last desperate attempt to save the southern Green Line from complete overcrowding. It won’t be enough.

You are saying that what I said in my post was entirely false, and you are also accusing me of lying, so I will be expecting some documentation to show that you can back up what you say. I think a reasonable time should be within the next fortnight, that is, until the end of this month.

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

So you’re entire argument is based on anecdotal evidence and not a single fact to support your argument that 30+ trams per hour is feasible?

In fairness to Strassenwo!f, the NTA/TII does indeed plan to run 30 trams per hour on the green line, in lieu of the Metrolink upgrade. You can see the report here.

It'll require turn backs at SSG and Charlemont, but it is possible.

Personally speaking, I don't think it's a solution to the capacity problem, in fact I think that the predicted passenger numbers are a fantasy. We've got people passing out in the morning rush hour on the Luas, but according to the figures they're using, we haven't run into a problem yet. Pretty sure they're not even taking into account the absolutely massive Cherrywood site either, they just think that there'll be this slow, gradual increase.