Metrolink south of Charlemont

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039531#Comment_122039531

The whole point is to have the plans for SOC already drawn up. They must be in a position to get the RO before the TBM reaches SSG, otherwise the opportunity will be lost.

They should do the two stand alone projects for Dunville Ave and St Raphaella's Road in the meantime.

spacetweek

The main reason we can't extend the tunnel from Charlemont to the south west (and therefore such a routing needs to be a new standalone line) is because of train frequencies. After the Green Line conversion, we can't have a train at rush hour every 2 minutes from Swords-Charlemont-Sandyford and also trains from Charlemont to the southwest, without sacrificing some capacity on the Charlemont-Sandyford section. It could be every 2 mins from Swords-CM, every 4 mins from CM to the SW and every 4 mins from CM to Sandyford, but that's the current frequency on the CM-Sandyford section at rush hour so it wouldn't be much of an improvement. You could have no connection between Metrolink and Metro Southwest and make passengers change trains at CM, but that's a recipe for overcrowding in an underground station so is less than ideal. So the southwest line needs to be standalone and pass through the city centre.

That said, a standalone Beaumont-City Centre-Tallaght line would be a megaproject on a vastly larger scale than Metrolink, and would require a couple of decades of rail project experience and multiple rounds of planning reform before we could get it built. We might have it by 2050.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039798#Comment_122039798

Ah, you think that they can finish a RO before Metrolink is finished, and then keep the TBM in the ground towards the new destination? As much as I'd like to see it, I really don't think it'll be possible. I don't think that they'll get through all the consultations that'll be required, not to mention all the bureaucracy like tendering, etc. Even worse than that, it'd open the entire project up to judicial review again, putting a question mark over a project with the TBM already in the ground. Just can't see TII putting that forward as a viable option.

No, I think that the Metrolink project that is going through planning is going to be the Metrolink project that we get. It makes any SOC project slightly harder, but it avoids a lot of problems, and that's really what TII want.

Zebra3

Maybe change the law in the mean time to bring us in line with sensible European countries and their more sane planning systems.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122043461#Comment_122043461

Often TBM’s get left in the tunnel once they are finished being used and they can be used later. Obviously you wouldn’t want to leave it too long, but a few years would typically be okay.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122043754#Comment_122043754

Yes, and I don't think that TII would have any problem with reusing the TBM, it's just that I think that they'll prioritise getting the current Metrolink project finished and operational as a step 1 to any SOC plan. If so, then the Metrolink tunnel won't be available to carry the spoil out, so relaunching the TBM from its end location is a no go, they'd have to take it out and relaunch it somewhere else.

That's one of the reasons I think that they'll do a Luas and Green Line Upgrade project rather than any other type of route.

L1011

How do you propose getting the soil out if the tunnel is in use? It is the soil removal route for the tbm.

Once it stops, it's a new project and needs to be tunneled in from a new launch site.

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122044701#Comment_122044701

where there's a will, there's a way.

But this is Ireland so your last sentence is probably correct.

Charles Babbage

Build a cut and cover line under the canal to Grand Canal Dock and across the river to Docklands and connect it to Charlemont.

Pete_Cavan

Th only realistic option for extending Metrolink south is to do an offline tie-in and extend along the Green Line.

Trying to then connect whats left of the southern Green Line back to the remaining Green Line north of Ranelagh is not a good idea. A meandering route and lots of conflicts will make a terrible service. For Luas, multiple distinct routes each with a specific purpose would be better. A proper network and good interchange opportunity is the best way to serve the city.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122044758#Comment_122044758

Digging a new launch site to retrieve an old TBM and remove spoil from would be more effort than starting afresh. Once the TBM is done its done.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122043461#Comment_122043461

So you are saying that once the RO is granted it cannot be changed, even in a relatively small way, opens up the RO to being cancelled by JR.

It is clear that the GL should be upgraded to ML between Charlemont and Sandyford, however that is eventually done. Two major points of dispute centre around Dunville Ave, which would need to be closed, and St Raphaelle's Road needs to be bridged. Both could be done once the RO is granted for ML as stand alone projects.

The other issue is the actual tie-in and where it is to go and how.

We already have retired curmudgeons saying ML should be cancelled in favour of more car parks at the airport and more buses to the city centre because ML is just a connection to the airport. So any opportunity to get the whole thing cancelled will be seized by them.

How do we ever get anything like infrastructure done, or houses built, here? We have people objecting to BusConnects because they do not want a bus stop outside their house, but OK to have it outside someone else's home. The GL will be closed for, was it, four years to upgrade it to ML and ML was to cost €23 billion.

It is like rolling boulders uphill, only for them to roll down again. M20 got planning only to be cancelled. Metro North got a RO only to be cancelled. ML should be under construction now, nearing completion of the tunnel.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048891#Comment_122048891

The RO is a planning permission, any change to it will also have to go through planning, even small changes. Of course, small changes won't need to go the full consultation route, but it'd still need to go into ABP. Larger changes, like a new route, or moving a station would almost certainly require a new RO to be sought.

But no, it's not that a change would cause an existing RO to suddenly be opened up to a JR, once the RO has been granted and the period for a JR has expired then it's almost totally bullet proof. However, starting a new project, a SOC project, that changes the ending of the Metrolink project, will require a brand new RO, and because it affects the existing Metrolink project, it creates a level of risk that I think TII would find unacceptable.

What happens if they don't get the RO? What happens if some one takes a JR? As you mention, the bus woman took a JR, the decision on whether or not she's even allowed to take a case isn't until June, an actual JR could take years to sort. In the case of the Metrolink, We'd have a TBM in the ground, with no idea on if we're ending in Ranelagh or continuing on further south, and that risk is a recipe for massive cost overruns, a la the NCH. TII are a fundamentally conservative organisation. I find it frustrating at times, but I can't really argue with their success rate.

I do agree with your points on getting stuff built, but I would point out that MetroNorth and the M20 weren't killed by objectors, they were killed by the worst financial crash in Irish history. TII have an amazing track record of building what they want.

Sam Russell

According to one of the MetroLink documents that I have the RO was due in 2021 and the line would be operational in 2027. Also cost would be about €3 billion.

Now, the RO 'might' be ready by 2025, and just inflation over those four years will have doubled the cost. Also, it is unlikely construction will start by 2027 which is when it was due to be operational. So no wonder the working cost has jumped from €3 billion to €9 billion.

Didn't they build Metros in Madrid in 2 to three years? Well, yes they did. Spain's first metro line (of 3.48 km) was built in just two to three years, a remarkable engineering feat. The Spanish Flu, similar to the current Covid pandemic, caused great devastation. The Madrid Metro started with a small corridor of 3.48 km in 1919 and has since grown to 295 km with 303 stations - that is in 5 years. ML is 16 stations and 18.8 km long.

Why can things not get done here? We cannot even get the GL conversion included in the build.

The NCH is almost identical - as it is the most expensive hospital in the world when cost per bed is used.

KrisW1001

I cannot believe you're seriously comparing construction timeliness in 1919 to those of today... the story of Madrid Metro's expansion from the 1990s onwards is a good enough counter example on its own.

Green Line conversion was excluded from Metrolink for very good reasons. It will be expensive per rider: the capacity is not needed for another decade or more, it would break Luas Green in two for three years, it would add no extra public transport catchment and it would hobble Green line in the city. There's better, more pressing projects to spend the cash on. Before any upgrade, I would expect a new Green branch to be in place to handle the disruption..

But Madrid is very unlike Dublin. It has a high population density of over 5000 per square km, and that makes rail transport the best option, despite the cost. Dublin's figure is 3600, and North of the Liffey is denser than South. The only census area in Ireland with population density close to Madrid is... Kinsealy-Drinan, outside of Swords, and that's where Metrolink is running to.

Zebra3

Of course, the counter argument to that is, if we’d built proper public transport in the city centre and immediate suburbs, we’d have that density and not urban sprawl.

KrisW1001

Unfortunately, it doesn't work both ways. Just putting in public transport won't increase population density: once private houses are in place they're difficult to replace.

As a country we're paying the price of some poor (and often corrupt) land-use decisions from the 1960s to 2000s.

spacetweek

I’m still quietly confident that enabling works will start next year and talk of construction not kicking off until 2027 will turn out to be excessively pessimistic.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122057180#Comment_122057180

ABP announced a new consultation must be carried out and that hasn't started yet so you're talking about the earliest possible RO date being in 2025 and a year or more to get contractors tendered for and mobilised and on site. 2027 seems like earliest possible date assuming that the general election doesn't result in project cancellation.

spillit67

It’s incredible how poor the reporting on this is. The IT improved during the hearings but there is nobody out there with a good grasp of timelines.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050110#Comment_122050110

What other European cities (or any cities really) have a pop density of 3600 pskm and what kind of rail transport have they got?

spacetweek

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222407#Comment_122222407

That’s a worst case scenario. We’ll have to hope it turns out better in reality.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122248239#Comment_122248239

How is it 'worst case' though? ABP have already announced a further round of consultation which has yet to be scheduled and it's now the middle of 2024. That puts any granting of RO well into 2025, which then means you're tendering for construction from some point in 2025, you're talking easily a year for that. Construction starting in 2026 is an optimistic case scenario at this stage assuming no more blunders, dawdling or political interference. Remember we've an election before the RO is granted.

DART+ West will soon have it's second birthday in ABP.