Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Cause that's where they are?

I mean, I hope their objections are essentially discarded, but building your labs miles away from the departments using them is going to be extremely sub-optimal.

I'm sure some consideration was given to it, but you rapidly diminish the usefulness of the labs as they become further from the centres of research they are supposed to serve.

CERN is the centre of research.

Building medical research facilities beside hospitals in no way, shape or form undermines my argument that you should build the research facilities where the expertise is located.

TCD is space constrained, hence there will be growing need for off-site facilities. There are already newer facilities east of Westland Row. However, GCD is within very short walking distance of TCD and it would fall foul of your supposed "no science inside cities" requirement anyway.

You don't like TCD and consider them serial objectors. That is fine. They have also allowed Pearse St fall into ruin. There are many bad things you could level at them. Flippantly saying they should have just built their labs "somewhere else" and that they don't really do hard science anyway is just applying the same kind of dismissive hand waving logic all the Metro objectors use. "Why did they build them there?" has a rather painfully obvious answer. There are massive benefits to having the entire function of a department co-located, for both students and researchers. The researchers are there and so their equipment needs to be there. Off-siting an entire department is going to be incredibly expensive and have detrimental impacts on the students. It made perfect sense for Trinity to build these labs where they did.

TCD did not expand to Marino, they took over the degree granting for an existing institution.

I am claiming that on campus was by far the most logical place to build the labs and there are numerous detrimental reasons to putting a few labs off site. The only way it would work would be to offshore the entire group or department and that would have cost magnitudes more money and been a fundamental change in the nature of the university. You can not have research labs that involve the researchers and postgrads getting on the bus for an hour to do experiments and then the same in reverse for their teaching and undergraduate work. Synergies between research groups and departments is vital, and interactions between undergrads and research elements is what makes a properly thriving educational university. Putting the labs on a greenfield site would be equivalent to James' hospital putting their radiology department outside the M50. There are similar labs inside city centres, including with metros, all over the world including in many top tier universities. There objection is not meritorious, but it is not remotely for the reasons you are putting forward. They absolutely should have built the labs where they did, it is just going to cost them a bit more to overcome the Metro works. You can dismiss the objection without engaging in the same, essentially, nimbyism that blights infrastructure projects. They built where they did because it made by far the most sense to do so. There was nothing either mendacious or stupid about the decision.

Please stop mentioning the LHC, it could not be less relevant to departmental research labs. It was never the University of Copenhagen's to keep, it had nothing to do with them. Bohr just happened to be based there.