Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Hertz will have an eye on losses due to a reduction in tourists hiring cars if they know they can get to the city and to train lines to the West easier; they are unlikely to outright say that though.

I’d be surprised if the metro had much impact on the car rental market at all. A lot of it comes from insurance claims. The tourist part is definitely big but is there much of an overlap between someone renting a car and someone staying along the metro line?

It’s very hard for car rental companies to find space because parking is either restricted or very expensive. If they have a lot that’s affected by the build, maybe they’re just looking for some compo for being affected?

Interesting testimony from a blind person, who will lose her house under the current plan, and it's not at all clear that she will receive recompense for the money she recently put in to make it a suitable home for someone in her position.

This wouldn't be necessary if a sub-river option near Tara Street station - with access from both banks - had been examined by the metro planners, and there is no evidence that it was, despite such a station being a mere variant of the sub-river station plan at O'Connell Bridge approved by ABP for metronorth.

The advantages are obvious: there would be no need for demolition of the block of apartments adjacent to Tara Street, or of this lady's home and other homes; much easier and greater access to the metrolink from both sides of the river; and a dramatically reduced interchange distance (compared to the current proposal) for those wishing to change between the metro and the LUAS red line. The current interchange plans for those lines, as discussed here earlier, seem to be risible.

A terrible idea doesn't need to be examined by planners on the off chance its slightly less disruptive for one person.

Anyone CPOed will get suitable recompense.

The original Metro North also got its permission in 2008, in an Ireland where the goverment was awash with money and other, competing, funding needs we easily being met. A bit of showing off was permitted...

The MN O'Connell Bridge station would have had to have been excavated in place, under the river. This is not just the most expensive type of station build, but also one in a high risk setting, which would have forced it deeper, increasing the cost further. Not one of the Metrolink stations is excavated: every single underground station is built using cut and cover, which is far, far cheaper and much more predictable.

In planning terms, it was approved. The government of the day didn't have the money and decided not to build it, and that's fair enough, but the project had cleared all the planning hurdles.

The transport body applying, possibly the RPA (there have been so many) spent several years designing what they thought was the best route, then applied to ABP for a railway order, which was eventually granted after, presumably, considerable scrutiny by ABP as to its merits. That included the sub-river O'Connell Bridge Station.

One wonders why a sub-river option (Tara Street - Marlborough Street) doesn't appear to have even been considered for the current iteration of Dublin's metro saga, given the considerable work which went into proposing one before, and getting approval - at the highest planning level. As I said above, there could and probably would be several advantages.

I'm trying to keep up with the costs in Ireland. So, could you say, for example, what the installation of the Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork - a 4-lane road plopped into a river bed - might cost in today's terms?