Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Metrolink south of Charlemont

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,730 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #253
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #254
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #255
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #256
    KrisW1001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭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.



  • #257
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,964 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #258
    KrisW1001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭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.



  • #259
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #260
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,789 ✭✭✭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.



  • #261
    spillit67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • #262
    tom1ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,858 ✭✭✭✭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?



  • #263
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #264
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,789 ✭✭✭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.



  • #265
    OisinCooke
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Was just having a look thorough the 2018 Green Line tie-in and Metro Upgrade report and was looking at the plans for the metro-idication of the existing stations and was very surprised to see that all will still feature a very tram-style at-grade pedestrian track crossing at both platform and ends. With the heavy emphasis on the removal of at-grade crossings for Metrolink due to it being driverless, this seems like an obvious contradiction…

    Will platform screen doors be placed on the crossings maybe, only allowing pedestrians to cross when no train is present? For the planned frequency though, surely there’ll almost always be a train present or at least close enough to warrant the barriers to close…? Seems odd that this very light rail feature was kept for what will be an automatic and highly frequent metro service… Any thoughts from those more in the know?



  • #266
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,670 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I don't have the exact details, but if memory serves, it wasn't decided that Metrolink would be a driverless system initially, but somewhere in early planning.

    It's possible those upgrade reports you're talking about were concurrent with that decision, and that they largely didn't get updated from previous Metro plans because the Green Line tie-in and upgrade wasn't going to be included in the Metrolink iteration of the plan anyway.



  • #267
    citizen6
    Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭citizen6


    Is there any detail on how the Green Line capacity upgrade would work, with extra Luas running Sandyford to Charlemont? Where exactly would the turnback at Charlemont be? Would it require an extra platform on the bridge, to avoid blocking other Luas while everyone gets off the terminating ones?



  • #268
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Consonata


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122366851#Comment_122366851

    There will be a new turnback platform built at Charlemont on the bridge I believe. There is space for it.



  • #269
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Consonata


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122362804#Comment_122362804

    The latest designs had elevated pedestrian crossings with lifts I think.



  • #270
    Tow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,342 ✭✭✭Tow


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122366851#Comment_122366851

    The original plan was to knock the houses on the left side of the current track, heading from town. The brick terraced houses built in the 80s and maybe couple of period houses.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement