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

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

12526283031314

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Son of Stupido


    dubhthach wrote: »
    I'm assuming the "Luas Interconnector" is the line through city centre connecting Green and Red together. Given that this is probably the cheapest of the three options what's the odds it will get the nod? :rolleyes:

    My bet is on the metro for the following reasons
    • It has planning and is ready for construction (preliminary works)
    • The services have to be dug up and moved for both the metro and the Luas link, so at this stage (prep works) there would be no savings between the two
    • The link would be out of action for 4 years when they returned to build the underground stations...there wouldnt be enough room to maintain the service
    • The DART Underground is too far behind in the planning stage so is likely to lose out
    • The DU is also (kind of) dependent on the Metro to feed in and link other areas to the network
    Although, there could be a hybrid....they do the Luas link but build the underground stations for the metro, not the tunnels, and mothball them until they bore the tunnels at a later stage thus no disruption to the Luas during metro construction ;););)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    BXD is the (very) poor mans Metro North. Do remember that if Leo authorises enabling works in O Connell St that DU is off the list and the choice will be made between MN and BXD.

    It will provide Leos constituents with a route to the City Centre rather than Connolly of course. If they could flatten Broombridge and rebuild as a bunker with guard posts on the perimiter .....most preferably by nuking the area.... then bonusage accrues :)

    Put the new prison on top so that the lags have a view perhaps ????


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    In any case, no decision is to be made on transport capital projects until September. So we can all meet back here in 5 months time and see how the Irish bond yields are doing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Time enough to design a retro Vauban type emplacement in Broombridge even :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭Highly Salami


    dynamick wrote: »
    In any case, no decision is to be made on transport capital projects until September. So we can all meet back here in 5 months time and see how the Irish bond yields are doing.

    source?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    source?

    Leo Varadkar said it yesterday at Citywest Luas PR stunt.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0408/1224294220939.html
    Mr Varadkar said the two runner-up projects would be progressed to “railway order” status, in effect planning permission for the projects, and then mothballed until the State had the money to progress them further.
    While a “strong case” could be made for Metro North, he added: “The question the Government has to answer between now and September is, first of all, do we have the exchequer funding to pay for the exchequer part of it, and is the private funding going to be available.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    It really sounds like he wants to say 'yes' to Metro North.

    Using the criteria he mentions:

    1. Availability of finance:
    – Luas BXD is the cheapest but entirely exchequer funded afaik,
    – Metro North depends on the ability to raise private finance
    – Interconnector also depends on private finance
    Winner: impossible to say

    2. Cost-benefit analysis
    – Luas BXD: very high benefit for low investment
    – Metro North: approx 2:1 subject to final tender price
    – Interconnector: approx 2.5:1
    Winner: Interconnector > Luas BXD > Metro North, but they are all strong

    3. Impact on customers (I read this as journey time/convenience)
    – Luas BXD: convenient, but doesn't really cut journey times vs walking from Stephen's Green
    – Metro North: quantum leap in commuting for people within the corridor as regards speed and convenience
    – Interconnector: cuts cross-city journey times and makes many more parts of Dublin accessible
    Winner: Metro North imo

    4. Benefit the most people
    – Luas BXD: relatively small increase in passenger numbers, esp at peak times, when the Green line is full anyway.
    – Metro North: all new passengers, except those choosing Metro over Swords Express/airport buses
    – Interconnector: likely to see a huge increase in commuting from the Kildare Line; lesser increases on the Northern and Maynooth line
    Winner: Metro North or Interconnector broadly evenly matched

    5. Climate change
    – Luas BXD: small impact – redirecting passengers from buses
    – Metro North: large impact – many new passengers; some transferring from buses
    – Interconnector: largest impact – many new passengers, who will travel much further on average than the other two projects, therefore saving more carbon emissions.
    Winner: Interconnector, followed by Metro North.


    That's what I think anyway. In the end it will come down to the relative weight given to each of those factors, and the availability of finance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Is there an official Cost-Benefit Analysis for the luas BXD? It strikes me as quite useless, not even offering significant increases in journey times vs walking, along with disruption to an extremely busy bus corridor. Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Is there an official Cost-Benefit Analysis for the luas BXD? It strikes me as quite useless, not even offering significant increases in journey times vs walking, along with disruption to an extremely busy bus corridor. Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.

    College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.


    Is there scope for the Luas Green Line to continue down underground at St Stephans Green to join up with Metro North?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,218 ✭✭✭markpb


    Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.

    You mean put it back the way it was not so long ago?
    mgmt wrote: »
    College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.

    There's loads of space around college green to squeeze in two trams lines and cycling space. How on earth do the cyclists in Amsterdam manage to surive?
    mgmt wrote: »
    Is there scope for the Luas Green Line to continue down underground at St Stephans Green to join up with Metro North?

    The largest cost in tunnelling is the entry and exit portals. Digging a tunnel for less than 1km would be terribly bad value for money. If we're dropping a TBM in the city centre, we may as well continue on with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    markpb wrote: »
    That's not really here or there, the fact is that there are currently no gantries on College Green and putting back up will have an inevitable visual impact (as far as planning and IMO amenity/visual costs are concerned).

    Furthermore, the BXD route would involve catenary wires near more of the front of TCD (the Grafton St. and some of Nassau St. aspects) than was the case in the link above.

    And this bit is my opinion, but I think TCD looks better now than it does in that link.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    markpb wrote: »
    The largest cost in tunnelling is the entry and exit portals. Digging a tunnel for less than 1km would be terribly bad value for money. If we're dropping a TBM in the city centre, we may as well continue on with it.

    For what its worth the Great Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011–2030 proposes to link up Metro North with Luas Green Line. http://dublinobserver.com/2011/03/rail-luas-metro-upgrades-suggested-for-dublin/

    The entrance to the tunnel will be cut-and-cover anyway. Drop in the TBM and continue boring out to the Airport. Perhaps with the added benefit of being able to use the downramp of the Luas Green Line to extract the excavated material on a freight tram.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    That's not really here or there, the fact is that there are currently no gantries on College Green and putting back up will have an inevitable visual impact (as far as planning and IMO amenity/visual costs are concerned).

    Furthermore, the BXD route would involve catenary wires near more of the front of TCD (the Grafton St. and some of Nassau St. aspects) than was the case in the link above.

    And this bit is my opinion, but I think TCD looks better now than it does in that link.


    Also you could potentially have the Lucan Luas line joining up at College Green.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,819 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Oharach,

    Don't forget the "votes for politicans" test. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

    If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

    And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

    The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    According to the business case for Luas BXD – i.e. the whole way from Stephen's Green to Broombridge, the benefit to cost ratio is 2.46:1. Including Dublin Bus estimates of operating cost and revenue dilution impacts during construction, the BCR drops to 2.15:1. This does not include the wider economic benefits. Anything over 2 is considered very good.

    I am unaware of a cost:benefit analysis for the BX link from St Stephen's Green to O'Connell St, excluding the extension to Broombridge.

    Source: BXD line business case, p. 62 (June 2009)
    Don't forget the "votes for politicans" test. smile.gif
    Always a factor I concede, but LV seems much less susceptible to it than the previous lot, and we are very early in the Dáil session, so short-term election-politics is less of an issue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    oharach wrote: »
    According to the business case for Luas BXD – i.e. the whole way from Stephen's Green to Broombridge, the benefit to cost ratio is 2.46:1. Including Dublin Bus estimates of operating cost and revenue dilution impacts during construction, the BCR drops to 2.15:1. This does not include the wider economic benefits. Anything over 2 is considered very good.

    I am unaware of a cost:benefit analysis for the BX link from St Stephen's Green to O'Connell St, excluding the extension to Broombridge.

    Source: BXD line business case, p. 62 (June 2009)

    Always a factor I concede, but LV seems much less susceptible to it than the previous lot, and we are very early in the Dáil session, so short-term election-politics is less of an issue.
    APPENDIX 2 – CBA Parameters and Assumptions

    Growth
    Real GNP Growth % pa
    2000 to 2002 6.23%
    2002 to 2010 2.70%
    2011 to 2015 2.37%
    2016+ 2.29%
    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/line_bxd_business_case.pdf pg99

    I think the above figures make nonsense of the CBA figures.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

    If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

    And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

    The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.

    I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

    The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

    Either:
    (1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

    Or:
    (2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

    Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    mgmt wrote: »
    I think the above figures make nonsense of the CBA figures.

    You're right to call the figures into question, which is why I did point out the date of the report (nearly 2 years old by this stage). However, even if a 1% growth rate means the figures do have to be reassessed, the business case was very strong in the first place, and can probably take a bit of a hit and still be worth doing.

    My first preference is still for Metro North, subject to final CBR. As with many on this forum, I now prefer it over the Interconnector because it's a more realistic bet, and it's better to have one major scheme go ahead than none. BX is not a solution to very much imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    oharach wrote: »
    I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

    The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

    Either:
    (1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

    Or:
    (2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

    Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.

    My gripe isn't SSG per se, more the lack of imagination in opening up as many areas as possible. Either way you're overlapping from the Green to Parnell Square, when there are plenty of areas nearby which could use a rail link. Such as a more westerly route through Patrick St area interchanging at Christchurch, and then across to Broadstone. For example.

    The BXD/MN duplication just seems confused, or lazy. Or both!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    My gripe isn't SSG per se, more the lack of imagination in opening up as many areas as possible. Either way you're overlapping from the Green to Parnell Square, when there are plenty of areas nearby which could use a rail link. Such as a more westerly route through Patrick St area interchanging at Christchurch, and then across to Broadstone. For example.

    The BXD/MN duplication just seems confused, or lazy. Or both!

    Another reason SSG was chosen is because there is a lot of open space to create the station. As it is, there were numerous issues with finding a suitable site for a station at Christchurch, largely because of archaelogical issues. Realistically, if you wanted to create a much larger interchange station, it would have to be mined, which is pretty costly. There was supposed to have been a North-South Luas line through Christchurch, but the feasability study wasn't positive on getting it through the arch in Winetavern Street.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    One thing to remember is how much service is going to run north of StSG on BX - some of it is likely to turn back if only to keep schedules, and the same on D. One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    dowlingm wrote: »
    One thing to remember is how much service is going to run north of StSG on BX - some of it is likely to turn back if only to keep schedules, and the same on D. One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.

    Really? I would have thought this was pretty unlikely unless a third platform was built at SSG for turnbacks. Space looks pretty tight, but it would probably just about be possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    oharach wrote: »
    Another reason SSG was chosen is because there is a lot of open space to create the station. As it is, there were numerous issues with finding a suitable site for a station at Christchurch, largely because of archaelogical issues. Realistically, if you wanted to create a much larger interchange station, it would have to be mined, which is pretty costly. There was supposed to have been a North-South Luas line through Christchurch, but the feasability study wasn't positive on getting it through the arch in Winetavern Street.

    Well, I was thinking more as a tram line yeah. Follow line D south to Broadstone, but instead go
    Constitution Hill-Church St-Brazen Head-High St-Christchurch.
    Here you meet other proposed lines and the Dart.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    dowlingm wrote: »
    One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.

    Not only can you do that outside Trinity but there is no need for Overhead cabling either.

    http://www.alstom.com/transport/news-and-events/press-releases/Nice-chooses-ALSTOMs-CITADIS-for-its-new-tram-in-an-order-worth-57-million-euros-20040916/
    As this line will run through Place Masséna and Place Garibaldi; Canca asked for the tram to be able to cross them without the need for overhead power lines. The CITADIS trams will therefore be equipped with nickel-metal hydride batteries, such as already used by electric buses

    This is the net result on Streetview. The Place Massena run looks like the length of Grafton St and Past Trinity and not an overhead in sight :) Further north is This vista

    This Line in Nice is 8.6km long and cost €560m including enabling works. As Luas Line BXD is 5.6km long, 2/3 the length of the Nice Line even we can surely manage to build it for 2/3 the cost or €400m..including rounding.

    Say €500m including the extra enabling works for MN in future. Run a 24 hour shuttle bus from Broombridge to the Airport out Finglas direction and sorted. :cool:

    Watch out for Leo taking a ministerial trip to Nice lads :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,644 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    mgmt wrote: »
    College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.

    On the contrary, I think converting College Green into a pedestrian square and having BXD would be fantastic. Also, if it was up to me, I would pedestrianise O'Connell Street when BXD is built and have both tracks on OCS. With MN, BXD and Du, there would be no need for buses on OCS.
    oharach wrote: »
    I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

    The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

    Either:
    (1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

    Or:
    (2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

    Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.

    From Vision 2030;
    154579.jpg

    Having the Green Line join MN is crazy because, if BXD is built, a large section of it is only replicating MN above ground. A better option would be to extend MN south-west (roughly Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham). Yes the duplication still exists but you get two distinct north-south lines, Swords - Rathfarnham and Broombridge (future extension to Finglas) - Dundrum, both via the city centre, linking with two east-west lines (Luas Red and DU).


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Watch out for Leo taking a ministerial trip to Nice lads :D
    While we're talking about Nice, they're currently doing enabling works for a partially underground east-west tramway. The tunnel will be about 3.5km long, even though there's plenty of space to put it at street level. This is about the same distance as Broadstone to Beechwood.

    The difference between Nice and Dublin is not the politicians per se. In Nice, stuff just gets done. The mayor decided dog poop doesn't attract tourists, so no more dog poop on the streets. Mopeds are noisy and obtrusive, so no more mopeds. He wanted a tram system, he got one. The east-west line isn't going down the Promenade, not because there's not enough space, but that catenaries would be unsightly -- so it's going underground instead. There's a respect for the urban area that makes French city centres so appealing. And the people? By and large they don't care as long as their taxes are spent on things they'll actually use and not to line peoples pockets, and that it'll still cost them only €1 on the tram when it's all built. That's France for you!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. Before the crash it could have been sold as a vanity project to keep O Connell St sightlines clear but now the best you could hope for is interesting designs for the catenary poles.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    dowlingm wrote: »
    I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. .
    Oh God no :eek: , not in-ground. :eek: The Dublin Skanger class living all along that line make it their lifes 'work' to jam it up with their baby buggies, chewing gum and high heels....probably all three together simultaneously and not forgetting our weather either. :( Trying to feck with overhead will result in a Darwinianly correct outcome so leave them much that to play with!

    The Nice trams have their batteries on the roof it seems, see here and they can run 1km with Aircon On! . I suspect a retrofit would be possible with existing Green Line trams in future. I would certainly ask Citadis for a guesstimate.

    Bit of a long but good essay on options points out here that a Tramways Act 1870 may prohibit the Citadis on ground option anyway

    But I would consider the battery model for Trinity and maybe O Connell St afterwards with pantagraph up in Westmoreland Street.

    Alternatively a Green Line type of tram, the 402 , has been retrofitted with supercapacitors insted of batteries but I don't know their range or how it went. Again they went on the roof.
    A bank of 48 supercapacitor modules installed on the roof of the tram will store energy regenerated during braking, and can also be topped up from the overhead wire in 20 sec during station dwell times. This allows the vehicle to run between stops without using the catenary. During the test runs, conducted under commercial operating conditions, the vehicle will operate with its pantograph lowered on two sections of T3: Georges Brassens - Porte Brancion and Porte de Choisy - Porte d’Italie. A ‘rapid-charging station’ has also been installed at Lucotte depot.

    According to Alstom, the supercapacitor technology will ‘support operations in partially-autonomous mode’, avoiding the need to install catenary at complex junctions, on bridges or in front of public buildings. It will also allow wire-free operation in depot areas. Operation in ‘fully-autonomous mode’ would be possible with the use of ‘boost chargers’ at the stops. The STEEM partners believe that building new lines without catenary could reduce investment costs, as well as ‘optimising integration into the urban landscape’.

    Siemens also sell low floor trams and have tested their Energy storage systems too and Bombardier flogged a few of theirs only this week, see here but appear to store off braking operations not run across catenery less sections.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    dowlingm wrote: »
    I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. Before the crash it could have been sold as a vanity project to keep O Connell St sightlines clear but now the best you could hope for is interesting designs for the catenary poles.

    Bordeaux.Citadis-402.2.jpg

    The Bordeaux system looks class without the catenaries but I remember reading the cost of putting the power into a 3rd rail costs 3 times more than conventional overhead lines. I've also been to Nice and it really does make the system a lot less obtrusive if the lines can be done without. College Green and O'Connell St should be catenary free but the cost is probably prohibitive.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement