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 )

15354565859314

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I've been puzzling over this post for some time. Obviously there was political pressure for overground in Ballymun and a Parnell Station.

    We will very probably never know whether the political pressure against a potential stop/station at Trinity was severe, strong or considerable.

    Or maybe it was just noteworthy, suggestive or nudgeworthy.

    Or maybe College Green was ruled out on practical grounds - a mix of the sensitive building and, more likely, the lack of space on College Green which would not allow a station or entrance box to be constructed and the heavy bus traffic to flow very well?

    Given there's a station entrance planned less than 150 meters from College Green, maybe we're thinking about it a bit too much?

    The whole O'Connell Bridge fiasco simply does not fit in with the considerable efforts by the RPA to reduce costs elsewhere by cutting down on the number of escalators and other stuff.

    Even if one cuts costs overall, you tend to plan the likely busiest stop so that it functions well.

    And what fiasco?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    Or maybe College Green was ruled out on practical grounds - a mix of the sensitive building and, more likely, the lack of space on College Green which would not allow a station or entrance box to be constructed and the heavy bus traffic to flow very well?

    Given there's a station entrance planned less than 150 meters from College Green, maybe we're thinking about it a bit too much?

    Even if one cuts costs overall, you tend to plan the likely busiest stop so that it functions well.

    And what fiasco?

    Maybe it was ruled out on practical grounds, though I doubt it. But we really need some insider like Chooochooo to come back and give us feedback about the political pressure the RPA faced.

    I don't think there's any lack of space on College Green for a station, but I agree that it can be difficult to see that with all the clutter - trees, statues, etc. Space is probably not the issue. The buses would undoubtedly present a problem, but Dublin is (according to a former Transport Minister) planning to build a "world-class transport network". Our transport planners would need to find a way around that one before very considerable amounts of money are invested in the metro. (or alternatively, of course, they could attempt to avoid it by just going ahead with the more expensive O'Connell Bridge option).

    Buses also use O'Connell Bridge quite frequently, I've noticed.

    The O'Connell Bridge fiasco I referred to, by the way, is the idea of building an 8-level non-interchange station at that location. If they were to save money on the O'Connell Bridge thing, they might be able to invest that in dealing with the bus issue.

    (On a side issue, I did find it perturbing to read one of the posters on this thread - Winters, I think, - talking about the 1km gap between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell being "just about acceptable". I must try and find that, but "just about acceptable" is not something which, to my mind, ties in with the aim of developing a world-class network).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    You are certainly right about their decision for the O'Connell Bridge stop. Where would you propose constructing a station for Trinity though? I remember talking to Rob Leech at the RPA about a stop at "Trinity" and he said a station box or indeed a mined station in College Green wasn't feasible in terms of construction access, disruption and geology cost. They came to the conclusion that Westmoreland Street was the only possible location and that was too close to the then proposed O'Connell Street stop (300m). D'Olier was another option but the alignment meant a deviation under Trinity College which was ruled out. Remember also that a "Trinity" stop at College Green would be just 500m from the St. Stephen's Green stop.

    In my opinion a 1000m distance between St. Stephen's Green and a O'Connell Street stop is just about acceptable for the reasons that the Luas Line BX/D runs above the line with intermittent stops at Dawson, Westmoreland, O'Connell Upper, Parnell and Dominic Street and also that Dublin itself is not high rise and actually lends itself quite well to walking and also we're all well used to walking through town..

    Yes, world-class network, how are you? Martin Cullen must be spinning on his osteopath's table!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    Even if one cuts costs overall, you tend to plan the likely busiest stop so that it functions well.

    I'm afraid I forgot to query this last night, but wouldn't St. Stephen's Green be the busiest station on the metro? With the interchange with the DART, and all?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Monument normally pops in with another post about 20 minutes after I've posted. He must be asleep.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Sorry... missed the bat signal... I did see the thread update before now but was busy and had no time to look up the business case... :)

    I should have just said one of the busiest. However, the business case predicts the same or more people alighting at O'Connell Bridge at the AM peak, and possibly a lot more people alighting at O'Connell Bridge.

    While O'Connell Bridge will not interchange with Dart Underground, the other Dart line will be only 350-400m away (only a quick walk rather than switching trains; Luas red line will be only a few meters away, and, maybe most importantly, the station entrances will be closer to more bus and coach stops than any other stop on any rail line.

    O'Connell Bridge would also serve both the north and south sides.

    I don't think there's any lack of space on College Green for a station, but I agree that it can be difficult to see that with all the clutter - trees, statues, etc. Space is probably not the issue.

    I'm not saying you would not fit an entrance or two, I'm saying the disruption would be too great while building such...

    Buses also use O'Connell Bridge quite frequently, I've noticed.

    But road space is much greater and we will soon have a new bridge, at least for southbound traffic.

    The O'Connell Bridge fiasco I referred to, by the way, is the idea of building an 8-level non-interchange station at that location. If they were to save money on the O'Connell Bridge thing, they might be able to invest that in dealing with the bus issue.

    The extra cost would be minimal compared what would be gained and compared to having to deal with the problems fitting a station at other locations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    Yes, world-class network, how are you? Martin Cullen must be spinning on his osteopath's table!


    I'm fine thanks..

    Relax there, I'm not in charge of the design - its only my opinion based on all the other factors.

    Seeing as this is a discussion forum, can you tell me why you found it "perturbing"?

    Also please don't take my comment in isolation. It was part of a broader debate on the omitting of O'Connell Bridge stop etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    Sorry... missed the bat signal... I did see the thread update before now but was busy and had no time to look up the business case... :)

    I should have just said one of the busiest. However, the business case predicts the same or more people alighting at O'Connell Bridge at the AM peak, and possibly a lot more people alighting at O'Connell Bridge.

    While O'Connell Bridge will not interchange with Dart Underground, the other Dart line will be only 350-400m away (only a quick walk rather than switching trains; Luas red line will be only a few meters away, and, maybe most importantly, the station entrances will be closer to more bus and coach stops than any other stop on any rail line.

    O'Connell Bridge would also serve both the north and south sides.

    Yes, but of the four electrified lines which are due to pass through Tara Street/Pearse Street, the interchange you mention would only be really relevant for one of them. (The Northside DART line).

    Under the new layout the Southside DART line passengers would change onto the DART at Pearse or onto the metro at Drumcomdra. The passengers from Maynooth would change onto the metro at Drumcondra and onto the other DART at Pearse. And the passengers from Hazelhatch would change onto the metro at St. Stephen's Green, or would change onto another DART line at Pearse Station.

    I struggle to see how your supposed metro/DART interchange at Tara Street is a significant factor, given the multitude of bus routes and other options on the northside of Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    I'm fine thanks..

    Relax there, I'm not in charge of the design - its only my opinion based on all the other factors.

    Seeing as this is a discussion forum, can you tell me why you found it "perturbing"?

    Also please don't take my comment in isolation. It was part of a broader debate on the omitting of O'Connell Bridge stop etc.

    Winters, I apologise for taking your remarks out of context. And to you and the other readers of the board I apologise for, overall, being a bit of a tw*t on the board, or more specifically this thread, last weekend. I hope it won't happen again.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Yes, but of the four electrified lines which are due to pass through Tara Street/Pearse Street, the interchange you mention would only be really relevant for one of them. (The Northside DART line).

    Post-Dart Underground, the Northside Dart won't go near Tara.
    Under the new layout the Southside DART line passengers would change onto the DART at Pearse or onto the metro at Drumcomdra. The passengers from Maynooth would change onto the metro at Drumcondra and onto the other DART at Pearse. And the passengers from Hazelhatch would change onto the metro at St. Stephen's Green, or would change onto another DART line at Pearse Station.

    As I said in my last post: "maybe most importantly, the station entrances will be closer to more bus and coach stops than any other stop on any rail line." No other Metro North or Dart stop will have so many bus stops so close to its entrances.

    Ok, fine, so about the only people who will interchange from Metro North to planned Maynooth-Bray Dart line will be the [a] people getting on at Parnell Square and who don't want to go back to go forward and people who don't know better (which I'm actually sure there's a lot of!).

    It will also be good for network redundancy, and would be good for northbound passengers in the future if Metro North is extend south. Not just when Dart Underground is closed for whatever reason, but who will want to go near Drumcondra on a match day?

    Possible interchanges do not totally undermine other possible interchanges.


    I struggle to see how your supposed metro/DART interchange at Tara Street is a significant factor, given the multitude of bus routes and other options on the northside of Dublin.

    As above, the interchange at O'Connell Bridge which is most important is bus/coach - Metro North.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,948 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Regarding concerns about tunnelling through central Dublin, and the foundations of nearby buildings: it would be a doddle compared to what they had to do in London 15 years ago, during the construction of the Jubilee line. Not just the tunnelling, but also the huge "box" hole for the Westminster station, on the bank of the Thames, about 100 ft from St. Stephen's Tower (Big Ben). It hasn't fallen down yet ...

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    Post-Dart Underground, the Northside Dart won't go near Tara.

    Yep, it was only later that I remembered that.:o
    monument wrote: »
    As I said in my last post: "maybe most importantly, the station entrances will be closer to more bus and coach stops than any other stop on any rail line." No other Metro North or Dart stop will have so many bus stops so close to its entrances.

    If there were two stations in different locations, instead of two stations in just one location (i.e the current plan) the overall connections to buses and coaches would be pretty much as good, wouldn't they?
    monument wrote: »
    Ok, fine, so about the only people who will interchange from Metro North to planned Maynooth-Bray Dart line will be the [a] people getting on at Parnell Square and who don't want to go back to go forward and people who don't know better (which I'm actually sure there's a lot of!).

    Forget about those dimwits. They will learn soon enough. There's plenty of scope to introduce a bus route between Parnell Square and Tara Street for people who wish to make that journey, if there isn't one already. Dublin is late in the day in developing a proper, modern-day transport network. It doesn't need to be based around the lowest common denominator. Build it first, and accomodate the dummies later.
    monument wrote: »
    It will also be good for network redundancy, and would be good for northbound passengers in the future if Metro North is extend south. Not just when Dart Underground is closed for whatever reason, but who will want to go near Drumcondra on a match day?

    There you have a very serious point. I have never understood why Dublin's metro is to terminate at St. Stephen's Green, with no realistically known plans for how it is to be extended in the future. Nevertheless, an extension southward will have to happen at some stage.

    (I favour extension towards the south-east of the city (I have in the past posted that an eventual two-line under/overground extension from St. Stephen's Green via somewhere around the Bleeding Horse to (i) Harold's Cross, Terenure and Rathfarnham, and (ii) Harold's Cross, Kimmage, Walkinstown is my favoured option)).

    You are entirely right that that an extension of the metro to the south would change things re the connection between (a) city centre station(s) and Tara Street. Considerably. But when is that going to happen?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    It will also be good for network redundancy, and would be good for northbound passengers in the future if Metro North is extend south. Not just when Dart Underground is closed for whatever reason, but who will want to go near Drumcondra on a match day?

    Monument, I think it should also be pointed out that the GAA's arrangements have little relevance to the day-to-day running of the city. The focus of any city's transport network is on Monday to Friday mass transit. The occasional Saturday and Sunday stuff during the summer is a factor which needs to be considered, but certainly not a significant one.

    Having said that, I look forward to the day when Dublin has a world-class transport network, and Sligo brings it to a standstill late in September...


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    If there were two stations in different locations, instead of two stations in just one location (i.e the current plan) the overall connections to buses and coaches would be pretty much as good, wouldn't they?

    No likely not if those stations were further from one or both quays.

    Forget about those dimwits. They will learn soon enough. There's plenty of scope to introduce a bus route between Parnell Square and Tara Street for people who wish to make that journey, if there isn't one already. Dublin is late in the day in developing a proper, modern-day transport network. It doesn't need to be based around the lowest common denominator. Build it first, and accomodate the dummies later.


    You are entirely right that that an extension of the metro to the south would change things re the connection between (a) city centre station(s) and Tara Street. Considerably. But when is that going to happen?

    Good question, but you can plan ahead even when you don't know when you might need that future planning.

    For when / if ever Metro North is being built network redundancy is likely more important.

    Monument, I think it should also be pointed out that the GAA's arrangements have little relevance to the day-to-day running of the city. The focus of any city's transport network is on Monday to Friday mass transit. The occasional Saturday and Sunday stuff during the summer is a factor which needs to be considered, but certainly not a significant one.

    Having said that, I look forward to the day when Dublin has a world-class transport network, and Sligo brings it to a standstill late in September...

    It was just one of many points and just one example where network redundancy is a good idea.

    Also: Like the O2, music events are staged at week days, at diffrent times of the year. Even if also a limited amount of them.


    ....I still think your arguments against an O'Connell Bridge stop isn't as firm as you think, but I'm not sure Metro North is still the best solution for Dublin (not just talking about the short term) so I think I'll exit this debate about just one station.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    There you have a very serious point. I have never understood why Dublin's metro is to terminate at St. Stephen's Green, with no realistically known plans for how it is to be extended in the future. Nevertheless, an extension southward will have to happen at some stage.
    The RPA have studied this.


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


    Victor wrote: »
    The RPA have studied this.
    Really? I never knew that. Did they give an indication of the likely direction southwards?

    I'd imagine since the proposed SSG stop points south-east that the metro would head down the N11, and replace the (highly successful) 46a/145 routes. Politically, however, that may be a no-no, as the south-east of the city would then have three rail lines compared to none in the Terenure/Kimmage/Templeogue direction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Telchak


    Aard wrote: »
    I'd imagine since the proposed SSG stop points south-east that the metro would head down the N11

    If 'A Platform for Change' is anything to go by, it would swing southwest and go to Tallaght via Harold's Cross and Kimmage. I'd guess the current southeast direction probably has something to do with wanting to keep the entire station under the Green for construction purposes.


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


    Ah, right! Actually, all I remember of it is that it was presented in map-format only... Don't remember reading anything about it. I wish they (whoever "they" are... RPA, DoT, CIE...) would just make a plan and stick to it. It's the uncertainty and ever-changing proposals that give people little confidence in the future of PT for Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    Telchak wrote: »
    I'd guess the current southeast direction probably has something to do with wanting to keep the entire station under the Green for construction purposes.

    Yes, that's correct. It was dictated by the station box location too.

    http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf

    The turning loop will be underneath the two sidings allowing them to be extended in the future.

    This map also gives a good indication for those proposing a stop at College Green of how little room there is for a station box and how close it would be to the surrounding structures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    An extension south westwards would make sense. the Camden st - Rathmines -Rathgar -Terenure -Harold's cross corridor is always extremely congested, and the QBC there just isn't comparable to that of the N11.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    cgcsb wrote: »
    An extension south westwards would make sense. the Camden st - Rathmines -Rathgar -Terenure -Harold's cross corridor is always extremely congested, and the QBC there just isn't comparable to that of the N11.

    I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

    Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

    The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Winters wrote: »
    I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest.

    Also, we should be closing lines to Tallaght

    :pac::pac::pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Winters wrote: »
    I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

    Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

    The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.

    Light rail to Rathfarnham wouldn't work because of the amount of surface disruption, and lack of space for the alignment made it expensive and slow. The area itself is probably more densely populated than that along any of the current DART or Luas lines.

    If Metro North was built, it would make perfect sense to extend it south-west. Not all the way to Tallaght at first, but in stages, adding 3 more stops serving Rathmines, Harolds Cross Road and between Terenure and Kimmage Cross would only serve densely populated suburbs, that are extremely congested as the road network is too narrow to support proper QBC services.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Winters wrote: »
    I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

    Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

    The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.

    AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.

    The route is actually quite densely populated, especially around Rathmines and Harold's X, perhaps not as far out as Rathfarnam.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    cgcsb wrote: »
    AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.

    The route is actually quite densely populated, especially around Rathmines and Harold's X, perhaps not as far out as Rathfarnam.

    Indeed it is quite densely populated. As was discussed on this board some time ago, the density of areas like Harold's Cross, Terenure and Kimmage is on a par with similar suburban areas of, for example, Munich, where there is a pretty good suburban rail network through similar suburbs, and the city is considered to have a very good transport network overall.

    The alleged density issue in Dublin's inner suburbs (like Harold's X, Terenure, Finglas) was surely put to bed on this board a long time ago. I am surprised that it has emerged again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    cgcsb wrote: »
    AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.

    Line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed for a myriad of reasons, all I was saying was that the business case didn't stack up either. This would have been down to its viability due to the reasons you mentioned among others.

    "Alignment falls short of covering Operating & Maintenance costs by approx €1.5 million per annum" - RPA Line E Feasibility Study.
    Indeed it is quite densely populated. As was discussed on this board some time ago, the density of areas like Harold's Cross, Terenure and Kimmage is on a par with similar suburban areas of, for example, Munich, where there is a pretty good suburban rail network through similar suburbs, and the city is considered to have a very good transport network overall.

    The alleged density issue in Dublin's inner suburbs (like Harold's X, Terenure, Finglas) was surely put to bed on this board a long time ago. I am surprised that it has emerged again.

    Its fine saying the DART line (1984) has the same density or that Munich's S-Bahn (1972) and U-Bahn (1971) serve similar densities, all im saying is that I cant see it being built in MY lifetime. The density issue only arises as nowadays it is required to justify the high cost of tunneling in the CBA.

    Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but I can understand why it is not a stated priority for Dublin transport at this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    Yes, that's correct. It was dictated by the station box location too.

    http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf

    The turning loop will be underneath the two sidings allowing them to be extended in the future.

    This map also gives a good indication for those proposing a stop at College Green of how little room there is for a station box and how close it would be to the surrounding structures.

    I think there's no doubt that a College Green station would present a considerable challenge.

    But the alternatives, insofar as they have been outlined on this thread, appear to be the considerably more expensive O'Connell Bridge option (favoured by the RPA), or the long city centre gap option of just having a station at St. Stephen's Green and a station at O'Connell Street. Neither of which is perfect, either.

    I imagine there will be a considerable amount of time before the city centre section of the metro is built.

    Now would seem to be a good time for a reappraisal of the various options for the city centre section.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I think there's no doubt that a College Green station would present a considerable challenge.

    But the alternatives, insofar as they have been outlined on this thread, appear to be the considerably more expensive O'Connell Bridge option (favoured by the RPA)

    Doesn't the OCB stop mean one less stop on the line? Wouldn't that make it cheaper compared to two stops?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Doesn't the OCB stop mean one less stop on the line? Wouldn't that make it cheaper compared to two stops?

    Not with the inclusion of the Parnell Stop which wasn't on the plans when the O'Connell Street stop location was initially proposed. It went out to public consultation whether to include the Parnell Stop or not and obviously there was support for it.

    I would agree with strassenwo!f that the only real options available are Parnell - OCB - SSG (RPA favoured and ABP approved) or OCS - SSG and also that before commencing with Metro North in the future there should be a reappraisal of the various options for the city center section.

    Where we differ I suppose would that I'm in favour of the latter OCS - SSG option myself. As long as it gets build I wouldn't care though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Doesn't the OCB stop mean one less stop on the line? Wouldn't that make it cheaper compared to two stops?

    We have been through the reasons why the O'Connell Bridge station would be more expensive than two stations. I am, however, trying to square the above post with post 1601, also from you:
    AngryLips wrote: »
    But removing stops would reduce the catchment area and utility of the line. It would effectively undermine the business case for it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement