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 )

199100102104105314

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Dublin Inquirer would be good to get onto with requests to do a piece on Metro North, they're really good at investigating this stuff and putting together solid articles about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,048 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Logue no2 wrote: »
    It was always the intention to convert the green line to metro, this isn't news.

    That intention hasn't been on the radar since FF stalled the luas project in 1997. After many many rediculous Dail debates about over ground or underground via the city centre, we ended up with a Green line built to a metro clearance, no connection between the red and green lines and now a connection that was never originally envisaged.

    In 2005 and the big T21 plan, nothing was mentioned about upgrading the Green line to a metro. It was conveniently forgotten because the original compromise was a political fudge. Now the NTA are revisiting this fudge so things can be complicated and delayed even further.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭xper


    Will this proposed extension to Sandyford defeat the purpose of it being called MN in the first place?
    The names of major planning and construction projects usually have little or nothing with how they are branded and referred too after services start and they can go true several changes during the process. Luas Cross-City was Luas BXD for years. Dart Underground was the interconnector. Its irrelevant.

    Remember the Swords to City Centre was just one of three metro lines that were being envisaged. Metro West went well into planning before being scrapped. This extension of Metro North and upgrade of the Luas green line is/was known as Metro South.
    Totally agree, I am open to correction, but in all the articles in the media about MN since they announced that it was to be redesigned, I have not found one that's says that they need planning permission again and that the 'new' MN will result in a huge reduction in capacity and longer journey times.
    Well don't rely on the nonsense that passes as journalism in this country. The existing Railway Order can only apply to the submitted plans that it is based upon. You change the plans in any significant way, you need permission to make those changes. And if you shorten the station platforms from 90m to 60m that alone is both a significant change to the design and an implicit c.33% reduction in the maximum capacity of the system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,823 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    plodder wrote: »
    And whatever about Shane Ross, I feel unless it was going through his constituency he would always be luke warm about it, I can't understand why north Dublin TDs seem to be so passive about the subject.

    Because they're not being hounded by their voters to build it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    High level offical claims MN a cert for next year


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    High level offical claims MN a cert for next year
    If true, he's going to have to find a way to kill Shane Ross. Ross sounds at this stage like he'll fight to the death for MN to go ahead as New Metro North.

    If Donohue believes in MN so much why didn't he start it when he was MTTAS??


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,677 ✭✭✭jd


    High level offical claims MN a cert for next year

    It would have to be the originall design as they don't have planning permission for "Optimised" (spit) Metro North


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    jd wrote: »
    It would have to be the originall design as they don't have planning permission for "Optimised" (spit) Metro North

    It'd be easier if Ross started referring to the original proper scheme as Metro North and the new ****tier one as Luas North. Seeing as that's basically what the new one is.

    It'd also be a start if the Minister for Transport actually knew about transport issues in the country and had a mentality outside of Stepaside and its Garda station.


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭lateconnection


    I would say the original is going ahead now, Ross can say what he likes about building the inferior 'new' metro, but with rapid growth in airport passenger numbers and the city choking on congestion, the rest of the government must know that at this stage, opening it in 2027 with a lower capacity to save a pittance would be ridiculous.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    C3FncPiWgAEYiu3.jpg:large

    Ross impersonating transport in Dublin.. on his knees.


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


    The pride of Ireland, a wonderful bunch of lads. Visionaries of the future...


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    latest?cb=20140614183246


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Wow. The reasons they say in article are obvious to us. I just wonder are they also aware, that there won't be any cost savings with inflation and They will look like a right set of fools when an inferior version is delivered for more money ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Metro North really ought to be taken out of the purview of the DoT anyway. It's vital for housing and economic development and all those other headline-y things. Just sideline Ross and tell him to do one.


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


    The whole "optimised" thing has obviously been rubbished since population projections from the 2006 census on which the original mn was based have now been exceeded. Passenger growth projections at the airport have also been exceeded all despite the recent recession. So there really is no reason to skimp on the design. The platform length reduction is a particular failing, lengthening underground platforms will cost a fortune. It'd make sense politically to stick mn in this years budget in October, ties in nicely with the completion of bxd and the impression of a continuing issuance of goodies.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The whole "optimised" thing has obviously been rubbished since population projections from the 2006 census on which the original mn was based have now been exceeded. Passenger growth projections at the airport have also been exceeded all despite the recent recession. So there really is no reason to skimp on the design. The platform length reduction is a particular failing, lengthening underground platforms will cost a fortune. It'd make sense politically to stick mn in this years budget in October, ties in nicely with the completion of bxd and the impression of a continuing issuance of goodies.
    At present, it's a possibility the Government won't last the week so things could change very quickly


  • Registered Users Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Metro North really ought to be taken out of the purview of the DoT anyway. It's vital for housing and economic development and all those other headline-y things. Just sideline Ross and tell him to do one.
    There is a very good case for giving transport infrastructure management over to a dedicated body with its own funding stream that did not depend on political sentiment and the state of the public finances.

    This would inevitably mean 'privatising public services' but might mean that they are actually built in the first place.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Bray Head wrote: »
    There is a very good case for giving transport infrastructure management over to a dedicated body with its own funding stream that did not depend on political sentiment and the state of the public finances.

    This would inevitably mean 'privatising public services' but might mean that they are actually built in the first place.

    But is this not happening anyway?

    Who does the design, and who does the build? It is a long time since those in the public pay designed or built anything.

    The only 'public' bit is who pays, and who takes the risk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    But is this not happening anyway?

    Who does the design, and who does the build?  It is a long time since those in the public pay designed or built anything.

    The only 'public' bit is who pays, and who takes the risk.

    No. Large transport infrastructure gets squeezed through a process which involves the sign-off of several politicians.

    This is not the case for grid infrastructure, by comparison.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Bray Head wrote: »
    No. Large transport infrastructure gets squeezed through a process which involves the sign-off of several politicians.

    This is not the case for grid infrastructure, by comparison.

    I think you are missing what I am saying.

    All infrastructure is put out to the private sector for planning and building. It used to be we had Dublin Corpo building houses and roads. CIE building and repairing trains. Now we have those bodies organising the private sector doing these and most other tasks. This inevitably cost substantially more, and allows much less control of projects.

    Just look at the scandal that surrounded the West Link bridge - built for IR£10m and sold back to the state for €500 million, having provided a healthy profit and huge traffic jams in the mean time.

    That is what privatisation is all about.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    I think you are missing what I am saying.

    All infrastructure is put out to the private sector for planning and building. It used to be we had Dublin Corpo building houses and roads. CIE building and repairing trains. Now we have those bodies organising the private sector doing these and most other tasks. This inevitably cost substantially more, and allows much less control of projects.

    Just look at the scandal that surrounded the West Link bridge - built for IR£10m and sold back to the state for €500 million, having provided a healthy profit and huge traffic jams in the mean time.

    That is what privatisation is all about.
    There's a very good argument for what you're saying. However, the private sector can have a role in infrastructure delivery, but it must be on public terms, not theirs as was the case with the West Link - competitive practices and tendering (design & build) is key.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Middle Man wrote: »
    There's a very good argument for what you're saying. However, the private sector can have a role in infrastructure delivery, but it must be on public terms, not theirs as was the case with the West Link - competitive practices and tendering (design & build) is key.

    Well, the public service should have the ability to provide a lot of the services they routinely farm out to the private sector. Doing this farming out is lazy, expensive, and hard to control. For example, the OPW should have in-house skills to carry out archaeological surveys, environmental surveys, and a lot of architectural work. Local authorities should also have such expertise, if only to verify what they are being told, particularly wrt planning. How can a LA verify the costs and facts relating to work they are funding if they have no expertise?

    MN shows this very clearly when a redesign is called for to cheapen the plan by shortening the platforms and missing vital stops to save a few bob when the design cost and inflation will eat up any savings, before the forced reinstatement of the original plan will cost so much more in the long term.

    Such idiocy is quite obviously coming from lack of expertise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ricimaki


    According to this PDF, there could a future extension to link Metro North to Donabate. Its on page 243 (9th page in the PDF), in Objective MT14. The document also mentions DART Underground and Metro West.


  • Registered Users Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    I think you are missing what I am saying.

    All infrastructure is put out to the private sector for planning and building.  It used to be we had Dublin Corpo building houses and roads.  CIE building and repairing trains.  Now we have those bodies organising the private sector doing these and most other tasks.  This inevitably cost substantially more, and allows much less control of projects.

    Just look at the scandal that surrounded the West Link bridge - built for IR£10m and sold back to the state for €500 million, having provided a healthy profit and huge traffic jams in the mean time.

    That is what privatisation is all about.

    I understand how procurement works, both in public and private sector., thank you

    My point (again) is that the sign-off for big transport infrastructure is done by ministers and government. By contrast, power infrastructure is done independently by bodies with their own funding stream and legal autonomy from ministers.

    For your other point I am at a loss as to how you could think that CIE could build a train more cheaply than purchasing one, or that it could even build one at all. Same goes for local authorities employing staff directly to build houses.


  • Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭chooochooo


    jd wrote: »
    It would have to be the originall design as they don't have planning permission for "Optimised" (spit) Metro North
    No. It's the all new cleaner than white New Metro North.

    The route they have cooked up this time will not go under O'Connell Bridge but closer to Big Butt Bridge and your favorite station and mine.........tar-AH! Tarah Street.
    Then it will go close-ish to Connolly Station before veering left towards Mater. Will come up at DCU and at surface through Ballier, under the Airport and the rest as in the original Metro North.

    So Ross was correct. There is little scope for speeding up since ground testing has to be done all over again.
    My guess it will be at least 3 global crashes and 2 Armageddons plus Roscommon winning the All Ireland Hurling final 3 years in a row before we even get to the NEW New Metro North.
    By which time trains will be obsolete and finally the government can rid itself of these mad calls for gold plated infrastructure fantasies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭lateconnection


    I'd say we will hear little about MN for the remainder of the year, until the Autumn when it will hopefully announced as being fast tracked in the budget.

    No matter what Shane Ross says, at the end of the day a source close to Paschal says original MN is happening, and also it runs right through his constituency. It would be stupid for him not to build original MN.

    If it is fast-tracked I predict that:

    In 2018, they will hopefully sort out contracts and maybe start enabling works/utility diversions, with full construction starting in 2019.

    'Optimised' MN will hopefully be dead next year. Original MN all the way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 738 ✭✭✭MICKEYG


    Deedsie wrote: »
    I'm just worried that public consultation that Minister O'Donohue mentioned might delay it again.

    Who is to say that minister will still be in power come,the autumn.
    Then the whole circus starts again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    MICKEYG wrote: »
    Who is to say that minister will still be in power come,the autumn.
    Then the whole circus starts again.

    Well, arguably, FF are more likely to accelerate Metro North.

    Though of course that'll mean we'll have a FF government, so be careful what you wish for I suppose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Well, arguably, FF are more likely to accelerate Metro North.

    Based on what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Based on what?

    Their Dublin spokesperson has given statements that indicate that in the past:
    https://www.fiannafail.ie/scaled-down-metro-north-plan-could-mean-losing-up-to-67-capacity-ff/
    https://www.fiannafail.ie/government-must-provide-update-on-status-of-metro-north/

    There's also the fact that they were the government that originally started planning for its construction, and that the Luas and DART were built under FF government.

    Don't get me wrong, I really don't like FF and will be rather depressed to see them in govt, but at least the potential for MN to be accelerated may be a sort of silver lining to it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement