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

yabadabado · 22-02-2018 12:59pm

marno21 wrote: »

There will be a natural reduction of traffic on the M1 on account of modal shift caused by the Metro in addition to the new connection opportunities at Tara Street with DART and Northern Line commuter rail

But will that alone be enough? I doubt it so a massive PnR getting built right on a station would be a great opportunity to get people out of their cars on the M1 and further in.

pjackson · 22-02-2018 1:23pm

If Metro Link runs to Sandford, does the LUAS continue verween Charlemont and Sandford? If not does Charlemont in effect become a terminus at the southern end of the current LUAS Cross City? If so is work needed at Charlemont located on the bridge over the Grand Canal to enable this? The end result will be 2 separated sections on the current Green Line route.

marno21 · 22-02-2018 1:27pm

pjackson wrote: »

If Metro Link runs to Sandford, does the LUAS continue verween Charlemont and Sandford? If not does Charlemont in effect become a terminus at the southern end of the current LUAS Cross City? If so is work needed at Charlemont located on the bridge over the Grand Canal to enable this? The end result will be 2 separated sections on the current Green Line route.

After 2027:

(Finglas)-Broombridge-Charlemont - Luas
Airport-Charlemont-Sandyford - Metro
Sandyford-Brides Glen-(Bray) - Luas

MJohnston · 22-02-2018 1:28pm

plodder wrote: »

Some good ideas there all right. Linking in with the cycle path has huge potential.

BTW. No mention of DART underground and the DART link at Tara St. looks like it is a thing after all. So DU maybe is on the long finger?

I look at the fact that they plan to have Hybrid Diesel/Electric trains running on all the commuter lines AND the Phoenix Park tunnel line, and it makes me think they have little to no intent of ever building DU.

Perhaps it goes back to something else I posted a while ago, about the feasibility of reducing the necessity for DU. If PPT becomes a viable choice for routing traffic from the Hazelhatch line to Docklands or maybe even Connolly, while being electrify parts of that line, you've taken out one big part of DU. If you reduce the volume of traffic passing through Connolly and the Loop Line bridge, by creating a new major terminus at Docklands (where there is a tonne of demand, and connections with the Luas), that's another portion of DU undercut.

I'm saying this because it appears to be the case that neither FG or even FG have much interest in getting DU built, so I'm trying to think through how you could reduce its raison d'etre.

Sam Russell · 22-02-2018 1:30pm

yabadabado wrote: »

10k parking structure would be a huge opportunity to show that they are serious about PT and also making the M1 somewhat bearable.
What's the biggest pnr at the moment? 1000 places?

The biggest P&R is really a P&Fly at Dublin Airport. It has a dedicated bus service to move people from the far flung parking spots.

If there is to be a P&R just off the M1, it would need to be designed for easy access, and not have a long walk. A multi-story might be needed , but would this be too expensive? Look at the P&R at Sandyford as an example as they have to stations serving it.

marno21 · 22-02-2018 1:35pm

yabadabado wrote: »

But will that alone be enough? I doubt it so a massive PnR getting built right on a station would be a great opportunity to get people out of their cars on the M1 and further in.

Traffic on the M50 & M1 seems to be flat growth wise recently because its congested to the point where when new drivers start using it old ones find an alternative etc. It's effectively reached a steady state maximum peak. The steady state peak for the M50 between J7 and J9 (which I monitor) is 164k vehicles. It seems to be stable at 164k vehicles, with exceptions, with at least a year. M50 AADT between J7 and J9 is actually down on 2017 in the year-to-date for 2018, but some of this can be accounted to the holiday period at the start of January.

The traffic count for the M1 between the Airport and J3 Swords is around 95-98k and the traffic counter just south of Dundalk is 30k. The traffic counter between Lissenhall and Balbriggan is reading 57k. This drops to 32k at the southern end of the M1 tolled section.

Whilst there will be traffic between these points, this figure crudely says that there is approx 40k vehicles a day joining/exiting the M1 between the Airport and south of Balbriggan. This is Swords traffic, and also traffic from Skerries, Donabate etc. I can see a good chunk of this 40k switching to Metro, or switching to DART and Metro from Tara Street to service commuter destinations which were difficult to reach before using heavy rail. There is also a drop of 25k between south of Balbriggan and the M1 toll which is 25k which may switch to heavy rail commutuer services given the extra connectivity provided by Metrolink. The P&R will help here also.

Sam Russell · 22-02-2018 1:36pm

pjackson wrote: »

If Metro Link runs to Sandford, does the LUAS continue verween Charlemont and Sandford? If not does Charlemont in effect become a terminus at the southern end of the current LUAS Cross City? If so is work needed at Charlemont located on the bridge over the Grand Canal to enable this? The end result will be 2 separated sections on the current Green Line route.

I would see the Luas Green line turning East along Adelaide Road towards Leeson St, and perhaps onward to GCD to serve the huge office population. If you look at it on the ground there, it is an obvious choice.

Now the connection at Charlemont Bridge will have to be maintained to allow trams to move from Sandyford onto the Green Line north.

Perhaps we should rename the Charlemont to Broombridge the Blue Line to reduce confusion.

marno21 · 22-02-2018 1:37pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I look at the fact that they plan to have Hybrid Diesel/Electric trains running on all the commuter lines AND the Phoenix Park tunnel line, and it makes me think they have little to no intent of ever building DU.

Perhaps it goes back to something else I posted a while ago, about the feasibility of reducing the necessity for DU. If PPT becomes a viable choice for routing traffic from the Hazelhatch line to Docklands or maybe even Connolly, while being electrify parts of that line, you've taken out one big part of DU. If you reduce the volume of traffic passing through Connolly and the Loop Line bridge, by creating a new major terminus at Docklands (where there is a tonne of demand, and connections with the Luas), that's another portion of DU undercut.

I'm saying this because it appears to be the case that neither FG or even FG have much interest in getting DU built, so I'm trying to think through how you could reduce its raison d'etre.

PPT services cannot get to Docklands without a reversal, which pretty much rules that out.

The main issue here going forward is how all these extra trains are going to fit into the Connolly bottleneck. I haven't seen any proposal as to how they are going to effectively route 4 DART lines into the Connolly mess without a 2nd Liffey crossing. Whatever about DU providing connectivity to Heuston and the Kildare line, it also provides a lot of relief to the Connolly area by 4 tracking the presently 2 track Liffey.

Sam Russell · 22-02-2018 1:41pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I look at the fact that they plan to have Hybrid Diesel/Electric trains running on all the commuter lines AND the Phoenix Park tunnel line, and it makes me think they have little to no intent of ever building DU.

Perhaps it goes back to something else I posted a while ago, about the feasibility of reducing the necessity for DU. If PPT becomes a viable choice for routing traffic from the Hazelhatch line to Docklands or maybe even Connolly, while being electrify parts of that line, you've taken out one big part of DU. If you reduce the volume of traffic passing through Connolly and the Loop Line bridge, by creating a new major terminus at Docklands (where there is a tonne of demand, and connections with the Luas), that's another portion of DU undercut.

I'm saying this because it appears to be the case that neither FG or even FG have much interest in getting DU built, so I'm trying to think through how you could reduce its raison d'etre.

You could imagine that there could be a Metrolink line replacing the DU - same route but Metro with the same stops and connections with an interchange at Heuston and destination of Hazlehatch or Lucan.

loyatemu · 22-02-2018 1:42pm

marno21 wrote: »

PPT services cannot get to Docklands without a reversal, which pretty much rules that out.

that's pretty easy to fix @ Ossory Rd though.

derekbro · 22-02-2018 2:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The biggest P&R is really a P&Fly at Dublin Airport. It has a dedicated bus service to move people from the far flung parking spots.

If there is to be a P&R just off the M1, it would need to be designed for easy access, and not have a long walk. A multi-story might be needed , but would this be too expensive? Look at the P&R at Sandyford as an example as they have to stations serving it.

Would this P&R also fill up with people parking for the airport? It all depends on the parking cost I suppose but would only be a few stops on the metro.

vodkatime · 22-02-2018 2:12pm

While I think extending the route to Sandyford is good, I still can’t quite get my head around why they have done it.
The green line is already serving Charlemont to Sandyford so why is the metro replacing that? The luas stops are too close together in my opinion for a metro so the journey times will not be any better than they currently are. Why not terminate the metro at Charlemont and have an interchange with the luas. I suppose if the metro terminated at Charlemont, the number of people that would have to change line to the luas would be greater than those wanting to go from the luas to the metro under the current plan.

I suppose the capacity of the metro will be greater and more frequent so will ease overcrowding on this section. Sandyford does have a lot of employment so it does attract a lot of trips.

Hopefully they provide some info and justification at the consultation as it would be good so see the numbers behind it.

marno21 · 22-02-2018 2:13pm

derekbro wrote: »

Would this P&R also fill up with people parking for the airport? It all depends on the parking cost I suppose but would only be a few stops on the metro.

Limiting the amount of time you can park there would solve this issue.

DAA won't be happy if people were using it to avoid paying their car park fees

marno21 · 22-02-2018 2:15pm

vodkatime wrote: »

While I think extending the route to Sandyford is good, I still can’t quite get my head around why they have done it.
The green line is already serving Charlemont to Sandyford so why is the metro replacing that? The luas stops are too close together in my opinion for a metro so the journey times will not be any better than they currently are. Why not terminate the metro at Charlemont and have an interchange with the luas. I suppose if the metro terminated at Charlemont, the number of people that would have to change line to the luas would be greater than those wanting to go from the luas to the metro under the current plan.

I suppose the capacity of the metro will be greater and more frequent so will ease overcrowding on this section. Sandyford does have a lot of employment so it does attract a lot of trips.

Hopefully they provide some info and justification at the consultation as it would be good so see the numbers behind it.

Charlemont to Sandyford was originally built with a Metro upgrade in mind. It's very busy and by the time Metrolink opens it'll be overcapacity. This will provide relief to the stretch.

It also makes more sense than having a disconnected Metro line when there is track south of SSG built specifically for a Metro service

vodkatime · 22-02-2018 2:21pm

Interesting, I wasn't aware that section was originally planned for a metro upgrade.

tom1ie · 22-02-2018 2:46pm

marno21 wrote: »

TII have said it will be a significant P&R. As network managers they know this is a rare opportunity to reduce traffic on the M1, and will utilise the opportunity accordingly

Yeah hopefully, but it’s not just the size of the p+r it’s the layout and ease of use. Hopefully the latest technology will be used in the form of integrated ticketing with the metro itself and pre booking of spaces with navigational aids to said parking space via smartphone will be used.
I can live in hope........

BowSideChamp · 22-02-2018 2:47pm

marno21 wrote: »

After 2027:

(Finglas)-Broombridge-Charlemont - Luas
Airport-Charlemont-Sandyford - Metro
Sandyford-Brides Glen-(Bray) - Luas

So a shuttle luas will run from Sandyford to Bray? These luas trams will not run on the Metro portion??

pclive · 22-02-2018 2:49pm

The park and ride needs to be multi story and easily added to if required

Would a PandR at Dardistown or Northwood be a runner?

tom1ie · 22-02-2018 2:50pm

marno21 wrote: »

There will be a natural reduction of traffic on the M1 on account of modal shift caused by the Metro in addition to the new connection opportunities at Tara Street with DART and Northern Line commuter rail

I really think a toll south of the p+r exit should be introduced to force people to use the p+r and hence pt. Some people (and I think it’s a sizable amount) will just not use pt. They need a stick as well as the carrot of quicker commute times. Some of the reasons I’ve heard include “sure I pay car tax, why shouldn’t I be able to drive my car” and “ share a space with someone else? You must be joking!”

By the way the toll should only be for single occupancy cars, and obviously barrier free. Hgv and commercial exempt.

marno21 · 22-02-2018 2:59pm

BowSideChamp wrote: »

So a shuttle luas will run from Sandyford to Bray? These luas trams will not run on the Metro portion??

Yes and yes. A Finglas-Bray route would be excessively long for a tram, and end to end ridership would likely me tiny as a percentage of total ridership

strassenwo!f · 22-02-2018 3:13pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

If this IT article is accurate, then I really despair.

The original proposed route of MN was under the Whitworth road/Cross Guns bridge area. The exact site proposed for a stop was under the old Smurfitt building. The RPA were planning Metro back then. It was pointed out to them that an Irish Rail station could be built at Glasnevin Junction to provide an interchange with existing routes, a reopened PPT route, the Docklands route and Metro. The O'Reilly report of 2004/5 recommended that this idea merited further investigation. Subsequently it turned out that for railway safety reasons an Irish Rail station couldn't be built at this location. Metro ended up being routed under Drumcondra station and an interchange would be provided there instead.

So I'm a bit concerned that this Metro link idea is taking us back beyond already discussed and debated route options. Not just on boards but at a much higher level too. The whole Tara Street thing was done to death too with ideas for underground walk ways towards OCS and Westmoreland street.

Thankfully that Cross Guns bridge idea was dropped, as it would have been very close to the opportunity gloriously presented (at the time, at any rate) by the Broadstone alignment, and thus there would have been quite a bit of unnecessary overlap of catchment areas in and around that area.

A route via Drumcondra, as far as I can see, offered a wonderful opportunity to provide a broadly north-south rapid public transport corridor almost exactly halfway between the northside DART and the Broadstone alignment (now a LUAS line), thus reducing (or, realistically, eliminating) catchment area overlap.

Unfortunately, it now seems that this Cross Guns idea has reappeared, for whatever reason.

My guess is that it's penny-pinching: you can easily build an underground station on the site of the carpet operation of the late, great, very charitable Des Kelly, whereas it's not so easy (but obviously doable) in Drumcondra.

In terms of effective servicing of different catchment areas, this would seem to be a schoolboy error.

MJohnston · 22-02-2018 3:19pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thankfully that Cross Guns bridge idea was dropped, as it would have been very close to the opportunity gloriously presented (at the time, at any rate) by the Broadstone alignment, and thus there would have been quite a bit of unnecessary overlap of catchment areas in and around that area.

A route via Drumcondra, as far as I can see, offered a wonderful opportunity to provide a broadly north-south rapid public transport corridor almost exactly halfway between the northside DART and the Broadstone alignment (now a LUAS line), thus reducing (or, realistically, eliminating) catchment area overlap.

Unfortunately, it now seems that this Cross Guns idea has reappeared, for whatever reason.

My guess is that it's penny-pinching: you can easily build an underground station on the site of the carpet operation of the late, great, very charitable Des Kelly, whereas it's not so easy (but obviously doable) in Drumcondra.

In terms of effective servicing of different catchment areas, this would seem to be a schoolboy error.

It still serves completely different catchment areas. The Broombridge Luas runs largely west to east in this area, as does the railway. The Metro would be literally just crossing this alignments and heading up to Glasnevin and Ballymun.

Look at the stations - there's no catchment overlap at Mater at all, Whitworth/Crossguns would obviously be intended as a major interchange with the railway lines, and then North of there, all the Metro stations again have no catchment overlap all the way to Estuary, where there's a slight overlap with the Northern commuter line.

Shurimgreat · 22-02-2018 3:30pm

tobsey wrote: »

South of Charlemont all of the stops are at least 500m apart, some of them nearly 1km.

Well my point is still valid. A high speed train on a route with frequent stops is not a high speed train. It would hardly have reached top speed when it would have to slow down again.
So either its frequent stops which renders the high speed element pointless or its infrequent stops which means users having to travel further distances from their homes to the new stops and probably needing their cars to do so.
Am I the only one who sees the insanity of all this?

SeamusHollahan · 22-02-2018 3:49pm

Dublin Metro stops revealed: Maps show location of stations

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-metro-stops-revealed-maps-show-location-of-stations-1.3400567

monument · 22-02-2018 3:51pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well my point is still valid. A high speed train on a route with frequent stops is not a high speed train. It would hardly have reached top speed when it would have to slow down again.
So either its frequent stops which renders the high speed element pointless or its infrequent stops which means users having to travel further distances from their homes to the new stops and probably needing their cars to do so.
Am I the only one who sees the insanity of all this?

A Metro is not suppose to be mainly about high speed, it’s about capacity, frequency, dependability etc

With a tunnel in the city centre, it will be faster than any other mode.

ted1 · 22-02-2018 3:51pm

vodkatime wrote: »

Interesting, I wasn't aware that section was originally planned for a metro upgrade.

Yep the tracks were placed further apart so they fit the wider bodies. As it follows the old train line it was an easy call

MJohnston · 22-02-2018 3:55pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well my point is still valid. A high speed train on a route with frequent stops is not a high speed train. It would hardly have reached top speed when it would have to slow down again.
So either its frequent stops which renders the high speed element pointless or its infrequent stops which means users having to travel further distances from their homes to the new stops and probably needing their cars to do so.
Am I the only one who sees the insanity of all this?

I doubt you are, this forum is full of contractions. But I don't think you have the right line of thought here - frequent stopping does not render the high speed element pointless because times between stations will still decrease, and for those stations that are further apart, the decreases will be more significant. So maybe Sandyford to SSG takes 21 minutes right now, but maybe that gets cut down to 15 minutes.

That's a decent reduction, but I wouldn't be the only thing improved for the green line section - Metro trains will have a higher capacity, and be able to provide a much greater frequency, compared to the Luas.

As for it not being a "high speed train", it continues to be exactly that between Charlemont and the northern terminus at Estuary, which would account for a much greater proportion of the overall track distance.

I've seen a similar duality of operation all over the place - the one that springs to mind is San Francisco's MUNI, which is an even more extreme example where it operates at Luas speeds above ground, but then when the same trains go into they're underground sections, they accelerate to much faster speeds. Hell, you even see it with the existing Luas - a careful and slow movement in the city centre until the tram reaches Charlemont where it suddenly doubles or triples speeds.

I genuinely don't see the objection to a service that can operate in a multitude of modes across its entire line.

strassenwo!f · 22-02-2018 3:55pm

MJohnston wrote: »

It still serves completely different catchment areas. The Broombridge Luas runs largely west to east in this area, as does the railway. The Metro would be literally just crossing this alignments and heading up to Glasnevin and Ballymun.

By far the biggest destination in Dublin is the city centre.

As you said yourself, about 4 pages back, it's only a 10 minute walk from the Cabra LUAS stop to this proposed Whitworth station. That sounds to me like quite a bit of overlap for lines on each of which the largest single group of users will be trying to get into and out of the city centre.

I hope it can also be taken as irrelevant that a part of the current LUAS line travels east-west near this area. The bulk of traffic on the Broadstone alignment will eventually be travelling to/from Finglas and beyond.

There thus needs to be an explanation of why these two lines into and out of the city are planned to be so close together.

MJohnston wrote: »

Look at the stations - there's no catchment overlap at Mater at all, Whitworth/Crossguns would obviously be intended as a major interchange with the railway lines, and then North of there, all the Metro stations again have no catchment overlap all the way to Estuary, where there's a slight overlap with the Northern commuter line.

Indeed, there's no obvious overlap at the Mater, and you would think that the Mater metro station and the Cabra LUAS stop should be sufficient for the needs of the residents and workers in and around Phibsboro. The proposed Whitworth station, just around 400 metres from the Mater, and 10 minutes walk from the Cabra LUAS stop, does seem a bit like overkill for rapid services into and out of the city centre, which, I repeat, is the most popular destination in Dublin.

Drumcondra, on the other hand, has a rail service, but it does take a rather circuitous route into the city and doesn't really hit the very busiest areas. A direct metro route via Drumcondra and the Mater (or somewhere near there) would seem, to me, to prevent this catchment area overlap, be nicely located almost halfway between the DART line and the Green LUAS, and would give more people (in more areas) a rapid route into and out of the city.

loyatemu · 22-02-2018 3:58pm

looking at that map in the IT, it seems a missed (and relatively cheap) opportunity to continue into Donabate at the Northern end - you'd need a bridge over the M1 but other than that it's open countryside and you could build a Metro stop just south of the railway station.

Shurimgreat · 22-02-2018 4:00pm

monument wrote: »

A Metro is not suppose to be mainly about high speed, it’s about capacity, frequency, dependability etc

With a tunnel in the city centre, it will be faster than any other mode.

Sounds like a 90% duplication of the LUAS to me.
And I don't see where the increased frequency will come from.
I presume there will be two spurs, one the current LUAS/Metro cross town, and the other metro north to and from the airport. So passengers will have to wait for the right train to come along.

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

Comments