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

Stephen15 wrote: »

I can't see the Na Fianna issue stopping the project happening. My belief they are kicking up a fuss so they can get a bigger payout for the project the usual carry on from the GAA. The only thing that can stop the project is government incompetence and penny pinching. CPOs wont be an issue as long as the government can afford them.

Exactly. NaFianna are just making sure they get a nice bit of compo.

P_1 wrote: »

Seeming a block of apartments (coincidentally right beside the Irish Times' fance office) might need to be knocked for the Tara Street station

It's the block south of Tara Street Station that the NTA is targetting. Currently consists of 2 abandondend buildings and 3 terrace houses.

It's the triangle bounded by Townsend St, Luke St and the Rail line.

Ernest wrote: »

And, again, in today's Irish Times, their always-boring economics writer Cliff Taylor pours coolish water over the proposed MetroLink and its benefits.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/let-s-not-dig-ourselves-into-a-hole-on-the-dublin-metro-plan-1.3438057

I don't know what to make of that. On the face of it, yes of course, you can't spend 3-4 billion without some notion of an economic return.

But then you have this:

The key economic benefit is delivering people along the route more quickly to their destination – a bus might take 50 minutes from Swords to the city centre , or more at rush hour, while the Metro would get there in 25 minutes. This accounts for 78 per cent of the assumed benefits of the scheme, so we need to be sure that there will be enough passengers using the service.

That just seems to miss the point spectacularly. It's not about shortening journey times. It's about increasing transport capacity, so that the numbers traveling can be increased massively.

Maybe there should be a study done on economists past predictions on projects like this. What was the cost of their pessimism, their under estimation of usage and economic benefit etc?

marno21 wrote: »

Looking forward to see if Colm McCarthy has his tuppence worth on the scheme in the Sunday Independent tomorrow

He will probably get the 3 billion figure and tell us how many buses it could buy ...

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

TII obtained permission last month for a 310 space multistorey p&r at Carrickmines with 62 cycle spaces.

It's good to see they are looking to build more PnR but they should be trying for much bigger capacity where possible.

bk wrote: »

BTW One downside of the this new plan versus the old Metro North Plan is the entrance/exits to the stations.

Under the old plan, each station had multiple entrance/exit at various locations around it, which would make pedestrian access easier, quicker and safer.

For instance at the above O'Connell St stop, it would have had entrances on both O'Connell St East and West, so that you wouldn't need to cross O'Connell St to get to the station.

Under the new plan they look to be going for simpler station designs, with just one entrance directly above the station. So for instance this above O'Connell St stop will require people to cross from either side of O'Connell St to get to it.

Definitely a disadvantage, but I can also understand that it likely makes the stations cheaper to build.

I've gone a bit drawings-blind after trawling through all the documentation but the design of the O'Connell Street proposed in "metrolink-concept-engineering-drawings-book.pdf" (which I take to be the emerging preferred route) was the one "Are you kidding me?" moment I had when doing so and I can see this changing during detailed design and after consultation.

That OCS station ground level layout is positively dangerous (and Ballymun Village stop is similar). The entrances open directly onto the southbound carriageway on one side and the Luas track on the other with little circulation space inside - cue crowd surge shoving pushing people waiting for teh crossing out in front of a tram or bus whose driver has severely constrained sight lines. The layout also demands pedestrians moving from the Metro to the OCS Luas stop cross a carriageway and then cross back over the same carriageway 100m down the road. Inevitably, desire lines will lead people in a hurry to make dashes along the Luas tracks themselves.

The "metrolink-volume-3-assessment-options-drawings.pdf" document has an alternative layout for the OCS stop which has the entrances on either side of the street leading to a underground concourse spanning the street. This makes much more sense and has multiple practical advantages:

• increases safety by separating pedestrians from Luas and vehicular traffic
• provides lots of circulation space on street and within the station for what will be a very busy stop.
• also provides an improved street crossing and access to Luas stop (with additional mid-street entrance)
• no relocation of the Luas OCS Upper stop required
• increases Luas/traffic movement by removing two on-street pedestrian crossings
• retains two traffic lanes on southbound carriageway removing impact on bus stops and movement

I'd also like to see a shift in the St Stephen's Green East layout to move the ground level elements towards the park and thus retain a second norhtbound traffic lane. Again, we want to avoid impacting bus movements a la LCC. The pedestrian entrance could be located in the large open area at the corner of the pak and still be sympathtic to monument located there.

I'm just hoping Tara Street isn't cheap and basic. Its a great opportunity for a badly needed complete station overhaul I sincerely hope we take it.

Excuse my ignorance on this but how do 60m hfv metros have higher capacity then 60m lfv metros. Let's say both are driverless. Is it the fact lfv have more seats or something? If so could less seating in the lfv compartments and more "bum benches" be specified to increase capacity?
I would've though high floor ment either taller metros or less head room? Or am I completely off the mark here?
Apologies if this has already been explained.

D.L.R. wrote: »

I'm just hoping Tara Street isn't cheap and basic. Its a great opportunity for a badly needed complete station overhaul I sincerely hope we take it.

Well the proposal appears to encompass a new public plaza between Poolbeg St and Townsend St in front of a new main entrance building at the south east side of the current rail station. If they are considering a new civic space, you would think some effort will be put into making the building attractive. The heavy rail platforms themselves may not see much change. I presume they would retain the existing northern entrance.

The caveat is that everything on the plans right now is very much up for change, of course. It could be decided that an office building would work over that space too.

Stephen15 wrote: »

The Vancouver skytrain is a bad example the seats should be benchstyle on a metro facing horizontally across like on the London Underground and most other Metro systems around the world. That would be the big advantage of having a high floor system. Allowing for more standing space nessecary for a high capacity system. On lots of metro systems many people would rather stand than sit even if there are seats available.

I chose it because it shows that there can still be a decent number of seats without compromising too much on standing room. You're right though, the bench style is best for high capacity systems.

marno21 wrote: »

Some local knowledge appreciated..

In the square bordered by Collins Avenue, Ballymun Road, Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road, the square which contains DCU, there are a number of green fields. What is the purpose of these fields, who owns them? Could Na Fianna be given permission to relocate to these fields for a number of years?

AFAIK they're owned by the Highfield Hospital group. The land itself is used as an urban farm https://www.facebook.com/ElmhurstCottageFarm/

The new Dublin Metro will cost between €3 billion and €4 billion but will deliver a much higher level of economic benefits, according to a cost/benefit analysis undertaken on the project.

The analysis, undertaken by French engineering and consultancy company Systra – and just published on the MetroLink site – estimates the benefits of the investment would be between 2.4 and three times the cost, mainly due to savings on passenger journey times.

The cost benefit is slight improved over MN
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/metro-economic-value-to-exceed-construction-cost-of-up-to-4bn-1.3438410?mode=amp

Trains should or could have a mixed layout with sections that are regular perpendicular seating and sections that are open plan, with parallel seats, to allow for standing and for bringing bikes. See attached image for an example from Denmark. I'm not sure our Metro carriages will be as wide as this to allow free standing bikes, but to accommodate them at all you need a big open space.

citizen6 wrote: »

Would it be more beneficial to DCU staff/students to move the Collins Ave stop into Albert College Park, immediately west of the tennis courts?

It's quite probable there will be a high frequency orbital bus route using Collins Ave after the Bus Connects project, so you wouldn't want the metro stop too far from it.

sameoldname wrote: »

While that may be, I wouldn't know as I'm not from there nor have I ever lived in that part of Dublin, your proposal is simply to get rid of a stop and leave over a 1 kilometre gap between 2 stations. I would suggest that would be, in the long-term, far more of a loss to the community than losing access to some pitches for 6 years in my opinion. Also, you're asking for another group to take the hit and I'm sure they'll be just as emotional about losing their grounds.

I don't think he is suggesting that we lose a station. We still have the DCU station and the Griiffith station is moved slightly south. Under the current proposals Home Farm will lose their pitch for up to six years, construction of just a station box should take a lot less than that.