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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1107108110112113189

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    My fear is that this project may simply follow the lifecycle of the previous "Metro North"; spending hundreds of millions on planning, design and property acquisition and then get binned in the next downturn.

    Was just re-reading earlier parts of the thread and must agree with this statement.

    We have had so many false starts with this project that getting shovels in the ground quickly is imperative to be sure it doesn't simply disappear in the coming years like so many attempts before.
    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Just on the CPO of 100 houses and the Na Fianna problem. Perhaps it is naive of me but I really dont see this as a major stumbling block.

    You should take a look at some of the borderline militant FB groups that have already popped up - all it will take is a few populist SF councillors and Mary Lou who of course is a local herself to join the gang and quite literally stunt the capitals growth for another decade unless the public consultation can quickly identify an alternative site.

    As a complete aside, while the CPO should proceed in the common good, wouldn't Albert College Park is a better site? Closer to DCU and eliminates the need for a stop at Collins Avenue, saving €100m. (It's exactly 2km from Whitworth Road bridge so still within the guidelines as to how far apart access points can be, and no person has to walk more than 1km or 10mins to get to the Metro, so that solution could be perfectly viable)


  • Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭specialbyte


    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.

    Cliff Taylor gives out about the 28 page benefit to cost ratio (BCR) report prepared by the engineering firm Systra. He says it is too short and doesn't mention modelling approaches or assumptions used. I just want to point out there is another report from Systra in Volume 2 (The Appendices) of the main report on pages 239-298. It includes all of the things that Cliff Taylor wishes were in the main BCR report.

    I've so far been impressed with the thorough reports published by TII/NTA on this proposed metro scheme. If they keep up this high quality work the only thing that I can imagine scuppering this plan is an economic turndown or new government who want to redesign the project so it is "theirs". Hopefully neither of those things happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!

    Betcha there will be at least one snorty piece about Metrolink in the Sindo tomorrow.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Its not even 100 houses, that sounds like more than it is. Its one apartment block with 70 units and a dozen houses in ranelgagh and a dozen in glasnevin, I don't know if the ranelagh houses are even being demolished I think their garden is just being built on? Its really such a small price to pay for such a big gain!

    Betcha there will be at least one snorty piece about Metrolink in the Sindo tomorrow.
    Definitely. The usual "it's a white elephant" guff and then trotting out more useless bus lanes and the outer orbital nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    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.

    Was that for the new proposal, or the Metro announced in 2015? There isn't an apartment block on that site, and it didn't object, just said an entrance is likely to be there and could interfere with the development.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭plodder


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    Was that for the new proposal, or the Metro announced in 2015? There isn't an apartment block on that site, and it didn't object, just said an entrance is likely to be there and could interfere with the development.

    The current proposal. The letter looks to be incorrectly dated 2017 instead of 2018, since planning application 4485/17 was only submitted in December 2017, and the stamp says it was received on the same day in 2018.

    http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4485/17&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3692211%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4357307%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3692211%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

    Web Reference Application Date: 11-Dec-2017
    Planning Application Reference: 4485/17 Registration Date: 11-Dec-2017
    Decision Date: 13-Feb-2018 Application Type: Permission
    Final Grant Date: Extension of time to:
    Last Date for Observations: 23-Jan-2018
    Main Location: 157-164, Townsend Street, Dublin 2
    Proposal Permission for development on a site of c.0.1416ha. at 157-164 Townsend Street, View full text

    This development is directly across the road from the terraced houses you mentioned.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    marno21 wrote: »
    Looking forward to see if Colm McCarthy has his tuppence worth on the scheme in the Sunday Independent tomorrow

    I think that would overvalue his contribution.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    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 ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    He will probably get the 3 billion figure and tell us how many buses it could buy ...
    Which is a bit rich coming from a guy who drives to and from UCD and would be baffled if you handed him a Leap Card.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


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


    You weren't far wrong there...just prattles on about cost...waste of time really reading that!


  • Company Representative Posts: 26 Verified rep Green Party: Ossian Smyth


    tom1ie wrote: »
    I know this would be outside the scope of works but it’s a shame there are no plans to massively expand the p+r at carrickmines by way of multiple multi storey car parks. It’s a great location, plenty of room to expand, with a dedicated on/off ramp and could take a sizable amount of northbound traffic off the m50, depending on the size they upgraded it to. The higher frequency Luas (one MetroLink is up and running) could then feed into sandyford to our (hopefully) fully automated 90m hfv metros ;)

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

    carrickmpr.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,553 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


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

    carrickmpr.png

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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 63 ✭✭LoMismo


    Was there a Sindo piece?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭xper


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


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

    carrickmpr.png

    Good to see, but it’s a pity it’s only 310. I wonder what the footprint of the above building is?
    Will it take up the footprint of the existing p+r?
    I know the ground in the area wouldn’t be ideal for going down 5 levels in addition to the 5 they are proposing, but 310 ain’t gonna make a whole lot of difference in taking cars off the m50 north of carrickmines.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    You weren't far wrong there...just prattles on about cost...waste of time really reading that!
    Yeah I just got a free copy of the indo. Read the first few lines on his article about Metrolink and stopped there, don’t even know why I started ... if that bull**** was put up on here, it would be deemed trolling ... I’ve stopped reading a tons of articles, these people are idiots...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭ricimaki


    tom1ie wrote: »
    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.

    In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS
    0002e9df-800.jpg

    In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.
    skytrainmk2interior1.jpeg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭xper


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    ricimaki wrote: »
    In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS
    0002e9df-800.jpg

    In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.
    skytrainmk2interior1.jpeg

    Yes, but in many metros, the high floor can seem like a low floor when the trackbed is lower, which I assume will be the case. That way, you get the best of both worlds!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    Yes, but in many metros, the high floor can seem like a low floor when the trackbed is lower, which I assume will be the case. That way, you get the best of both worlds!

    The low floor allows for low platforms, but a high floor vehicle implies higher platforms. The Luas platforms hardly come halfway up a duck compared with the Dart platforms. Consequently, if a HFV design is chosen then there is no possibility of interoperability between Luas and Metro.

    In a way this is a good thing as it makes it less likely that passengers will wander over the Metro tracks and put themselves in mortal danger. As a consequence there will by pedestrian bridges at Metro stops, and the tracks will be completely separated from passengers as in the Dart system.

    High floor allows complete freedom of layout while low floor is confined by the position of the bogeys that protrude inside the body of the vehicle.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    ricimaki wrote: »
    In a low floor train/tram, the height of the floor is below the top of the wheels. In the areas directly above the wheels, the floor must be raised. This raised area is used for seats, but can be very restrictive and narrow. Here is what that area looks like on the LUAS
    0002e9df-800.jpg

    In high floor systems, the entire floor is above the wheels. This allows the floor to be one level, allowing seats to be positioned better, and increasing standing room. For example, here is the interior of the Vancouver skytrain.
    skytrainmk2interior1.jpeg

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Stop quoting pics!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    That was fast..

    TII have issued a PIN for tender for Preliminary Market Consultation Relating to the Procurement of Design & Construction Services for MetroLink

    Jacobs/IDOM JV will take MetroLink to ABP for mid 2019. TII are already looking beyond this

    Tender in full:

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=126241&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭ricimaki


    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.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    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/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    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?

    Are you talking about this?

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.381851,-6.2552853,456m/data=!3m1!1e3
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056653349


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    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?
    Highfield Private Hospital/Farm, Elmhurt Home and, IIRC, the field with frontage on Griffith Avenue is owned by DCU (not DCU Sports Grounds).

    I haven't really had time to comment on the new plans but I think the DCU field is a viable location for Na Fianna. Alternatively, a station at DCU Alpha near the National Metrology Lab and Educate Together could be reconsidered. I think it was called the Glasnevin stop in the alignment study. But TBMs may have to be launched from Albert College Park.


  • Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Ernest


    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 very much doubt that.
    I have never seen empty seats with people preferring to stand instead of sit on the London Underground system or on any of the Dublin train/tram systems.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,553 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    Ernest wrote: »
    I very much doubt that.
    I have never seen empty seats with people preferring to stand instead of sit on the London Underground system or on any of the Dublin train/tram systems.

    I very rarely take a seat on the Luas I prefer to stand. Not sure why but always get on and head to the opposite side of the tram. I'd usually only be on red line for 4 or 5 stops.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭plodder


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    with the the current development in cherrywood and the huge pressure it will bring on public transport is there a reason the metro is not brought to there to help with future demand?


  • Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭citizen6


    Hello all. Excuse my ignorance - can anyone help with these questions?

    Could the TBMs be launched from the Ballymun Rd side of Albert College Park, even if there is no stop located there?

    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?

    If TBMs are not launched from Na Fianna, could the Griffith metro stop be moved 150m south to the Home Farm soccer pitch. Home Farm have most of their pitches elsewhere and would lose this one for a shorter time if TBMs are not launched from here.

    And further to Roadmaster's post above, is there any reason Metros couldn't run (at Luas speed) from Sandyford to Cherrywood?


  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    citizen6 wrote: »
    Hello all. Excuse my ignorance - can anyone help with these questions?

    Could the TBMs be launched from the Ballymun Rd side of Albert College Park, even if there is no stop located there?

    By having the launching point for the TBM's at the same location as a station box you reduce the amount of digging needed to be done. If you move the launching point to another location you still need to dig the station box so 2 holes instead of one large one.
    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?

    No idea, but it's not being built solely for DCU. Probably has more to do with catchment area and distance between stops.
    citizen6 wrote: »
    If TBMs are not launched from Na Fianna, could the Griffith metro stop be moved 150m south to the Home Farm soccer pitch. Home Farm have most of their pitches elsewhere and would lose this one for a shorter time if TBMs are not launched from here.

    That puts it very close to the planned Whitworth stop and thus reduces the catchment area.
    citizen6 wrote: »
    And further to Roadmaster's post above, is there any reason Metros couldn't run (at Luas speed) from Sandyford to Cherrywood?

    There are a good few level crossings and some curves are extremely tight. Better suited for Trams really. I'm not sure either if that section has the clearance for the wider Metro trains.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    roadmaster wrote: »
    with the the current development in cherrywood and the huge pressure it will bring on public transport is there a reason the metro is not brought to there to help with future demand?

    It isn't impossible - the trackbed of the old mainline between Stillorgan, Foxrock and Carrickmines is mostly clear of obstruction. I can't see how the Luas section between Sandyford and the 'Racecourse' platform would work for Metro.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    roadmaster wrote: »
    with the the current development in cherrywood and the huge pressure it will bring on public transport is there a reason the metro is not brought to there to help with future demand?

    The line from Sandyford to Brides Glen has many tight curves and open level crossings which would be unsuitable towards high frequency HFV metro operation. If you made the line to Brides Glen metro you would have to go for the 60m LVF option severely reducing capacity on the Metro.

    To sum up the line from Sandyford to Charlemount has been built with metro in mind where as the line South of Sandyford has been with trams in mind. Also there are many suburban tram systems in other European cities which work very connecting to higher capacity metro and rail systems.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    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.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    It isn't impossible - the trackbed of the old mainline between Stillorgan, Foxrock and Carrickmines is mostly clear of obstruction. I can't see how the Luas section between Sandyford and the 'Racecourse' platform would work for Metro.

    Several houses and tennis courts along the route beside Leopardstown Racecourse.

    The fact that there are tennis courts along the route gives an indication as to the type of residents along the route, which makes it highly unlikely that it'll ever be a working railway again


  • Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭citizen6


    jd wrote: »
    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.

    Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
    By having the launching point for the TBM's at the same location as a station box you reduce the amount of digging needed to be done. If you move the launching point to another location you still need to dig the station box so 2 holes instead of one large one.



    No idea, but it's not being built solely for DCU. Probably has more to do with catchment area and distance between stops.



    That puts it very close to the planned Whitworth stop and thus reduces the catchment area.



    There are a good few level crossings and some curves are extremely tight. Better suited for Trams really. I'm not sure either if that section has the clearance for the wider Metro trains.

    Thanks for the response. Catchment area issue aside (and it's only 150m of a difference), it looks to me that the construction site for a standard station box would fit on the Hoem Farm soccer pitch site and not affect Na Fianna. If so, moving TBM portal to the pitches on west side of Albert College Park would eliminate the affect on Na Fianna pitches. I think the Albert College Park pitches would be less of a loss to the community overall than the Na Fianna ones.


  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    citizen6 wrote: »
    Good point, I hadn't thought of that.



    Thanks for the response. Catchment area issue aside (and it's only 150m of a difference), it looks to me that the construction site for a standard station box would fit on the Hoem Farm soccer pitch site and not affect Na Fianna. If so, moving TBM portal to the pitches on west side of Albert College Park would eliminate the affect on Na Fianna pitches. I think the Albert College Park pitches would be less of a loss to the community overall than the Na Fianna ones.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement