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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1…5455575960…314

Comments

  • #1682
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    We have been through the reasons why the O'Connell Bridge station would be more expensive than two stations.

    But your idea of a College Green stop has been ruled out on the expensive disruption.


  • #1683
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    I would agree with strassenwo!f that the only real options available are Parnell - OCB - SSG (RPA favoured and ABP approved) or OCS - SSG.

    Erm, Winters, I didn't express that view on this thread, or any thread.

    (But it is nice that you're agreeing with me:)).


  • #1684
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    monument wrote: »
    But your idea of a College Green stop has been ruled out on the expensive disruption.

    Has it? Oh dear.

    But I don't remember seeing any RPA statements that they were getting rid of the proposed Trinity stop because of disruption. The only reason ever given was that they would save costs.


  • #1685
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Erm, Winters, I didn't express that view on this thread, or any thread.

    (But it is nice that you're agreeing with me:)).

    Thanks!:D

    Thats what I read from your below quote, am I wrong?
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    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.

    What would you change about the current RPA station locations if you were able to?
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    But I don't remember seeing any RPA statements that they were getting rid of the proposed Trinity stop because of disruption. The only reason ever given was that they would save costs.

    I certainly remember the RPA ruling out the Trinity stops on a number of reasons, one being disruption. The others being cost and geology but disruption was certainly mentioned early on.


  • #1686
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    Thats what I read from your below quote, am I wrong?

    Yes, you are. I really don't know how that was the message you took from the post on the previous page, but obviously I must work on my clarity.
    Winters wrote: »
    What would you change about the current RPA station locations if you were able to?

    I think from the discussion we've have over the last few pages on this board it should be clear that I believe that:

    (i) the RPA made an error believing that the O'Connell Bridge idea, rather than the original Trinity-O'Connell Street suggestion in the public consultation, would cut costs;

    (ii) your proposal to have a St. Stephen's Green - O'Connell Street section in the busiest part of the city would leave a very large gap between the stations in the very area where stations are needed most;

    (iii) while two of the original Trinity stop options, namely Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, were ruled out on very sensible grounds, we have very little to go on as regards the pitfalls related to a potential Trinity stop under College Green. Disruption was one which was mentioned, and Monument mentioned that it would be expensive (though I have to confess I didn't understand that, given the O'Connell Bridge thing)

    Taking points (i) to (iii) into account, I think an O'Connell Street-College Green-St. Stephen's Green city centre section should be the aim.

    This was indeed recognised on the board by ChoooChooo, earlier, but the RPA were at the time consumed with trying to cut costs on station elevators and other things, and they thought they could also cut costs by reducing the number of stations. As has been discussed, they were wrong.

    I hope that is clear enough.
    Winters wrote: »
    I certainly remember the RPA ruling out the Trinity stops on a number of reasons, one being disruption. The others being cost and geology but disruption was certainly mentioned early on.

    Winters, it's the centre of the city. You don't need to be a transport expert working for the RPA to see that there would be disruption if you build a station at College Green.

    But the RPA ruled in a more expensive station because they believed it would cut costs, and they were clearly wrong. So how are Dubliners supposed to believe that the stuff they ruled out was done so for the right reasons?


  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    With an integrated ticket system is it really an inconvenience to have less stops and a faster MN service and allow people to jump on BXD from trinity and go to the next stop (OCS or SSG)?


  • #1688
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    The worst part of the decision on having two stations (College Green and OCS) or just one (OCB) is that there seems to have been no thought given to which of the two choices (or indeed any others) would be best when it comes to locating interchanges as part of a future metro network. This is of course linked to the fact that there seems to be no plan... only vague ideas and about five different maps thrown up over the past 20 years.

    There's no point in assessing the merits of this line *just by itself*. Dublin is the state's primate city; it's going to grow, it's going to have to get its mass-transit network together. Emphasis on network. Imo it's absolutely ludicrous that there is no official plan for where MN is going to continue south. In terms of interchanges with other lines, only Drumcondra and SSG DartU have been looked at. It's quite possible that a station around OCB/College Green/Tara St could become Dublin's version of Oxford Circus or Chatelet-Les-Halles. Or maybe a long SSG-OCB segment is just meant as a shuttle between the two primary retail districts in the country. Whatever the reasoning for locating stations, it must be part of a holistic strategy. Taking station locations just within the context of the MN route isn't good enough.


    (For an example that isn't the ideal situation, and will take an age to finish (i.e. perfect for comparison with Dublin!!) take Los Angeles. They're expanding their metro system slowly but systematically, and they know what order the lines will be build, where they'll be built, and where the network's transfer points will be. Some of the lines won't be ready until 2040, but it doesn't stop them having a goal. It's a long-term plan. In contrast, Dublin seems to build one thing, then rejig everything and start the exercise from scratch.)


  • #1689
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    And, of course, there's also the possibility that the RPA may be not be coming out with all the stuff about other options, in order to cover up for their O'Connell Bridge booboo.


  • #1690
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    Aard wrote: »
    The worst part of the decision on having two stations (College Green and OCS) or just one (OCB) is that there seems to have been no thought given to which of the two choices (or indeed any others) would be best when it comes to locating interchanges as part of a future metro network. This is of course linked to the fact that there seems to be no plan... only vague ideas and about five different maps thrown up over the past 20 years.

    There's no point in assessing the merits of this line *just by itself*. Dublin is the state's primate city; it's going to grow, it's going to have to get its mass-transit network together. Emphasis on network. Imo it's absolutely ludicrous that there is no official plan for where MN is going to continue south. In terms of interchanges with other lines, only Drumcondra and SSG DartU have been looked at. It's quite possible that a station around OCB/College Green/Tara St could become Dublin's version of Oxford Circus or Chatelet-Les-Halles. Or maybe a long SSG-OCB segment is just meant as a shuttle between the two primary retail districts in the country. Whatever the reasoning for locating stations, it must be part of a holistic strategy. Taking station locations just within the context of the MN route isn't good enough.


    (For an example that isn't the ideal situation, and will take an age to finish (i.e. perfect for comparison with Dublin!!) take Los Angeles. They're expanding their metro system slowly but systematically, and they know what order the lines will be build, where they'll be built, and where the network's transfer points will be. Some of the lines won't be ready until 2040, but it doesn't stop them having a goal. It's a long-term plan. In contrast, Dublin seems to build one thing, then rejig everything and start the exercise from scratch.)

    Do you not think that we have done the network plans to death by now?

    God knows I have seen enough maps and brochures over the last 15 years to prove it.

    The only thing we need right now is construction (and money!!).


  • #1691
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    With an integrated ticket system

    Will we have MN before we have integrated ticketing?


  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Winters wrote: »
    Do you not think that we have done the network plans to death by now?

    God knows I have seen enough maps and brochures over the last 15 years to prove it.

    Oh yes, absolutely! That's kinda what I mean: I'm not interested in maps, I'm interested in a commitment to keep to a plan. The maps keep changing, and they're not of much substance. Ideally, I'd like to see only one map for the next 50 years -- no changes, alterations, upgrades, etc. Just for there to be a plan that is stuck to.

    Just like you, I'm sick of seeing maps with no timeline. They only give a vague "sometime in the future... maybe" feeling.


  • #1693
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    I agree.

    Changes in government have normally coincided with different plans. An all party agreement would be nice..


  • #1694
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    With an integrated ticket system

    Will we have MN before we have integrated ticketing?
    Unfortunately, no


  • #1695
    The Idyll Race
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭The Idyll Race


    Winters wrote: »
    Do you not think that we have done the network plans to death by now?

    God knows I have seen enough maps and brochures over the last 15 years to prove it.

    The only thing we need right now is construction (and money!!).

    Fifteen? Thirty-five more like. The Dublin Rail Rapid Transit System proposals go back to the mid to late 1970s. We're still tinkering with that as the base of the whole mish-mash of infrastructure proposals, the messing with which was caused by the received wisdom that buses were adequate for Dublin. Thanks Garret, Charlie, Mary and Bertie for your indecision and pandering to the motor industry. :rolleyes:


  • #1696
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Aard wrote: »
    The worst part of the decision on having two stations (College Green and OCS) or just one (OCB) is that there seems to have been no thought given to which of the two choices (or indeed any others) would be best when it comes to locating interchanges as part of a future metro network. This is of course linked to the fact that there seems to be no plan... only vague ideas and about five different maps thrown up over the past 20 years.

    There's no point in assessing the merits of this line *just by itself*. Dublin is the state's primate city; it's going to grow, it's going to have to get its mass-transit network together. Emphasis on network. Imo it's absolutely ludicrous that there is no official plan for where MN is going to continue south. In terms of interchanges with other lines, only Drumcondra and SSG DartU have been looked at. It's quite possible that a station around OCB/College Green/Tara St could become Dublin's version of Oxford Circus or Chatelet-Les-Halles. Or maybe a long SSG-OCB segment is just meant as a shuttle between the two primary retail districts in the country. Whatever the reasoning for locating stations, it must be part of a holistic strategy. Taking station locations just within the context of the MN route isn't good enough.

    St Stephen's Green acts as the major interchange and there's room there for more station boxes (with or without digging up the green).

    As Winters said the design also allows for the line to continue.

    Aard wrote: »
    (For an example that isn't the ideal situation, and will take an age to finish (i.e. perfect for comparison with Dublin!!) take Los Angeles. They're expanding their metro system slowly but systematically, and they know what order the lines will be build, where they'll be built, and where the network's transfer points will be. Some of the lines won't be ready until 2040, but it doesn't stop them having a goal. It's a long-term plan. In contrast, Dublin seems to build one thing, then rejig everything and start the exercise from scratch.)

    Los Angeles vs Dublin:

    LA has Metro (or in long form: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) which has strong authority over road and rail transport planning and day-to-day running, including public transport highways.|Dublin has a weaker national transport authority with lesser powers and a lot of the powers it has are so-far unproven.
    Metro has rail, bus services and highway control, and Los Angeles Department of Transportation bus services which are not controlled by Metro are still complementary to Metro's rail and bus services|Rail and bus services in Dublin are still disjointedly controlled and Dublin has very few such complimentary services.
    Metro has secure, long-term project funding for transport from Proposition A & C and Measure R sales taxes which was voted on by the people of the county, as well as funding from fares, the state and federal governments, and bonds|Dublin relies on national government for project funding and no transport plan even in boom time had secure, long-term funding
    The board of Metro includes elected the city major, elected Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and elected councillors|Dublin has no strong area elected representatives like a city mayor or area supervisors. City councillors in Dublin find it hard for the taxi regulator to talk to them

    The NTA might be a start, but Dublin is a mess compared to LA.


  • #1697
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    The biggest change I'd make to Metro North is this: abandon the notion of Metro West and plan Metro North as 1500V DC 1600mm heavy rail structure gauge with the terminus at Donabate or Rush (not a bloody field in Lissenhall for the love of god) to integrate with an extended DART and give access to the heavy maintenance shop in Drogheda. Metro West would exist in part by means of future orbital LUAS connections between an extended line D, Line F etc. but the decision to plan MN as 1435mm light metro at a time when the penny should have been dropping that metroising Green LUAS wasn't going to happen simply created yet another mode between at-grade light rail and heavy rail high capacity which didn't need to exist but had to be because RPA was going to build it.


  • #1698
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Dowlingm, there are many views up for discussion, such as yours, and I believe that this is a good time to discuss them.

    The money is gone, there's not likely to be any cash for a few years, and a lot of the things which were taken for granted in the boom years are simply not true anymore.

    After recent discussions on this board involving the poster Winters, I was actually reminded of a post by him, from the boom years. As he had annoyed me considerably because of an attempt to misrepresent my views, I then went looking for it, and it is relevant in the good times and the bad.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50532162&postcount=3

    "Let's stop redesigning the system before we've even built it."

    So, what do you suggest, Winters. Build the tunnels, and if it turns out that they're not right, we move them later? Or what?

    It was a particularly inane comment at the time, when there was still considerable discussion about the best way forward for Dublin.

    But now, when none of this stuff was built during the boom years, and while everybody knows that none of it will be built for years, it still seems to grate with Winters that not everybody is buying into the idea that "the best plans were put in place".

    It certainly grates with me that someone like that is free to misrepresent what people said on the board and, overall, try to discourage discussion on this board of what is to be the infrastructure of Dublin in the future.


  • #1699
    The Idyll Race
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭The Idyll Race


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Dowlingm, there are many views up for discussion, such as yours, and I believe that this is a good time to discuss them.

    The money is gone, there's not likely to be any cash for a few years, and a lot of the things which were taken for granted in the boom years are simply not true anymore.

    After recent discussions on this board involving the poster Winters, I was actually reminded of a post by him, from the boom years. As he had annoyed me considerably because of an attempt to misrepresent my views, I then went looking for it, and it is relevant in the good times and the bad.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50532162&postcount=3

    "Let's stop redesigning the system before we've even built it."

    So, what do you suggest, Winters. Build the tunnels, and if it turns out that they're not right, we move them later? Or what?

    It was a particularly inane comment at the time, when there was still considerable discussion about the best way forward for Dublin.

    But now, when none of this stuff was built during the boom years, and while everybody knows that none of it will be built for years, it still seems to grate with Winters that not everybody is buying into the idea that "the best plans were put in place".

    It certainly grates with me that someone like that is free to misrepresent what people said on the board and, overall, try to discourage discussion on this board of what is to be the infrastructure of Dublin in the future.

    The only problem is that I remember well the muddying of the waters at the design stage of Luas with alternative proposals that were championed by various journalists and politicians that should have know better. The net result was that Luas was delayed by four years and with the bit in the middle missing.

    Since then, unless redesign is constructive and not just colouredy lines on maps I am suspicious of motives for it.


  • #1700
    DebDynamite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,615 ✭✭✭DebDynamite


    Apologies for bumping the thread.

    We're thinking of putting a bid in on a house which is beside one of the proposed Metro North stops, so just wondering if anyone has any idea of the likelihood of the Metro North ever going ahead? It would really influence our decision to buy if there's a good possiblity it will be happening.

    I see the RPA will be reviewing the project in 2015 but that enabling works at the Mater stop have already begun (possibly already finished?), so that seems hopeful enough.

    Any information would be greatly appreciated.


  • #1701
    cabrasnake
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 75 ✭✭cabrasnake


    It'll be built but construction won't start for 3/4 more years.


  • Advertisement
  • #1702
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The RPA are pushing the idea of surface Luas to the airport (via Broombridge and Finglas) and Irish Rail are pushing their Dart spur idea, so I would not bet the price of a house on Metro North being built.


  • #1703
    BonkeyDonker
    Registered Users Posts: 571 ✭✭✭BonkeyDonker


    monument wrote: »
    The RPA are pushing the idea of surface Luas to the airport (via Broombridge and Finglas).

    That does not seem like an overly bad idea - perhaps extending through to swords?


  • #1704
    cabrasnake
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 75 ✭✭cabrasnake


    monument wrote: »
    The RPA are pushing the idea of surface Luas to the airport (via Broombridge and Finglas)

    No they're not.


  • #1705
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    BonkeyDonker wrote: »
    That does not seem like an overly bad idea - perhaps extending through to swords?

    Yeah it does. The metro was going to run through surburbs like drumcondra, swords, Glasnevin and phisborough which are all highly congested. It was also going to link the mater, dcu, st pats and Croke park( the communter line also) with the city centre. A Luas through Finglas won't do any of that


  • #1706
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,239 ✭✭✭markpb


    BonkeyDonker wrote: »
    That does not seem like an overly bad idea - perhaps extending through to swords?

    It's pretty awful, imagine how long it would take. If you're thinking Green line speeds, think again because very little of it would be on preserved alignment.
    cabrasnake wrote: »
    It'll be built but construction won't start for 3/4 more years.

    Is your 0 key broken?


  • #1707
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    cabrasnake wrote: »
    No they're not.

    Yes, they are. Quietly.

    The minister did not come up with the idea him self -- he was fed it quietly the RPA.
    markpb wrote: »
    It's pretty awful, imagine how long it would take. If you're thinking Green line speeds, think again because very little of it would be on preserved alignment.

    North of Broombridge could be all grade segregated or very close to such.


  • #1708
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Metro North isn't in the NTA's implementation plan, so it is unlikely to start before 2018, which means it won't be finished before about 2023.

    the Mater stop box project was about making sure the Mater site was free for other uses.
    cabrasnake wrote: »
    No they're not.
    That's the back-up plan, from the horse's mouth.
    monument wrote: »
    North of Broombridge could be all grade segregated or very close to such.
    Indeed, north of Broadstone.


  • #1709
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,239 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    North of Broombridge could be all grade segregated or very close to such.

    Along which route? (Genuine question)


  • #1710
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    This would be the easy option. It isn't the quickest route to the airport, but semi-express services could be provided. It has the advantage over Metro North of being better able to serve Blanchardstown from the city centre.

    The bridge at St. Margaret's Road is shown double width on this Metro West drawing.


  • Advertisement
  • #1711
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    You'd use the old Broadstone-Mullingar alignment between Broadstone and Liffey Junction. Where would you go North of here for airport?
    https://www.google.com/maps?ll=53.363577,-6.2813&spn=0.003297,0.009238&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.363577,-6.2813&panoid=-BBlzGWYVPmY86Bejk75YA&cbp=12,173.84,,0,2.85


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement