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

monument wrote: »

Expect for the ABP process and its public hearing, and all of the consultation between the route selection and the ABP hearing and beyond??

The ABP process is not a public consultation. The public are allowed to make submissions, but the basic function of this is to decide whether to grant the order or not, and what conditions, if any, should be attached. Not the same thing at all.

No, we've now seen this twice from the RPA, in the design process for the metronorth and the Luas BXD line. A number of possible lines presented with considerable fanfare, invitations to the public to get involved, open days, the lot. Then after all this has died down, a new route - which had been envisaged by no-one - emerges.

Consultation about this route, the one which it is actually intended to build, takes place - if at all - below the radar of most people, and most certainly without the fanfare which accompanied the original consultation. In fact, I can't even recall any "general" consultation taking place about either the revised metronorth route or the revised LUAS link-up. (Certainly there were consultations in particular places about how it would affect that place, but that's not the same thing).

monument wrote: »

Bit of an open and shut case.

The stop is already designed and the station box is being built.

The stop at the Mater makes sense today and will make sense in a few years time with or without the children's hospital -- the Mater is already one of the largest hospital campuses in Dublin and has just opened a brand new adult hospital.

The area is also one of the most highly populated areas in Dublin.

No quibble at all that there should be a stop in the vicinity of the Mater. But it's not a necessity to build it in the Mater (and quite possibly less so if the NCH ends up not being there).

chooochooo wrote: »

Some people are never happy. In China, if the Gov decides to build a metro line, some official will knock on your door and give you 20 minutes to sling your hook. The RPA really did as much as possible to get the suggestions and objections of all stakeholders in planning MN. Anybody concerned or affected had plenty of opportunity to have their say.

There is a different approach to human rights in China, they have lots of money, and there is currently considerable urgency about infrastructure building in that country. I don't know how the situation in China has made it onto a thread about metronorth.

I think the RPA have basically done a good job so far. This is a project which is way beyond anything which has been attempted in Ireland before. It would be a surprise if mistakes were not made, both in design and in presentation of the project to the public.

chooochooo wrote: »

You get the feeling that what Strassenwolf means by 'Consultation' is he wants the Minister for Transport and the head of the RPA to make an appointment to have an audience with him where he will tell them exactly where they can or can not put the line.
No arguing allowed.

I'm sorry if you get that feeling. I merely wished to make an observation based on what I've seen of public transport infrastructure development, and public consultations, in a number of countries over the years.

I'm quite sure that the Minister would be better off, at the moment, spending his time asking the head of the RPA to explain the figures behind the decision to locate a station at O'Connell Bridge, than meeting with me.

(But if, ChoooChooo, you manage to get the Minister past my secretary:D, this is what I would say:

you've heard the figures from the RPA head, and they don't add up, so scrap the O'Connell Bridge idea. Go back to the original one of a station at Trinity and a station at O'Connell Street. This will have a knock-on effect on stations further north. Move the Parnell Square station to North Frederick Street or Dorset Street - or maybe even somewhere like Temple Street - and scrap the Mater stop. And move the Drumcondra stop to some location between the two railway lines.

By doing this you create two very busy city centre stations with a larger effective catchment area than is currently planned, while reducing costs. With the stations at North Fred./Dorset Street/Temple St. and Drumcondra you cover another catchment area (including the Mater and Parnell St.) very well, without overlap, even if some costs are incurred by work already done on the now unnecessary Mater stop. And with the station at Drumcondra there are, apart from local commuting demand, possibilities for connection to two rail lines for the future.

Overall cost savings. Better coverage of the city. And, due to the current economic situation, time available to get it right.

That's what I'd say to the Minister).

Winters wrote: »

I would agree with a lot of what you are saying. I was never in favour of the mined O'Connell stop. I would build it under O'Connell Street between Abbey Street and Henry Street with the Line BX/D O'Connell Street Luas stop directly above it (Both directions). I would also scrap the Parnell stop and am not an advocate of an extra stop between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street i.e. Trinity Stop. BX/D can fill in the gaps in between.

I would most certainly not remove the Mater stop but completey agree with the Drumcondra location you suggested.

From there northwards the line is pretty much as logical as engineeringly possible (sic).

Sadly, the RPA had/have to adhere to more stakeholders and agendas than we do. For instance DCC would not allow any disruption to the Swords route in Drumcondra and O'Connell Street.

Could you talk us through your logic in relation to the Mater Hospital stop? It seems to be very important to you that it remain on the metro route.

Your preferred arrangement of stations (St. Stephen's Green, O'Connell Street, Mater Hospital and Drumcondra (between the railway lines)) would leave gaps of around or over 1km between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street and between O'Connell Street and the Mater, while there would be just a gap of around 500-600 metres between the Mater and your preferred Drumcondra station location.

I would have thought that there was, overall, bigger demand for proximate stations along the Dorset Street-St. Stephen's Green axis.

Winters wrote: »

Do you disagree with the Mater stop's location itself or it's inclusion altogether?

I am not speaking on behalf of the RPA and PB engineers who spent a great deal of time planning the alignment and stop locations but there are many factors that came to be considered. The Mater is seen as a large trip generator for one thus once the general alignment was decided, the vicinity of the Mater/Dorset Street was chosen for a stop. So when it came down to it, there were only a number of feasible locations for a structure of that size: Option 1 - Cut and cover stop under the Mater Hospital car park; Option 2 - Cut and cover stop to the west of Dorset Street; and Option 3 - Mined stop under Dorset Street. As the RPA put it "Option 1 was identified as the preferred option as it minimises construction risk and the potential for disruption".

Yes it is not ideal that there is only a gap of 700m between the RPA Drumcondra Stop and the Mater stop (Reduced to 600m if the Drumcondra stop is located further south under the Lower Drumcondra Road) but engineering, geological and cost are also major factors in decisions on where to construct underground stations.

I wouldn't say I disagree with the Mater stop location, and I certainly don't disagree with inclusion of a station which serves the Mater.

A major factor in relation to the location of stations between St. Stephen's Green and Drumcondra on the metronorth was the RPA's erroneous belief that they would save money by combining the Trinity and O'Connell Street stations into just one station at O'Connell Bridge.

This left quite a large gap between O'Connell Bridge and the next station northwards, the Mater. Quite rightly, in my opinion, residents and business owners in and around Parnell Street/Square lobbied, ultimately successfully, for a station which would adequately fill that gap.

Had the stations remained at Trinity and O'Connell Street (basically at the location you were talking about), there would not have been such a large gap, and those residents and business owners would not have been so far removed from a metro station.

One of the problems now is that the longest gap between stations, in the St. Stephen's Green to Drumcondra section of metronorth, will be between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Bridge. And like it or not, that is the area which requires the most efficient processing of passengers in the morning and evening peak - not like Henry Street where people are dribbling in and out all day. This is a mistake, in my opinion.

I think an arrangement like St. Stephen's Green, Trinity, O'Connell Street (around Abbey Street/Henry Street), Temple Street, Drumcondra would be perfect. Temple Street is very close to the Mater, but also a good central location for people living or working on Dorset Street, Mountjoy Square, Gardiner Street, parts of Parnell Square, etc. And even though some work has been done up at the Mater, it would have the advantage that tunnelling costs could be saved.

Winters wrote: »

You are certainly right about their decision for the O'Connell Bridge stop. Where would you propose constructing a station for Trinity though? I remember talking to Rob Leech at the RPA about a stop at "Trinity" and he said a station box or indeed a mined station in College Green wasn't feasible in terms of construction access, disruption and geology cost. They came to the conclusion that Westmoreland Street was the only possible location and that was too close to the then proposed O'Connell Street stop (300m). D'Olier was another option but the alignment meant a deviation under Trinity College which was ruled out. Remember also that a "Trinity" stop at College Green would be just 500m from the St. Stephen's Green stop.

I can see that there are obvious problems - the specific ones you mention - with stations at Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, which would seem to rule them out.

I would obviously not wish to question in any way the bona fides of Mr Leech, but I would be interested to know how closely the RPA looked at the feasibility of a station in College Green. They may indeed have had the idea of the O'Connell Bridge station in formation at the time of the metro consultations. It's certainly hard to square a few things.

(Am I right in thinking that you intended to put a comma between geology and cost?)

A station at College Green would need to be much shallower than the proposed station at O'Connell Bridge, as would any potential station at O'Connell Street (around Abbey Street/Henry Street)

In relation to geology, it's hard to see how the geology of College Green could be so very different to that of the adjacent Westmoreland street, where it doesn't seem to be a negative factor.

On costs, the RPA have not really covered themselves in glory in relation to their estimation of the costs of station construction in the central area, have they? It's certainly hard to see how this would be a deciding factor, given the scale of the station which they are actually proposing to build at O'Connell Bridge.

Construction access is obviously a problem in a central area, but surely not a reason to abandon a potential site in favour of building a much more expensive station at a nearby site where construction access would also be a problem.

Similarly with disruption. College Green is a central location, ergo there will be disruption. But, as above, hardly a good reason to build a much more expensive station at a nearby site where there will also be considerable disruption to businesses and traffic flows.

The RPA made an error believing that the O'Connell Bridge station would cut costs. I think they should look again at College Green, in order to reduce the enormous costs which would be associated with the O'Connell Bridge station, and also to provide better access to the metro.

In relation to the 500 metre gap between St. Stephen's Green and a potential station at College Green, I really wouldn't see this as a negative. As I mentioned above, the area between Henry Street and St. Stephen's Green is the area on this line which will need to be most efficient in the uptake and discharge of passengers. An extra station between O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green will help this, while (as noted above by AngryLips) a 1 km gap in this central area would reduce the attractiveness of the line.