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 )

1…148149151153154…189

Comments

  • #7502
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    It now seems there is a plan to tunnel beyond Dunville Avenue, rather than just to Charlemont, which would add to the cost of the unnecessary upgrade of the Green LUAS. And the level crossing at Stillorgan hasn't been discussed here for a while, but the cost of dealing with that will add more again.

    I can get that cities like Munich are now tinkering with their systems, to make things even better on a network which covers pretty well everywhere. Is Dublin in a position where money should be invested on unnecessary upgrades of a line which is already fine but basically just needs a higher level of service?

    I doubt it.


  • #7503
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I won't quote to spare anyone using the ignore function, but it has been said over and over again: there's a political calculus in the Green Line Metro upgrade that is a major part of the equation as to whether the whole project proceeds or not. That is to say: the additional cost of that upgrade, compared to the cost of doing the northern section alone, is outweighed by the importance and political brownie points of the upgrade being done.

    Given that the plans included options which involved tunnelling beyond Dunville Ave, and one of those options, iirc, actually had benefits over the Charlemont option, this eventuality was obviously well within the bounds of the project.


  • #7504
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I won't quote to spare anyone using the ignore function, but it has been said over and over again: there's a political calculus in the Green Line Metro upgrade that is a major part of the equation as to whether the whole project proceeds or not. That is to say: the additional cost of that upgrade, compared to the cost of doing the northern section alone, is outweighed by the importance and political brownie points of the upgrade being done.

    Given that the plans included options which involved tunnelling beyond Dunville Ave, and one of those options, iirc, actually had benefits over the Charlemont option, this eventuality was obviously well within the bounds of the project.

    So, I think you're saying that the unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line is included in the project for political reasons. Basically, the NTA can say 'We are delivering a 31 km metro for not much more than the price of a metro between Swords and the City'.

    Is that correct?


  • #7505
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    So, I think you're saying that the unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line is included in the project for political reasons. Basically, the NTA can say 'We are delivering a 31 km metro for not much more than the price of a metro between Swords and the City'.

    Is that correct?

    The upgrade of the Green Line (it's actually Metro South) is part of the GDA 2016-35 Transport Strategy. It wasn't pulled out of the blue


  • #7506
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.


  • Advertisement
  • #7507
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    And to simplify, if you imagine scales of Metrolink's favourability for politicians - on the positive side is:
    1) needed capacity upgrade for South Green Line.
    2) a wider swathe of the city (and therefore voters) positively affected by the project.
    3) a richer demographic of voters positively affected by the project.
    4) looks like a longer term vision.
    5) gives a better end result in terms of actual infrastructure to point to at election time.
    6) is a more efficient long term use of funds.

    On the negative side:
    1) Costs more
    2) NIMBYs.

    There's no disputing that the cost negative is a biggie, but it's currently not enough to outweigh the positives, and is probably still not enough even after adding 1 or 2km more tunnelling to the south end (especially if this negates a lot of the NIMBY complaints).


  • #7508
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.

    To be fair it’s just one poster who thinks by repeating it it’s true. He does this constantly and then tells us about something in Germany. It’s probably best to give it no more oxygen.


  • #7509
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Can we also put to bed the idea that it is unnecessary? It is very much necessary, we can argue about the urgency, but it is definitely *needed*.

    That's going to be a bit difficult.

    Tram systems in several European cities are running 36 trams per hour in each direction, with several road crossings.

    On the Green Line proper, between Charlemont and Cherrywood, there are just two minor road crossings (at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan), and a throughput of 20 trams per hour. That's just a little bit over half what is being done in other European cities with their trams.

    It is clearly unneceessary, at this stage, to upgrade the Green Line to a metro. Yes, more services are required on the line, and with a bit of investment that should be achievable.

    I wasn't aware, until you mentioned it in your post above, that there was a bit of politics involved in the push for this unnecessary upgrade of the Green Line.


  • #7510
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    salmocab wrote: »
    To be fair it’s just one poster who thinks by repeating it it’s true. He does this constantly and then tells us about something in Germany. It’s probably best to give it no more oxygen.

    In fairness, I have mentioned Germany on this and other threads, because it's a country I know reasonably well and the Germans do place a high value on public transport, as do most countries in continental Europe. The idea of an unnecessary upgrade of a tram line running at about half its capacity would be, I am sure, a major source of discussion in any city in the continental part of the European Union.


  • #7511
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,614 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    On the Green Line proper, between Charlemont and Cherrywood, there are just two minor road crossings (at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan), and a throughput of 20 trams per hour. That's just a little bit over half what is being done in other European cities with their trams.

    Not to be a pedantic peter, but there are more than 2. Theres one at laughinstown, and two at leopardstown valley.


  • Advertisement
  • #7512
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Forgive me, I should perhaps have spelt it out.

    Tram services in many cities in continental Europe are running 36 (thirty-six) trams per hour in each direction, and with several road crossings along the way.


  • #7513
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    In fairness, I have mentioned Germany on this and other threads, because it's a country I know reasonably well and the Germans do place a high value on public transport, as do most countries in continental Europe. The idea of an unnecessary upgrade of a tram line running at about half its capacity would be, I am sure, a major source of discussion in any city in the continental part of the European Union.

    You just keep repeating unnecessary like if you type the word enough it will be true. People have explained to you repeatedly why it’s necessary in the near future but you keep telling us about what other cities do and then tell us something about the siding in Stephens green.


  • #7514
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not to be a pedantic peter, but there are more than 2. Theres one at laughinstown, and two at leopardstown valley.

    Yes, my mistake. I intended to talk only about the Charlemont - Sandyford section of this proposed upgrrade,

    As far as I know, there are just two at-grade road crossings (and several pedestrian crossings) between Charlemont and Sandyford being talked about extensively here. There are a number of other rarely-used road crossings (at Alexandra College, for example) and several pedestrian crossings, and we will have to see what the plans might be to deal with these.

    The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre , is surely unsustainable. In most cities I've seen, the default option is the centre, and if you want to go somewhere else, you change.

    It is my opinion that the current Cherrywood - Broombridge LUAS is pretty good, and there is no need for an upgrade for the service at this stage. The figures for the metro, produced by the NTA, indicate that the Broombridge - Cherrywood line should probably be due for an upgrade to a metro in around 2040, or shortly after.

    Hopefully, by which time, lots of other stuff will have been been done in Dublin.


  • #7515
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre , is surely unsustainable. In most cities I've seen, the default option is the centre, and if you want to go somewhere else, you change.

    Only one change to get into the city and it’s from the terminus so will be completely hassle free everyone will likely get a seat.


  • #7516
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Dont forget that it will be extended beyond Cherrywood to Bray and beyond Broombridge onto Finglas in time.
    Bray to Finglas is too long for a single tram line.
    As Sandyford and Cherrywood expend it will be a great commuter line from Bray, and should people want to continue north they can switch at Sandyford, don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.


  • #7517
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Actually forgive me I should have spelt it out 1 (one) change into the city.


  • #7518
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    jvan wrote: »
    Dont forget that it will be extended beyond Cherrywood to Bray and beyond Broombridge onto Finglas in time.
    Bray to Finglas is too long for a single tram line.
    As Sandyford and Cherrywood expend it will be a great commuter line from Bray, and should people want to continue north they can switch at Sandyford, don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.



    In my experience, folk need to be shown how making connecting changes are 1. as cheap as their existing journey; 2. are completely reliable. If so, general acceptance of making connecting changes will become acceptable to Joe and Mary Public.


  • #7519
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    jvan wrote: »
    don't really see why Irish people have such a fear of switching services, see it with Bus Connects too.

    Really? It should be fairly obvious why. People don’t like making connections if they’re not confident that the second bus, tram, train will show up and how long they’ll have to wait. If you’re connecting from 46a to 39a, most people would be fine with that but the reality is that most connections in Dublin would have at least one leg on an infrequent, irregular or unreliable mode of transport. Dart to DB feeder buses like the 114 are a great example. Connecting from anything to a suburban train is another. Even connecting between buses was a terrible experience for a long time. RTPI helps a lot with this although it’s only useful if your connection is close to the start of your trip, otherwise you’re working off timetables instead of real time information.

    People will connect when they know their journey is reliable and predictable.


  • #7520
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

    That's great.

    What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.


  • #7521
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    How many more trams? How long should the trams be? Most importantly, what would all the newer/longer trams do above St. Stephen's Green, where even the existing ones make the whole Dolier/Westmoreland Street a complete mess?


  • Advertisement
  • #7522
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

    That's great.

    What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.

    How many more times do you have to be told that the Green Line upgrade is not to cater for current demand but forecasted demand in 2027 when it opens?


  • #7523
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    marno21 wrote: »
    How many more times do you have to be told that the Green Line upgrade is not to cater for current demand but forecasted demand in 2027 when it opens?

    This has been discussed at length on the Dublin metrolink - alternative routes thread.

    Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

    This throughput is still quite a bit below what other cities are doing with their trams.

    I stress that I am not against an upgrade of the Green Line per se. But it does seem to be unnecessary, and wasteful, at this stage of Dublin's development.


  • #7524
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    This has been discussed at length on the Dublin metrolink - alternative routes thread.
    Which is where this entire conversation should have remained. Why are you insisting on discussing this in this thread, when a dedicated thread was created for off topic discussions.


  • #7525
    MICKEYG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 796 ✭✭✭MICKEYG


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    At the moment you can get from Cherrywood to the city centre in around half an hour, with no change.

    That's great.

    What's needed on that line are more trams. Not a change to a metro.

    You sure. I think it is north of 40.


  • #7526
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

    .

    What cities I'd be interested in seeing there systems?


  • #7527
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Based on the metrolink.ie figures of 400 people per tram, it seems that 30 trams per hour should be sufficient to deal with their projected demand up to the year 2047.

    This throughput is still quite a bit below what other cities are doing with their trams.

    No it is not, you are wrong about that..

    Your example of 36 trams per hour is across 3/4 parallel tram lines. We discussed this earlier and I proved you wrong on this. The maximum for a two line tram system is 24 trams, which Luas is already hitting.

    Here is what the folks at Transport for Ireland, you know the professional engineers who actually built and operate the Luas have to say on the matter:

    http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf
    5.1
    Line B (Ranelagh to Sandyford)/Segregation
    The existing Luas Green Line is limited to running a maximum of 24 TPH. This limitation is driven by the non-segregated nature of the line and in particular the need for vehicles to stop at at-grade crossings at Dunville Avenue and St Raphaela’s Road.

    In order to achieve the increased frequency of services to 30/40 TPH required for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, it will be necessary to completely segregate the line from any interface with road and pedestrian traffic. This will involve taking steps to remove the at-grade crossings and, in addition, closing an existing signalised junction at the access to Alexandra College.

    http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/metrolink-nta-tii-public-consultation-document.pdf

    page 10:
    "The extension of the Green Line in December 2017 to include Luas Cross City has already seen a significant increase in passenger numbers over the entire route of the Green Line. In addition, as areas such as Cherrywood and Sandyford are further developed in the coming years, the passenger demand on the Green Line will further increase. Analysis undertaken with the NTA’s Regional Transport Model indicates that by 2027, the level of demand on the line will exceed the carrying capacity of the Luas system, even with the introduction of longer trams."

    Are you saying that you, some random person on the internet, knows better then the professional engineers at TII who build and operate the Luas!!!!

    That is pretty insane :eek:


  • #7528
    tom1ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    So where are we now with this project design? Am I right in thinking that the tunnel may be extended further south to beechwood?
    If so what are the pros and cons?


  • #7529
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    tom1ie wrote: »
    So where are we now with this project design? Am I right in thinking that the tunnel may be extended further south to beechwood?
    If so what are the pros and cons?

    Yes, it sounds like it will be extended further south.

    The Metrolink documents include lots of info about this (and other) options if your interested.

    Pros: It avoids needing to close Dunville Avenue.

    Cons: Longer and more expensive, but only slightly so.


  • #7530
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    We went over all this (with the exact same posters!) back in June ffs:

    Here are the costs:

    q27gOLW.png

    Here were the overall appraisals of each option:

    SZ6SN4t.png

    I believe the 'current' option is 4B, so you can see how options 5 and 6 weren't actually all that much less favourable than the selected route in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I reckon 4B was only picked because it was the cheapest desirable option.


  • Advertisement
  • #7531
    tom1ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    MJohnston wrote: »
    We went over all this (with the exact same posters!) back in June ffs:

    Here are the costs:

    q27gOLW.png

    Here were the overall appraisals of each option:

    SZ6SN4t.png

    I believe the 'current' option is 4B, so you can see how options 5 and 6 weren't actually all that much less favourable than the selected route in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I reckon 4B was only picked because it was the cheapest desirable option.

    Don’t bother posting if it annoys you so much.
    The point was things might have moved on since June but I suppose you missed that point.


  • #7532
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    So here we have an article at the outrageous idea of CPOing 90 apartments in order to construct Ireland's biggest rail interchange, which would serve thousands of people daily

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/college-gate-apartments-metro-demolition-15375026

    Which is followed by their top article:

    "90 minute delays and 11km queues reported following multi-vehicle collision on popular commuter route into capital"

    *sigh*


  • #7533
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!


  • #7534
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    bk wrote: »
    No it is not, you are wrong about that..

    Your example of 36 trams per hour is across 3/4 parallel tram lines. We discussed this earlier and I proved you wrong on this. The maximum for a two line tram system is 24 trams, which Luas is already hitting.

    We did indeed discuss this on the alternative routes thread, and it is quite true that both of the cities discussed (Berlin and Vienna, as far as I recall) do have central sections where several lines converge, which would be quite different from the situation in Dublin. No one line would have more than around 10 trams per hour (and the reasons for that are also discussed on that thread).

    In the central sections in those cities, however, there are several road crossings and they are running up to 36 trams per hour in each direction. (In Berlin, for example, the central section I was talking about has around 12 stops, perhaps a dozen road crossings, and that level of throughput).
    bk wrote: »
    Here is what the folks at Transport for Ireland, you know the professional engineers who actually built and operate the Luas have to say on the matter:

    http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

    http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/metrolink-nta-tii-public-consultation-document.pdf

    page 10:

    Are you saying that you, some random person on the internet, knows better then the professional engineers at TII who build and operate the Luas!!!!

    That is pretty insane :eek:

    I absolutely do not claim to know more than the people at TII, and I am very disappointed that you or other readers might get the impression that I am claiming such extra expertise.

    There is, however, a clear discrepancy between what the above documentation says is the limit for a tram system with road crossings (24) and what the corresponding documentation in those other cities must say is the limit for a similar system (at least 36).

    I have no idea why there should be this discrepancy, but pointing it out to the board is not me claiming some special knowledge. It is simply a reminder of what we know is happening in some other cities. It's not some special inside information which only I am privy to.


  • #7535
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    As was pointed out a long time ago 2 cities can’t be compared like this, they have different rates of traffic flow different layouts different alternative routes even different rules on what’s acceptable for safe crossings for pedestrians. They are just too different to keep saying city A can do this so surely city B can too.


  • #7536
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Don’t bother posting if it annoys you so much.
    The point was things might have moved on since June but I suppose you missed that point.

    No, those route options haven't changed since June. What has changed is it now seems like option 5 (or maybe 6) are more favoured - so it makes perfect sense to post those graphics again. But they won't be going back to the drawing board again, as your post seems to suggest.


  • Advertisement
  • #7537
    madbeanman
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭madbeanman


    Guys, we don’t really know what’s happening at the moment as nothing has been officially announced since the closure of the public consultation so no need to be getting so pissy with each other


  • #7538
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    There is, however, a clear discrepancy between what the above documentation says is the limit for a tram system with road crossings (24) and what the corresponding documentation in those other cities must say is the limit for a similar system (at least 36).

    I have no idea why there should be this discrepancy, but pointing it out to the board is not me claiming some special knowledge. It is simply a reminder of what we know is happening in some other cities. It's not some special inside information which only I am privy to.

    What is so hard to understand, there is no way possible to operate 36 trams per hour down just one tram route. Why do you keep repeating this when you have been proven to be wrong about this!

    The example you pointed out of 36 trams per hour is actually 6 different tram lines, each operating at a frequency of 6 trams per hour (pretty poor), that happen to merge for 1km in a city center street where there are 3/4 parallel tram lines on the same street that they all use. It isn't at all the same thing.

    And interestingly, the same city is now replacing those trams lines with a Metro!! LOL you couldn't make it up.

    Unless you can find the space to build 3/4 lines down the entire length of the Luas green line, then the maximum capacity of a single tram line is 24 TPH.

    This is what the professional engineers at TII who built the Luas say, end of story.


  • #7539
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    They don't have 3/4 parallel tram lines in the places I'm talking about. They have 2, just like the LUAS. And they run 36 trams per hour at peak times, in each direction.


  • #7540
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    They don't have 3/4 parallel tram lines in the places I'm talking about. They have 2, just like the LUAS. And they run 36 trams per hour at peak times, in each direction.

    They absolutely do, I looked into the details of the city you were talking about.

    We discussed this in detail already.


  • #7541
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Is there not something in this subforum charter about soapboxing?


  • Advertisement
  • #7542
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    MOD:

    @ Strassenwolf
    The Metrolink documentation was produced by experts in railways, metros, and tram systems. If they say 24 trams per hour per direction is the most that can be accommodated then that should be accepted as true.

    This thread is to be based on the Metrolink documentation as published. Any deviation goes on the other thread.

    Further discussion on the mythical 36 trams per hour will be deleted and bans will be handed out. This will apply to replies as well.


  • #7543
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!

    One reason - you're reliant on the council to ensure priority. The Luas was supposed to have priority through the city-centre but it doesn't because the council feared it would cause tailbacks, so instead it sits at junctions while cars go through.


  • #7544
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    what do the small roads crossings matter if trams have priority?!

    Green line trams have priority along Ballyogan road but what it means is that a tram approaching the junction will get a proceed signal at the next change in cycle, i.e. it won't have to wait for a full cycle. It does not always mean than that they can proceed through the junctions without stopping, just that the delay is minimised.

    There's also the safety aspect to be considered, when when a tram gets a proceed signal approaching a junction, the driver still has to proceed with caution.


  • #7545
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    marno21 wrote: »
    So here we have an article at the outrageous idea of CPOing 90 apartments in order to construct Ireland's biggest rail interchange, which would serve thousands of people daily

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/college-gate-apartments-metro-demolition-15375026

    Which is followed by their top article:

    "90 minute delays and 11km queues reported following multi-vehicle collision on popular commuter route into capital"

    *sigh*


    I can't help but notice on the map that Hawkins House is a stones throw away. See the below map:


    https://goo.gl/maps/8VHRgNmUjx22


    Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?


  • #7546
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    patrickbrophy18 wrote: »
    Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?

    I guess the developers idea of imminent and the governments idea of imminent are very different. Hawkins House will most likely be demolished and replaced before any work is done on the metro. The government would have to CPO prime development land in the city centre and sit on it for years waiting for the metro to be built. You could argue that it would be a good investment but it would be expensive, especially if a decision is made to delay the metro.


  • #7547
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    markpb wrote: »
    I guess the developers idea of imminent and the governments idea of imminent are very different. Hawkins House will most likely be demolished and replaced before any work is done on the metro. The government would have to CPO prime development land in the city centre and sit on it for years waiting for the metro to be built. You could argue that it would be a good investment but it would be expensive, especially if a decision is made to delay the metro.


    If that's the case, it is a very small window of opportunity to make a minor tweak to the plans so that they can kill 2 birds with one stone.


    But, yes. Knowing the planning history of our country, they will almost definitely squander this opportunity and that one of the most important infrastructure projects for Dublin will be put on the long finger indefinitely.


  • #7548
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Qrt


    Bit off topic but still Metrolink orientated:

    With the whole Markievicz pool thing in discussion, it got me thinking: what would people think of renaming Tara Street Station to Markievicz station? Worth noting that she died in 1927, so the projected year of the completion of the Metrolink would be the centenary of her death...


  • #7549
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Qrt wrote: »
    Bit off topic but still Metrolink orientated:

    With the whole Markievicz pool thing in discussion, it got me thinking: what would people think of renaming Tara Street Station to Markievicz station? Worth noting that she died in 1927, so the projected year of the completion of the Metrolink would be the centenary of her death...

    Actually is a good idea tbh.

    It has always annoyed me that Tara St Station isn't really on Tara St anyway.


  • #7550
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Stations should be named after their geographical locations.

    Donaghmede > Howth Junction.


  • #7551
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    patrickbrophy18 wrote: »
    I can't help but notice on the map that Hawkins House is a stones throw away. See the below map:


    https://goo.gl/maps/8VHRgNmUjx22


    Now, if Hawkins House is set for imminent demolition, is this not a golden opportunity to add the station beneath there instead?

    Would it not be an opportunity to add a requirement that the equivalent number of apartments be built as part of the redevelopment. That way, the occupiers of the block to be demolished would simply move over. The swimming pool could also be added.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement