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

LeinsterDub · 28-07-2016 9:23pm

It's funny how some people want to keep the tbm running pass Stephen's green out to Renalgh just in case and others are opposed to a simple cut and cover job.

Dyr · 28-07-2016 10:12pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is the argument that this is as wide as this?

It's an argument that this is a two lane central strip

It absolutely doesn't - you can't just outright lie when Streetview immediately proves you wrong.

Now now matey, a bit less of the accusations of lying if you don't mind. After all you're the chap who initially claimed that "The Ballymun Road has a large (about two traffic lanes wide) central reservation that runs uninterrupted (save for junctions) for an entire 3.2km, all the way from the M50 to Griffith Avenue. "
We both know that's ...ahem.. inaccurate, half the length of that central strip is not two lanes wide. Just follow it on Google maps, it's traffic lanes for mmuch of its length

Those kinds of turning lanes would be easily closed up, given that adequate turnaround opportunities exist at bigger junctions along the same road.

And now we finally get down the real crux of the matter.

"There'll be loads of space for the metro once we close off most of those junctions and get rid of those traffic lanes " Thats exactly why the locals put the kibosh on it. No doubt most of those pesky pedestrian crossings would have had to go too

Could you please propose a surface route between Dorset St and the Ballymun Road?

I won't and I have no idea why you think I would. My point is you decide to clear out the space to run a metro line up the ballymun road you could run the damn thing up nearly any other two way system on the route, just a matter of what you're willing to remove to make space.

MJohnston · 28-07-2016 10:45pm

I don't need to look at Streetview for the Ballymun Road, or indeed Dorset Street and Drumcondra because I know the roads really well, but anyone here can take a look and see that there's plenty of space (and again, your Streetview screenshot confirms its "about two traffic lanes wide") on the median of Ballymun Road, a road that has only maybe two major junctions for most of that stretch. Closing all the minor junctions is something they'll have to do, but if the argument is between that or running a really expensive tunnel, it seems like a small price to pay.

Your attempts to suggest that other roads in the area heading in a similar direction would be equal in impact is just not truthful. Dorset Street is a major, major artery, already tight for space, and with lots of surrounding immovable obstacles. Ballymun route is nowhere near as disruptive.

Grandeeod · 28-07-2016 10:47pm

Bambi wrote: »

It's an argument that this is a two lane central strip

Now now matey, a bit less of the accusations of lying if you don't mind. After all you're the chap who initially claimed that "The Ballymun Road has a large (about two traffic lanes wide) central reservation that runs uninterrupted (save for junctions) for an entire 3.2km, all the way from the M50 to Griffith Avenue. "
We both know that's ...ahem.. inaccurate, half the length of that central strip is not two lanes wide. Just follow it on Google maps, it's traffic lanes for mmuch of its length

And now we finally get down the real crux of the matter. "There'll be loads of space for the metro once we close off most of those junctions and get rid of those traffic lanes " Thats exactly why the locals put the kibosh on it. No doubt most of those pesky pedestrian crossings would have had to go too

I won't and I have no idea why you think I would. My point is you decide to clear out the space to run a metro line up the ballymun road you could run the damn thing up nearly any other two way system on the route, just a matter of what you're willing to remove to make space.

You would make a great politician.

SantryRed · 28-07-2016 11:32pm

Literally picking the one spot where the median isn't wide...

Dyr · 28-07-2016 11:55pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't need to look at Streetview for the Ballymun Road, or indeed Dorset Street and Drumcondra because I know the roads really well, but anyone here can take a look and see that there's plenty of space (and again, your Streetview screenshot confirms its "about two traffic lanes wide") on the median of Ballymun Road, a road that has only maybe two major junctions for most of that stretch. Closing all the minor junctions is something they'll have to do, but if the argument is between that or running a really expensive tunnel, it seems like a small price to pay.

MJohnston wrote: »

Your attempts to suggest that other roads in the area heading in a similar direction would be equal in impact is just not truthful.

Where did I suggest that it would be "equal in impact"? That the second time you've thrown the accusation of lying around and to be truthful it's not something you'd do in person now is it? A bit less of that carry on if you will.

But lets revisit this central strip of yours, you claim its mostly two lanes wide like this:

But the truth is that its like this for much of its length, basically a footpath:

Now perhaps you can explain how you're getting two lanes of traffic down those central footpaths that show up every 50-100 feet?

Of course you already have, take those car lanes away and close junctions that you think are minor (and you know this road well?

) Those junctions were'nt put there just for fun. That is why the above ground option was nixed. And the good city of dublin was saved a colossal balls up, running a metro at ground level through a built up area is loony tunes planning.

iopener wrote: »

I think we can all agree that running the metro on the surface through ballymun is a bad idea , but can anyone explain why , the metro is be put in a tunnel in and around the airport.

You would like to imagine so but you do get lads who get excited about this class of idea like its some sort of hornby set

Is it planned to run underground to the airport? Perhaps due to chronic congestion in the fields around St Margarets and Dardistown?

marno21 · 29-07-2016 1:33am

Why is there a debate about how wide the median is. The median could be 100ft wide but there's still a plethora of junctions along the route.

If there's billions spent on Metro North it needs to be done properly, as a high speed, high frequency service for the Airport and North Dublin. Having it mixed with traffic along the R108 does not allow it to meet that criteria. In that case it's just another Luas.

medoc · 29-07-2016 7:22am

marno21 wrote: »

Why is there a debate about how wide the median is. The median could be 100ft wide but there's still a plethora of junctions along the route.

If there's billions spent on Metro North it needs to be done properly, as a high speed, high frequency service for the Airport and North Dublin. Having it mixed with traffic along the R108 does not allow it to meet that criteria. In that case it's just another Luas.

If there are at grade junction crossings and on street running on any part of the line it's basically another Luas with certain sections underground (which is what should have been done with the city centre sections of the red and green lines) You are limiting it capacity from day one on to a 30 million plus passenger international airport. A more expensive version of the proposed airport luas!!!

cgcsb · 29-07-2016 9:20am

SantryRed wrote: »

Literally picking the one spot where the median isn't wide...

It's a right turning lane, easily removed. <snip> Anyone who knows either road will tell you that Ballymun is wider and the building line is much further back.

jd · 29-07-2016 10:04am

Bambi wrote: »

And now we finally get down the real crux of the matter. "There'll be loads of space for the metro once we close off most of those junctions and get rid of those traffic lanes " Thats exactly why the locals put the kibosh on it. No doubt most of those pesky pedestrian crossings would have had to go too

The residents objected to the original elevated metro as they didn't want to be overlooked! Right turns could have been preserved under it..

Dyr · 29-07-2016 10:30am

cgcsb wrote: »

It's a right turning lane, easily removed. <snip>. Anyone who knows either road will tell you that Ballymun is wider and the building line is much further back.

I thought we debating that there was a central reservation running down the ballymun road thats so wide you could run a couple of train lines down it

Apparently its now a question of which road is wider, sure while you're moving those junctions we can shift a few goalposts i suppose.

But lets entertain the building line idea. Do you mean there's a wide pedestrian area between the road and the properties? There sure is on certain lengths of the Ballymun road, but as you've previously noted, pedestrian areas should remain untouched. (Although the central median on the Ballymun road is almost entirely for pedestrians soo...

)

The trees on the side of griffith avenue are an entirely different prospect, you'd be taking pedestrian space away for a wider road, the central reserve on Dorset Street is narrow and only 300m long.

So are pedestrian areas on the table for our hornby set plan now?

jd wrote: »

The residents objected to the original elevated metro as they didn't want to be overlooked! Right turns could have been preserved under it..

As previously stated, I'm agnostic about the elevated option, if it was done right then it could work very well. That said, the railway bridge over the Liffey stands as a reminder as to the hazards of that approach I guess

MJohnston · 29-07-2016 10:56am

Bambi wrote: »

I thought we debating that there was a central reservation running down the ballymun road thats so wide you could run a couple of train lines down it Apparently its now a question of which road is wider, sure while you're moving those junctions we can shift a few goalposts i suppose.

You've moved the goalposts several times yourself - you originally started this argument by suggesting that there's nothing unique about the Ballymun Road that makes it particularly suited to running a street-level Metro through it. You suggested that, and I quote "dorset street, drumcondra, griffith avenue, and glasnevin. All of which have roads that have a similar amount of space to the ballymun road". Several people have now pointed out how that is very inaccurate. The two lane thing is a red herring that you've latched onto (you'll note that I originally only said vaguely "about two lanes" as an estimate).

Note that we're operating from a premise that a certain amount of street-level running must exist in order for MN to be affordable; I'm sure all of us here would prefer that it was fully underground or grade-separated.

cgcsb · 29-07-2016 12:26pm

Bambi wrote: »

I thought we debating that there was a central reservation running down the ballymun road thats so wide you could run a couple of train lines down it Apparently its now a question of which road is wider, sure while you're moving those junctions we can shift a few goalposts i suppose.

But lets entertain the building line idea. Do you mean there's a wide pedestrian area between the road and the properties? There sure is on certain lengths of the Ballymun road, but as you've previously noted, pedestrian areas should remain untouched. (Although the central median on the Ballymun road is almost entirely for pedestrians soo... )

So are pedestrian areas on the table for our hornby set plan now?

As previously stated, I'm agnostic about the elevated option, if it was done right then it could work very well. That said, the railway bridge over the Liffey stands as a reminder as to the hazards of that approach I guess

Can you propose a route for metro north via dorset st? since there's just as much space as there is on the Ballymun Road.

annfield1978 · 29-07-2016 2:26pm

An Alignment Study tender for New Metro North has been issued by the NTA to carry out an options selection and identify an Emerging Preferred Route for the Scheme

Idbatterim · 29-07-2016 2:59pm

I am assuming many residents may still object to surface level running, if they do, can ABP force them to tunnel again?

LeinsterDub · 29-07-2016 5:40pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am assuming many residents may still object to surface level running, if they do, can ABP force them to tunnel again?

Anyone with an interest in a interest in a high speed metro like system should object. It's either under ground or off ground. Street level running is a joke

murphaph · 29-07-2016 6:00pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Anyone with an interest in a interest in a high speed metro like system should object. It's either under ground or off ground. Street level running is a joke

On street running or level crossings are a joke indeed but at grade running with grade separation at junctions would be fine so long as 80km/h running is achievable.

LeinsterDub · 29-07-2016 8:01pm

murphaph wrote: »

On street running or level crossings are a joke indeed but at grade running with grade separation at junctions would be fine so long as 80km/h running is achievable.

Which of course will not only mean grade separation but pedestrian separation as the Ballymun Road is a built up residential area. Basically dividing Ballymun in 2?

D.L.R. · 29-07-2016 9:06pm

I don't see the problem with elevated running. There's elevated sections in Ranelagh and Sandyford. They look well and don't have a negative impact at all quite the opposite. And obviously far far superior to surface running.

Sam Russell · 29-07-2016 10:36pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

I don't see the problem with elevated running. There's elevated sections in Ranelagh and Sandyford. They look well and don't have a negative impact at all quite the opposite. And obviously far far superior to surface running.

I think citing the loop line at Tara St to Connolly is a bit unkind. That was Victorian Engineering at its most brutal. A sleek design in the style of the Dundrum viaduct would be a great asset. Simple stairs up to stations would also work.

The options are: at grade, elevated, cut & cover, and deep tunnel - in order of cast. Elevated would get my vote.

D.L.R. · 29-07-2016 11:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think citing the loop line at Tara St to Connolly is a bit unkind. That was Victorian Engineering at its most brutal. A sleek design in the style of the Dundrum viaduct would be a great asset. Simple stairs up to stations would also work.

The options are: at grade, elevated, cut & cover, and deep tunnel - in order of cast. Elevated would get my vote.

Well elevated is a good choice when there's budgetary constraints to going underground. You get the segragation and it can be a nice addition to the urban fabric. Ballymun is all about dynamic regeneration and an elevated line fits right into that context for me.

The loop line gets some stick but imagine it was at grade with level crossings on the quays :pac:

murphaph · 30-07-2016 7:43am

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think citing the loop line at Tara St to Connolly is a bit unkind. That was Victorian Engineering at its most brutal. A sleek design in the style of the Dundrum viaduct would be a great asset. Simple stairs up to stations would also work.

The options are: at grade, elevated, cut & cover, and deep tunnel - in order of cast. Elevated would get my vote.

You can add in trench (so cut but no cover except at junctions and pedestrian bridges) to that list. Vienna underground is like this in parts and the DART does something similar in Dun Laoghaire.

strassenwo!f · 30-07-2016 9:12am

Have they finally decided that they're not going for the two stations at O'Connell Bridge, with the platforms connecting them?

I have to say it never seemed like a terribly good plan, especially in terms of cost.

MJohnston · 30-07-2016 12:13pm

Given that New Metro North is essentially an entirely new project, absolutely nothing has been finally decided on yet, but then, this is pretty common knowledge is it not?

strassenwo!f · 30-07-2016 11:31pm

On the Northside, I would be in favour of a station at O'Connell Street, to integrate in some way with the LUAS.

I would then look seriously at building it directly to Drumcondra, probably with a station around Temple Street.

I know that work has been done at the Mater Hospital for this project, but it was probably misguided, for political reasons. Now is the time to write it off.

If you build a station at Temple Street, you readily bring the whole of Mountjoy Square. the North side of Parnell Street, Fitzgibbon Street, Eccles Street, Nelson Street, Blessington Street, etc, and the Mater Hospital, into the catchment area.

If you build it through the Mater Hospital, and nothwithsdanding the work that has already been done at the Mater Hospital, you lose a lot of those opportunities for passenger uptake.

strassenwo!f · 31-07-2016 5:07am

Take a large area like Mountjoy Square, for example, with big potential for employment. That'd be 10 minutes away from access to the metro if it's built via the Mater. That's obviously not bad if you consider the current situation for the square, but Dublin should really be aiming at 5 or so minutes for getting anybody working at such a major central location into the network.

murphaph · 31-07-2016 7:41am

Interesting that you favour bringing the line closer to a park, something you are fervently against in other threads....

LeinsterDub · 31-07-2016 11:11am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

.

If you build it through the Mater Hospital, and nothwithsdanding the work that has already been done at the Mater Hospital, you lose a lot of those opportunities for passenger uptake.

The Mater and Temple Street are basically the same catchment. Especially with Dublin Bikes factored in

MJohnston · 31-07-2016 12:32pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Mater and Temple Street are basically the same catchment. Especially with Dublin Bikes factored in

It's barely a 5 minute walk even

D.L.R. · 31-07-2016 5:28pm

Mountjoy square is less than 200m from the new tram line. Besides Mater is half built already, there's no way it'll be abandoned. Not in this economy.

But credit where its due, at least you've changed the subject.

Dyr · 31-07-2016 7:17pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Which of course will not only mean grade separation but pedestrian separation as the Ballymun Road is a built up residential area. Basically dividing Ballymun in 2?

Of course it will but its just a minor detail for the hornby types

Mountjoy square is less than 200m from the new tram line. Besides Mater is half built already, there's no way it'll be abandoned. Not in this economy.

Strange that people would want the mater stop abandoned

L1011 · 01-08-2016 2:27am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

On the Northside, I would be in favour of a station at O'Connell Street, to integrate in some way with the LUAS.

I would then look seriously at building it directly to Drumcondra, probably with a station around Temple Street.

I know that work has been done at the Mater Hospital for this project, but it was probably misguided, for political reasons. Now is the time to write it off.

If you build a station at Temple Street, you readily bring the whole of Mountjoy Square. the North side of Parnell Street, Fitzgibbon Street, Eccles Street, Nelson Street, Blessington Street, etc, and the Mater Hospital, into the catchment area.

If you build it through the Mater Hospital, and nothwithsdanding the work that has already been done at the Mater Hospital, you lose a lot of those opportunities for passenger uptake.

Put away the crayons

You can't even keep a consistent idea of why you want to reroute things between threads.

You have repeatedly battered on about targeting employment areas without understanding density at all and now you suggest heading towards clearly empty areas.

That said, maybe your routes made more sense when you were last here, what, a decade and a half ago?

Grandeeod · 01-08-2016 9:33pm

annfield1978 wrote: »

An Alignment Study tender for New Metro North has been issued by the NTA to carry out an options selection and identify an Emerging Preferred Route for the Scheme

Back to square one folks.

We were here before and now we are here again. It is beyond any reasonable comprehension that both this study and the other one issued for DU re. Inchicore/Heuston is being done in the interests of saving money for the taxpayer and developing a starting point for better rail transport in the city.

This is just more reinventing the wheel based on ignorant, careless and power hungry politicians.

spacetweek · 03-08-2016 11:21pm

I contacted the NTA about Metro North since there's so little news and got this response:

Thank you for your enquiry. The Authority has commenced initial work on the design and planning stages of new Metro North in collaboration with Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), and in line with our Project Management Guidelines. The key objective of this first phase will be to determine the Emerging Preferred Route. This will be informed by a number of key work streams and studies, and some of these have also commenced. It is hoped that this will be completed during the 2017.

Thereafter, the Authority, in their role as Sanctioning Authority, will prepare a detailed business case for the project based on more detailed design and cost estimates of the Emerging Preferred Route prior to lodging the Railway Order for the proposed scheme. The comprehensive appraisal will be conducted in accordance with the Government's Public Spending Code. Public consultation will be carried out on the emerging preferred route in 2017.

Kind Regards

spacetweek · 03-08-2016 11:23pm

Indeed, the fact that they are yet to decide on an emerging preferred route means that the announcement of the specs of "low cost metro north" were just hot air. In fact, it seems no specs at all have been decided, or even the routing it will take.

It is, indeed, an entirely new project.

marno21 · 03-08-2016 11:28pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Of the M20, Dart Underground & Metro North, which one is closest to being shovel ready?

It's a national embarrassment at this stage. Just get the hell on with it and build them.

The M20 is back to square one, as far from shovel ready as could be.

Metro North is also about 4/5 years from construction going by spacetweek's post above

DART Underground.. God only knows how far away that is

Grandeeod · 03-08-2016 11:34pm

spacetweek wrote: »

It is, indeed, an entirely new project.

Of course it is. Did you need to email anyone about it? Read my last post.

Markcheese · 04-08-2016 12:27am

Is the m20 design totally cancelled ?? I thought the land had been CPOed and archaeological digs done...

Idbatterim · 04-08-2016 12:28am

Grandeeod. I'm coming around to your way of thinking. A route was chosen , we have been here and done it! What's next honestly. A new scheme is devised and before its proceeded with in five years another excuse arises and we go for a revised , revised scheme?!

D.L.R. · 04-08-2016 12:29am

Engineers Ireland made a good case last year for an alternative, cheaper routing for Metro. Its on youtube

Development of a New Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2015- 2040

The metro north bit starts around the 42 minute mark, but all major projects are discussed.

Grandeeod · 04-08-2016 12:25pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Engineers Ireland made a good case last year for an alternative, cheaper routing for Metro. Its on youtube

Development of a New Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2015- 2040

The metro north bit starts around the 42 minute mark, but all major projects are discussed.

Its bonkers. Full of contradictions and interacts with so many private homes, the compo and objections would be sky high. As for all that elevated running.:eek:

Either do it right or not at all.

Grandeeod · 04-08-2016 4:46pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Grandeeod. I'm coming around to your way of thinking. A route was chosen , we have been here and done it! What's next honestly. A new scheme is devised and before its proceeded with in five years another excuse arises and we go for a revised , revised scheme?!

That's what will probably happen. I can go back over 40 years and cite examples.

BonnieSituation · 04-08-2016 4:58pm

Can someone point me to the actual fear of ever committing to one of these things?

I mean we are all here complaining about it and we're Irish. So politicians have nothing to fear from us.

And surely telling people "your life will be better if we build this" isn't that hard a sell... so what is our actual malfunction when it comes to infrastructure?

Why does nothing get done right?

Grandeeod · 04-08-2016 5:38pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Can someone point me to the actual fear of ever committing to one of these things?

I mean we are all here complaining about it and we're Irish. So politicians have nothing to fear from us.

And surely telling people "your life will be better if we build this" isn't that hard a sell... so what is our actual malfunction when it comes to infrastructure?

Why does nothing get done right?

There is no fear of infrastructure in general. Its about a political comprehension of transport modes and politicians have a very poor comprehension of rail infrastructure. They have always approached it from a do minimum perspective.

Where does this mindset come from?

I have lots of theories that would go way off topic.

BonnieSituation · 04-08-2016 5:45pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

There is no fear of infrastructure in general. Its about a political comprehension of transport modes and politicians have a very poor comprehension of rail infrastructure. They have always approached it from a do minimum perspective.

Where does this mindset come from?

I have lots of theories that would go way off topic.

I wonder is there a compilation list of planned infrastructure projects since the 1920s?

I'd say there's a fair whack of great stuff that was just ignored.

I have never gotten my head around how this State could have Ardnacrusha built and implement rural electrification in its formative years and yet **** up a tram line.

Grandeeod · 04-08-2016 6:02pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I wonder is there a compilation list of planned infrastructure projects since the 1920s?

I'd say there's a fair whack of great stuff that was just ignored.

I have never gotten my head around how this State could have Ardnacrusha built and implement rural electrification in its formative years and yet **** up a tram line.

The bolded words will go some way towards finding the answers.

Markcheese · 04-08-2016 10:42pm

Actually, from an engineers point of view, it makes perfect sense to design everything multiple times, through in court challenges and reports and reviews thats a lot of work for engineers...:-)
I can accept that few large projects are perfect for everyone,so will lead to challenges... thinking height of the port tunnel, location of new childrens hospital ,

marno21 · 05-08-2016 1:56am

It costs x to build a single carraigeway bypass of a one horse town in Co. Clare, for example.

Because Dublin has more need for capacity, it would cost 10x to build an effective solution for a similar issue in Dublin. The M50 for example needed major freeflow intersections along its route. Yet it was given the same type of junction as exists on the N18 at Shannon, or the M7 at Portlaoise.

This is the issue, Dublin needs much more to be spent to accomodate the extra users/handle the extra traffic/journeys etc. Which won't be paid for as long as they can build something cheaper in the wilds and get the same amount of votes.

Markcheese · 05-08-2016 6:43am

Shheesh, whats the opposite of a rose tinted view..
As far as I know the trams were removed not because of underuse,but because they were percieved as old fashioned...
The dart was introduced on existing track,

BonnieSituation · 05-08-2016 8:12am

Markcheese wrote: »

Shheesh, whats the opposite of a rose tinted view..
As far as I know the trams were removed not because of underuse,but because they were percieved as old fashioned...
The dart was introduced on existing track,

Regardless of the "reason" and both of those reasons are crocks of **** no matter how anyone at the time could say otherwise.

The asterisks in my post on the last page are actually "fūck. And it was in relation to the luas plan as we have it now as opposed to how it was envisaged in the late 90s.

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

Comments