monument Moderator
#1,666

strassenwo!f said:
If there were two stations in different locations, instead of two stations in just one location (i.e the current plan) the overall connections to buses and coaches would be pretty much as good, wouldn't they?


No likely not if those stations were further from one or both quays.


strassenwo!f said:
Forget about those dimwits. They will learn soon enough. There's plenty of scope to introduce a bus route between Parnell Square and Tara Street for people who wish to make that journey, if there isn't one already. Dublin is late in the day in developing a proper, modern-day transport network. It doesn't need to be based around the lowest common denominator. Build it first, and accomodate the dummies later.




strassenwo!f said:
You are entirely right that that an extension of the metro to the south would change things re the connection between (a) city centre station(s) and Tara Street. Considerably. But when is that going to happen?


Good question, but you can plan ahead even when you don't know when you might need that future planning.

For when / if ever Metro North is being built network redundancy is likely more important.


Monument, I think it should also be pointed out that the GAA's arrangements have little relevance to the day-to-day running of the city. The focus of any city's transport network is on Monday to Friday mass transit. The occasional Saturday and Sunday stuff during the summer is a factor which needs to be considered, but certainly not a significant one.

Having said that, I look forward to the day when Dublin has a world-class transport network, and Sligo brings it to a standstill late in September...


It was just one of many points and just one example where network redundancy is a good idea.

Also: Like the O2, music events are staged at week days, at diffrent times of the year. Even if also a limited amount of them.


....I still think your arguments against an O'Connell Bridge stop isn't as firm as you think, but I'm not sure Metro North is still the best solution for Dublin (not just talking about the short term) so I think I'll exit this debate about just one station.

1 person has thanked this post
Victor Registered User
#1,667

strassenwo!f said:
There you have a very serious point. I have never understood why Dublin's metro is to terminate at St. Stephen's Green, with no realistically known plans for how it is to be extended in the future. Nevertheless, an extension southward will have to happen at some stage.
The RPA have studied this.

Aard Registered User
#1,668

Victor said:
The RPA have studied this.

Really? I never knew that. Did they give an indication of the likely direction southwards?

I'd imagine since the proposed SSG stop points south-east that the metro would head down the N11, and replace the (highly successful) 46a/145 routes. Politically, however, that may be a no-no, as the south-east of the city would then have three rail lines compared to none in the Terenure/Kimmage/Templeogue direction.

Telchak Registered User
#1,669

Aard said:
I'd imagine since the proposed SSG stop points south-east that the metro would head down the N11


If 'A Platform for Change' is anything to go by, it would swing southwest and go to Tallaght via Harold's Cross and Kimmage. I'd guess the current southeast direction probably has something to do with wanting to keep the entire station under the Green for construction purposes.

Aard Registered User
#1,670

Ah, right! Actually, all I remember of it is that it was presented in map-format only... Don't remember reading anything about it. I wish they (whoever "they" are... RPA, DoT, CIE...) would just make a plan and stick to it. It's the uncertainty and ever-changing proposals that give people little confidence in the future of PT for Dublin.

Winters Registered User
#1,671

Telchak said:
I'd guess the current southeast direction probably has something to do with wanting to keep the entire station under the Green for construction purposes.


Yes, that's correct. It was dictated by the station box location too.

http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf

The turning loop will be underneath the two sidings allowing them to be extended in the future.

This map also gives a good indication for those proposing a stop at College Green of how little room there is for a station box and how close it would be to the surrounding structures.

cgcsb Registered User
#1,672

An extension south westwards would make sense. the Camden st - Rathmines -Rathgar -Terenure -Harold's cross corridor is always extremely congested, and the QBC there just isn't comparable to that of the N11.

Winters Registered User
#1,673

cgcsb said:
An extension south westwards would make sense. the Camden st - Rathmines -Rathgar -Terenure -Harold's cross corridor is always extremely congested, and the QBC there just isn't comparable to that of the N11.


I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.

AngryLips Registered User
#1,674

Winters said:
I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest.


Also, we should be closing lines to Tallaght

Cool Mo D Registered User
#1,675

Winters said:
I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.


Light rail to Rathfarnham wouldn't work because of the amount of surface disruption, and lack of space for the alignment made it expensive and slow. The area itself is probably more densely populated than that along any of the current DART or Luas lines.

If Metro North was built, it would make perfect sense to extend it south-west. Not all the way to Tallaght at first, but in stages, adding 3 more stops serving Rathmines, Harolds Cross Road and between Terenure and Kimmage Cross would only serve densely populated suburbs, that are extremely congested as the road network is too narrow to support proper QBC services.

cgcsb Registered User
#1,676

Winters said:
I agree but even with Tallaght at the end point I dont envisage the South West alignment being built in my lifetime to be honest. The route would have to be tunneled, the catchment areas are low density and there is very little potential for enough metro cost sustaining high density along the route.

Even the business case for light rail to Rathfarnham didn't stack up so I don't see how tunneling would.

The more realistic option would be the link up to and conversation of the green line to metro and the RPA are in no hurry to go down that road.


AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.

The route is actually quite densely populated, especially around Rathmines and Harold's X, perhaps not as far out as Rathfarnam.

strassenwo!f Registered User
#1,677

cgcsb said:
AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.

The route is actually quite densely populated, especially around Rathmines and Harold's X, perhaps not as far out as Rathfarnam.


Indeed it is quite densely populated. As was discussed on this board some time ago, the density of areas like Harold's Cross, Terenure and Kimmage is on a par with similar suburban areas of, for example, Munich, where there is a pretty good suburban rail network through similar suburbs, and the city is considered to have a very good transport network overall.

The alleged density issue in Dublin's inner suburbs (like Harold's X, Terenure, Finglas) was surely put to bed on this board a long time ago. I am surprised that it has emerged again.

Winters Registered User
#1,678

cgcsb said:
AFAIK the luas line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed because there's no room for surface running, significant sections would have to share with cars and there is little scope for connecting it to the rest of the luas network in the city centre. As a result the service would be slow and inefficient.


Line E to Rathfarnam was dismissed for a myriad of reasons, all I was saying was that the business case didn't stack up either. This would have been down to its viability due to the reasons you mentioned among others.

"Alignment falls short of covering Operating & Maintenance costs by approx €1.5 million per annum" - RPA Line E Feasibility Study.

strassenwo!f said:
Indeed it is quite densely populated. As was discussed on this board some time ago, the density of areas like Harold's Cross, Terenure and Kimmage is on a par with similar suburban areas of, for example, Munich, where there is a pretty good suburban rail network through similar suburbs, and the city is considered to have a very good transport network overall.

The alleged density issue in Dublin's inner suburbs (like Harold's X, Terenure, Finglas) was surely put to bed on this board a long time ago. I am surprised that it has emerged again.


Its fine saying the DART line (1984) has the same density or that Munich's S-Bahn (1972) and U-Bahn (1971) serve similar densities, all im saying is that I cant see it being built in MY lifetime. The density issue only arises as nowadays it is required to justify the high cost of tunneling in the CBA.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but I can understand why it is not a stated priority for Dublin transport at this time.

strassenwo!f Registered User
#1,679

Winters said:
Yes, that's correct. It was dictated by the station box location too.

http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf

The turning loop will be underneath the two sidings allowing them to be extended in the future.

This map also gives a good indication for those proposing a stop at College Green of how little room there is for a station box and how close it would be to the surrounding structures.


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.

I imagine there will be a considerable amount of time before the city centre section of the metro is built.

Now would seem to be a good time for a reappraisal of the various options for the city centre section.

AngryLips Registered User
#1,680

strassenwo!f said:
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)


Doesn't the OCB stop mean one less stop on the line? Wouldn't that make it cheaper compared to two stops?

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!