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 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 )

1183185187188189

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭gjim


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Hard to see how they can funnel past Beechwood in the future when TBM etc is buried midway between Ranelagh and Beechwood. I think that plan means that the Dunville crossing will have to be eliminated when Luas is upgraded to Metro - the track will rise up starting from between Ranelagh and Beechwood.
    Is there something wrong with the original/older emerging preferred route? Although given the number of revisions to the documentation, it's hard to know whether it was feasible at all.

    But I distinctly remember seeing documentation where Ranelagh was to become a metro station - alterations were required to the entrance, lifts and stairs of the current Luas station to safely cope with the increased numbers and there was detail on the work required on the platforms.

    This means ML would have emerged at Charlemont before climbing to the height of the Luas tracks just north of Ranelagh.

    Thus the Green line would terminate at Charlemont with a ML interchange. And Ranelagh and Beechwood would be metro stops.

    This is why I was arguing against tunnelling further south in an earlier post - I just can't see it ever being feasible to build underground stations in Ranelagh or Beechwood without massive disruption and expense.

    At some point we just have to go feck Dunville Avenue; it's a local access road only in a low-rise suburb and even currently, I'm guessing, it supports a very small number of vehicles per day.

    Trying to avoid Dunville Avenue screws everything up - it will leave a big gap between Charlemont and Cowper without metro access.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Marcusm wrote: »
    There’s no way a disabled access regs compliant underpass could have been constructed at the Dunville Ave space without raising the tracks. There simply isn’t enough space for the ramps. A pedestrian overpass with lift was suggested.

    I'm afraid that's just not true. Here's the Merrion Gates proposal:

    omEVnlg.png

    That's a fairly linear underpass ramp, that uses about 65m of length. There's plenty of room at the Luas crossing at Dunville Avenue for that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    AAAAAAAAA wrote: »
    Looking at it I would say that both Ranelagh and Beechwood are condemned to never having a metro stop. Beechwood might be more likely to become the Luas terminus due to being at-grade.
    I would have thought Ranelagh needed a Metro stop.

    As for Beechwood/Dunville, I hope they lose their stop entirely - it seems the only fair thing to do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim




  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Idbatterim wrote: »

    Fantastic

    The most accurate reporting on Metrolink I've seen yet


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,528 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    hmmm wrote: »
    I would have thought Ranelagh needed a Metro stop.

    As for Beechwood/Dunville, I hope they lose their stop entirely - it seems the only fair thing to do.

    Realistically Ranelagh is too close to Charlemont. Either Beechwood or Cowper should be the next/first overground Metro stop.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,528 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm afraid that's just not true. Here's the Merrion Gates proposal:

    [

    That's a fairly linear underpass ramp, that uses about 65m of length. There's plenty of room at the Luas crossing at Dunville Avenue for that.

    I find it hard to interpret that. I would note that the road and paths at the Dunville Ave crossing is not 11m wide and there are terraces of houses with only small front gardens abutting the paths l. Equally within 30 metres each side of the crossing you have road junctions on each side. Does that diagram suggest more than 4 metres clearance. I woukdn’t Object to an underpass but I really don’t think it’s in any way feasible. I’m not an objector in any means but I do cross that junction daily. I have never seen any underpass in such tight constraints. Plus, what disruption to the line to construct it? Coukdn’t Be tunnelled, surely it would have to be cut out?

    Personally I still think the best option was the one where the metro rose up to the west of the existing line (taking Moyne Road gardens etc) and then tying in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I find it hard to interpret that.

    The blue hatched section is the accessible/cycle ramp that is tunnelled under the DART line. There's a scale shown in the bottom that you can match up to get distances.
    I would note that the road and paths at the Dunville Ave crossing is not 11m wide and there are terraces of houses with only small front gardens abutting the paths l. Equally within 30 metres each side of the crossing you have road junctions on each side.

    You're thinking one-dimensionally here - the underpass ramp doesn't need to run along Dunville Avenue itself. Here's a very quick example:

    XYnXyW0.png

    Take a look at the Merrion Gates diagram again - notice how the blue underpass ramp on the Merrion Road side uses space parallel to the tracks, not perpendicular.
    Does that diagram suggest more than 4 metres clearance.

    You don't need 4 metres clearance, you need 2.7m maximum. At 1:20 gradient for IWA access guidelines, you'd need about 54m and then a few extra metres for 'landings'.
    I woukdn’t Object to an underpass but I really don’t think it’s in any way feasible.

    I'm sorry, but ultimately it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what is factually possible. And a pedestrian/bicycle underpass would have been easily possible here.
    I’m not an objector in any means but I do cross that junction daily. I have never seen any underpass in such tight constraints. Plus, what disruption to the line to construct it? Coukdn’t Be tunnelled, surely it would have to be cut out?

    Merrion Gates was planned to be built without any disruption to the line. There are tonnes of techniques for doing such a thing, here's one example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28EQI-6nueY

    It barely matters now anyway, all told. I think if the local residents were serious about this being an issue of pedestrian/cyclist access, a much easier solution would have been a simple overbridge with lifts. But it was about cars, plain and simple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,726 ✭✭✭jd




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Am I the only person who thinks between the NIMBYists and political interference that
    1. This thing will never get off the ground and we'll just have a big consultants bill, or
    2. The thing will end up costing 3x what it was originally forecast.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    jd wrote: »
    Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

    It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace


  • Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭AAAAAAAAA


    Well, I was right about Beechwood being the last luas stop on the Northern section at least, and Ranelagh not having a metro stop.

    Considering the major level of disruption to construct the new Beechwood station I should have been right about that too


  • Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    marno21 wrote: »
    Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

    It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

    Many pedestrian and cycling underpasses to be constructed which is nice. But yeah, nearly a year and a half Sandyford to Ranelagh closure is grim.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,779 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    MJohnston wrote: »
    That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace

    Read the report again it’s not closing for 50 months!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,779 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    marno21 wrote: »
    Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

    It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

    19 month closure between charlemount and ranelagh.

    If the leave the TBM in the ground then there’s no need for the additional 12.

    Where’s the multi year ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 froinky


    marno21 wrote: »
    Wow. Multiyear closures for the Green Line under this option.

    It's little surprise the section south of Charlemont was omitted. Let it be a future TD's problem

    Actually it looks like it would have been an ok solution - with the luas terminating at beechwood and metro going underneath.

    I don't see any way that the green line tie in can be done without similar closures in the future.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    The time to do all this was in 1998 when there was no service to disrupt.

    But the wasters in FF opted to build the cheapest possible system in Dublin while they went mad for rural motorways and ghost estates down the country where their voters live. Any spare millions were guzzled up fixing the M50 shambles of course.

    Cars cars cars cars cars.

    And the chumps in FG as usual left holding the turd sandwich. And Dubliners as usual the ones bearing the real cost.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    ted1 wrote: »
    Read the report again it’s not closing for 50 months!!!!

    I'm talking about the Green Line Methodology Report, which on page 52 has a figure (24.1) which shows that in order to accommodate Dunville Avenue, the Green Line would be:
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Beechwood for 32 months, then
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Cowper for 2 months, then
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Sandyford for 8 months, then
    • Closed between Beechwood and Sandyford for 9 to 12 months.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    The time to do all this was in 1998 when there was no service to disrupt.

    But the wasters in FF opted to build the cheapest possible system in Dublin while they went mad for rural motorways and ghost estates down the country where their voters live. Any spare millions were guzzled up fixing the M50 shambles of course.

    Cars cars cars cars cars.

    And the chumps in FG as usual left holding the turd sandwich. And Dubliners as usual the ones bearing the real cost.

    Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    froinky wrote: »
    I don't see any way that the green line tie in can be done without similar closures in the future.

    In the future, presumably the hope is that there will be more money for the project, which could give them more options to reduce the amount of online work, and therefore closures, that would need to be done.

    Tunneling further than Beechwood, down to the Dodder valley for example, would be significantly more costly, but would avoid having to do any disruptive tie-in work, or close Dunville Avenue.

    Of course, if it gets to the point where we're able to spend much more money on more tunneling, then something like the Green Party's hypothetical UCD detour might make more sense.

    This is all 20 years at least down the line though, sadly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's

    It was still there in 2003, I believe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,779 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm talking about the Green Line Methodology Report, which on page 52 has a figure (24.1) which shows that in order to accommodate Dunville Avenue, the Green Line would be:
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Beechwood for 32 months, then
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Cowper for 2 months, then
    • Closed between Ranelagh and Sandyford for 8 months, then
    • Closed between Beechwood and Sandyford for 9 to 12 months.

    Which is is only a partial closure it is very different than saying the green line is closed for 50 months.
    Also if they tunnelled a little but further they could leave the machine there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,779 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    MJohnston wrote: »
    In the future, presumably the hope is that there will be more money for the project, which could give them more options to reduce the amount of online work, and therefore closures, that would need to be done.

    Tunneling further than Beechwood, down to the Dodder valley for example, would be significantly more costly, but would avoid having to do any disruptive tie-in work, or close Dunville Avenue.

    Of course, if it gets to the point where we're able to spend much more money on more tunneling, then something like the Green Party's hypothetical UCD detour might make more sense.

    This is all 20 years at least down the line though, sadly.

    It’d be cheaper to CPO every house on dunville avenue


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Consonata


    ted1 wrote: »
    It’d be cheaper to CPO every house on dunville avenue

    Not a bad idea tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 froinky


    Consonata wrote: »
    Not a bad idea tbh.

    i doubt it would be cheaper.
    you would not be long spending 500m around there


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Remember also that in 1998 there was still a bridge (well or at least the pillars for one?) for route going over Dunville Avenue they choose to remove this and lower the trackbed there. That one decision is what create the biggest set of NIMBY's

    Can you imagine the idea of rebuilding that bridge?

    "But but.. what about the light levels in Mr O'Malley's back garden at no.25? Surely that's the national priority here."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

    -Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption


    -Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

    Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    MJohnston wrote: »
    That report makes it clear that the entire mess - the 1 year delay for a redesign and a new consultation, the 50 month potential closure of the Green Line, the scrapping of the entire Green Line upgrade - is all down to the people who wanted to drive their cars through this single street. An absolute disgrace

    no its down to spineless politicians and appalling planning!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    say you come out past dunville avenue, what is the cost to that and how long would the parts of the green line still be closed?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,267 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

    -Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption


    -Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

    Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.
    Idbatterim wrote: »
    no its down to spineless politicians and appalling planning!

    That's more or less it. This is the second time the can has been kicked down the road in this area. How long can they keep kicking it? Rhetorical question.:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭KD345


    jd wrote: »

    This report really clears up any confusion on the work involved and the planned closures on the Green Line. I really hope this is what’s referenced in any future discussions on the link to Sandyford.

    The more I read about the project I cannot understand why they’re not pushing ahead with the line to Sandyford. The solution at Beechwood should keep everyone happy and restores Dunville Avenue to its current state once the work is complete.

    The closure of the Green Line between Ranelagh and Sandyford will be disruptive but can be managed with the right traffic planing. Whether that’s a special shuttle bus service with dedicated lanes, it can be done.

    Have the NTA said absolutely no to the Sandyford extension, or is it still possible pending this consultation phase?


  • Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭VeryOwl


    jd wrote: »

    That report link is broken on the site. Very amateur.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    VeryOwl wrote: »
    That report link is broken on the site. Very amateur.

    I believe that they're taking them down to do last minute revisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Consonata


    So is there still a chance of the tie in happening? Or is it completely out of the question at this point


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,438 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Consonata wrote: »
    So is there still a chance of the tie in happening? Or is it completely out of the question at this point

    As part of this project no it’s not happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I don't actually buy that the nimbies were given any consideration. There are two main reasons why the southern part is being long fingered:

    -Disruption, a south Dublin transport minister couldn't stand over the temporary disruption

    -Cost. With the children's hospital debacle money has to be saved from somewhere, and if postponing the green line upgrade until after the hospital is finished 'saves' €200mil now and results in a €300mil spend later, well that's a 'saving' even if any accountant worth their salt tells you otherwise.

    Dunville avenue is incidental and will be ripped up for years regardless.

    As I pointed out before, you don't have anywhere near as much disruption if you don't have to accommodate Dunville Avenue.

    Cost wise - maybe, but we'll never know really.

    As to the ultimate fate of Dunville Avenue, I certainly do hope it gets closed to through traffic one way or another.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Say there was no dunville road to deal with, remove it from the equation. How long would the green line be partially closed for?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Say there was no dunville road to deal with, remove it from the equation. How long would the green line be partially closed for?

    We don't really know.

    The problem is, the report with the 50 month 'blockade' of the Green Line makes a few other choices that also influence duration of construction. These lengthen the partial closure period, but you might not make those choices if you don't start off by having to close the line for 30 odd months to accommodate Dunville Avenue anyway (essentially, 30 months is a tremendous sunk cost in terms of disruption, so an additional 12-18 months on top of that is far less significant, so the planning choices become less oriented towards reducing disruption time).

    So, you decide that Dunville will be closed to traffic, removed from the equation. Then you might also decide that this gives you more flexibility as to where to place the tunnel portal and tie-in, and you might make different choices that tighten the partial closure period (such as being able to upgrade platforms during Green Line overnight downtime and keep the GL functioning continually). You might decide that it's better to go with a non-automated train system because it will mean far less disruptive work on the platforms. You might go with low-floor vehicles because it would mean NO disruptive work at all to platforms.

    The hypothetical disruption timeline figures for the Green Line upgrade were as low as 3 months, in the original Emerging Preferred Route report.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭Fian


    https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-luas-green-line-closure-metrolink-4563457-Mar2019/


    Jounral.ie reporting that NTA confirm 2-4 year closure would have occurred, had the alternative of tunnelling under dunville avenue been pursued. Of course that would not have occurred if dunville avenue had been closed to mechanical traffic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    This entire thing is a clusterf**k. The closure periods seem insane to me. On similar projects in other countries , are they of a similar time frame ?

    Can the tbm be effective “turned back on” years after it might not have been used ? Would running it to Charlemont as planned and then veering off to rathmines and terminating there make sense ? Tunnel length would be pretty much the same as planned now and would allow for extension to sw in future...and give rathmines a metro stop!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭prunudo


    I'm surprised that the work they planned would take so long. I really don't know how it could take 4 years given we were told it was built with metro in mind. 4 years is a lot of construction work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,726 ✭✭✭jd


    jvan wrote: »
    I'm surprised that the work they planned would take so long. I really don't know how it could take 4 years given we were told it was built with metro in mind. 4 years is a lot of construction work.


    Probably because it is an inline tie in that keeps Dunville Avenue open and minimises property acquisition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,882 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    With those insane timelines, property acquisition would be more palatable. Effectively from what I make of this with the farcical timelines, if they are to be believed. That metro might never make it past Charlemont! The partial closure of the green line on those farcical time scales , isn’t remotely practical in my opinion...


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Lads ye have to remember that any inconvenience to Ranelagh residents that may impact FG votes in Dublin Bay South is the primary consideration here. Closing roads and buying up gardens is out of the question.

    On a more serious note, it may be worthwhile if they get Metrolink through planning and then start work on a separate Green Line tie in that does require property acquisition. That way objections in the Ranelagh area can't slow down the main project


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Solutions are available but they aren't compatible with people who want quicker access to Mortons.

    Funny thing is they will be getting quite used to red lights at Dunville Avenue if the Luas frequency increase goes ahead.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

    Its called shock and awe, go in saying the worst possible scenario and then row it back....


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

    Did you read the report? The 4 year figure is a direct result of the work of the likes of Rethink Metrolink to keep Dunville Avenue open to cars.

    The demands that this happen meant that an alternative route was drawn up that would involve far more work than just platform upgrades and track relaying at the tie-in spot. The bulk of time for the closure would have been taken up by excavating for the Beechwood cut-and-cover, and then rebuilding Beechwood station.

    Now, I do agree that even with all that, 4 years seems like an excessive estimate for closure, but I'd imagine the same locals would have complaints about construction hours, limiting it to a very small window on weekdays. (Ironically Dunville Avenue would have been closed during construction too!).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,788 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9




  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement