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

marno21

NTA [/TII] plan to close Beechwood level crossing to be amended to include either an overpass or underpass to allow traffic to continue to cross the Metrolink alignment at Dunville Avenue

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-plans-set-to-be-redrawn-following-political-opposition-1.3561696

In non objection news, revised Metrolink plans to be published at the end of August to be followed by short public consultation for those of you that have no interest in reading the above article.

specialbyte

marno21 wrote: »

NTA [/TII] plan to close Beechwood level crossing to be amended to include either an overpass or underpass to allow traffic to continue to cross the Metrolink alignment at Dunville Avenue

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-plans-set-to-be-redrawn-following-political-opposition-1.3561696

In non objection news, revised Metrolink plans to be published at the end of August to be followed by short public consultation for those of you that have no interest in reading the above article.

I can't say I'm surprised that TII are seriously reevaluating costly engineering solutions to providing grade separation at Dunville Ave instead of closure. The area is well organised. I attended one of the local community meetings where 300 well organised people all wrote individual submissions as well as organising themselves to write a professional submission on the topic.

I'm also happy to hear the next round of plans are due at the end of August, with another public consultation. Things seem to be moving along nicely.

marno21

I'm happy that these issues are being dealt with rapidly rather than drawing out the whole project for no reason. Any element of the project that was included on cost grounds that is contentious (Dunville Avenue, Na Fianna etc) should be reevaluated and sorted before the August public consultation and then buried.

When I heard in 2015 that Metro would be under construction by 2021 with the proposed timeline envisaged I was skeptical. They seem to really have this on track at the minute.

Current plan is to have the Railway Order submitted to ABP in Q3 2019, with ABP decision in 2020 and construction to begin in 2021. There should be no reason for lengthy delays with ABP if all the issues that would cause objections are sorted now during public consultation.

Fair play to the NTA and TII on this, especially when the NTA seem to have gone from being quiet in relation to investment to now having MetroLink, Luas to Finglas, BusConnects both operation side and infrastructure, and soon DART Expansions ongoing.

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

Thank you bk. It really is that simple.



Exactly. People living close to city centres need to accept the fact that they are going to have transport corridors running through their areas as the city doesn't stop at the end of their property.

They could be in a much worse situation such as parts of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow where they have elevated urban motorways running through the suburbs.

Why are you ignoring what I wrote? I said the green line, from SSG to Sandyford. I was identifying the part of the green line that was gonna be most impacted by Metro Link. NOT that the Green Line = SSG to Sandyford???

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

Yes, your argument is very inaccurate.

As you well know, the Green line runs far south of Sandyford and includes some of the greatest development sites in the whole city. Sites that will give us tens of thousands of new homes.

While upgrading the green line only goes as far as Sandyford. It will give us the capacity for people from these new developments south of Sandyford to transfer onto the Metro at Sandyford.

If we don't upgrade to Metro, then the Luas trams will already be full by Sandyford and people from their in will be left standing on the platforms not able to get onto full trams.

It really is that simple.

This is a bit ironic, as you've conjured up something I never said. I said "The green line from SSG to Sandyford", meaning the stretch from SSG to Sandyford.

Like the way the Sligo line from Longford to Connolly has commuter services running on it. That hardly means I'm claiming the Sligo train line stops at Longford! Are you even interested in reading what I say instead of disagreeing with straw men?

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

This is a bit ironic, as you've conjured up something I never said. I said "The green line from SSG to Sandyford", meaning the stretch from SSG to Sandyford.

Like the way the Sligo line from Longford to Connolly has commuter services running on it. That hardly means I'm claiming the Sligo train line stops at Longford! Are you even interested in reading what I say instead of disagreeing with straw men?

Really this is like from almost a month ago!

You were claiming that there isn't much development space along the upgraded section of the green line.

That of course is technically correct, while at the same time ignoring the truth of the massive SDZ at Cherrywood and development land near by.

Of course that isn't part of the upgraded section, but that upgrade is absolutely needed to have enough capacity for the whole line.

If the Green line is not upgraded to Metro, then very simply Luas will be full from Sandyford in and the people won't be able to board, they will just be left behind on the platforms and the Luas passes by. Really very simple.

bk

On a more positive note, that fact that they are now looking at either an over or under pass at Dunville Avenue and the following quote from the above article:

The NTA plans to close this crossing to vehicles, with pedestrians using a footbrigde/lift at the Miltown stop to access the school.

Strongly suggest they are going with the High Floor option and maybe driverless.

Neither of the above would be required for the driver operated low floor options. These didn't need such high levels of segregation. Very good news

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Well there is now a passage between T1 and T2 before security. Though it needs to be better sign posted.

There have been landside and airside enclosed walkways between the terminals since T2 opened.

Nothing new about that.

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

Really this is like from almost a month ago!

You were claiming that there isn't much development space along the upgraded section of the green line.

That of course is technically correct, while at the same time ignoring the truth of the massive SDZ at Cherrywood and development land near by.

Of course that isn't part of the upgraded section, but that upgrade is absolutely needed to have enough capacity for the whole line.

If the Green line is not upgraded to Metro, then very simply Luas will be full from Sandyford in and the people won't be able to board, they will just be left behind on the platforms and the Luas passes by. Really very simple.

I haven't been active, does that really change the point here? I shouldn't have words put in my mouth by anyone, never mind from someone known for making good and interesting posts usually. Don't you think you shouldn't have misrepresented what I said? Month ago or not. This on top of being told I haven't even read the metrolink docs...

I know about the SDZ too, and yet that still isn't a reason to favour the metrolink plan, only that capacity upgrades will be required in the near future on the green line. The SDZ also has a lot of employment generators as well as residential development envisaged, so that development zone will only add somewhat to the peak flows (whatever about off peak). Going from 54 to 60 metres still makes it the longest street running tram in the world, but not in itself a bad idea. The 54 metre ones already block the quay traffic in both directions.

Saying that Metrolink will unlock new development is *still* as unfounded as it was when it was claimed all those other times. The SDZ projects are gonna get planning permission irrespective of Metrolink - there is next to nothing that *cannot* be built were it not for Metrolink opening in 2027.

bk

And there you are again making the same frankly dishonest argument again! And now making more silly and easily disprovable ones about 54m versus 60m! Not admitting to the bigger picture of the project because it doesn't suit your agenda. No one is buying it, we can all easily see through it.

Dats me

Can anyone read this? Would probably be relevant/interesting? It's subscriber only

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/nimbyism-what-if-new-bus-route-or-metrolink-goes-through-your-garden

specialbyte

lucernarian wrote: »

Saying that Metrolink will unlock new development is *still* as unfounded as it was when it was claimed all those other times. The SDZ projects are gonna get planning permission irrespective of Metrolink - there is next to nothing that *cannot* be built were it not for Metrolink opening in 2027.

MetroLink will unlock new development and provide for 10,000s of homes, particularly in the area around Swords. Check out this Dublin on Track article about the Metro Economic Corridor. The land is zoned so that it can only be developed once the Metro is under construction not before: https://www.dublinontrack.ie/news/metrolink-explainer-how-will-the-metro-help-to-end-the-housing-crisis

Upgrading the Green Line as far as Sandyford to Metro is a requirement for the Luas extension to Bray. One of the areas of new development land down that direction is Fassaroe. Here's an extract of an NTA response to a public consultation submission:

In relation to the development of Fassaroe, it is recognised that public transport services will need to be provided to that development area. Extending the Luas Green Line to serve that area is not currently feasible due to the capacity constraints that currently exist on the Luas Green Line. With the growth of areas such as Sandyford and Cherrywood, the existing Luas line will not have the capacity to carry the predicted number of passengers along this corridor.

In 2017 ABP rejected major development plans for Fassaroe because of a lack of high quality public transport in the area. The proposed development would place too much pressure on the N11/M11 strategic corridor. https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/an-bord-pleanala-rejects-fassaroe-development-36381824.html

MetroLink will greatly improve public transport in this city. Increase capacity and open up development plan across the GDA either directly or indirectly.

strassenwo!f

bk wrote: »

Really this is like from almost a month ago!

You were claiming that there isn't much development space along the upgraded section of the green line.

That of course is technically correct, while at the same time ignoring the truth of the massive SDZ at Cherrywood and development land near by.

Of course that isn't part of the upgraded section, but that upgrade is absolutely needed to have enough capacity for the whole line.

If the Green line is not upgraded to Metro, then very simply Luas will be full from Sandyford in and the people won't be able to board, they will just be left behind on the platforms and the Luas passes by. Really very simple.

And, presumably, the people who've been sitting on seats all the way from Cherrywood to Sandyford will be delighted to make a change onto the metro, and struggle for seats with the people who have been waiting at Sandyford and are already sitting in them.

?

The whole plan looks very poor.

At the least, we should have some kind of figures of how this proposed upgrade project is going to provide a volume increase, for passengers. There has been nothing so far.

This proposed project will apparently upgrade the current arrangement from a 55 metre tram to a 60 metre metro, along a route which is already pretty fine.

But this is apparently more important than providing a service to new areas in Dublin's southside.

Across the whole area of Dublin's southside, on an arc from the Hazelhatch line to the Southside Dart line, the plan does not involve delivering a single new area for rail transport for at least the next 22 (twenty-two) years.

marno21

New article on Metro saying the NTA have ruled out tunnelling south of Charlemont. Seems to indicate Charlemont will be the final location for the tunnel portal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-rules-out-metrolink-tunnel-extension-1.3562982

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And, presumably, the people who've been sitting on seats all the way from Cherrywood to Sandyford will be delighted to make a change onto the metro, and struggle for seats with the people who have been waiting at Sandyford and are already sitting in them.

So we should allow direct trams from Cherrywood to the city centre at the cost of leaving people at stops from Sandyford inwards due to capacity constraints.

The people south of Sandyford can cry me a river, they should realise this is providing an upgrade with increased frequency, less cattle marting on the trams, and direct access via Metro to the city centre, Swords, the Airport, DCU, Ballymun, and all 4 DART lines.

Painting a major improvement as a disimprovement here is wrong.

Across the whole area of Dublin's southside, on an arc from the Hazelhatch line to the Southside Dart line, the plan does not involve delivering a single new area for rail transport for at least the next 22 (twenty-two) years.

It's 17 years actually, and that will be up for review. In the meantime, they are proposing a 3bn Metro, 4 Luas lines, a brand new heavily upgraded bus system, a heavy rail tunnel between Heuston and the main DART line and DART expansions to Hazelhatch, Drogheda and Maynooth. Only the €11bn or so being spent there.

strassenwo!f

So, for Cherrywood, a location for a Strategic Development Zone, where there's currently a direct rail connection with the city centre.

That's going to change to a slower, indirect rail connection.

How is this progress, for a Strategic Development Zone?

It's hard to see.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So, for Cherrywood, a location for a Strategic Development Zone, where there's currently a direct rail connection with the city centre.

That's going to change to a slower, indirect rail connection.

How is this progress, for a Strategic Development Zone?

It's hard to see.

I fail to see how it will be slower or less direct

It will be the same level of directness, faster for the city centre as the tunnel will be significantly faster than street running north of Charlemont.

It just involves getting off a tram at Sandyford, and walking to a different tram closeby, which hopefully will not be full to bursting by the time it reaches the city centre.

It also allows seamless access to the Airport, Swords, north Dublin, the Mater, DCU, Ballymun/Santry, Glasnevin and FOUR DART lines.

strassenwo!f

There is, I think, currently only 1 DART line.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is, I think, currently only 1 DART line.

There will be four by the time Metrolink opens, by the above I mean DART lines from Metrolink stations to Maynooth, Hazelhatch, Drogheda and Greystones

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

New article on Metro saying the NTA have ruled out tunnelling south of Charlemont. Seems to indicate Charlemont will be the final location for the tunnel portal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-rules-out-metrolink-tunnel-extension-1.3562982

Yes, I got that impression from the last article about Dunville avenue, the only options talked about were an elevated track, or an elevated road.

An elevated track would turn it into a bit of a roller-coaster around there, no?

strassenwo!f

marno21 wrote: »

I fail to see how it will be slower or less direct

It will be the same level of directness, faster for the city centre as the tunnel will be significantly faster than street running north of Charlemont.

It just involves getting off a tram at Sandyford, and walking to a different tram closeby, which hopefully will not be full to bursting by the time it reaches the city centre.

No, it won't be the same level of directness. It will involve a change to get to the city centre. Very possibly involving a change from a seat to standing - not a great hardship, I know, as you'd still have only a relatively short journey into town - but not as good as the current direct journey.

We don't have any figures, as far as I know, for the journey time into the city, but it seems unlikely that the journey time will be significantly different to what it is now. While the metro trams may be capable of higher speeds than the current LUAS trams, it appears they'll be stopping at all of the stops on the current off-street LUAS Green line, so they won't be able to reach their top speeds.

Thus, I would expect journey times between Sandyford and the city to be about the same as they are currently. Possibly very marginally shorter, but not so noticeable as to warrant an upgrade.

With regard to capacity, the plan seems to be to upgrade from 54 metre trams to 60 metre metro vehicles. Is that likely to make a huge difference?

marno21 wrote: »

It also allows seamless access to the Airport, Swords, north Dublin, the Mater, DCU, Ballymun/Santry, Glasnevin and FOUR DART lines.

By 'seamless', I presume you mean 'no change' to get to/from these areas or rail lines. But the largest group of people on any suburban line want to get directly to the city centre, every day. Most of those other journeys are less regular (to the Mater, hopefully never, to the Airport, a couple or a few times a year, etc.).

The fact that there is a direct connection between Sandyford and the outlying places you mention should be irrelevant, as these are mostly not journeys made on a regular basis. What is relevant is that the current direct journey between Cherrywood and the city is going to become an indirect one under the current plan, with no obvious increase in speed or capacity.

Look at pretty well any European city and you'll see that the direct connection between the suburb and the city is the most important. Changes to get to their equivalent of the Mater or the Airport are very much secondary.

London, Frankfurt, Munich, Paris, etc., the default option is almost always a direct connection with the city, with changes along the way to get to somewhere which isn't in the city.

I'm not aware of any situation where a city has changed a location in its suburbs from a place (specifically something as important as an SDZ) which has a direct connection with the city into a location which doesn't.

strassenwo!f

What we are looking at here is basically a situation where the DTO want to build a line between Swords and the City, going Y kilometres and costing X per km.

But they reckon that they could include the Green line, which has basically been already built, and now have a line going Z km, which is much greater than Y, and costing just, say, 0.6X per km.

We've had this half-assed stuff before from the DTO, with the formerly proposed interconnector taking a big detour to St. Stephen's Green to connect with the LUAS, prior to the link-up. All done on the back of a fag packet, as this one is.

markpb

marno21 wrote: »

I fail to see how it will be slower or less direct. It will be the same level of directness, faster for the city centre as the tunnel will be significantly faster than street running north of Charlemont.

There's no argument that it won't be a direct trip anymore, there will be always a transfer. There's no argument that this will be an inconvenience to passengers - it will, especially in the evenings and weekends. You're not doing yourself any favours by pretending this isn't the case or by arguing semantics. The real argument to be made is that it will be faster (which won't be true for anyone going to the south city centre) and that it will open up extra connections (which is definitely true).

strassenwo!f

Sorry, that should have been DOT, meaning Department of Transport, in the previous post. I don't want them to be confused with the DTO, the Dublin Transportation Office, who were the real crayon masters.

The DOT are admirably trying to build a metro link between the city and Swords. I welcome this very much.

There are tweaks I would introduce to their plan, but overall I welcome this part of it.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So, for Cherrywood, a location for a Strategic Development Zone, where there's currently a direct rail connection with the city centre.

That's going to change to a slower, indirect rail connection.

How is this progress, for a Strategic Development Zone?

It's hard to see.

I think you are missing the point that Luas travelling north will be less frequent that Metro travelling north. Arrive on a Luas and there is a Metro waiting for you. If it is full, wait a minute or two and get the next one. It is unlikely that all the metros will fill at Sandyford, unless we need to go to 90 metre metros, and if we do, we can.

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And, presumably, the people who've been sitting on seats all the way from Cherrywood to Sandyford will be delighted to make a change onto the metro, and struggle for seats with the people who have been waiting at Sandyford and are already sitting in them.

A radical improvement in frequency means that the metro will run every 2 mins at peak. There will be nobody 'waiting'.

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So, for Cherrywood, a location for a Strategic Development Zone, where there's currently a direct rail connection with the city centre.

That's going to change to a slower, indirect rail connection.

How is this progress, for a Strategic Development Zone?

It's hard to see.

A faster indirect rail connection you mean. Brides Glen to Sandyford can actually operate at higher frequency if trams don't have to cross the City. Passengers will be taken to Sandyford where a metro can operate up to 90 second frequencies, way faster than ever before and much handier access to the north of the city.

antoinolachtnai

cgcsb wrote: »

A faster indirect rail connection you mean. Brides Glen to Sandyford can actually operate at higher frequency if trams don't have to cross the City. Passengers will be taken to Sandyford where a metro can operate up to 90 second frequencies, way faster than ever before and much handier access to the north of the city.

There are also five sets of traffic lights on the Luas between Sandyford and St Stephens Green as I recall. Taking those out of the way will make a difference to the journey time.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you are missing the point that Luas travelling north will be less frequent that Metro travelling north. Arrive on a Luas and there is a Metro waiting for you. If it is full, wait a minute or two and get the next one. It is unlikely that all the metros will fill at Sandyford, unless we need to go to 90 metre metros, and if we do, we can.

The metro is likely to be longer and wider so if even say everyone gets off an absolutely packed luas to get on a metro it would mean that an absolutely ridiculous amount of people would have to be getting on at sandyford to leave a metro full. In fact if we got to that stage not only would the green line be over capacity but the metro would too.

cgcsb

Extending luas to BridesGlen was a mistake in my view. On street tram systems are for serving the centre of the city and inner suburbs. Frequent stopping on-street trams were never a good solution to serve distant suburbs, which should be served by metro or heavy rail. Citywest is also too far for an onstreet system. Future luas should be limited to within the M50/R113 at it's greatest extent.

Converting most of the Green line to Metro resolves that issue. We'll now have a suburban luas line that runs from Bray to Sandford quite reliably and a short Finglas-Ranelagh inner Dublin luas line.

We're still left with the legacy of a heavily over subscribed red luas line that is too long for purpose. In future I'd like to see the Red line converted to metro with a new tunnel from St James's inwards and the remaining central section operated as a Ringsend-St James's service. We could also do with building more on street luas lines, Harold's Cross to Broadstone for example or even Tallaght to Blanch.