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

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we stick to Metrolink please. Discussing the Red line is crossing a red line, I'm afraid.

MJohnston

Current Luas capacity on the Green Line is around 8k passengers per hour. Metrolink's per hour figure will be 15k.

It's safe to say there will not be anyone getting off a Luas and not being able to find a spot on a Metro.

I genuinely believe that anyone harping on this point has other motives for wanting to spread negative sentiment about the project. I just wish they'd be honest.

Sam Russell

If the NTA are saying 'no tunnel beyond Charlemont' means that the consideration of the tie-in options are being, not just reduced, but eliminated from the discussion. The possible option of a tie-in south of Beechwood had merit, and was only just pipped by Charlemont.

Going the extra km or so underground would solve some problems that would save costs with Dunville Ave and Ranelagh, plus the small issue with the sewer pipe at the canal.

It surely should not be ruled out so easily.

strassenwo!f

A metro every 90 seconds? Across Dunville Avenue, Beechwood, Stillorgan and the other points where pedestrians cross?

And we still don't know how deep into the southside this tunnel will have to go to make a connection with the LUAS Green line. It's probably not going to be at Charlemont, as proposed by the DOT in their plan, because of the gradients involved.

The costs of the tie-in seem to be going up a good bit, quite apart from the loss of the direct connection between the city and the Cherrywood SDZ.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A metro every 90 seconds? Across Dunville Avenue, Beechwood, Stillorgan and the other points where pedestrians cross?

The plans are to eliminate all those crossings. Read the plans on metrolink.ie.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A metro every 90 seconds? Across Dunville Avenue, Beechwood, Stillorgan and the other points where pedestrians cross?

And we still don't know how deep into the southside this tunnel will have to go to make a connection with the LUAS Green line. It's probably not going to be at Charlemont, as proposed by the DOT in their plan, because of the gradients involved.

The costs of the tie-in seem to be going up a good bit, quite apart from the loss of the direct connection between the city and the Cherrywood SDZ.

I'm curious - do you read posts and project plans simply so you can argue things that are already addressed, in order to frustrate everyone here? Because with this post it sure seems like that's what you're doing.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm curious - do you read posts and project plans simply so you can argue things that are already addressed, in order to frustrate everyone here? Because with this post it sure seems like that's what you're doing.

No, I don't do that.

In my previous post, I addressed three issues.

Firstly, the frequency of the proposed line on the southside. 90 seconds may well be very doable in the tunnel. Above ground it won't be, without large investment, and will certainly involve discommoding other people, for example at Beechwood.

Secondly, the issue of where the tunnel portal will be. The DOT's plan was for it to be at Charlemont, but that may be in doubt and it looks like it may be quite a bit deeper into the southside, also increasing costs. On this board we've had several suggestions for where it might be, including even a suggestion for an underground station in a place that doesn't exist on the way to the portal.

Thirdly, the loss of the direct link between the Cherrywood SDZ and the city.

Are these not all relevant issues which need to be addressed with this proposal?

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, I don't do that.

In my previous post, I addressed three issues.

Firstly, the frequency of the proposed line on the southside. 90 seconds may well be very doable in the tunnel. Above ground it won't be, without large investment, and will certainly involve discommoding other people, for example at Beechwood.

That large investment is in the plans.

Secondly, the issue of where the tunnel portal will be. The DOT's plan was for it to be at Charlemont, but that may be in doubt and it looks like it may be quite a bit deeper into the southside, also increasing costs. On this board we've had several suggestions for where it might be, including even a suggestion for an underground station in a place that doesn't exist on the way to the portal.

The alternatives are in the plans. In addition, a post was made less than 24 hours addressing this very question: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107505633#post107505633

Thirdly, the loss of the direct link between the Cherrywood SDZ and the city.

Again, you're just ignoring the dozens of posts in the last 24 hours addressing this topic.

Are these not all relevant issues which need to be addressed with this proposal?

Not ad nauseum in a public forum where they've already been addressed (and which has zero power over the actual project).

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

That large investment is in the plans.

The majority of the posts on the issue of upgrading the southside part of the Green LUAS, rather than heading to other southside areas, have been various versions of 'It's so cheap it'd be a mistake not to do it'.

Now it's a 'large investment'

MJohnston wrote: »

The alternatives are in the plans. In addition, a post was made less than 24 hours addressing this very question: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107505633#post107505633

I didn't miss that, or any of the other comments on this board.

It's clear from the article that that issue has some way to go, if the NTA persist with this proposal. They could, I suppose, build under the sewer and then have some kind of arrangement like you have on a roller-coaster, which ratchets you up to the top, given the gradients involved. But I wouldn't particularly fancy going back down every day on the way into work.

MJohnston wrote: »

Again, you're just ignoring the dozens of posts in the last 24 hours addressing this topic.

I haven't ignored anything. I've read it all. The lessons from dozens or indeed hundreds (even thousands) of cities is that the key thing is to have a direct link with the city. Cherrywood currently has this, and under the new plan it won't.

D.L.R.

Keeping the green as a tram line would be idiotic.

We only have 5 proper railway lines into the city, we can't afford to waste any of this capacity. Green must be upgraded to metro. Anything else is cuckoo.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The majority of the posts on the issue of upgrading the southside part of the Green LUAS, rather than heading to other southside areas, have been various versions of 'It's so cheap it'd be a mistake not to do it'.

Now it's a 'large investment'

It can easily be both things, don't be disingenuous. Comments about the 'cheapness' of the Green Line upgrade have always been made in comparison to the costs of the project as a whole, or as a comparison to your hypothetical SW Metro lines.

I haven't ignored anything. I've read it all. The lessons from dozens or indeed hundreds (even thousands) of cities is that the key thing is to have a direct link with the city. Cherrywood currently has this, and under the new plan it won't.

No, that's not the key thing at all!

The actual key thing is to offer people frequency and efficiency. Upgrading the Green Line to Sandyford to Metro standard will do this, when maintaining it as a simple tram line is not going to cut it while passenger loads are continuing to rise.

What is the alternative that people complaining about this upgrade are offering? The way I see it, these are the options:
A. Upgrade Charlemont to Sandyford to Metro standard, providing hugely increased passenger capacity and frequency on the upgraded section. Maintain Sandyford to Bride's Glen as Luas, allowing it to efficiently operate as a separate suburban line with high speeds due to not having to go into the city centre.
B. Leave Charlemont to Sandyford at Luas standard, building the Metro only as far as SSG. Usage figures on this line continue to grow, but because it remains Luas standard, possible capacity or frequency improvements are few and far between. Line becomes unfavourable due to overcrowding.
C. Upgrade Charlemont to Bride's Glen to Metro standard, adding significant extra costs to the project, because the Sandyford to Bride's Glen extension was not designed to be easily upgradable to Metro (unlike the Charlemont to Sandyford section), and there are many more unremovable level crossings here.

Only A makes any sense to me as a way forward, but if someone has a better alternative, by all means please elucidate it.

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

It can easily be both things, don't be disingenuous. Comments about the 'cheapness' of the Green Line upgrade have always been made in comparison to the costs of the project as a whole, or as a comparison to your hypothetical SW Metro lines.



No, that's not the key thing at all!

The actual key thing is to offer people frequency and efficiency. Upgrading the Green Line to Sandyford to Metro standard will do this, when maintaining it as a simple tram line is not going to cut it while passenger loads are continuing to rise.


What is the alternative that people complaining about this upgrade are offering? The way I see it, these are the options:
A. Upgrade Charlemont to Sandyford to Metro standard, providing hugely increased passenger capacity and frequency on the upgraded section. Maintain Sandyford to Bride's Glen as Luas, allowing it to efficiently operate as a separate suburban line with high speeds due to not having to go into the city centre.
B. Leave Charlemont to Sandyford at Luas standard, building the Metro only as far as SSG. Usage figures on this line continue to grow, but because it remains Luas standard, possible capacity or frequency improvements are few and far between. Line becomes unfavourable due to overcrowding.
C. Upgrade Charlemont to Bride's Glen to Metro standard, adding significant extra costs to the project, because the Sandyford to Bride's Glen extension was not designed to be easily upgradable to Metro (unlike the Charlemont to Sandyford section), and there are many more unremovable level crossings here.

Only A makes any sense to me as a way forward, but if someone has a better alternative, by all means please elucidate it.

I have previously presented better plans.
Metrolink/ Green line tie in at windy arbour via extra station at rathmines and dartry.
Would help Dublin sw by providing station in rathmines and dartry.
Sorts out level crossing problems.
Reduced cost in only upgrading sandyford to windy arbour.
Extra cost of tunneling approx 600 mill.
Cpo part or all of milltown golf course for cut and cover tunnel and affordable housing project.
Could be the jewel in the crown.

****! wrong thread thought I was in the other one. Apologies.

marno21

I hadn't realised the anti development brigade had a Twitter account now

https://twitter.com/RMetrolink/

"I've had my fun, and that's all that matters"

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

It can easily be both things, don't be disingenuous. Comments about the 'cheapness' of the Green Line upgrade have always been made in comparison to the costs of the project as a whole, or as a comparison to your hypothetical SW Metro lines.

I'm not being disingenuous. Is the upgrade of the southside LUAS line 'cheap', as many people here are saying, or will it require a major investment?

Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested that a line to, for example, Knocklyon, could be built for the same money. But a start of such a line could be built for that cash, with gradual extensions adding more suburbs to the network every 2-3 years or so, when extra cash becomes available.

I've said on this board several times that I favour an initial phase to Camden Street and Harold's Cross (eventually going to Kimmage and Walkinstown), and a split to bring a branch of that line from Camden Street to Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure and beyond. Each step of development of that split route adds many travel paths on the southside alone, quite apart from connecting new areas directly with the city centre.

MJohnston wrote: »

No, that's not the key thing at all!

Yes, actually, it is. The key thing is connecting places directly with the city centre. That way the largest group of people on any train can get directly where they want to go. The metro upgrade doesn't offer this to workers or residents in this SDZ.

MJohnston wrote: »

The actual key thing is to offer people frequency and efficiency. Upgrading the Green Line to Sandyford to Metro standard will do this, when maintaining it as a simple tram line is not going to cut it while passenger loads are continuing to rise.

They already have frequency and efficiency. Simple measures like upgrading the frequency haven't even been tried.

MJohnston wrote: »

What is the alternative that people complaining about this upgrade are offering? The way I see it, these are the options:
A. Upgrade Charlemont to Sandyford to Metro standard, providing hugely increased passenger capacity and frequency on the upgraded section. Maintain Sandyford to Bride's Glen as Luas, allowing it to efficiently operate as a separate suburban line with high speeds due to not having to go into the city centre.
B. Leave Charlemont to Sandyford at Luas standard, building the Metro only as far as SSG. Usage figures on this line continue to grow, but because it remains Luas standard, possible capacity or frequency improvements are few and far between. Line becomes unfavourable due to overcrowding.
C. Upgrade Charlemont to Bride's Glen to Metro standard, adding significant extra costs to the project, because the Sandyford to Bride's Glen extension was not designed to be easily upgradable to Metro (unlike the Charlemont to Sandyford section), and there are many more unremovable level crossings here.

In other cities there is competition between lines, which reduces the pressure on any one line. The reason for the pressure on the LUAS Green line is that it has no competition, unlike in developed cities.

Build a line or lines to the Southwest, gradually, between the LUAS Green line and the Red Line, or even a line along the N11 (between the LUAS and the DART) and it will have competition, and the pressure will drop.

Dublin's issue with the Green Line is that the city hasn't developed other lines to compete with it, as has happened with other cities. It is that simple.

D.L.R.

Idiotic :rolleyes:

Muahahaha

Just on the plans is it still the case that there will be a station at SSG East and not at the top of Grafton Street? I know the distance between the two is not that great (perhaps 300m or 400m?) but I still believe this is a mistake. Grafton St is like the true centre of the south city and has footfall of nearly 10,000 people per hour and is busy both day and nighttime as well as weekends. Whereas SSG east is more of an office & civil servant Mon-Fri type place and is absolutely dead at night time and weekends. People would have to walk there from more popular areas in order to use the Metro.

If the only reason the station is being relocated to SSG east is to save money on digging up the Green itself I think the planners are making a short sighted decision given this infrastructure will be there for time immemorial. To me it doesnt make sense to locate it in the wrong spot just to save money, it should be built in the place that gives it the largest footfall from the off rather than making tens of thousands of people divert from the area they are in day in and day out forever.

Dats me

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the plans is it still the case that there will be a station at SSG East and not at the top of Grafton Street? I know the distance between the two is not that great (perhaps 300m or 400m?) but I still believe this is a mistake. Grafton St is like the true centre of the south city and has footfall of nearly 10,000 people per hour and is busy both day and nighttime as well as weekends. Whereas SSG east is more of an office & civil servant Mon-Fri type place and is absolutely dead at night time and weekends. People would have to walk there from more popular areas in order to use the Metro.

the issue is the angle coming from Tara Street (important interchange station that they're willing to knock 70 apartments for). Look at the map, would be an impossible swing

salmocab

Dats me wrote: »

the issue is the angle coming from Tara Street (important interchange station that they're willing to knock 70 apartments for). Look at the map, would be an impossible swing

Also from a commuting point of view maggot street area is probably better for peoples work anyway

jd

Eamon Ryan just tweeted a design he was shown with Metrolink taking a dive so Dunville Avenue crossing could be retained

https://twitter.com/EamonRyan/status/1017459291874316288

markpb

salmocab wrote: »

Also from a commuting point of view maggot street area is probably better for peoples work anyway

:-)

MJohnston

Dats me wrote: »

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the plans is it still the case that there will be a station at SSG East and not at the top of Grafton Street? I know the distance between the two is not that great (perhaps 300m or 400m?) but I still believe this is a mistake. Grafton St is like the true centre of the south city and has footfall of nearly 10,000 people per hour and is busy both day and nighttime as well as weekends. Whereas SSG east is more of an office & civil servant Mon-Fri type place and is absolutely dead at night time and weekends. People would have to walk there from more popular areas in order to use the Metro.

the issue is the angle coming from Tara Street (important interchange station that they're willing to knock 70 apartments for). Look at the map, would be an impossible swing

Not just that, also the SSG NE corner station would have meant the excavation of a large area of the park, including some of the lakes, while the proposed location completely avoids that.

marno21

Another article from the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ranelagh-takes-a-leaf-out-of-glasnevin-s-book-1.3561772

IT wrote:

He and many other people who live or work in the area sandwiched between Ranelagh and Rathmines are miffed at plans by the National Transport Agency to slice the road in two, creating in effect two cul-de-sacs but allowing for uninterrupted movement of the Green Line Luas at Beechwood. . . and the proposd new Metro running on the same rails.

5 minutes of research would've found a large inaccuracy in the second paragraph above. Why so hard?

marno21

There's a deeper problem with the Green Line than just "capacity".

The Green Line from SSG to Brides Glen is effectively 3 stitched heterogenous lines.

1. SSG-Charlemont - low capacity - street running, at grade
2. Charlemont-Sandyford - high capacity - former heavy rail alignment, direct and rapid, little conflict with traffic
3. Sandyford-Brides Glen - moderate capacity - suburban tram extension with some segregation

The line as above (I'm leaving out the Cross City mess) should not be restricted to the capacity constraints of the lowest capacity section - hence the Metrification of the Charlemont-Sandyford section.

The deeper issue is that Charlemont-Sandyford should never have been built as a tram line that was out of capacity within 10 years. That's Irish level shortsightedness and should be corrected rightly by it becoming a Metro. Leaving it as is is a shocking waste of capacity on one of the few segregated rail paths into the city centre.

specialbyte

New DublinOnTrack article on why Eamon Ryan's metro south west idea is the kind of political interference that is unnecessary and threatens to delay MetroLink: https://www.dublinontrack.ie/news/suggesting-a-south-west-metro-to-rathfarmham-is-political-interference

Dats me

Great piece

done4now

jd wrote: »

Eamon Ryan just tweeted a design he was shown with Metrolink taking a dive so Dunville Avenue crossing could be retained

https://twitter.com/EamonRyan/status/1017459291874316288

How can this be constructed while still having the Green Line operational? CPO of the coffee shop and lands directly in front and behind it so that they can divert the line there while this is being constructed? I cannot see the coffee shop in the plans.

salmocab

done4now wrote: »

How can this be constructed while still having the Green Line operational? CPO of the coffee shop and lands directly in front and behind it so that they can divert the line there while this is being constructed? I cannot see the coffee shop in the plans.

Green line won’t be operational for long periods between SSG and sandyford

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

Green line won’t be operational for long periods between SSG and sandyford

Is this confirmed? What alternative measures are they putting in place? Do we know how long they are closing down the green line for at a time?

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

Is this confirmed? What alternative measures are they putting in place? Do we know how long they are closing down the green line for at a time?

Don’t know if it’s officially confirmed but that work would be practically impossible with a working line there. Possibly some bits could be done with minimum disruption but the likes of the tie in and dunville ave couldn’t, I would think they will line up all the ducks and close the line with all the works carried out simultaneously, probably the guts of 6 months.

LXFlyer

tom1ie wrote: »

Is this confirmed? What alternative measures are they putting in place? Do we know how long they are closing down the green line for at a time?

That’s one of the unknowns right now.

But I think if there are works at Dunville Avenue it will mean closing Charlemont-Cowper at the very least for a period (which will not be insignificant in my opinion), and not just Charlemont-Ranelagh as originally thought.