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

roadmaster

specialbyte wrote: »

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

An excellent piece by Kevin Baker. If he can speak as well as he writes he should be on prime time the next time they have the Colm McCarthy types are on to give the proper side of the story. (I am biased of course) . What he wrote is the type of information that needs to get out there

Muahahaha

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

MJohnston wrote: »

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.

I hear ya both.I still think its a pity it cant be done at the top of Grafton St, I dont have stats but would imagine footfall around the Grafton/Sth William and Georges St is a few multiples of that around Baggot St/Merrion Sq and SSG east.

salmocab

Muahahaha wrote: »

I hear ya both.I still think its a pity it cant be done at the top of Grafton St, I dont have stats but would imagine footfall around the Grafton/Sth William and Georges St is a few multiples of that around Baggot St/Merrion Sq and SSG east.

Although from a commuter for work point of view baggot st area is probably better

done4now

salmocab wrote: »

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.

I don't know surely they could do something like they are planning to do in Stillorgan?

Me with my Crayons;

CatInABox

I'd say that if they're planning to do something like that in Stillorgan, then they'll try their best to do something similar at Dunville Avenue.

jd

Some discussion coming up in the transport committee
Ranelagh person who wants metrolink rerouted
and Dermot O'Leary talking about Bus Connects

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr2-live/

roadmaster

And people taught a GAA club where going to be the issue!

http://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-busconnects-4134511-Jul2018/

marno21

roadmaster wrote: »

And people taught a GAA club where going to be the issue!

http://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-busconnects-4134511-Jul2018/

This is out and out NIMBYism and the type of ridiculously selfish behaviour that's causing so much division in both Dublin and most of the western world.

These people need to be told to **** off and realise that the city goes beyond their back gardens and that people further out have to navigate their expensive suburb to access the city. Bridge Dunville Avenue by all means but enough of this tripe.

"I've had my fun and that's all that matters" rearing its head again.

LXFlyer

marno21 wrote: »

This is out and out NIMBYism and the type of ridiculously selfish behaviour that's causing so much division in both Dublin and most of the western world.

These people need to be told to **** off and realise that the city goes beyond their back gardens and that people further out have to navigate their expensive suburb to access the city. Bridge Dunville Avenue by all means but enough of this tripe.

"I've had my fun and that's all that matters" rearing its head again.

While I don’t agree with everything said today (particularly the more emotive stuff), there were valid issues raised that should be addressed and indeed one of the gentleman who attended the committee was very coherent (Denis I think was his name) and set out objections quite clearly, one of which was zero contact from the NTA to discuss concerns with residents in the area - that’s not good.

I’d suggest watching the video when it is uploaded.

We also learned today that a significant portion of the Green Line could end up being closed for over 9 months or even longer. Where are all those people going to go? There’s been no answer to that yet. That is a massive issue that needs addressing.

I do like to think we are still a democracy where in a consultation period there is an actual discussion with people in the areas affected. Some posters (not necessarily you marno) seem to think that people shouldn’t be allowed have that opportunity which I think is regressive.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

We also learned today that a significant portion of the Green Line could end up being closed for over 9 months or even longer. Where are all those people going to go? There’s been no answer to that yet. That is a massive issue that needs addressing.

If it needs to be done, it will be done. Major infrastructure changes require disruption, but lead to major improvements. What is 9 months when this line will continue to be operating and serving the people of Dublin 100 years from now.

LXFlyer wrote: »

I do like to think we are still a democracy where in a consultation period there is an actual discussion with people in the areas affected. Some posters (not necessarily you marno) seem to think that people shouldn’t be allowed have that opportunity which I think is regressive.

They have every right. And we have every right to call them what they are, selfish NIMBY's.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

If it needs to be done, it will be done. Major infrastructure changes require disruption, but lead to major improvements. What is 9 months when this line will continue to be operating and serving the people of Dublin 100 years from now.

They have every right. And we have every right to call them what they are, selfish NIMBY's.

Ah yes more classic sweeping statements.

Presumably you have not actually watched it because your post reads as a broad generalisation.

The devil is in the detail with anything like this and people are perfectly within their rights to ask what are the consequences of it.

A 9 month or longer closure of an extended part of the Green Line has massive implications for traffic flows in south Dublin and frankly does warrant discussion. Only someone who has no knowledge of the current day-to-day issues in the are could post something as patronising as your last line.

I don’t see that as NIMBYISM - I see it as as valid questioning of the plan

monument

Their only valid main point is not having permeability and that can be sorted and the 9 months...

Re the 9 months -- Does that works at a bridge taking up to 9 months really mean that the whole route will be out of action for 9 months? Does it even mean that, at the crossing location, that service will be stopped for that whole time?

marno21 wrote: »

This is out and out NIMBYism and the type of ridiculously selfish behaviour that's causing so much division in both Dublin and most of the western world.

These people need to be told to **** off and realise that the city goes beyond their back gardens and that people further out have to navigate their expensive suburb to access the city. Bridge Dunville Avenue by all means but enough of this tripe.

On Morning Ireland it was said that bridging Dunville Avenue isn't ok apparently because:

1. Barriers will be an eye sore but yet it will still:
2. "Create all sorts of noise"
3. It would be a disaster if a train got derailed at height
4. People will be looking into gardens.

So, this barrier won't be a sound barrier and won't be a visual barrier and it also won't be strong enough to contain a light train from falling off the bridge.

marno21 wrote: »

"I've had my fun and that's all that matters" rearing its head again.

That's exactly it. I enjoy having Luas but I don't want the capacity upgrade needed.

On Morning Ireland it was said if it doesn't go underground "You're robbing Peter to pay Paul" in reference to the apparently massive impact it will have on residents closer to the city to help people further out to commute in.

monument

LXFlyer wrote: »

Ah yes more classic sweeping statements.

Presumably you have not actually watched it because your post reads as a broad generalisation.

The devil is in the detail with anything like this and people are perfectly within their rights to ask what are the consequences of it.

A 9 month or longer closure of an extended part of the Green Line has massive implications for traffic flows in south Dublin and frankly does warrant discussion. Only someone who has no knowledge of the current day-to-day issues in the are could post something as patronising as your last line.

I don’t see that as NIMBYISM - I see it as as valid questioning of the plan

Their appearance on Morning Ireland and their tweets are enough to show that it is NIMBYISM -- NIMBYs, much like anybody, have both valid and invalid points.

When the presenter said that the Luas already overlooks gardens, the response was first to say not in our area.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

Their appearance on Morning Ireland and their tweets are enough to show that it is NIMBYISM -- NIMBYs, much like anybody, have both valid and invalid points.

When the presenter said that the Luas already overlooks gardens, the response was first to say not in our area.

As you yourself have said the details are key with any of these plans.

My gripe with some of the posters here is the disparaging way that some dismiss all of the concerns as minor trivialities.

Re Dunville Avenue, I do think that there is a need to review the situation and provide a realistic solution that allows continued access for all, but I don't agree with the more emotive stuff regarding the line being raised that some of them were talking about.

I have serious concerns about a potential lengthy closure of a significant section of the line, and the impact that will have on the entire south Dublin area and I think that does need to be clarified by TII/NTA and discussed. That has not happened, and it's not a minor issue that can be trivialised like some people here are.

If the track bed has to be rebuilt (up or down) you could be looking at a closure distance wise from Cowper to Charlemont (assuming it's done at the same time as the Metro tie-in works at Charlemont).

I suspect that one of the main issues for the people is that the manner in which the consultation happened was pretty poor to be honest. I was at the Hilton consultation, and the majority of representatives there from TII/NTA hadn't a clue about what was going to be involved. I eventually did find someone who did know what they were talking about, but that was at (if I recall correctly) the fourth attempt! When you hear people say that there has been little or interaction from TII/NTA with the groups in the area, it's a bit concerning to be honest.

Communication is key with these schemes and not interacting with local people ain't going to help the cause.

marno21

Just listening to Morning Ireland now, this is boilerplate NIMBYism, and some radical NIMBYism thrown in on top. Hyperbole, fabrications and refusal to acknowledge the benefits both for their area and for other areas.

NIMBYs: We don't want Dunville Avenue closed [where it crosses a 160 year old railway alignment]
NTA: Ok we'll build you a bridge, we'll consider both an overbridge and an underbridge and pick the most suitable option [effectively a replacement for a 150 year old bridge demolished in 2003]
NIMBYs: Nah mate that's not good enough

"Metro will destroy Ranelagh" and other complains about noise from an electrified light rail and potential derailments affecting them. These people should not be allowed on air if they aren't willing to present their case without telling lies and making stuff up. There should at least be an NTA or TII delegate there to correct this misinformation.

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

marno21

Am I missing something or..

Is there a clear issue here in that the people in Ranelagh that are objecting to the Metrolink upgrade of the Green Line are the ones who will be left behind at stops when the Green Line becomes saturated in the mid 2020s? It seems bizarre that you would object to something that will inherently benefit you.

This whole "destruction of recently built transport infrastructure" is testament to the requirement that transport infrastructure in Ireland from now on be future proofed for at least a 30 if not 50 year window, no matter how much it drives up cost. This "we'll built the Green Line to Metro standard for when its needed in 15 years time" needs to be rethought.

marno21

Why it is clear that none of the politicians in the Transport Committee are aware of the requirement to upgrade the Green Line to ensure it doesn't reach saturation capacity by the mid 2020s?

It seems none of them are aware, and that the Green Line upgrade is to gold plate it by turning it into a Metro, a cheap cop out, or an evil agenda by the NTA to divide communities in Dublin Bay South, ruin their lives and impose Berlin Wall type division.

I have no words for these people whose concerns are being addressed and they portray the solutions on offer as additional constraints.

prunudo

I often wondered if the powers that be weren't so concerned with penny pinching on initial infrastructure plans would they solve themselves so much grief with objections. A lot of the time its these half measures that end up causing the conflicts. How many more metro plans will be presented before we actually get one, or maybe thats the idea!

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

Why it is clear that none of the politicians in the Transport Committee are aware of the requirement to upgrade the Green Line to ensure it doesn't reach saturation capacity by the mid 2020s?

It seems none of them are aware, and that the Green Line upgrade is to gold plate it by turning it into a Metro, a cheap cop out, or an evil agenda by the NTA to divide communities in Dublin Bay South, ruin their lives and impose Berlin Wall type division.

I have no words for these people whose concerns are being addressed and they portray the solutions on offer as additional constraints.

Yes, regardless of these objections, the Luas Green Line will need to be upgraded in a significant way in the next few years. Despite the belief of one person here, there's no easy option to upgrade the capacity without segregation along the line, so even if the residents do succeed in changing the direction of the line out to the south west, the Luas line will still need to be upgraded to something approaching Metro standard.

Pete_Cavan

LXFlyer wrote: »

I suspect that one of the main issues for the people is that the manner in which the consultation happened was pretty poor to be honest. I was at the Hilton consultation, and the majority of representatives there from TII/NTA hadn't a clue about what was going to be involved. I eventually did find someone who did know what they were talking about, but that was at (if I recall correctly) the fourth attempt! When you hear people say that there has been little or interaction from TII/NTA with the groups in the area, it's a bit concerning to be honest.

Communication is key with these schemes and not interacting with local people ain't going to help the cause.

How has the consultation been poor? They released the preferred route along supporting information and options where they were available. Nothing is set in stone and everyone is allowed to have their say and suggest changes. We already know that there will be changes as a result of issues raised during the consultation. Revised plans will be released at the end of the summer taking account of issues raised and further consultation will be held.

Limited design work has been done to date, we don't even know basic things like what type of tunnel(s) will be used, station formats, the vehicles to be used, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people at the consultation meetings had little detail. Much of it is still up in the air as this initial consultation is being used to inform the next design stages. We already know that more detailed design will look to address the concerns at Na Fianna and Dunville Ave. yet and all they still complain.

The complaints that nobody from TII/NTA came to Ranelagh to discuss the plans with them is not proof of poor consultation. The project extends to 26km and effects hundreds of communities and businesses and many thousands of individuals, all can't be engaged on an individual basis. The idea they deserve special treatment shows how deluded these people are. All indications are that access will still be maintained but we are already hearing excuses why it won't be good enough. This is pure, unadulterated NIMBYism and complaints about lack of consultation is misdirection.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, regardless of these objections, the Luas Green Line will need to be upgraded in a significant way in the next few years. Despite the belief of one person here, there's no easy option to upgrade the capacity without segregation along the line, so even if the residents do succeed in changing the direction of the line out to the south west, the Luas line will still need to be upgraded to something approaching Metro standard.

The problem with upgrading the green in the future is it feeds into the cross city, so without the metro it won’t work anyway. For the green line it’s metro or nothing I would think. They may be able to do some small tweaks for better numbers but it will be deck chair off the titanic stuff.

tom1ie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

How has the consultation been poor? They released the preferred route along supporting information and options where they were available. Nothing is set in stone and everyone is allowed to have their say and suggest changes. We already know that there will be changes as a result of issues raised during the consultation. Revised plans will be released at the end of the summer taking account of issues raised and further consultation will be held.

Limited design work has been done to date, we don't even know basic things like what type of tunnel(s) will be used, station formats, the vehicles to be used, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people at the consultation meetings had little detail. Much of it is still up in the air as this initial consultation is being used to inform the next design stages. We already know that more detailed design will look to address the concerns at Na Fianna and Dunville Ave. yet and all they still complain.

The complaints that nobody from TII/NTA came to Ranelagh to discuss the plans with them is not proof of poor consultation. The project extends to 26km and effects hundreds of communities and businesses and many thousands of individuals, all can't be engaged on an individual basis. The idea they deserve special treatment shows how deluded these people are. All indications are that access will still be maintained but we are already hearing excuses why it won't be good enough. This is pure, unadulterated NIMBYism and complaints about lack of consultation is misdirection.

Give the people what they want. Move the tie in further south and bypass Dunville Avenue. They will shout and scream and get this project delayed if this is not done.
I thought there was a problem with one of Dublin’s main sewage lines being in the way for a charlemount tie in anyway?
Also hasn’t single bore tunnel method been selected and individual station drawings were in the designs that were released?

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

How has the consultation been poor? They released the preferred route along supporting information and options where they were available. Nothing is set in stone and everyone is allowed to have their say and suggest changes. We already know that there will be changes as a result of issues raised during the consultation. Revised plans will be released at the end of the summer taking account of issues raised and further consultation will be held.

Limited design work has been done to date, we don't even know basic things like what type of tunnel(s) will be used, station formats, the vehicles to be used, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people at the consultation meetings had little detail. Much of it is still up in the air as this initial consultation is being used to inform the next design stages. We already know that more detailed design will look to address the concerns at Na Fianna and Dunville Ave. yet and all they still complain.

The complaints that nobody from TII/NTA came to Ranelagh to discuss the plans with them is not proof of poor consultation. The project extends to 26km and effects hundreds of communities and businesses and many thousands of individuals, all can't be engaged on an individual basis. The idea they deserve special treatment shows how deluded these people are. All indications are that access will still be maintained but we are already hearing excuses why it won't be good enough. This is pure, unadulterated NIMBYism and complaints about lack of consultation is misdirection.

As I posted above at the local consultation event in the Hilton virtually none of the representatives had any detailed technical knowledge and frankly most were waffling.

That much I can attest to as I was there.

That is not what Inwould expect at an event where local people could come and ask questions.

When you combine that with an apparent lack of any contact with combined residents representatives from a broad area, that’s says to me that the communication and consultation has been poor.

With any major infrastructure project you need to bring communities with you.

At the same time I think it’s fair comment to say that the NTA are pretty woeful at putting the case for the various schemes across in the media.

LeinsterDub

tom1ie wrote: »

Give the people what they want. Move the tie in further south and bypass Dunville Avenue. They will shout and scream and get this project delayed if this is not done.
I thought there was a problem with one of Dublin’s main sewage lines being in the way for a charlemount tie in anyway?
Also hasn’t single bore tunnel method been selected and individual station drawings were in the designs that were released?

London managed to thread the eye of a needle. This can't possibly be an issue.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/october-digi-issue-2/your-questions-answered-crossrail/

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, regardless of these objections, the Luas Green Line will need to be upgraded in a significant way in the next few years. Despite the belief of one person here, there's no easy option to upgrade the capacity without segregation along the line, so even if the residents do succeed in changing the direction of the line out to the south west, the Luas line will still need to be upgraded to something approaching Metro standard.

If that’s aimed at me - then you’re misrepresenting me. I never said that. Nowhere.

Read back through my posts. I do agree that the only way to upgrade it is for segregation.

My arguments all along were related to the timing, proposed road closures and the effect of closing the Green Line for an extended period on traffic across South Dublin.

My personal opinion is:

1) That the Metrolink should initially serve the south central area leading to the southwest needs as I don’t think the BusConnects plan will deliver any real meaningful improvements (I don’t see the CPO activity happening) and it is at gridlock now, and not in 10 years time. It’s only going to get worse and journey times are already 90 minutes plus. Leaving that for another 10 years is insane.

2) Putting that line in place first would offer a suitable diversion route to which buses could carry people to when an extended section of the Green Line is closed to be upgraded to Metro which would minimise traffic issues closer to the city. A possible nine month closure will cause mayhem - there’s nowhere else for all those people to go to.

3) Closing Dunville Avenue would cause serious traffic problems in an area that’s already at a standstill.

They’re my issues - as I’ve posted I don’t agree with the more emotive stuff, but there was a third local resident at the committee meeting yesterday who did put a very reasoned argument across.

I happen to think also that they have a point about the lack of contact and poor communication - if the people at the sole consultation event aren’t able to answer simple questions then there is a problem.

The Dublinontrack article is rubbish.

1)

The Luas Green Line will run out of capacity by 2027. The only option left to upgrading the Green Line is underground running in the city centre.

No, there are other options including increasing capacity on the N11 bus routes, and proceeding with the previously mooted BRT. A SW Metro will inevitably reduce passenger numbers on the Green line > below. That doesn't negate the need for increased capacity on the Green Line but it's a bad argument.

2)

A south west metro is a poor investment compared to MetroLink's Green Line upgrade. The metro upgrade is estimated to cost €350M. Given the MetroLink budget of €3-4BN, this is only 10% of the total costs, but lengthens Dublin's first metro line by 45%.
...
A south west metro will not reduce pressure on the Luas Green Line enough to matter. This isn't a choice between the Green Line upgrade or a south west metro, but rather between the Green Line upgrade and doing both projects.

Something is a poor investment because it costs more? Clearly the author doesn't even know what the word 'investment' means, and believes that cost = investment. The claim that a SW metro wouldn't reduce pressure on the green line is just silly, and stating the truism "we do both or we do Metrolink" isn't an argument - it's just a truism.

3)

The Green Line upgrade provides a far better return on investment and delivers far greater benefits.

"Based on no hard evidence whatsoever"
Ok.

4)

Eamon Ryan's submission demonstrates a lack of respect for the hundreds of engineers and professionals working hard on MetroLink.

Yes. I mean, submissions on the M9, on the M20, on Gort-to-Tuam, on Limerick-Galway railway line shouldn't ever have been made including after the fact. We should trust engineers and political plans from the past, and not ever question them because we should 'respect the engineers'.

There is a point to be made about last minute political interference that seems ungenuine (as in the case of Eamonn Ryan), the author seemingly isn't intelligent enough to make it.

5)

At this stage many evidence-based decisions have already been made, such as which transport corridors into Dublin need a metro line.

That just simply isn't true.


I'm a fan of metrolink, and even if 'metro SW followed by metrolink' was an option I still think metrolink should go ahead first. But amateur proponents of the scheme are regularly putting forth worryingly illogical and irrational statements while also condescending to and condemning anyone who has the temerity to question any aspect of the scheme.

It's disappointing that we've learned nothing from the past and people still just want to support a transport project as if it was a football club.

Bray Head

I thought - based on anecdotal evidence - that the green line is already at capacity, never mind by the mid-2020s.

CatInABox

LXFlyer wrote: »

If that’s aimed at me - then you’re misrepresenting me. I never said that. Nowhere.

Read back through my posts. I do agree that the only way to upgrade it is for segregation.

Wasn't aimed at you, there's another guy that pops his head in every once in a while and states that it's super easy to up the capacity on the Green Line, so therefore it doesn't need to be upgraded to Metro.

LXFlyer wrote: »

My arguments all along were related to the timing, proposed road closures and the effect of closing the Green Line for an extended period on traffic across South Dublin.

My personal opinion is:

1) That the Metrolink should initially serve the south central area leading to the southwest needs as I don’t think the BusConnects plan will deliver any real meaningful improvements (I don’t see the CPO activity happening) and it is at gridlock now, and not in 10 years time. It’s only going to get worse and journey times are already 90 minutes plus. Leaving that for another 10 years is insane.

Well, as there's no work done on south west route other than super high level crayon stuff, that's a three or four year delay to the getting TBMs in the ground, plus a large increase in project cost.

I also think that journey times aren't going to get much worse in those areas, only because they're absolutely terrible there now anyway, they literally can't get much worse.

LXFlyer wrote: »

2) Putting that line in place first would offer a suitable diversion route to which buses could carry people to when the Green Line is closed to be upgraded to Metro which would minimise traffic issues closer to the city. A possible nine month closure will cause mayhem - there’s nowhere else for all those people to go to.

I really don't think that the green line will be closed for nine months, and won't until the NTA say it.

LXFlyer wrote: »

3) Closing Dunville Avenue would cause serious traffic problems in an area that’s already at a standstill.

They’re my issues - as I’ve posted I don’t agree with the more emotive stuff, but there was a third local resident at the committee meeting yesterday who did put a very reasoned argument across.

I happen to think also that they have a point about the lack of contact and poor communication - if the people at the sole consultation event aren’t able to answer simple questions then there is a problem.

Dunville Avenue won't be closed, the NTA have already said that they're looking at solutions.

LXFlyer

Bray Head wrote: »

I thought - based on anecdotal evidence - that the green line is already at capacity, never mind by the mid-2020s.

They have finally introduced a new timetable that has restored cuts to departures from Brides Glen in the morning peak and provided a realistic service from Broombridge in the peaks.

Remember that the service was launched without the additional 7 trams required to operate it properly.

The next project is to extend all of the Green Line trams to 55m.

That should address the capacity issues for the moment, although I don’t think re-routing buses to feed into the line will help.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

Wasn't aimed at you, there's another guy that pops his head in every once in a while and states that it's super easy to up the capacity on the Green Line, so therefore it doesn't need to be upgraded to Metro.



Well, as there's no work done on south west route other than super high level crayon stuff, that's a three or four year delay to the getting TBMs in the ground, plus a large increase in project cost.

I also think that journey times aren't going to get much worse in those areas, only because they're absolutely terrible there now anyway, they literally can't get much worse.



I really don't think that the green line will be closed for nine months, and won't until the NTA say it.



Dunville Avenue won't be closed, the NTA have already said that they're looking at solutions.

Thanks for the clarification!

I should have also said a section of the Green Line would be closed - not the whole thing!

I can’t really see it being any shorter than 6 months if there’s major trackbed works involved.