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

Peregrine

Tara Street is key to the whole proposal. I just don't see a situation where they won't have to be demolished.

It'll be four more years by the time that happens though. Plenty of time to work something out and relocate residents. It's not nice to be affected by this but this one location will be the interchange between a metro serving some of the largest suburbs and destinations in the city with most rail services on the east coast. It's of national importance.

Pete_Cavan

MetroLinker wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone but most people that I've spoken to first found out that the apartment block was due to be demolished via the Irish Times. Communication from Metrolink on this project has been very minimal to date.

Are you certain that the apartment block is not due to be demolished? The fate of the block will depend on the final route, method of construction and station configuration selected. A first public consultation has been held with more to follow. It is up to people to engage with the process, some seem to expect own personal PowerPoint presentation. At this stage, there are many many thousands of landowners who could potentially be affected, engagement on an individual basis can only happen once those who will actually be affected are identified.

Despite being in the city centre, there are lots of disused plots and properties in this area, and commercial properties who could probably make the move as a few offices rather than seventy apartments looking for re-housing.

The Metro station is situated to link with Tara Street Station. After that, it's engineering concerns that will dictate the exact location of the station and any demolitions necessary. Those apartments are nothing compared to the number of units which can be built when Metrolink opens.

Dats me

Hi MetroLinker, I am sorry to hear about this. As has been said above, those with mortgages etc. will get market rate (and probably quite a generous market rate, to avoid upset at the figure, from my limited experience with these things). So enough to purchase a similar property, plus whatever has been paid off until now. It is also going to happen in 4 years at the very earliest, so hopefully the housing market will have caught up to demand by then and in the meantime as you're in a lease you'll be able to sort yourself out!

Sorry that you felt that way about how you found out, but as has been said it was only a draft proposal for consultation, I hope you submitted your feelings to the NTA. There simply isn't enough staff for.personal consultations before publishing with everyone, even if it does feel a bit off to find out like that.

The very best of luck to you. Hopefully you can help things be smoothed over with the NTA, Dublin really needs this project.

CatInABox

Judging by the ridiculous figures that were being thrown around for the CPO of gardens along the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors, thousands of euro per square metre, I'm sure that anyone who actually owns property in the apartment block will be very well compensated.

It's still a situation that sucks though, there's no doubting that.

If they do go with with a large monobore tunnel, is it possible that they could just close one of the roads around there and use that to construct the station entrances? Could Luke St itself be closed and turned into a dig site without too much disruption?

Bray Head

TBH it would be hard to find an area in Ireland with a more transitory population than an apartment block in Tara Street.

It will inconvenience some people but there will be a lot of notice involved.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

Judging by the ridiculous figures that were being thrown around for the CPO of gardens along the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors, thousands of euro per square metre, I'm sure that anyone who actually owns property in the apartment block will be very well compensated.

It's still a situation that sucks though, there's no doubting that.

If they do go with with a large monobore tunnel, is it possible that they could just close one of the roads around there and use that to construct the station entrances? Could Luke St itself be closed and turned into a dig site without too much disruption?

Streetview shows a fairly large empty plot of land on Luke Street - wonder why this isn't usable (unless it is no longer empty)?

MetroLinker

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Are you certain that the apartment block is not due to be demolished? The fate of the block will depend on the final route, method of construction and station configuration selected. A first public consultation has been held with more to follow. It is up to people to engage with the process, some seem to expect own personal PowerPoint presentation. At this stage, there are many many thousands of landowners who could potentially be affected, engagement on an individual basis can only happen once those who will actually be affected are identified.

Yes - definitely more to be developed on the scheme. I do think that advance notice should be given to owners who can then have a chance to speak to tenant's before it arrives on the news. It probably doesn't align with the big media spread that goes with the announcement.

CatInABox wrote: »

If they do go with with a large monobore tunnel, is it possible that they could just close one of the roads around there and use that to construct the station entrances? Could Luke St itself be closed and turned into a dig site without too much disruption?

MJohnston wrote: »

Streetview shows a fairly large empty plot of land on Luke Street - wonder why this isn't usable (unless it is no longer empty)?

Yes - there are decent sized parcels of land that are vacant in the area. They are proposing to demolish four duplex (social housing I think) that is on Townsend Street, the old corner buildings (used by fire station for drills), College Gate Apartments and the next unit along.

There is a sizeable plot if you combine the duplex apartments, old corner buildings and a disused carpark. On the other side of the road, there is a derelict office building which is currently in for planning so could be used.

Alternatively on the other side, there is the big site that was supposed to have a large building that is beside the DART station. And across the road is currently empty site where Apollo House used to be.

With the twin bore, you have to dig down the whole length of the station but I think with the single, you might just need to get in at the end. One of the solutions you could get from the side of the track.

If it's a single tunnel as well, I presume it would be located between the two previously proposed lines.

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

Streetview shows a fairly large empty plot of land on Luke Street - wonder why this isn't usable (unless it is no longer empty)?

Pretty sure it's still empty, although that's only because I haven't heard of anything going in there.

Looking at the station on Metrolink, it actually stretches from the apartment block across Luke St and into that derelict plot.

CatInABox

MetroLinker wrote: »

Yes - there are decent sized parcels of land that are vacant in the area. They are proposing to demolish four duplex (social housing I think) that is on Townsend Street, the old corner buildings (used by fire station for drills), College Gate Apartments and the next unit along.

There is a sizeable plot if you combine the duplex apartments, old corner buildings and a disused carpark. On the other side of the road, there is a derelict office building which is currently in for planning so could be used.

Alternatively on the other side, there is the big site that was supposed to have a large building that is beside the DART station. And across the road is currently empty site where Apollo House used to be.

The main problem with moving it further away from Tara St Station is that it impacts upon the "transferability" of the line. I believe that the aim of putting the station there is to allow seamless transfers from Metro to Dart, and vice versa. People will be able to get off the Metro, and get an elevator or stairs directly to the Dart platform.

If people have to get off the Metro, leave the station, walk around a few streets, and then back into a Dart station, it simply won't be as useful to people.

madbeanman

CatInABox wrote: »

The main problem with moving it further away from Tara St Station is that it impacts upon the "transferability" of the line. I believe that the aim of putting the station there is to allow seamless transfers from Metro to Dart, and vice versa. People will be able to get off the Metro, and get an elevator or stairs directly to the Dart platform.

If people have to get off the Metro, leave the station, walk around a few streets, and then back into a Dart station, it simply won't be as useful to people.

Yeah, transferability is key here. Ireland has always been pretty shocking in this regard, god bless us. Building non-intersecting luas lines was the kind of stuff tourist friends of mine just were baffled by. It can’t be the case where the line is built then ten years later spurs are put on it to connect to places it should have connected to in the first place

bk

MetroLinker, my understanding is that the owners of all properties that might be effected were contacted a day or so before the publication of the preferred route and they are being consulted.

However unfortunately it sounds like you are renting, not an owner, so it doesn't really involve you. I know that sucks, but that is the reality. It was up to your landlord to contact you and let you know. And you do have a few years to find an alternative.

Legally speaking, this is just between TII and the property owners.

MetroLinker

bk wrote: »

MetroLinker, my understanding is that the owners of all properties that might be effected were contacted a day or so before the publication of the preferred route and they are being consulted.

I thought this would be the case but, when I spoke to my landlord, they had found out online as well (possibly RTE?).

bk wrote: »

However unfortunately it sounds like you are renting, not an owner, so it doesn't really involve you. I know that sucks, but that is the reality.

Yes - I'm not directly involved but they often go beyond these for other events in the area. Irish rail do a mail drop when they are doing works on the DART line. The pope's visit also had a mail drop for the area.

bk

MetroLinker wrote: »

I thought this would be the case but, when I spoke to my landlord, they had found out online as well (possibly RTE?).

Maybe s/he was missed. Or perhaps the management company * were contacted but not individual apartment owners.

It was certainly reported that house owners were contacted.

* The way apartment buildings work is that the building and land is actually owned by the Management Company, which each apartment owner is then a member of. It is possible TII are dealing directly with the management company and it's board of directors, who then should have informed all their members.

It is also possible that the building is still controlled by the original developer and that they are dealing with them.

Certainly contacting the property owner would be more difficult in the case of an apartment building and in particular one with lots of rentals.

MetroLinker wrote: »

Yes - I'm not directly involved but they often go beyond these for other events in the area. Irish rail do a mail drop when they are doing works on the DART line. The pope's visit also had a mail drop for the area.

Discussions over CPO's would be a lot more complicated and legally involved then simply informing people of nearby disturbances.

Such discussions would strictly only be between the property owners and TII.

If you think about it, your wishes as a renter may differ greatly from the property owner. You as a renter, will gain nothing from this and see nothing but disturbance to you, so you might not want it to go ahead at all. While your landlord maybe delighted to take a nice fat CPO payout.

That of course sucks for you, but I'd imagine there are many sensitive legal matters involved with such negotiations.

bk

BTW I should just point out, that the actual CPO process hasn't started yet. That is something many people seem to be missing about a lot of these plans.

All that has happened so far, is that the planners have selected their preferred route, owners of properties that might be effected by the preferred route have been contacted as a courtesy and that preferred route has now gone out to public consultation.

Based on the public consultation, the details of the route may change and some of these properties might not even end up being needed, but then different properties might be needed instead.

Once the final route is selected and given the go-ahead by the government, only then would actual negotiations start with the property owners. Even then, they would likely try and avoid CPO and instead come to an agreement to buy the property from the owners, only if they refused all offers would it go to the CPO process.

It is a long process, if I was a renter I wouldn't be worrying too much about it. Likely to take 4 years or so.

MJohnston

I do wonder why this has only just popped up in the news recently - weren't these concerns brought up during the public consultation?

MetroLinker

bk wrote: »

All that has happened so far, is that the planners have selected their preferred route, owners of properties that might be effected by the preferred route have been contacted as a courtesy and that preferred route has now gone out to public consultation.

Based on the public consultation, the details of the route may change and some of these properties might not even end up being needed, but then different properties might be needed instead.

Once the final route is selected and given the go-ahead by the government, only then would actual negotiations start with the property owners. Even then, they would likely try and avoid CPO and instead come to an agreement to buy the property from the owners, only if they refused all offers would it go to the CPO process.

This is absolutely correct regarding the CPO. Nothing has happened yet and there is a lot of work to be done before the scheme is lodged to ABP.

My personal opinion is that there is an unfairness that the prospect of a CPO over a property is enough to ward off a buyer. I think a bank would look on the apartment block as a forgone conclusion until proven otherwise.

It's the only solution available at the moment to the TII unfortunately so that's what they have to go with. It would be nice if there were other mechanisms available for these large development with a softer touch -e.g. would TII or Dublin City Council buy property off owners who need to sell at short notice? Or provide bridging loans to allow an owner to enter a chain?

MetroLinker

One other item to add to this thread - this is the proposed use of Tara Street station after construction:


The CPO is to build an underground station but who profits from these overground schemes?

bk

MetroLinker wrote: »

My personal opinion is that there is an unfairness that the prospect of a CPO over a property is enough to ward off a buyer. I think a bank would look on the apartment block as a forgone conclusion until proven otherwise.

It's the only solution available at the moment to the TII unfortunately so that's what they have to go with. It would be nice if there were other mechanisms available for these large development with a softer touch -e.g. would TII or Dublin City Council buy property off owners who need to sell at short notice? Or provide bridging loans to allow an owner to enter a chain?

I agree, though I'm not sure what alternative would be possible. After all it does need to go to public consultation, so that serious issues get identified and adjustments get made. It is much the same process throughout Europe.

As for DCC/TII buying the building first. Well where do they get the money to do that prior to the government giving the go ahead to the project and financing it? What if the plan changes? What if ABP reject it?

The thing here though, while I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is generally the banks don't look at this as a bad thing. Generally the CPO process pays out quiet a bit more then market value, so not an issue for them. If you were in a rush to sell right now, there would be plenty of speculators quiet happy to buy at current value and sit on it until the CPO and make a profit on that.

As for who profits from the building that replaces it. That will depend on the negotiations with the current building owner (developer/management company). I'd see two outcomes:

- Current building owners sell it to TII, they build the Metro, they then sell the site to another developer to build over it or do that themselves.

- The current developers might opt to keep ownership of the site, but allow the Metro be built there in return for them building a big building over the site.

As I said, it can get quiet complicated when it comes to whole buildings rather then individual homes and can depend on ownership structure, etc.

Dats me

Looking at it on satellite view, about 2/3rds of the ~100m they need could be gotten with demolishing very very little, it's a real pity that the apartment blocks, which look very nice, have to be demolished.

But as you say they can be built again, so allowing for 3 years station construction, 1 year planning and 2 year apartment construction, you could have the same or maybe more apartments built (if you go higher under new planning guidelines) right beside the best public transport provision in the country.

Option 1 would provide a nice park-like area very near the river which would be lovely! I doubt TII would build it themselves but I presume that maybe they could secure a large social housing percentage and maybe bring it to planning themselves? Hopefully it can be used to recoup the cost of purchase anyway.

salmocab

The easiest thing would be for TII to buy out the site nice and clean then build the station and whatever else is needed and to develop the land in partnership with a developer for either commercial or domestic use, they would presumably want to keep ultimate ownership of the land I would think in case of future works, extensions etc.

Peregrine

MetroLinker wrote: »

One other item to add to this thread - this is the proposed use of Tara Street station after construction:


The CPO is to build an underground station but who profits from these overground schemes?

Nothing is proposed. As that section says, it's future development options. It's a tiny section of the document and we're talking very far in the future.

For the moment, all that's proposed is to purchase and demolish the buildings, build the station and, IIRC, leave the site overground as a public space. As much as I appreciate public spaces, leaving a site that large (beside what will be the largest rail hub in the country) completely undeveloped isn't the best use of space in the long term.

D.L.R.

Public space is to be welcomed here. The area is currently anti pedestrian and anti commuter.

If we built a little higher in general, we wouldn't feel the need to build on every square inch of land.

Peregrine

D.L.R. wrote: »

Public space is to be welcomed here. The area is currently anti pedestrian and anti commuter.

If we built a little higher in general, we wouldn't feel the need to build on every square inch of land.

It's a big site. There's plenty of space for both as shown in option 1. The Irish Rail station entrance is going to have to move southwards onto this site for seamless integration between the two stations. Another shed won't be enough. I think it's very important to build a sufficient station building on the site with the services necessary for what will be the largest rail hub in the country. This is the ground area that option 1 represents. I see no reason why there can't be significant development above it by, as you say, building a little higher.

CatInABox

In terms of those options, where is Luke St? Is it just gone?

Peregrine

CatInABox wrote: »

In terms of those options, where is Luke St? Is it just gone?

Pretty much. The southern half, definitely. It'd be closed to construct the station box and the entrances are probably going to be where the street is now. I need to look that up though.

strassenwo!f

It is an unfortunate situation here.

By only being currently able to plan the metro alone, the powers that be need to ensure that this project goes via Tara Street, to achieve connectivity with the DART.

They can't use the obvious Hawkin's House/Apollo House block, which should be an ideal location for a metro station with a good connection to the Tara Street DART station, because that would almost certainly involve tunnelling under the most precious buildings in TCD.

So they must use Luke Street, which allows them to avoid TCD's most important buildings and instead tunnel under the playing fields.

How much nicer it would be, if the DART interconnector idea were still in play. Then there would be no need for a metro detour to Tara Street, and it could instead just go directly southwards from O'Connell Street towards St. Stephen's Green, and achieve the same connectivity.

MJohnston

They could just drop the Tara Street station completely, as with previous Metro plans, and shift the O'Connell Street station back to the Liffey end of the street.

Qrt

MJohnston wrote: »

They could just drop the Tara Street station completely, as with previous Metro plans, and shift the O'Connell Street station back to the Liffey end of the street.

And lose all useful DART connectivity?

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

They could just drop the Tara Street station completely, as with previous Metro plans, and shift the O'Connell Street station back to the Liffey end of the street.

That would surely be very difficult to do. The earlier DART/metro plan involved a proper connection between both of the proposed DART lines and the metro.

And if you moved the metro back to the Liffey end of the street, you run into problems (as we saw with the earlier plan) of there being a very long gap between the O'Connell Street and Mater stations, and a (successful) clamour from users in the vicinity of Parnell Street/Square users for a station in the middle.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

They could just drop the Tara Street station completely, as with previous Metro plans, and shift the O'Connell Street station back to the Liffey end of the street.

When a Metro was originally floated in terms of an actual route, 16 odd years ago the whole Tara Street thing was debated to death. Originally it would go under/near Tara street. Then it would go under Westmoreland street with a long underground walkway to Tara Street station. Then the Interconnector/DU project came into play and it was decided the interchange would be at the top of Grafton street/The Green as per T21 with Metro heading in a straight line. The current Metrolink plan baffles me. Upgrading the Green line is a good idea, but its bogged down in potential hand grenades that we have already seen evidence of. It looks very like the Metrolink idea is based on a FG influenced plan that does not and will not include any kind of DU. From my own direct involvement 15 years ago FG appear happy to route Metrolink via Tara street and the Glasnevin Junction area and accept this as the ultimate connectivity. But that merely pays lip service and won't equate with a DART network that will continue to struggle after expansion without DU.

IMO Metrolink looks very shakey without a definitive plan to integrate it with a free flowing lots of capacity DART network. If its built, it may well be yet another stand alone project that doesn't fully deliver on its potential outside of its direct patronage.