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

paddar

The Irish Times do seem to have a thing against metros.

Ranelagh says no: foiled Metro plan spreads cheer in Dublin 6 (can't link because I am a newb).

My personal favorite is the anonymous woman who ''intimately'' knows Luas of all shapes and sizes (oh matron!) But screw capacity.

''She knows the sounds of every morning Luas intimately, she says – “all shapes and sizes, and I have known them all for the last 10 years”. There is no appetite to upgrade it, whatever the capacity issues.

I wish this was parody.

NIMBYS win again

Terrible.

CrabRevolution

marno21 wrote: »

Gavan Reilly with a good run down on the Metro issue here. If only this information was pushed earlier

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1098725070137114624

That's a remarkable piece from Reilly, considering I read his pieces in the meath chronicle and am usually rolling my eyes at how myopic and simplistic they are. It's generally "farmers need the government to give them more money", "Dublin gets all the money, build a railway to meath instead" or "the children's hospital should have been in athlone and cost €10m"

dubhthach

Does anyone have any photo's of the old Railway bridge that was on the Harcourt Street line at Dunville Avenue. From what little I can find online it was demolished in 2003 as part of Luas work (it was regarded as too low) -- I know Garrett Fitzgerald complained about this decision in his Irish Times column at the time.

Imagine if they had kept that (well or replaced the span) instead of going with a level crossing, it would have silenced the 'brave' defenders of Ranelagh.

cgcsb

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Gob****es

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ranelagh-says-no-foiled-metro-plan-spreads-cheer-in-dublin-6-1.3802149

pure drivel

cgcsb

paddar wrote: »

The Irish Times do seem to have a thing against metros.

It's the Anti-Irish Times, has been since before the foundation of the state.

paddar wrote: »

My personal favorite is the anonymous woman who ''intimately'' knows Luas of all shapes and sizes (oh matron!) But screw capacity.

''She knows the sounds of every morning Luas intimately, she says – “all shapes and sizes, and I have known them all for the last 10 years”. There is no appetite to upgrade it, whatever the capacity issues.

Lobotomised

jhenno78

paddar wrote: »

The Irish Times do seem to have a thing against metros.

Isn't the former editor(or some other prominent figure) one of the head NIMBYs?

CatInABox

It'll all come down to votes in the end, and the equation is only ever going to change against the residents of Ranelagh. By 2025, any government will be faced with losing the approximately 4000 votes (I actually don't think it's anywhere near as much) around Dunville Avenue, or losing the votes all along the length of the Green Line as congestion hits.

Anyway, having read what the minister said, I still think that the NTA will come back with a plan to run it south, and that the media have just assumed something not in evidence. I note that Ross has said that the NTA will come back with a plan in the second half of March, so that's another little delay, I had believed that it was going to be out in the first half.

citizen6

If southside metro upgrade is canned, presumably that kills the Bray and Finglas Luas extensions, as these would add demand to a route with no spare capacity.

That's a big chunk of the NTA's transport strategy gone. I wonder how eager they'll be to revisit the upgrade when the capacity problems really hit.

How does eliminating the southside upgrade affect the chances of 90m metro stations being built on the northside?

abcabc123123

MJohnston wrote: »

Disclaimer: I'm a Social Democrats member.

With that said, they're a party that's very much in favour of more being spent on transport infrastructure, relative to roads spending. Other than Dart Underground, they aren't really specific about individual projects. You can read more about that here:
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/what-we-stand-for/investing-in-good-public-services/

..

Local councillors and candidates views may, of course, vary.

They do - I see @SocDemsDBS tweeting about their proposals for Metro SW. The SocDems don't escape the nimby stink from this although I hold them much less accountable than others.

It seems like it'd be a much quicker exercise to mention the pols who DIDN'T fly the nimby flag on this one - are there any? I haven't seen or heard anything from Kate O'Connell on this...?

CatInABox

citizen6 wrote: »

How does eliminating the southside upgrade affect the chances of 90m metro stations being built on the northside?

I'd say it'll have no affect, the type of tunnel used will have more to do with it to be honest. I think it'll be 60 metre to start with anyway.

Idbatterim

I can’t read any of those articles, it would push me over the edge! How long before green line Carnage scenes return again do you guys reckon?

Grandeeod

dubhthach wrote: »

Does anyone have any photo's of the old Railway bridge that was on the Harcourt Street line at Dunville Avenue. From what little I can find online it was demolished in 2003 as part of Luas work (it was regarded as too low) -- I know Garrett Fitzgerald complained about this decision in his Irish Times column at the time.

Imagine if they had kept that (well or replaced the span) instead of going with a level crossing, it would have silenced the 'brave' defenders of Ranelagh.

Here you go. I'm not sure when the span was removed and allowed access to higher vehicles.

Dunville Avenue.jpg

paddar

Idbatterim wrote: »

I can’t read any of those articles, it would push me over the edge! How long before green line Carnage scenes return again do you guys reckon?

It is depressing. The only way I can read these NIMBY articles is by imagining myself as a benevolent dictator in some alternative universe and having a TGV line to Wexford driven through their front lawns.

roadmaster

marno21 wrote: »

The Last Word on Today FM. Metro segment

10 minutes of Eamon Ryan talking about a Metro to Rathfarnham and Jim O'Callaghan on about ripping up Luas lines.

Same old tired **** being unchallenged by these two ****ers with their repeated nonsense

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/southside-section-dublin-metrolink-abandoned

If the Healy Raes came out with this stuff they would be made out to be buffoons in the media

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

I can’t read any of those articles, it would push me over the edge! How long before green line Carnage scenes return again do you guys reckon?

It's borderline now, but the Green Line Capacity Enhancement program hasn't really started yet. Once all the trams are lengthened, there should be a few years before anything happens.

Cherrywood is the big issue rolling down the tracks. The first buildings are due to come online around in 2020, and from then on, the issue will only grow. It was due to be completed by 2026, with around 25000 people living there at that stage, but a lot has happened since then.

The height regulations have been scrapped, and as it's a SDZ, the rules around planning are different. Normally, developments are done in phases, i.e., complete building phase 1, then apply for planning permission for phase 2. In the case of Cherrywood, because they've built the infrastructure first, that restriction is gone, so they can just apply to build everything faster. None of this was the case when NTA made their 2027 prediction for the Luas capacity.

abcabc123123

Grandeeod wrote: »

Here you go. I'm not sure when the span was removed and allowed access to higher vehicles.

Dunville Avenue.jpg

Great find! I looked before but couldn't find anything. Teenage memories flooding back of sitting on top of the wall (span was long gone) drinking cans

LongboardPro

Today FM and Newstalk are both owned by Dennis O'Brien so maybe there's something going on there.

Grandeeod wrote: »

dubhthach wrote: »

Does anyone have any photo's of the old Railway bridge that was on the Harcourt Street line at Dunville Avenue. From what little I can find online it was demolished in 2003 as part of Luas work (it was regarded as too low) -- I know Garrett Fitzgerald complained about this decision in his Irish Times column at the time.

Imagine if they had kept that (well or replaced the span) instead of going with a level crossing, it would have silenced the 'brave' defenders of Ranelagh.

Here you go. I'm not sure when the span was removed and allowed access to higher vehicles.

Dunville Avenue.jpg

Why oh why wasn't that bridge kept? This whole situation could have been easily avoided with the slightest ability to think ahead.

jhenno78

abcabc123123 wrote: »

They do - I see @SocDemsDBS tweeting about their proposals for Metro SW. The SocDems don't escape the nimby stink from this although I hold them much less accountable than others.

It seems like it'd be a much quicker exercise to mention the pols who DIDN'T fly the nimby flag on this one - are there any? I haven't seen or heard anything from Kate O'Connell on this...?

I was having a think about this earlier and actually just posted about it on Reddit:

me wrote:

The opposition to Metrolink is coming from a small group of NIMBYs who have managed to con many Luas users into supporting them by spreading lies about closures.

Some of the most vocal figures in this have been the TDs in the area (Dublin Bay South). So how does that make sense? Well, it's a dog-fight in a closely run constituency.



Three of them have been playing local politics, pandering to the loudest and further spreading myths.

Eamon Ryan: Won't stop going on about how it should be re-routed south-west. (courting voters in Rathmines/Rathgar).

Jim O'Callaghan: Keeps going on about how the works will "rip up the Luas tracks". (courting commuter who rely on the Luas).

Eoghan Murphy: Simply supports the NIMBYs against having Dunville ave closed.



Now, all of them have exactly the same goal - reaching the quota in the next election.

Not to dominate - just to get those 8,000 votes in the bag.

Which is the bit I don't understand; there has to be a large cohort in favour - many strongly in favour - of building it in the constituency. A large number of people on the fence who could be grabbed by someone actually telling the truth.



With so many people in/potentially in favour of building, wouldn't the obvious answer be to come out strongly in favour? To lock up the votes of the majority that don't care about Dunville? Seems like an open goal.



Which brings me to the last bit...there's 4 TDs in the constituency.

Kate O'Connell has softly supported the opponents, but for the most part has been very quiet. She still in a position where she can pivot to supporting Metrolink - wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? Isn't that her best chance of actually getting elected next time round?



So here's an idea. If you're in Dublin Bay South send her letters/tweets/whatever pushing the facts and your support for the project.

She's probably the only public figure in a position to do something about it, and the only one who can really gain from taking the risk of supporting it.

Grandeeod

LongboardPro wrote: »

Why oh why wasn't that bridge kept? This whole situation could have been easily avoided with the slightest ability to think ahead.

The bridge/abutments were removed to allow two way traffic. Prior to luas it was only wide enough for one vehicle and controlled by lights. When the decision was taken to build the Green line to a few Metro specs and upgrade it later, it was pointed out to the RPA at the time that both Dunville Ave and the tie in at Charlemont would be issues. I have always referred to this as a fudge because preliminary designs for an upgrade to Metro should have been prepared back then. I don't believe there was a real commitment to an upgrade back then either. The current Government have dusted off an old idea and we find ourselves where we are now.

prunudo

jhenno78 wrote: »

I was having a think about this earlier and actually just posted about it on Reddit:

Also remember that Michael McDowell has vested interest in that one of his properties is adjacent to the line.

It was posted here a few months back. Can't remember by who.

antoinolachtnai

CatInABox wrote: »

Idbatterim wrote: »

I can’t read any of those articles, it would push me over the edge! How long before green line Carnage scenes return again do you guys reckon?

It's borderline now, but the Green Line Capacity Enhancement program hasn't really started yet. Once all the trams are lengthened, there should be a few years before anything happens.

This is not really true. Lengthening more trams will not increasing capacity at the peak 15 minutes at all (because enough trams have already been lengthened to provide a benefit at these peak times).

The luas-metrolink interchange will draw thousands more peak time passengers to the Luas and overload it. It will make the existing forecasts null and void.

salmocab

Grandeeod wrote: »

The bridge/abutments were removed to allow two way traffic. Prior to luas it was only wide enough for one vehicle and controlled by lights. When the decision was taken to build the Green line to a few Metro specs and upgrade it later, it was pointed out to the RPA at the time that both Dunville Ave and the tie in at Charlemont would be issues. I have always referred to this as a fudge because preliminary designs for an upgrade to Metro should have been prepared back then. I don't believe there was a real commitment to an upgrade back then either. The current Government have dusted off an old idea and we find ourselves where we are now.

It’s still one way and light controlled at the crossing. Only thing no bridge did was remove a height restriction.

jhenno78

jvan wrote: »

Also remember that Michael McDowell has vested interest in that one of his properties is adjacent to the line.

It was posted here a few months back. Can't remember by who.

It is...but I think it's probably a little further north of where the link will actually be, so I'm doubtful that he will be directly effected (if anything, there would be less noise in his house), but it's possible.

It's also possible that he's hoping to run in the next election, but I think he'd have his face over more things if that were the case...and who would he represent?

gormdubhgorm

I hope another alternative will be found to the demolition of the Markievicz Leisure Centre.
There are alternatives there.
It was recently refurbished at the cost of around 1.5m euros.
The place is affordable, has flexible opening hours and is centrally located. Also it is disabled accessible. So it is crucial for many of those who are less fortunate in society.
I know many go on about the housing crisis but what about the health crisis?

Also Metrolink did not even let the staff at the Markievicz know in time before thier 'consultation process' passed.
It has a certain underhanded nature about it, both staff and the public were deliberately kept in the dark for as long as possible.

Where will there space for another facility of this nature if the plans to knock it do go ahead?
I would hazard a guess that destruction of a well used amenity would not be allowed to occur in Dublin Rathdown.

salmocab

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I hope another alternative will be found to the demolition of the Markievicz Leisure Centre.
There are alternatives there.
It was recently refurbished at the cost of around 1.5m euros.
The place is affordable, has flexible opening hours and is centrally located. Also it is disabled accessible. So it is crucial for many of those who are less fortunate in society.
I know many go on about the housing crisis but what about the health crisis?

Also Metrolink did not even let the staff at the Markievicz know in time before thier 'consultation process' passed.
It has a certain underhanded nature about it, both staff and the public were deliberately kept in the dark for as long as possible.

Where will there space for another facility of this nature if the plans to knock it do go ahead?
I would hazard a guess that destruction of a well used amenity would not be allowed to occur in Dublin Rathdown.

The plans were released and it was then there was the public consultation, it was there for all to see. How were the staff not told till afterwards?

Your right about it though it should be moved or rebuilt afterwards. It shouldn’t be allowed to disappear

markpb

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also Metrolink did not even let the staff at the Markievicz know in time before thier 'consultation process' passed. It has a certain underhanded nature about it, both staff and the public were deliberately kept in the dark for as long as possible.

It's a public consultation process. It was on the radio, in the papers, it was discussed here and there were road shows. DCC, as owner of the building, were notified. There's nothing underhanded about it.

Also, why did you feel the need to put quotes around the consultation period. Was it an attempt at a sly dig that the consultation process makes no difference? That would be daft because we all know that they received tens of thousands of submissions, have already made major changes to the proposed route and may abandon half of it because of public input so any suggestion that there's no consultation is clearly daft.

AlmightyCushion

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I hope another alternative will be found to the demolition of the Markievicz Leisure Centre.
There are alternatives there.
It was recently refurbished at the cost of around 1.5m euros.
The place is affordable, has flexible opening hours and is centrally located. Also it is disabled accessible. So it is crucial for many of those who are less fortunate in society.
I know many go on about the housing crisis but what about the health crisis?

Also Metrolink did not even let the staff at the Markievicz know in time before thier 'consultation process' passed.
It has a certain underhanded nature about it, both staff and the public were deliberately kept in the dark for as long as possible.

Where will there space for another facility of this nature if the plans to knock it do go ahead?
I would hazard a guess that destruction of a well used amenity would not be allowed to occur in Dublin Rathdown.

They are planning to build a new apartment block there once the metro works are done so the exact same place as it currently is. It can be made a condition of the planning permission that they must rebuild a leisure centre after wards. It happens all the time.

dubhthach

Grandeeod wrote: »

The bridge/abutments were removed to allow two way traffic. Prior to luas it was only wide enough for one vehicle and controlled by lights. When the decision was taken to build the Green line to a few Metro specs and upgrade it later, it was pointed out to the RPA at the time that both Dunville Ave and the tie in at Charlemont would be issues. I have always referred to this as a fudge because preliminary designs for an upgrade to Metro should have been prepared back then. I don't believe there was a real commitment to an upgrade back then either. The current Government have dusted off an old idea and we find ourselves where we are now.

From googling, I found an article from 2003 by Garrett Fitzgearld in Irish Times where he complains that the bridge was then currently under process of demolition. It's rather tragic they didn't just perhaps replace the bridge with a wider span, though you could argue that having a controlled access would if anything be a 'traffic calming' feature.

Lord Glentoran

markpb wrote: »

It's a public consultation process. It was on the radio, in the papers, it was discussed here and there were road shows. DCC, as owner of the building, were notified. There's nothing underhanded about it.

Also, why did you feel the need to put quotes around the consultation period. Was it an attempt at a sly dig that the consultation process makes no difference? That would be daft because we all know that they received tens of thousands of submissions, have already made major changes to the proposed route and may abandon half of it because of public input so any suggestion that there's no consultation is clearly daft.

Remember all the hoo-haa about Arran Quay Terrace during the consultation period for the Luas Red Line?

Twenty years later there is not a peep anywhere about it.

This “controversy” is a heap of ballocks. I imagine once there is sufficient compo all will be quiet again, while the Metro won’t be built and the capacity issues on the Green Line will be conveniently forgotten.