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

cgcsb

We are where we are now. In the future a new north-south metro that runs to the west of the currently planned metro should be on the cards. In the City Centre there should be a good bit of overlap.

froinky

jvan wrote: »

There is definitely an agenda being pushed by people who don't want high speed, high frequency public transport in their neighbourhoods.

The editorial in today's paper is shocking and shows a real disconnect from the very people who will both benefit from Metrolink and on the flip side have to endure the over crowding on the greenline Luas in the not too distant future.

Having spent the weekend in Holland, I can only dream that we may some day get a train or even public transport network 1/2 as good as theirs although I won't be holding me breathe.

You might find that even for our enviable neighbours the Dutch - these projects take time - and multiple rounds of redesign.

1922 - first plan for Amsterdam underground mooted
1923 - First plans drawn up
1929 - amended plans submitted - stalled during planning phase
1955 - new commission set-up to look at traffic problems
1960 - revised plan submitted
1963 - underground feasibility study commissioned
1966 - report published
1968 - project given go-ahead
1970 - construction starts
1977 - first underground line opens.

Major infrastructure such as this needs to have a long term strategy. Instead of converting a tram line we should be investing in putting the entire system underground. It has never been as cheap to raise capital and in 50 years this investment will look very prescient.

bk

froinky wrote: »

Major infrastructure such as this needs to have a long term strategy. Instead of converting a tram line we should be investing in putting the entire system underground. It has never been as cheap to raise capital and in 50 years this investment will look very prescient.

Just to point out converting old tram lines to Metro once they reach capacity is how many if not most Metro systems get built in Germany and many other European cities.

I can point you at dozens of examples. As an example almost all of Frankfurts Metro lines were converted from former tram lines.

Many of these Metro lines run above ground in the suburbs and then duck underground in the core city center. It is a sensible approach as it is much cheaper then extensive tunnelling while giving you the same capacity.

dubhthach

Grassy Knoll wrote: »

I would wonder how heavily trafficked the Green line rump between Charlemont / O'Connell st would be if a metro were built - it strikes me as short-term political decision taken to be seen to do something - superseded by what should have been done (and planned for) in the first place.

Certainly better than not to have it, but where there is finite resources, would it not have been better spent running it out to a suburb not as well serviced by public transport? The distances between both where they run parallel are relatively short. Objectively it represents the piecemeal development of a decent public transport system.

I think there will always be people going form say Stephen's green to Cabra who would be happy to do it without having to change transport mode. Even in Amsterdam you have duplication for example the mentioned Noord-Zuidlijn replicates pre-existing Tramlines from North to South. Still plenty of people on the Trams though.

The bigger issue in sense is that back in the 1990's when the system that eventually became the Luas was proposed it included a city tunnel which was suppose to link to the planned 'third line' to Ballymun. Due to political cowardice the cross-city link and the Ballymun branch were canned. This is why there is potential for duplication today due to politicians not been willing to actually make decisions with long term view of city development as oppose to when the next election was gonna be.

strandroad

froinky wrote: »

You might find that even for our enviable neighbours the Dutch - these projects take time - and multiple rounds of redesign.

1922 - first plan for Amsterdam underground mooted
1923 - First plans drawn up
1929 - amended plans submitted - stalled during planning phase
1955 - new commission set-up to look at traffic problems
1960 - revised plan submitted
1963 - underground feasibility study commissioned
1966 - report published
1968 - project given go-ahead
1970 - construction starts
1977 - first underground line opens.

Major infrastructure such as this needs to have a long term strategy. Instead of converting a tram line we should be investing in putting the entire system underground. It has never been as cheap to raise capital and in 50 years this investment will look very prescient.

Might not be a fair comparision; Amsterdam was in a particularly difficult situation as a city built on canals with houses on wooden poles driven into layers of sand. Even with all the planning there was still widespread structural damage and subsidence resulting from the works.

Muahahaha

I presume Dunville Avenue is not the only level crossing that needs to be shut along the route?

MJohnston

Muahahaha wrote: »

I presume Dunville Avenue is not the only level crossing that needs to be shut along the route?

Crossings to be shut:
Dunville Avenue
There's a back entrance to Alexandra College that will be closed for cars (likely to get a footbridge for pupils though).
Pedestrian crossing just north of Cowper at Albany Road.
Pedestrian crossing just north of Milltown at Temple Road (this needs a better solution probably).

Crossings planned to be bridged:
St Raphaela's Road (the Metro track would be elevated here, not the road).
Pedestrian crossings at most stops

There's also some sort of Luas-related building just south of the Dodder bridge that has an access road.

Rulmeq

MJohnston wrote: »

There's also some sort of Luas-related building just south of the Dodder bridge that has an access road.

Even Google were able to rock right up to it


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3069039,-6.2513458,3a,75y,349.02h,87.75t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNSBMRf0ImAcAVnfh7dT7BS0LXc1hGXglCiwwkS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNSBMRf0ImAcAVnfh7dT7BS0LXc1hGXglCiwwkS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya62.265446-ro-0-fo100!7i4000!8i2000

Shedite27

strandroad wrote: »

Might not be a fair comparision; Amsterdam was in a particularly difficult situation as a city built on canals with houses on wooden poles driven into layers of sand. Even with all the planning there was still widespread structural damage and subsidence resulting from the works.

And, ya know, the whole "city flattened by the Germans" thing

dubhthach

Shedite27 wrote: »

And, ya know, the whole "city flattened by the Germans" thing

You are thinking of Rotterdam and not Amsterdam

MetroLinker

This was from Monday:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/no-need-to-demolish-markievicz-building-for-underground-metro-campaign-chairperson-says-906894.html

John Dean, Chairperson of the Save Markievicz Pool & Gym campaign told Newstalk Breakfast that ... “They could drill down through shafts on either side to make the station underground. ”

This might be the final piece of the puzzle for the next publication. If the avoid demolition of pool and apartment block with this construction method, they could avoid future objections to An Bord Pleanála and speed up/derisk the approval process.

MJohnston

The public swimming pool demolition seems like a much more valid objection than anything going on with Dunville Avenue, yet the media are far more focused on the residents of the latter area. I wonder why :thinking-face:

cgcsb

There were 4 nimby issues afaik:

1. Na bhfianna GAA club, seems to have been settled
2. Markevitz centre, talk of an alternative, perhaps resolved
3. level of disruption to the green line during construction, perhaps this is no resolved??
4. Closure of Dunville avenue. My view: just needs to be done, build a pedestrian and cyclist overpass and treat it like a traffic calming measure

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

The public swimming pool demolition seems like a much more valid objection than anything going on with Dunville Avenue, yet the media are far more focused on the residents of the latter area. I wonder why :thinking-face:

Agreed, the severity of impact is of a completely different magnitude.

Actually what am I talking about, the 'impacts' on Dunville avenue residents are positive, their properties will become even more valuable in a cul de sac. On Tara st people will loose their homes.

CatInABox

MetroLinker wrote: »

This was from Monday:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/no-need-to-demolish-markievicz-building-for-underground-metro-campaign-chairperson-says-906894.html




This might be the final piece of the puzzle for the next publication. If the avoid demolition of pool and apartment block with this construction method, they could avoid future objections to An Bord Pleanála and speed up/derisk the approval process.

It's probably possible, but very unlikely. Every thing in all of the plans suggests the NTA/TII want to avoid this kind of underground construction, because it's way more expensive, way more complex and there's way more risk involved.

Personally, I don't see ABP as an obstacle at Tara St, they're usually ok with major infrastructure projects requiring CPOs and demolitions, so long as the need is proven. Just look at the history of motorway approvals around the country for examples.

cgcsb

Still shocked that the obvious disruption to East Stephen's Green and Upper O'Connell St isn't even being mentioned, but green line disruption is a massive topic.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

It's probably possible, but very unlikely. Every thing in all of the plans suggests the NTA/TII want to avoid this kind of underground construction, because it's way more expensive, way more complex and there's way more risk involved.

Personally, I don't see ABP as an obstacle at Tara St, they're usually ok with major infrastructure projects requiring CPOs and demolitions, so long as the need is proven. Just look at the history of motorway approvals around the country for examples.

I think it's quite unlike motorway schemes in terms of the number of people negatively impacted. You have an entire apartment block gone in one small location, in the motorway schemes the same level of home destruction is spread across vast swathes of the country.

Peregrine

MetroLinker wrote: »

This was from Monday:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/no-need-to-demolish-markievicz-building-for-underground-metro-campaign-chairperson-says-906894.html




This might be the final piece of the puzzle for the next publication. If the avoid demolition of pool and apartment block with this construction method, they could avoid future objections to An Bord Pleanála and speed up/derisk the approval process.

The station is underground.

Mining stations out is incredibly expensive and would still require considerable demolition. NTA ruled out mined stations in the initial report. They'd need to have a very good reason to commit to mining and I don't think a swimming pool and a block of apartments comes close to it when you compare the costs with cut and cover.

cgcsb

I understood there was an alternative site for the Tara metro station that wouldn't require mining.

They could take the site of the former Tara House, the site of the proposed Jonny Ronan Tower.
With height restrictions lifted, build a massive apartment tower here, the busiest transport hub in the state.

Sure feck it, bull doze the Irish Times just to be sure.

froinky

cgcsb wrote: »

Agreed, the severity of impact is of a completely different magnitude.

Actually what am I talking about, the 'impacts' on Dunville avenue residents are positive, their properties will become even more valuable in a cul de sac. On Tara st people will loose their homes.

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

Fian

froinky wrote: »

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

I can never find my pearls when I need to clutch them.

Pedestrian crossing can easily be accommodated and the road is absolutely insignificant as a transportation artery when measured against the proposed metro.

Amirani

froinky wrote: »

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

Pedestrian and cycle access will be maintained.

For those in cars; it's a detour of a number of minutes. I use the Dunville Avenue crossing regularly (I spend about half the week living in Cowper) and I believe its importance as a traffic crossing is being massively overstated. If it was being closed to pedestrians then I'd agree with you; that would be problematic for the area.

cgcsb

froinky wrote: »

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

Pedestrian and cyclist access to be maintained by overpass. I've 'visited' Dunville avenue before thanks.

MJohnston

froinky wrote: »

If you had ever visited Dunville Avenue, you might have some idea of the scale of the actual problem closing the road would cause. Access to 3 primary schools, the local church, local shops and businesses. Its a heavily used pedestrian crossing. As for increasing the value of properties - is this how you measure success?

Pedestrians and cyclists could easily be accommodated and would be unaffected, essentially. It's cars you're really worried about.

The scale of the impact on cars is absolutely minimal compared to the scale of impact that not upgrading the Green Line will cause.

abcabc123123

cgcsb wrote: »

Pedestrian and cyclist access to be maintained by overpass. I've 'visited' Dunville avenue before thanks.

Would a pedestrian underpass not be a lot less intrusive than an overpass? Presumably an overpass would have to be pretty high and would need lifts for those with restricted mobility, whereas an underpass could be fairly shallow and could have gentle ramps on either side.

cgcsb

abcabc123123 wrote: »

Would a pedestrian underpass not be a lot less intrusive than an overpass? Presumably an overpass would have to be pretty high and would need lifts for those with restricted mobility, whereas an underpass could be fairly shallow and could have gentle ramps on either side.

Gentle ramps? you'd need some length of street for that. You'd also need to close the green line for a stretch to cut and cover it unless you use some expensive mining method.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Gentle ramps? you'd need some length of street for that. You'd also need to close the green line for a stretch to cut and cover it unless you use some expensive mining method.

Going up needs 5m but going down only requires about half that, so much less ramp needed. That is for pedesrians - cars would need 5m up or down.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

Going up needs 5m but going down only requires about half that, so much less ramp needed. That is for pedesrians - cars would need 5m up or down.

I’d have thought the overhead lines are more than 5 mts? A double decker fits under them. Need clearance over them too

Lord Glentoran

MJohnston wrote: »

The public swimming pool demolition seems like a much more valid objection than anything going on with Dunville Avenue, yet the media are far more focused on the residents of the latter area. I wonder why :thinking-face:

It’s a complete mystery

Lord Glentoran

froinky wrote: »

You might find that even for our enviable neighbours the Dutch - these projects take time - and multiple rounds of redesign.

1922 - first plan for Amsterdam underground mooted
1923 - First plans drawn up
1929 - amended plans submitted - stalled during planning phase
1955 - new commission set-up to look at traffic problems
1960 - revised plan submitted
1963 - underground feasibility study commissioned
1966 - report published
1968 - project given go-ahead
1970 - construction starts
1977 - first underground line opens.

Major infrastructure such as this needs to have a long term strategy. Instead of converting a tram line we should be investing in putting the entire system underground. It has never been as cheap to raise capital and in 50 years this investment will look very prescient.

Our timeframe isn’t anything to crow about. The Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study was published in 1975.