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

cgcsb

salmocab wrote: »

I meant the people who drive to work, not everyone living there works in town or sandyford, people heading to south west Dublin would need to go out onto Ranelagh Main Street further slowing that traffic down.

I think you mean people heading East to work

It's Dunville avenue, the average age is 127, they don't drive to work at peak hours.

You're talking about a tiny number of people who would do this if they drive to work east of Ranelagh.

Put in some traffic calming in Ranelagh, which will have to be done anyway and it's sorted.

cgcsb

If you want to argue against ML, there are actual real world issues:
The apartment block at Tara St
The digging up and closure of O'Connell St and East Stephen's Green
Dunville is a non-Issue or a first-world problem for about 20 people.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are right, but the main point I am making is that dropping the underground stations between SSG and Cowper would save the extra cost of the tunnelling.

It would also reduce travelling time from Sandyford to SSG by some significant time.

They need to get on with looking for potential contractors capable of doing the job, with some weighting given to speedy opening of the line.

They could only drop all of those stations if an interchange at Cowper was seamless and that is probably the hardest station to achieve it.

salmocab

cgcsb wrote: »

If you want to argue against ML, there are actual real world issues:
The apartment block at Tara St
The digging up and closure of O'Connell St and East Stephen's Green
Dunville is a non-Issue or a first-world problem for about 20 people.

I’m certainly not arguing against it, I’m very much in favor and have said so repeatedly here, I just think there may be an issue with closing that crossing completely. I have no time for the nimbys but we are too quick to lump all objections into the nimby column. People have genuine concerns there along with people who say they have concerns but are generally misinformed or have very small issues that have been allowed to become big issues by our media.
If it comes to just shutting the crossing I won’t really care as it certainly won’t affect me and I’d rather we discommoded a few hundred people then stopped an essential bit of infrastructure.

schemingbohemia

Marcusm wrote: »

I agree with you that the tunnelling has to continue to the right point, personally I think that should be south if Beechwood. There are strongly expressed views here that a closure at Dunville Avenue affects only local residents but that’s naive. It is the only point at which the Green Line can be crossed between Milltown Road and Charleston Road. As a result it&s a morning commuter rat run for people in the (underserved) suburbs such as Harold’s across and west of there and Terenure and southwest of there heading eastwards towards the Georgian core business district and Grand Canal Docks. While the traffic could be rerouted to Charleston Road, that will be impacted by Bus Connects and the rerouting of inbound traffic from Rathmines Road.

While it is hoped that there will be a reduction in commuter car traffic, it’s not realistically going to happen. Creating further unnecessary pinch points is short sighted.

While tunnellling beyond Beechwood has an identifiable cost, I am willing to get that surfacing at Charlemont will have hidden unexpected costs, tunnel rising up adjacent to canal, underneath a mid rise protected structure etc. Beechwood area houses will not have water courses with the Grand Canal and what housing might need to be taken is lower rise and thus less costly.

Are people actually driving from Harolds Cross and Terenure to Dunville Avenue to access Fitzwilliam and Merrion Squares? Really?

MJohnston

I can't believe the phrase "rat run" is being used in such a way as to suggest that that is a good thing to have.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

They could only drop all of those stations if an interchange at Cowper was seamless and that is probably the hardest station to achieve it.

I am not suggesting an interchange at all. Perhaps move Cowper further north and Beechwood further south and have a walkway between them. They are very close together - 500 m. Normally metro stations are about 1 km apart, and that is the plan for the northern section of Metrolink.

The Metrolink documentation does not allow any link between the Nothern GL and Metrolink south of SSG, I do not understand why.

Marcusm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Are people actually driving from Harolds Cross and Terenure to Dunville Avenue to access Fitzwilliam and Merrion Squares? Really?

It’s a better route than the canal or via Castlewood Avenue/Charleston Road or Milltown Road for both. Generally heavy traffic from before 8am onwards. Much fewer traffic lights so suited to those who like to move rather than sit in traffic.

Idbatterim

my mother told me non other than Shane Ross was in the house here last night, doing door to door calls, he was here for about ten minutes! bloody pity I missed him!

Marcusm

Idbatterim wrote: »

my mother told me non other than Shane Ross was in the house here last night, doing door to door calls, he was here for about ten minutes! bloody pity I missed him!

When they call I scream at them; it’s a bit 1950s to think that nambybpambybpoliticians calling to the door is a positive thing. Unless you are a 75 year old busy body or shut in.

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

my mother told me non other than Shane Ross was in the house here last night, doing door to door calls, he was here for about ten minutes! bloody pity I missed him!

Given your username, it was probably just as well! :pac:

KD345

cgcsb wrote: »

If you want to argue against ML, there are actual real world issues:
The apartment block at Tara St
The digging up and closure of O'Connell St and East Stephen's Green
Dunville is a non-Issue or a first-world problem for about 20 people.

I’m a big supporter of Metrolink but let’s not dismiss the issue at Dunville Avenue as a problem for 20 people. The route is a busy thoroughfare in the area. If it closed tomorrow it would force hundreds of vehicles into the already congested Ranelagh Village every rush hour.

It was possibly a failure by the planners to ignore the affect this closure would have on traffic. If they had shown a revised traffic plan for the general area it may have helped some locals understand how the traffic would flow. Many of the roads around Beechwood are one way, there is a busy shopping area close by with schools and churches affected.

I’m confident a solution will be found here, it’s too important a project for Dublin not to happen.

MJohnston

Here's the thing about Dunville Avenue: it's going to have to close to cars.

Metrolink or not, it's going to have to close to cars.

With Metrolink, it's obvious why. Without Metrolink, we've already had this discussion, but the Green Line's frequency and tram length will quickly increase to the point where the road is almost permanently closed at peak.

I repeat: there is no way that Dunville Avenue can remain open to cars.

citizen6

Can someone remind me, what were the local objections to elevating the track at Dunville Ave? And is there a rough estimate of the closure required to do it?

M50Jct15

Very good question...I'm sure there was a reason - though it is difficult to think of one!

MJohnston

citizen6 wrote: »

Can someone remind me, what were the local objections to elevating the track at Dunville Ave? And is there a rough estimate of the closure required to do it?

I don't think we ever heard them, only that they were rejected by locals. As was an underpass.

As for disruption (to the Green Line), it could probably be minimised to a matter of months for an elevated track bridge.

citizen6

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't think we ever heard them, only that they were rejected by locals. As was an underpass.

As for disruption (to the Green Line), it could probably be minimised to a matter of months for an elevated track bridge.

The locals should be presented with a list of viable options. Doing nothing isn't one of them.

Rulmeq

citizen6 wrote: »

Can someone remind me, what were the local objections to elevating the track at Dunville Ave? And is there a rough estimate of the closure required to do it?

They described it as a "Berlin wall", and dividing their community. Also that's probably the reason for the 4 year number we were hearing from Lord Ross as that option would require closure as opposed to potential disruption (not much room there for a track to run alongside the ramp)

LeinsterDub

citizen6 wrote: »

The locals should be presented with a list of viable options. Doing nothing isn't one of them.

Doing nothing is always the most viable option in Ireland.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Here's the thing about Dunville Avenue: it's going to have to close to cars.

Metrolink or not, it's going to have to close to cars.

With Metrolink, it's obvious why. Without Metrolink, we've already had this discussion, but the Green Line's frequency and tram length will quickly increase to the point where the road is almost permanently closed at peak.

I repeat: there is no way that Dunville Avenue can remain open to cars.

Of course there are ways of keeping Dunville Avenue open. Stop being so disengenous.

It’s a case of seeing what the options are, which none of us have even seen yet.

As for the trams, there are certainly plans to lengthen the trams, but I don’t see any room for increasing peak frequency given the shared on-street running in the city centre. They’re pretty much at maximum peak frequency as it is.

Again you’re posting pure speculation which is as bad as the naysayers.

Why not wait until the NTA publish the various options?

prunudo

Would a compromise not be to split the difference. Raise the track by a bit and lower the road by a bit, or visa versa. There's always an engineering solution, the question is whether people can stomach the additional costs.

CatInABox

jvan wrote: »

Would a compromise not be to split the difference. Raise the track by a bit and lower the road by a bit. There's always an engineering solution, the question is whether people can stomach the additional costs.

The locals aren't objecting to the costs, they're objecting to any change to the area. In fairness, lowering/raising either there has difficulties, including a good length of road for a ramp (up or down), and either a trench for the metro going through the middle, or a ramp that lets everyone on the metro overlook their houses.

Personally speaking, I'd close Dunville Avenue in a heartbeat for the Metro. The scale of the problem on the Green Line is going to get worse and worse, to the point that overcrowding at stations will impact on health and safety. At that point, Dunville Avenue will have to close regardless.

Amirani

Sensible piece in the Irish Times by John Fitzgerald today.

MetroLink: Strength of local lobbies should not determine outcome
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/metrolink-strength-of-local-lobbies-should-not-determine-outcome-1.3810233

Fitzgerald, as tends to be the case, speaks a lot of sense, using actual stats and evidence to support his points. Unfortunately, the Irish Times (and most others) structure their sites in such a way that pieces like this are down the bottom in the opinion sections, often days after a news event. On the day of the news event, the front page gets plastered with rubbish about the Luas line being closed for 4 years, with no evidence whatsoever.

Idbatterim

Four years?! As if it would be an option. Sick of reading this bull**** fake news! Also if twelve houses have to go to reduce close down from 12 months to 3, so be it. Do it over summer time ...

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't think we ever heard them, only that they were rejected by locals. As was an underpass.

As for disruption (to the Green Line), it could probably be minimised to a matter of months for an elevated track bridge.

What are the local rejecting ? They have no say in terms of planning. The planners and planning authorities will decide. Not the locals!

citizen6

Rulmeq wrote: »

They described it as a "Berlin wall", and dividing their community. Also that's probably the reason for the 4 year number we were hearing from Lord Ross as that option would require closure as opposed to potential disruption (not much room there for a track to run alongside the ramp)

Thanks. I assumed the fantastically stupid "Berlin Wall" comment related to closing the road completely, but that makes more sense - it related to an elevated track.

So what's the problem with tunnelling south of Beechwood? Have the NTA ruled that out, or the locals?

It seems like scrapping the southside upgrade is a massive overreaction, unless it's just a threat to make people cop onto themselves.

MJohnston

Idbatterim wrote: »

What are the local rejecting ? They have no say in terms of planning. The planners and planning authorities will decide. Not the locals!

Yeah but at some point the NTA decided to engage with these locals, and presented them with alternatives. No doubt there was "political influence" breathing down their necks about it at the time.

Hotblack Desiato

LXFlyer wrote: »

As for the trams, there are certainly plans to lengthen the trams, but I don’t see any room for increasing peak frequency given the shared on-street running in the city centre. They’re pretty much at maximum peak frequency as it is.

How about having some green line trams terminate before the canal and passengers transfer to metro?

MJohnston

citizen6 wrote: »

Thanks. I assumed the fantastically stupid "Berlin Wall" comment related to closing the road completely, but that makes more sense - it related to an elevated track.

So what's the problem with tunnelling south of Beechwood? Have the NTA ruled that out, or the locals?

It seems like scrapping the southside upgrade is a massive overreaction, unless it's just a threat to make people cop onto themselves.

Tunnelling further increases the cost massively, is the problem. People keep overlooking the fact that the Charlemont tie-in upgrade option was really, really cheap. Like not even €200m type of cheap!

Sam Russell

citizen6 wrote: »

Thanks. I assumed the fantastically stupid "Berlin Wall" comment related to closing the road completely, but that makes more sense - it related to an elevated track.

So what's the problem with tunnelling south of Beechwood? Have the NTA ruled that out, or the locals?

It seems like scrapping the southside upgrade is a massive overreaction, unless it's just a threat to make people cop onto themselves.

It is within the published plan.

Looking at Googlemaps, it would be possible to bring the metro up just south of Beechwood but would require that a row of houses be lost, and perhaps no stop for the metro at Beechwood because of lack of space, but the stop could be put 300 m further south at Albany Rd and Windsor RD, but that might cost a few houses for access. This would make Cowper unnecessary as ti is only 200 m further south, or alternatively forget Beechwood as a metro stop altogether. This would save a few bob, to counter the extra cost of the tunnel. Beechwood is only 500 m north of Cowper anyway. Normally metro stations are 1 km apart.

If the tunnel were to rise at that point, I cannot see why the GL would close for more than a few months. The original plan was to have the tunnel going under the GL, which would affect the GL for longer, but not for as much as two years.