New Luas/Metro lines we might like.

cgcsb

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Just back from Porto and their metro shows what can be done. Really good and efficient network with six lines. If Dublin had half of what they have by 2040, I would be a happy man.

I do understand that it doesn't operate a profit, which isn't a surprise given I barely saw a ticket inspector. Having said that I think good transport is a quality of life (and environmental) issue so governments need to pump the money in to it. Hopefully our governments eventually follow the example of our european neighbours and metro 1 will be the roaring success that I expect it to be leading to lines being built quicker.

Anglo sphere culture wont allow it. The state transport companies are now making a 'profit' and FG are back slapping each other, like this is a sterling achievement, the high cost of fares and the disgraceful service aren't a factor in their thinking.

ncounties

I do understand that it doesn't operate a profit

But why should it have to be - public infrastructure provides no end of not immediately tangible benefits.

Kellyconor1982

ncounties wrote: »

But why should it have to be - public infrastructure provides no end of not immediately tangible benefits.

I agree but just noting it in my post. The moneymen in our government would be swayed by that.

Lord Glentoran

cgcsb wrote: »

Anglo sphere culture wont allow it. The state transport companies are now making a 'profit' and FG are back slapping each other, like this is a sterling achievement, the high cost of fares and the disgraceful service aren't a factor in their thinking.

More Little America than West Britain

DS86DS

It would be nice to see a line running through the Phoenix Park from Parkgate Street on toward the Blanchardstown area. Dublin Zoo for one could do with more public transport links to the City Centre.

Though it would be a nice idea, it would probably be hard to justify such a line running through a large park financially and from a commuter usage perspective. But it would be a nice addition and would bring the park closer to the city. Maybe some connections to older areas bordering the park would help it get off it's feet perhaps. In saying that, it would probably always be a non-runner.

citizen6

Article in the Irish Times today suggests a Japanese-style high-speed rail line from green fields near Belfast, to green fields near Dublin, to green fields near Cork, and open the land to housing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/high-speed-rail-in-ireland-let-s-think-big-to-solve-our-housing-and-transport-mess-1.4188070

Not sure why you need the intercity element, or the high-speed element, if the aim is to solve the housing problem.

If that kind of money (and willingness to CPO) were available, why not build a new high-density city in the green fields between the M2 and M3 south of Ratoath, and build a high-capacity metro from there to Blanchardstown and on to Dublin city centre?

A tunnel from say Damastown to Christchurch (DU station) is roughly the same length as the planned Metrolink one. You could build an overground metro to Dublin airport as well.

You'd have to stop residents of the new city driving on to the M2 and M3, but you could handle that with punitive tolls leaving the city and a generally car-free, no parking design.

Or am I mad?

bennyineire

citizen6 wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times today suggests a Japanese-style high-speed rail line from green fields near Belfast, to green fields near Dublin, to green fields near Cork, and open the land to housing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/high-speed-rail-in-ireland-let-s-think-big-to-solve-our-housing-and-transport-mess-1.4188070

Not sure why you need the intercity element, or the high-speed element, if the aim is to solve the housing problem.

If that kind of money (and willingness to CPO) were available, why not build a new high-density city in the green fields between the M2 and M3 south of Ratoath, and build a high-capacity metro from there to Blanchardstown and on to Dublin city centre?

A tunnel from say Damastown to Christchurch (DU station) is roughly the same length as the planned Metrolink one. You could build an overground metro to Dublin airport as well.

You'd have to stop residents of the new city driving on to the M2 and M3, but you could handle that with punitive tolls leaving the city and a generally car-free, no parking design.

Or am I mad?

After 3 or 4 paragraphs I couldn't read anymore, this chap is literally trying to equate Ireland to Japan in an equal measures and is wondering why we don't have the same rail system as country with a population of 126 Million people. good grief how do these people get a job writing this muck

Zebra3

citizen6 wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times today suggests a Japanese-style high-speed rail line from green fields near Belfast, to green fields near Dublin, to green fields near Cork, and open the land to housing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/high-speed-rail-in-ireland-let-s-think-big-to-solve-our-housing-and-transport-mess-1.4188070

Not sure why you need the intercity element, or the high-speed element, if the aim is to solve the housing problem.

If that kind of money (and willingness to CPO) were available, why not build a new high-density city in the green fields between the M2 and M3 south of Ratoath, and build a high-capacity metro from there to Blanchardstown and on to Dublin city centre?

A tunnel from say Damastown to Christchurch (DU station) is roughly the same length as the planned Metrolink one. You could build an overground metro to Dublin airport as well.

You'd have to stop residents of the new city driving on to the M2 and M3, but you could handle that with punitive tolls leaving the city and a generally car-free, no parking design.

Or am I mad?

Or just build up in the centre of Dublin and let people walk/cycle/public transport a couple of km to work?

donvito99

Zebra3 wrote: »

Or just build up in the centre of Dublin and let people walk/cycle/public transport a couple of km to work?

That won't drastically increase the value of otherwise boggy fields in the middle of nowhere though :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

bennyineire wrote: »

After 3 or 4 paragraphs I couldn't read anymore, this chap is literally trying to equate Ireland to Japan in an equal measures and is wondering why we don't have the same rail system as country with a population of 126 Million people. good grief how do these people get a job writing this muck

yeah, he mentions cities whose population dwarf that of ireland, let alone the irish cities he proposes this rail link should serve.
it's *because* of their population that they can do this, not despite it, as he seems to argue.

Pete_Cavan

donvito99 wrote: »

That won't drastically increase the value of otherwise boggy fields in the middle of nowhere though :rolleyes:

In fairness to the government, the recent National Planning Framework has shifted policy away from greenfield development in favour of higher density and in fill development in urban areas. It is the likes of that journalist and some posters here who keep suggesting building on fields and coming up with white elephant infrastructure to facilitate it.

citizen6

According to David McWilliams podcast on moving Dublin Port, we need 600,000 new homes in Dublin in the next 50 years.

Building up between the canals is not going to achieve this. In any case the scope to increase height is limited because for tall (8+ storey) apartment blocks to be viable, they cannot be affordable.

Densifying the suburbs would be great, but you have the NIMBY problem. We'd need to knock the corner houses on every road in every housing estate and build small apartment blocks in their place.

However desirable this would be, it is not likely to happen on sufficient scale to solve the problem. So greenfield sites outside the M50, with suitable transport links, will have to be part of the solution.

If you look at the plans for Clonburris, 8,400 homes on 280 hectares, it's not nearly dense enough. We will need to build at the maximum viable & affordable density, in as many places as possible.

wakka12

citizen6 wrote: »

According to David McWilliams podcast on moving Dublin Port, we need 600,000 new homes in Dublin in the next 50 years.

Building up between the canals is not going to achieve this. In any case the scope to increase height is limited because for tall (8+ storey) apartment blocks to be viable, they cannot be affordable.

Densifying the suburbs would be great, but you have the NIMBY problem. We'd need to knock the corner houses on every road in every housing estate and build small apartment blocks in their place.

However desirable this would be, it is not likely to happen on sufficient scale to solve the problem. So greenfield sites outside the M50, with suitable transport links, will have to be part of the solution.

If you look at the plans for Clonburris, 8,400 homes on 280 hectares, it's not nearly dense enough. We will need to build at the maximum viable & affordable density, in as many places as possible.

In vancouver now they are buying up detached suburban houses along major arterial roads and CPO'ing them and building apartment blocks on their lands. So it can be done. Cant imagine it happening here though

L1011

wakka12 wrote: »

In vancouver now they are buying up detached suburban houses along major arterial roads and CPO'ing them and building apartment blocks on their lands. So it can be done. Cant imagine it happening here though

"Market Forces", that uncontrollable and often spurious beast, is doing that along the N11 already. Buy two 50s-70s houses on big garden beside each other and put 100 apartments in.

Problem with it being done piecemeal is that the sewers, water mains and grids in the area were built for detatched gaffs on big gardens not the density going in; and by going in bit by bit upgrades aren't cohesive.

p_haugh

Prime example being the top of Booterstown Avenue. Apartment blocks on 3 corners of the junction, 2 were built on disused land and the other replaced an old house that was there

Idbatterim

wakka12 wrote: »

In vancouver now they are buying up detached suburban houses along major arterial roads and CPO'ing them and building apartment blocks on their lands. So it can be done. Cant imagine it happening here though

drive down the N11 around leopardstown etc! They arent forcing it legally, but the amount of houses now boarded up and waiting redevelopment to apartments is signifcant!

Idbatterim

citizen6 wrote: »

According to David McWilliams podcast on moving Dublin Port, we need 600,000 new homes in Dublin in the next 50 years.

Building up between the canals is not going to achieve this. In any case the scope to increase height is limited because for tall (8+ storey) apartment blocks to be viable, they cannot be affordable.

Densifying the suburbs would be great, but you have the NIMBY problem. We'd need to knock the corner houses on every road in every housing estate and build small apartment blocks in their place.

However desirable this would be, it is not likely to happen on sufficient scale to solve the problem. So greenfield sites outside the M50, with suitable transport links, will have to be part of the solution.

If you look at the plans for Clonburris, 8,400 homes on 280 hectares, it's not nearly dense enough. We will need to build at the maximum viable & affordable density, in as many places as possible.

the current plans for everywhere are a joke, density still way too low. Nimbies not wanting relatively tall blocks near them I understand, what is not then accepatble is, to ban them from the likes of sanyford business park etc aswell, in case they have to be seen hundreds of meters away from the houses bedroom windows :rolleyes:

The blocks near existing housing should be appropriate in height, strike a balance between what is needed and not putting existing housing into complete shadown HOWEVER then you need to provide the rest of the housing somewhere. Beside cherrywood luas stop now and its 5/6 floor apartment blocks going up there. This country will never learn :rolleyes:

donvito99

citizen6 wrote: »

If you look at the plans for Clonburris, 8,400 homes on 280 hectares, it's not nearly dense enough. We will need to build at the maximum viable & affordable density, in as many places as possible.

This.

With Dart Underground i.e. a heavy rail Metro, these lands are max. 20 minutes from Stephen's Green. This is the way to go more quickly and more easily than it would be to infill between the port and Clontart and/or moving Dublin Port elsewhere.

Idbatterim

donvito99 wrote: »

This.

With Dart Underground i.e. a heavy rail Metro, these lands are max. 20 minutes from Stephen's Green. This is the way to go more quickly and more easily than it would be to infill between the port and Clontart and/or moving Dublin Port elsewhere.

its absolutely ridiculous, the same with 5/6 floors now all over cherrywood, its own town centre, hundreds of acres of park land...

MJohnston

5/6 floors is the right density for Cherrywood, given the current state of our transport infrastructure.

citizen6

Listening to Orla Hegarty, anything over 6 stories isn't viable for developers unless it's very expensive. So we can't get the density unless something changes.

I would consider tax breaks, vat refunds etc for apartments that are built at the maximum density suitable for the site, and meet some definition of affordability (to buy or rent).

MJohnston

Local authorities (ie. councils) should just be building them.

Idbatterim

citizen6 wrote: »

Listening to Orla Hegarty, anything over 6 stories isn't viable for developers unless it's very expensive. So we can't get the density unless something changes.

I would consider tax breaks, vat refunds etc for apartments that are built at the maximum density suitable for the site, and meet some definition of affordability (to buy or rent).

Right, but from a bigger picture perspective, infrastructure is bloody costly and extremely time consuming to provide here. They need to up minimum density again. Abolish stamp duty for first time buyers on new builds. Abolish dual aspect requirement, that would get us places. Who is orla hegarty? Where in Dublin now , wouldn’t be very expensive? The vast majority of it is , it Take what many of them say with a large pinch of salt !

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

5/6 floors is the right density for Cherrywood, given the current state of our transport infrastructure.

You mean beside the best bit of transport infrastructure in the state ? Despite his inadequate it is. Density should be double that , that will force the metro issue and it needs to go bray and beyond to open up high density residential development within walking distance of it.

MJohnston

Idbatterim wrote: »

You mean beside the best bit of transport infrastructure in the state ? Despite his inadequate it is. Density should be double that , that will force the metro issue and it needs to go bray and beyond to open up high density residential development within walking distance of it.

Nope it's not the best bit of transport infrastructure in the state. That's the part of the Green Line from Sandyford to SSG.

The Bride's Glen extension has numerous at-grade junctions, has a lower frequency, and therefore a lower capacity. It's a 45 minute journey to SSG, which is a long commute (trust me, I have to do this often when I'm not cycling). It's also nearly impossible to get onto the Luas heading back home in the evenings between 4:45 and 5:30pm or so, if you're trying to get on south of Dawson Street.

Speaking as someone who is at Cherrywood most days, it is also completely lacking in residential amenities or public services that you need to support a higher density of residential. 6 storeys is absolutely the right density here - somewhere like Sandyford should be the kind of place you look to build even greater densities.

The great disappointment with Cherrywood really, is how car-oriented it is. Intersected by two dual carriageways, with very poor provision for pedestrian or cycling access.

I do agree that the Green Line should be extended onward to Bray, but I don't know how that ever happens without the Green Line Metro upgrade.

loyatemu

in German cities (or at least Munich and Cologne) most apartment blocks are 6-8 stories and served by tram lines. But they obviously have a much higher ratio of apartment blocks to houses, which would be difficult to achieve here without large scale demolition.

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

Nope it's not the best bit of transport infrastructure in the state. That's the part of the Green Line from Sandyford to SSG.

The Bride's Glen extension has numerous at-grade junctions, has a lower frequency, and therefore a lower capacity. It's a 45 minute journey to SSG, which is a long commute (trust me, I have to do this often when I'm not cycling). It's also nearly impossible to get onto the Luas heading back home in the evenings between 4:45 and 5:30pm or so, if you're trying to get on south of Dawson Street.

Speaking as someone who is at Cherrywood most days, it is also completely lacking in residential amenities or public services that you need to support a higher density of residential. 6 storeys is absolutely the right density here - somewhere like Sandyford should be the kind of place you look to build even greater densities.

The great disappointment with Cherrywood really, is how car-oriented it is. Intersected by two dual carriageways, with very poor provision for pedestrian or cycling access.

I do agree that the Green Line should be extended onward to Bray, but I don't know how that ever happens without the Green Line Metro upgrade.

its 2020 and they still dont get it here with cycling and pedestrians :rolleyes: Just get the dutch or german planners in at this stage, I'm not joking! You would wonder, with the slight increase in capacity, with the longer luas, when all upgraded, will they put a short term stop on people not being able to board the first tram and if so, how long that will last. Cherrywood also has a town centre and mutiple parks! So this get built to six floors and then the next few hundred apartments that need to be provided, get built on hundreds of acres of greenfield and need to be expensively serviced, wont be within walking distance to luas and doubles the land required...

Any land we have, beside good by our standards infrastructure, needs to be made full use of. They complain they dont have enough money here then for infrastructure or anything for that matter and then not only limit supply, limit homes, but also massively curtail investment...

also why is luas relentlessly stopped in the city centre, except for crossing OCB or OCS, when I have taken it out Parnell street direction and back, the junctions it stops at, are frankly ridiculous! No doubt they will look at that in a few years, once the new longer ones are sardine cans and they need to get more out of the system, then they might get around to looking at how glacial it is in town, much of it caused by stopping at small junctions!

dublin isnt some city that can just expand in every direction, we have the sea to the east, mountains to much of the southwest. Airport to north and yet they just keep on building at farcical heights...

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

Local authorities (ie. councils) should just be building them.

The LA's don't have a pot to piss in

Idbatterim

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The LA's don't have a pot to piss in

dont bother collecting social housing rent, reduce LPT constantly... Any power that they have, is too much

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The LA's don't have a pot to piss in

They don't have a pot to piss in because the national government won't give them anything, because neither FF nor FG are interested in any solution that isn't a free market solution. I think that approach has been an utter failure, and I would like to try the alternative.