Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New Luas/Metro lines we might like.

1246719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,676 ✭✭✭jd


    An idea I had was Howth-Howth Junction Dart Line is changed to Luas (as it eventually will just be a shuttle). At Howth Junction turns West along the green space, then cut down towards the Santry river (Tonlegee Rd). Then on along the river to the Swords Road. Then either to the Northwood/Dardistown or even the Airport metro stop.

    There is a proposal to have an urban Greenway along the Santry River, which would be great too.

    448144.png

    448143.png

    448142.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,911 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    I would get mertolink built first.
    Next I would utilise the same tbm and start tunneling towards rathfarnham/knocklyon via horolds x terenure templeogue etc.
    At the same time the bus connects money would be spent on ORBITAL routes mostly. ( I would have two radial brts run from Lucan to cc and blanch to cc until metro line 3 and 4 are built respectively)
    The orbital brts would bisect all the radial routes allowing passengers to bypass the cc.
    There would be at least 4 orbital brt routes.
    The outer would be outside the m 50 bisecting metrolink, blanch brt, Lucan brt, rathfarnham metro, and Metrolink's south.
    The next two orbital brts would be within the m50 area and the last brt would be a cc loop, similar to the circle line on London underground.
    Just my thoughts.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    448628.PNG

    448629.PNG


  • Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭citizen6


    I haven't given up on Dart Underground, but it's a hard sell politically because the housing benefits are not blindingly obvious, and there are few "new" stations.

    If an alternative is needed, the underground Metro below might work. It provides substantial new housing opportunities on sites that will be available in the next few years - Crumlin Hospital and Coombe Hospital are moving to James', DIT is being moved to Grangegorman. It requires CPO of Clontarf Golf Course on the Malahide Road, which the members agreed to sell for housing in 2008 but the developer pulled out. The golf course site would become an SDZ for high-density housing and a major bus interchange.

    There are new stations in underprivileged parts of the inner city. And it makes the Lucan Luas (now Metro) work as a hybrid with at-grade running in the suburbs and underground in the city centre.

    It links the Kildare line to SSG and Docklands, but does so before Heuston. And it means Northern/Maynooth/PPT Darts can terminate at Docklands without stranding passengers who want to go to Pearse/SSG/Sandyford. Not as nifty as Dart Underground, but it could work. I call it Metrolink 2: Dig in the City.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    I've just this to say - one metro line in Dublin every decade starting with MetroLink (Deadline 2020's). To hell with property concerns - Ireland is bottom of the EU class when it comes to infrastructure. Let's get this straight: Ireland is not a developed country and with cyclophiles continually degrading our road system, it's backwards we're going - they're turning the country into a folk park (they don't even want the trams FFS) - we've got to stop this joke and invest seriously in rail (commuter and intercity) and roads (most regional roads are a joke)!

    This rest of Europe must be laughing at us!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,819 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Yeh, the rest of Europe which is in a lot of cases far more advanced than us with regard to cycling infrastructure, is actually laughing at us.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Yeh, the rest of Europe which is in a lot of cases far more advanced than us with regard to cycling infrastructure, is actually laughing at us.
    ...and the way in which we're going about it - back to the little roads of Ireland! Jesus man, the Netherlands (cycling capital of Europe) has comprehensive infrastructure with decent major junctions and decent main urban roads. Some of their motorways would be double the M50 in width, so there you go mate!

    Barstool people are running this country and it's embarrassing! :o


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    If we want to be advanced in cycling, perhaps we could start here...


    Top Gear!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Middle Man wrote: »
    ...and the way in which we're going about it - back to the little roads of Ireland! Jesus man, the Netherlands (cycling capital of Europe) has comprehensive infrastructure with decent major junctions and decent main urban roads. Some of their motorways would be double the M50 in width, so there you go mate!

    Errrr.... Do you mean the motorways that they bulldozed through their cities in the 70's, destroying neighbourhoods and leading to mass protests of hundreds of thousands of people on said motorways, leading to a major U-turn in government policy, construction of new motorways was immediately stopped, some motorways were thorn back down and started the massive focus in building high quality cycling infrastructure instead :rolleyes:

    Most European cities of a similar size to Dublin, which have much better public transport then us, also mostly tend to have excellent cycling infrastructure too. Cycling and public transport go hand in hand, cycling helps solve the last mile problem with public transport.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    bk wrote: »
    Errrr.... Do you mean the motorways that they bulldozed through their cities in the 70's, destroying neighbourhoods and leading to mass protests of hundreds of thousands of people on said motorways, leading to a major U-turn in government policy, construction of new motorways was immediately stopped, some motorways were thorn back down and started the massive focus in building high quality cycling infrastructure instead :rolleyes:

    Most European cities of a similar size to Dublin, which have much better public transport then us, also mostly tend to have excellent cycling infrastructure too. Cycling and public transport go hand in hand, cycling helps solve the last mile problem with public transport.
    BS - the Dutch have carried out extensive motorway building right up to now!

    Dutch Motorway Construction happening as we speak (Scroll Down)

    Sorry to ruin your argument!!! BTW, here's a video you might like...

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hk2em

    Even Top Gear tried to make cycling work! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    bk wrote: »
    <snip>Cycling and public transport go hand in hand, cycling helps solve the last mile problem with public transport.

    Yeah, with cyclists holding up trams! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,819 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Middle Man wrote: »
    Even Top Gear tried to make cycling work! :D

    I’d say that was a gripping piece of unbiased scientific research.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Middle Man, what you linked to above is intercity motorways. Of course they continue to build those, just like we are and which I'm in favour of. What they aren't doing is building motorways through cities anymore, in fact quiet the reverse, car bans all around.

    https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/

    https://gizmodo.com/look-how-much-better-a-city-can-be-when-it-designs-for-1760859711


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: @ Middleman - can you cut the anti cycle angle you appear to bring to many threads. This a thread about Luas/Metro lines - not about cycling in any shape or form.

    Do not reply to this post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭ciaran75


    blanch152 wrote: »

    If Coolmine Level Crossing is moved 200 yards as currently proposed, that would open the possibility of a bus terminus at Coolmine Station. Similarly, some rearrangement at Clonsilla with a new bridge could allow for that.

    not heard this before, have you seen any plans (even early /rough ones)?
    any links if so?

    Cheers


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Planned for a new bridge to the west.
    Lots of local residents opposition however.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,911 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    Ok seen as I am breaching the moderator rules in the metro link forum I will post this here.
    Why can’t we build Metrolink from swords using the route as it stands, DONT tie into the green line at charlemount just have the charlemount metro stop integrated with the charlemount Luas stop, then continue the tunnel towards rathmines and eventually out to firhouse (stocking lane to be exact, where a large p+r can be built)
    Commuters can be on the green line and change at charlemount, which is what they were going to have to do at sandyford anyway.
    The green line can be upgraded to metro standard while it’s still open (upgrading platform heights, installation on psg’s etc) which I presume is going to have to happen under the current plan otherwise we are going to have the green line closed for a prolonged period anyway.
    I have seen costs of 300 million mentioned for upgrading the green line to metro standard, can’t this just be done after we get the tunnel from swords to charlemount built, but continue the tunnel out towards rathmines.
    Yeah it could cost an extra billion but over the envisaged 6 year construction period that’s 167 million a year, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t a massive amount.
    Please feel free to poke holes in this. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    As I said in the other thread before it was moved, the green line can’t be upgraded just from charlemont to sandyford it has to go somewhere you can’t have a metro going almost to the city then stopping it would make no sense it has to go below ground somewhere probably charlemonte and then under the city to somewhere. If 2 lines were being built at the same time then maybe but the green line is pretty much at capacity on that corridor and needs something to be done soon. The current plan makes the most sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The Green Line has to be upgraded and quite soon. It is simply running out of capacity.

    I don’t mean to be sarcastic but which major hospital would you part close to get this money? It is an awful lot of cash. That is not to say there it wouldn’t be worthwhile. But it is another massive project.

    Sure there is a case for another metro line. But why not make you the case for that metro line separately?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,911 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    salmocab wrote: »
    As I said in the other thread before it was moved, the green line can’t be upgraded just from charlemont to sandyford it has to go somewhere you can’t have a metro going almost to the city then stopping it would make no sense it has to go below ground somewhere probably charlemonte and then under the city to somewhere. If 2 lines were being built at the same time then maybe but the green line is pretty much at capacity on that corridor and needs something to be done soon. The current plan makes the most sense.

    Ok I see your point, but let’s say Metrolink is built as proposed and then we go to build metro sw, that will have to integrate with the Metrolink line also to allow commuters go to sandyford or swords. So are we saying that line will have to go somewhere in the cc and not terminate at charlemount also, so therefore we’ll have to have another tunnel under the cc, therefore the expense of getting another tbm.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Ok seen as I am breaching the moderator rules in the metro link forum I will post this here.
    Why can’t we build Metrolink from swords using the route as it stands, DONT tie into the green line at charlemount just have the charlemount metro stop integrated with the charlemount Luas stop, then continue the tunnel towards rathmines and eventually out to firhouse (stocking lane to be exact, where a large p+r can be built)
    Commuters can be on the green line and change at charlemount, which is what they were going to have to do at sandyford anyway.
    The green line can be upgraded to metro standard while it’s still open (upgrading platform heights, installation on psg’s etc) which I presume is going to have to happen under the current plan otherwise we are going to have the green line closed for a prolonged period anyway.
    I have seen costs of 300 million mentioned for upgrading the green line to metro standard, can’t this just be done after we get the tunnel from swords to charlemount built, but continue the tunnel out towards rathmines.
    Yeah it could cost an extra billion but over the envisaged 6 year construction period that’s 167 million a year, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t a massive amount.
    Please feel free to poke holes in this. :)

    The capacity on the Green line is the main reason why.

    Green line is pretty much at capacity right now, with some people getting on a Luas going in the wrong direction, just so they have a better chance of actually getting on a Luas going in the right direction at a different stop. It's grand outside of rush hour, but it can be a bit of a joke during rush hour, it basically needs an upgrade to capacity right now to continue being as effective. Longer Luas trams will keep it going, but that's a stop gap measure, and they've got their own litany of problems to get over before they're fully in service.

    The ability to upgrade the Green line to Metro cheaply only exists from Charlemont to Sandyford as well. South of Sandyford would require work on the tracks as well as the stations, while you simply can't run a Metro tram through the city north of Charlemont. People would have to exit a Luas tram at Sandyford, walk across the platform onto a higher capacity Metro tram, and then get off the Metro tram at Charlemont, and try to cram onto a much smaller capacity Luas tram again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Ok I see your point, but let’s say Metrolink is built as proposed and then we go to build metro sw, that will have to integrate with the Metrolink line also to allow commuters go to sandyford or swords. So are we saying that line will have to go somewhere in the cc and not terminate at charlemount also, so therefore we’ll have to have another tunnel under the cc, therefore the expense of getting another tbm.

    For a second line yes we will have to tunnel under the city and almost definitely out the other side so we end up with 2 lines passing each other in the cc to allow an interchange but that won’t be out in charlemont, possibly SSG or a dart station.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    salmocab wrote: »
    For a second line yes we will have to tunnel under the city and almost definitely out the other side so we end up with 2 lines passing each other in the cc to allow an interchange but that won’t be out in charlemont, possibly SSG or a dart station.

    ... or even at Cross Guns. That would allow much more interchanges. Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - St Patrick Cathedral -Smithfield - Cross Guns and onto Swords.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,911 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    CatInABox wrote: »

    People would have to exit a Luas tram at Sandyford, walk across the platform onto a higher capacity Metro tram, and then get off the Metro tram at Charlemont, and try to cram onto a much smaller capacity Luas tram again.

    Yeah I totally understand the capacity constraints on the green line as it is now.
    But in my scenario if your traveling from brides glen:

    Luas all the way to charlemount or cc at the minute
    Metro from charlemount to either firhouse or airport/swords.
    Also
    metro from firhouse to swords with change to sandyford if needed via charlemount Luas.

    Look I know it’s going to cost more (167 million extra per construction year)
    But it will service so many more people, it will bring extra political pressure to get this project built, it will connect Dublin south, south west and north like never before, and it will be cheaper than if we have to build two separate lines with a break of a couple of years in between, cost saving on ordering more tbm’s etc.
    even if the line just went to rathmines or Terenure to start with.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    ... or even at Cross Guns. That would allow much more interchanges. Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - St Patrick Cathedral -Smithfield - Cross Guns and onto Swords.

    I'd prefer Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - Interchange with Metro at Charlemont - Interchange with Dart at Pearse - Interchange with Luas at Malahide Rd

    That last one would of course require a Luas heading out the Malahide Rd, which could then turn down the R139 and head out towards the Dardistown/Airport to interchange with the Metro again if so required.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yeah I totally understand the capacity constraints on the green line as it is now.
    But in my scenario if your traveling from brides glen:

    Luas all the way to charlemount or cc at the minute
    Metro from charlemount to either firhouse or airport/swords.
    Also
    metro from firhouse to swords with change to sandyford if needed via charlemount Luas.

    Except that the capacity problems start out at Sandyford, not at Charlemont, and are only going to get worse with large scale developments coming online now. Not much point in having an interchange at Charlemont if you can't get on a Luas out in Carrickmines.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I'd prefer Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - Interchange with Metro at Charlemont - Interchange with Dart at Pearse - Interchange with Luas at Malahide Rd

    That last one would of course require a Luas heading out the Malahide Rd, which could then turn down the R139 and head out towards the Dardistown/Airport to interchange with the Metro again if so required.

    I would think that the second line should cross the CC before linking with proposed Metrolink. This will increase network links.

    Turn Luas Green Line East along Adelaide Road towards GCD instead. I think that makes a better set of links, as they cannot leave the trams terminate over the Canal at Charlemont.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    I would think that the second line should cross the CC before linking with proposed Metrolink. This will increase network links.

    Turn Luas Green Line East along Adelaide Road towards GCD instead. I think that makes a better set of links, as they cannot leave the trams terminate over the Canal at Charlemont.

    Why not?

    Perfectly feasible to install a crossover immediately south of the existing station and a turnback siding.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Why not?

    Perfectly feasible to install a crossover immediately south of the existing station and a turnback siding.

    Because going towards GCD provides another link with Dart, and connects with a heavy office area. It is about 2 km, and going along Adelaide Road would make sense as it is wide enough so that only parking would be lost. It could be elevated past Leeson St if that would save CPO activity and traffic problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Because going towards GCD provides another link with Dart, and connects with a heavy office area. It is about 2 km, and going along Adelaide Road would make sense as it is wide enough so that only parking would be lost. It could be elevated past Leeson St if that would save CPO activity and traffic problems.

    That’s different from saying “they can’t leave the trams terminate above the Canal” which suggested you thought there was an engineering reason for not doing so.


Advertisement