Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Dublin Metrolink - alternative routes

1343537394042

Comments



  • Why not aim for something potentially better than Bus Connects?

    a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

    b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

    b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.

    Fair enough, but as i said in my earlier post, it is important that pressure is put on political parties not to think that the current metrolink line, bus connects and a few spurs off the luas lines will solve the problems of the city. The problems could be 50% worse in 20 or 30 years. Let's plan for that over the next 20-40 years with proper plans backed by all political parties.

    I travel a lot around the city and the sw corridor is disgracefully serviced transport wise.

    For what it's worth, I think Dublin Bus delivers a good quality service, but it ain't enough.




  • I really like the Luas.

    However, unless it is small spurs off existing lines, I think we need to think more along the lines of a 20-40 year plan for multiple underground metro lines across the city, alongside the DU and the original Metro West orbital style piblic transport.

    The Green line was (is?) a great piece of infrastructure, but only for a small number of people in Ranelagh, would be a fully fledged metro line within the next 7 or 8 years instead of remaining as is. Meanwhile, the Red Line is not a big enough piece of transport to serve the biggest suburb in the country, Tallaght, which is essentially a small city.

    The last few pages have shown how low our expectations for positive transport changes are. We nearly settle for scraps rather than properly believing we can do better. Some are annoyed that the residents of the sw part of the city dare to expect more for their area in their calls for a metro. Parish pump comments from people who probably won't benefit from a metro line in that area but know the current plans benefit them.

    I live on the northside but more power to the residents of the sw for puting pressure on their public reps to get a metro line out there.

    At the very least ALL residents of the city deserve a proper 20-40 year plan of proposed transport investment for ALL of the city, that is backed by all political parties. Some areas like the SW clearly deserve to be next in line, but we should all have a timeframe across the board and know the plans for our areas.

    Anyhow, I believe the Metrolink will be built and will be a great success and the above will end up happening, though I don't expect it to happen in my working lifetime.

    There's a 20 year plan in place, the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy, which is both ambitious but realistic. It was put to full public consultation and was originally published in draft form, yet the people who are crowing that it doesn't include their pet project clearly weren't listening at the time.

    Between 2016 and 2035 it envisages

    * Metro North + South (Swords to Sandyford)
    * DART Expansion
    * DART Interconnector tunnel
    * BusConnects (previously Bus Rapid Transit also)
    * Luas BXD, Bray, Finglas, Poolbeg and Lucan
    * PPT/New Train Control Centre

    Over a 20 year period, considering where we were coming from AND that the strategy was devised in 2015, it's not a bad plan. It currently looks like the above will be difficult to deliver, both for financial and political reasons, given the amount of objections, the general lack of will to build this stuff and the Government intent on making a haims of macroeconomic policy and two massive runaway projects

    The GDA Transport Strategy will shortly be up for review so more may be included. But if the above can't get delivered, the absolute necessities, then there's little hope for SW Metros etc.




  • Fair enough, but as i said in my earlier post, it is important that pressure is put on political parties not to think that the current metrolink line, bus connects and a few spurs off the luas lines will solve the problems of the city. The problems could be 50% worse in 20 or 30 years. Let's plan for that over the next 20-40 years with proper plans backed by all political parties.

    I travel a lot around the city and the sw corridor is disgracefully serviced transport wise.

    For what it's worth, I think Dublin Bus delivers a good quality service, but it ain't enough.

    It also needs to be said that a great deal of the Cllrs and residents associations (Cllr Conroy, Rathgar Residents Association etc) have accommodated the Re Think MetroLink group which was formed to prevent the Luas Green Line upgrade.

    So whilst I agree that people should put pressure on Government to invest in high quality public transport, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking these people care about anything other than the status quo.




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

    b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.

    Neither of these statements are true


  • Advertisement


  • At the very least ALL residents of the city deserve a proper 20-40 year plan of proposed transport investment for ALL of the city, that is backed by all political parties. Some areas like the SW clearly deserve to be next in line, but we should all have a timeframe across the board and know the plans for our areas.
    Sorry but this is all very naive. And I'm not a cynic by nature and dislike general cynicism but I've been following PT developments in Dublin for decades at this stage.

    There is absolutely no lack of "proper 20-40 year plans" for Dublin public transport. Since the DTS in the 1970s, we get a new big strategic decades-long ambitious plan every 5 or 10 years. I'd say the last thing we need are any more grand plans. Enough already - just build what's left of metrolink and hope for the best after that.

    Backing by political parties isn't worth a fiddler's. Politicians will back anything hypothetical but the minute a potential voter starts complaining about the slightest inconvenience, they'll all scramble all over each other to out-NIMBY each other. Political parties generally cannot even keep their promises over the election cycle - what would make you think that a politician would feel bound to promises made by predecessors 10 or 20 years ago?

    And why should a metro to Terenure should be next in line? I mean maybe it should be, I dunno, but what makes you so sure of this? Shouldn't a decision like this be decided by transport engineers on the basis of demand/demographics, cost, disruption, development facilitation, capacity, speed, integration, feasibility, etc.?

    These factors that suggest that DU and metrolink should be the highest priority projects and I'm quite skeptical that the shower of NIMBYs and opportunistic politicians that scuppered nearly half of metrolink analyzed the PT needs of Dublin on any sort of basis. The NIMBYs suggesting the Terenure metro weren't people driven by concerns for Dublin to get the best public transport possible but instead were largely residents of Dunville Avenue outraged at the idea that they might have to walk for a few minutes to get to Morton's to pick up some porcini instead of being able to drive there in their SUVs.




  • The amount of bull**** about the SW needing a metro is ridiculous at this stage. The area has a low population density, limited space for growth and lacks a clear routing.
    Just because they didn’t plan for a transport corridor does not justify a metro.

    The option of an on street Luas has to be looked at for the SW.

    The only credible route for a metro in south Dublin is to upgrade the green line.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Neither of these statements are true

    Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

    I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Neither of these statements are true

    You're wrong/trolling/lying.




  • CatInABox wrote: »
    Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

    I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.

    Seeing as Metrolink only started actual design last year and has designed an entirely new design (multiple station changes + a new strategy in Swords), ran multiple public consultations on it, is finalising the design, going to ABP next year and due for completion in 2027 (less than 9 years from start)... yes


  • Advertisement


  • CatInABox wrote: »
    Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

    I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.

    There's not an ounce of a chance. Metro North and New Metro had heavily examined most of the Metrolink route over the last 20 odd years.

    A Metro route to the South West has never been examined at all




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    You're wrong/trolling/lying.

    Nope/nope/nope.

    Metrolink will be open less than 9 years after design started (not the at least 10 you suggested)

    Busconnects is a year away from ABP submission, it’ll take a year with ABP and 2 years on each route meaning the earliest any corridor can open is 2023 (not the within 2 years you suggested).




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    There's not an ounce of a chance. Metro North and New Metro had heavily examined most of the Metrolink route over the last 20 odd years.

    A Metro route to the South West has never been examined at all

    Again not true! While I complete disagree with the proposal, a metro to the SW was proposed under a platform for change in 2001. The very same document is the backbone of the majority of proposed transport projects in the GDA since.

    So clearly a metro has been examined to some degree.




  • marno21 wrote: »
    There's a 20 year plan in place, the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy, which is both ambitious but realistic. It was put to full public consultation and was originally published in draft form, yet the people who are crowing that it doesn't include their pet project clearly weren't listening at the time.

    Between 2016 and 2035 it envisages

    * Metro North + South (Swords to Sandyford)
    * DART Expansion
    * DART Interconnector tunnel
    * BusConnects (previously Bus Rapid Transit also)
    * Luas BXD, Bray, Finglas, Poolbeg and Lucan
    * PPT/New Train Control Centre

    The GDA Transport Strategy will shortly be up for review so more may be included. But if the above can't get delivered, the absolute necessities, then there's little hope for SW Metros etc.

    Without wanting to be pedantic Busconnects is not part of the GDA strategy. The GDA strategy envisioned a network of BRT lines
    Swords to City Centre
    Clongriffin to Tallaght
    Blanchardstown to UCD
    Complemented by improvements to pinch points on the bus network. Busconnects is more extreme than this along certain corridors and offers poorer results vs BRT.

    In relation to your last point and the suggestion that “if the above can’t get dleivered” there is no if about it.

    Metro South won’t be delivered before 2035
    Dart Interconnector won’t either (although this wasn’t specifically proposed by 2035)
    BRT has been scrapped
    Bray Luas can’t happen until metro south
    Lucan Luas has been pushed back by Busconnects proposals

    I have to disagree with you when you say this plan was ambitious but realistic. This plan was far from ambitious; no Navan rail line for example, the removal of projects such as metro west and the downgrade of proposed Luas lines such as rathfarnham to BRT show a lack of ambition and even still half of the projects won’t be delivered.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Metrolink will be open less than 9 years after design started (not the at least 10 you suggested)

    As mentioned, Metrolink (which began design and planning in September 2015) had the benefit of working on the back of a huge amount of ground investigation and route design and planning from the previous Metro North (started in 2005, even got as far as a Railway Order and ABP planning permission), and New Metro North projects.

    You can dismiss those all you want, but nobody else is objectively going to argue that those previous projects didn't give Metrolink a significant time-saving, especially in terms of route option design (the very fact that Metro North had already been through the process of presenting 3 separate route options meant Metrolink didn't have to).
    Busconnects is a year away from ABP submission, it’ll take a year with ABP and 2 years on each route meaning the earliest any corridor can open is 2023 (not the within 2 years you suggested).

    Except it's going to start rolling out in a phased basis from 2021. I mean, you can find dozens of articles mentioning this, so I'm a bit puzzled why you're claiming otherwise :confused:

    By the way, even the worst case scenario for BusConnects (3 years delivery) is still much better than the dreamland scenario for Metrolink "South West" (9 years delivery).




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Again not true! While I complete disagree with the proposal, a metro to the SW was proposed under a platform for change in 2001. The very same document is the backbone of the majority of proposed transport projects in the GDA since.

    So clearly a metro has been examined to some degree.

    No, a hypothetical route was named in a vision strategy document. That is incredibly different from Metro North getting a railway order and planning permission. Metro North was 100% shovel-ready.




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    As mentioned, Metrolink (which began design and planning in September 2015) had the benefit of working on the back of a huge amount of ground investigation and route design and planning from the previous Metro North (started in 2005, even got as far as a Railway Order and ABP planning permission), and New Metro North projects.

    You can dismiss those all you want, but nobody else is objectively going to argue that those previous projects didn't give Metrolink a significant time-saving, especially in terms of route option design (the very fact that Metro North had already been through the process of presenting 3 separate route options meant Metrolink didn't have to).

    Where are you getting 2015 from?
    If you look at all the design reports completed for Metrolink, none of them mention Old Metro North. While it may have a similar alignment it’s a completely different project. Do you really think that 2 years to develop preliminary design has accrued any time saving when you compare it to the time taken to develop Luas or motorway design?
    Except it's going to start rolling out in a phased basis from 2021. I mean, you can find dozens of articles mentioning this, so I'm a bit puzzled why you're claiming otherwise :confused:

    And starting on a phased basis in 2021, each corridor is going to take 2 years to construct meaning the earliest a corridor can open is 2023... as I said.
    By the way, even the worst case scenario for BusConnects (3 years delivery) is still much better than the dreamland scenario for Metrolink "South West" (9 years delivery).

    A 2023 opening is 4 years away. That is the best case scenario for Busconnects assuming no judicial reviews of ABP granting permission (not guaranteed in its own right) and SW corridor being done first.

    While 5 years may seem like a long time, when you’ve been waiting for reliable public transport for 20 years, 5 years doesn’t seem so bad, especially when you are getting a far better system (overkill IMHO) for that wait.




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    No, a hypothetical route was named in a vision strategy document. That is incredibly different from Metro North getting a railway order and planning permission. Metro North was 100% shovel-ready.

    Which meant a route has been examined to some degree.

    Metrolink and Metro North are 2 completely different projects. By the way Metro North was not shovel ready. It was a design + build contract so it would have taken another year to get it to construction stage (enabling works would have a potentially started although unlikely)




  • I'm done talking to this poster as I don't believe they're posting in good faith.

    I'll leave it at what I've said, as I believe anyone with a bit of sense can see who is being truthful here.




  • Can't remember if I've posted this before but:

    Would it be viable or not to upgrade the Green Line to Metro between Charlemont and Sandyford without a tie-in with the Swords to Charlemont Metrolink?

    In other words, the Metrolink line would be built as currently proposed, then there would be a separate line running along the existing Green Line from Charlemont to Sandyford (and potentially beyond). This would negate the need for any long closures of the Green Line to facilitate tie-ins, but would provide the capacity that is desperately needed on this section. And, in the future, if it becomes possible to build the tie-in with a much shorter closure duration, then it's still doable.

    My assumption is that this is viable but costly, but am I wrong? Beyond the cost of additional trains to run on this isolated section, and the need for turnback facilities at the northern end of the line, what is hindering this kind of plan?


  • Advertisement


  • Presumably the complaints would then fly in from the usuals (i.e. the sunday morning users of the green line who havent observed any overcrowding whatsoever) that they would no longer be able to go to Stephen's green without having to change lines.




  • **** 'em




  • yeah, in that case you could surely just close a stop, upgrade it to a metro one and reopen, and then onto the next stop?

    the problems that get created here, because they dont want to address problems, are insane!




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    Can't remember if I've posted this before but:

    Would it be viable or not to upgrade the Green Line to Metro between Charlemont and Sandyford without a tie-in with the Swords to Charlemont Metrolink?

    In other words, the Metrolink line would be built as currently proposed, then there would be a separate line running along the existing Green Line from Charlemont to Sandyford (and potentially beyond). This would negate the need for any long closures of the Green Line to facilitate tie-ins, but would provide the capacity that is desperately needed on this section. And, in the future, if it becomes possible to build the tie-in with a much shorter closure duration, then it's still doable.

    My assumption is that this is viable but costly, but am I wrong? Beyond the cost of additional trains to run on this isolated section, and the need for turnback facilities at the northern end of the line, what is hindering this kind of plan?

    The problem of St Raphaella's Road could be solved as a standalone project with a Luas bridge over the road with the station either on the bridge or further north. It could be constructed with Metrolink in mind.

    Some other work could also be done as standalone projects, like the Sandyford depot preparation for Metrolink. Work could also be done to provide the electrical substations for 1500 volts.

    Once the TBM is in the ground and things are being done, I think they may rethink the GL extension.




  • unlike the luas which is now bursting at the seams! I take it that even the morons politicians, arent calling the proposed metrolink a "white elephant"? that will be a first!




  • .
    also be done to provide the electrical substations for 1500 volts.

    Once the TBM is in the ground and things are being done, I think they may rethink the GL extension.

    This is the appalling vista of the Children’s Hospita, ie not having a fully contracted project or seeking to change it mid project. This is just a means to
    Open your wallet for the contractor to extract what it chooses. I think it is stupid to design Metrolonk and have it terminate at Charlemont but this option would likely be worse unless there was such a downturn in the contracting market that a price advantage could be obtained.




  • I don't think anyone is suggesting that they start Metrolink and then change the project half way through, I think the Green Line Extension would be a separate, related project which would be done after Metrolink is complete and operational.




  • CatInABox wrote: »
    This is the appalling vista of the Children’s Hospita, ie not having a fully contracted project or seeking to change it mid project. This is just a means to
    Open your wallet for the contractor to extract what it chooses. I think it is stupid to design Metrolonk and have it terminate at Charlemont but this option would likely be worse unless there was such a downturn in the contracting market that a price advantage could be obtained.
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that they start Metrolink and then change the project half way through, I think the Green Line Extension would be a separate, related project which would be done after Metrolink is complete and operational.

    That’s not what Sam Russell said. Once the TBM is in the ground it’s under the control of that contractor whose job is to bring it to between Charlemont and Ranelagh and then finish off the tunnel behind it. It is either removed or buried but in either case is unusable from that point. It cannot be restarted as once the Metrolink contract is complete, trains will be running in the tunnel so that it cannot be used for removing spoil from the TBM. It’s then either an excavation project in Ranelagh (closing Green alone at that point, Ie not at a meeting point with Metrolink) or it requires a new tunnel to be opened somewhere else much further out and tunnel into the Ranelagh space. Those would be only ways to avoid the NCH scenario I mentioned vis a vis the original contract. This is why the current plan is so short sighted.




  • MJohnston wrote: »
    Can't remember if I've posted this before but:

    Would it be viable or not to upgrade the Green Line to Metro between Charlemont and Sandyford without a tie-in with the Swords to Charlemont Metrolink?

    In other words, the Metrolink line would be built as currently proposed, then there would be a separate line running along the existing Green Line from Charlemont to Sandyford (and potentially beyond). This would negate the need for any long closures of the Green Line to facilitate tie-ins, but would provide the capacity that is desperately needed on this section. And, in the future, if it becomes possible to build the tie-in with a much shorter closure duration, then it's still doable.

    My assumption is that this is viable but costly, but am I wrong? Beyond the cost of additional trains to run on this isolated section, and the need for turnback facilities at the northern end of the line, what is hindering this kind of plan?

    No.
    Mainly because metro is a high floor vehicle meaning it would require raising the platforms and in turn that they couldn’t run on sections that haven’t been upgraded (Charlemont to Broomsbridge). The biggest benefit of high floor vehicles is the opens space it creates. The majority of the seats on Luas are located over the wheelarches. In a high floor train, the whole floor level is above the wheelarches.

    What they could do (and I believe is the medium term plan) is grade separate St Rafaela’s Rd and Dunville Ave which would allow you to run trams every 2 minutes (as opposed to the maximum of 3 minutes now). This would probably require a new turnback at Charlemont which would be tight.

    Lengthening platforms from the 54m currently to the 65m envisioned by Metrolink would be possible as well but given that we currently have the 2nd longest trams in Europe right now (by 1m), this would seem unlikely as we have already seen the issues relating to 54m trams.


  • Advertisement


  • Last Stop wrote: »
    No.
    Mainly because metro is a high floor vehicle meaning it would require raising the platforms and in turn that they couldn’t run on sections that haven’t been upgraded (Charlemont to Broomsbridge). The biggest benefit of high floor vehicles is the opens space it creates. The majority of the seats on Luas are located over the wheelarches. In a high floor train, the whole floor level is above the wheelarches.

    What they could do (and I believe is the medium term plan) is grade separate St Rafaela’s Rd and Dunville Ave which would allow you to run trams every 2 minutes (as opposed to the maximum of 3 minutes now). This would probably require a new turnback at Charlemont which would be tight.

    Lengthening platforms from the 54m currently to the 65m envisioned by Metrolink would be possible as well but given that we currently have the 2nd longest trams in Europe right now (by 1m), this would seem unlikely as we have already seen the issues relating to 54m trams.

    Please do not reply to my posts.


Advertisement