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

13637394142

Comments



  • Kevtherev1 wrote: »
    Eamon Ryan and the greens will be in cabinet and government during 2020s . They have and will continue to block any plans to upgrade the South Green line to Metrolink. They want metro southwest. The greens are fundamental environment extremists. There will be no upgrade until the greens are dealt with by the electorate

    They don’t want southwest they just want Eamons constituents happy. I’ve said before they could be sued for false advertising calling themselves green. The crayon drawing by the newly elected TD for Dublin south west Francis Duffy is as far as they thought. He seems to not even know there is a north side of the city. Green Party will push a few agendas but so long as they are in power they will be happy to go along with what they’re told to do.




  • prunudo wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with a south western route Metro but it shouldn't be at the expense of the green line upgrade.

    The other issue being that the SW Metro takes the biggest transport project ever attempted in the history of the state - and doubles the cost of it.

    The cost of the Metro with the current State financial situation, the comical ability of the Irish Government to manage large scale projects, the economic uncertainty, the continuing inability to manage current expenditure etc. means that learning to walk before we learn to run is well taken advice.




  • marno21 wrote: »
    The other issue being that the SW Metro takes the biggest transport project ever attempted in the history of the state - and doubles the cost of it.

    The cost of the Metro with the current State financial situation, the comical ability of the Irish Government to manage large scale projects, the economic uncertainty, the continuing inability to manage current expenditure etc. means that learning to walk before we learn to run is well taken advice.

    The thing to do here might well be to build an East-west metro from the DART line, crossing the metro/luas line and continuing west, perhaps near banks of Dodder.

    We will need to be planning a second metro line before we finish the first one if economic growth continues at any sort of rate.

    These sorts of delays and difficulties are not that uncommon. Hong Kong hummed and hawed for decades before actually getting going on building a metro.




  • The thing to do here might well be to build an East-west metro from the DART line, crossing the metro/luas line and continuing west, perhaps near banks of Dodder.

    We will need to be planning a second metro line before we finish the first one if economic growth continues at any sort of rate.

    These sorts of delays and difficulties are not that uncommon. Hong Kong hummed and hawed for decades before actually getting going on building a metro.

    Oh I fully agree with expanding the Metro system beyond the original Metrolink project, in the future.

    But this lark, as proposed by the Green Party, of building an entire Metro system at once instead of just starting with the Swords-Charlemont/Sandyford line, could derail the entire project as it makes it too big to go ahead with.




  • marno21 wrote: »
    Oh I fully agree with expanding the Metro system beyond the original Metrolink project, in the future.

    But this lark, as proposed by the Green Party, of building an entire Metro system at once instead of just starting with the Swords-Charlemont/Sandyford line, could derail the entire project as it makes it too big to go ahead with.

    For me the way to go is once the TBM is in the ground start planning the next line, once the first opens I’m confident there will be a push to have more built and having one planned and ready to start (by start I mean the whole process not just shovel ready because I’m not that naive).


  • Advertisement


  • marno21 wrote: »
    Oh I fully agree with expanding the Metro system beyond the original Metrolink project, in the future.

    But this lark, as proposed by the Green Party, of building an entire Metro system at once instead of just starting with the Swords-Charlemont/Sandyford line, could derail the entire project as it makes it too big to go ahead with.

    Political aspirations and machinations are just another challenge for metro builders to deal with unfortunately. Detractors have to be turned into political allies just as sure as holes in the ground need to be turned into tunnels.




  • the greens are idealists. I honestly dont think wanting to raise the carbon tax is a good idea in reality. You are just capping the seats you can win massively. Dart underground and dublin metro, would hoover up a spectacular amount of emissions and allow far better use of land than is currently the case. Thats a win / win, better transport and not financially penalising any one.




  • Idbatterim wrote: »
    the greens are idealists. I honestly dont think wanting to raise the carbon tax is a good idea in reality. You are just capping the seats you can win massively. Dart underground and dublin metro, would hoover up a spectacular amount of emissions and allow far better use of land than is currently the case. Thats a win / win, better transport and not financially penalising any one.

    They were idealists until the moment Ryan wanted votes then they became what pretty much every other politician is.




  • salmocab wrote: »
    They were idealists until the moment Ryan wanted votes then they became what pretty much every other politician is.

    the best case scenario is the greenline just becomes totally overwhelmed. Its the only way they will do anything. They wont do anything about a situation here, until the problem, becomes bigger than their current issue (appeasing nimbies) etc




  • The thing to do here might well be to build an East-west metro from the DART line, crossing the metro/luas line and continuing west, perhaps near banks of Dodder.

    We will need to be planning a second metro line before we finish the first one if economic growth continues at any sort of rate.

    These sorts of delays and difficulties are not that uncommon. Hong Kong hummed and hawed for decades before actually getting going on building a metro.

    If I had the crayons out I would build the sw line in big arc roughly going from south of Tallaght through Knocklyon into the city centre linking up with the current north/south Metrolink and then back out towards Blanchardstown/Clonee.

    But as you say, the second line (whatever that may be) would really need to be starting immediately after the current one is completed. Keep the momentum going.


  • Advertisement


  • Idbatterim wrote: »
    the best case scenario is the greenline just becomes totally overwhelmed. Its the only way they will do anything. They wont do anything about a situation here, until the problem, becomes bigger than their current issue (appeasing nimbies) etc

    Sadly I suspect that your right and nothing will be done until the green line becomes unusable for many at peak times. They will increase the length, increase the frequency but it’s just delaying the inevitable. A problem with big projects is they take longer than an election cycle so they know they probably won’t be thanked after for doing the right thing, better to do the wrong thing and pick up votes.




  • salmocab wrote: »
    Sadly I suspect that your right and nothing will be done until the green line becomes unusable for many at peak times. They will increase the length, increase the frequency but it’s just delaying the inevitable. A problem with big projects is they take longer than an election cycle so they know they probably won’t be thanked after for doing the right thing, better to do the wrong thing and pick up votes.

    I dont know, this election has shown, that people are fed up of lack of results. Appeassing a handful of nimbies now, rather than people who commute big distances and increasing journey times, I dont think they can even contemplate not going ahead with dublin metro, short of another economic collapse. Just throw the money at the projects that need doing, its just wasted here otherwise...




  • prunudo wrote: »
    If I had the crayons out I would build the sw line in big arc roughly going from south of Tallaght through Knocklyon into the city centre linking up with the current north/south Metrolink and then back out towards Blanchardstown/Clonee.

    But as you say, the second line (whatever that may be) would really need to be starting immediately after the current one is completed. Keep the momentum going.
    If/when the northern section of ML gets built then Dublin will have 6 potentially high capacity/grade-separated rail lines radiating out from its centre (including the Green Luas south of Charlemont) providing reasonable coverage in most directions given Dublin's half-moon shape.

    Before getting out the crayons, the potential of those lines needs to be realised - i.e. upgrade the Charlemont-Sandyford section of the GL to metro and link it to ML, build the DU and build a terminal surface station at North Wall Quay.

    Everything else is a distraction, including Ryan's silly 2 billion metro extension to Terenure idea.




  • salmocab wrote: »
    Sadly I suspect that your right and nothing will be done until the green line becomes unusable for many at peak times. They will increase the length, increase the frequency but it’s just delaying the inevitable. A problem with big projects is they take longer than an election cycle so they know they probably won’t be thanked after for doing the right thing, better to do the wrong thing and pick up votes.

    Agree completely. But once northside Metrolink construction is properly underway, when people see progress being made on tunnelling, I think the clamour for GL upgrade will start to override the NIMBY objections. Right now Metro seems so far away that no-one is going out on a limb for it.




  • citizen6 wrote: »
    Agree completely. But once northside Metrolink construction is properly underway, when people see progress being made on tunnelling, I think the clamour for GL upgrade will start to override the NIMBY objections. Right now Metro seems so far away that no-one is going out on a limb for it.

    That is my view and if the contracts are drawn up well, the GL upgrade could continue without further delay. Two basic problems are Denore Ave and St Raephaella's road.

    Both could be started now and are not dependent on the ML extension. Once the TBM is in the ground, its current destination is just short of Beechwood, which is not in conflict with the GL upgrade. It will be taken out of the ground or buried. To take it out, they are nearly at Beechwood.




  • That is my view and if the contracts are drawn up well, the GL upgrade could continue without further delay. Two basic problems are Denore Ave and St Raephaella's road.

    Both could be started now and are not dependent on the ML extension. Once the TBM is in the ground, its current destination is just short of Beechwood, which is not in conflict with the GL upgrade. It will be taken out of the ground or buried. To take it out, they are nearly at Beechwood.

    While both Dunville Ave and St. Raephaella’s road could be upgraded independent of ML, they are very complex.
    Both require changing the vertical geometry of the Luas line which would result in a prolonged closure.
    They are also adjacent to stations meaning either the station closes or has to be moved for a period.
    It wouldn’t be a simple weekend closure for either.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    While both Dunville Ave and St. Raephaella’s road could be upgraded independent of ML, they are very complex.
    Both require changing the vertical geometry of the Luas line which would result in a prolonged closure.
    They are also adjacent to stations meaning either the station closes or has to be moved for a period.
    It wouldn’t be a simple weekend closure for either.

    honestly, given that they had planned to upgrade this to metro, and the length of time it took to get luas, was it not total idiocy not just doing this from the get go?!




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    While both Dunville Ave and St. Raephaella’s road could be upgraded independent of ML, they are very complex.
    Both require changing the vertical geometry of the Luas line which would result in a prolonged closure.
    They are also adjacent to stations meaning either the station closes or has to be moved for a period.
    It wouldn’t be a simple weekend closure for either.

    The Dunville Ave is complex. However, the Metrolink documentation contains plans for St Raephaella's rd, with a bypass relief line through the car park. That should go ahead as it is needed anyway.




  • came across the below article from 2003 from garrett fitzgerald, he nailed every bit of it, incredible!

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/from-luas-to-metro-insanity-compounded-1.364287




  • The Dunville Ave is complex. However, the Metrolink documentation contains plans for St Raephaella's rd, with a bypass relief line through the car park. That should go ahead as it is needed anyway.

    Yeah Dunville is the real problem child of that section. They should have come up with a compromise a long time ago, the residents do have some validity to their objections I feel but it shouldn’t be part of scuppering the whole thing. Keeping even car access and making vans go round would be enough I think. 2.5 mtr clearance should be enough, drop the road a meter or so and raise a bridge a couple of meters. It’s a lot of engineering but nothing insurmountable. If it was done at the same time as the tie in it would probably have not made any real difference to the program.


  • Advertisement


  • Idbatterim wrote: »
    the greens are idealists. I honestly dont think wanting to raise the carbon tax is a good idea in reality. You are just capping the seats you can win massively. Dart underground and dublin metro, would hoover up a spectacular amount of emissions and allow far better use of land than is currently the case. Thats a win / win, better transport and not financially penalising any one.

    The greens are opposed to better use of land, they support urban sprawl and regularly object to any low-medium rise residential projects in their areas.




  • Once ML is under construction and the existing GL is being upgraded I'll be the first in line to shout for a Tallaght to Beaumont metro and a circle line and more luas lines within the M50. Can't imagine any city has ever built a multi line system concurrently from scratch though.




  • cgcsb wrote: »
    The greens are opposed to better use of land, they support urban sprawl and regularly object to any low-medium rise residential projects in their areas.

    I totally agree, its the Irish version of a green party :rolleyes:




  • salmocab wrote: »
    Yeah Dunville is the real problem child of that section. They should have come up with a compromise a long time ago, the residents do have some validity to their objections I feel but it shouldn’t be part of scuppering the whole thing. Keeping even car access and making vans go round would be enough I think. 2.5 mtr clearance should be enough, drop the road a meter or so and raise a bridge a couple of meters. It’s a lot of engineering but nothing insurmountable. If it was done at the same time as the tie in it would probably have not made any real difference to the program.

    There was a perfect solution involving limited closure and no effect on the traffic running through. It was the option where the metro arose from the tunnel between Moyne Road and the existing LUAS lines and then swings left to join the line. There was a cost involved but you can bet it was much less than the reopening that they are planning in 20 years or so. There would be a loss of the cafe, two adjacent houses, approx 20 apartments and a reduction in garden size. The option was never pushed strongly which is surprising as it seemed to me to be the ideal compromise which would have allowed them to proceed with their original plans. As the tie in would be between Beechwood and Cowper, the existing Green Line would continue unimpeded except for the brief tie ins

    On an ongoing basis, the green line would commence and terminate at Beechwood but the Rolling stock would still have access to the south bound tracks meaning they could go for maintenance and or beddybyes in Sandyford whenever required.

    It would undoubtedly cause major disruption to the lives of those immediately adjacent but that would always be inevitable. It will be much less disruptive an any cut and cover tie in in 20 years time. Removal of that spoil in the open air will make it next to impossible.




  • salmocab wrote: »
    Keeping even car access and making vans go round would be enough I think. 2.5 mtr clearance should be enough, drop the road a meter or so and raise a bridge a couple of meters.

    Given the current experience of low bridges in this country, I would say that this option would be a non runner. Dropping the line under the road is realistically the only viable solution.




  • Idbatterim wrote: »
    came across the below article from 2003 from garrett fitzgerald, he nailed every bit of it, incredible!

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/from-luas-to-metro-insanity-compounded-1.364287

    No he didn’t mail every bit of it.

    It’s filled with inaccuracies and statements of self importance.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    No he didn’t mail every bit of it.

    It’s filled with inaccuracies and statements of self importance.

    And misstatements of what his original complaints about Luas were.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Given the current experience of low bridges in this country, I would say that this option would be a non runner. Dropping the line under the road is realistically the only viable solution.

    Certainly a better option alright. I think I was more talking about what could have happened if the original plan and tie in had worked out. Like I said I don’t think the residents objections are completely without merit but some is certainly nimby.




  • Marcusm wrote: »
    There was a perfect solution involving limited closure and no effect on the traffic running through. It was the option where the metro arose from the tunnel between Moyne Road and the existing LUAS lines and then swings left to join the line. There was a cost involved but you can bet it was much less than the reopening that they are planning in 20 years or so. There would be a loss of the cafe, two adjacent houses, approx 20 apartments and a reduction in garden size. The option was never pushed strongly which is surprising as it seemed to me to be the ideal compromise which would have allowed them to proceed with their original plans. As the tie in would be between Beechwood and Cowper, the existing Green Line would continue unimpeded except for the brief tie ins

    On an ongoing basis, the green line would commence and terminate at Beechwood but the Rolling stock would still have access to the south bound tracks meaning they could go for maintenance and or beddybyes in Sandyford whenever required.

    It would undoubtedly cause major disruption to the lives of those immediately adjacent but that would always be inevitable. It will be much less disruptive an any cut and cover tie in in 20 years time. Removal of that spoil in the open air will make it next to impossible.

    Not exactly the perfect solution. The CPO would be significant as would the negative press. Add in the fact that the Luas would still have to cross Dunville Ave and there wouldn’t be a direct interchange with metro.

    The use of Sandyford depot for Luas was never going to be possible given the fact that metro is an automated system and potentially 24hr.

    Done right, I don’t think the current plan is the worst. The green line will be upgraded in time with the potential for the crossings to be removed in the meantime.

    I believe that the extension of the green line from Harcourt to UCD and then Sandyford (Via the eastern bypass route) is the long term route for that that line. If this was in place, there would be residual capacity to upgrade the green line


  • Advertisement


  • I know the other metro thread is more active lately but something caught my eye regarding Coillte's new Dublin mountain initiative.
    If you look at the graphic in the link below they have the existing Luas greenline but there also appears to be a dotted line along cutting out the on street parts along Ballyogan rd.
    Is this an oversight, someone jumping the gun or is/was there a plan to tunnel a metro as far the Carrickmines p&r?


    https://www.facebook.com/Coilltenews/photos/a.203402459692517/3356541341045264/?type=3&sfnsn=mo

    Maybe someone more tech savvy could post the actual graphic, cheers.


Advertisement