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
Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink
Options
Comments
-
Tom you really think €0.5bn per year from €62bn is too much to spend on a Metro because we're going to spend €0.33bn per year on bus connects over the same period?
Why not ask whether we have the population to support €11.6bn on roads under the plan, which we're spending?
I really don't get where you're coming from, we clearly have the money, the most frugal party in the Dáil budgeted for this instead of tax breaks. The need has been there for years. You don't want to build a basic level of infrastructure because there is another different project that also costs money and "sure we're only wee Ireland, we're lucky to have buses" while spending billions more on motorways.
How many taxpayers do we need to justify it? Do 4.8m Irish taxpayers not deserve adequate infrastructure?0 -
Tom you really think €0.5bn per year from €62bn is too much to spend on a Metro because we're going to spend €0.33bn per year on bus connects over the same period?
Why not ask whether we have the population to support €11.6bn on roads under the plan, which we're spending?
I really don't get where you're coming from, we clearly have the money, the most frugal party in the Dáil budgeted for this instead of tax breaks. The need has been there for years. You don't want to build a basic level of infrastructure because there is another different project that also costs money and "sure we're only wee Ireland, we're lucky to have buses" while spending billions more on motorways.
How many taxpayers do we need to justify it? Do 4.8m Irish taxpayers not deserve adequate infrastructure?
Agree with most of that - not sure that there would be 4.8m people who are net contributors to the Exchequer though0 -
Tom you really think €0.5bn per year from €62bn is too much to spend on a Metro because we're going to spend €0.33bn per year on bus connects over the same period?
Why not ask whether we have the population to support €11.6bn on roads under the plan, which we're spending?
I really don't get where you're coming from, we clearly have the money, the most frugal party in the Dáil budgeted for this instead of tax breaks. The need has been there for years. You don't want to build a basic level of infrastructure because there is another different project that also costs money and "sure we're only wee Ireland, we're lucky to have buses" while spending billions more on motorways.
How many taxpayers do we need to justify it? Do 4.8m Irish taxpayers not deserve adequate infrastructure?
What I’m saying is we don’t have the resources to deliver this project. We don’t have manpower in the nta to deliver multiple projects and when costs rise for metrolink, which they inevitably will, it becomes an easy political target. We’ll get nothing built trying to do too much at once.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »Spare the trolling. They’ll have more than half a billion to send up in smoke on the world class welfare system in budget 2020... they have the money for this metro line! If it’s built with adequate capacity from the get go, how many tens of millions is it expected to carry on opening ?
Who’s trolling?0 -
What I’m saying is we don’t have the resources to deliver this project. We don’t have manpower in the nta to deliver multiple projects and when costs rise for metrolink, which they inevitably will, it becomes an easy political target. We’ll get nothing built trying to do too much at once.
Completely agree regarding human resources, the NTA said in the transport committee a few weeks ago that they should get 26 more people this year which will help. I think it's fair to say that this not happening earlier is one of the symptoms of having a minister like Shane Ross.
There's so much that needs to be done I think they have to bite the bullet and do them all now.
You would have to imagine that costs would rise but in fairness to them they got the Luas Cross City done under budget so maybe not!0 -
Advertisement
-
What I’m saying is we don’t have the resources to deliver this project. We don’t have manpower in the nta to deliver multiple projects and when costs rise for metrolink, which they inevitably will, it becomes an easy political target. We’ll get nothing built trying to do too much at once.
We do have the resources. What's lacking is the political will.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 19128
Well we don’t which is clearly illustrated by the fact pt projects are behind schedule, for example metrolink and bus connects.
These projects are not at the high funding stage yet. More NTA staff is not high cost, and delays are caused by public consultations which are proven more difficult by NIMBYs and parish pump politics.
We have plenty of money to spend on rural motorways that run from large villages to small towns in the west, but not on gridlocked Dublin.
Metrolink and Busconnects are both projects to reduce gridlock in Dublin - and the politicians get involved in micro-managing the project for local votes.0 -
-
Sam Russell wrote: »Metrolink and Busconnects are both projects to reduce gridlock in Dublin - and the politicians get involved in micro-managing the project for local votes.
Of course, an alternative metrolink route would also surely also help to reduce gridlock in Dublin. At present, for example, with an 80-90 minute bus journey between Knocklyon and the city, nobody is going to sit on a bus - unless they have to - if they could sit in their car for about the same length of time. If you could change that over the next 15 years or so into a around a 25 minute journey between Knocklyon and the city, you'd get almost everyone out of their car, reduce gridlock and free up lots of buses for other stuff.
The same with any metrolink route to/from Walkinstown. A metrolink there could hoover up lots of bus passengers from south-west Dublin at Walkinstown Cross and produce serious reductions on journey times into and out of the city, helping to make the journey much more attractive, get people out of their cars and thus reduce traffic, and free up buses (because they wouldn't have to travel all the way into and out of town).
Much of the focus so far with the metrolink seems to have been how to reduce any apparent gridlock there might be at the minor issue that is Dunville Avenue, and not about how best to improve the currently excellent, off-street, infrastructure which is already there, alongside stuff to benefit other parts of the city.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19128
strassenwo!f wrote: »Much of the focus so far with the metrolink seems to have been how to reduce any apparent gridlock there might be at the minor issue that is Dunville Avenue, and not about how best to improve the currently excellent, off-street, infrastructure which is already there, alongside stuff to benefit other parts of the city.
Dunville Ave is a NIMBY objection by locals, backed by local politicians, who object to the solutions offered. The local politicians are interested in votes.
There is plenty of need for the upgrade of the GL in the next decade, and doing it as part of Metrolink is too good to miss. What is needed now is to start the ball rolling on planning for Metrolink II so it might be ready to start digging before Metrolink has come into service.
Fighting Metrolink will likely cause it to be cancelled (again) and Metrolink II will never even be planned.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Dunville Ave is a NIMBY objection by locals, backed by local politicians, who object to the solutions offered. The local politicians are interested in votes.
There is plenty of need for the upgrade of the GL in the next decade, and doing it as part of Metrolink is too good to miss. What is needed now is to start the ball rolling on planning for Metrolink II so it might be ready to start digging before Metrolink has come into service.
Fighting Metrolink will likely cause it to be cancelled (again) and Metrolink II will never even be planned.
Hear hear! @strassenwo!f I acknowledge you have a major grudge with the route of ML1, but given the stage its at, I would urge you to put your determined effort into getting ML2 off the ground as soon as feasible, which will be some time given the glacial pace of planning in this country, and fight for your route desires on that.
Say your objections were accepted 100% right now by Metrolink planners, given that the current goal is 2027, do you really think you'd see your desired route this side of 2035 if they went back to the drawing board again?
I say fight to get a great route for ML2, I'd say Knocklyon would probably win out politically of your two preferences because while Walkinstown makes great sense too many would complain about it being too close to the red line. I'd back either of your proposals for the south-west side, but I'd be really interested in where it should go to on the North.0 -
I have very few problems with the metrolink line on the northside, though I am concerned that it will cannibalise the Green line by being routed so close to it. I would think a route via Drumcondra would be preferable, as it would be nicely placed about halfway between the northside DART and the Green line, giving better overall coverage, and it would avoid this cannabilisation of a relatively new line into which much has been very recently invested and which has potentially much more to deliver.riddlinrussell wrote: »@strassenwo!f I acknowledge you have a major grudge with the route of ML1, but given the stage its at, I would urge you to put your determined effort into getting ML2 off the ground as soon as feasible, which will be some time given the glacial pace of planning in this country, and fight for your route desires on that.
More difficult - certainly, more expensive - also certainly, as it would require very major work (with the canal, and stuff) to ensure a good connection to both rail lines at that location. But surely doable.
And anybody who has read even a bit of this thread will know my views on the southside part of this proposal.
I don't think it's fair to call it a 'major grudge'. It just doesn't seem to me to be the best use of the resources available.riddlinrussell wrote: »Say your objections were accepted 100% right now by Metrolink planners, given that the current goal is 2027, do you really think you'd see your desired route this side of 2035 if they went back to the drawing board again?
I'm really not sure how long it would take to rejig the northside part, but on the southside it should really be reasonably simple. Instead of planning to upgrade the Sandyford bit, the planners would plan a different Liffey - Southwest/central route for the kilometres necessary to get the tunnel beyond the Grand Canal (whatever route that is).
With the funds available in the current timeframe, it shouldn't be much more difficult than planning a tunnel to a tie-in with the current Green line. (That tie-in was originally slated to be almost certainly at Charlemont, but it seems to be moving further south. We now, broadly, seem to be talking about south of the Beechwood LUAS). You'd have to plan for turnback tracks somewhere along the way, but that shouldn't add much to the cost of the overall scheme.
And while that work to south of the canal is being done, in 2021-2027, the planners would plan the next bit, or bits, for the next funding timeframe. Once the tunnel is under and across the city, which is always the very difficult bit, the next part or parts are usually relatively easy. (It's very difficult to envisage anybody south of Rathgar, or anybody south or west of Harold's Cross, coming up with a plausible complaint about why the current (in 2027) line to their area shouldn't be extended).riddlinrussell wrote: »I say fight to get a great route for ML2, I'd say Knocklyon would probably win out politically of your two preferences because while Walkinstown makes great sense too many would complain about it being too close to the red line. I'd back either of your proposals for the south-west side, but I'd be really interested in where it should go to on the North.
I think the Red line thing here is, strangely enough, a red herring. Anybody in Crumlin and Drimnagh (or even a location close to the canal like Dolphins Barn) for example, could eventually have a 5-10 minute bus journey to Walkinstown, then a 10-12 minuute metro journey to the centre of the city. This option would have to be a competitor for people in those (and other) areas.
It seems to me that it makes sense now to plan a north-east (Swords) to south-west/central area of Dublin (particularly in terms of reducing journey times into/out of the city), and then plan (in around 2040 or so, when the potential of the southside Green line is about to be properly exhausted) a south-east to north-west metro line, using the great opportunities offered by both the northside (north of Broadstone, and hopefully going to/from Finglas, at least, at that stage) and southside bits of the Green line.
I'd envisage that both metros would interchange at somewhere like St. Stephen's Green, and the residual tram lines would be used to serve other areas.
This would mean no changes for anybody on those southside metro routes to get into/out of the city, and at most one change for anyone on those routes to get to/from the airport, or Swords, or many other locations on the northside. (For some routes, of course, there'd be no change involved, travelling between the northside and southside).
The current metrolink does not deliver such potential connectivity. Even what I'm suggesting would leave much to do in Dublin, but I think it would be a decent start.0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10150
Have a look at the process that they went through to identify the route in the Metrolink report. It's lengthy and it's in-depth.
It's not just a case of going with your gut in terms of where the route and stations should go, they researched everything and based their choices on facts as much as possible. They'll need to do exactly the same for the south side route as well, otherwise we're committing billions of euro to a project without any basis behind it.
And don't think that changing the south side section won't impact on the rest of the study area: If we're not using the green line anymore, then the observations made in the city centre section of the report don't make sense anymore, so the entire process will need to start again. Sure, they've got the data from the first study, but it'll still be a massive delay as they find the new optimal route.
I'd suggest that doing a similar study on the south side would result in a delay to the project of at least four years, more likely around six. What's worse though, is that any study done on the south side will also include the option of the green line upgrade, which will be incredibly far ahead in terms of cost benefit analysis. After all, it's projected to cost around €350 million to €400 million, while any other metro route worth doing on the south side will cost at least €1.5 billion.0 -
Have a look at the process that they went through to identify the route in the Metrolink report. It's lengthy and it's in-depth.
It's not just a case of going with your gut in terms of where the route and stations should go, they researched everything and based their choices on facts as much as possible. They'll need to do exactly the same for the south side route as well, otherwise we're committing billions of euro to a project without any basis behind it.
And don't think that changing the south side section won't impact on the rest of the study area: If we're not using the green line anymore, then the observations made in the city centre section of the report don't make sense anymore, so the entire process will need to start again. Sure, they've got the data from the first study, but it'll still be a massive delay as they find the new optimal route.
Why should the southside part affect anything much? The major cost, and the major worry of this project, is the tunnelling. The proposed upgrade of the overground Green line is pretty everyday stuff.I'd suggest that doing a similar study on the south side would result in a delay to the project of at least four years, more likely around six. What's worse though, is that any study done on the south side will also include the option of the green line upgrade, which will be incredibly far ahead in terms of cost benefit analysis. After all, it's projected to cost around €350 million to €400 million, while any other metro route worth doing on the south side will cost at least €1.5 billion.
It surely has to be nonsense that it would take 4 (four) years to design an underground route between O'Connell Street, or the River, and Harold's Cross or Rathgar.
Have they even been working on the entire metrolink project that long?
(Word seeped out in mid-2018 that they were definitely going to go with a Charlemont tie-in. Now it seems to be a Beechwood tie-in, and that hasn't had any noticeable effect on the timeframe. Would tunnelling to Harold's Cross or Rathgar make a huge difference to the overall cost?)
Nobody, apart perhaps from idiotic Greens like Eamon Ryan, is suggesting that an entire southwest/central line could be built in one go.
It wouldn't cost 1-1.5 billion euro to get from the river to Harold's Cross or Rathgar. You could surely build between one or both of those places and the river, for the same price as it would cost to tunnel to Beechwood, before 2027.
You would then spend the next 10-15 years or so developing those, and other stuff elsewhere in the city, and then come back to the Green line when it really needs to be upgraded. (We've seen what other cities are doing, and there's a lot more to be got out of the Green line, as a tram).0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 10150
strassenwo!f wrote: »Why should the southside part affect anything much? The major cost, and the major worry of this project, is the tunnelling. The proposed upgrade of the overground Green line is pretty everyday stuff.
It'll affect the city centre because if they identify an optimal southside route away from the green line, then the route in the city centre may no longer make sense. As I said, take a look into how they did the study for Metrolink, with the entire route broken into three sections, and routes identified by trip generators.strassenwo!f wrote: »It surely has to be nonsense that it would take 4 (four) years to design an underground route between O'Connell Street, or the River, and Harold's Cross or Rathgar.
Have they even been working on the entire metrolink project that long?
They've been working on Metrolink basically since Metro North was cancelled.strassenwo!f wrote: »(Word seeped out in mid-2018 that they were definitely going to go with a Charlemont tie-in. Now it seems to be a Beechwood tie-in, and that hasn't had any noticeable effect on the timeframe. Would tunnelling to Harold's Cross or Rathgar make huge difference to the overall cost?)
The work on the Beechwood tie-in had already been done as part of the study into the green line, so it wasn't new work, it was merely swapping from one option that had been explored onto another option that had been explored.strassenwo!f wrote: »Nobody, apart perhaps from idiotic Greens like Eamon Ryan, is suggesting that an entire southwest/central line could be built in one go.
It wouldn't cost 1-1.5 billion euro to get from the river to Harold's Cross or Rathgar. You could surely build between one or both of those places and the river, for the same price as it would cost to tunnel to Beechwood, before 2027.
Perhaps, but then it's still in competition with the Green Line upgrade, which will absolutely trounce a tunnel to either of those two places. How many trip generators are in those areas compared to the entire length of the Green Line out to Sandyford? How many potential passengers are in those areas compared to the entire length of the Green Line out to Sandyford?
Of course, that's before you even get to the main reason to upgrade the Green Line: Capacity problems will get worse and worse very quickly. The problem isn't around Ranelagh or Beechwood, by the way, people are being left behind at Windy Arbour already. A metro that only goes to Rathgar or Harold's Cross will do absolutely nothing for those people.strassenwo!f wrote: »You would then spend the next 10-15 years or so developing those, and other stuff elsewhere in the city, and then come back to the Green line when it really needs to be upgraded. (We've seen what other cities are doing, and there's a lot more to be got out of the Green line, as a tram).
Really? This again? Is there any city in the world that moves as many people on a light rail track as Dublin?0 -
It'll affect the city centre because if they identify an optimal southside route away from the green line, then the route in the city centre may no longer make sense. As I said, take a look into how they did the study for Metrolink, with the entire route broken into three sections, and routes identified by trip generators.
I note that the route proposed between, say, O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green, is quite noticeably different to the metronorth plan. A plan which was, need I remind you, given approval by An Bord Pleanala.
What, broadly, has changed in the interim period, in that section of the city, in terms of trip generators?They've been working on Metrolink basically since Metro North was cancelled.
I don't at any stage doubt the bona fides of the planners, but God it must have always been awfully tempting to add the southside Green line to the project. At one swoop you'd add 20 km or so to the metro, at almost (or so it was thought) no extra cost. Thus reducing the cost per km by lots, and making it much more saleable to to the public.The work on the Beechwood tie-in had already been done as part of the study into the green line, so it wasn't new work, it was merely swapping from one option that had been explored onto another option that had been explored.
So, are we talking now about a Beechwood tie-in? When we started this thread, it was very much a Charlemont tie-in. Go back and have a look if you doubt me.Perhaps, but then it's still in competition with the Green Line upgrade, which will absolutely trounce a tunnel to either of those two places. How many trip generators are in those areas compared to the entire length of the Green Line out to Sandyford? How many potential passengers are in those areas compared to the entire length of the Green Line out to Sandyford?
Of course, Sandyford already has a very good rail line into and out of the city, and to my mind the presence of Sandyford will add a lot to the second metro which I hope the city will build. There's nothing on the southside which can match, with the usual two metro branches that we see in most cities, what is coming in from the northside, specifically places like Swords, the Airport, Ballymun, etc. In terms of travel into (and out of) the city at peak times, Sandyford is not significantly bigger, if indeed it is bigger, than Dundrum, Windy Arbour, Harold's Cross or Terenure.
The density figures for the suburbs of Dublin illustrate this very nicely.Of course, that's before you even get to the main reason to upgrade the Green Line: Capacity problems will get worse and worse very quickly. The problem isn't around Ranelagh or Beechwood, by the way, people are being left behind at Windy Arbour already. A metro that only goes to Rathgar or Harold's Cross will do absolutely nothing for those people.
Of course, as I've tried to explain several times, an initial metro to Harold's Cross or Rathgar wouldn't only be going there and then stopping forever. They'd only be terminating there because funding doesn't allow them to go any further, at that stage. In the next funding round, funding would allow one or other of them to go a bit further, towards their eventual goal.
This is why, in cities like Munich, what you see now is a very well-developed system, but it was developed piece-by-piece. I think their first U-Bahn (metro) line has been extended at least 5 times, perhaps 6. At each stage it delivered better public transport to new areas, and from my recollection it was broadly well-received, because of what it was going to deliver both to people living in those areas and to people who wanted to get there.
A key flaw in Dublin is that an upgrade of the southside Green line to a metro adds nothing for those who want to get to a location along there.Really? This again? Is there any city in the world that moves as many people on a light rail track as Dublin?
It's a very good question. Several cities in Europe are doing 30+ tph at peak times, but are only doing so with trams of up to 40 metres. In most cases I've seen, those trams go across several road junctions in quick succession, with no major disruption to road traffic, presumably because of modern traffic light tchnology.
It would take a 55m tram about 2-3 seconds longer to clear a junction than a 35-40m tram would. I wonder why that can't, apparently, be done in Dublin.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14066
strassenwo!f wrote: »
I don't at any stage doubt the bona fides of the planners, but God it must have always been awfully tempting to add the southside Green line to the project. At one swoop you'd add 20 km or so to the metro, at almost (or so it was thought) no extra cost. Thus reducing the cost per km by lots, and making it much more saleable to to the public.
Good to see you tuning in here at last.
One of the main reasons for this decision is:
* It adds 9km to the project at significantly less cost per km, reducing the overall cost per km
* It enables a vastly increased range of journeys
* It upgrades a severely constrained tram line and provides sufficient capacity well into the future
* It fully integrates the Green Line providing better connectivity.
A Metro south of Stephens Green is not on the cards, what is on the cards is a minor extension to New Metro North to provide increased benefits at relatively low costs, and provide an answer to the Green Line capacity issues
Also, it's not about saleability to to the public. It's about improving the economics of the scheme, and increasing the benefit cost ratio. This project is likely to include a cost overrun like every capital project in Ireland so having additional benefits to absorb this is prudent.0 -
This project is likely to include a cost overrun like every capital project in Ireland so having additional benefits to absorb this is prudent.
You make otherwise excellent points.
But it is simply *not* true that capital projects in Ireland have suffered from overruns, certainly since the early 2000s.
In particular I can't think of a single *transport* project with an appreciable overrun in the last ten years.
Metrolink already has enough haters without unfounded suggestions that there will be cost overruns at this point.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »It's a very good question. Several cities in Europe are doing 30+ tph at peak times, but are only doing so with trams of up to 40 metres. In most cases I've seen, those trams go across several road junctions in quick succession, with no major disruption to road traffic, presumably because of modern traffic light tchnology.
It would take a 55m tram about 2-3 seconds longer to clear a junction than a 35-40m tram would. I wonder why that can't, apparently, be done in Dublin.
What evidence have you that there is an at-grade tram line anywhere in the world that carries more passengers per hour than the Luas does?
Showing that there are lines with higher frequencies is not enough. Higher frequencies do not necessarily mean higher capacity.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14066
Perhaps I should have expanded on that point. The reason I believe there may be a cost overrun on this project is because it's the first project of its kind in Ireland - the lack of precedent for a project like this means that there isn't an established cost base for a Metro type project. Of course, if a 2nd Metro is built, we have plenty of experience from the first Metro to give insight into the cost into a similar project. It was very easy for us to estimate motorway costs or even the Luas BXD costs given the level of experience we had.You make otherwise excellent points.
But it is simply *not* true that capital projects in Ireland have suffered from overruns, certainly since the early 2000s.
In particular I can't think of a single *transport* project with an appreciable overrun in the last ten years.
Metrolink already has enough haters without unfounded suggestions that there will be cost overruns at this point.
Of course, I am in no way suggesting the potential of a cost overrun is reason to doubt Metrolink. What I was saying is that by including the Green Line upgrade, which in isolation has a higher benefit:cost ratio than the Metro North element, provides some buffer space in the event of a cost overrun, as the Metro South upgrade provides significant benefits to the overall project.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »
It surely has to be nonsense that it would take 4 (four) years to design an underground route between O'Connell Street, or the River, and Harold's Cross or Rathgar.
....
It wouldn't cost 1-1.5 billion euro to get from the river to Harold's Cross or Rathgar. You could surely build between one or both of those places and the river, for the same price as it would cost to tunnel to Beechwood, before 2027.
You would then spend the next 10-15 years or so developing those, and other stuff elsewhere in the city, and then come back to the Green line when it really needs to be upgraded. (We've seen what other cities are doing, and there's a lot more to be got out of the Green line, as a tram).
This idea is daft.
You are proposing terminating Metrolink in Harold's X or Rathgar, at least for a few years.
This would need an entrance for a TBM, a turnback loop, and a probably a depot.
There is nowhere in this area that could accomodate this without a lot of disruption. D8 and D6 are basically the part of Ireland with the least open space.
Any metro that ever services this area will not terminate in it.0 -
There is a difference between a cost overrun and the estimated costs being off once the tender comes in.
I would think a significantoverrun is unlikely but can see the initial prices being higher.0 -
What I was saying is that by including the Green Line upgrade, which in isolation has a higher benefit:cost ratio than the Metro North element, provides some buffer space in the event of a cost overrun, as the Metro South upgrade provides significant benefits to the overall project.
I completely agree that the Green line upgrade is cheap and great value given the benefits.
Unfortunately, almost no one involved in the final appraisal of the preferred route will give a fig about the benefits.
As with the NCH at St James', it will be all about the cost.0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 10150
strassenwo!f wrote: »I note that the route proposed between, say, O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green, is quite noticeably different to the metronorth plan. A plan which was, need I remind you, given approval by An Bord Pleanala.
What, broadly, has changed in the interim period, in that section of the city, in terms of trip generators?
What changed was the route of the tunnel north of the city centre, moving it further west. Quite like how a change to the south side route could force a change to the city centre section.strassenwo!f wrote: »I don't at any stage doubt the bona fides of the planners, but God it must have always been awfully tempting to add the southside Green line to the project. At one swoop you'd add 20 km or so to the metro, at almost (or so it was thought) no extra cost. Thus reducing the cost per km by lots, and making it much more saleable to to the public.
That's exactly it Strassenwo!f, they had planned this from the inception of the Green Line. They built the green line to Metro standard where possible.strassenwo!f wrote: »So, are we talking now about a Beechwood tie-in? When we started this thread, it was very much a Charlemont tie-in. Go back and have a look if you doubt me.
Yes, the Emerging Prefered Route originally had the tie-in at Charlemont, but the study had examined and costed numerous options for the tie-in. One of those options was Beechwood. When the NTA realised the strength of the opposition to the plans for the closure of Dunville Avenue, they swapped onto another option that they had already explored.strassenwo!f wrote: »Of course, Sandyford already has a very good rail line into and out of the city, and to my mind the presence of Sandyford will add a lot to the second metro which I hope the city will build. There's nothing on the southside which can match, with the usual two metro branches that we see in most cities, what is coming in from the northside, specifically places like Swords, the Airport, Ballymun, etc. In terms of travel into (and out of) the city at peak times, Sandyford is not significantly bigger, if indeed it is bigger, than Dundrum, Windy Arbour, Harold's Cross or Terenure.
The density figures for the suburbs of Dublin illustrate this very nicely.
It does indeed have a rail line already, one that has been designed to be easily upgradable to Metro standard. It's also got capacity problems along the line not much further on.strassenwo!f wrote: »Of course, as I've tried to explain several times, an initial metro to Harold's Cross or Rathgar wouldn't only be going there and then stopping forever. They'd only be terminating there because funding doesn't allow them to go any further, at that stage. In the next funding round, funding would allow one or other of them to go a bit further, towards their eventual goal.
This kind of stop-start project management would drive up costs dramatically. Entirely possible that the NTA would see Dart Underground as more important than any further improvements to the Metro system, meaning that we've got a metro that almost goes through the city centre, but not quite. Each time you terminate the Metro, you've got to build a turn around for the high frequency trams. Getting more funds may be politically difficult, with plenty of politicians all around Ireland complaining that Dublin already have a Metro, and that other cities need public transport investment too (they're right too, all cities in Ireland have poor PT investment).strassenwo!f wrote: »This is why, in cities like Munich, what you see now is a very well-developed system, but it was developed piece-by-piece. I think their first U-Bahn (metro) line has been extended at least 5 times, perhaps 6. At each stage it delivered better public transport to new areas, and from my recollection it was broadly well-received, because of what it was going to deliver both to people living in those areas and to people who wanted to get there.
A key flaw in Dublin is that an upgrade of the southside Green line to a metro adds nothing for those who want to get to a location along there.
Which is great for Munich! But Dublin is not Munich, and Ireland is not Germany. The more you go on about this, the more I realise you have no clue how the politic system in Ireland works.
The Metro upgrade does add something though, so you're wrong there. It solves the capacity problems leaving town in the evening.strassenwo!f wrote: »It's a very good question. Several cities in Europe are doing 30+ tph at peak times, but are only doing so with trams of up to 40 metres. In most cases I've seen, those trams go across several road junctions in quick succession, with no major disruption to road traffic, presumably because of modern traffic light tchnology.
It would take a 55m tram about 2-3 seconds longer to clear a junction than a 35-40m tram would. I wonder why that can't, apparently, be done in Dublin.
I don't know why Strassenwo!f, but those are the limits as stated by the NTA.
Perhaps insurance doesn't allow for more trams to be run. Perhaps extra trams can't run through the city centre section without causing traffic chaos. Perhaps engineering concerns have caused the restrictions.
We don't know, but hoping otherwise is pointless when the NTA have said that 24 trams per hour per direction is the hard limit.0 -
This idea is daft.
You are proposing terminating Metrolink in Harold's X or Rathgar, at least for a few years.
Yes, that's right. I reckon that's probably where you'd get to for the same money as you'd need to tunnel to Beechwood. (You might be able to get further, as you wouldn't need to spend money upgrading the rest of the Green line).This would need an entrance for a TBM, a turnback loop, and a probably a depot.
There is nowhere in this area that could accomodate this without a lot of disruption. D8 and D6 are basically the part of Ireland with the least open space.
As I understand it, it is possible to switch of these TBMs and reactivate them later, if desired. Hopefully it wouldn't be too long before the next funding phase provides money for the TBM to go further.
(But, just as a matter of interest, where is it proposed to fish out the TBM at Beechwood? Not a lot of space there.)
You don't need a turnback loop. Is there one at Howth, Malahide, Bray, the Point, Tallaght, Maynooth or Broombridge? And, for the kind of throughputs we're hopefully talking about on the metro, is there one at Brixton (on London's Victoria line, 40 vehicles per direction per hour)? No, there isn't. There are other ways to solve the turnback issue.
And re the depot, it's not absolutely necessary to have one on the southside, but there would seem to be several locations around Harold's Cross where that might be accomodated - perhaps another reason why that route should be developed first.Any metro that ever services this area will not terminate in it.
The metro could terminate there temporarily, but the overall goal would be to eventually get to Knocklyon and Walkinstown. But even terminating temporarily at Harold's Cross or Rathgar would reduce journey times massively along those routes, for many people.
Unfortunately, we can look forward to only tiny reductions in journey times, if that, if the metro is extended along the current Green line on the southside.0 -
If the TBM is turned off and left for a year or two the point where it starts again needs to have a huge compound to extract the muck and insert all the materials workers etc. it would also need offices and facilities for staff. Even if that could all be done there would need to be thousands of trucks driven through some of the worst traffic spots in the country.0
-
Granted a turnback loop is not strictly necessary.
I look forward to Strassenwo!f telling us the 'several locations around Harold's Cross' where a metro depot could be located though.0 -
If the TBM is turned off and left for a year or two the point where it starts again needs to have a huge compound to extract the muck and insert all the materials workers etc. it would also need offices and facilities for staff. Even if that could all be done there would need to be thousands of trucks driven through some of the worst traffic spots in the country.
And is there going to be all that at Beechwood? Where? And the thousands of trucks going along Dunville Avenue?
It's not going to be any easier there than at, say, Harold's Cross.0 -
Advertisement
-
No because the tbm is heading toward Dunville not starting there. I admit to having very little knowledge of tunneling but it seems to me that as the tbm cuts the earth goes backwards and has to be extracted back down the tunnel.
Dunville is the end point of the tunnel. In your scenario Harold’s cross is the start of another tunnel.0
Advertisement