Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Dats me

I have read Ryan's question there. Figuring out where the final tunnel portal south of the river would be while the northside is in construction is total pie in the sky stuff jesus.

It is nice to see ambition though. It borders on negligence that if he really cares about this he's only bringing it up now. Of course, as I've discussed above him objecting to the Green Line upgrade is complete hypocrisy, it's something he's campaigned for for ages.

At least he acknowledges the huge cost in his question, if he had been campaigning for this for years we might actually have something here.

As it stands we can only hope that he takes a step back at the next round of consultation, tries to drive this through and begins campaigning for Dart Underground and a SW-NE metro, although Ross' answers on the SW portion are quite sad.

marno21

Dats me wrote: »

I have read Ryan's question there. Figuring out where the final tunnel portal south of the river would be while the northside is in construction is total pie in the sky stuff jesus.

It is nice to see ambition though. It borders on negligence that if he really cares about this he's only bringing it up now. Of course, as I've discussed above him objecting to the Green Line upgrade is complete hypocrisy, it's something he's campaigned for for ages.

At least he acknowledges the huge cost in his question, if he had been campaigning for this for years we might actually have something here.

As it stands we can only hope that he takes a step back at the next round of consultation, tries to drive this through and begins campaigning for Dart Underground and a SW-NE metro, although Ross' answers on the SW portion are quite sad.

The Green Party idea for Metro and Luas extensions on the south side is effectively a Metro for everyone in the audience type approach which isn't useful either.

Remember that the SW Metro answer refers to work undertaken by the NTA in 2015 or so. With Dublin growing, and a potential MetroLink and Dart Underground to link into, it may improve the case for a SW/NE Metro. Especially as the Red Line gets more crammed and there is more city centre and suburban expansion along the corridor

lucernarian

CatInABox wrote: »

The two years thing is totally up in the air, and until the plans are finalised, there's no real way of knowing. Other than that, we can be sure that they'll take every measure available, including building temporary tracks, etc. Some of these measures have been shown in the plans already, I'd assume more will be available in the final report.

The context of this upgrade is important as well. Even with the upgrades that they're currently doing, which involves lengthening every tram, the green line is projected to be at capacity by 2027. I, and others here, think that's hopelessly optimistic, and that's even before the recent change to the building heights regulations.

This will mean that in the morning, from Cowper onwards into town, the Luas will effectively be shut down. At the moment, people are already getting the Luas out of town, just to get it back into town. Lengthening the trams will get us a few more years, but once that's done, there's no further possible mitigation other than an upgrade to Metro standard.

There is no metro standard anyway. Speed limits, signalling, traffic interactions and tram capacity are mostly separate items, though often improving one can be done as part of the other (e.g. high floor trams and grade separation).

CatInABox

lucernarian wrote: »

There is no metro standard anyway. Speed limits, signalling, traffic interactions and tram capacity are mostly separate items, though often improving one can be done as part of the other (e.g. high floor trams and grade separation).

True enough, but it's a handy way of referring to something that essentially won't happen individually. The grade separation is biggest problem, and until that's done, there's no real point in doing the others.

OneEightSeven

Eamon Ryan discussing the debate and alternatives on his Twitter

https://twitter.com/EamonRyan/status/1096107524460294145

salmocab

I love his ‘to Tallaght’ bit, like he was drawing it and thought well that’s as far as my voters are likely to be interested in.

bk

What the hell, am I reading that right? Eamon Ryan is suggesting building two separate tunnels from Stephens Green and a long orbital Luas line?!!!

And no upgrade at all to the Luas Green line.

That would easily turn Metrolink from a 3bn project into a 8bn project!! Not a hope something like that would ever get built, not as one project.

I can only assume that Eamon is now trying to get the entire Metrolink project cancelled.

With the big cost overruns of the Childrens Hospital and how (rightfully) politically toxic that has been, there is now no chance at all (if there ever was) of a SW alternative to the Green line upgrade. Politicians will simply not agree to adding an extra 2bn or so to the Metrolink project, not a hope.

If anything, I would now worry that instead they might decide to scale back Metrolink, ending it at Stephens Green like was planned with the original Metro North project and having no south side tunnel at all.

Not that it would save much money, due to the expensive turn around facility that would be required at Stephens Green and it would certainly make the business case worse. But might be easier if it avoided all the Nimby bull**** south of their.

Of course 10 years from now these same people will end up crying out in pain when they realise they can't get on the Luas anymore because of how packed it already is north of Sandyford and they will then cry out for it to be upgraded to Metro. Eventually it will, taking decades longer and at much greater cost. Just like the Luas Cross City. We keep making the same dumb mistakes!

marno21

bk wrote: »

What the hell, am I reading that right? Eamon Ryan is suggesting building two separate tunnels from Stephens Green and a long orbital Luas line?!!!

And no upgrade at all to the Luas Green line.

That would easily turn Metrolink from a 3bn project into a 8bn project!! Not a hope something like that would ever get built, not as one project.

I can only assume that Eamon is now trying to get the entire Metrolink project cancelled.

With the big cost overruns of the Childrens Hospital and how (rightfully) politically toxic that has been, there is now no chance at all (if there ever was) of a SW alternative to the Green line upgrade. Politicians will simply not agree to adding an extra 2bn or so to the Metrolink project, not a hope.

If anything, I would now worry that instead they might decide to scale back Metrolink, ending it at Stephens Green like was planned with the original Metro North project and having no south side tunnel at all.

Not that it would save much money, due to the expensive turn around facility that would be required at Stephens Green and it would certainly make the business case worse. But might be easier if it avoided all the Nimby bull**** south of their.

Of course 10 years from now these same people will end up crying out in pain when they realise they can't get on the Luas anymore because of how packed it already is north of Sandyford and they will then cry out for it to be upgraded to Metro. Eventually it will, taking decades longer and at much greater cost. Just like the Luas Cross City. We keep making the same dumb mistakes!

In fairness, the Metro Eamon Ryan proposes would reduce Green Line dependence, but at approx 10x the cost. Total non runner.

The NTA have stated that the Metro South element is a necessity to be included in the Metrolink plan because for relatively low cost it significantly improves the business case.

Rulmeq

marno21 wrote: »

In fairness, the Metro Eamon Ryan proposes would reduce Green Line dependence, but at approx 10x the cost. Total non runner.

I don't know, even as a crayon drawing exercise it's amongst the worst I've seen. That red route with 3 stops on it, what's the point of that? And building a metro to Booterstown - he has to know that there's a protected environment there, right? He's a green party member? Also, which family member of his works in the mint?

salmocab

Rulmeq wrote: »

I don't know, even as a crayon drawing exercise it's amongst the worst I've seen. That red route with 3 stops on it, what's the point of that? And building a metro to Booterstown - he has to know that there's a protected environment there, right? He's a green party member? Also, which family member of his works in the mint?

I think his theory isn’t bad it would be a great system in general but I could sit down with my crayons and draw an amazing system to every corner of Dublin but it’s pointless as we don’t have s bottomless pit of money to pay for it.

matrim

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Eamon Ryan discussing the debate and alternatives on his Twitter

https://twitter.com/EamonRyan/status/1096107524460294145

"We need to think big about transport in Dublin", while he ignores half of Dublin

bnt

Didn't I read something about Guinness downscaling their St. James' operations? If so, I could think that space could be used for a new interchange station, rather than having every line funneled through the Charlemont / Harcourt area.

I don't understand why every proposed line has to go through the city centre. Changing between lines is not a problem if the interchanges are well-designed and there is a zone fare system, like the one in London. The centre is too dense for the amount of economic activity that happens there, while huge areas of the suburbs have no rail lines at all.

Sam Russell

bnt wrote: »

Didn't I read something about Guinness downscaling their St. James' operations? If so, I could think that space could be used for a new interchange station, rather than having every line funneled through the Charlemont / Harcourt area.

I don't understand why every proposed line has to go through the city centre. Changing between lines is not a problem if the interchanges are well-designed and there is a zone fare system, like the one in London. The centre is too dense for the amount of economic activity that happens there, while huge areas of the suburbs have no rail lines at all.

If you have a flat 90 min fare, there is no need for zones. Dublin is not that big.

Consonata

Really there should be a flat 1.50 or 2 euro fare regardless of where you go in Dublin, or the mode you take. At least then it won't be punishing the poor sods who have to commute long distances to get to work, and it will speed up the needless messing on buses regarding fares and how long you are travelling.

strassenwo!f

I'd like to make a couple of comments about some aspects of the latest metrolink documentation, but there are forum rules - apparently immutable - against any mention of tram throughputs higher than 24 tph.

What a pity.

L1011

You have clearly only skimmed the document and grasped at a straw. You're still wrong!

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'd like to make a couple of comments about some aspects of the latest metrolink documentation, but there are forum rules - apparently immutable - against any mention of tram throughputs higher than 24 tph.

What a pity.

Mod: The restriction is that 'if it not in the Metrolink published info' then it is for the other thread. If Metrolink website now has 30 thp, then it can be discussed.

riddlinrussell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'd like to make a couple of comments about some aspects of the latest metrolink documentation, but there are forum rules - apparently immutable - against any mention of tram throughputs higher than 24 tph.

What a pity.

Given that the restriction has been lifted (due to 30tph being offered up by NTA) It would be nice to discuss how that will be achieved rather than being petulant about it?

I speculate (as I believe many others have) that they will be running 30tph Charlemont to Sandyford, with alternating trains running Broombridge-Sandyford and Charlemont-Brides Glen.

However tram frequency would be better discussed in the main metrolink thread now as its part of the proposal rather than in this one about alternative routes?

Perhaps here should be about discussing the alternatives they could go for regarding the newly preferred route?

L1011

It's not speculating that it'll be Charlemont-Sandyford only for 30tph, that is explicitly what it says!

riddlinrussell

L1011 wrote: »

It's not speculating that it'll be Charlemont-Sandyford only for 30tph, that is explicitly what it says!

EDIT: I couldn't find where it states the 30tph was only Charlemont to Sandyford... or any reference to 30TPH except for metro in the preferred route document, where is it do you know?

Apologies, I must have missed that bit... Well ok they still aren't saying they can run 30TPH through the city centre then, so Strassens point regarding that section remains moot.

Anyway, I digress, anyone have any suggestions for alternative routes now based on the Preferred Route (based obviously on a similar cost to whatever the currently unpublished cost of the preferred route will be)

strassenwo!f

L1011 wrote: »

You have clearly only skimmed the document and grasped at a straw. You're still wrong!

That post seems to be aimed at me, as there hasn't been any other post on this thread for some time.

So, what am I wrong about?

Dats me

Strassen I will admit that I don't like how combatitive you can be in your posts and that I got annoyed with you in this thread.

But I have to say I think in the context of this thread the latest developments are absolutely hilarious. I hope you're enjoying it.

The NTA we're at the transport committee today I hope they outlined their plans in detail. I saw a very good thread on twitter outlining how having a huge 55m tram passing every two minutes through college green etc would not be very nice. As has been outlined in the post it's effectively a surface level metro but through the city centre. Presumably they're using your plan with the lay by bit of track at St Stephen's Green? A poor plan to avoid a bit of disruption to the Green Line.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That post seems to be aimed at me, as there hasn't been any other post on this thread for some time.

So, what am I wrong about?

They aren't proposing 30tph on-street running. Because it isn't practical.

30tph is being proposed for Sandyford - Charlemont only with turnback facilities, 24tph on street after

riddlinrussell

L1011 wrote: »

They aren't proposing 30tph on-street running. Because it isn't practical.

30tph is being proposed for Sandyford - Charlemont only with turnback facilities, 24tph on street after

Apologies again L1011 but where is the statement about it only being Sandyford-Charlemont with turnaround at 30tph? I couldn't find it in the Preferred Route document.

L1011

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Apologies again L1011 but where is the statement about it only being Sandyford-Charlemont with turnaround at 30tph? I couldn't find it in the Preferred Route document.

Its in the Green Line Upgrade Future Demand Capacity Intervention document

bk

strassenwo!f, to be VERY clear, you suggested more trams to Stephens Green. The NTA are still saying only 24 TPH to Stephens Green, but the possibility of 30TPH to Charlemont with a turn back platforms at Charlemont to link to the Metro there. Transfer people onto Metro at that location.

That is not at all what you were saying. You were saying that you can run more then 24 TPH on street running sections to Stephens Green, TII are still saying 24TPH is still the maximum for street running sections, but are suggesting an alternative of 30 TPH for a fully segregated section.

Note that a turnback facility at Charelemont will most likely require extensive CPO's and bulldozers around that area. It will likely be as expensive as the Green line tie in. But it does kick the can further down the line so to speak.

The other issue is that 30TPH through Dunville Avenue, etc. will almost effectively close it, with barely any time at all for cars and pedestrians to cross. IMO it will end up worse for them them then the over/underpass option.

marno21

Running extra trams on Metro spec tracks to Charlemont, which effectively renders Dunville Avenue useless anyway, where expensive turnback facilities will have to be constructed, and having everyone exit and go down onto a Metro, where there is a tunnel running under the Metro tracks into a dead end is quite the Irish solution to an Irish problem. So much inconvenience to induldge a few people and the Minister for Housing.

riddlinrussell

L1011 wrote: »

Its in the Green Line Upgrade Future Demand Capacity Intervention document

Thanks for that, it looks like it was previously available here but the link now gives an XML error...

salmocab

Just on Dunville and the trams effectively closing the crossing, I don’t think it will be as bad as some think but certainly will make a bit of a balls of that crossing. It’s only a one way at a time crossing currently. From a northbound tram at the station it takes about 14/15 seconds from green to the tram passing. This will give probably 35/40 seconds on average for cars to cross I’d imagine that would get maybe 6/7 cars through. Obviously this will be variable based on the next tram along the other direction but it will mean some cars getting through followed by a wait of probably a couple of minutes at least until your direction gets the green again. The rush hours might be a massive pain especially for people trying to get off the residential roads that run parallel to the tracks. During the day it will be fine with less traffic and trams.

Idbatterim

Won’t many residents with property backing into the line hate this outcome? A tram every single bloody minute at peak times going by?

Is the issue of bringing the tunnel out past dunville Avenue being ruled out on cost grounds ?

Dear god , they had the foresight to make the line metro capable, I wish they’d have sorted out the dunville issue at the time. Probably asking way too much though !