Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

You know, honestly I had written up a long post answering each of your questions, but I deleted it and wrote that reply, because I realised why should I go to the bother of answering your questions if you aren't willing to take the time to read the documents which answer most of your questions.

I asked about Beechwood and the over/underpasses in a rhetorical way - because I think the €40 million figure the NTA gave, came from the land of pixies and unicorns or I want whatever they're having. A bit unfair of you to ignore the rest of that post. And I don't believe you wrote anything of the sort, not that you saying it is relevant here. The question about the platform doors was a straightforward one, thanks for the answer @donvito99.

What is relevant is that the documents that have come with Metrolink have obvious, gaping holes in places involving critical decisions like infrastructure choices and cost estimates. This fatally undermines what sort of conclusions, yes - conclusions, about what each option might cost.

There are many decisions and conclusions to get through before a decision can be made. If there's not sufficient, or dare I say false, data guiding the process, bad decisions are the outcome and for a project of this scale and importance, I and the public deserve better.

Like the North Dublin Transport Scheme (which I've also read to death) - calculations about ridership which have already proven to be false based on Luas BXD numbers. No proper CBA analysis of options (like why save €78 million if it reduced capacity by 33%) and so on. We were atomically close to having the Luas extended to the airport but that it would have jeopardised the Luas to Finglas.

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

I asked about Beechwood and the over/underpasses in a rhetorical way - because I think the €40 million figure the NTA gave, came from the land of pixies and unicorns or I want whatever they're having. A bit unfair of you to ignore the rest of that post. And I don't believe you wrote anything of the sort, not that you saying it is relevant here. The question about the platform doors was a straightforward one, thanks for the answer @donvito99.

Actually I 100% honestly wrote a long post answering each of your questions, as I've been answering lots of peoples questions here. Your questions on PSD made it clear that you hadn't read the documents for yourself or done any research into it.

I mean it is not a problem in itself that you haven't read them, many people haven't and I'm happy to try and answer peoples questions based on my reading of them.

The problem is that you have been throwing around authoritative statements like "What is relevant is that the documents that have come with Metrolink have obvious, gaping holes in places involving critical decisions like infrastructure choices and cost estimates." when it is very obvious that you haven't actually read any of them yourself!

lucernarian wrote: »

What is relevant is that the documents that have come with Metrolink have obvious, gaping holes in places involving critical decisions like infrastructure choices and cost estimates. This fatally undermines what sort of conclusions, yes - conclusions, about what each option might cost.

And how would you know if you haven't read the publicly available documents yourself?

lucernarian wrote: »

There are many decisions and conclusions to get through before a decision can be made. If there's not sufficient, or dare I say false, data guiding the process, bad decisions are the outcome and for a project of this scale and importance, I and the public deserve better.

Again, how would you know if you haven't read the documents?

You have been throwing out lots of statements like you have read them, but it is clear from your questions that you haven't read them.

lucernarian wrote: »

Like the North Dublin Transport Scheme (which I've also read to death) - calculations about ridership which have already proven to be false based on Luas BXD numbers. No proper CBA analysis of options (like why save €78 million if it reduced capacity by 33%) and so on. We were atomically close to having the Luas extended to the airport but that it would have jeopardised the Luas to Finglas.

Which has nothing to do with Metrolink.

To quickly answer some of your earlier questions. The HFV option is not just 40 million, it is 40 million higher then the 90m LFV option, which in turn is roughly 40 million higher then the 60m LFV option. So really it is 80m more then 60m LFV and about 120million all in.

While 120m isn't much money overall out of a 3 billion project, it still is a lot of money in it's own right.

PSD's aren't particularly hard or expensive to do. More significant will be the pedestrian overpass bridges and lifts. Yes platforms will need to be raised for HFV, but even with the LFV options they will need to be widened and lengthened anyway, so not a massive difference.

They are some tough engineering problems here, no one is saying it is trivial, but that is what engineers do and I don't see anything impossible here and I don't see anything that shouldn't be possible to fit in a 120m budget.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Actually I 100% honestly wrote a long post answering each of your questions, as I've been answering lots of peoples questions here. Your questions on PSD made it clear that you hadn't read the documents for yourself or done any research into it.

I mean it is not a problem in itself that you haven't read them, many people haven't and I'm happy to try and answer peoples questions based on my reading of them.

The problem is that you have been throwing around authoritative statements like "What is relevant is that the documents that have come with Metrolink have obvious, gaping holes in places involving critical decisions like infrastructure choices and cost estimates." when it is very obvious that you haven't actually read any of them yourself!



And how would you know if you haven't read the publicly available documents yourself?



Again, how would you know if you haven't read the documents?

You have been throwing out lots of statements like you have read them, but it is clear from your questions that you haven't read them.



Which has nothing to do with Metrolink.

To quickly answer some of your earlier questions. The HFV option is not just 40 million, it is 40 million higher then the 90m LFV option, which in turn is roughly 40 million higher then the 60m LFV option. So really it is 80m more then 60m LFV and about 120million all in.

While 120m isn't much money overall out of a 3 billion project, it still is a lot of money in it's own right.

PSD's aren't particularly hard or expensive to do. More significant will be the pedestrian overpass bridges and lifts. Yes platforms will need to be raised for HFV, but even with the LFV options they will need to be widened and lengthened anyway, so not a massive difference.

They are some tough engineering problems here, no one is saying it is trivial, but that is what engineers do and I don't see anything impossible here and I don't see anything that shouldn't be possible to fit in a 120m budget.

Your criticism of the other poster is somewhat ironic, considering that you’ve told me and others that the south central area doesn’t warrant a rail based solution at this time, yet in another post you openly admit that don’t have knowledge of the issues faced on the corridors in south Dublin or the pinch points along them.

Pot and kettle spring to mind to be honest.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Your criticism of the other poster is somewhat ironic, considering that you’ve told me and others that the south central area doesn’t warrant a rail based solution at this time, yet in another post you openly admit that don’t have knowledge of the issues faced on the corridors in south Dublin or the pinch points along them.

Pot and kettle spring to mind to be honest.

Hey, I've never once said that the SW doesn't warrant a rail based solution!!! Not once have I ever said that, don't put words in my mouth :mad:

I'm fully in favour of a SW line either as a spur off the Metrolink line or even better as a completely separate Metrolink 2 line going NE to SW.

What I'm not in favour of is your and some others suggestion of going SW instead of upgrading the Green line at all. That makes no logical sense at all for the following very logical reasons:

1) The Green line will reach capacity in the next 10 years and will need upgrading either way. It makes perfect sense to plan for that upgrade as part of the Metrolink project, specially as the cost is reasonable. Either way it will have to be done.

2) Going SW would cost about an extra 1.5 billion, turning a 3b project into a 4.5 to 5b project I fear would make it too expensive for the public and kill the entire project.

And again even if you go SW, you still need to upgrade the green line, I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.

I just want Metrolink built, it seems like a decent project and Dublin desperately needs this sort of high quality public transport. Adding billions extra to a project might mean we never get it. In IT we call this feature creep and in my experience it often destroys projects.

Build the damn Metro, prove to the people of Ireland how great Metro is and they will be clamouring for lots of more lines, like they now support Luas expansion.

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

Very good. The first two look great the Korean version looks flimsy!

Cool video. The Parsian ones (Option 1) look the best, higher then option 2, it looks like you could climb over option 2, but not option 1. Also Option 1 look like they open and closer faster.

The Korean ones do look flimsy, but have some advantages. The width of them means the train doesn't need to line up perfectly with the PSD's, if the train over/under shoots they still work unlike the other two options. Probably handier for driver operated trains then fully automated systems (tend to be more precise).

Also I suspect while flimsy, the panels are probably designed to be quick and easy to replace.

Very interesting video.

LXFlyer

Re paragraph 1 of your reply. Read my post again more carefully this time. I had three pretty critical words “at this time“ in it regarding the south central corridors. I didn’t make any effort to put words in your mouth. I represented your opinion quite accurately I would suggest.

You’re changing the goalposts again to suit your argument, as you seem to constantly do any time someone pulls you up on it.

With respect, you’ve admitted you don’t know the issues facing people using the south central corridors - I find it exceptionally hard to accept anything you post about those corridors as you clearly don’t understand the problems they face.

The roads are saturated and there is no way without MASSIVE CPO activity (that isn’t going to happen) that this will be alleviated. The roadspace is at capacity as it is.

You’re effectively saying that one area that has already been upgraded should be upgraded further, yet a huge swathe of Dublin should have no effective improvements for years to come and will continue to have commuting times of 90 minutes + - that’s simply not sustainable in my view.

My view on this is that the South Central area is ALREADY at saturation point and needs a resolution. Solve that first and then upgrade the Green Line. Feeder buses can shuttle between the two lines if necessary to help deal with any closure of the Green Line.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

You’re changing the goalposts again to suit your argument, as you seem to constantly do any time someone pulls you up on it.

I've always been very consistent in my argument and it is a very simple one at its core:

Build the bloody Metrolink and prove the concept of Metro's to the public and then build more lines. Simple

LXFlyer wrote: »

With respect, you’ve admitted you don’t know the issues facing people using the south central corridors - I find it exceptionally hard to accept anything you post about those corridors as you clearly don’t understand the problems they face.

Where have I said that! Rubbish. The SW of the city of course has issues, I very much recognise them and fully support solving them. I just don't want to risk the entire Metrolink project while doing so.

LXFlyer wrote: »

You’re effectively saying that one area that has already been upgraded should be upgraded further, yet a huge swathe of Dublin should have no effective improvements for years to come and will continue to have commuting times of 90 minutes + - that’s simply not sustainable in my view.

In an ideal world, we would have loads of money and be building 6 Metro lines simultaneously as they currently are in Riyadh.

Or even better if we gained our wealth back in the 60's and started building multiple lines in the 70's like most other similar sized European cities did and we would all be riding around in them now.

But we didn't and we don't have that sort of money now either, so we have to prioritise things.

Upgrading the green line is 40m to 120m extra, going SW is 1.5b+ extra. Very simple maths there.

And again, either way the Green line will need upgrading.

If your position was that we should both upgrade the Green Line and spur SW at the same time, then I'd have more respect for your position. I would still worry if we could afford the extra 1.5b+ and if it would risk the entire project due to feature creep, but at least it would make some sense.

Suggesting we go SW instead of upgrading the green line simply makes no sense at all. Non, not one bit.

It is like saying we shouldn't have spent the 100m on lengthening the DART platforms to allow for 8 carriage DARTs. Or the 120m we are currently spending on the City Center Resignalling project that will allow 10 minute DART's, etc.

Upgrading existing infrastructure and making the most out of it makes absolute sense.

LXFlyer

I’d suggest that the final paragraph of this post pretty much tells me that you accept that you’re not aware of the actual reality on the ground.

bk wrote: »

A lot of money is going to be spent on this. That means a lot of CPOing to buy up front gardens and build bus lanes through them, along with bridge widenings, etc.

This isn't just going to be your usual slap a bit of paint on the road.

Take a look at the recent road widening at the cat&cage pub in Drumcondra.

They spent €3.5 million widening this short stretch of road so it could be four lanes, but it has been a terrific success, IME making a journey that use to take me on average 40 minutes, just 20 minutes!! And that is without any other changes (like faster ticketing, multi-door operation).

Now I haven't looked at the SW corridor in detail to see if the same is possible there at the pinch points, but the above should be an example of what BusConnect will be doing through out the city.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the corridors would know that the notion of comparing them with the Cat & Cage is a complete red herring. That option just doesn’t exist unless you think destroying the suburban villages is acceptable.

I stand by my view that you should go out and see the situation for yourself in the Autumn, when the schools and colleges are back. Take a few trips on any of the 9, 14, 15/a/b and 16 in the morning and evening peak from and to the southern terminus and you might have a different opinion.

Re deferring the Green Line upgrade - my view (again based on what a TII engineer said to me) is that an extended closure (other than July/August) isn’t realistic as the impact would be so great to cause traffic meltdown. Based on the mess that has happened in Dublin City Centre with LUAS, I don’t particularly have faith in the various bodies’ abilities to manage this properly. Hence I am genuinely concerned about the impact of a potential extended closure of the line (TII engineer’s suggestion - not mine).

I don’t know if the money would be there to do both a South Central metro and Metro upgrade of Green Line simultaneously - I doubt it. Hence I didn’t suggest it.

Consonata

LXFlyer wrote: »

I don’t know if the money would be there to do both a South Central metro and Metro upgrade of Green Line simultaneously - I doubt it. Hence I didn’t suggest it.

The money could be found I'd imagine. The EIB would happily fund a relatively small extension thats guaranteed to make money in the long run.

tom1ie

Consonata wrote: »

The money could be found I'd imagine. The EIB would happily fund a relatively small extension thats guaranteed to make money in the long run.

Yeah I think this is a good point. Loans from the Europe can be got at historically low interest rates at the moment.

Sam Russell

In fact, the Gov should go looking for EIB funding for both Metrolink and Metro II.

bk

LOL, did you actually read what you quoted from me:

bk wrote:

Now I haven't looked at the SW corridor in detail to see if the same is possible there at the pinch points, but the above should be an example of what BusConnect will be doing through out the city.

You are completely taking that post out of context, that post is from the BRT / BusConnects project thread (note not this thread) where we were discussing the changes that BusConnects will bring "through out the city" (see it is right there in the post) and not just your narrow focus on the SW corridor!

As for this part:

bk wrote:

Now I haven't looked at the SW corridor in detail

Again taken out of context, what I was saying here is that I hadn't gone and looked in detail at all the junctions and roads in the SW area to try and see what can be done to speed up bus journey times. You know things like changing light sequences to help buses, bus gates, removing onstreet parking, etc.

Just as I haven't gone and looked at these for all the other areas of the city that BusConnects will cover. I'll leave that up to the experts. Instead I'll wait to see what the experts come up with for the BusConnects plan, review it and then critique that.

There is a big difference between knowing at a high level that parts of the city have issues, which I'm well aware that the SW has and quiet happy to admit.

I'll also point out that this is what you claimed and which I've taken such offence to:

LXFlyer wrote: »

considering that you’ve told me and others that the south central area doesn’t warrant a rail based solution at this time

I've never once claimed that the SW doesn't need to be tackled and doesn't deserve rail based transport. I'm very much believe it does and I fully support it, as I've mentioned a number of times.

I just believe it would make the entire Metrolink project too expensive and risk the entire project and thus just not worth it. Also the green line needs to be done either way and makes sense in itself.

With respect LXFlyer, I think you have either totally misunderstood me or wilfully misrepresented me from a comments in a totally separate thread on a largely broader subject that covers the entire of Dublin and not just the SW.

It seems to me that we have to entire 100% agree with you or we are against you. Like we are talking about supporting some football team. There seems to be no nuance allowed in what is an incredibly complicated subject!

LXFlyer wrote: »

I don’t know if the money would be there to do both a South Central metro and Metro upgrade of Green Line simultaneously - I doubt it. Hence I didn’t suggest it.

So you are admitting that the SW can't be done now. The Green line will cost just 120m, SW will cost 1.5b+, so doing both would be just 1.6b+

I mean if you are going to add 1.5b+ to a 3b project, then 120m extra is nothing.

This clearly shows that your opinion isn't based on logic or even what is best for the city. It is based purely on where your live and what you want. Understandable but not a reason to do it.

You also claim that I'm not consistent, so let me be very clear on what I want:

"I want the whole of Dublin region to have high quality public transport in line with what similar sized mainland European cities have." bk

I would hope that you and most people reading this agree on the above statement. Of course we can disagree on the technicalities on how to get their and the priority order of it.

My position is really very simple. I think Metrolink looks to be a good project and desperately needed. No, it isn't perfect, but then nothing ever is. But it is more then good enough IMO and when just need to build the bloody thing and not play with crayons and give the politicians an excuse to cancel the whole thing.

Build Metrolink, prove to the people of Dublin how good Metros are and they will be clamouring for lot more lines, similar to the success of Luas.

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah I think this is a good point. Loans from the Europe can be got at historically low interest rates at the moment.

Remember that the government will be looking for the following funds:

- 3bn for Metrolink
- 2bn for DART Expansion
- 1bn for BusConnects
- 1bn for M20

Plus a lot more for schools, hospitals, second runway at Dublin Airport, lots of housing, etc.

Also there is the question of the Dart Underground tunnel and the 2bn that would cost.

If they can find the extra 1.5bn, then great, but important to remember that there is a lot more going on then just Metro.

bk

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0531/967294-cherrywood-town-centre/

1,269 new apartments for Cheerywood.

The development company says it will provide housing for 3,000 people, office accommodation for 2,300 and employment for 2,500 retail and leisure workers.

Note that this is just a small part of the SDZ, a lot more to come. It is development like this that the Green line upgrade will enable.



Looks good, it is exactly this sort of 6 to 8 storey high density development that we need all along these lines.

A good reminder why this is so important.

bk

bk wrote: »

A good reminder why this is so important.

How many new homes have been built in Dublin South Central/South/South West vs along the existing green line in the last 10 years? How many are forecast to be built in the next 10?

You're fairly consistent in talking about considering the Metrolink logically but I have yet to see you actually apply logic in discussing an issue that you very clearly have substantial bias* and an emotional investment in.


I could write a very long post point by point posting out the various issues with your arguments throughout this thread, but what would the point be? You had your mind made up a long time ago and even if authoritative figures came out that suggested that

1) Borrowing for a SW spur was possible
2) A SW spur would have a higher RoI and larger positive externalities

You'd still find 'logical' reasons for why the luas upgrade should go ahead first anyway even if that was to the detriment of a superior alternative.




(*) Everyone has a bias, but yours is clearly and obviously clouding your ability to even consider this topic.

Consider "It is development like this that the Green line upgrade will enable." and yet a version of this development was first mooted in the mid 1980's. You are ignoring facts to create a narrative that is 100% false to support an emotional position, while pretending that you're approaching it from a place of logic and consideration.

You emphatically are not and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by not recognising that.

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

even if authoritative figures came out that suggested that

1) Borrowing for a SW spur was possible
2) A SW spur would have a higher RoI and larger positive externalities

Even if all that happened, do you think the government are likely to approve the extra spend required? Set reality aside and think from a politicians view. Selling a €3bn project for Dublin will be hard. Selling a (random number generated) €5bn project would be orders of magnitude harder.

I'm very, very pessimistic that this will ever happen. Because of that, I think any talk about increasing the scope and cost of the project is just adding fuel to the fire that will eventually cause it to burn out.

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

How many new homes have been built in Dublin South Central/South/South West vs along the existing green line in the last 10 years? How many are forecast to be built in the next 10?

Cherrywood SDZ, 8,000 homes, plus lots of offices and retail. Though I believe that the number of homes will be increased as they have relaxed some of the rules on building height and apartment size in the SDZ, so it should be able to go more dense. The developers are currently redesigning their plans to take these changes into account.

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/planning/cherrywood-sdz

Also worth noting that, that is just the SDZ, there are more greenfield sites close to the line which will get future development. They want to focus development on the SDZ to start with for obvious reasons.

Well worth looking at the picture in the above link to see how much green fields are along the line available for development.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fairly consistent in talking about considering the Metrolink logically but I have yet to see you actually apply logic in discussing an issue that you very clearly have substantial bias* and an emotional investment in.

Let me point out that I won't directly benefit from Metrolink. I'm in the general area, but I have many buses routes much closer, so I'll continue to use those. Of course I hope to indirectly benefit from it as hopefully everyone in Dublin will and perhaps from future Metro lines. So I've no skin in this game and that goes for both the SW corridor and Green line.

My "emotional investment" in this is being sick of how bad public transport is in Dublin in general and wanting to see it improve over all.

Deleted User wrote: »

I could write a very long post point by point posting out the various issues with your arguments throughout this thread, but what would the point be? You had your mind made up a long time ago and even if authoritative figures came out that suggested that

1) Borrowing for a SW spur was possible

If authoritative figures came out saying we had the money to do a SW Spur (or even better a second NE to SW Metro line) along with all the other planned projects, then I would jump with joy and fully support it. Why wouldn't I?

Deleted User wrote: »

2) A SW spur would have a higher RoI and larger positive externalities

I doubt that to be the case, but if you care to give me those authoritative figures, I'd be delighted to take a look?

Though I should point out, RoI isn't the only deciding factor.

First there is what money you can get, even if you the 4.5bn project has a higher RoI, if the "banks" will only give you 3bn, well that is all you can build.

Then there is public acceptance, in the end this is all in the hands of politicians. 3bn is already WAY more then we have ever spent on a single project (max 1bn) so already a hard sell for the public to buy, I'm genuinely worried that making it a 4.5bn project will turn the public against it. I could be completely wrong about that, the public feelings can be hard to read, see the recent Abortion referendum and the surprise at the outcome.

But I'm really worried that this will all fall through because crayoning allows the politicians say that they once again go back to planning, rather then getting the TBM's in the ground and starting to build the thing.

Consonata

bk wrote: »

Though I should point out, RoI isn't the only deciding factor.

First there is what money you can get, even if you the 4.5bn project has a higher RoI, if the "banks" will only give you 3bn, well that is all you can build.

Do we know as of yet how much the EIB are willing to give? We really should be taking as much as we can afford with the interest rates as low as they are and building as much as we can. The notion that we should be continually saving to keep the books tidy and servicing our debt is nonsensical. That sort of thinking led us to cancelling MN intially. You invest when your economy is suffering.

bk wrote: »

Then there is public acceptance, in the end this is all in the hands of politicians. 3bn is already WAY more then we have ever spent on a single project (max 1bn) so already a hard sell for the public to buy, I'm genuinely worried that making it a 4.5bn project will turn the public against it.

I don't think this is really all that founded considering we have spent multiples of that upgrading roads of the last few decades, and very little in the form of rail. If it is done in conjunction with public transport improvements in the cities, that would be ideal. (A much bolder vision than the disgrace of a one that was outlined in the Ireland 2040 plan)

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Cherrywood SDZ, 8,000 homes, plus lots of offices and retail. Though I believe that the number of homes will be increased as they have relaxed some of the rules on building height and apartment size in the SDZ, so it should be able to go more dense. The developers are currently redesigning their plans to take these changes into account.

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/planning/cherrywood-sdz

Also worth noting that, that is just the SDZ, there are more greenfield sites close to the line which will get future development. They want to focus development on the SDZ to start with for obvious reasons.

Well worth looking at the picture in the above link to see how much green fields are along the line available for development.



Let me point out that I won't directly benefit from Metrolink. I'm in the general area, but I have many buses routes much closer, so I'll continue to use those. Of course I hope to indirectly benefit from it as hopefully everyone in Dublin will and perhaps from future Metro lines. So I've no skin in this game and that goes for both the SW corridor and Green line.

My "emotional investment" in this is being sick of how bad public transport is in Dublin in general and wanting to see it improve over all.



If authoritative figures came out saying we had the money to do a SW Spur (or even better a second NE to SW Metro line) along with all the other planned projects, then I would jump with joy and fully support it. Why wouldn't I?



I doubt that to be the case, but if you care to give me those authoritative figures, I'd be delighted to take a look?

Though I should point out, RoI isn't the only deciding factor.

First there is what money you can get, even if you the 4.5bn project has a higher RoI, if the "banks" will only give you 3bn, well that is all you can build.

Then there is public acceptance, in the end this is all in the hands of politicians. 3bn is already WAY more then we have ever spent on a single project (max 1bn) so already a hard sell for the public to buy, I'm genuinely worried that making it a 4.5bn project will turn the public against it. I could be completely wrong about that, the public feelings can be hard to read, see the recent Abortion referendum and the surprise at the outcome.

But I'm really worried that this will all fall through because crayoning allows the politicians say that they once again go back to planning, rather then getting the TBM's in the ground and starting to build the thing.

So does anyone know what date the tbm’s are due to go into the ground, or how long it will take to tunnel from swords to the tie in on the ss?
With this date in mind I think we should be putting pressure on politicians and the nta to further expand the scope of metrolink to include a sw spur, once the tbm’s are up and running.
That way once the tbm’s are spinning there’s no way the project will be cancelled, and I imagine this will give plenty of time for pressure to build on the public representatives and nta, to continue the tbm’s towards firhouse.
Who knows by the time the tbm is approaching charlemount or windy Arbour or wherever the tie in turns out to be, the extra 1.5 billion might be found under a government sized mattress.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

So does anyone know what date the tbm’s are due to go into the ground, or how long it will take to tunnel from swords to the tie in on the ss?
With this date in mind I think we should be putting pressure on politicians and the nta to further expand the scope of metrolink to include a sw spur, once the tbm’s are up and running.
That way once the tbm’s are spinning there’s no way the project will be cancelled, and I imagine this will give plenty of time for pressure to build on the public representatives and nta, to continue the tbm’s towards firhouse.
Who knows by the time the tbm is approaching charlemount or windy Arbour or wherever the tie in turns out to be, the extra 1.5 billion might be found under a government sized mattress.

I think it would be better to build a Metro II instead of a spur as the spur reduces capacity in the city centre where it is needed most.

SW to NE is what is required, so we have EW served by Dart expansion, NS by Metrolink and NE/SW by Metro II. Just doing SW to CC is not enough.

bk

Consonata wrote: »

Do we know as of yet how much the EIB are willing to give? We really should be taking as much as we can afford with the interest rates as low as they are and building as much as we can. The notion that we should be continually saving to keep the books tidy and servicing our debt is nonsensical. That sort of thinking led us to cancelling MN intially. You invest when your economy is suffering.

Just to point out that during the recession, government spending did actually increase greatly, but it went into social welfare payments, to help all those struggling people who were newly made unemployed. Doing so didn't leave much for infrastructure.

Ideally we should have also continued to invest in infrastructure and yes we should all be ridding around on Metro North by now, but I'm not sure if the Troika who basically controlled the budget at the time would allow it and quite honestly it would be political suicide to spend 3bn building MN when so many people were struggling to just keep their homes. The recession really set us back 20 years.

Of course well worth asking the EIB if we can build a SW Metro in addition to upgrading the Green Line, if a CBA indicates it is a good idea. But then it would throw up questions like if we can get that money, then how does a SW Metro CBA compare to a Dart Underground Tunnel CBA, etc.?

In the end, there are lots of projects to do and not infinite money available. We still have debt ratios to keep within under EU rules.

Consonata wrote: »

I don't think this is really all that founded considering we have spent multiples of that upgrading roads of the last few decades, and very little in the form of rail. If it is done in conjunction with public transport improvements in the cities, that would be ideal. (A much bolder vision than the disgrace of a one that was outlined in the Ireland 2040 plan)

Good point, we spent 10bn alone on the intercity motorways, plus about another 3bn on M50, port tunnel, etc.

However, the important point was that it was never advertised as one big figure like that, instead is was broken down into lots of small projects/phases, each 100km or so, costing 300m'ish each over a long period. That made it all sound much cheaper and much less scary to the public.

That is why it makes more sense to do Metrolink first and then add a SW spur as a later project, sounds cheaper then.

Same with Dart, rather then DU being a big scary 4 to 5bn project, they have broken it down into two phases, phase 1 2bn DART expansion, phase 2 2bn DU tunnel to come later.

If we could break down Metrolink even further, then I'd prefer it. Would be easier to fly under the publics radar.

Consonata

Sam Russell wrote: »

SW to NE is what is required, so we have EW served by Dart expansion, NS by Metrolink and NE/SW by Metro II. Just doing SW to CC is not enough.

Is there a plan for a Metro II? As far as I was aware, Metrolink was going to be the only metro considered before 2035

bk

tom1ie, I agree completely and would fully support that.

Though I also agree with Sam that they should also consider a full NE to SW tunnel, it would certainly cover far more of the city and allow for much higher capacity. Perhaps cost out both and do CBA's for both and see what the appetite for a second tunnel is.

Consonata

bk wrote: »

However, the important point was that it was never advertised as one big figure like that, instead is was broken down into lots of small projects/phases, each 100km or so, costing 300m'ish each over a long period. That made it all sound much cheaper and much less scary to the public.

The issue is we really don't have the time to do that though. Road improvements can be done relatively quickly so its easy to spread the cost of 10 billion over around 15 years. However Metrolink alone is touted to take at the very least 6 years to build. 6 years to build 2 billion euros worth of infrastructure seems a bit of shame. It would see better to me to have multiple rail projects going on concurrently so there would be a much more visible improvement to Dublin transport by 2030.

bk

Consonata wrote: »

Is there a plan for a Metro II? As far as I was aware, Metrolink was going to be the only metro considered before 2035

Well there are plans for the DU tunnel before 2035, so that would be a second underground train tunnel, though not Metro and not what we are really talking about here. Though having this tunnel go SW is another possible option.

You are right though, a SW tunnel has never really been considered as part of any of the overall Dublin transport plans as far as I know. Honestly I'm not sure it is even on any planners radar, though I definitely think it should be.

I think the thinking is, hopefully once we get Metrolink started, if the country continues to do as well as it currently is, then there should be a lot of scope for expanding on and accelerating these plans. Fingers crossed.

bk

Consonata wrote: »

The issue is we really don't have the time to do that though. Road improvements can be done relatively quickly so its easy to spread the cost of 10 billion over around 15 years. However Metrolink alone is touted to take at the very least 6 years to build. 6 years to build 2 billion euros worth of infrastructure seems a bit of shame. It would see better to me to have multiple rail projects going on concurrently so there would be a much more visible improvement to Dublin transport by 2030.

Well there are.

They are also doing the 2bn DART Expansion plan during that time, pretty massive project it it's own right.

And then there is BusConnects, probably the biggest investment in buses ever and desperately needed.

Don't forget M20 down south and possibly Luass for Cork. Oh and Luas extension to Finglas and Bray are likely to come over this period. And the second runway at Dublin Airport, etc.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it would be better to build a Metro II instead of a spur as the spur reduces capacity in the city centre where it is needed most.

SW to NE is what is required, so we have EW served by Dart expansion, NS by Metrolink and NE/SW by Metro II. Just doing SW to CC is not enough.

I agree with this, any spurs can only be in the extremeties of a line spurring in or near the cc is cutting capacity before anyone even swings a pick axe

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it would be better to build a Metro II instead of a spur as the spur reduces capacity in the city centre where it is needed most.

SW to NE is what is required, so we have EW served by Dart expansion, NS by Metrolink and NE/SW by Metro II. Just doing SW to CC is not enough.

if a seperate ne/sw line was chosen where would the interchange on the southside of the city be located? as in if i live in rathfarnham and want to travel to lets say ssg, i shouldnt have to go to glasnevin to get a metro back the way i came.
i understand the point about cutting frequency on the green line if a spur was built, but there would still be a metro travelling through the tunnel every 90 secs, and if that metro was driverless 90m hfv there would be plenty of capacity for sw, south and north.
The advantages being:
the capital cost would be far less with a sw spur than a seperate line sw/ne.
connectivity on the south side of the city, as generally ssg is the centre of town on the southside, also allows for sw to south movements, and of course allows sw to north movements with one simple change at whatever interchange station is chosen.

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

I agree with this, any spurs can only be in the extremeties of a line spurring in or near the cc is cutting capacity before anyone even swings a pick axe

which can be remedied by running driverless 90m hfv every 3 mins which equates to 90 secs in the cc tunnel. Connectivity is also streamlined this way.

tom1ie

someone suggested an idea where metrolink could tie in north of windy arbour via rathmines where an underground station could be built. provision for a future spur to the sw could be integrated in rathmines.
positives being you are making the tie in a simpler affair as milltown golf course could be cpo'ed and the line tie in could proceed there.
this would solve the at grade issues the green line luas has at the minute (cant remember the specific pinch points)
it would be a start towards serving the sw with a rail based transport system anyway.
obviously the negatives is trying to cpo milltown golf course, and the extra cost of tunneling the 4.2 km to go to windy arbour via rathmines.