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
-
Join Date:Posts: 19091
I
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.
The first stop would be at Portabello Bridge, 1 km from SSG. (Stations need to be every Km).
Then go to Beechwood (another Km) using the southern tie-in in the published emerging route documentation for Beechwood.
Going further south adds too much to cost. I agree that could be the branch off towards Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, then surface and follow the Dodder.0 -
There is no way the whole of Milltown gc would be cpo’d it would cost millions and then to build houses with those roads around it already gridlocked, coupled with I’d imagine the members and locals are well heeled and well able to mount legal battles that run for years.
the roads around the golf course wouldnt need to be massivley upgraded as the houses going in would be built on a high capacity frequent pt line
do you not think the houses to be cpoed around charlemount are owned by well healed types?
At least with a golf course you are only dealing with one entity as opposed to many different owners.0 -
the roads around the golf course wouldnt need to be massivley upgraded as the houses going in would be built on a high capacity frequent pt line
do you not think the houses to be cpoed around charlemount are owned by well healed types?
At least with a golf course you are only dealing with one entity as opposed to many different owners.
The lower churchtown road is one of the worst bottlenecks on the south side of the city, even a few extra cars would be a mess and the golf club could fit thousands of homes if even a small amount of the thousands of people that could fit on that land drove out onto the road it would be chaos. The golf club is one entity but has presumably hundreds of members which would make them a very difficult set of people to fight as they already have a structure in place as opposed to a handful of residents trying to organize themselves on an ad how basis. The golf club has employees which means they could have people fighting this on a full time basis.0 -
I think the government will have great difficulty getting busconnects through in rathgar,terenure and rathfarnham. The consequence of this might be more local pressure for the metro 2 built there.
I think once metro 1 is built there will be a real drive for lines around the city. A metro 2 going sw is so obviously needed, but it's hard to see it being operational for 15-20 years. More luas lines should be secondary to building dart underground/metro lines. A better and faster bus service is essential to be fair, especially as this is more immediate while the city waits for rail transport.
I completely agree that there should be numerous large scale public transport projects built right now, especially with the m50 at breaking point and the population of the city increasing at a very steady rate. As mentioned, this pays for itself. We are not meeting our emission targets anyway so we are going to be fined a large amount if we don't which is money down the drain.
I think the current government recognise this at some level, but they are also likely to engage in cute hoorism as seen by the Na Fianna debacle. They will try and balance the sane argument with appealing to nimbyism and the rural populace (who have their own justifiable issues to be fair).
I think (perhaps naively) Dublin will have a quality public transport system in 30 years but i really fear we have a horrendous period ahead of us especially in the next 20 years. The city is creaking and even moderate economic growth and modest population growth will be incredibly challenging for the city. I just hope politicians can think of the bigger picture in order to help ease us through these difficulties but I have great doubts about all of them.0 -
The lower churchtown road is one of the worst bottlenecks on the south side of the city, even a few extra cars would be a mess and the golf club could fit thousands of homes if even a small amount of the thousands of people that could fit on that land drove out onto the road it would be chaos. The golf club is one entity but has presumably hundreds of members which would make them a very difficult set of people to fight as they already have a structure in place as opposed to a handful of residents trying to organize themselves on an ad how basis. The golf club has employees which means they could have people fighting this on a full time basis.
Traffic on the lower churchtown road could be drastically reduced by the addition of a metro stop in dartry, which I have accounted for in my previous point. Bus routes could be re-routed to dartry metro station to feed the metro and give a reduction in traffic.
A lot of the traffic going this route to the cc are avoiding terenure village and the canal, so bus connects going to rathmines and feeding metrolink at rathmines will also take a lot of this traffic.
The point is we have to start promoting pt as the normal not as the exception. If you build mid density housing on milltown gc and provide limited car parking spaces but plenty of bike parks, a good bus service and a fantastic metro that allows you to go south, north, and even west (to rathmines in my plan) do you not think people will not buy houses here and ditch the car?
I agree the cpo of milltown gc will have problems, but so will the cpo of the houses around charlemount, where you’ll be dealing with multiple people who might have legal backgrounds etc, plus you have the sewage problem, plus you have the at grade problems.
Beechwood is a decent option but doesn’t allow for stations at rathmines and dartry, plus there’d be cpoing of individual houses and that won’t open up milltown gc for mid density housing.0 -
Advertisement
-
The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.
The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.0 -
But there is no space for a line to run alongside the green line? Or am I picking you up wrong?antoinolachtnai wrote: »The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.
The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.
The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.
Not a bad idea, but then you’d have to reduce capacity on the Green Line branch of the Metro when the Rathfarnham line came live. Sadly I think they do need to be two separate lines.0 -
-
Not a bad idea, but then you’d have to reduce capacity on the Green Line branch of the Metro when the Rathfarnham line came live. Sadly I think they do need to be two separate lines.
The capacity of a grade separated underground train line with long trains is immense. The frequency could be as high as a train every 90 seconds or even a train a minute.
The Picadilly Line seems to do OK in London, for example, with a slightly similar 'Y' arrangement.
One problem with the existing proposal is that it doesn't really open up very much development land. This proposal could potentially serve a lot of development land to the west.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22131
antoinolachtnai wrote: »One problem with the existing proposal is that it doesn't really open up very much development land. This proposal could potentially serve a lot of development land to the west.
I agree with most of what you said, but the above isn't really true. Cherrywood SDZ and the nearby areas are some of the most prime development land in the whole city.
Sure, strictly speaking the Metrolink won't go as far as Cheerywood, but that is not really true as the Metro upgrade of the green line allows for people from these areas to transfer on at Sandyford.
The West will be benefitting from the DART Expansion plan that will also help open up large areas to the West.0 -
I agree with most of what you said, but the above isn't really true. Cherrywood SDZ and the nearby areas are some of the most prime development land in the whole city.
Sure, strictly speaking the Metrolink won't go as far as Cheerywood, but that is not really true as the Metro upgrade of the green line allows for people from these areas to transfer on at Sandyford.
The West will be benefitting from the DART Expansion plan that will also help open up large areas to the West.
Well, Cherrywood was already opened up. It will clearly benefit from Metro of course. But by 2027 it will not be new development.
DART + MetroLink will certainly greatly help some land, but it isn't opening up land for the first time.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22131
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Well, Cherrywood was already opened up. It will clearly benefit from Metro of course. But by 2027 it will not be new development.
DART + MetroLink will certainly greatly help some land, but it isn't opening up land for the first time.
Cheerywood is only at starting construction. 1,200+ homes at the moment. But the plan is up to 10,000 homes over the next ten years.
20,000+ extra people trying to get on Luas will leave people standing at platforms as full trams drive by from Sandyford in. This is why the green line needs upgrading.
BTW this is just the SDZ, there is lots of similar land nearby which will likely be similarly zoned once Cherrywood SDZ is completed. The planners are wisely trying to focus high density development on certain areas, rather then open it all up and risk low density development.
Their is actually very little development land along this proposed SW line, going SW is more about serving already developed areas that currently have poor bus journey times and high congestion, rather then opening up new land.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14052
Here is what the NTA propose firstly for the corridor frequently talked about here that Metrolink should be rerouted to serve:NTA wrote:4.2.5 Corridor E – N81 Settlements – South Tallaght – Rathfarnham – to Dublin
City Centre
Corridor E is made up of generally suburban residential development and is not defined on the basis of a
major transport route, road or public transport service. It presents a challenge in that respect as it is more
difficult to serve with high capacity public transport than other corridors, which are defined by multi-lane
roads and / or dual carriageways, and contain existing or proposed rail lines.
As limited growth in radial trips along Corridor E outside of the Metropolitan Area is anticipated, it is not
proposed to implement significant public transport infrastructure improvements. Bus capacity will be
increased to meet demand along the N81.
For the Metropolitan parts of this corridor, the performance of the Rathfarnham Quality Bus Corridor is
poor relative to others and requires enhancement. As such, a number of options, including Light Rail,
have been examined. However, due to the land use constraints in the corridor and owing to the pressure
on the existing road network, a Luas line was not deemed feasible. Instead, the emerging solution
comprises a BRT to Tallaght via Rathfarnham and Terenure. This will result in a significant increase in
capacity and reliability compared to existing public transport services and will balance public transport
requirements with those of the private car. The BRT will be supplemented by a core radial bus corridor
between Rathfarnham, Rathmines and the City Centre.
Two new roads are to be built within this corridor, a South Tallaght link road from Oldcourt Road to
Kiltipper Road, and a public transport bridge over the Dodder to the east of Tallaght from Firhouse Road
to the N81 to address localised access and congestion issues. Other road schemes and upgrades will
also be implemented, in line with the principles for road development set out in Chapter 5.
and here is the NTA's light rail (light rail is Luas + Metro) plan for 2016-2035:NTA wrote:i New Metro North - light rail link from the south city centre to Swords and serving Dublin Airport,
operating in tunnel under Dublin City Centre, and providing a high frequency, high capacity service;
i Green Line Capacity Enhancement - capacity enhancements to the Luas Green Line between St.
Stephen’s Green and Bride’s Glen (in advance of Metro South) allowing longer and higher capacity
trams to be brought into service on this line;
i Metro South - Luas Green Line Capacity Upgrade from the south city centre to Bride’s Glen,
completing a full north-south high-capacity high-frequency cross-city rail corridor through the central
spine of the Metropolitan Area;
i Luas Cross City connecting St. Stephen’s Green to Broombridge and intersecting with the Red Line
at Abbey Street;
i Extension of Luas Green Line to Bray, providing a second rail alternative to this large town,
connecting to the city centre and major destinations along the corridor at Cherrywood, Sandyford
and Dundrum;
i Extension of Luas Cross City to Finglas, utilising the new Luas Cross City line to provide a light rail
link to the Finglas area;
i Luas to Lucan, providing a high capacity link into the centre of Lucan’s large residential areas to the
south of the N4 national road, and connecting to the city centre; and
i Luas Red Line extension to Poolbeg, linking the north Docklands to this new development area
south of the Liffey
Eamon Ryan can crow all he wants. The NTA don't believe there is merit for a Metro in this area from 2016-2035, and certainly not ahead of Swords-Sandyford.0 -
Here is what the NTA propose firstly for the corridor frequently talked about here that Metrolink should be rerouted to serve:
and here is the NTA's light rail (light rail is Luas + Metro) plan for 2016-2035:
Eamon Ryan can crow all he wants. The NTA don't believe there is merit for a Metro in this area from 2016-2035, and certainly not ahead of Swords-Sandyford.
Well the nta have got this wrong. What about development lands around stocking lane?
Kiltipper?
They won’t deliver the bus connects they envisage due to political ineptitude.
And Marno..... your allowed call it metro 2!0 -
Here is what the NTA propose firstly for the corridor frequently talked about here that Metrolink should be rerouted to serve:
and here is the NTA's light rail (light rail is Luas + Metro) plan for 2016-2035:
Eamon Ryan can crow all he wants. The NTA don't believe there is merit for a Metro in this area from 2016-2035, and certainly not ahead of Swords-Sandyford.
The problem is Marno that the NTA in saying that is assuming BusConnects will happen in south central Dublin as per their plan.
I don’t think it will be delivered in anything like what they suggest. It’s a political timebomb.
Do you think that closing Templeogue Rd and Kimmage Rd lower to general traffic, along with the CPO activity that is suggested, will actually happen in reality and to such an extent to be able to deliver the necessary improvement in bus speeds?
I really don’t as I think it will be bogged down in the courts for years and still won’t deliver real improvements.
When you look at it from a practical (and political) perspective that tends to change your outlook!0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22131
Well the nta have got this wrong. What about development lands around stocking lane?
Kiltipper?
Your outside the M50 now!
That is a long way to go and the cost is going to increase greatly as a result.
The advantage of Cheerywood, etc. is that the Luas is already there, it just needs a cheap upgrade to unlock the potential.
BTW not really that much space out towards Stocking Lane, you are hitting the Dublin Mountains and National Parks there pretty quickly. Plus a lot of the land is golf courses and we have yet to tackle the nettle of turning Golf courses into developments. If you though Na Fianna was bad, wait until you try that one!
The DART Expansion plans will open up far more development land to the West then this would.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19091
Also, Metrolink will open land north of Swords, and around the airport, and Donabate if it gets extended to there.0 -
Your outside the M50 now!
That is a long way to go and the cost is going to increase greatly as a result.
The advantage of Cheerywood, etc. is that the Luas is already there, it just needs a cheap upgrade to unlock the potential.
BTW not really that much space out towards Stocking Lane, you are hitting the Dublin Mountains and National Parks there pretty quickly. Plus a lot of the land is golf courses and we have yet to tackle the nettle of turning Golf courses into developments. If you though Na Fianna was bad, wait until you try that one!
The DART Expansion plans will open up far more development land to the West then this would.
Yes I’m outside the m50 but people driving from these areas contribute to traffic within the m50. If traffic within the m50 is dealt with by metro 2 or bus connects that will be an incentive for people in firhouse etc to get on the bus to a metro station.
By the way I’m not arguing against metrolink, I’m just arguing against where the tie in on the ss should occur. I think for the money (600 mill as opposed to 1 bill) windy arbour presents extra benefits to what the existing flawed plans give.
Unless a station in rathmines can be included if the tie in occurs at beechwood, which I don’t think is possible.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Also, Metrolink will open land north of Swords, and around the airport, and Donabate if it gets extended to there.
Agreed and I have never argued against any of that. Please see my previous post.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14052
Well the nta have got this wrong. What about development lands around stocking lane?
Kiltipper?
They won’t deliver the bus connects they envisage due to political ineptitude.
And Marno..... your allowed call it metro 2!The problem is Marno that the NTA in saying that is assuming BusConnects will happen in south central Dublin as per their plan.
I don’t think it will be delivered in anything like what they suggest. It’s a political timebomb.
Do you think that closing Templeogue Rd and Kimmage Rd lower to general traffic, along with the CPO activity that is suggested, will actually happen in reality and to such an extent to be able to deliver the necessary improvement in bus speeds?
I really don’t as I think it will be bogged down in the courts for years and still won’t deliver real improvements.
When you look at it from a practical (and political) perspective that tends to change your outlook!
I accept both your points. From the NTA's point of view, they are first of all going to try with BusConnects as they believe that it'll be appropriate for the area involved. The issue with the south west corridor is that it's not very dense in population terms, and a Metro can only serve one spine through an area which isn't ideal if you have relatively low density. You then need feeder buses which brings us back to the same issues that will plague BusConnects.
There's a deeper issue here as well and it's reflected in the political response to these projects, we've seen it with Metrolink and now BusConnects. John Lahart has come out widely in favour of BusConnects, for example, because it stands to benefit a lot of people in his constituency that suffer from extremely poor PT performance in Dublin South West. However, to get this built, there will be a lot of disquiet in Dublin Bay South. There will be issues closer to the city as these are the people who will be affected whereas it's people further out who stand to benefit. We are seeing the same in Ranelagh and Glasnevin with the Metro.
One of the main issues with the Dublin SW area is that when you look at public transport demand when trying to find a solution for the area, it's best served by bus. It'll be very hard to push a Metro through in this area for some time because the cost:benefit analysis will be difficult at best due to the primary reason for a Metro being the lack of road space for quality bus corridors. We'll have to see how Metrolink goes before this one goes anywhere.
Another issue is that the NTA package of improvements for Dublin between now and 2027 is €7bn+. There simply isn't the money for any more metros in that period, between financial and engineering resources.0 -
I accept both your points. From the NTA's point of view, they are first of all going to try with BusConnects as they believe that it'll be appropriate for the area involved. The issue with the south west corridor is that it's not very dense in population terms, and a Metro can only serve one spine through an area which isn't ideal if you have relatively low density. You then need feeder buses which brings us back to the same issues that will plague BusConnects.
There's a deeper issue here as well and it's reflected in the political response to these projects, we've seen it with Metrolink and now BusConnects. John Lahart has come out widely in favour of BusConnects, for example, because it stands to benefit a lot of people in his constituency that suffer from extremely poor PT performance in Dublin South West. However, to get this built, there will be a lot of disquiet in Dublin Bay South. There will be issues closer to the city as these are the people who will be affected whereas it's people further out who stand to benefit. We are seeing the same in Ranelagh and Glasnevin with the Metro.
One of the main issues with the Dublin SW area is that when you look at public transport demand when trying to find a solution for the area, it's best served by bus. It'll be very hard to push a Metro through in this area for some time because the cost:benefit analysis will be difficult at best due to the primary reason for a Metro being the lack of road space for quality bus corridors. We'll have to see how Metrolink goes before this one goes anywhere.
Another issue is that the NTA package of improvements for Dublin between now and 2027 is €7bn+. There simply isn't the money for any more metros in that period, between financial and engineering resources.
That’s fair enough.
But what about a metrolink station in rathmines with the gl tie in further south. Surely this money should be sourced as it is a missed opportunity for a mid density area, which rathmines is, and which would have large knock on effects for Dublin sw’s chronic traffic.0 -
I accept both your points. From the NTA's point of view, they are first of all going to try with BusConnects as they believe that it'll be appropriate for the area involved. The issue with the south west corridor is that it's not very dense in population terms, and a Metro can only serve one spine through an area which isn't ideal if you have relatively low density. You then need feeder buses which brings us back to the same issues that will plague BusConnects.
There's a deeper issue here as well and it's reflected in the political response to these projects, we've seen it with Metrolink and now BusConnects. John Lahart has come out widely in favour of BusConnects, for example, because it stands to benefit a lot of people in his constituency that suffer from extremely poor PT performance in Dublin South West. However, to get this built, there will be a lot of disquiet in Dublin Bay South. There will be issues closer to the city as these are the people who will be affected whereas it's people further out who stand to benefit. We are seeing the same in Ranelagh and Glasnevin with the Metro.
One of the main issues with the Dublin SW area is that when you look at public transport demand when trying to find a solution for the area, it's best served by bus. It'll be very hard to push a Metro through in this area for some time because the cost:benefit analysis will be difficult at best due to the primary reason for a Metro being the lack of road space for quality bus corridors. We'll have to see how Metrolink goes before this one goes anywhere.
Another issue is that the NTA package of improvements for Dublin between now and 2027 is €7bn+. There simply isn't the money for any more metros in that period, between financial and engineering resources.
I appreciate your comments Marno.
But being honest, the realistic outcome of that analysis means that people in south central Dublin are going to be screwed from a PT perspective for years to come.0 -
Another issue is that the NTA package of improvements for Dublin between now and 2027 is €7bn+. There simply isn't the money for any more metros in that period, between financial and engineering resources.
€7bn is the minimum cost it will likely go over €10bn realistically.
I still find it hard to believe people are supportive of spending so much money on a few extra buses, upgrading current and adding some new bus lanes and a Metro where roughly 50% of it is already in use with Luas.
When the normal Joe soap relises their going to have to change buses 2 or 3 times each time they will be straight back to their car.0 -
€7bn is the minimum cost it will likely go over €10bn realistically.
I still find it hard to believe people are supportive of spending so much money on a few extra buses, upgrading current and adding some new bus lanes and a Metro where roughly 50% of it is already in use with Luas.
When the normal Joe soap relises their going to have to change buses 2 or 3 times each time they will be straight back to their car.
As long as the transport is reliable I don't think people will mind changing. changing buses is a pain because it's a lottery whether the bloody yoke will come or not.
If you know there'll be a Metro in 90 seconds it's a much smaller deal0 -
Does anybody know off-hand which orbital route is the most frequent? I always regarded the 17a as pretty frequent but I'm not sure it it's the most frequent.0
-
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10134
As long as the transport is reliable I don't think people will mind changing. changing buses is a pain because it's a lottery whether the bloody yoke will come or not.
If you know there'll be a Metro in 90 seconds it's a much smaller deal
I believe he's talking about BusConnects there.0 -
-
Frankfurt's Metro population is 5.6 million people.
Frankfurt is on a very different scale in terms of both wealth and population. It would be a foolish comparison.
Not really. On a regional basis Ireland Southern and East has a GVA per person of €44,100. Darmstadt - the region Frankfurt is part of - is €44,800. Both are adjusted for adjusted for comparative prices. So basically the economic activity in the region each city is part of is quite similar.
Compared to Dublin, what Frankfurt has is a big legacy of public transport infrastructure and a regional government that is able to lay claim to a greater share of the economic activity there.0 -
Advertisement
-
I accept both your points. From the NTA's point of view, they are first of all going to try with BusConnects as they believe that it'll be appropriate for the area involved. The issue with the south west corridor is that it's not very dense in population terms, and a Metro can only serve one spine through an area which isn't ideal if you have relatively low density. You then need feeder buses which brings us back to the same issues that will plague BusConnects.
There's a deeper issue here as well and it's reflected in the political response to these projects, we've seen it with Metrolink and now BusConnects. John Lahart has come out widely in favour of BusConnects, for example, because it stands to benefit a lot of people in his constituency that suffer from extremely poor PT performance in Dublin South West. However, to get this built, there will be a lot of disquiet in Dublin Bay South. There will be issues closer to the city as these are the people who will be affected whereas it's people further out who stand to benefit. We are seeing the same in Ranelagh and Glasnevin with the Metro.
One of the main issues with the Dublin SW area is that when you look at public transport demand when trying to find a solution for the area, it's best served by bus. It'll be very hard to push a Metro through in this area for some time because the cost:benefit analysis will be difficult at best due to the primary reason for a Metro being the lack of road space for quality bus corridors. We'll have to see how Metrolink goes before this one goes anywhere.
Another issue is that the NTA package of improvements for Dublin between now and 2027 is €7bn+. There simply isn't the money for any more metros in that period, between financial and engineering resources.
Just thinking about this Marno has made me realize something. You say the nta are going to try bus connects first for the sw route. Realistically bus connects won’t be delivered in its ideal form and will become a watered down excuse for qbc’s that’ll be interrupted along the radial routes in the sw, that won’t make any difference to journey times all the while big money is spent on the cpo’s that do eventually get done.
So with that in mind are the people of sw Dublin then going to go back to the nta and say bus connects doesn’t work we want metro2 sent out our way at a cost of whatever billion. Sure never mind the money you’ve just spent on bus connects.
I don’t think that’s going to go down too well is it?
It’d be far easier to have the green line upgraded after the metro is sent out to rathfarnham as the green line is already in situ.
Eamon Ryan is dead right in what he’s doing at the moment cause he can see if the metro is not sent out to rathfarnham now, it won’t be in the next 40 years as
Bus connects will try, and fail to deliver pt for the sw,
Dart underground will get preference,
The nw will probably get preference over the sw for a metro, because money will have already been spent on a bus connects route in the sw.
As for the cba for going down this route as opposed to connecting to the gl, well all I can say is reliable, frequent pt should be delivered to areas that do not already have this available. At the moment the green line has capacity, and will be gaining more capacity via longer trams. There are also plans for a radial bus connects route to serve cherrywood which adds capacity also (route 13 in the bus connects plan). This brt route will be much easier to implement than what we will end up in the sw.
The people along the green line and the people in the next 5-10 years who will live along the green line will have access to two high frequency high capacity pt options, the green line Luas and route 13 bus connects.
The people of the sw will have access to nothing.
This hardly seems fair.0
Advertisement