Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Should the Metrolink project include an upgrade of the Luas Green Line?

  • 27-11-2018 2:50pm
    #1
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 13,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭ marno21


    Discuss away here


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭ Dardania


    Yes. Massive, dense number of taxpayers living in that catchment area, with more to be added at the far end in Cherrywood. We should absolutely give them a high quality service, to overcome the capacity constraints with the current service.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Of course, pretty much mad not to.

    The Luas Green line was originally designed to be relatively easily upgradeable to Metro. The Luas Green line will reach it's maximum capacity of about 8,500 per hour in the next few years.

    Currently 10,000 new homes are being built in the Cherrywood SDZ, that will be at least another 27,000 people (Ireland average home size is 2.7) living on the line.

    If just 20% of them decide to commute into town, a VERY conservative figure IMO, that alone would be an extra demand of 5,400 extra people! You are looking at a demand of at least 13,000 to 14,000 people on the line in just 10 years!

    And BTW there is more development happening along this line then just this Cherrywood SDZ.

    If the Green line isn't upgraded, it will be mayhem on that line in ten years time.

    For a relatively small cost, the Green Luas line can be upgraded to Metro which will support that demand level. It would be madness of bad planning not to take advantage of the Metrolink project to upgrade capacity for a low cost given all the development happening on the line.

    It also helps improve the business case for the Metrolink. Win, win.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭ prunudo


    bk wrote: »
    Of course, pretty much mad not to.

    The Luas Green line was originally designed to be relatively easily upgradeable to Metro. The Luas Green line will reach it's maximum capacity of about 8,500 per hour in the next few years.

    Currently 10,000 new homes are being built in the Cherrywood SDZ, that will be at least another 27,000 people (Ireland average home size is 2.7) living on the line.

    If just 20% of them decide to commute into town, a VERY conservative figure IMO, that alone would be an extra demand of 5,400 extra people! You are looking at a demand of at least 13,000 to 14,000 people on the line in just 10 years!

    And BTW there is more development happening along this line then just this Cherrywood SDZ.

    If the Green line isn't upgraded, it will be mayhem on that line in ten years time.

    For a relatively very small cost, the Green Luas line can be upgraded to Metro which will support that demand level. It would be madness of bad planning not to take advantage of the Metrolink project to upgrade capacity for a low cost given all the development happening on the line.

    It also helps improve the business case for the Metrolink. Win, win.

    I was going to reply to your post on the other thread but that pretty much sums up what I was going to say.
    Add to all that, if and when the greenline is extended to Bray it will cause even more capacity issues so the upgrading of the current Green line to Metro as far as Sandyford is a must.
    If they want the general public to move away from the car and take public transport seriously we really have to get away from these half thought out plans.
    Credit where its due though, at least they did orignially design it so it could be upgraded, just for nimbys to be throwing a spanner in the works now.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Oh and compared to the original Metro North project, it avoids a big, costly underground station and turning loop under Stephens Green and the somewhat controversial closure and digging up of Stephens green.

    And they get to reuse Sandyford Depot, another saving.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    Yes, its a no brainer.

    Street trams are not appropriate for long distance commuting.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Yes. Future separate metro line to serve South West and North East Dublin, resulting in virtually all areas having decent rail access. Securing funding will be no problem when the public sees the rampant success of metrolink just like more luas lines were screamed for after the 2004 initial launch.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Peregrine


    Yes. You'd be mad not to include it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Amirani


    Yes, 100%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Yes, as long as the overall project is not delayed by the local nimbys giving out about where the tunnel portal will end up.
    The tbm needs to start as soon as possible with the view that it will come out at charlemount or wherever is decided, but if the local residents start delaying the project, we’ll then tunnel to ssg only and include a crossover set of points to allow metros to go in the reverse direction while this is still being argued out with the locals.
    If in 5 years time the locals and local politicians are still opposing it, re route the tbm to the sw with new funds that should be available (providing the economy hasn’t gone belly up).
    When the locals opposing see the success of metrolink to metro sw, they’ll be crying out for a green line upgrade to metro themselves :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭ Dats me


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yes, as long as the overall project is not delayed by the local nimbys giving out about where the tunnel portal will end up.
    The tbm needs to start as soon as possible with the view that it will come out at charlemount or wherever is decided, but if the local residents start delaying the project, we’ll then tunnel to ssg only and include a crossover set of points to allow metros to go in the reverse direction while this is still being argued out with the locals.
    If in 5 years time the locals and local politicians are still opposing it, re route the tbm to the sw with new funds that should be available (providing the economy hasn’t gone belly up).
    When the locals opposing see the success of metrolink to metro sw, they’ll be crying out for a green line upgrade to metro themselves :pac:


    This would seem like a good way to go, although I'd feel awfully sorry for what is almost certainly the majority of people who actually use the Green Line who would be in favour of the upgrade given the figures.


    Is that possible though? Can a project start and be funded without a defined scope etc?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Dats me wrote: »
    This would seem like a good way to go, although I'd feel awfully sorry for what is almost certainly the majority of people who actually use the Green Line who would be in favour of the upgrade given the figures.


    Is that possible though? Can a project start and be funded without a defined scope etc?

    Not sure to be honest and I agree it would be a complete missed opportunity not to connect metro link to the green line, however this approach would certainly focus minds once the tbm goes in the ground and starts it's journey to ssg.
    You can imagine the pressure put on the nimby's by the residents and international landlords that'll be based in cherry wood if a sw option was seen as a plausible option. Almost a threatening option.
    I live in rathfarnham so I'd love it to come out my way, but I see the obvious choice that would be a link to gl and upgrade to metro, then a sw spur from maybe ssg a few years later.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 Synode


    I'd assume they'd have to dig up SSG completely to allow the metros to turn. Which I don't think is a runner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Synode wrote: »
    I'd assume they'd have to dig up SSG completely to allow the metros to turn. Which I don't think is a runner.

    But would a set of points not do the job?


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,206 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    tom1ie wrote: »
    But would a set of points not do the job?

    With a train arriving every 90 seconds, probably not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    CatInABox wrote: »
    With a train arriving every 90 seconds, probably not.

    So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,206 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    tom1ie wrote: »
    So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.

    I don't think that it will ever have a spur though. Assuming that the trains are divided even between the lines, that will result in a 50% reduction in potential capacity on those lines. If we're talking hypotheticals here, then a SW line should avoid impacting on what will be the main North-South transport spine, and continue on through the city centre and out the other side, towards the NE.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I don't think that it will ever have a spur though. Assuming that the trains are divided even between the lines, that will result in a 50% reduction in potential capacity on those lines. If we're talking hypotheticals here, then a SW line should avoid impacting on what will be the main North-South transport spine, and continue on through the city centre and out the other side, towards the NE.

    yes agreed it should eventually end up like this, but what im suggesting is people on the sw spur get off at ssg and change onto the mainline at ssg to go to airport or sandyford. Eventually the tunnel will head towards the nw.
    At least this way people in the sw would have access to rail, with connectivity options, but the cost (of an eventual sw/ne tunnel) would be spread over several years or decades.
    The most important thing would be the spur gives access to metrolink, without impacting the metrolink frequency and capacity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭ Qrt


    Yes.

    Tell Rethink Metrolink that they’re idiots.

    Build it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭ prunudo


    Without wanting to derail the thread, and I'm not sure if it has the same restrictions as the metrolink thread.
    Regarding a possible sw line, I think should be a seperate line, not a spur, possibly routing in a large curved route, going roughly from Tallaght (even as far as Rathcoole) through Terenure etc and linking up with the Metrolink north/south at ssg. Then turning back inland towards Blanchardstown (maybe Ballycoolin) and linking up with N3 Parkway p&r. Connecting with any luas or heavy rail along the way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    jvan wrote: »
    Without wanting to derail the thread, and I'm not sure if it has the same restrictions as the metrolink thread.
    Regarding a possible sw line, I think should be a seperate line, not a spur, possibly routing in a large curved route, going roughly from Tallaght (even as far as Rathcoole) through Terenure etc and linking up with the Metrolink north/south at ssg. Then turning back inland towards Blanchardstown (maybe Ballycoolin) and linking up with N3 Parkway p&r. Connecting with any luas or heavy rail along the way.

    Yes. As long as it has connectivity with metrolink at one of the cc stations. Preferably ssg. Connectivity, in this case, would mean a short walk of 20 seconds to another platform, not a ten minute walk across town.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    tom1ie wrote: »
    So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.

    A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    cgcsb wrote: »
    A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.

    So if I want to go from rathfarnham to the airport swords, how do I do it if the sw/ne line doesn’t interact with metrolink?
    Metrolink on platform 1+2 and sw (then eventually sw/ne) on platform 3+4 in ssg station is what I’m suggesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    tom1ie wrote: »
    So if I want to go from rathfarnham to the airport swords, how do I do it if the sw/ne line doesn’t interact with metrolink?
    Metrolink on platform 1+2 and sw (then eventually sw/ne) on platform 3+4 in ssg station is what I’m suggesting.

    Change trains at O'Connell Upper


  • Registered Users Posts: 237 ✭✭ citycentre


    cgcsb wrote: »
    A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.

    This sounds very sensible...


  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭ Kellyconor1982


    Metro 1: current plans
    Metro 2: Knocklyon, rathfarnham, terenure, rathgar, rathmines, portobello, temple bar, o'connell street, croke park, fairview, marino, donnycarney, artane, coolock, clarehall
    Metro 3: Dundrum, rathfarnham, knocklyon and then original metro west.
    Metro 4: lucan, fonthill (conmect with metro west), liffey valley, palmerstown, chapelizod, islandbridge, heuston
    Metro 5: ballymun (connection with metro 1), finglas, cabra, stoneybatter, heuston, inchicore, drimnagh, walkinstown, templeogue, (maybe terminate in rathfarnham or knocklyon for access to other lines)

    That would probably cover the city quite well. Dream stuff though.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    Metro 1: current plans
    Metro 2: Knocklyon, rathfarnham, terenure, rathgar, rathmines, portobello, temple bar, o'connell street, croke park, fairview, marino, donnycarney, artane, coolock, clarehall
    Metro 3: Dundrum, rathfarnham, knocklyon and then original metro west.
    Metro 4: lucan, fonthill (conmect with metro west), liffey valley, palmerstown, chapelizod, islandbridge, heuston
    Metro 5: ballymun (connection with metro 1), finglas, cabra, stoneybatter, heuston, inchicore, drimnagh, walkinstown, templeogue, (maybe terminate in rathfarnham or knocklyon for access to other lines)

    That would probably cover the city quite well. Dream stuff though.

    I assume Dart Underground is in there somewhere. East West - either Dart or Metro - is needed for rapid travel E/W across the city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭ Kellyconor1982


    I assume Dart Underground is in there somewhere. East West - either Dart or Metro - is needed for rapid travel E/W across the city.

    Agree. Maybe the lucan line could be an extension of the du.


  • Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭ Rulmeq


    I see this thread is also turning into an alterantive routes discussion as well... Anyway, in my view not only should the green line be upgraded to metro, but I think they should continue across brewery road (since they are elevating Stillorgan anyway, keep going) along the old harcourt alignment and have metro all the way to Cherrywood/Brides Glen, and on to Bray (or where ever they can interchange with the DART).

    That would leave the green line that goes over to Sandyford as a bit of an oddity (maybe it could have a branch to Stepaside, taking in that retail park that's there, maybe Shane Ross can get right on that), but it would mean that there wouldn't be a need for the new developments to have to change modes, so it means that those working in Cherrywood Science and Technology Park (as it was), and those living in the new 3 bed semi-ds they are building in that area would have a direct route to the city centre, and the airport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    Agree. Maybe the lucan line could be an extension of the du.

    This is a much more sensible solution than a slow street tram meandering through West Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭ not1but4


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rethink-metrolink-steps-up-fight-to-retain-green-line-luas-1.3715788
    Rethink Metrolink has also relaunched its website which claims support from a wide range of politicians including Green Party leader Eamon Ryan, TDs Kate O’Connell of Fine Gael and Jim O’Callaghan of Fianna Fail, and independent senator Michael McDowell.

    You'd almost think they were all from the same constituency trying to get the metro to their voters. ..Oh wait! :o

    Funny how that article mentions how the line is going to be closed for up to two years (I cannot find anything to back this up) but don't mention how it would double the cost of the construction.


Advertisement