Dublin Metro South vs Luas

OneOfThem Stumbled

So this isn't about the crisis talks in relation to the southside Metro
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shane-ross-called-crisis-talks-over-metrolink-plan-that-would-shut-luas-line-for-four-years-37838293.html

Rather I'm hoping that someone could answer me this question: what's the difference between the proposed Metro south and the Luas Green Line? They run the exact same route. There can't be any more trains for the Metro, nor can they be any longer than current Luas trains (both are already at maximum capacity). They could hypothetically be faster, but the overall distance of the Green Line isn't particularly considerable, while the number of stops on the line is (and no matter how fast your train/tram is makes little difference in terms of stopping/taking off).

So what's the planned benefits of this project? It certainly merits being asked as the project has generated significant controversy as of late.

L1011

High floor, automated Metro trains will have higher capacity than Luas trams - and they can be significantly longer; platforms can be further lengthened.

Automation will reduce running costs and allow later or 24h trams.

Del.Monte

Well if the proposed wrecking of the Green Luas line has been axed I'm delighted.

If the Green Luas line had been opened as a DART line through to Bray from the outset it would have been best. A Luas tram from outside Harcourt Street station into the centre would have been logical too but we are where we are and the Luas Green line should be left as is. Where this leaves the additional traffic from Cherrywood/Loughlinstown is anybody's guess but if there had been proper planning none of this mess need have happened.

L1011

It was only a "wrecking" if you believed the local residents and the few journalists that they managed to grab the ear of. Residents concerned that driving their kids to school down Dunville Avenue would take longer.

The best part of that was them grabbing at the potential closure of 3 months for one option and 1 year for another option - not options, not the specific plans, the other options had no closures - and basically ratcheting this to having some journalists say the line would be closed for for years!!

Zebra3

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well if the proposed wrecking of the Green Luas line has been axed I'm delighted.

If the Green Luas line had been opened as a DART line through to Bray from the outset it would have been best. A Luas tram from outside Harcourt Street station into the centre would have been logical too but we are where we are and the Luas Green line should be left as is. Where this leaves the additional traffic from Cherrywood/Loughlinstown is anybody's guess but if there had been proper planning none of this mess need have happened.

How is upgrading a public transport line wrecking it?

Del.Monte

Zebra3 wrote: »

How is upgrading a public transport line wrecking it?

Depends on how you view the 'upgrading' I'm firmly in the Rethink Metrolink camp. https://twitter.com/rmetrolink?lang=en

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

Depends on how you view the 'upgrading' I'm firmly in the Rethink Metrolink camp. https://twitter.com/rmetrolink?lang=en

So the ill-informed nonsense group?

Del.Monte

L1011 wrote: »

So the ill-informed nonsense group?

I suspect that Frank McDonald who also supports the decision is a great deal more informed about public transport in Dublin than you. Namecalling, the last refuge for anybody who disagrees with a point.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

I suspect that Frank McDonald who also supports the decision is a great deal more informed about public transport in Dublin than you. Namecalling, the last refuge for anybody who disagrees with a point.

Frank McDonald is wrong on many things, this being one of them.

Rethink Metrolink are a bunch of disgruntled local residents writing absolute nonsense. Everything they claim has been thoroughly debunked.

Its not namecalling to call out ill-informed nonsense for what it is. However, McDonald has taken to actual namecalling on Twitter when he is called out in the last few days!

salmocab

L1011 wrote: »

So the ill-informed nonsense group?

Ill informed nonsense with a healthy dose of we don’t want to be disturbed for the greater good.

2ndcoming

salmocab wrote: »

Ill informed nonsense with a healthy dose of we don’t want to be disturbed for the greater good.

There is no more powerful "I'm Alright, Jack" community in Ireland than the South City resident.

magicbastarder

what's the expected closure time on the green line while this work is being done? from what little i know, that would be the greatest reason for concern about the work i would assume?

salmocab

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the expected closure time on the green line while this work is being done? from what little i know, that would be the greatest reason for concern about the work i would assume?

Nobody knows as it depends on the tie in chosen but probably a few months at worst. If it’s charlemont it could be less. It should also be noted that it’s not the entire line to be closed albeit probably the busiest bit.

L1011

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the expected closure time on the green line while this work is being done? from what little i know, that would be the greatest reason for concern about the work i would assume?

It depends on the option chosen - platform lightening and to a certain extent the heightening can be done without closure; the tie-in will require track possession but depending on where it is it should be relatively limited.

As far as I know they're sticking with 750V DC overhead so there would be limited works to improve capacity but no complete replacement of kit for power.

However, the suggestions for cut and cover or bridging at Dunville - all caused by the ill-informed nonsense crew - could easily require a year or more. But these were never sensible ideas.

Additionally - the full line would not be closing at any stage with any option. The media have a habit of making it sound like the entire lot would close.

Keyzer

I'm in two minds about all of this - I really see merits on both sides.

Closing the green line for a few months (lets be honest, it'll be a complete disaster and end up being years) to upgrade to metro is going to cause serious problems for the thousands of people who rely on the LUAS everyday. Businesses will be affected to no end (anyone even considering a job on the south side luas line will rethink until a definitive plan has been confirmed).

That said, the green line in its current guise does not have the capacity to deal with future demands so something needs to be done.

But having the green line from Broombridge to Charlemont/Ranelagh and then again from sandyford to Cherrywood seems utterly ridiculous.

The whole thing is an epic fúck up yet again - decades of poor planning, lack of investment and general stupidity have led us here.

L1011

Keyzer wrote: »

But having the green line from Broombridge to Charlemont/Ranelagh and then again from sandyford to Cherrywood seems utterly ridiculous.

Having trams feeding a higher capacity rail line is perfectly normal - and it'll likely be Sandyford to Bray and Finglas to the southern portal anyway. They'll change the colour of one of the remnants on the map.

The Green Line was built to be converted to Metro from day 1 - that was pre-planning.

Government is set to cave in on the matter already it seems, or is it the Irish Times being mindful of sales among its core South Dublin readership?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metrolink-southside-section-is-set-to-be-abandoned-1.3800658

woohoo!!!

Seems bonkers to de-rail metro for a large chunk of the southern metro on the basis of scare stories of years of closures and a relatively minor inconvenience to locals for one road. Parish pump at its finest in the south side.

Stephen15

Well it's not the end of the world as long as the Metro line on the Northside is still built while they're scratching their heads about what to do on the Southside. The objections are ridiculous but they'll soon find out that the 54m trams aren't going to be enough of a capacity benefit and metro is needed.

StreetLight

The Government has been looking to cut expenditure on some capital projects in order to fund the overrun at the new children's hospital. This apparent truncation of Metro South will be music to their ears.

jhenno78

StreetLight wrote: »

The Government has been looking to cut expenditure on some capital projects in order to fund the overrun at the new children's hospital. This apparent truncation of Metro South will be music to their ears.

It won't be cheaper.

Unless this is a precursor to cancelling the whole project - which I can see it being. That'll be cheaper in the short-term but much more costly in the long-run.

jhenno78

Soooo....has anyone in the government said how this would actually work?

I presume they just decided this without having a design commissioned? Where are the trains going to go? Are they just going to build it with an underground terminus at Stephen's Green? How much is that going to reduce capacity? How much extra is that going to cost compared to linking up with the green line?

OneOfThem Stumbled

L1011 wrote: »

High floor, automated Metro trains will have higher capacity than Luas trams - and they can be significantly longer; platforms can be further lengthened.

Couldn't Luas trains simply be modified in this fashion?

L1011 wrote: »

Automation will reduce running costs and allow later or 24h trams.

This would certainly be a massive boon to the city. Is the stumbling block to automation the integration with traffic? Is that why a number of roads crossing the Luas were proposed to be closed off?

hmmm

Plans have been approved for a town of 25,000 people in Cherrywood at the far end of the LUAS, and lots more development in places like Leopardstown and Sandyford. Currently it's difficult to get on the LUAS at peak times.

The line has to be upgraded, or it grinds to a halt. A small group of very wealthy residents in a low density suburb in Ranelagh have mounted a very effective campaign to block it, and gob****e politicians have fallen for it. They might get a surprise when they next knock on doors.

salmocab

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Couldn't Luas trains simply be modified in this fashion?



This would certainly be a massive boon to the city. Is the stumbling block to automation the integration with traffic? Is that why a number of roads crossing the Luas were proposed to be closed off?

Also, what's with this proposed 4 year loss of the Luas Green line? I'm assuming that a "worst case scenario when building the most ambitious underground version of the Metro in the southside" but it still seems an absolutely ludicrous figure. That's not even the figure for creating the Metro southside, but the figure for how long no tram would be available, whatsoever! If this number of years has just been plucked out of the air, for effect, what would a more realistic amount of time for Green Line disruption be?

Can’t upgrade the current trams as the new ones will be wider, longer, higher floored and hopefully driverless. This means much more floor space as along with width and length offering physically more the wheels don’t stick into the inside like the current ones which means seating has to be put in a certain way, then the driver cab is also gone from both ends creating even more space.

Depending on the tie in option the time that section is to be closed is likely a few months.

Infini

hmmm wrote: »

Plans have been approved for a town of 25,000 people in Cherrywood at the far end of the LUAS, and lots more development in places like Leopardstown and Sandyford. Currently it's difficult to get on the LUAS at peak times.

The line has to be upgraded, or it grinds to a halt. A small group of very wealthy residents in a low density suburb in Ranelagh have mounted a very effective campaign to block it, and gob****e politicians have fallen for it. They might get a surprise when they next knock on doors.

The crux of the problem though is that those resident's DO have a valid point. With transport as bad as it is shutting it down for anything up to 4 year's is too long to leave such a busy route offline. Realistically if you look at the map there's a rather large void of land between the red and green land. Would make more sense to run the south part of the Metro west from Charlemount through Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham and down to Whitechurch. If the LUAS needs an upgrade it make's more sense to have replacement services there before any enhancement or find way's to take excess pressure off it. Shutting it down only make's things much worse.

jhenno78

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Is the stumbling block to automation the integration with traffic? Is that why a number of roads crossing the Luas were proposed to be closed off?

Yes, but they need to be closed-off anyway. Metro will be much more frequent so if you didn't close them off then either the trains would have to wait and that would be a nightmare to the service or they would be passing through crossings so often that the barricades would never be up.

salmocab

Infini wrote: »

The crux of the problem though is that those resident's DO have a valid point. With transport as bad as it is shutting it down for anything up to 4 year's is too long to leave such a busy route offline. Realistically if you look at the map there's a rather large void of land between the red and green land. Would make more sense to run the south part of the Metro west from Charlemount through Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham and down to Whitechurch. If the LUAS needs an upgrade it make's more sense to have replacement services there before any enhancement or find way's to take excess pressure off it. Shutting it down only make's things much worse.

It’s not 4 years though that’s never been a runner

jhenno78

Infini wrote: »

The crux of the problem though is that those resident's DO have a valid point. With transport as bad as it is shutting it down for anything up to 4 year's is too long to leave such a busy route offline. Realistically if you look at the map there's a rather large void of land between the red and green land. Would make more sense to run the south part of the Metro west from Charlemount through Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham and down to Whitechurch. If the LUAS needs an upgrade it make's more sense to have replacement services there before any enhancement or find way's to take excess pressure off it. Shutting it down only make's things much worse.

Same old myths that the government has been too lame to debunk.

It's disruption to the service for 2 years, not closure. ie. different sections will need to be closed for certain limited periods over a 2-year period. The possibility of 4 years only comes into it when it takes baffling re-route south of beechwood.

SW route? Sure, it's totally justified in itself. If you've got an extra 3-4 billion knocking around then go for it. The green-line upgrade only accounts for a few percent of the budget. Also, the green line will need to be turned into metro soon anyway.

ohographite

The huge amount of passengers overcrowding the luas green line certainly is something that needs to be sorted out.

Does anyone think that double-decker trams could work?
I know that a problem with longer trams is the disruption they bring to the city centre when surrounded by road traffic, so taller trams wouldn't have this problem.

hmmm

ohographite wrote: »

Does anyone think that double-decker trams could work?

Maybe. We could also ask people to hang out of the LUAS like trains in Mumbai.

We need to build a metro (as planned since the LUAS was first built) and stop the endless half-arsed attempts to do it some other way. The well healed residents of a tiny part of Ranelagh need to be told "no, you will have 1km of a detour in your X5 to get your mid-day frapucino for the greater good of tens of thousands of commuters".

This is only a small taste of what is going to happen with BusConnects and every other attempt to improve public transport in Dublin.

Chris_5339762

I'm still cross that they are upgrading a major public transport corridor on the southside (capacity issues aside) when there are vast swathes of Dublin with NO decent public transport.

The Metro North (to call it that) part of this would be welcome, but I'm still against this, its plain unfair. Serve a different region of the southside with this, maybe (and this is just random) go south to say Terenure then head over to Dun Laoighre with it instead and then swing south, to Cherrywood. This would link DART and Luas and Metro. Now, maybe my route is not quick enough as its a big S shape, but something like that surely would serve more people.

jhenno78

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I'm still cross that they are upgrading a major public transport corridor on the southside (capacity issues aside) when there are vast swathes of Dublin with NO decent public transport.

It isn't just about the green line itself, it's needed to make the northern part work - the trains need somewhere to go.

But should metro go to other parts of the city too? Absolutely
This bit is going on top of a 150 year old rail corridor with existing track - it's low-hanging fruit. The money this will take is a tiny drop in the bucket of what it would cost to build anythings else.

hmmm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I'm still cross that they are upgrading a major public transport corridor on the southside (capacity issues aside) when there are vast swathes of Dublin with NO decent public transport.

More areas should get better transport, agreed.

The problem with the Green line at the moment is vast amounts of high density developments along the line have been approved to be built, and many have been approved because the planners believed the line would be upgraded. It would cost a relatively small amount to upgrade this corridor to take lots more people, and the line was built with this upgrade in mind, but now it's stopped/on hold because of the objections of a small number of people.

ohographite

hmmm wrote: »

More areas should get better transport, agreed.

The problem with the Green line at the moment is vast amounts of high density developments along the line have been approved to be built, and many have been approved because the planners believed the line would be upgraded. It would cost a relatively small amount to upgrade this corridor to take lots more people, and the line was built with this upgrade in mind, but now it's stopped/on hold because of the objections of a small number of people.

That's why I suggested double decker trams, so the service can take more people, and still run as far south as Brides Glen. The plan to upgrade Charlemont - Sandyford to metro standard was understandable, and my only problem with it was that it creates a need to change trams to get from anywhere south of Sandyford to anywhere north of it. It would however allow direct journeys from anywhere between Sandyford and Charlemont to the airport and beyond, so once it would be in place it wouldn't be more or less convenient regarding direct journey options.

ted1

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well if the proposed wrecking of the Green Luas line has been axed I'm delighted.

If the Green Luas line had been opened as a DART line through to Bray from the outset it would have been best. A Luas tram from outside Harcourt Street station into the centre would have been logical too but we are where we are and the Luas Green line should be left as is. Where this leaves the additional traffic from Cherrywood/Loughlinstown is anybody's guess but if there had been proper planning none of this mess need have happened.

Proper planning ? It was built to be upgrade. It’s at capacity and needs to get the upgrade

hmmm

ohographite wrote: »

my only problem with it was that it creates a need to change trams to get from anywhere south of Sandyford to anywhere north of it.

I can understand people liking they can get on and stay on, and I'd love to see a metro the length of the line, but it's perfectly normal in any transport system to have feeder lines and interchanges.

You'd want to be very short-sighted to oppose Metro because it might mean you have to get out of your seat and change at Sandyford. It won't be very long before the Green line effectively becomes unusable - I don't personally believe it will even take as long as 2027 for capacity to be reached, there is a lot of development taking place along the far end of the line and it's already pretty packed at rush hour.

By the time it reaches capacity and people start screaming for an upgrade, it will be another 4 years of planning and another couple of years to build. Anyone who still expects to be using the line in 5-10 years time need to think about this now.

LeChienMefiant

1. The disruption to the line could have been minimal. The line was already built to near metro standard
2. The cost was estimated as low as fifty million compared to billions for the south west route.
3. The detour of 1km is a myth, that's from one side of dunville crossing to the other via ranelagh village. The fatties should walk the few metres across the line. Also 1km in a car is nothing. Cars are for traveling long distances.

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

L1011

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Couldn't Luas trains simply be modified in this fashion?

No, basically. Turning radii, high platforms being unsuitable on street, length, automation not possible with crossing traffic.

Stephen15

The cancellation of the metro would surely put any green line extension to Bray in doubt as the green line is already at capacity now and extending it to Bray would create more capacity issues. I think this is unfair on Bray residents who are now deprived of a link to Cherrywood, Sandyford or Dundrum not currently fulfilled by the DART or bus as there's already significant traffic issues with people travelling from North Wicklow towards Sandyford which the Luas would've fulfilled.

It would be illogical to it now with the way the green line is but a Sandyford to Bray stretch would make a lot of sense in my mind.

hotmail.com

A lot of the objectors seemed to be people in their 60s and 70s! No consideration for future generations.

ted1

Stephen15 wrote: »

The cancellation of the metro would surely put any green line extension to Bray in doubt as the green line is already at capacity now and extending it to Bray would create more capacity issues. I think this is unfair on Bray residents who are now deprived of a link to Cherrywood, Sandyford or Dundrum not currently fulfilled by the DART or bus as there's already significant traffic issues with people travelling from North Wicklow towards Sandyford which the Luas would've fulfilled.

It would be illogical to it now with the way the green line is but a Sandyford to Bray stretch would make a lot of sense in my mind.

Sure Brays in Wicklow, they are lucky to get Dublin bus or the DART!

hmmm

Stephen15 wrote: »

The cancellation of the metro would surely put any green line extension to Bray in doubt

It would be madness to go ahead with a LUAS extension if we knew it was already (or would be) over capacity.

LeChienMefiant

hotmail.com wrote: »

A lot of the objectors seemed to be people in their 60s and 70s! No consideration for future generations.

It's a pity no one asks the protestors how many of them actually use the Luas.

Stephen15

hmmm wrote: »

It would be madness to go ahead with a LUAS extension if we knew it was already (or would be) over capacity.

Yes and another reason why the green line should be upgraded

Stephen15

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

It's a pity no one asks the protestors how many of them actually use the Luas.

If they do it's all probably off peak. The point is they likely don't see the issues with capacity on the green line.

daheff

I have to say that I think the whole plan is cock-eyed. We should be adding a metro in a different location to where the Green line is. Maybe a couple of km to the west or east. Increase the catchment area for public transport. Leave green line alone bar 1 or 2 intersection

LeChienMefiant

daheff wrote: »

I have to say that I think the whole plan is cock-eyed. We should be adding a metro in a different location to where the Green line is. Maybe a couple of km to the west or east. Increase the catchment area for public transport. Leave green line alone bar 1 or 2 intersection

That will costs billions.

Stephen15

daheff wrote: »

I have to say that I think the whole plan is cock-eyed. We should be adding a metro in a different location to where the Green line is. Maybe a couple of km to the west or east. Increase the catchment area for public transport. Leave green line alone bar 1 or 2 intersection

That's all well and good and certainly other options could be looked for the areas you mention such as new additional Luas lines but it doesn't take from the fact that the Luas green line is running at capacity and needs an upgrade. It's also considerably cheaper to upgrade the green line than build a completely new alignment.

jhenno78

daheff wrote: »

I have to say that I think the whole plan is cock-eyed. We should be adding a metro in a different location to where the Green line is. Maybe a couple of km to the west or east. Increase the catchment area for public transport. Leave green line alone bar 1 or 2 intersection

It's not an either/or thing - look at some of the other posts here.

salmocab

daheff wrote: »

I have to say that I think the whole plan is cock-eyed. We should be adding a metro in a different location to where the Green line is. Maybe a couple of km to the west or east. Increase the catchment area for public transport. Leave green line alone bar 1 or 2 intersection

We can’t afford a different metro line and the green line would still need an upgrade anyway.