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 (Swords to Charlemont only)

Options
1…89111314…189

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Dats me wrote: »
    Darthmouth square is not insignificant I think: The Charlemont station is taking some of a garden and then the construction boundary is right up against the boundary of the rest of the gardens in that row of houses - the garden will be returned so the major issue is managing construction disruption and noise - hopefully that's possible

    Yeah, I thought that it might be something like that, but didn't fancy going through all the docs again. There's steps that they can take, like sound barriers and such, but to be honest, there's a limit to the amount of disruption mitigation that they can do.

    The fact is, it's hard to build a major infrastructure project without some level of disruption.


  • Options
    #303
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Dats me wrote: »
    Darthmouth square is not insignificant I think: The Charlemont station is taking some of a garden and then the construction boundary is right up against the boundary of the rest of the gardens in that row of houses - the garden will be returned so the major issue is managing construction disruption and noise - hopefully that's possible

    When I was at the public consultation, there was a woman who was asking about her garden which was currently being surveyed and test drilling was going on. I think there are some (parts of) gardens that will not be returned.


  • Options
    #304
    Qrt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Qrt


    CatInABox wrote: »
    There's a thin, long park at the back of a housing estate, and it's earmarked for the Metrolink route. The entire thing will essentially be removed.

    I don't think that it'll be a major problem, as there are similar, larger parks nearby (albeit across the road and into a different estate), plus all of the houses in the estate have their own gardens.
    Just looked at it on Google Maps, calling it a park is a bit of a stretch, more just a lawn.


  • Options
    #305
    Kellyconor1982
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭Kellyconor1982


    Was talking to one of the Metrolink team. He would be a friend of a friend.

    Their attitude is that they are pissed off with the green line upgrade not going ahead, but if the current route can commence, then it will inevitably lead to it being completed and more routes.

    He mentioned among their team there is great hunger for an sw spur and that there have been discussions around tunnelling continuing on a phased basis to rathmines and out west.

    They seem to be hopeful that the green party for all their bull**** around the green line upgrade will need to deliver on public transport and they also mentioned that a directly elected mayor for Dublin could get things moving faster.

    Once we get shovels im the ground, it will be interesting what happens moving forward.


  • Options
    #306
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    When I was at the public consultation, there was a woman who was asking about her garden which was currently being surveyed and test drilling was going on. I think there are some (parts of) gardens that will not be returned.

    I know that they're only artists impressions, but the Charlemont Station drawing suggests that every house will still have an ample garden at the end of the process. If there's permanent land take there, then I'd guess that it'd be a metre or two at most, and most of that seems to be a disused lane way.

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/StationsArtistImpressions/MetroLink_Station_ArtistImpressions_Charlemont_A4_0419.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,760 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Kellyconor1982 wrote: »
    They seem to be hopeful that the green party for all their bull**** around the green line upgrade will need to deliver on public transport
    Personally I wouldn't have any faith in the Greens given Ryan's contributions so far. Also, the Greens have nothing to deliver on yet, MEPs are fairly meaningless domestically and the green wave has proved to be more of a splash in any case. If it puts the ****s up FG and they realise they must focus on the green agenda and deliver public transport, then the green hype will have served a purpose.


  • Options
    #308
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,297 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Personally I wouldn't have any faith in the Greens given Ryan's contributions so far. Also, the Greens have nothing to deliver on yet, MEPs are fairly meaningless domestically and the green wave has proved to be more of a splash in any case. If it puts the ****s up FG and they realise they must focus on the green agenda and deliver public transport, then the green hype will have served a purpose.

    The greens have a long way to go to showing they have any green credentials. I’d be hopeful of them in the medium term if they can capitalize on the gains they have made but ultimately they are only in the councils with next to no real power and they’re leader has no credibility. It will be a long time before they can have any chance of bringing in decent policies. The hope has to be that the government now see PT as a vote getter as that’s all they really care about. Hopefully it galvanizes them to steam on with the current metro plan, the greens doing well also hopefully means neither FF or FG will want an election anytime soon which is what this project needs.


  • Options
    #309
    tobsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭tobsey


    Qrt wrote: »
    Just looked at it on Google Maps, calling it a park is a bit of a stretch, more just a lawn.

    To be fair, that estate would barely have enough green space with that stretch to satisfy today’s planning regulations. If it’s removed there’s no green space left in the estate.


  • Options
    #310
    fionnsci
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭fionnsci


    Kellyconor1982 wrote: »
    Was talking to one of the Metrolink team. He would be a friend of a friend.

    Their attitude is that they are pissed off with the green line upgrade not going ahead, but if the current route can commence, then it will inevitably lead to it being completed and more routes.

    He mentioned among their team there is great hunger for an sw spur and that there have been discussions around tunnelling continuing on a phased basis to rathmines and out west.

    They seem to be hopeful that the green party for all their bull**** around the green line upgrade will need to deliver on public transport and they also mentioned that a directly elected mayor for Dublin could get things moving faster.

    Once we get shovels im the ground, it will be interesting what happens moving forward.


    I appreciate that this isn't second hand info but I wonder about a few things from this.

    If they would like to continuing the tunnelling SW but also want the Green Line extension in the future does that mean we'll have a situation in the future where every second train goes in a separate direction at Charlemont? I'd love more underground routes but ideally not just spurs off the norther underground route.

    Also, would people think they will they tunnel down to near Beechwood as planned then reverse the machine a certain distance and then point it SW? Or do it from the point it the tunnel currently terminates?


  • Options
    #311
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Personally I wouldn't trust the Green Party at all. They end up shooting themselves in the foot time and time again and end up making the environment worse from their meddling.

    But, this popular "green wave" makes me very happy. I suspect the big parties, in particular FG will now scramble to take on more Green initiatives to try and win back some of these votes lost to the Green Party and now know it is a popular vote getter.

    I suspect a lot of these transport projects, cycling routes, green ways and EV infrastructure will all get a lot more government support ahead of the General Election and will hopefully continue afterwards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    This is it really — it's not about the Green Party themselves, so much as the shifting of the centre leftwards/greenwards. There isn't really any party that's "anti-public transport" as such, but FG/FF have definitely been less interested in it as a vote winning issue, and now suddenly it will rocket to the top of the agenda.

    I see a lot of grumbling on the twitters about "don't you remember what happened last time the Greens were in government" and it all spectacularly misses the point (especially so when it's coming from the mouth of Sinn Fein candidates).


  • Options
    #313
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    fionnsci wrote: »
    I appreciate that this isn't second hand info but I wonder about a few things from this.

    If they would like to continuing the tunnelling SW but also want the Green Line extension in the future does that mean we'll have a situation in the future where every second train goes in a separate direction at Charlemont? I'd love more underground routes but ideally not just spurs off the norther underground route.

    Also, would people think they will they tunnel down to near Beechwood as planned then reverse the machine a certain distance and then point it SW? Or do it from the point it the tunnel currently terminates?

    The preferred route is to take the tunnel under the GL to a point norh of Beechwood. I do not think that the TBM can be reversed, so it would be dismantled and removed.

    If the GL is to be made Metro, then the tunnel will be continued with cut and cover. They are staying under the GL to avoid any disruption to the residents of the area.

    I think this is a mistake as it will lead to a long disruption to the GL, and it would be better if they tunneled west of the GL and approach from the west, but south of Beechwood where they can do much of the connection with a live GL.


  • Options
    #314
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,760 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    bk wrote: »
    But, this popular "green wave" makes me very happy. I suspect the big parties, in particular FG will now scramble to take on more Green initiatives to try and win back some of these votes lost to the Green Party and now know it is a popular vote getter.
    This is what I was alluding to above but it is worth pointing out that FG haven't lost votes to the Greens, yet. FG vote remained steady and they increased seats. But yes, I think they will feel they need to be seen to adopt a more green approach which should be a good thing. Hopefully the Greens make gains in the next GE and can be viable coalition partners, if only to ensure Ross doesn't get a ministry again.


  • Options
    #315
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The preferred route is to take the tunnel under the GL to a point norh of Beechwood. I do not think that the TBM can be reversed, so it would be dismantled and removed.

    If the GL is to be made Metro, then the tunnel will be continued with cut and cover. They are staying under the GL to avoid any disruption to the residents of the area.

    I think this is a mistake as it will lead to a long disruption to the GL, and it would be better if they tunneled west of the GL and approach from the west, but south of Beechwood where they can do much of the connection with a live GL.

    The TBM will actually be left in the ground, to take it out they'd need to crack open the Green Line. The tunnel will actually be continued some distance past the last station.

    It might be possible, in the future, to temporarily seize the gardens on either side of the green line, create new luas tracks in that space, divert the trams onto those lines, and then dig down through the now unused lines in the centre.

    Then they could remove the TBM, build the tunnel portal, and connect up the Green Line to the Metro line. Finish off by reinstating the gardens on either side.

    It's possible, but unlikely.


  • Options
    #316
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Kellyconor1982 wrote: »
    Was talking to one of the Metrolink team. He would be a friend of a friend.

    Their attitude is that they are pissed off with the green line upgrade not going ahead, but if the current route can commence, then it will inevitably lead to it being completed and more routes.

    He mentioned among their team there is great hunger for an sw spur and that there have been discussions around tunnelling continuing on a phased basis to rathmines and out west.

    They seem to be hopeful that the green party for all their bull**** around the green line upgrade will need to deliver on public transport and they also mentioned that a directly elected mayor for Dublin could get things moving faster.

    Once we get shovels im the ground, it will be interesting what happens moving forward.

    I’s Say this is more Hope than reality. Realistically, once the contract is out there will not be any scope to change the scope (certainly not once construction has commenced) as to do so would be to write a blank cheque. Even if the money was available, it would be a breach of procurement rules. The thing is all this work is precisely what was not done for Children’s Hospital. Adequate planning now should avoid those problems (although I do agree that termination at Charlemont is stupid and shortsighted).


  • Options
    #317
    MetroLinker
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭MetroLinker


    Probably no need to post this here as it's on the front page but just in case anybody has missed it:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/dartmouth-square-residents-challenge-metro-enabling-works-1.3917167
    Twenty-three residents of Dartmouth Square in Ranelagh, Dublin, claim “enabling works” for the city’s proposed underground Metro, which will affect their properties, were approved without going through proper planning procedures.

    The residents have been given leave by the High Court to seek to quash An Bord Pleanála’s approval for an office redevelopment project at the old Carroll’s building on Grand Parade near their homes.


  • Options
    #318
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    MetroLinker wrote: »
    Probably no need to post this here as it's on the front page but just in case anybody has missed it:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/dartmouth-square-residents-challenge-metro-enabling-works-1.3917167

    Tenuous at best.

    Enabling works for any Metro project is not the Metro project itself. As has been seen with the enabling works at the Mater for Metro North, they might not be used, and did not "preempt" the course of the eventual Metro.

    As to the Environment Impact stuff, we've seen with the Apple Data Centre case that ABP only have to deal with what is put in front of it, and not some possible project that may or may not go ahead.

    Hopefully this gets ironed out quickly.


  • Options
    #319
    MetroLinker
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭MetroLinker


    This might have nothing to do with Metrolink and only being used as a wedge to stop the overall development.

    That said, the two schemes are tied together - at what point does a developer decide to leave Metrolink behind and start building to the previously approved planning permission, which I presume couldn't be stopped. Could Metrolink get a counter order to stop them?


  • Options
    #320
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    MetroLinker wrote: »
    This might have nothing to do with Metrolink and only being used as a wedge to stop the overall development.

    That said, the two schemes are tied together - at what point does a developer decide to leave Metrolink behind and start building to the previously approved planning permission, which I presume couldn't be stopped. Could Metrolink get a counter order to stop them?

    Yes, sounds like they're throwing everything at it, and Metrolink is just a handy, topical scapegoat.

    The two schemes aren't tied together. ABP has the power to require enabling works to be done for any project at the same time as this building, and if those enabling works are never used, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

    The developer also can't just decide to go back to the original plans, they'd need permission from ABP to do so.


  • Options
    #321
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Albert College Lawn earlier today. They've been there since last week.

    'Preliminary Ground Investigation Works'
    IMG-20190624-131255022-HDR.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    In a years time if the NTA are making a railway order application, then the threat of it actually happening can be moved up a notch.


  • Options
    #323
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    MetroLinker wrote: »
    Probably no need to post this here as it's on the front page but just in case anybody has missed it:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/dartmouth-square-residents-challenge-metro-enabling-works-1.3917167

    This has since been fast tracked, despite the residents protests that fast tracking was unnecessary.

    Construction was due to start in July, so of course it's been fast tracked to November.

    See here.


  • Options
    #324
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Report on a College Gate meeting this week:

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/save-markievicz-pool-college-gate-16495731


  • Options
    #325
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,297 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    marno21 wrote: »
    Report on a College Gate meeting this week:

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/save-markievicz-pool-college-gate-16495731

    That story ticks all the boxes, wrong side of the river so brilliantly inaccurate headline and hoving into view is a Green Party councilor to show her green credentials. By that I mean she’s Ryan’s lackey.


  • Options
    #326
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    marno21 wrote: »
    TII have tendered for legal services for the project

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=137420&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

    €17.5m over 10 years

    Awarded to A&L Goodbody/Pinsent Masons JV

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/217049


  • Options
    #327
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    salmocab wrote: »
    That story ticks all the boxes, wrong side of the river so brilliantly inaccurate headline and hoving into view is a Green Party councilor to show her green credentials. By that I mean she’s Ryan’s lackey.

    It seems from the article that the save college gate people haven't even read the appendix on the route selection.


  • Options
    #328
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    cgcsb wrote: »
    It seems from the article that the save college gate people haven't even read the appendix on the route selection.

    I imagine that they have but it obviously doesn't align with their position.

    Its like the people who complain as part of a public consultation that they have not been consulted. They're not stupid, they just know that that sort of whataboutery gains traction.


  • Options
    #329
    MetroLinker
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭MetroLinker


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Its like the people who complain as part of a public consultation that they have not been consulted.


    For an individual, things get very complicated once a property becomes a target for a CPO. The public consultation offers only the most basic advice regarding this.


    The CPO process is backwards in this country at the moment and needs reform. I believe the Law Reform Commission is looking into this issue but I wouldn't be putting a bet on when they will complete it.


  • Options
    #330
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    marno21 wrote: »
    Awarded to A&L Goodbody/Pinsent Masons JV

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/217049

    Times article on same

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/law-firms-a-l-goodbody-and-pinsent-masons-on-track-for-metrolink-rfdnc2rj9


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Qrt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Qrt


    Have they released detailed plans of the parking facilities? If they’re going to be 3000+ parking spaces, that’s a lot of land if it’s all going to be surface parking rather than multi-story...


Advertisement