Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

bk

Also keep in mind that the next capacity upgrade to the Greenline actually requires Metrolink and for it to be at Charlemont.

The plan is to increase the frequency of trams, but only south of Charlemont, the extra trams will terminate at Charlemont with people transferring from these service's to Metrolink.

You can’t run these extra trams north of Charlemont as you run into the much slower, non segregated, street running sections of the Green line, those sections can’t handle higher frequency, just the segregated sections south of Charlemont.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122360121#Comment_122360121

I don't think I agree with that assessment of the viability of metro south of Charlemont.

In terms of benefits, density has been increasing all along the route, dramatically in places like Sandyford and Dundrum.

But it's the costs which make the business case. Upgrading to metro spec would've/should've needed a fraction of the cost per km compared to the rest of the system. There would be very little heavy engineering required except to upgrade a pair of at-grade junctions, replace platforms and upgrade the power infrastructure. Not trivial but compared to TBMs, cut n' cover construction and the complexity of underground stations, a very straightforward and inexpensive way to increase the coverage of the metro by almost 50%.

Having a continuous North-South spine with an unconstrained central section would allow thinking about options like adding spurs, etc. and the extra capacity and frequency would have made feeder bus services viable along the route.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122360136#Comment_122360136

I know how we ended up here but when you consider the end result, I can't help feel it's going to look somewhat ludicrous.

Two high-capacity, high-frequency rail alignments - perfectly lined up but both terminating at the point where they meet. It's analogous to having two stretches of motorway that meet but have a line of bollards blocking travel from one to the other - one coming to a dead stop while the other veers off and continues as a boreen.

It's being childish and spiteful, but I'd almost like to see the Greenline capacity upgrade postponed and have the resources diverted towards other PT infrastructure projects around the city where the investment would be welcomed. Let the greenline NIMBYs sweat (literally) for a few years and reflect on what they've achieved.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122359887#Comment_122359887

It ticks all the important boxes bar the most important one- permission to start construction.

When/if this ever happens will be a great day.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122360619#Comment_122360619

Metrolink extension along the Green Line south of Ranelagh is really the only game in town, they just aren't allowed to say it as it would poke every bear of a NIMBY in south Dublin. The 3 year closure thing was convenient as a front for dropping the Green Line upgrade, it was just going to be more hassle than it was worth to be dealing with all that on top of the monster than is Metrolink. A workable solution will be put forward when the time is right.

Once Metrolink is operational, Green Line users will be screaming for it to be linked up so they can shoot through straight to the airport/Mater/DCU/wherever. When it dawns on them that the level of service from Metrolink is far superior to Luas (speed, frequency, rolling stock, not getting regularly curtailed, etc.), they'll demand it. They certainly won't be happy seeing property values shooting up on the northside thanks to Metrolink while the gleam will be long gone from the jewel which the Green Line once was.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122361468#Comment_122361468

The problem with your second paragraph is I suspect it’s really a minority that took issue and many of them wouldn’t have been user’s anyway

KrisW1001

Again, before any green line conversion can start, they're needs to be a new Luas routing in place. Otherwise, you will inflict absolute chaos on Dublin for three years while there is neither a Luas nor a Metro allowing travel into the City Centre.

This disruption, as well as the marginal benefit, was one of the reasons that the Southern extension was dropped from Metrolink.

Future capacity improvements on Green Line will keep it up with demand for close to 20 years. That's time to get things in order for a painless conversion to Metro.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122361801#Comment_122361801

There would be no line for 9 months, not 3 years. I'd be surprised if there was a new luas line down before the upgrade is done personally, but we will just have to wait and see I guess.

Pete_Cavan

Th tunnel portal will have to be not directly on the Luas line, then it is just a tie-in and stations upgrade which would take a few months.

prunudo

The rate we're going it could be 2040 before the current planned line is open. Could be 2050 before we see any further additions or extra lines, the whole process is just not fit for purpose and far too slow.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122361912#Comment_122361912

Read the documents. The upgraded section must be closed completely for nine months, but the Green Line itself would be broken into two sections for a period of three years. Even if the break is only a single station gap, that's still a gap in the middle of someone's journey that needs to be accommodated by changing to other modes, and the most likely effect of changing a direct connection into a two-change connection (Luas to bus/foot, bus/foot back to Luas) will be to shift passengers to bus or, worse, private car.

The tunnel portal has to tie to the existing rail line at some point, so you have to suspend Luas services on that line section while these works are being done. There's no way around this, as there is no space to build a parallel track to minimise the time that Luas needs to be suspended.

This is a job that looks simple until you start planning on how to actually do it...

OisinCooke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122361912#Comment_122361912

What I’ve gathered from reading the 2018 Green Line Tie-In report is that the Green Line would be initially split into two separate segregated lines (Broombridge - Charlemont operating out of Hamilton Depot, and Beechwood - Brides Glen out of Sandyford Depot) for the duration of the 3 years. The section between Charlemont and Beechwood would remain closed as the tunnel portals would be constructed on this section. With the tie in complete, the two “lines” would continue operating separately while upgrade work took place south of Beechwood.

As much work as possible would be done while the line stayed operational for Luas, including work needed to avoid the grade crossing at St Raphaelas Road. According to the 2018 report, the Luas Line would temporarily be slewed and run along the car parks adjacent to Blackthorn Road while the original alignment would be bridged over St Raphaelas Road (and the new Stillorgan Metro stop constructed on that bridge) meaning that the Luas would continue operating even during this heavy piece of construction.

Eventually the inevitable closure would need to happen, to merely increase the remaining platform heights and lengths, improve access to these new higher platforms and tie in signalling. This would presumably, with individual teams working on each station at the same time, not take very long and the overall closure would be minimal. It seems like it will not be as incredibly disastrous a disruption as everyone is pedalling it to be…

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

spacetweek

Someone quoted that report before and in fact the gap with no service at all would most of the time be only a one-stop gap not a 2-stop from Charlemont to Beechwood. Although I think there will be a short period where the gap will be Charlemont to Beechwood, that is only a 19 minute walk according to Google Maps. One stop gaps are a 10-minute walk.

Sam Russell

The St Raphaela's Road bridge could be done as a separate project at any time. A temporary stop could be built further along the line or just ignored.

The problem is it separates the depot from most of the line, so the interruption would need to be in the days to weeks.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122363508#Comment_122363508

St Raphaela's Road would be grade separated as part of the next Green Line capacity upgrade plan anyway.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122363376#Comment_122363376

Here it is

It is going to happen, the only question really is when.

KrisW1001

I think you all underestimate how disruptive that one stop break will be to Green Line usage. It's easy to write "9 minute walk" on an infographic, but everything we understand about public transport says that putting a forced walk like this into the service will cause ridership to plummet for journeys that need to cross the breakpoint... and where will those displaced passengers go?

I don't disagree about this being inevitable, I just believe it would be stupid to start it without at least beginning an alternative routing of the Green Line south of Charlemont.

(incidentally, that infographic is misleading: the engineering report says that the Ranelagh Luas stop cannot reopeen afterwards, as it will be north of the only practical location of the metro portal)

Pete_Cavan

I don't think that tie-in plan will happen. They'll just have to look at other options and CPO accordingly.

GusherING

Would the track be replaced when the metro is being built out that way? What happens to the Sandyford depot. Does it become a metro depot?

MJohnston

No need to replace the track. You just need to close at-grade crossings and change the platforms (higher, automated barriers for automated Metro trains)

OisinCooke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364395#Comment_122364395

Other options as in other alignments for the metro through the south side? Surely the Green Line is the easiest and by far the cheapest option…?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364432#Comment_122364432

I believe it will be both a metro depot and a Luas depot.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122361974#Comment_122361974

nope.
New power systems have to be installed also.

tom1ie

Can you link to where it says a 9 month closure to get:

The tie In done

All station heights changed

All new electrical substations and OHL converted to metro standard.

Fitting of barrier doors on platforms due to driverless trains.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364898#Comment_122364898

I would have thought that the power could be done in advance of the conversion.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364924#Comment_122364924

How?
Luas uses one power system, metro another.
You can’t run a luas on a metro voltage and vice versa- hence a closure needed to change out switch gear substations possibly OHL etc.

This has been discussed before on here or one of the other metrolink threads.

AngryLips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122363744#Comment_122363744

It's so nuts to me that a Metrolink going to Sandyford will completely bypass Ranelagh when it is one of the biggest trip generators on the route.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364954#Comment_122364954

I think it is a function of how it has to come back above ground. Anyway, going one stop on the Luas to get a metro is not the end of the world.

OisinCooke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364915#Comment_122364915

I think it refers to a 9 month closure for the whole line south of Ranelagh, the tie in would take much longer to compete but the line south of Beechwood could continue operating while this is happening whereas when the platform heights need to be raised, power systems and signalling upgraded etc, the whole line will need closure.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122364954#Comment_122364954

Also agree wholeheartedly with this, it seems a bit silly that it’s the one stop on the line not being given a metro stop, however I think the metro is only expected to come above ground between Ranelagh and Beechwood according to the most recent report, due to minimising impact on housing. The Green Line would then elevate above the metro and both would have an interchange station at Beechwood, the metro one where the current Luas one is and the Luas one on the western side of the road. I’ve seen a separate detailed report on only this a while ago which explains everything but I can’t find it now

spacetweek

Thanks for that explanation. The map in this post must be out of date then, as I couldn't get it to reconcile with the latest tie-in plan.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122362777#Comment_122362777

So here is my understanding of the situation :

Charlemont: Existing Luas elevated, future Metrolink underground

Ranelagh: Existing Luas elevated, Metrolink tunnelled underneath but no station

Beechwood: Existing Luas moved north, at-grade (or will it be elevated?); Metrolink underground (or will it be at-grade?)

spacetweek

One last thing - can they rename Stillorgan stop, as it's nowhere near Stillorgan? Should be called Sandyford North.

gjim

The only way to include Ranelagh would be to tie-in at Peter's Place but while this was included as an option to be examined in an early version of the design (involving cut n' cover along Earlsfort terrace) - this was before they "discovered" the canal sewer 🙄. We've trashed this subject before so I don't want to do it again - most disagreed with me from what I recall but I believed this option to be worth examining again - not only to provide a metro station in Ranelagh but also to provide a more natural path for extending what's left of the southern green line - as an on-street tram from Harcourt in the Rathmines or Ringsend direction.

MJohnston

Not to backseat mod or anything, but just to note there is a separate thread for Green Line upgrade (and alternative routings) related chat:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058204309/metrolink-south-of-charlemont

jwm121

Whats the current status on the railway order? At the moment when is it planning permission expected to be given and then when is construction expected to start and where?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122393762#Comment_122393762

If I remember correctly, it went in after the DART West application, which still hasn't come out, so there must be more time.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122393762#Comment_122393762

During the oral hearings, ABP told TII to do another consultation on the changes that have been made to the application since it was first submitted. As frustrating as this is, it is also correct, as the number of changes is quite large, and cumulatively means that they're quite extensive. To not have a consultation on it would leave the project open to judicial review.

Since the oral hearings finished, we have not heard anything from TII about the next consultation. Hopefully it is launched soon, with it sent into ABP this year, which would suggest a decision on it next year, all going well.

Sadly, it will almost certainly be judicial reviewed. While TII have done great work removing objections from various organisations along the line, there is significant resistance to the project around Charlemont and Albert College Park. Nothing short of removing the Charlemont Station will please those guys, while the ACP people may be more reasonable, but they'd still prefer a station.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394772#Comment_122394772

I've never heard of a situation like in Charlemont where locals don't want a metro station, the state is basically saying we'll double your property value for free. The Amsterdam north-south metro, which was a sh1tshow from start to finish destroyed people's homes due to subsidence but those people remained supportive of the project continuing overall.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394796#Comment_122394796

TBF as with most of these things it’s a noisy minority objecting. Some people do have real issues with things/some have irrational issues and some just like to object to all change. The use of nimby these days covers them all and it’s not fair on people with genuine concerns or issues.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394772#Comment_122394772

It will almost certainly receive an application for a JR. There is no a priori reason to believe it will be granted or that a stay will be put on construction.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394796#Comment_122394796

I believe there was some loud opposition to the DART extension to Greystones

Chris_5339762

This will get judicial reviewed ANYWAY because someone, somewhere will find a way.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394875#Comment_122394875

If the Clongriffin BusConnects route can get JR'd by a single woman representing herself on something that's entirely baseless, then this will 100% be JR'd by people who can afford specialists.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395002#Comment_122395002

Has that JR actually been granted yet? I was under the impression it was still at application phase.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122394772#Comment_122394772

Why can’t TII just repeat the first consultation but just add on an extra bit in the consultation presentation about the extra changes?
I mean the projects gonna be JR’ed anyway so just fulfill what ABP ask for as quickly as possible to allow ABP grant an RO, and allow the project to move to the JR stage.
It would be quicker overall no?

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395028#Comment_122395028

IIRC there were a few posters in the BC threads saying JR had been granted 🤯

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395028#Comment_122395028

Yes, she was granted leave to run a JR. The judge said that she had done well to get over this first hurdle, but strongly suggested that she get better representation next time.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-facing-busconnects-stop-on-narrow-footpath-beside-her-home-can-challenge-plan-high-court-rules/a1720226783.html?

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395062#Comment_122395062

Not doing the consultation right could, in itself, be grounds for a JR. Unfortunately there's no shortcuts with this, they are rightly taking a belt and braces approach. While it is extremely annoying, it should also reduce the likelihood of a successful JR.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395098#Comment_122395098

But if there will be a JR anyway, would it not be prudent to get into JR Stage ASAP?
Or are JRs done on individual parts of the project as opposed to the whole project?
Actually thinking about it- if an RO is granted but there is a JR out on the Charlemont stop on the grounds of parking etc, theoretically, could construction start up at the swords end?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395090#Comment_122395090

Ah, completely missed this. What an unbelievable crock of ****.

In his ruling on Wednesday, Mr Justice Humphreys said Ms Kelly demonstrated substantial grounds for claiming the route would have disproportionate effects on her property and other rights.

The judge said she did well to “get across the first line of defences” without legal representation against “teams of lawyers drawn from the leading ranks”, but her next hurdle is a “panorama of further procedural landmines”.

Her submissions were “very persuasive and well-delivered”, he said, but he wanted to draw her attention to the benefits of obtaining legal representation.

Also, what on earth are those comments supposed to be!? He is making out like she is some brave crusading hero that the govt is trying to stamp down on when she is using the legal system to her own perverse ends to the detriment of thousands of people.

She is the procedural bloody landmine.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122395115#Comment_122395115

It would be grounds for a JR to be successful which is what they are trying to avoid (well, they are trying to avoid one being granted full stop ideally).