Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

tallaghtfornia

I have noticed over the last few weeks that TII have been surveying on the Swords bypass again notice them also inspecting drains etc.

Kellyconor1982

cgcsb wrote: »

Metrolink might happen but there is a 0% chance of it being delivered in 2027. We would have to have a railway order, finance and a tenderer now to meet that target.

Possibly, but my feeling is that this is a win-win project for the government and they will make sure that it isn't left lagging too far behind it's original timeline. Obviously all public transport should be win-win but this is very much a gamechanger project and will give them great kudos with the electorate in the Greater Dublin area. People in places like SW or NW Dublin will view these parties as potentially the parties that can improve pt in their areas and bring them a metro line of their own. It's a huge quality of life issue that is not a problem in nearly any European city. It must change and while it may be the 2040s before it fully does here, I feel we will get there and Metrolink will herald it.

The Greens in particular will want and need to be part of some early victories especially around the climate (pt is a great way of doing that) and Michael Martin is in a precarious position also within his party. It's Fine Gael's baby so they certainly won't want it thrown out with the bathwater.

Should several big projects like Metrolink and big construction sites like Project Waterfront/Parkgate Street happen within the next 2-3 years as I would hope they will, they will employ thousands of people and potentially have the knock on impact of keeping a lot of small businesses open through a tough time for the economy.

cgcsb

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

I have noticed over the last few weeks that TII have been surveying on the Swords bypass again notice them also inspecting drains etc.

There is also a plan to make the Swords bypass more people friendly (traffic lights, at grade crossings etc.

bk

So overall this all seems very positive for us who are interested in improved public transport and energy.

It some ways there is nothing really radical at all here, it isn't like the Greens are now suggesting that we build 5 Metros. Instead it is pretty much just a confirmation of what was already planned by the NTA and other authorities under the previous FG governments.

Really the only extra green policies I see here is even more money being spent on cycling, then the increase that the FG government were already planning and in energy the increase in carbon taxes likely wouldn't have happened to that extent under FG.

Having said all that, I think it is largely positive. I was worried about Eamon's messing with Metrolink, but that doesn't seem to have come to pass and it wouldn't have looked good to the rest of his party throughout the country.

I'd agree Amirani analysis above, a government supported by rural independents would have looked far less favourable for Dublin based projects and I've no idea what Sinn Fein would have done, but I think we wouldn't have gotten half of these projects.

cgcsb wrote: »

Both are often works of fiction. I do hope most of this is delivered. When it comes to energy though, the green party need a bit of a crash course on how the grid currently works and what is possible, because they don't seem to know at the minute.

Muahahaha wrote: »

They were the two that stood out to me. Theres a fairly good chance there is a huge gas field off Kerry. Without exploration to find it we'll just instead end up buying gas from Russia. This will cost the economy money plus the carbon emission to get it here from Russia rather than Kerry.

Well first of all to point out to Muahahaha, we don't get our gas from Russia. It mostly comes from Ireland, UK and Norway.

cgcsb, I just took a look at the plan and in relation to Energy, I don't agree, the plan really isn't that radical, it is mostly what was already planned out and I think it is quiet doable.

The plan is for us to get 70% of electricity from Renewables by 2030. They plan to do that by building massive amounts of offshore wind and with an interconnector to France *

As you probably know, that was already the plan for more then a year now, as set out by the ESB and energy regulator. I think it is a pretty good, solid plan and pretty achievable.

With the above plan, we will see a massive reduction in Natural Gas demand for use in electricity generation. We will still need some, but really comparatively little compared to now.

With the reducing demand, we will likely have enough with our existing supplies and from UK/Norway. I really don't see why we would need to be building massive new LNG import facilities or allowing fracking. These were projects pushed by Bord Gais and they already feel like they weren't needed and would quickly end up a white elephant and a stranded asset like Moneypoint is now in a few years.

In terms of how we heat our homes, the plan they are going for looks to be to retrofit 500,000 homes to be highly insulated and convert them to heat pumps. That would also greatly reduce the amount of natural gas we currently use to heat our homes. So again massive reduction in demand there.

They also talk about improving electricity storage solutions, wave power and using excess with power to generate Hydrogen power, which could also be used to replace natural gas for home heating.

I think gas has served us well, and I'm delighted that it has helped us move away from much more polluting coal, but I think it's time has come and it is time to move beyond it.

* On the Celtic interconnector, glad to see that they haven't messed with that, I was a bit worried about this one, given what we all know is on the other side of it

cgcsb

bk wrote: »

Well first of all to point out to Muahahaha, we don't get our gas from Russia. It mostly comes from Ireland, UK and Norway.

We'll run out of our own supply before 2030 and the UK is already a net gas importer. Russia provides the surplus for most of Europe. The plan to remove our ability to explore new gas fields and to import LPG more/less means we'll be moving to Russian imports (which are not more environmentally friendly than Irish gas)

bk wrote: »

The plan is for us to get 70% of electricity from Renewables by 2030. They plan to do that by building massive amounts of offshore wind and with an interconnector to France *

Here's the problem gas is the only way we have of balancing the renewables. Having 70% renewables averaged over the year is great, but the problem is, some days it's going to be 10% and some days 150%. I don't think relying on French nuclear alone is a good solution. Nuclear provides constant output and they'll charge us for that constant output to backup our grid.

bk wrote: »

As you probably know, that was already the plan for more then a year now, as set out by the ESB and energy regulator. I think it is a pretty good, solid plan and pretty achievable.

It was PART of the plan, the ESB never envisaged relying on the French grid entirely for backing up renewables here. By banning exploring for new gas all we are doing is reducing our future options, basically tying a hand behind our backs.

bk wrote: »

In terms of how we heat our homes, the plan they are going for looks to be to retrofit 500,000 homes to be highly insulated and convert them to heat pumps. That would also greatly reduce the amount of natural gas we currently use to heat our homes. So again massive reduction in demand there.

500k homes, starting in the midlands, i.e. focusing on homes that are not connected to the gas grid and probably depend on tankered oil. This is a good idea because it removes our dependence on oil, and gas is a far cleaner fuel and is piped, not moved on trucks. The gas grid is mostly urban though and there are more than 2 million homes in the state. Optimistically most city homes will still need gas heating long after 2030. Even if the 500k retrofit target is hit. I am aware there are a number of proposed district heating systems but even if they are rolled out, your talking about coverage of a small area of Dublin 1 and 2 in new apartments that would otherwise depend on electric storage heaters rather than gas.

bk wrote: »

They also talk about improving electricity storage solutions, wave power and using excess with power to generate Hydrogen power, which could also be used to replace natural gas for home heating.

When programs for government start talking about technologies that don't exist yet, they're done. The last government reduced funding for wave power research because it wasn't producing results. Hydrogen is great but the process results in a more than 50% energy loss, it's not efficient. We're a long way off people burning piped hydrogen in their homes for heat.

bk wrote: »

I think gas has served us well, and I'm delighted that it has helped us move away from much more polluting coal, but I think it's time has come and it is time to move beyond it.

can't, no realistic alternatives exist.

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

We'll run out of our own supply before 2030 and the UK is already a net gas importer. Russia provides the surplus for most of Europe. The plan to remove our ability to explore new gas fields and to import LPG more/less means we'll be moving to Russian imports (which are not more environmentally friendly than Irish gas)

It will mean we will import whatever small amount of gas we need via the three interconnectors with Scotland. Most of that will be from UK/Norwegian North Sea Oil fields.

While it isn't zero, very little of that will come from Russia.

It is a myth that gas is running out in the North Sea, there is still massive amounts there and for more then the next 20 years. The big issue is the massive decrease in oil and gas prices, that make North Sea more expensive then shipping in cheap Russian gas.

Proper Carbon Taxing can help resolve that by properly pricing in the environmental damage of shipping in LNG from Russia.

cgcsb wrote: »

Here's the problem gas is the only way we have of balancing the renewables. Having 70% renewables averaged over the year is great, but the problem is, some days it's going to be 10% and some days 150%. I don't think relying on French nuclear alone is a good solution. Nuclear provides constant output and they'll charge us for that constant output to backup our grid.

It was PART of the plan, the ESB never envisaged relying on the French grid entirely for backing up renewables here.

The primary purpose of the Celtic Interconnetor is to balance out demand from the wind. Export excess wind power and import when the wind isn't blowing.

The program for government also mentions the creation of even more interconnectors to Europe and the building of even more wind farms beyond the 70%.

I can see us going well beyond 100% wind generation ability and using excess wind for export, filling batteries and generating hydrogen power which can be "burned" later to generate electricity during low wind times.

All these are doable, the balance between their use simply comes down to pricing.

I also expect grid scale battery tech to come on in leaps and bounds in the next 10 years.

We will of course still use some gas, but very little compared to what we currently do. I expect we will see the same massive decrease in natural gas use for electricity generation, that we saw for coal over the past 10 years.

If I'm wrong, we can always reverse course in a future government. But I think investing in LNG facilities would be a massive waste in money giving the developments that are coming.

cgcsb wrote: »

500k homes, starting in the midlands, i.e. focusing on homes that are not connected to the gas grid and probably depend on tankered oil. This is a good idea because it removes our dependence on oil, and gas is a far cleaner fuel and is piped, not moved on trucks. The gas grid is mostly urban though and there are more than 2 million homes in the state. Optimistically most city homes will still need gas heating long after 2030. Even if the 500k retrofit target is hit. I am aware there are a number of proposed district heating systems but even if they are rolled out, your talking about coverage of a small area of Dublin 1 and 2 in new apartments that would otherwise depend on electric storage heaters rather than gas.

They are also talking of converting another 100,000 exiting homes that already have sufficient insulation to heat pumps.

District heating systems will also help with many homes as you say.

For whatever homes are left on gas, Bord Gais has put forward two plans:

1) They use excess wind to generate hydrogen or biogas and then mix it with natural gas, to make it "cleaner", and in addition, use carbon capture tech to capture carbon emissions and pump them back into the Kinsale gas field.

2) Use excess wind power to generate hydrogen power and convert the entire gas network to 100% hydrogen, instead of gas, something they are planning to do in the UK.

The first option seems to be Bord Gais's preference, though I don't think it will fly with Greens in government, the carbon capture thing is VERY questionable.

But either way, the combination of all the above is also going to see a massive reduction in gas usage for heating homes.

cgcsb wrote: »

When programs for government start talking about technologies that don't exist yet, they're done. The last government reduced funding for wave power research because it wasn't producing results. Hydrogen is great but the process results in a more than 50% energy loss, it's not efficient. We're a long way off people burning piped hydrogen in their homes for heat.

The Pfg includes new investment in wave and tidal power

50% energy lose, is not that big of a deal for us here in Ireland when we have such massive quantities of excess wind potential here.

In the end it just comes done to pricing and how much you care about the environment.

The environmental thing to do would be to WAY overbuild our wind power, export the excess and use it to generate hydrogen.

Sure importing cheap Russian LNG might be cheaper, but it certainly isn't more environmentally friendly.

Also making use of our wind and producing hydrogen would be better from an energy security perspective.

bk

Apologies, I just realised that the last few posts have probably gone widely off topic for this thread. Perhaps one of the mods would consider carving them out into their own Energy focused infrastructure thread if they have time.

MJohnston

Hmm lads, a little bit off-topic wouldn't you say?

Marcusm

cgcsb wrote: »

Programmes for government are almost always works of fiction though. The details were getting from this government are fanciful at best:

- direct provision to end but no mention of a replacement scheme of how it'll be funded

- increase in foreign aid but no mention of how funding will happen

- an end to gas exploration in Ireland and an end to plans to import gas in tankers but again no mention of what replacement will be bought.

It's all fanciful fluff without any real commitment or realistic plans to achieve same.

We can’t have the LNG terminal as we might import fracked gas despite an ability to track the sourcing of the gas. Instead we will rely on the U.K. inter connector meaning less energy independence and no ability to exclude fracked gas. Not very joined up thinking.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep this for Metrolink as per the title.

I will move the gas posts into a new thread when I get a chance.

Yellow_Fern

IT journalists have indicated that the Green party are not interested in making the Metrolink or related projects to be a signature move as its too long term and they are more interested in short term projects like greenways and possible Luas extensions. The selfishness baffles me.

Peregrine

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

IT journalists have indicated that the Green party are not interested in making the Metrolink or related projects to be a signature move as its too long term and they are more interested in short term projects like greenways and possible Luas extensions. The selfishness baffles me.

Could you post a link?

I can tell you now that's nonsense. Given the fact that there are no Luas projects even near the stage that MetroLink is at, they're not really short term projects. Luas Finglas is the most progressed one and it's at least 2 years away from a railway order application going in. Without any delays, they'd be looking at starting construction in the final months of the government. With MetroLink, they could be 2 years into construction. The other ones are at even earlier stages.

If you do think they'll play it selfishly then MetroLink goes through 4 constituencies and 3 of them have Green Party seats. Finglas Luas goes through no Green constituency and that's the one that's even close to starting construction during the lifetime of the government. Lucan Luas goes through 1 where it will result in a litany of objections, Bray Luas goes through 1 but will probably piss off the people in the constituency when people from Bray start taking the seats before them and Ringsend goes through 1 where it will benefit voters that don't live there yet.

But, really, there's practically no change when it comes to capital spending on public transport. DART Expansion, MetroLink and BusConnects still on track, everything else years away from getting any funding.

Yellow_Fern

Peregrine wrote: »

Could you post a link?

I can tell you now that's nonsense. Given the fact that there are no Luas projects even near the stage that MetroLink is at, they're not really short term projects. Luas Finglas is the most progressed one and it's at least 2 years away from a railway order application going in. Without any delays, they'd be looking at starting construction in the final months of the government. With MetroLink, they could be 2 years into construction. The other ones are at even earlier stages.

If you do think they'll play it selfishly then MetroLink goes through 4 constituencies and 3 of them have Green Party seats. Finglas Luas goes through no Green constituency and that's the one that's even close to starting construction during the lifetime of the government. Lucan Luas goes through 1 where it will result in a litany of objections, Bray Luas goes through 1 but will probably piss off the people in the constituency when people from Bray start taking the seats before them and Ringsend goes through 1 where it will benefit voters that don't live there yet.

But, really, there's practically no change when it comes to capital spending on public transport. DART Expansion, MetroLink and BusConnects still on track, everything else years away from getting any funding.

I agree that Luas extensions are not a wise idea. They seem to be not enthusiastic about the metrolink because the metrolink might take 15 years. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/inside-politics

Greens are not a party for the environment.

CatInABox

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I agree that Luas extensions are not a wise idea. They seem to be not enthusiastic about the metrolink because the metrolink might take 15 years.

This kind of inside baseball ****e really annoys me. We've got the program for government document, in which it literally says they're prioritising Metrolink, signed off on by the parliamentary party, but no, we're to believe scuttlebutt that for some insane reason, the Green party is against it because it's not short term enough?

I smell bull.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

This kind of inside baseball ****e really annoys me. We've got the program for government document, in which it literally says they're prioritising Metrolink, signed off on by the parliamentary party, but no, we're to believe scuttlebutt that for some insane reason, the Green party is against it because it's not short term enough?

I smell bull.

The more likely occurrence is that Fine Fail decided to present Metrolink as one of their solutions to the 7% emissions target and the Greens rejected that

bk

Sorry I can't listen to the podcast now, but that simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Having the Metrolink start construction when Greens are in government would be a massive feather in their cap. While it wouldn't be complete, it would be very noticeable with massive construction work happening throughout the city. Come the next election they would be able to point and say, look we are getting Ireland's first Metro done, vote for us or the next government might not complete it *.

* Of course non of this would be really true, but you know how politics is.

It would show them to be very politically naive not to see the importance of this.

I could of course see them wanting to push more cycling and Busconnects quicker for a quick easy win. That does make sense, but it would be silly not to see how having them involved in a long term projects like this and Dart Expansion could be very helpful in keeping them in government over the next 10 years.

Part of the problem with the Greens, is while they certainly have some very smart and able people, the party also is full of crazy tree hugging hippies who think we can only save the environment by giving up on capitalism and all modern conveniences and go live in communes living off the land. Those members of the party would be bizarrely against projects like Metrolink or having people live in high density in cities in apartments.

I think the Greens actually have a great opportunity here to grow into a big party if they play their cards right. If they can position themselves as just slightly left of center, with a focus on the environment and practical environmental improvements, that would make them highly transfer friendly to the majority of undecided folks, with environmental concerns, plus FGers with environmental concerns would be likely to give them a preference and of course those from more leftist parties would give them a preference too. A very nice spot to be in.

The problem they have is the more radical, extreme left elements of the party. If they leave them win out, then they will likely just end up another small pointless extreme left party like PBP, SD, etc. with little chance of making any environmental changes.

Those of us interested in infrastructure improvements will need to hope that the more practical elements of the party win out.

Kellyconor1982

bk wrote: »

Sorry I can't listen to the podcast now, but that simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Having the Metrolink start construction when Greens are in government would be a massive feather in their cap. While it wouldn't be complete, it would be very noticeable with massive construction work happening throughout the city. Come the next election they would be able to point and say, look we are getting Ireland's first Metro done, vote for us or the next government might not complete it *.

* Of course non of this would be really true, but you know how politics is.

It would show them to be very politically naive not to see the importance of this.

I could of course see them wanting to push more cycling and Busconnects quicker for a quick easy win. That does make sense, but it would be silly not to see how having them involved in a long term projects like this and Dart Expansion could be very helpful in keeping them in government over the next 10 years.

Part of the problem with the Greens, is while they certainly have some very smart and able people, the party also is full of crazy tree hugging hippies who think we can only save the environment by giving up on capitalism and all modern conveniences and go live in communes living off the land. Those members of the party would be bizarrely against projects like Metrolink or having people live in high density in cities in apartments.

I think the Greens actually have a great opportunity here to grow into a big party if they play their cards right. If they can position themselves as just slightly left of center, with a focus on the environment and practical environmental improvements, that would make them highly transfer friendly to the majority of undecided folks, with environmental concerns, plus FGers with environmental concerns would be likely to give them a preference and of course those from more leftist parties would give them a preference too. A very nice spot to be in.

The problem they have is the more radical, extreme left elements of the party. If they leave them win out, then they will likely just end up another small pointless extreme left party like PBP, SD, etc. with little chance of making any environmental changes.

Those of us interested in infrastructure improvements will need to hope that the more practical elements of the party win out.

Spot on there. I can't see how many within the party would be against Metrolink. If anything, on a quality of life/environmental point of view, it is huge for the city. Secondly and more importantly, it will make voters in other parts of the city where public transport is very poor such as SW Dublin view the three parties as the ones that could do the same in their constituency.

Luas extensions may be prioritiesed over Dart Underground, but not Metrolink.

I read somewhere that many in the Green Party don't like Bus Connects. That may be reduced in scope or put back on the drawing board. I know a lot of communities are against it and especially some powerful ones, which may be the casualty here. It might be that Bus Connects is the answer for regional cities and towns with light rail prioritised for Cork.

LXFlyer

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Spot on there. I can't see how many within the party would be against Metrolink. If anything, on a quality of life/environmental point of view, it is huge for the city. Secondly and more importantly, it will make voters in other parts of the city where public transport is very poor such as SW Dublin view the three parties as the ones that could do the same in their constituency.

Luas extensions may be prioritiesed over Dart Underground, but not Metrolink.

I read somewhere that many in the Green Party don't like Bus Connects. That may be reduced in scope or put back on the drawing board. I know a lot of communities are against it and especially some powerful ones, which may be the casualty here. It might be that Bus Connects is the answer for regional cities and towns with light rail prioritised for Cork.

I think you are being a bit unfair here.

What people (including the Greens) objected to with regard to BusConnects was not the project per se.

With regards to infrastructure element of BusConnects, the objections in the main were to the plans to widen the roads in certain areas (such as Rathgar, Terenure and Glasnevin), which would mean trees being cut down to accommodate additional bus and cycle lanes, while maintaining the existing car lanes.

It's the latter that really was the problem. What was planned for Rathgar Road originally would certainly have changed the nature of that road negatively on a permanent basis, while keeping car owners happy.

To be fair to the NTA they have taken that on board in many locations and the more recent proposals involve the removal of car lanes, the introduction of one-way routes and, consequently some of the more contentious road widening proposals are now no longer on the table, whilst bus lanes and cycle routes are put to the forefront.

I think LUAS extensions (apart possibly from Finglas) need to be at the bottom of the list behind DART expansion, BusConnects and Metrolink.

Muahahaha

bk wrote: »

Part of the problem with the Greens, is while they certainly have some very smart and able people, the party also is full of crazy tree hugging hippies who think we can only save the environment by giving up on capitalism and all modern conveniences and go live in communes living off the land. Those members of the party would be bizarrely against projects like Metrolink or having people live in high density in cities in apartments.
.

From what Ive read they have circa 3,600 members so 2,400+ are required to vote yes tor the program for government. This is a tall ask made harder by a recent surge in Green party membership last year in universities off the back of the Extinction Rebellion/Greta Thunberg protests. Many of these students are idealists in the mould of the tree hugging hippies you describe and bizarrely this cohort would be against Metrolink. The same set would be against nuclear power being imported via the interconnector from France.

The Greens have always had that fissure between idealists and pragmatists, back in the day it was Patricia McKenna v Trevor Sargant, now its Eamon Ryan v Catherine Martin and her family cabaal within the party.

Podge_irl

LXFlyer wrote: »

To be fair to the NTA they have taken that on board in many locations and the more recent proposals involve the removal of car lanes, the introduction of one-way routes and, consequently some of the more contentious road widening proposals are now no longer on the table, whilst bus lanes and cycle routes are put to the forefront.

I have no idea whether it was planned or not, but the NTA have gotten the removal of car lanes through in basically the only way possible. Suggest cutting down trees (a problem smaller than claimed anyway) along with taking driveways - then have that become the focus of protest. Then simply acknowledge those protests and remove the car lanes instead of the bus lanes they were hoping would actually be gotten rid of. I'm not entirely sure the Greens would have been that savvy about it.

The Greens will have an issue getting over Ryan's utterly absurd interjections on Metrolink which ultimately would have accomplished nothing except delaying or cancelling the project. Easier to do from opposition though, in govt they can not be seen to delay it further.

MJohnston

bk wrote: »

Part of the problem with the Greens, is while they certainly have some very smart and able people, the party also is full of crazy tree hugging hippies who think we can only save the environment by giving up on capitalism and all modern conveniences and go live in communes living off the land. Those members of the party would be bizarrely against projects like Metrolink or having people live in high density in cities in apartments.

I'm pretty anti-capitalist myself, or at least I'm of the view that capitalism as it is exists now needs to be broken down and rebuilt much more fairly if the world isn't going to go down in flames (and I don't even mean in an environmental sense).
But I'm also extremely vocally pro-Metrolink because I think that broad and extensively available public transport is one of the many ways that you can combat the deeply damaging inequality that the neo-capitalist system has wrought on our society.
I'm a Social Dem, but I think most younger Greens are of this kind of mindset too.

As an OT aside: The anti-density arguments aren't usually that when you dig into them—it's just that skyscraper building tends to be overly environmentally deleterious, and tends not to do much inherently to repair inequality.

Then again, all these reasons are why I'm not convinced the Green Party membership will support a coalition with Fine Fail, who tend to ignore the glaring deficiencies in neo-capitalism.

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

As an OT aside: The anti-density arguments aren't usually that when you dig into them—it's just that skyscraper building tends to be overly environmentally deleterious, and tends not to do much inherently to repair inequality.

Who said anything about skyscrapers. I live 2km from O'Connell Bride, I look out my window at a sea of two bedroom semi-d's. It's mad. Where I live and most of Dublin City, it should be 6 to 8 storey apartment buildings, like most similar sized European cities.

And while I agree that skyscrapers don't help with inequality. A couple in the core business district of the city center can set a precedence for more normal housing in the 6 to 8 storey buildings for the rest of the city.

Plus it is environmentally better for the rich folks to be living in a skyscraper in the city center then a massive one off MacMansion in Wicklow.

LXFlyer

Podge_irl wrote: »

I have no idea whether it was planned or not, but the NTA have gotten the removal of car lanes through in basically the only way possible. Suggest cutting down trees (a problem smaller than claimed anyway) along with taking driveways - then have that become the focus of protest. Then simply acknowledge those protests and remove the car lanes instead of the bus lanes they were hoping would actually be gotten rid of. I'm not entirely sure the Greens would have been that savvy about it.

The Greens will have an issue getting over Ryan's utterly absurd interjections on Metrolink which ultimately would have accomplished nothing except delaying or cancelling the project. Easier to do from opposition though, in govt they can not be seen to delay it further.

My issue and I suspect that of the Greens with the original BusConnects plan was the unnecessary widening of many of the roads, in addition to the which frankly would have changed the nature of the urban realm completely and permanently, while still pandering to car drivers. Rathgar Road was a prime example of it. There is a balancing act here, but I'd rather not see the roads widened more than they are already unless there is absolutely no alternative.

I have no issue with the objections on those grounds.

Eamon Ryan's objection to the original Metrolink plan was in all honesty rendered irrelevant due to the realisation that the sewer along the Grand Canal precluded the Metro from surfacing there.

But he does have a point - there would have to be extended closures of a significant portion of the Green Line to convert it to Metro standard, some of it albeit on a rolling basis. That would create serious traffic issues (assuming things return to normal) in the south central area whilst that work happened - an area not blessed with much space. In addition I would consider that the volume of additional buses that would be needed per hour at peak times would be in the region of 100+ to cope.

That element of the original Metrolink plan really never got the consideration that it deserved.

But we will see what happens - the Metrolink plan as it now stands I don't think really has significant opposition from within any of the three potential government parties - now whether that alone is enough to get shovels in the ground is another thing altogether. We can hope!

donvito99

LXFlyer wrote: »

But he does have a point - there would have to be extended closures of a significant portion of the Green Line to convert it to Metro standard, some of it albeit on a rolling basis. That would create serious traffic issues (assuming things return to normal) in the south central area whilst that work happened - an area not blessed with much space. In addition I would consider that the volume of additional buses that would be needed per hour at peak times would be in the region of 100+ to cope.

That element of the original Metrolink plan really never got the consideration that it deserved.

That's all well and good, but it had to be weighed against the benefits of the line once upgraded. It beggars belief that the party most interested in public transport would seek to scupper - sewer aside - the largest investment in public transport in the history of the State so as to appease constituents who would have to put up with an increase in road traffic for a period.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

That's all well and good, but it had to be weighed against the benefits of the line once upgraded. It beggars belief that the party most interested in public transport would seek to scupper - sewer aside - the largest investment in public transport in the history of the State so as to appease constituents who would have to put up with an increase in road traffic for a period.

It was perfectly right that it be questioned though.

I raised this issue here after the very first initial consultation (having spoken with an RPA engineer) as I realised the level of work that would be needed. and as I recall I was told by numerous posters at the time that it was all nonsense, and that the line line wouldn’t be closed for an extended period.

It clearly wasn’t nonsense, and I think a proper debate about that aspect is still needed and how a solution can be reached that is much less disruptive while the northern section gets started in the meantime.

dublinman1990

How big is the proportion of young idealists within the Green's who are against Metrolink?

This does concern me because a number of Green party members in NI are already intending to vote no to the PfG as well because it is recognised as an all-Ireland party with both elected & grassroots members based on the both sides of the border. There are concerns in climate action measures not being be brought in to more greater detail in the PfG which could provide an interesting outcome when the votes are counted for it at some point near the end of June. It's quite a big vote to have for the Green Party memberships in NI because they account for between 20 & 30% of the entire vote of the total membership of the party.

This is a massive vote to consider for the Green party with Metrolink along PT projects being thrown into the mix for the PfG. This programme cannot be seen to fail among party members in Dublin because this vote essentially does have a lot riding on it's hands in maintaining a sense of reality with spending more money that are needed on PT projects in Dublin to secure the future of transport services in the city. If the vote for the PfG does not get anywhere near to getting passed by the Greens or by any other parties going into government again. People in Dublin will simply lose out by finding themselves in a whole heap of trouble later on in not getting the big mega transport projects to progress anymore with any further funding while the money that was previously spent on it under the last confidence & supply agreement done between FG & FF will eventually become dried up with very little opportunities of it being guaranteed to restart again in the future.

What I would believe is that if all party members of the 3 government parties in Dublin had a vote to decide their vote in the PfG. They would all essentially have to vote in favour of it with no exceptions being made because there would be huge ramifications for constituents living & working there in experiencing a major PT disaster in not getting the required result they needed in reducing the huge commuting times for coming into/from their homes into/from Dublin City Centre.

What I am saying here is all party members from those 3 must vote yes to ease commuting times for workers coming into or out of Dublin.

donvito99

LXFlyer wrote: »

It was perfectly right that it be questioned though.

I raised this issue here after the very first initial consultation (having spoken with an RPA engineer) as I realised the level of work that would be needed. and as I recall I was told by numerous posters at the time that it was all nonsense, and that the line line wouldn’t be closed for an extended period.

It clearly wasn’t nonsense, and I think a proper debate about that aspect is still needed and how a solution can be reached that is much less disruptive while the northern section gets started in the meantime.

Who was poo pooing of the fact of the closure? What I recall people reacting very strongly to was Eamon Ryan, Re Think MetroLink and others using the thought of a protracted closure as a means of derailing the upgrade completely. That was nonsense when you consider that the upgrade was touted at €120m by MetroLink themselves for basically 9km of Metro.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

Who was poo pooing of the fact of the closure? What I recall people reacting very strongly to was Eamon Ryan, Re Think MetroLink and others using the thought of a protracted closure as a means of derailing the upgrade completely. That was nonsense when you consider that the upgrade was touted at €120m by MetroLink themselves for basically 9km of Metro.

You can go back through the posting history here if you want to - I'm not going to dwell on particular individuals, but it certainly happened.

I've no time whatsoever for any of the reactionary people who constantly deal in emotive and dismissive language and hyperbole, and are incapable of reasoned debate (and that is on both sides, particularly on social media).

But I do think that a reasoned debate is needed to deal with the transport issues that face south Dublin, without trading insults, and that to my mind was what Eamon Ryan was advocating. I don't particularly want to go off the topic of this thread, but I was responding to someone who felt that Eamon Ryan was against Metrolink which I don't think he is per se.

I will say that it is all well and good coming up with transport strategies as the NTA have done, but when the implications of some of them aren't explained at that time (extended closures etc.), but rather only mid-way through the second consultation on one of the projects, it does tend to create bad feeling. That kind of thing needs to be dealt with at the outset, rather than towards the end which is what happened with Metrolink (as originally proposed).

To my knowledge there was very little debate about the transport strategy at the time it was developed, specifically in south Dublin, outside of the bubble of people (such as ourselves!) who have a specific interest in it - for that I do blame the NTA and our politicians who failed to get wider input and understanding and get people to engage.

I suspect that when this strategy comes up for review (as it will during the course of the next government) that will change and we might see a much broader debate about what should happen.

In the meantime, hopefully let us hope that the three main projects can be progressed to implementation stage under the next government and we can move forwards.

MJohnston

Eamon Ryan is clearly pro-Metrolink, but I get the sense he's....not very politically well-inclined.

When he started suggesting alternate crayon routes for Metrolink during the first consultation - when the sewer main problem was still not publicly known - he was well-intentioned, but ultimately he just added more accelerant to the localised public outrage that led to the south section being long-fingered (if not entirely abandoned).

A more pragmatically political approach would have been to separate out critique of the southern section from the perfectly fine plan for the Swords to Charlemont route. But he didn't do that, and that's why to many it felt like he was attacking the whole project, and why some have this perception of him as "anti-Metrolink".

I also want to mention this:

when the implications of some of them aren't explained at that time (extended closures etc.), but rather only mid-way through the second consultation on one of the projects, it does tend to create bad feeling

I'm not sure your memory on the chronology of this is correct.

From what I remember, the sewer main issue was discovered between consultations. When the second consultation began, the southern upgrade had already been removed from the project. That's also when we got access to all of the reports outlining the extended closure times for that Green Line upgrade.

However those extended closure times were based around two massive caveats that emerged after the first consultation: the existence of that pesky sewer main, and the political necessity to retain Dunville Avenue as a thoroughfare.

MJohnston

I also think "transport issues that face south Dublin" is way too broad a geographical definition - there are very different issues in south-east Dublin compared to south-west Dublin.