Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

145791084

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭ Pixel Eater


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Many of these sites would have been developed with low density housing a few years ago and would have gotten planning no problem. There is no Regards to sustainability or good planning here !
    MJohnston wrote: »
    There's the Strategic Housing Development scheme where developments with 100+ houses or 200+ student beds can skip straight to ABP, bypassing local authority approval.

    What's really kicked things off in the last year though is the rise of REITs (commonly called cuckoo funds) which buy up apartment developments en masse to rent them out.

    So basically, the difference is there's more money in it now.
    Qrt wrote: »
    Additionally there’s mixed opinions on REITs. Although they’re building many needed apartment schemes, many are worried they’ll become too powerful and influence the market price wise. And since so many apartments will be rental only, it prolongs the idea of apartments being only temporary and that you’ll buy a “proper house” one day. Lots of transience too.


    Eoghan Murphy has also stripped back some of the over regulations for apartments too - like dual aspect - that I think were stifling developments.

    I actually agree with the Strategic Housing Schemes and even think that they could go further and allow for even greater densities and even tax breaks for locations near metro and train stations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,512 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Tax breaks???

    Definitely not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,338 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    Eoghan Murphy has also stripped back some of the over regulations for apartments too - like dual aspect - that I think were stifling developments.

    I actually agree with the Strategic Housing Schemes and even think that they could go further and allow for even greater densities and even tax breaks for locations near metro and train stations.

    They certainly don't need any more tax breaks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭ Pixel Eater


    I don't mean extra tax incentives to big, institutional investor but rather developers on the ground actually building the apartments. Less VAT/levies to make they more viable with conditions that they're near public transport and maybe a portion has to be sold to individuals. Just a way to ensure that there would be significant density along the line(s). Anyway just an idea.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,889 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    I don't mean extra tax incentives to big, institutional investor but rather developers on the ground actually building the apartments. Less VAT/levies to make they more viable with conditions that they're near public transport and maybe a portion has to be sold to individuals. Just a way to ensure that there would be significant density along the line(s). Anyway just an idea.

    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 34,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AlmightyCushion


    bk wrote: »
    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.

    We should probably have minimum density requirements near major public transport routes.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 16,359 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    bk wrote: »
    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.

    Building an estate of semis, the builder builds a few dozen, sells them and that funds the next few dozen, and so on until the development is finished. With apartments, the whole block must be finished before even one can be sold.

    Deferring some of the local authority fees might help, but not really. It needs very deep pockets, or else there might be bankruptcies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,512 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Apartment blocks have in the past, don’t know if it still happens now, have been sold off the plans.

    And totally sold out within hours.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭ tobsey


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Apartment blocks have in the past, don’t know if it still happens now, have been sold off the plans.

    And totally sold out within hours.

    Sold but not paid for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭ specialbyte


    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭ handlemaster


    Will any of this ever be builth ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,338 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction

    I've mentioned a similar bridge here a bunch in relation to the Cabra Luas and access to Glasnevin. Imo it was a no-brainer addition without this temporary greenway closure, and it's an absolute must now.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction

    I've looked into this a bit more, and I don't think that it's going to be closed for any significant length of time. As far as I can surmise, the NTA/TII are planning on keeping the Docklands line open during construction of the station, so what I can see happening is the greenway being closed during the demolition of the Des Kelly building, along with some works to shore up the sides of the Docklands line, then the greenway would reopen while the station is constructed. It may close again during the construction of the above ground station, but I can't imagine the two closures would take years, more along the lines of months.

    Now, there's definitely a case to be made for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge along the greenway anyway, which I'd like to see that regardless of how long the Metrolink closure is.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    The lobbying that went on over Metrolink is starting to come out now, no real surprises, it's just depressing how Irish politics is set up so that national politicians must respond to local concerns, rather than national concerns. Just to note though, I think our system is pretty good in comparison to most others.

    See here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭ Alvin Holler


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I've looked into this a bit more, and I don't think that it's going to be closed for any significant length of time. As far as I can surmise, the NTA/TII are planning on keeping the Docklands line open during construction of the station, so what I can see happening is the greenway being closed during the demolition of the Des Kelly building, along with some works to shore up the sides of the Docklands line, then the greenway would reopen while the station is constructed. It may close again during the construction of the above ground station, but I can't imagine the two closures would take years, more along the lines of months.

    Now, there's definitely a case to be made for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge along the greenway anyway, which I'd like to see that regardless of how long the Metrolink closure is.

    I would agree with this. Huge exaggeration in terms of impact by the cycling group to get more submissions in.

    In any case it's not just a greenway, there are 4 houses half a mile up that road. I doubt any works would be allowed to close access to those houses for any significant period of time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,486 ✭✭✭✭ Grandeeod


    ggff wrote: »
    What happened to the Beilinstown and Lissenhall stops north of the current Estuary stop? Belinstown was supposed to be the northern terminus and the depot as well as a Park and Ride.

    Also, what is the story with the DCU and Griffith Avenue stops? They aren't included on the current Metrolink plans as with the Parnell Street and O'Connell Bridge stops.

    These were all included in the Metro North plans as well as a southern terminus at St. Stephen's Green.

    Why is the current southern terminus not at St. Stephen's Green instead of Charlemont? St. Stephen's Green would be a more central terminus and would link up with the Luas Green Line just as well as a link at Charlemont, and it would save extended construction costs.



    Apart from the Glasnevin interchange, why wasn't the old FF plan just followed?

    On that topic, what happened to Metro West?

    The whole thing was reinvented. Ya know, like reinventing a wheel so to speak.

    MN got the boot due to cost. Stations too big and grandiose etc. Metrolink came about as an alternative, but included an extension to Sandyford at a higher cost and with some deviations to take in previous ideas suggested to FG when they were in opposition, but that was cool because we got more bang for our buck apparently. This new Metro would run to Sandyford. Now it doesn't and won't. It doesn't offer any idea of connectivity to any further proposed DU as it runs under a different part of SSG and DU is apparently back on the drawing board going nowhere anytime soon. If ever.

    Glasnevin is a good idea and always was. It really should have been part of the original MN plan. However, we are in the era of a complete downgrade of what was previously planned. Therefore MW is a concept that while not perfect, will be whistling dixie until it dies. Actually, its dead already.

    The current plan is literally a FG idea based on quick fix budget like solutions that were suggested to them 16 years ago when they were in opposition. Unfortunately they have dragged the entire Metro concept into it, while ditching DU and making an absolute mess of it all.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    The whole thing was reinvented. Ya know, like reinventing a wheel so to speak.

    MN got the boot due to cost. Stations too big and grandiose etc. Metrolink came about as an alternative, but included an extension to Sandyford at a higher cost and with some deviations to take in previous ideas suggested to FG when they were in opposition, but that was cool because we got more bang for our buck apparently. This new Metro would run to Sandyford. Now it doesn't and won't. It doesn't offer any idea of connectivity to any further proposed DU as it runs under a different part of SSG and DU is apparently back on the drawing board going nowhere anytime soon. If ever.

    Glasnevin is a good idea and always was. It really should have been part of the original MN plan. However, we are in the era of a complete downgrade of what was previously planned. Therefore MW is a concept that while not perfect, will be whistling dixie until it dies. Actually, its dead already.

    The current plan is literally a FG idea based on quick fix budget like solutions that were suggested to them 16 years ago when they were in opposition. Unfortunately they have dragged the entire Metro concept into it, while ditching DU and making an absolute mess of it all.

    Metro North had a major flaw though, in that it required another multibillion euro project in order to connect with the dart line in the city centre. It needed Dart Underground to properly work, while Metrolink will interchange with two lines at Glasnevin, and at Tara St.

    Not defending the decisions that got us here or anything, but even shorn of the south side section, Metrolink is definitely a better project.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,772 ✭✭✭✭ murphaph


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Metro North had a major flaw though, in that it required another multibillion euro project in order to connect with the dart line in the city centre. It needed Dart Underground to properly work, while Metrolink will interchange with two lines at Glasnevin, and at Tara St.

    Not defending the decisions that got us here or anything, but even shorn of the south side section, Metrolink is definitely a better project.
    Unfortunately if DU is ever built and is not or cannot be modified to interconnect with Metrolink near St. Stephen's Green then Metrolink will interchange with the same DART line (Maynooth-Bray) twice and not at all with the other one (Balbriggan-Hazelhatch). That would be a tremendous pity. It's a real shame we can't just build the proper solutions for the greater good and accept that some small number of people will indeed be disadvantaged by those solutions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 822 ✭✭✭ gjim


    murphaph wrote: »
    Unfortunately if DU is ever built and is not or cannot be modified to interconnect with Metrolink near St. Stephen's Green then Metrolink will interchange with the same DART line (Maynooth-Bray) twice and not at all with the other one (Balbriggan-Hazelhatch). That would be a tremendous pity. It's a real shame we can't just build the proper solutions for the greater good and accept that some small number of people will indeed be disadvantaged by those solutions.
    If it is ever built, surely there would have to be a stop somewhere around Stephen's Green? I can't remember whether the current DU/MN plan had the DU below or above MN? You'd hope that they'd bury a station-box for DU while building the ML station in Stephen's Green but with the penny pinching involved in getting a truncated ML accepted, it's probably unlikely.

    It's clear that long term strategic planning for public transport is effectively incompatible with the Irish political system. The NTA should just be given a budget of x billion a year for PT in Dublin and then allow the engineers to prioritize and make long term plans without political interference but this will never happen as every transport minister seems to want to start from scratch.

    Drifting off topic now, but I think we may as well forget about seeing a DU for a decade or two at least. Best we can hope for is the DART expansion plan along with building a proper Docklands heavy rail station.


  • Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭ Heartbreak Hank


    Engineering aside (!!!) would Tara not be the best place for a DU interchange with the Bray - Maynooth Dart, Metrolink and Hazelhatch - Balbriggan all in the one parcel.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    gjim wrote: »
    If it is ever built, surely there would have to be a stop somewhere around Stephen's Green? I can't remember whether the current DU/MN plan had the DU below or above MN? You'd hope that they'd bury a station-box for DU while building the ML station in Stephen's Green but with the penny pinching involved in getting a truncated ML accepted, it's probably unlikely.
    Whenever DU gets redesigned, an interchange at Tara Street would be infinitely better than SSG. Regardless of where it ends up, putting in a station box at SSG could be a tremendous waste of money and would just be used as a stick to beat Metrolink. We already have people complaining about money wasted on a station at the Mater when only a wall was built.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Yes, once they get Metrolink out of the way, I can imagine them going back to square one on Dart Underground and looking at all the interchange options. An interchange at Tara St would be the obvious choice, but I think that an interchange at SSG and at Pearse Station would still work just as well, and might be easier to design and build. Having an interchange at Tara St, Pearse St and SSG would create an interchange triangle of stations, something I've noticed on networks across the globe. Once the frequency is good enough, then no one will care about possibly having to interchange twice in quick succession.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Yes, once they get Metrolink out of the way, I can imagine them going back to square one on Dart Underground and looking at all the interchange options. An interchange at Tara St would be the obvious choice, but I think that an interchange at SSG and at Pearse Station would still work just as well, and might be easier to design and build. Having an interchange at Tara St, Pearse St and SSG would create an interchange triangle of stations, something I've noticed on networks across the globe. Once the frequency is good enough, then no one will care about possibly having to interchange twice in quick succession.
    Well DU going via Tara and tunnel ending at Heuston would reduce the tunnel to 4.5km as opposed to 7+ in the original proposal. Also, a single station at Tara saves another wedge as opposed to two (Pearse and SSG) making the whole thing a bit more likely. That is off topic though, the point is that trying to preempt DU is not something that Metrolink should try to do and can do more harm than good (as with the Mater diaphragm wall).


  • Registered Users Posts: 918 ✭✭✭ riddlinrussell


    murphaph wrote: »
    Unfortunately if DU is ever built and is not or cannot be modified to interconnect with Metrolink near St. Stephen's Green then Metrolink will interchange with the same DART line (Maynooth-Bray) twice and not at all with the other one (Balbriggan-Hazelhatch). That would be a tremendous pity. It's a real shame we can't just build the proper solutions for the greater good and accept that some small number of people will indeed be disadvantaged by those solutions.

    Cross-Guns/Glasnevin will surely be an interchange between Metro and BOTH DART lines? At least until DU gets resurrected... then Tara would probably make most sense.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Well DU going via Tara and tunnel ending at Heuston would reduce the tunnel to 4.5km as opposed to 7+ in the original proposal. Also, a single station at Tara saves another wedge as opposed to two (Pearse and SSG) making the whole thing a bit more likely. That is off topic though, the point is that trying to preempt DU is not something that Metrolink should try to do and can do more harm than good (as with the Mater diaphragm wall).

    I don't think that it's going to preempt DU, I think that if we're spending billions on a project, then we have to get the most bang for our buck, and it's got to stand on it's own. No idea how long it'll take DU to get through our political process, and no idea what the economy will be like after Metrolink. There's just no way we should build project without an interchange station in the city centre.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Cross-Guns/Glasnevin will surely be an interchange between Metro and BOTH DART lines? At least until DU gets resurrected... then Tara would probably make most sense.

    It will, but I'm not sure how many Darts will actually head through the PPT. I can see most finishing at Heuston, to be honest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 822 ✭✭✭ gjim


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Yes, once they get Metrolink out of the way, I can imagine them going back to square one on Dart Underground and looking at all the interchange options. An interchange at Tara St would be the obvious choice, but I think that an interchange at SSG and at Pearse Station would still work just as well, and might be easier to design and build. Having an interchange at Tara St, Pearse St and SSG would create an interchange triangle of stations, something I've noticed on networks across the globe. Once the frequency is good enough, then no one will care about possibly having to interchange twice in quick succession.
    I also prefer a triangle of interchanges - as you say, it's a successful model in networks elsewhere. I think it provides greater utility. The Tara Street option is great if you're going directly to or from Tara Street itself, other journeys are not improved. The alternative (interchanges at SSG and Pearse) improves coverage area as well connectivity for people going to/from either of the two. Also I've a feeling that operationally it provides better redundancy as well as being easier to build/engineer.

    Btw I don't think Cross Guns is devalued by the future DU - as well as providing rail access to that part of the city, it will allow non-DARTs (terminating in a new/upgraded Docklands surface station) to interchange with DART or ML. And it will still make sense for some ML and DART users to switch at Glasnevin rather than Tara.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I don't think that it's going to preempt DU, I think that if we're spending billions on a project, then we have to get the most bang for our buck, and it's got to stand on it's own. No idea how long it'll take DU to get through our political process, and no idea what the economy will be like after Metrolink. There's just no way we should build project without an interchange station in the city centre.
    Building a station box where the rail line might not even pass is not getting bang for our buck. Interchanges are being built as part of Metrolink, the interchanges are with the existing network.


  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭ Pixel Eater


    If they strategically built the DU station horizontally between the Metro and Luas stops at St. Stephen's Green then we'd have a great connecting station; Luas, Dart and Metro would all be linked by tunnels.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Building a station box where the rail line might not even pass is not getting bang for our buck. Interchanges are being built as part of Metrolink, the interchanges are with the existing network.

    I'm sorry, what's this about?


Advertisement