Metrolink - Alternative Routes - See post one for restrictions.

Brightlights66

At the encouragement of Sam Russell, who is one of the moderators here, I am starting this thread. (I started a similar thread several years ago, but that has now been renamed, and its thrust doesn't reflect the views which were originally expressed, or which I hope will be expressed here).

I am in favour of a metro between Swords/The Airport and the southwest of the city.

It has always seemed to me that Tallaght should be a focus for Dublin's development, but I don't believe that Tallaght, or the areas in between the City Centre and Tallaght, are a sufficient counterweight to the volumes produced by the Airport and Swords. It has, for years, been my belief that any route to the southwest, should involve a split towards Tallaght and Walkinstown Cross (for its current potential, as a bus interchange, and its future potential).

I propose that, in the centre, the metrolink should be built (from DCU) through Drumcondra, Mountjoy Square, O'Connell Street, College Green and St. Stephen's Green West, then out to Rathmines (towards Tallaght, via Rathgar, Terenure, Firhouse, etc.) and to Harold's Cross (on the way to Walkinstown).

To deal with these proposed stations in turn, Drumcondra: at this stage, really needs no explantion. The population is about 50% higher than it is at Glasnevin Junction. If you build it in the middle of the road, between the two lines, and develop a station on Whitworth Place, it's an absolute winner, for everybody in the area, and for those on trains on the Midland Line.

Mountjoy Square: This is a fine area, which could benefit much from being redevoped.

O'ConnellStreet: It is patent nonsense to describe, as the planners do, that the LUAS-Metro connection is easy. 500 metres+? This is taking the piss.

College Green:This is an area which the city has wanted to pedestrianise for a long time. Temporarily remove the plinth facing down College Street, and you've got plenty of space to work with for a metro.After it's done, you replace the plinth. Then it becomes a very attractive location for the propsed interconnector to go thro

Mod: - The design of the Metrolink from Estuary to SSG to Charlemont is final, and will remain so until the RO is published. So this thread should not be used to deviate that plan, as that is pointless. You may suggest other Metro projects if you wish, but bear in mind the aforementioned restrictions.

riddlinrussell

Fully agree on Tallaght/Walkinstown, I think there's a lot of scope for growth on that corridor, (firhouse,knocklyon is a thornier issue, less scope for TOD growth there.)

I'd deviate from your city centre stops, but only because I think you're describing the southwestern section of what should be metrolink 2, attached to the metrolink 1 route

I think a bold vision would have metrolink 2 'boomerang' into the south city, intersect M1, station at Pearse/GCD, station at IFSC/Connolly, station at Drumcondra (Brightlights #1 bugbear addressed) then continues out towards Blanchardstown.

Zebra3

Can we just clarify here…

This is a thread about redrawing plans for ML (1) and starting from scratch all over again?

Mod: No! See post one.

Brightlights66

Ireland has has had a thing about curved platforms for a while now, so - in line with that - I'm not sure I'd be pushing for yet more customers to go through such a .location

I think it might probably be best to bypass Tara Street and its interchange possibilities for the moment, and have College Green as a nice target for a future DART Underground project: Heuston - Christchurch - College Green - Pearse Station - Spencer Dock. These could all have straight platforms, and - in the case of a pedestrianised College Green - would help a major transport node to retain a major transport function, though pedestrianised on the surface. A major win.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123026993#Comment_123026993

Yeah but in fairness it’s just to keep the actual thread clean

Mod: No! See post one.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027194#Comment_123027194

Thanks, had a feeling, but good to know for sure.

Exits thread permanently

Brightlights66

My start of this thread was prompted by Sam, and by the interesting article by Derek Scally in the Irish Times re Warsaw.

The Poles are certainly pressing ahead, with infrastructure. But it is interesting that not a single one of the existing (two) metro lines or (three) proposed metro lines has a feasible interchange with the central mainline station.

Warsaw Central has tracks from all over that country at a fairly deep level, so it might be difficult to build a metro line under that. But why not adjacent?

I like the idea of metro branches, in the outer reaches of a city, to maximise uptake and efficiency. This has been tried and tested in many cities, and usually not found wanting. Warsaw seems not to be trying this.

From my experience of the Poles, it seems unlikely that they have completely blundered, but, who knows?

But, anyway, back to the main topic of the thread: It seems that a walk from a College Green metro station to the Townsend Street entrance to Tara Street station would be about 400 metres. Thus, quite a bit shorter than the currently proposed 500+ metres for the allegedly 'easy' connection between the LUAS and metro at O'Connell Street.

If you were to build a proper LUAS-metro interchange at O'Connell Street, you could reduce that to a matter of metres.

The DART-Metro interchange would be longer than currently proposed, but the LUAS- metro interchange could be much better. What you lose on the swings, you win on the roundabouts.

And a metro station nicely in situ, in College Green, hopefully in the process of pedestrianisation, would be a target for a rejuvenated plan to build the long-wished DART Underground.

Idbatterim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123026993#Comment_123026993

Probably Just pre - empting government plans..

Could they go tallaght, Terenure, rathgar, rathmines and then into the planned metrolink tunnel ?

Grassy Knoll

Metro SW - I would swing it towards the Greenhills Road direction underground - huge amount of 50 yr+ industrial buildings near there not seen from the Road / Walkinstown roundabout - a lot of it is approaching obsolesce. From there surface to follow the Greenhills road towards Tallaght (adjacent to Ballymount (this is newer that the Greenhills industrial stock) - plenty of ground to do it at surface, including along Tymon park, the Airton Road district where gradually you are beginning to see old industrial units replaced with accommodation. Basically this are is ripe for high density housing and terminating in Tallaght. Throw into the mix some data centers out there and you are also getting district heating piece in the future … IMHO it is so obvious….

Reality is green line upgrade, while desirable, will take ages to do anything if at all.

Idbatterim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123031786#Comment_123031786

I totally agree, about giving serious capacity transport, to areas, where you can rezone industrial / commercial to residential… The sprawl is ridiculous and unsustainable…

Sam Russell

Mod: I do not think it is a good idea to use this thread as a redesign of Metrolink. The design is closed until the RO is issued.

Fine if the basis of discussion is to design Metrolink 2, or even 3.

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037622#Comment_123037622

Isn't that what this thread is already for?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057870902/dublin-metrolink-future-routes-for-next-metrolink

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123039705#Comment_123039705

I would prefer you used DM for comments on Mod instruction rather than on thread.

However, I would think that there is a different emphasis between the two.

Also, the original Metrolink thread is continuously going off thread, so hopefully, this thread gives scope for avoiding off topic on that thread.

tom1ie

This thread is for Metrolink 2- or after the TBM is in the ground for metrolink 1.

My preference is for a TBM to start in the ground at the Tallaght red line Luas stop, from there:

south towards N81 and on towards old Bawn road

Along kilinniny road direction to serve Firhouse and Knocklyon

Up into templeogue- rathfarnham- terenure- Harold’s x- st Patrick’s cathedral- Christchurch- dame st- (cross the Liffey) OCS-

At the rathfarnham stop there could also be a short metro stub that heads back west towards Perrystown-skirts Crumlin- walkinstown- red cow- clondalkin- clonburris-grange castle- and then interfaces with kishogue station heavy rail.

Brightlights66

During a discussion many years ago, a poster (Monument) posted a link to a study by, I think, Maynooth University, of workplaces in the country. This was to give a picture of the number of workers in a particular ward or district. Areas were readily defined by colour (black for the highest density of workers, then red for a step down, then orange, etc).

It was very informative, but I can't seem to find anything similar now. The density figures for where people live are readily available, from the census, but a combination of those figures and the current workplace figures would be informative, as it assuredly was during that earlier discussion, for all parties.

I'd be surprised if such information wasn't also freely available, but I just can't seem to find it. Any help would be much appreciated.

specialbyte

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123189320#Comment_123189320

Some of the best maps I've seen in this space probably come from the BusConnects Network redesign: https://busconnects.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/fullreport_chapter_3.pdf

There's map in that document about residential density, job/school density, public transport boarding areas etc.

It's also worth keeping in mind that it might make sense for the metro to hit areas with relatively low densities of people/jobs if it is hitting areas for redevelopment. Development levies specific to Luas have been common and help pay for the infrastructure. The east side of Swords is not the most populated side of Swords but it is where MetroLink is going. It is beside all of the land zoned "Metro Economic Area", which allows for redeveloping large areas of low density commercial buildings as high density housing and offices once the metro starts construction. For example, a metro from Tallaght to the city might want to consider the advantage of being closer to the Greenhills Road to skirt the edge of the City Edge redevelopment project.

Brightlights66

I am a person who has lived in a couple of countries in continental Europe, and the public transport ethos in those countries seems to be, broadly, to spread PT spending fairly and according to need.

I'm not seeing that in relation to Metrolink on the southside of Dublin, where the temination of the proposed route at Charlemont is clearly designed to facilitate replacement of the Green Line south of the Grand Canal, rather than do anything to improve public transport in other areas, such as districts in the south-central/west of the city.

The Green Line south of the Grand Canal is well able to handle the current volumes - and if those volumes were to increase in the future, many cities in Europe have even on-street tram systems which handle tram throughputs of 50% higher than that tram section (30-32 trams per hour, from what I've seen).

Capacity, for now and the next many years, is thus not an issue. Any replacement of the Green Line with a metro would only incrementally increase speeds - the vehicles would still, presumably, be calling at most of the current stops - while still requiring large investment of time and money.

Time: the line would have to be closed for an unspecified period during the replacement with a 'Metro' service.

Money: All of the stops would need to be reconfigured. I seriously doubt you could have walkways across the tracks, as the LUAS currently does (at, e.g. Windy Arbour, Milltown and a host of others) if you've got a 'Metro' service. This might involve tunnelling or bridges.

The objective of unnecessary replacement of a well-functioning line diverts funds, and focus, from development to other areas, including areas which are known to have higher densities that those along the line to be 'upgraded'.

Brightlights66

I fully understand that there is a fear of the unknown, and this may be a factor here. Rail tunnelling hasn't really been done in Dublin before, and it is sensible that there is caution.

Having said that, the message I'm hearing is "the tunnelling may be difficult, but if we build towards Charlemont, then we can upgrade the LUAS Green Line, and get an extra 10km of metro for almost nothing".

KrisW1001

What is the argument you’re making? As far as I can see, you are proposing the exact thing that is being done: the decision was made to not subsume the Green Line into Metro back in 2019, and this is a long-term decision.

At the same time as the Green-line conversion was ruled out, the stub MetroLink tunnel beyond Charlemont was turned slightly west to allow the possibility the line taking a south-western path in future.

The idea of swallowing Green in a new MetroLink is a hangover from the days when Metro was going to use Luas-compatible rolling stock: 750 V DC overhead lines and driver-operated trains. This compatibility made it relatively painless to switch the old Harcourt Steet line from Luas to Metro. However, once MetroLink was specified as an automated system at a different voltage, then the disruption of a changeover exceeded the benefits.

At some point in the future, when no further tram capacity can be added to Green Line, an upgrade to Metro will be considered again, but it’s not happening any time soon.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123312998#Comment_123312998

I'm loath to get into a discussion of any of Strassenwolfs points, but one thing on the above is slightly wrong, the RO that they applied for has the tunnel beyond Charlemont going pretty much dead south, even slightly east of south.

Zero consideration for what happens next has been made, that's a problem for another day.

At a guess, once there's planning space again, they'll run a report on what happens south of Charlemont. I've no idea what that report will say, and have no real skin in the game either way, but I'd struggle to see how running another tunnel in to meet up with it could possibly have a better cost/benefit ratio than upgrading the Green Line.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123313037#Comment_123313037

When I say “turned slightly west”, I mean that instead of southeast, it’s going pretty much due south now. Here’s the 2017 Metrolink design at Charlemont: Metro is oriented to adopt the line of Luas south of Charlemont station.

(Image from metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf )

And here’s the final MetroLink route, the metro tunnel crosses, then diverges from, the route of the Green Line:

(Screengrab from MetroLink Railway Order - Route Alignment )

The new routing pretty much ignores Green line.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123312998#Comment_123312998

The argument I am making is, why not just change the focus now? Build towards the south-central/west.

By building to Charlemont, which is the current plan, we all know that nothing is achieved if the inevitable 'upgrade' happens.

There's nothing that can realistically be done, metro or no metro, to improve the journey times between Sandyford and the city. On the other hand, there's a lot that can be done if you start going to the South-west. I've heard that it's as much as 90 minutes by bus between Firhouse and the City.

As with many cities, it doesn't have to be built in one go.

tom1ie

clearly the best plan for metro2 is below:

the fuscia is metro 2

blue is metrolink

silver is the luas extension to finglas.

Fuscia (metro2):

Interacts with Metrolink at O'connell street and Charlemont.

Interacts with red line luas at red cow on spur 1 and red line luas at tallaght the square.

Interacts with luas GL and RL at o connel street

Interacts with Heavy rail at Kishoge rail station at Clonburris little (seven mills- clondalkin direction)

Spur 2 +main line Services:

Tallaght, (Luas RL)

Firhouse

Ballycullen

Rathfarnham

Terenure (Metro 2 Spur 1 interaction)

Rathmines

Rathgar (Luas GL interaction)

Charlemont (Luas GL interaction) + (metrolink interaction)

st patricks cathedral

Temple bar

o connell street (Luas GL interaction) + (metrolink interaction) + (Luas RL)

Drumcondra

Whitehall

Beaumount hospital

Clarehall shopping centre

Belmayne

Portmarnock rail station (Heavy rail interaction)

Spur 1 Services:

Clonburris (Heavy rail interaction)

Clondalkin (Luas RL)

Ballymount

Walkinstown

Perrystown

Kimmage

Terenure (Metro 2 Spur 2 interaction)

riddlinrussell

So now we are mixing metro and heavy rail on the same tracks and doing a round the houses Dart underground as part of a new metro route???

And then making it part of a branching metro to boot.

Sounds fairly insane from a throughput standpoint?

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123313675#Comment_123313675

What? No!!
It’s a station that allows changes from metro to heavy rail!
As in metro 2 has a stop at kishoge where you can change from metro to heavy rail.

What's wrong with a branching metro? People arguing against metro 2 are saying it wouldn't serve enough people, a branching metro takes in more people.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123314020#Comment_123314020

A spur on a line decreases capacity, so those two lines will only have 50% of the capacity of the main line (that's if the trains are split 50/50). While it's not as bad as those calling for a spur at Charlemont, it's still too close to the city centre for a spur, in my opinion.

In general, spurs after the last major trip generator on a line would be fine (i.e. a spur after Tallaght or Swords), but a spur further in just reduces capacity and increases complexity.

In general, any recent metro system, built on its own and not utilising existing infrastructure, will almost certainly be a single line with no spurs. It's just not the done thing anymore.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123314152#Comment_123314152

This, very much this.

Metrolink will have a capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction. Cut that in half and you are now looking at a capacity of just 10,000 PPHPD (maybe less with the increased complexity). To put that in context, the existing Luas lines have a capacity of about 9,000 PPHPD. You have been just created two very expensive Luas lines!

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123313096#Comment_123313096

Huh. I guess you could look at it that way, but I'm more inclined to think that without the need to rise to a tunnel portal south of Charlemont station and the tie-in to the green line, they choose the easier option of running it straight through to Charlemont, with no need for the previous curve.

That seems to me to be less about any potential future path, and more to do with making it easier for themselves now.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123314209#Comment_123314209

Does the SW need something higher than Luas density though? If there was anywhere near the roadspace for it a Luas might do the job - a low population density and limited scope for development is one of the reasons for not going towards the SW in the first place.

That being said, where there is room for development is at the end of the spurs, so if done well you will eventually actually run into trouble granted.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123314238#Comment_123314238

Perhaps not, but then it would find it very difficult to justify the Billions it would cost to build two Metro line spurs in those directions.

The problem here is the cost benefit analysis, CBA.

The reason upgrading the Green line to Metro was such a no brainer is that it would be so relatively cheap to do, a couple hundred million and in return you double the capacity of the Greenline and open up all that development land near the line, housing tens of thousands of more people, maybe even an extra 100k!

By comparison going Southwest requires kilometers of extra tunnelling that will cost billions, while the areas you are going through are largely mature areas, which are largely already have housing on, so only a small amount of infill available to develop on.

Obviously the CBA for the greenline upgrade would have a vastly better CBA then two SW spurs.

Worth noting that the NTA/TII seem to be suggesting building two Luas lines into SW Dublin as part of their Luas 2050 Vision. If that is possible then it would deliver that sort of capacity, for a much cheaper price then tunnelling/Metro.

As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an extension and possibly Spur of Metrolink north of Swords. But of course that would be much cheaper, all above ground through fields, basically just a slightly fancy Luas line.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123314354#Comment_123314354

Yeah, I'm being a bit blasé on the CBA front because a) we will need more metro lines b) the SW to NE alignment seems the "obvious" one and c) I think we are shite at making proper CBAs and ultimately the more metros built the merrier.