Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

1…9192949697…189

Comments

  • #4652
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    The safety rules here say double bore

    Could you not build a much wider tunnel allowing for double track. I would imagine it would be cheaper than building two separate tunnels but I could be wrong or is this even possible?


  • #4653
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    I agree completely. I am of the opinion that this latest Metro plan is nothing more than a spoof job.
    Well given that up to now 100% of the plans for any underground railways in Dublin have been spoof jobs I'd tend to say the odds favour your assessment!


  • #4654
    Shn99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Shn99


    The day I see a tunnel boring machine begin work will be the day I believe the notion known as “MetroLink”


  • #4655
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    MJohnston wrote: »
    No shared running at all, and there will be very little parallel running too (basically only in that short Ranelagh to SSG section)

    Poor Brides Glen Green Line Luas, orphaned at such a young age.
    spacetweek wrote: »
    If the tunnel portal is at Milltown which seems likely

    Great, just what this well-served corridor needed, even more public transport infrastructure serving much the same route


  • #4656
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    orangerhyme wrote: »
    Ok good point, although I think a Rathfarmham, Terenure, harolds cross would be better

    Where is the available roadspace to allow LUAS to deliver reliable and fast journey times on that route?

    Answer - it’s not there. That’s why that proposed route was abandoned.

    The only solution for that area frankly is an underground metro.


  • Advertisement
  • #4657
    Bray Head
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 896 ✭✭✭Bray Head


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Where is the available roadspace to allow LUAS to deliver reliable and fast journey times on that route?

    Answer - it’s not there. That’s why that proposed route was abandoned.

    The only solution for that area frankly is an underground metro.

    A very detailed feasibility study was done on this a number of years ago. Not sure if it is still available online.

    There is simply not enough road space without getting rid of most bus and car space, specifically through Terenure.

    Metro is the only thing feasible. That said you don't have big trip generators (university, hospital, shopping centre) on the route. It is mainly medium-density housing.


  • #4658
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Bray Head wrote: »
    A very detailed feasibility study was done on this a number of years ago. Not sure if it is still available online.

    There is simply not enough road space without getting rid of most bus and car space, specifically through Terenure.

    Metro is the only thing feasible. That said you don't have big trip generators (university, hospital, shopping centre) on the route. It is mainly medium-density housing.

    You also have the slowest bus speeds of any QBC in the city on both the Templeogue and Rathfarnham QBCs.

    Bus frequency along those QBCs is high and the loadings are also high - remember that they are generating trips all along the QBC from the outer areas to the city centre and there is a large mix of local, citybound, and cross-city traffic along those corridors. There are shopping centres, hospitals and universities at the extremes of the corridors (Tallaght and City Centre) too.

    The problem is that the buses get impeded by the lack of priority for much of the route, and also by car traffic blocking the bus lanes - the bus lane north of the Dodder Bridge on Rathfarnham Road is just ignored every day, traffic merges into the bus lane on Harold's Cross Road approaching the canal bridge well in advance of the end of the bus lane, and the inbound bus lanes along the South Circular Road and Harrington Street are flagrantly ignored by cars on a virtually daily basis meaning buses get slowed up even more.

    There is very little that can be done to improve bus priority without a very large amount of CPO activity, which BusConnects may propose, but I remain unconvinced will deliver.

    Metro is the only solution for the area between the two LUAS lines.


  • #4659
    medoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 975 ✭✭✭medoc


    While looking through the RTÉ Archives for something completely unconnected I came across this. Metro to the Airport by 2007.....

    https://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/0731/894247-metro-to-dublin-airport/

    If only!


  • #4660
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    medoc wrote: »
    While looking through the RTÉ Archives for something completely unconnected I came across this. Metro to the Airport by 2007.....

    https://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/0731/894247-metro-to-dublin-airport/

    If only!

    Listening to Marion Fenucane programme just now.

    Colm McCarthy on about the waste of money that Metrolink will be - '€3 thousand million - it's a lot of money. Dublin Airport is already served by buses - yada yada yada - there is aleady a Luas line to Sandyford - yada yada '

    Clearly he has never been on a Luas, certainly not at busy times. Also, I would think he has never travelled on a bus from Dublin Airport.

    Mind you he has form on this having opposed every rail project since Dardis opened the Kingstown to Westland Row line in 1856.

    Why do they have the likes of him spouting nonsense.


  • #4661
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,528 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Listening to Marion Fenucane programme just now.

    Colm McCarthy on about the waste of money that Metrolink will be - '€3 thousand million - it's a lot of money. Dublin Airport is already served by buses - yada yada yada - there is aleady a Luas line to Sandyford - yada yada '

    Clearly he has never been on a Luas, certainly not at busy times. Also, I would think he has never travelled on a bus from Dublin Airport.

    Mind you he has form on this having opposed every rail project since Dardis opened the Kingstown to Westland Row line in 1856.

    Why do they have the likes of him spouting nonsense.

    He also has a big writeup in the Sunday Independent on Metro Link and how Dublin 'doesn't need another Luas'. :rolleyes:

    I'm not sure why we attribute so much clout behind McCarthy. This is the guy who spent years telling us all that renewable energy is a waste of time.


  • Advertisement
  • #4662
    Reuben1210
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Listening to Marion Fenucane programme just now.

    Colm McCarthy on about the waste of money that Metrolink will be - '€3 thousand million - it's a lot of money. Dublin Airport is already served by buses - yada yada yada - there is aleady a Luas line to Sandyford - yada yada '

    Clearly he has never been on a Luas, certainly not at busy times. Also, I would think he has never travelled on a bus from Dublin Airport.

    Mind you he has form on this having opposed every rail project since Dardis opened the Kingstown to Westland Row line in 1856.

    Why do they have the likes of him spouting nonsense.


    Why are cranks like him entertained all the God damn time in this country, on national airwaves???


  • #4663
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I said recently around here that I think public perception around the metro is that it’s a link for the airport to the city with some other stops thrown in as opposed to the airport being a happy extra. This clown will have people believe Dubs are getting 3 bn to get to the airport.


  • #4664
    BowSideChamp
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭BowSideChamp


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Could you not build a much wider tunnel allowing for double track. I would imagine it would be cheaper than building two separate tunnels but I could be wrong or is this even possible?

    Barcelona's Line 9 has both tracks and the stations contained within a single tunnel.

    Large_Bore3.png


  • #4665
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    We have the longest trams in Europe (well within a metre) and it cannot cope with the passenger numbers, and we cannot increase frequency, so we buy buses - is that what Colm McCarthy is saying?

    The Port Tunnel was quoted as a tunnel to the Airport but it is an extension of the M50 to take HGVs off the city centre and the Quays. It is a choice of the NTA/TII to toll it at a level to keep private cars out of it.

    He also said the Airport has the largest bus station in Ireland - but Aircoach and Dublin Bus do not use it. It is also not managed as a real bus station would be.

    I wonder what he is an expert in - it certainly is not public transport.


  • #4666
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,457 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    Barcelona's Line 9 has both tracks and the stations contained within a single tunnel.

    Large_Bore3.png

    Simple and clever..


  • #4667
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    lawred2 wrote: »
    London and New York have two of most extensive urban rail networks in the world. It would be near unavoidable at this stage to have lines that don't travel parallel for some distance.

    Dublin on the other hand...

    I used London as an example most Irish people might be familiar with. But if you want examples from cities with a similar size to Dublin, then look at Amsterdam or Prague and you will see plenty of examples where a Metro parallels a tram line for a km or two.

    It really is very common in European cities with dense and intensive public transport networks. It is only natural that, that occurs as you approach the city center, similar to how dozens of Dublin Bus routes end up paralleling each other in the city center and hell even further out on the core routes into the city like the Swords Road, etc.

    Normally cities have built tram lines first and then when they become too congested built somewhat parallel underground Metros.

    However they don't rip up the tram lines then, they usually continue to be intensively used but with a slightly different focus and customer base.

    Metros usually have stations positioned further apart, while trams usually have more frequent stops, so they each offer a slightly different but complementary service. e.g. You get the Metro into the city from the suburbs and then transfer onto a tram for the last km to your office.

    If we end following the European norm (which I suspect we will) then not only will we not be digging up tram lines, but we will likely be laying even more almost parallel (e.g. Lucan line down Dawson Street) and that we will see far more lines criss-crossing across the city as is very common throughout Europe.

    Also think that we could see extensions going in different directions.

    For instance, we could see the Luas continue to go to Charelmont/Ranelagh or we could see it change direction at SSG and head down Lesson St, etc. Lots of possibilities.

    Once we have Metro, we will see capacity opened up on Luas for use in different ways, complementing the Metro.


  • #4668
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭prunudo


    "Once we have Metro, we will see capacity opened up on Luas for use in different ways, complementing the Metro"

    Colm McCarthy won't be having any of your sensible talk.


  • #4669
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    Barcelona's Line 9 has both tracks and the stations contained within a single tunnel.

    Large_Bore3.png

    Yeah that could be done it is a simple and effective technique. I was just saying that another alternative to twin bore would be wider tunnels that allow for double track which would also alleviate the need to build a twin bore bore if our safety don't allow a two storey tunnel.


  • #4670
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    McCarthy is on record a few months back as saying that we should scrap the Metro and instead spend the money on an outer orbital motorway past the M50. His economic views are very neo-libertarian but yet completely contradictory- he absolutely despises subsidised public transport and he has always derided any talk of investment in rail as a result. McCarthys neo-libertarian idea is that everyone should pay fully for their own transport, i.e. we should all be in cars. What he fails to see is that building more motorways is actually massively subsidising the private motorist. He must well know this but he chooses to ignore it.

    The reason why this Metro has been planned for decades yet remains unbuilt is because politicians in FF and FG have been listening and believing the likes of McCarthy for far too long. During the Celtic Tiger there was billions washing around and still the Metro was not built but billions flooded into motorways, some of which are under capacity with the State now paying subsidies to the the toll operators, its pure madness.

    As a result of the policies that McCarthy espouses we are now faced with congested roads where commuting for many is a living hell. He is a dinosaur and if politicians keep listening to him then we are doomed to more of the same.


  • #4671
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Yeah that could be done it is a simple and effective technique. I was just saying that another alternative to twin bore would be wider tunnels that allow for double track which would also alleviate the need to build a twin bore bore if our safety don't allow a two storey tunnel.

    Looking at the Port Tunnel, there is enough room to have two tracks side be side, with maybe a wall between them. A railway line takes up about the same width as a single carriageway on a road. Add a barrier and that should suffice.

    The PT was built for about €1 billion, and that was for 18 km of tunnel, so a Metro, if using the same tunnel structure could go from the airport to Sandyford (or anywhere on the M50) for that amount of tunnel. Of course, stations, track and rolling stock would be extra.


  • Advertisement
  • #4672
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    Muahahaha wrote: »

    As a result of the policies that McCarthy espouses we are now faced with congested roads where commuting for many is a living hell. He is a dinosaur and if politicians keep listening to him then we are doomed to more of the same.

    Or as someone who knows put it

    https://twitter.com/BarbsMcCarthy/status/919509646045564928


  • #4673
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    Why are cranks like him entertained all the God damn time in this country, on national airwaves???

    He's an economist. Along with lawyers (and possibly bankers) they are fonts of wisdom on absolutely everything. We should heed their wise words!


  • #4674
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    We have the longest trams in Europe (well within a metre) and it cannot cope with the passenger numbers, and we cannot increase frequency, so we buy buses - is that what Colm McCarthy is saying?

    The Port Tunnel was quoted as a tunnel to the Airport but it is an extension of the M50 to take HGVs off the city centre and the Quays. It is a choice of the NTA/TII to toll it at a level to keep private cars out of it.

    He also said the Airport has the largest bus station in Ireland - but Aircoach and Dublin Bus do not use it. It is also not managed as a real bus station would be.

    I wonder what he is an expert in - it certainly is not public transport.

    To be fair there is only one 55m tram in service - it's a bit early to be making a general comment that the Green Line cannot cope once those trams are all in service.

    The problem is it was (disgracefully in my view) launched without the new trams being delivered, and the previous excellent reliability has been decimated since the extension was opened.

    As for the airport, Aircoach and Dublin Bus Airlink 747 and 757 pick up from in front of the terminal at T1 and T2 (which I'm sure is what he is referring to), and they can do that because they pay more for that privilege. I'm assuming CMcC isn't aware of that. Dublin Bus local services use the main "bus station" behind the T1 carpark.

    The bus station at Dublin Airport is woeful in terms of facilities for passengers waiting - no proper waiting room with departure screens showing all operators. It's appalling to be honest.

    As for Mr McCarthy, I take little or no heed of what he says about public transport - he has a complete aversion to anything rail based. The problem is that he has the ear of the Department of Finance which can cause issues!


  • #4675
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    To be fair there is only one 55m tram in service - it's a bit early to be making a general comment that the Green Line cannot cope.


    The problem is it was (disgracefully in my view) launched without the new trams being delivered, and the previous excellent reliability has been decimated since the extension was opened.


    Aircoach and Dublin Bus Airlink pick up from in front of the terminal at T1 and T2, because they pay more for that privilege. I'm assuming CMcC isn't aware of that. Dublin Bus local services use the main "bus station" behind the T1 carpark.


    The bus station at Dublin Airport is woeful in terms of facilities for passengers waiting - no proper waiting room with departure screens showing all operators. It's appalling to be honest.


    As for Mr McCarthy, I take little or no heed of what he says about public transport - he has a complete aversion to anything rail based. The problem is that he has the ear of the Department of Finance which can cause issues!

    By the time the Metro is in place there will be severe capacity constraints. General increase in usage along with the Cherrywood development and more uptake on the new Cross City line. It's good planning and hopefully this time it's implemented


  • #4676
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    marno21 wrote: »
    By the time the Metro is in place there will be severe capacity constraints. General increase in usage along with the Cherrywood development and more uptake on the new Cross City line. It's good planning and hopefully this time it's implemented



    Absolutely agree on that.


  • #4677
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    almost 40 years ago!
    olive-image-search.php?pub=IND&date=1978-07-14&page=6&w=600&h=600

    I imagine we might be seeing similiar headlines about 'Metro Link' and 'Dart Underground' in another 40 years.


  • #4678
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,457 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    dubhthach wrote: »
    almost 40 years ago!
    olive-image-search.php?pub=IND&date=1978-07-14&page=6&w=600&h=600

    I imagine we might be seeing similiar headlines about 'Metro Link' and 'Dart Underground' in another 40 years.

    That's depressing

    That 200m would have been paid back at least ten fold by now in economic development


  • #4679
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I assume that's the original DART plan rather than anything Metro related?
    The tunnel they're referring to is an earlier version of DART underground.


  • #4680
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    spacetweek wrote: »
    I assume that's the original DART plan rather than anything Metro related?
    The tunnel they're referring to is an earlier version of DART underground.

    DRRTS study from 1975 yes, it included a link from Temple Bar to Ballymun with onward possible extension to Dublin Airport. Basically all proposals since (Dart, Luas etc.) are based on the template of DRRTS study, though obviously Green line was done as light rail and not a dedicated bus route (they didn't want to annoy Tod Andrews at time). The original DRRTS plan would have had the line to Tallaght as 'Dart' standard branching off existing 'GS&WR' line into Heuston.

    There would also have been a dedicated Dart branch in Blanchardstown, which would have used the Broadstone line and gone underground around Grangegorman to access 'central station' in Temple Bar.


  • Advertisement
  • #4681
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    It's enough to make you cry. I'm 40 this year so about as old as that article and I wouldn't be surprised if I got to 80 and still no underground had been built. The people could have it if they made it an election issue.


  • #4682
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    murphaph wrote: »
    It's enough to make you cry. I'm 40 this year so about as old as that article and I wouldn't be surprised if I got to 80 and still no underground had been built. The people could have it if they made it an election issue.

    At least this time we only have about a year left before we find out whether it's a runner or not.


  • #4683
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    murphaph wrote: »
    It's enough to make you cry. I'm 40 this year so about as old as that article and I wouldn't be surprised if I got to 80 and still no underground had been built. The people could have it if they made it an election issue.

    I'm 6 years older and I cry a lot over this! I remember attending an expo in the RDS around 1983, DART was on the way and we all thought an underground was to follow. Yes we hadn't a pot to piss in back then, but after those 40 years you speak of and the boom days that followed, its unbelievable that we are still here talking about it. No doubt we will most likely be still talking about it in 40 years time. The facts to back that up are freely available online, but only if you are interested in reading it. Its a shocking state of affairs. Here we go yet again with another plan, that most likely won't be delivered.


  • #4684
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    God thats crazy about the news article. Makes me wonder if the green line luas would even exist if it wasn't for the already laid out route by georgian city planners


  • #4685
    FunkyDa2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 254 ✭✭FunkyDa2


    wakka12 wrote: »
    God thats crazy about the news article. Makes me wonder if the green line luas would even exist if it wasn't for the already laid out route by georgian city planners

    Do you mean these guys?...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Streets_Commission


  • #4686
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    I'm 6 years older and I cry a lot over this!
    Ah jaysus you're 6 years younger than me. I had visions of an auld lad sitting on a park bench with his mutt beside him (sorry)..

    I wouldn't be surprised if they extend the luas out to Finglas before this is near completion..


  • Advertisement
  • #4687
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I think this is the most favourable atmosphere, short of the absolute height of the boom, under which Metro could be successfully built, and it's why I'm quite optimistic about it this time around. Reasons why I think this:

    + Brexit has put big pressure on the government from multinational corporations with lots of money to spend in Ireland about both office space and residential space.
    + The homelessness crisis, and the more general housing supply drought, is one of the biggest disasters facing this current government, and is more critical than it has possibly ever been in the history of the state.
    + Some people might not care too much about homelessness in a real sense, but there's hardly a person in Dublin who doesn't care about housing availability.
    + Related to all the above, the government is already putting out a lot of messaging that indicates that they intend to position Metro Link as a solution for housing availability. This is fairly smart, it immediately gives the project a hugely positive spin that combats ideas like it just being an airport link, or that it's just some white elephant. It also mostly gets the media and the public onside, which is really important.
    + There's some other minor details to consider too - Leo and Paschal were both Transport ministers at one point, and certainly Donohoe from all he's said sees it as a potential crowning achievement, it's certainly something both of them have been very vocal in promising to various constituencies over the years. That's a big difference from the likes of Enda who clearly had no interest in it.
    + Additionally, the only real alternative to the current government is a FF one, and they've been bullish on Metro in the past, which at the very least should ensure they won't try and hold it up. The only reason I can see for them not continuing it as a project if they should come into power (which doesn't look too likely as it stands) is that they'd want to give it a redesign so that it's their project.

    Short of another recession, I'm feeling fairly confident about Metro Link's prospects.


  • #4688
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    It has been mentioned several times in the last few days on this thread, and many times earlier, that it would be preferable to build the metro on the Southside towards the southwest of the city, to open up other areas to efficient public transport.

    I wholeheartedly agree with this view.

    It has been established by official studies that there is no suitable LUAS corridor available towards areas like Rathmines, Terenure, Templeogue, and so forth. These areas will need to be served by a metro.

    It seems to me that the most efficient time to plan for that is before or while there is a tunnel boring machine in the ground, building a line between the city and the airport/Swords, and the time to implement that plan is when it has done its work on the Northside and through the city centre.

    There are two reasons for this.

    Firstly, it would make better use of the machine than a short hop under the canal to Ranelagh or Beechwood, or wherever, to connect with the overland Green Line route. We also don't know what effect the new big trams will eventually have on the capacity issues on the current Green Line LUAS.

    Secondly, it is my considered opinion, based largely on having lived for some lengths of time in two cities which are broadly of Dublin's size, namely Munich and Frankfurt, that Dublin will also eventually need two metro lines. Munich has certainly got full use out of two and makes good - but not wonderful - use of its third U-Bahn line, and Frankfurt might possibly have stopped at two. Dublin is broadly in the same bracket.

    Both of those cities have a largely one-change system, and I can't see how you are ever going to create a similarly efficient network in Dublin, with one change on the metro, if you start by building a directly north-south metro line linking Sandyford with Swords and the Airport and leaving the South-West and North-West of the city to fend for themselves.

    A North (Swords/Airport) to South-West line, via the city, and a South-East to North-West line, via the city, interchanging at somewhere like St. Stephen's Green, now that would make sense to me, if you want to build something approximating the one-change option available in other European cities of a similar size.

    That would definitely make sense to me. The current plan, outlined during the week, will probably prevent such a sensible system ever happening.


  • #4689
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    That would definitely make sense to me. The current plan, outlined during the week, will probably prevent such a sensible system ever happening.

    Eh no it won't. As was repeatedly pointed out to you in the other thread, nothing precludes such a proposed alignment in future. The Green Line was literally designed with this weeks plan in mind. You somehow think that actually building a Metro in Dublin precludes another Metro in Dublin from ever happening??


  • #4690
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    didn't the original 90s CIE Luas plan propose Sandyford to the Airport, underground in the City Centre, before it was canned by Mary O'Rourke? So we're basically back to square one.

    re: shared running. I get the concept of people changing to another mode, but 80% (at least) of passengers south of Sandyford currently are going to the City Centre. It would be a very unpopular development, logistically difficult at Sandyford, and it's hard to see how it would result in a quicker journey time. What's the problem with shared running - is the Metro rolling stock likely to be significantly different to the Luas (different platform heights say)?


  • #4691
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    The current plan, outlined during the week, will probably prevent such a sensible system ever happening.

    This is an insane POV that you've stated over and over on this forum, while also ignoring all the competent responses put to you about it that refute that idea.

    The first point you ignore is the comparison between these two add-ons to the "Metro North" section (ie. the tunnel that ends at St Stephen's Green):
    a) A short, 800m-or-so extension to the tunnel with no extra underground stations that would connect SSG to the existing Green Line at Ranelagh. The Green Line south of here would be very easily upgraded to Metro standard with minor engineering work, as far as Sandyford. This would cost in the range of the low hundreds of millions of Euro as an addition.
    b) A long, 8km-or-so, fully tunnelled extension of the north tunnel, with potentially ten or so additional excavated underground stations, in a path towards the south-west of the city. This would easily cost in the range of billions of Euro as an addition.

    One is a triviality of relative expense, the other is potentially more expensive than the original Metro North plan.

    While I certainly agree that the southwest of the city requires an underground transport link, pitting it as an option against the south Green Line upgrade is just pure la-la land fantasy.


  • Advertisement
  • #4692
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    loyatemu wrote: »
    didn't the original 90s CIE Luas plan propose Sandyford to the Airport, underground in the City Centre, before it was canned by Mary O'Rourke? So we're basically back to square one.

    re: shared running. I get the concept of people changing to another mode, but 80% (at least) of passengers south of Sandyford currently are going to the City Centre. It would be a very unpopular development, logistically difficult at Sandyford, and it's hard to see how it would result in a quicker journey time. What's the problem with shared running - is the Metro rolling stock likely to be significantly different to the Luas (different platform heights say)?

    Different platform heights are likely (we don't know the exact details yet, but going off of previous plans, I'd say yes). But more importantly, the frequency of Metro is planned to be way higher than anything that would work if the track was shared with Luas trams. And Metro should be a good bit faster too. It would compromise the whole point of doing the Green Line upgrade, as the Metros would just operate as trams while sharing the running.

    But, I think this is a problem that won't be a problem; as mentioned the frequency of Metro Link will be really high - I think I saw a 3 minute figure mentioned - which means passengers arriving on the Luas from south of Sandyford won't have to worry about long transfer times, it should be a simple case of stepping out of a tram and walking onto a Metro. Also, people are probably thinking about this in the non-integrated terms of other Dublin transport, but this will have ticketing completely integrated with the Luas (and perhaps by 2027 we might have integrated ticketing across all modes anyway), so you won't have to worry about a tag-off-on-off situation.


  • #4693
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    MJohnston wrote: »
    This is an insane POV that you've stated over and over on this forum, while also ignoring all the competent responses put to you about it that refute that idea.

    The first point you ignore is the comparison between these two add-ons to the "Metro North" section (ie. the tunnel that ends at St Stephen's Green):
    a) A short, 800m-or-so extension to the tunnel with no extra underground stations that would connect SSG to the existing Green Line at Ranelagh. The Green Line south of here would be very easily upgraded to Metro standard with minor engineering work, as far as Sandyford. This would cost in the range of the low hundreds of millions of Euro as an addition.
    b) A long, 8km-or-so, fully tunnelled extension of the north tunnel, with potentially ten or so additional excavated underground stations, in a path towards the south-west of the city. This would easily cost in the range of billions of Euro as an addition.

    One is a triviality of relative expense, the other is potentially more expensive than the original Metro North plan.

    While I certainly agree that the southwest of the city requires an underground transport link, pitting it as an option against the south Green Line upgrade is just pure la-la land fantasy.

    Could you give us some idea of how you would envisage metro lines serving the southwest of the city and the northwest of the city tying in with this proposed metro route, giving Dublin the one-change metro system which is enjoyed by many other cities in Europe?

    This is a much more important issue than initial expense. Most cities do this stuff gradually, as cash becomes available. The most important thing is building a network which incrementally improves the system in different parts of the city, and is eventually effective for the whole city.


  • #4694
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Could you give us some idea of how you would envisage metro lines serving the southwest of the city and the northwest of the city tying in with this proposed metro route, giving Dublin the one-change metro system which is enjoyed by many other cities in Europe?

    Really? It's very, very easy, you just construct a new tunnel connecting to the existing lines when you need it. Like every other underground system in the world. Hopefully they'll consider potential future station expansion for SSG with the initial plan, and even better would be a stubbed tunnel branch that would allow for easy link-up with a future South-west line.
    This is a much more important issue than initial expense. Most cities do this stuff gradually, as cash becomes available. The most important thing is building a network which incrementally improves the system in different parts of the city, and is eventually effective for the whole city.

    So why do you want them to spend a huge amount of money all at once then? You're advocating the opposite of a gradual expenditure.


  • #4695
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The current projects going ahead in Dublin are indicative of the NTA's Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016-2035, which contains a reference to a Metro South, which would continue Metro North down towards Sandyford along the Green Line by 2035. Given Metro North is to start in 2021, it made sense to bundle these and minimize overall costs. There is no plan for a Metro to Harolds Cross so it won't happen in the short to medium term.

    Regarding the cynicism etc. Back in 2013 when it was decided to proceed with Luas BXD and not Metro, that was an easy way out. Those easy way outs are now gone. There is no room in the city centre for further Luas development and all proposed Luas extensions (Bray, Poolbeg, Finglas and Lucan) are localised and don't have a broad political catch. In addition, none are ready to go in the medium term. The Metrolink project is the only "major" project in the Greater Dublin Area that will be shovel ready soon, and as the poster above said, it can be used extensively for spin and marketing regarding housing, congestion alleviation, the Airport etc. In addition, the last Luas opening has got lots of negative press due to the mess its caused in the city centre, so the Metro being underground doesn't have the same negative connotations.

    Thankfully, Colm McCarthy and co don't appear to be getting that message across very strongly. The Macroom bypass won't get votes in the GDA so the Metro is more likely to go ahead now than ever before.


  • #4696
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I know the money involved will be a lot different but when the extra Luas Lines where built the public where very happy for it to happen because they had seen the benefits , so when the metro is built I would not be surprised to see extra lines built in the future due to public demand and acceptance


  • #4697
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Also, people are probably thinking about this in the non-integrated terms of other Dublin transport, but this will have ticketing completely integrated with the Luas (and perhaps by 2027 we might have integrated ticketing across all modes anyway), so you won't have to worry about a tag-off-on-off situation.

    Hopefully you're right, because trams arriving in Sandyford are going to be packed and pretty much everyone on them will be changing to the metro.


  • #4698
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    loyatemu wrote: »
    Hopefully you're right, because trams arriving in Sandyford are going to be packed and pretty much everyone on them will be changing to the metro.

    I would see the Sandyford depot being Metro and Luas, with the Luas element only serving the Sandyford to Bray section. The Luas could serve Bray onto Parnell in off-peak times, mainly to move trams to other sections, or they could just move as empty transfers.

    It would follow that the Charlemont connection would be maintained, but an extension from there down Adelaide Rd towards Leeson St, and perhaps onwards to GCD might make sense.

    This is all a long way in the future. Order the TBM now and drop it in the ground somewhere. We will point it in the right direction then.


  • #4699
    Equium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 ✭✭✭Equium


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I would see the Sandyford depot being Metro and Luas, with the Luas element only serving the Sandyford to Bray section. The Luas could serve Bray onto Parnell in off-peak times, mainly to move trams to other sections, or they could just move as empty transfers.

    It would follow that the Charlemont connection would be maintained, but an extension from there down Adelaide Rd towards Leeson St, and perhaps onwards to GCD might make sense.

    This is all a long way in the future. Order the TBM now and drop it in the ground somewhere. We will point it in the right direction then.

    Longer term, it's not inconceivable that the entire route from Swords to Brides Glen (and subsequently Bray) will operate to metro standard.


  • #4700
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Equium wrote: »
    Longer term, it's not inconceivable that the entire route from Swords to Brides Glen (and subsequently Bray) will operate to metro standard.

    Very doubtful given the number of at grade crossings south of Sandyford.


  • #4701
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Equium wrote: »
    Longer term, it's not inconceivable that the entire route from Swords to Brides Glen (and subsequently Bray) will operate to metro standard.

    There are so many at grade crossings on the existing section and likely more to come in Bray. I wouldn't say inconceivable but I'd say it's unlikely.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement