Zebra3 wrote: » Yeh, the rest of Europe which is in a lot of cases far more advanced than us with regard to cycling infrastructure, is actually laughing at us.
Middle Man wrote: » ...and the way in which we're going about it - back to the little roads of Ireland! Jesus man, the Netherlands (cycling capital of Europe) has comprehensive infrastructure with decent major junctions and decent main urban roads. Some of their motorways would be double the M50 in width, so there you go mate!
bk wrote: » Errrr.... Do you mean the motorways that they bulldozed through their cities in the 70's, destroying neighbourhoods and leading to mass protests of hundreds of thousands of people on said motorways, leading to a major U-turn in government policy, construction of new motorways was immediately stopped, some motorways were thorn back down and started the massive focus in building high quality cycling infrastructure instead :rolleyes: Most European cities of a similar size to Dublin, which have much better public transport then us, also mostly tend to have excellent cycling infrastructure too. Cycling and public transport go hand in hand, cycling helps solve the last mile problem with public transport.
bk wrote: » <snip>Cycling and public transport go hand in hand, cycling helps solve the last mile problem with public transport.
Middle Man wrote: » Even Top Gear tried to make cycling work!
blanch152 wrote: » If Coolmine Level Crossing is moved 200 yards as currently proposed, that would open the possibility of a bus terminus at Coolmine Station. Similarly, some rearrangement at Clonsilla with a new bridge could allow for that.
salmocab wrote: » As I said in the other thread before it was moved, the green line can’t be upgraded just from charlemont to sandyford it has to go somewhere you can’t have a metro going almost to the city then stopping it would make no sense it has to go below ground somewhere probably charlemonte and then under the city to somewhere. If 2 lines were being built at the same time then maybe but the green line is pretty much at capacity on that corridor and needs something to be done soon. The current plan makes the most sense.
tom1ie wrote: » Ok seen as I am breaching the moderator rules in the metro link forum I will post this here. Why can’t we build Metrolink from swords using the route as it stands, DONT tie into the green line at charlemount just have the charlemount metro stop integrated with the charlemount Luas stop, then continue the tunnel towards rathmines and eventually out to firhouse (stocking lane to be exact, where a large p+r can be built) Commuters can be on the green line and change at charlemount, which is what they were going to have to do at sandyford anyway. The green line can be upgraded to metro standard while it’s still open (upgrading platform heights, installation on psg’s etc) which I presume is going to have to happen under the current plan otherwise we are going to have the green line closed for a prolonged period anyway. I have seen costs of 300 million mentioned for upgrading the green line to metro standard, can’t this just be done after we get the tunnel from swords to charlemount built, but continue the tunnel out towards rathmines. Yeah it could cost an extra billion but over the envisaged 6 year construction period that’s 167 million a year, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t a massive amount. Please feel free to poke holes in this.
tom1ie wrote: » Ok I see your point, but let’s say Metrolink is built as proposed and then we go to build metro sw, that will have to integrate with the Metrolink line also to allow commuters go to sandyford or swords. So are we saying that line will have to go somewhere in the cc and not terminate at charlemount also, so therefore we’ll have to have another tunnel under the cc, therefore the expense of getting another tbm.
salmocab wrote: » For a second line yes we will have to tunnel under the city and almost definitely out the other side so we end up with 2 lines passing each other in the cc to allow an interchange but that won’t be out in charlemont, possibly SSG or a dart station.
CatInABox wrote: » People would have to exit a Luas tram at Sandyford, walk across the platform onto a higher capacity Metro tram, and then get off the Metro tram at Charlemont, and try to cram onto a much smaller capacity Luas tram again.
Sam Russell wrote: » ... or even at Cross Guns. That would allow much more interchanges. Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - St Patrick Cathedral -Smithfield - Cross Guns and onto Swords.
tom1ie wrote: » Yeah I totally understand the capacity constraints on the green line as it is now. But in my scenario if your traveling from brides glen: Luas all the way to charlemount or cc at the minute Metro from charlemount to either firhouse or airport/swords. Also metro from firhouse to swords with change to sandyford if needed via charlemount Luas.
CatInABox wrote: » I'd prefer Tallaght - follow N81 to Harolds Cross - Interchange with Metro at Charlemont - Interchange with Dart at Pearse - Interchange with Luas at Malahide Rd That last one would of course require a Luas heading out the Malahide Rd, which could then turn down the R139 and head out towards the Dardistown/Airport to interchange with the Metro again if so required.
Sam Russell wrote: » I would think that the second line should cross the CC before linking with proposed Metrolink. This will increase network links. Turn Luas Green Line East along Adelaide Road towards GCD instead. I think that makes a better set of links, as they cannot leave the trams terminate over the Canal at Charlemont.
LXFlyer wrote: » Why not? Perfectly feasible to install a crossover immediately south of the existing station and a turnback siding.
Sam Russell wrote: » Because going towards GCD provides another link with Dart, and connects with a heavy office area. It is about 2 km, and going along Adelaide Road would make sense as it is wide enough so that only parking would be lost. It could be elevated past Leeson St if that would save CPO activity and traffic problems.
