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

salmocab · 19-07-2018 7:41am

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, regardless of these objections, the Luas Green Line will need to be upgraded in a significant way in the next few years. Despite the belief of one person here, there's no easy option to upgrade the capacity without segregation along the line, so even if the residents do succeed in changing the direction of the line out to the south west, the Luas line will still need to be upgraded to something approaching Metro standard.

The problem with upgrading the green in the future is it feeds into the cross city, so without the metro it won’t work anyway. For the green line it’s metro or nothing I would think. They may be able to do some small tweaks for better numbers but it will be deck chair off the titanic stuff.

tom1ie · 19-07-2018 7:43am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

How has the consultation been poor? They released the preferred route along supporting information and options where they were available. Nothing is set in stone and everyone is allowed to have their say and suggest changes. We already know that there will be changes as a result of issues raised during the consultation. Revised plans will be released at the end of the summer taking account of issues raised and further consultation will be held.

Limited design work has been done to date, we don't even know basic things like what type of tunnel(s) will be used, station formats, the vehicles to be used, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people at the consultation meetings had little detail. Much of it is still up in the air as this initial consultation is being used to inform the next design stages. We already know that more detailed design will look to address the concerns at Na Fianna and Dunville Ave. yet and all they still complain.

The complaints that nobody from TII/NTA came to Ranelagh to discuss the plans with them is not proof of poor consultation. The project extends to 26km and effects hundreds of communities and businesses and many thousands of individuals, all can't be engaged on an individual basis. The idea they deserve special treatment shows how deluded these people are. All indications are that access will still be maintained but we are already hearing excuses why it won't be good enough. This is pure, unadulterated NIMBYism and complaints about lack of consultation is misdirection.

Give the people what they want. Move the tie in further south and bypass Dunville Avenue. They will shout and scream and get this project delayed if this is not done.
I thought there was a problem with one of Dublin’s main sewage lines being in the way for a charlemount tie in anyway?
Also hasn’t single bore tunnel method been selected and individual station drawings were in the designs that were released?

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 7:59am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

How has the consultation been poor? They released the preferred route along supporting information and options where they were available. Nothing is set in stone and everyone is allowed to have their say and suggest changes. We already know that there will be changes as a result of issues raised during the consultation. Revised plans will be released at the end of the summer taking account of issues raised and further consultation will be held.

Limited design work has been done to date, we don't even know basic things like what type of tunnel(s) will be used, station formats, the vehicles to be used, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people at the consultation meetings had little detail. Much of it is still up in the air as this initial consultation is being used to inform the next design stages. We already know that more detailed design will look to address the concerns at Na Fianna and Dunville Ave. yet and all they still complain.

The complaints that nobody from TII/NTA came to Ranelagh to discuss the plans with them is not proof of poor consultation. The project extends to 26km and effects hundreds of communities and businesses and many thousands of individuals, all can't be engaged on an individual basis. The idea they deserve special treatment shows how deluded these people are. All indications are that access will still be maintained but we are already hearing excuses why it won't be good enough. This is pure, unadulterated NIMBYism and complaints about lack of consultation is misdirection.

As I posted above at the local consultation event in the Hilton virtually none of the representatives had any detailed technical knowledge and frankly most were waffling.

That much I can attest to as I was there.

That is not what Inwould expect at an event where local people could come and ask questions.

When you combine that with an apparent lack of any contact with combined residents representatives from a broad area, that’s says to me that the communication and consultation has been poor.

With any major infrastructure project you need to bring communities with you.

At the same time I think it’s fair comment to say that the NTA are pretty woeful at putting the case for the various schemes across in the media.

LeinsterDub · 19-07-2018 8:00am

tom1ie wrote: »

Give the people what they want. Move the tie in further south and bypass Dunville Avenue. They will shout and scream and get this project delayed if this is not done.
I thought there was a problem with one of Dublin’s main sewage lines being in the way for a charlemount tie in anyway?
Also hasn’t single bore tunnel method been selected and individual station drawings were in the designs that were released?

London managed to thread the eye of a needle. This can't possibly be an issue.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/october-digi-issue-2/your-questions-answered-crossrail/

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 8:21am

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, regardless of these objections, the Luas Green Line will need to be upgraded in a significant way in the next few years. Despite the belief of one person here, there's no easy option to upgrade the capacity without segregation along the line, so even if the residents do succeed in changing the direction of the line out to the south west, the Luas line will still need to be upgraded to something approaching Metro standard.

If that’s aimed at me - then you’re misrepresenting me. I never said that. Nowhere.

Read back through my posts. I do agree that the only way to upgrade it is for segregation.

My arguments all along were related to the timing, proposed road closures and the effect of closing the Green Line for an extended period on traffic across South Dublin.

My personal opinion is:

1) That the Metrolink should initially serve the south central area leading to the southwest needs as I don’t think the BusConnects plan will deliver any real meaningful improvements (I don’t see the CPO activity happening) and it is at gridlock now, and not in 10 years time. It’s only going to get worse and journey times are already 90 minutes plus. Leaving that for another 10 years is insane.

2) Putting that line in place first would offer a suitable diversion route to which buses could carry people to when an extended section of the Green Line is closed to be upgraded to Metro which would minimise traffic issues closer to the city. A possible nine month closure will cause mayhem - there’s nowhere else for all those people to go to.

3) Closing Dunville Avenue would cause serious traffic problems in an area that’s already at a standstill.

They’re my issues - as I’ve posted I don’t agree with the more emotive stuff, but there was a third local resident at the committee meeting yesterday who did put a very reasoned argument across.

I happen to think also that they have a point about the lack of contact and poor communication - if the people at the sole consultation event aren’t able to answer simple questions then there is a problem.

19-07-2018 8:34am

The Dublinontrack article is rubbish.

1)

The Luas Green Line will run out of capacity by 2027. The only option left to upgrading the Green Line is underground running in the city centre.

No, there are other options including increasing capacity on the N11 bus routes, and proceeding with the previously mooted BRT. A SW Metro will inevitably reduce passenger numbers on the Green line > below. That doesn't negate the need for increased capacity on the Green Line but it's a bad argument.

2)

A south west metro is a poor investment compared to MetroLink's Green Line upgrade. The metro upgrade is estimated to cost €350M. Given the MetroLink budget of €3-4BN, this is only 10% of the total costs, but lengthens Dublin's first metro line by 45%.
...
A south west metro will not reduce pressure on the Luas Green Line enough to matter. This isn't a choice between the Green Line upgrade or a south west metro, but rather between the Green Line upgrade and doing both projects.

Something is a poor investment because it costs more? Clearly the author doesn't even know what the word 'investment' means, and believes that cost = investment. The claim that a SW metro wouldn't reduce pressure on the green line is just silly, and stating the truism "we do both or we do Metrolink" isn't an argument - it's just a truism.

3)

The Green Line upgrade provides a far better return on investment and delivers far greater benefits.

"Based on no hard evidence whatsoever"
Ok.

4)

Eamon Ryan's submission demonstrates a lack of respect for the hundreds of engineers and professionals working hard on MetroLink.

Yes. I mean, submissions on the M9, on the M20, on Gort-to-Tuam, on Limerick-Galway railway line shouldn't ever have been made including after the fact. We should trust engineers and political plans from the past, and not ever question them because we should 'respect the engineers'.

There is a point to be made about last minute political interference that seems ungenuine (as in the case of Eamonn Ryan), the author seemingly isn't intelligent enough to make it.

5)

At this stage many evidence-based decisions have already been made, such as which transport corridors into Dublin need a metro line.

That just simply isn't true.

I'm a fan of metrolink, and even if 'metro SW followed by metrolink' was an option I still think metrolink should go ahead first. But amateur proponents of the scheme are regularly putting forth worryingly illogical and irrational statements while also condescending to and condemning anyone who has the temerity to question any aspect of the scheme.

It's disappointing that we've learned nothing from the past and people still just want to support a transport project as if it was a football club.

Bray Head · 19-07-2018 8:36am

I thought - based on anecdotal evidence - that the green line is already at capacity, never mind by the mid-2020s.

CatInABox · 19-07-2018 8:43am

LXFlyer wrote: »

If that’s aimed at me - then you’re misrepresenting me. I never said that. Nowhere.

Read back through my posts. I do agree that the only way to upgrade it is for segregation.

Wasn't aimed at you, there's another guy that pops his head in every once in a while and states that it's super easy to up the capacity on the Green Line, so therefore it doesn't need to be upgraded to Metro.

LXFlyer wrote: »

My arguments all along were related to the timing, proposed road closures and the effect of closing the Green Line for an extended period on traffic across South Dublin.

My personal opinion is:

1) That the Metrolink should initially serve the south central area leading to the southwest needs as I don’t think the BusConnects plan will deliver any real meaningful improvements (I don’t see the CPO activity happening) and it is at gridlock now, and not in 10 years time. It’s only going to get worse and journey times are already 90 minutes plus. Leaving that for another 10 years is insane.

Well, as there's no work done on south west route other than super high level crayon stuff, that's a three or four year delay to the getting TBMs in the ground, plus a large increase in project cost.

I also think that journey times aren't going to get much worse in those areas, only because they're absolutely terrible there now anyway, they literally can't get much worse.

LXFlyer wrote: »

2) Putting that line in place first would offer a suitable diversion route to which buses could carry people to when the Green Line is closed to be upgraded to Metro which would minimise traffic issues closer to the city. A possible nine month closure will cause mayhem - there’s nowhere else for all those people to go to.

I really don't think that the green line will be closed for nine months, and won't until the NTA say it.

LXFlyer wrote: »

3) Closing Dunville Avenue would cause serious traffic problems in an area that’s already at a standstill.

They’re my issues - as I’ve posted I don’t agree with the more emotive stuff, but there was a third local resident at the committee meeting yesterday who did put a very reasoned argument across.

I happen to think also that they have a point about the lack of contact and poor communication - if the people at the sole consultation event aren’t able to answer simple questions then there is a problem.

Dunville Avenue won't be closed, the NTA have already said that they're looking at solutions.

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 8:52am

Bray Head wrote: »

I thought - based on anecdotal evidence - that the green line is already at capacity, never mind by the mid-2020s.

They have finally introduced a new timetable that has restored cuts to departures from Brides Glen in the morning peak and provided a realistic service from Broombridge in the peaks.

Remember that the service was launched without the additional 7 trams required to operate it properly.

The next project is to extend all of the Green Line trams to 55m.

That should address the capacity issues for the moment, although I don’t think re-routing buses to feed into the line will help.

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 8:58am

CatInABox wrote: »

Wasn't aimed at you, there's another guy that pops his head in every once in a while and states that it's super easy to up the capacity on the Green Line, so therefore it doesn't need to be upgraded to Metro.

Well, as there's no work done on south west route other than super high level crayon stuff, that's a three or four year delay to the getting TBMs in the ground, plus a large increase in project cost.

I also think that journey times aren't going to get much worse in those areas, only because they're absolutely terrible there now anyway, they literally can't get much worse.

I really don't think that the green line will be closed for nine months, and won't until the NTA say it.

Dunville Avenue won't be closed, the NTA have already said that they're looking at solutions.

Thanks for the clarification!

I should have also said a section of the Green Line would be closed - not the whole thing!

I can’t really see it being any shorter than 6 months if there’s major trackbed works involved.

Pete_Cavan · 19-07-2018 9:05am

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I posted above at the local consultation event in the Hilton virtually none of the representatives had any detailed technical knowledge and frankly most were waffling.

There is no set route agreed, no tunnelling method selected, no station format identified, no rolling stock chosen, so I don't think it possible to have a detailed technical knowledge. This stage is "here is a basic plan, give us your thoughts and we will refine it into something detailed and then come back to you". Answering detailed technical questions now is useless, everything is subject to change. If detailed technical information existed, the same people would be complaining that all the decisions have been made already and the consultation is a charade.

When you combine that with an apparent lack of any contact with combined residents representatives from a broad area, that’s says to me that the communication and consultation has been poor.

With any major infrastructure project you need to bring communities with you.

Every individual and collective group has an opportunity to give their opinion, what more do you want? How many people do "Combined residents representatives" have to represent before they need to be contacted? Is there an official register of them so that they can be contacted in the first place? You could literally have thousands of these springing up for this project to push their own agenda, it would be impossible to engage with all on an individual basis and doing so equally and fairly. If people want to collaborate to make combined submissions they are free to do so.

At the same time I think it’s fair comment to say that the NTA are pretty woeful at putting the case for the various schemes across in the media.

People love to piss and moan and the media play up to that. It's a lot easier for the media to go for the big bad quango full of useless civil servants angle and there are lots of Helen Lovejoys to give them hysterical quotes. The NTA of course can do better but they will always be fighting a losing battle when they are trying to justify loss of property/access/privacy/views of emotionally charged locals while said locals can make hyperbolic (and often disrespectful) comments unchallenged.

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 9:27am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is no set route agreed, no tunnelling method selected, no station format identified, no rolling stock chosen, so I don't think it possible to have a detailed technical knowledge. This stage is "here is a basic plan, give us your thoughts and we will refine it into something detailed and then come back to you". Answering detailed technical questions now is useless, everything is subject to change. If detailed technical information existed, the same people would be complaining that all the decisions have been made already and the consultation is a charade.

Every individual and collective group has an opportunity to give their opinion, what more do you want? How many people do "Combined residents representatives" have to represent before they need to be contacted? Is there an official register of them so that they can be contacted in the first place? You could literally have thousands of these springing up for this project to push their own agenda, it would be impossible to engage with all on an individual basis and doing so equally and fairly. If people want to collaborate to make combined submissions they are free to do so.

People love to piss and moan and the media play up to that. It's a lot easier for the media to go for the big bad quango full of useless civil servants angle and there are lots of Helen Lovejoys to give them hysterical quotes. The NTA of course can do better but they will always be fighting a losing battle when they are trying to justify loss of property/access/privacy/views of emotionally charged locals while said locals can make hyperbolic (and often disrespectful) comments unchallenged.

With respect - I’d expect the people at a consultation event to be able to answer basic questions on the project. Did you attend any of them?

The majority of the representatives at that event at the Hilton were frankly appalling, and couldn’t answer simple questions and were (even worse) waffling and giving incorrect answers. I had to correct one guy several times.

That’s not good no matter how much you try and tell me otherwise.

Dats me · 19-07-2018 9:38am

I talked to just one person at the city council consultation, but he was extremely well informed and enlightening

Pete_Cavan · 19-07-2018 9:54am

LXFlyer wrote: »

With respect - I’d expect the people at a consultation event to be able to answer basic questions on the project. Did you attend any of them?

The majority of the representatives at that event at the Hilton were frankly appalling, and couldn’t answer simple questions and were (even worse) waffling and giving incorrect answers. I had to correct one guy several times.

That’s not good no matter how much you try and tell me otherwise.

I am not telling you that the performance of staff at the consultation was good enough, my point is that an answer to your question may not actually exist yet. We are at such an early stage in the design where many things are still up in the air that it probably isn't possible to give a proper answer to a detailed technical question.

Getting back to the people of Ranelagh, all indications now are that access through Dunville Avenue will now be maintained, which is what they wanted. In this case, the consultation should be considered a success from their point of view yet they continue to complain about lack of engagement. They may also be unhappy with the consequences of the changes to accommodate them but how about we see the next proposals, and accompanying consultation, before renouncing it? Instead they continue their crusade against the project.

There is an ongoing process to allow people to raise issues and for TII/NTA to address them but they seem to not be interested and just attack the project while complaining about lack of consultation! This leads me to believe that this is nothing more than unashamed NIMBYism.

LXFlyer · 19-07-2018 10:01am

Dats me wrote: »

I talked to just one person at the city council consultation, but he was extremely well informed and enlightening

As I posted above - I eventually found one person who did know what they were talking about and he was excellent.

specialbyte · 19-07-2018 10:09am

Deleted User wrote: »

The Dublinontrack article is rubbish.

Author here. Let me walk you through some points that I couldn't fit into the 1,000 word article. Here's some more details.

Deleted User wrote: »

1) No, there are other options including increasing capacity on the N11 bus routes, and proceeding with the previously mooted BRT. A SW Metro will inevitably reduce passenger numbers on the Green line > below. That doesn't negate the need for increased capacity on the Green Line but it's a bad argument.

2) ... The claim that a SW metro wouldn't reduce pressure on the green line is just silly, and stating the truism "we do both or we do Metrolink" isn't an argument - it's just a truism.

The South East Corridor Study is a transport modelling study comissioned by the NTA. It looked at options like a new BRT on the N11 and a hypothetical parallel Luas line west of existing Green Line. Both options were found not to provide sufficient capacity to meet the growing demand in this area.

A large chunk of the demand growth is coming from Sandyford, Carrickmines and Cherrywood along the Green Line.

Deleted User wrote: »

2) Something is a poor investment because it costs more? Clearly the author doesn't even know what the word 'investment' means, and believes that cost = investment.

3) "Based on no hard evidence whatsoever"
Ok.

You need to read the investment section again. It is hard to make a direct benefit-cost-ratio comparison because a south west metro doesn't have one. It is just crayon drawing with no research. So the best alternative you can use is to take both of their costs. Weigh up their benefits and see which has more benefits for its costs.

SW Metro:
Serves 4km of a transport corridor that doesn't have a high capacity PT system because of the poor road network
Probably costs €800M using rough estimates from the MetroLink costings
BusConnects has the potential to improve PT for this corridor in the mean time

Green Line Metro Upgrade:
Doubles capacity on a line that will otherwise run out of capacity
Will allow future expansion of Luas onto Bray
It is only 10% of the MetroLink budget but will provide 45% of the MetroLink route
It is consistent with transport and land use planning strategy, without it we can't build houses on all of the unused land along the Green Line. Not great in a housing crisis
It costs only €350M

So GL metro upgrade is half the cost and provides huge benefits. SW Metro only has a crayon route, no designs, no transport modelling and only serves 4km of a transport corridor with little opportunity for large scale densification. Ideally we'd do both. But there are resources constraints so we have to choose one project. IMHO based on good data about GL upgrade and incredibly limited data on the SW metro then then Green Line Upgrade is a far better choice.

Deleted User wrote: »

4) Yes. I mean, submissions on the M9, on the M20, on Gort-to-Tuam, on Limerick-Galway railway line shouldn't ever have been made including after the fact. We should trust engineers and political plans from the past, and not ever question them because we should 'respect the engineers'.

There is a point to be made about last minute political interference that seems ungenuine (as in the case of Eamonn Ryan), the author seemingly isn't intelligent enough to make it.

5) That [evidence based decision on metro corridor choice] just simply isn't true.

As I said in the article the time to decide what corridor sees a metro line or a metro upgrade was in 2014/15 when the GDA Transport Strategy was being prepared. This transport strategy came with huge amounts of modelling and public consultation. After that the country, under legislation, made the decision to build Metro North and upgrade the Green Line to metro-standard as Metro South. Both projects now called MetroLink.

Go read the South East Corridor study it is important and it is a large part of the evidence that underpins the metro upgrade of the GL. This wasn't a political decision. The draft version of the GDA Transport Strategy and the final version after political interaction is incredibly similar in this area.

Once a decision has been made and we've gone and sent 100+ professional engineers, planners and modellers to go deliver Metro North/South we should let them do their job. Trying to roll back to a decision in 2014/2015 without any evidence attempts to completely undervalue their work. This is a lack of respect that I'm writing about.

Eamon Ryan knows there are no plans for a south west metro instead of upgrading the green line. He knows the GDA Transport Strategy very well. He made a submission himself and he's quoted it multiple times in Oireachtas Transport committee meetings. Eamon Ryan knows the NTA/TII can't propose a south west metro. But by proposing a south west himself he potentially wins the NIMBY voters along the green line who don't want the Green Line upgrade and he potentially wins the votes of people on the south west corridor who feel slighted. It is clever politics but it is bad for this country. It could potentially delay the MetroLink project (it's already late) so that Eamon Ryan can win some votes.

It is hard to fit all of this into one 1,000 word article. Looking back maybe we should have split this article up into two or three pieces and really dived into the details a bit more but we were worried about making the piece inaccessible to the general public. It's a hard balance to strike.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.

cgcsb · 19-07-2018 11:28am

marno21 wrote: »

This is out and out NIMBYism and the type of ridiculously selfish behaviour that's causing so much division in both Dublin and most of the western world.

These people need to be told to **** off and realise that the city goes beyond their back gardens and that people further out have to navigate their expensive suburb to access the city. Bridge Dunville Avenue by all means but enough of this tripe.

"I've had my fun and that's all that matters" rearing its head again.

I have some faith restored in humanity because the Journal comments section (a cesspit of negativity and anti-intellectualism at the best of times) is overwhelmingly opposed to the nimbys.

specialbyte · 19-07-2018 7:26pm

There's has been some discussion in the thread of late over whether or not the Ranleagh residents are just NIMBY-types or do they have legitimate concerns. Dublin On Track won't be entertaining some of the NIMBY comments like 'what happens if a metro train derails from the proposed Dunville Ave overbridge'. That stuff is pure nonsense.

However, it is the opinion of the Dublin On Track group that they do have some legitimate concerns that need to be discussed. Fully segregating the Luas Green Line could have a serious detrimental effect on their community if done wrong. There are right ways of doing it. In this article we discuss how free movement of people could be achieved at each of the 7 at-grade crossings of the GL: https://www.dublinontrack.ie/news/opinion-metrolink-wont-be-a-berlin-wall-if-designed-appropiately

If you agree with the article please share it amongst your own social circles. We need to get the word out that MetroLink has solvable problems. This will prevent the MetroLink going off-track in the next few weeks and get the discussion back to the problems and away from the hysteria.

SeanW · 20-07-2018 12:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

The Dublinontrack article is rubbish.

1)

No, there are other options including increasing capacity on the N11 bus routes, and proceeding with the previously mooted BRT. A SW Metro will inevitably reduce passenger numbers on the Green line > below. That doesn't negate the need for increased capacity on the Green Line but it's a bad argument.

Whatever about the rest of your post, this bit is rubbish.

Adding more buses because the railway is maxed out is a bone-headed idea and I've never heard of it being done anywhere.

And if you're at the coal face of Dublin's problems with crap housing and worse transport, you would know that the time for ****ing around with buses is long over. For my part, earlier this year I had to commute from Lucan to the South City for a week. I used to spend 4 hours each day on buses, 2 hours each way. Most of that time spent in the City Centre, most of that in turn dealing with the whole Westmoreland/Dolier Street mess.

Like U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said "The problem isn't easy, but it is simple."

So be Dublin. The housing problem is simple - there aren't enough of them.
The transport problem is also simple - too many people trying to get to too many different places, on the same surface streets. At this point there's nothing to be gained by messing around with the surface, rapid transport lines are needed to relieve the pressure. And they're needed fast. Like, yesterday.

strassenwo!f · 20-07-2018 12:35am

I'm looking at this from overseas, and I've been on holiday for the last couple of weeks, so I'm far from being up to speed.

I'm getting the impression that the earlier plan of a DART cross-city plan is in some trouble. But how would the current metro proposal fit into that plan, if the earlier DART plan, or something broadly along those lines, were to come to pass?

marno21 · 20-07-2018 12:42am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm looking at this from overseas, and I've been on holiday for the last couple of weeks, so I'm far from being up to speed.

I'm getting the impression that the earlier plan of a DART cross-city plan is in some trouble. But how would the current metro proposal fit into that plan, if the earlier DART plan, or something broadly along those lines, were to come to pass?

Which DART cross-city plan?

The DART Interconnector tunnel is back at route selection, so we don't know where it'll go yet, but presumably the route will become more clear if this Metrolink plan gets planning (it could connect with Metro at Tara or SSG)

The DART Expansion along the Kildare/PPT line hasn't been published yet, but services on the Kildare line will interchange with Metro services at the new heavy + light rail station at Cross Guns Bridge east of Glasnevin Junction.

strassenwo!f · 20-07-2018 8:45am

marno21 wrote: »

Which DART cross-city plan?

Have there been many?

marno21 wrote: »

The DART Interconnector tunnel is back at route selection, so we don't know where it'll go yet, but presumably the route will become more clear if this Metrolink plan gets planning (it could connect with Metro at Tara or SSG)

Is it dependent on the route of the metro? The previous DART cross-city plan would have had a much higher capacity than the metro which was proposed at the time. Any future DART cross-city line would too.

In addition, the Tara Street option was earlier ruled out by Irish Rail - in its presentation to ABP - as being unsuitable for an interchange between an East-West DART line and a North-South metro.

(Now, admittedly, that doesn't count for very much, as ABP seem to have been ready to give permission for anything transport-related. They gave their approval to the two major infrastructure projects presented to them, costing in total several billion, neither of which seems to be being pursued in the form approved).

It is important that it is known how the metro will tie in with any considerably higher capacity cross-city DART route, which you say - and I'm afraid I can't find any information to back up what you say - is currently at the route selection stage.

Under the earlier plans, in their presentation to ABP, Irish Rail said that Tara Street would be unsuitable for an interchange between the metro and their proposed East-West cross-city line.

We have no information that the situation has changed re an interchange between the metro and any purported East-West cross-city DART line.

marno21 wrote: »

The DART Expansion along the Kildare/PPT line hasn't been published yet, but services on the Kildare line will interchange with Metro services at the new heavy + light rail station at Cross Guns Bridge east of Glasnevin Junction.

The issue of a cross-city underground DART is also very relevant to the metro proposal here. I think this routing will cannabilize the northside LUAS Green line, on which a lot of money has been spent, and it is important to know how important this interchange will be in the future.

Currently there are many trains using the Phoenix Park tunnel, but that number would surely drop if a direct cross-city DART tunnel were built and the Hazelhatch line were opened to a proper DART service.

It is important that the metrolink ties in with other transport. But Dublin doesn't need a situation where the tail is wagging the dog.

The status of the proposed cross-city DART line, with a much higher capacity, is very relevant to what happens with the metro.

MJohnston · 20-07-2018 8:54am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm looking at this from overseas, and I've been on holiday for the last couple of weeks, so I'm far from being up to speed.

I'm getting the impression that the earlier plan of a DART cross-city plan is in some trouble. But how would the current metro proposal fit into that plan, if the earlier DART plan, or something broadly along those lines, were to come to pass?

Ohhh, this explains so much.

strassenwo!f · 20-07-2018 9:19am

It shouldn't explain a lot.

I'm from Dublin, which in my opinion is a wonderful city, and I want Dublin to have a good transport system.

I thought you knew that.

MJohnston · 20-07-2018 9:39am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It shouldn't explain a lot.

I'm from Dublin, which in my opinion is a wonderful city, and I want Dublin to have a good transport system.

I thought you knew that.

To be honest, it's fairly unclear from your posts. You seem to want endless redesigning of projects, from all that you say.

strassenwo!f · 20-07-2018 11:55am

MJohnston wrote: »

To be honest, it's fairly unclear from your posts. You seem to want endless redesigning of projects, from all that you say.

To be clear, it's not that I want endless redesigning of projects.

There has been considerable redesigning of projects by the relevant authorities in the last few years. None of my doing.

The metronorth project was designed, at considerable expense, and went to ABP and was approved. Now that's been binned in favour of a very different route.

The interconnector plan went to ABP, also at considerable expense, and was approved. Subsequently it seems to have disappeared.

The decisions to take those major, approved, projects off the table, and to do something else, were taken by people employed by Dublin to ensure that Dublin has the best public transport available.

What we need now is some indication as to how this metrolink proposal is going to fit in with a DART cross-city line.

A DART cross-city line was needed earlier. Presumably it still is.

bk · 20-07-2018 6:26pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The metronorth project was designed, at considerable expense, and went to ABP and was approved. Now that's been binned in favour of a very different route.

The interconnector plan went to ABP, also at considerable expense, and was approved. Subsequently it seems to have disappeared.

To be clear, these were both cancelled 10 years ago because we hit a horrible recession and unfortunately no longer had the money to go ahead with them.

The Metro has been resurrected, but needed to be redesigned as the old Metro plan is no longer feasible, the city has changed in that time, Luas Cross City build over it and the new plan seems to be even better, giving us an even longer Metro that serves more areas.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What we need now is some indication as to how this metrolink proposal is going to fit in with a DART cross-city line.

We don't particularly. The DU tunnel won't come now for many years after Metrolink, the DU tunnel will be fit in around Metrolink.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A DART cross-city line was needed earlier. Presumably it still is.

With the new Dart Expansion plan and the excellent integration points with Metrolink, the tunnel is now much less needed, still very much nice to have, but the DART expansion can now still happen without it.

bk · 20-07-2018 6:38pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Is it dependent on the route of the metro? The previous DART cross-city plan would have had a much higher capacity than the metro which was proposed at the time. Any future DART cross-city line would too.

......

It is important that it is known how the metro will tie in with any considerably higher capacity cross-city DART route, which you say - and I'm afraid I can't find any information to back up what you say - is currently at the route selection stage.

.......

The status of the proposed cross-city DART line, with a much higher capacity, is very relevant to what happens with the metro.

You've said three times that the DART Underground will be higher capacity of Metro, that simply isn't true!

Metrolink looks like it will have the ability to operate 90m trains every 90 seconds.

DART is 180m trains (8 carriages) roughly every 10 minutes.

Metrolink would clearly be higher capacity.

I suspect with the redesigned DART, that they will scale DART back to 4 carriage, roughly 90 to 100m trains, but run them at higher frequencies closer to the Metrolink. This reduces the cost on building station boxes through the city center, which will be very challenging to say the least.

In other words, I suspect that the new DU tunnel and service that will run through it will look very much like the Metrolink service with a very similar capacity.

Which BTW isn't an issue as the capacity of the Metrolink is so high anyway, way beyond our needs for decades to come with lots of growth potential.

Grandeeod · 20-07-2018 11:42pm

bk wrote: »

To be clear, these were both cancelled 10 years ago because we hit a horrible recession and unfortunately no longer had the money to go ahead with them.

The Metro has been resurrected, but needed to be redesigned as the old Metro plan is no longer feasible, the city has changed in that time, Luas Cross City build over it and the new plan seems to be even better, giving us an even longer Metro that serves more areas.

We don't particularly. The DU tunnel won't come now for many years after Metrolink, the DU tunnel will be fit in around Metrolink.

With the new Dart Expansion plan and the excellent integration points with Metrolink, the tunnel is now much less needed, still very much nice to have, but the DART expansion can now still happen without it.

MN and DU were not cancelled 10 years ago. Stop spinning out incorrect information.

DU was deferred in 2011. The same year it was granted a railway order. It was officially cancelled in 2015. MN was deferred in 2011 too after receiving a railway order. Both deferrals were apparently based on a reduction in the capital spending programme. Luas cross city was planned and built after the deferral of MN. To say that MN isn't feasible and needs to be redesigned because of luas cross city and a changing city is unfounded nonsense.

DART expansion is merely an extension of the DART network. It is in no way comparable to the DART system with DU in place. We are merely replacing diesel services with electric services. A small improvement, but once again incomparable with a DART service incorporating DU. To claim that the Dart tunnel "is much less needed" due to the planned expansion of the DART network and Metrolink is more unfounded nonsense.

I'll conclude by reminding you that the proposed northside alignment of metrolink was already considered over 13 years ago particularly via Phisboro. The integration with Irish Rail lines in that area and the reopening of the PPT route was actually proposed by individuals outside of politics or state transport bodies. Search for the O'Reilly report in relation to Metro. These same individuals and their idea were embraced by FG's then transport spokesperson, Dennis Naughton. It even lead to an Oireachtas Transport Committee presentation re the PPT. Whats on the table now was on the table 14 years ago. So don't give this thread BS about a changing city. This is literally a different political set up imposing their stamp on the projects. Unfortunately for the aforementioned individuals, they didn't realise at the time that they were being used as a stick to beat DU with. FG never supported DU from as far back as 2003 and latched onto any cheaper option. Thats what they are doing right now.

The upgrade of the Green line dates back even further and is based on yet another pointless argument between FG and FF, when FG were in Government and planning the luas.

strassenwo!f · 22-07-2018 10:07pm

bk wrote: »

To be clear, these were both cancelled 10 years ago because we hit a horrible recession and unfortunately no longer had the money to go ahead with them.

As has been pointed out above, by the poster Grandeeod, they were cancelled much later than you say. Apart from the money spent designing the routes for both projects, a lot of money seems to have been spent, despite the recession, bringing both projects to the railway order stage, even though there was no hope of them happening, given the poor state of the country's finances.

bk wrote: »

The Metro has been resurrected, but needed to be redesigned as the old Metro plan is no longer feasible, the city has changed in that time, Luas Cross City build over it and the new plan seems to be even better, giving us an even longer Metro that serves more areas.

There has been no major change in the environs of Glasnevin or Drumcondra which should necessitate such a route change on the northside. One very feeble point of the metrolink plan on the northside is that a Whitworth Road interchange with the metro will shave a couple of minutes off a journey from/to West Dublin and the Airport, relative to an inter.change at Drumcondra. Is this a journey which is being made by many people on a daily basis? And has an underground station at Drumcondra been properly examined?

In my opinion, a station at Whitworth Road, and probably also the Mater, will cannabilise the LUAS line at Phibsbororough, on which a lot of money has been spent. An underground route through Drumcondra would be very nicely placed between the Connolly DART line and the Green LUAS.

The fact that the LUAS cross-city was built should not impinge greatly on the route of the metro. Underground lines are built under tram lines all the time, with no great kerfuffle.

And it is certainly true that the proposed new arrangement is a metro which serves more areas, like Ballymun, Swords, the Airport. But it doesn't add rail transport to any new areas in the centre of the city or on the Southside to what was previously proposed by the earlier metro and LUAS arrangement.

bk wrote: »

We don't particularly. The DU tunnel won't come now for many years after Metrolink, the DU tunnel will be fit in around Metrolink.

I'll deal with this in my next post, which is in response to the subsequent post you made, which I am now quoting.

bk wrote: »

With the new Dart Expansion plan and the excellent integration points with Metrolink, the tunnel is now much less needed, still very much nice to have, but the DART expansion can now still happen without it.

As above.

strassenwo!f · 22-07-2018 10:51pm

bk wrote: »

You've said three times that the DART Underground will be higher capacity of Metro, that simply isn't true!

Metrolink looks like it will have the ability to operate 90m trains every 90 seconds.

DART is 180m trains (8 carriages) roughly every 10 minutes.

Metrolink would clearly be higher capacity.

Irish Rail started off their tunnel plan with an 8 tph (trains per hour, in each direction) idea.

Clearly there was no way that the city was going to be subjected to such disruption for such a paltry throughput, so they came up with a 16tph plan, which would have involved a very sizeable number of trains crossing the path of the Enterprise and Arrow trains into and out of Connolly.

This was a totally unworkable idea, bringing IR into some kind of Alice in Wonderland scenario where they fantasised about that throughput through the proposed tunnel.

The DART tunnel can only work if there is four-tracking of the Northern line (probably unlikely for the foreseeable future) or if there were to be a 3-platform station in the East of the city and the focus is on developing lines to/from the West of Dublin, like Hazelhatch, Tallaght, Lucan or even eventually the Maynooth Line.

That will, of course, take some time to happen, but it does seem to be the only way to fill a proposed DART tunnel.

bk wrote: »

I suspect with the redesigned DART, that they will scale DART back to 4 carriage, roughly 90 to 100m trains, but run them at higher frequencies closer to the Metrolink. This reduces the cost on building station boxes through the city center, which will be very challenging to say the least.

If a DART tunnel is built, it can only be to allow large 8-carriage trains, or even bigger trains, to access important parts of the city centre. There is no way that a city centre tunnel is going to be built which only facilitates 4-carriage trains. No city is going to have such disruption for such a poxy train.

bk wrote: »

In other words, I suspect that the new DU tunnel and service that will run through it will look very much like the Metrolink service with a very similar capacity.

Dublin certainly needs a rethink as to how important it is to connect locations in the West of the city directly with the city centre. Cities like Frankfurt and Munich have had this and there is now no difficulty getting from anywhere in their suburbs directly, and rapidly, to the centre. Their metros generally travel north-south, while their East-West movement is carried out by massive-capacity cross-city tunnels, with capacities way beyond their metro lines.

bk wrote: »

Which BTW isn't an issue as the capacity of the Metrolink is so high anyway, way beyond our needs for decades to come with lots of growth potential.

The capacity of the metro on the Northside is very high. A similar capacity on the Southside, if the proposed route is developed, is currently dependent on considerable work being done to connect the underground metro, wherever that happens, with the current overground LUAS line, and on the upgrade works needed for that overground LUAS.

When we get a better picture of those costs, we'll have to see if it makes sense. It doesn't yet appear to be adding anything in terms of speed to/from the city, or connectivity, or transport paths on the Southside, over what might be done with this project.

marno21 · 23-07-2018 12:00am

Another installment of Michael McDowell vs Metrolink today in the Sunday Business Post

This really is just pathetic. It's turning into Donald Trump levels of inaccurate whinging now

salmocab · 23-07-2018 12:06am

marno21 wrote: »

Another installment of Michael McDowell vs Metrolink today in the Sunday Business Post

This really is just pathetic. It's turning into Donald Trump levels of inaccurate whinging now

He mentions democratically a few times does he think Dubs should vote on this or something? I'd love to know where he thinks those 8 luas lines could have gone.

marno21 · 23-07-2018 12:08am

salmocab wrote: »

He mentions democratically a few times does he think Dubs should vote on this or something? I'd love to know where he thinks those 8 luas lines could have gone.

Or where they could be accomodated en route to the city centre.

He also has a fixation on people commuting from Cherrywood to DIT Grangegorman. How many people do this and why should they deserve the city's north south rail spine to be set up around them?

Such bull****.

Stephen15 · 23-07-2018 12:13am

A person travelling from Cherrywood to Grangegorman would only the Luas to Sandyford and the Metro to The Mater station which is a two minute walk from Grangegorman

salmocab · 23-07-2018 12:14am

marno21 wrote: »

Or where they could be accomodated en route to the city centre.

He also has a fixation on people commuting from Cherrywood to DIT Grangegorman. How many people do this and why should they deserve the city's north south rail spine to be set up around them?

Such bull****.

worried about building a station in SSG and the disruption it would cause in the city but happy to build 8 luas lines as presumably they have less disruption than closing off some lanes around one side of the green. He must be a wind up merchant, or a luas salesman possibly.

marno21 · 23-07-2018 12:19am

Stephen15 wrote: »

A person travelling from Cherrywood to Grangegorman would only the Luas to Sandyford and the Metro to The Mater station which is a two minute walk from Grangegorman

And would do the journey quicker. And wouldn't have the slow pedestrian speed street running.

Utter nonsense he is spouting. Only plus is the SBP has a low circulation of around 33k

budhabob · 23-07-2018 9:35am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Irish Rail started off their tunnel plan with an 8 tph (trains per hour, in each direction) idea.

This factual inaccurate! The initial design was for 24tph, however reduced to 20tph for peak i.e. the tunnel would be designed for it, but not necessarily start at that.

So capacity of the DU would be far in excess of MN (20 x 8 car DART).

jd · 23-07-2018 10:37am

McDowell is clueless. He says that work on the Green line would necessitate a shut down of two years, basing it on the work required for Luas Cross City.

jd · 23-07-2018 10:49am

marno21 wrote: »

He also has a fixation on people commuting from Cherrywood to DIT Grangegorman.
Such bull****.

Maybe he's more worried about an influx of us savages from around Ballymun to the cafes of Ranelagh (no change required

)

cgcsb · 23-07-2018 11:00am

Stephen15 wrote: »

A person travelling from Cherrywood to Grangegorman would only the Luas to Sandyford and the Metro to The Mater station which is a two minute walk from Grangegorman

Indeed Metro will reduce the journey time from Ranelagh to Grangegorman by approximately 20 minutes. If you make this journey regularly, you should be shouting for metro. You can even complete the journey faster by taking a Dublni bike at the other end.
5.4.3.2.1....But what about the disabled Joe???

Zebra3 · 23-07-2018 5:06pm

marno21 wrote: »

Another installment of Michael McDowell vs Metrolink today in the Sunday Business Post

This really is just pathetic. It's turning into Donald Trump levels of inaccurate whinging now

Still waiting for McDowell to tell us where all his beloved Luas lines will go.

prunudo · 24-07-2018 7:14am

Another article in the media predicting doom and gloom.

Passengers face 'chaos' of catching bus to next Luas stop

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/passengers-face-chaos-of-catching-bus-to-next-luas-stop-37148295.html

I understand there will be disruption and they are reporting the facts but at least they should also be reporting on why it has to be closed and to what extent the improvements will be when the project is finished. Every article is tinted with negativity.

CatInABox · 24-07-2018 9:21am

jvan wrote: »

Another article in the media predicting doom and gloom.

Passengers face 'chaos' of catching bus to next Luas stop

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/passengers-face-chaos-of-catching-bus-to-next-luas-stop-37148295.html

I understand there will be disruption and they are reporting the facts but at least they should also be reporting on why it has to be closed and to what extent the improvements will be when the project is finished. Every article is tinted with negativity.

They should also note that the Green Line will be beyond capacity in the next few years, with no easy option for upgrading other than a metro style one.

tom1ie · 24-07-2018 12:50pm

CatInABox wrote: »

They should also note that the Green Line will be beyond capacity in the next few years, with no easy option for upgrading other than a metro style one.

Where is the nta pr department in this matter? How many negative articles have we got at this stage with no come back from the nta explaining the reasons for the disruption and the positive benefits it will have for decades to come.
I think in this department the nta have made a complete balls of things. I hope they’re better at delivering projects than they are in promoting them.

CatInABox · 24-07-2018 2:40pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Where is the nta pr department in this matter? How many negative articles have we got at this stage with no come back from the nta explaining the reasons for the disruption and the positive benefits it will have for decades to come.
I think in this department the nta have made a complete balls of things. I hope they’re better at delivering projects than they are in promoting them.

One of the highlights of the BusConnects plan is that Jarrett Walker has stepped into the breach and is taking no s**t online. Tweet after tweet calling out politicians and newspapers, along with articles and interviews defending the plans.

You'd think that the NTA would look at that and see some that maybe that's the way to go. Instead we've got radio silence, while vested interests set the agenda.

Bray Head · 24-07-2018 2:49pm

CatInABox wrote: »

You'd think that the NTA would look at that and see some that maybe that's the way to go. Instead we've got radio silence, while vested interests set the agenda.

I agree.

But unfortunately local newspapers and facebook groups is where most people will get their information on Bus Connects.

Bus Connects has a facebook presence but there's very little activity and relatively few followers.

Given the millions being spent, a fraction more on the public relations spend would go a long way.

marno21 · 24-07-2018 3:01pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I agree.

But unfortunately local newspapers and facebook groups is where most people will get their information on Bus Connects.

Bus Connects has a facebook presence but there's very little activity and relatively few followers.

Given the millions being spent, a fraction more on the public relations spend would go a long way.

Maybe some sort of Strategic Communications Unit to provide guidance on this would be worthwhile ?

CatInABox · 24-07-2018 3:24pm

marno21 wrote: »

Maybe some sort of Strategic Communications Unit to provide guidance on this would be worthwhile ?

That gave me a chuckle.

LongboardPro · 26-07-2018 7:24am

So the disruptions that SBP aricle writer is complaining about would be equal, if not more more destructive if his plans went ahead for l
Luas here, there and everywhere. That basically debunks his entire article but whatever, facts aren't important when you got an agenda to push.

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

Comments