Should the Metrolink project include an upgrade of the Luas Green Line?

marno21 · 27-11-2018 2:50pm #1

Discuss away here

Dardania · 27-11-2018 2:55pm

Yes. Massive, dense number of taxpayers living in that catchment area, with more to be added at the far end in Cherrywood. We should absolutely give them a high quality service, to overcome the capacity constraints with the current service.

bk · 27-11-2018 3:08pm

Of course, pretty much mad not to.

The Luas Green line was originally designed to be relatively easily upgradeable to Metro. The Luas Green line will reach it's maximum capacity of about 8,500 per hour in the next few years.

Currently 10,000 new homes are being built in the Cherrywood SDZ, that will be at least another 27,000 people (Ireland average home size is 2.7) living on the line.

If just 20% of them decide to commute into town, a VERY conservative figure IMO, that alone would be an extra demand of 5,400 extra people! You are looking at a demand of at least 13,000 to 14,000 people on the line in just 10 years!

And BTW there is more development happening along this line then just this Cherrywood SDZ.

If the Green line isn't upgraded, it will be mayhem on that line in ten years time.

For a relatively small cost, the Green Luas line can be upgraded to Metro which will support that demand level. It would be madness of bad planning not to take advantage of the Metrolink project to upgrade capacity for a low cost given all the development happening on the line.

It also helps improve the business case for the Metrolink. Win, win.

prunudo · 27-11-2018 3:14pm

bk wrote: »

Of course, pretty much mad not to.

The Luas Green line was originally designed to be relatively easily upgradeable to Metro. The Luas Green line will reach it's maximum capacity of about 8,500 per hour in the next few years.

Currently 10,000 new homes are being built in the Cherrywood SDZ, that will be at least another 27,000 people (Ireland average home size is 2.7) living on the line.

If just 20% of them decide to commute into town, a VERY conservative figure IMO, that alone would be an extra demand of 5,400 extra people! You are looking at a demand of at least 13,000 to 14,000 people on the line in just 10 years!

And BTW there is more development happening along this line then just this Cherrywood SDZ.

If the Green line isn't upgraded, it will be mayhem on that line in ten years time.

For a relatively very small cost, the Green Luas line can be upgraded to Metro which will support that demand level. It would be madness of bad planning not to take advantage of the Metrolink project to upgrade capacity for a low cost given all the development happening on the line.

It also helps improve the business case for the Metrolink. Win, win.

I was going to reply to your post on the other thread but that pretty much sums up what I was going to say.
Add to all that, if and when the greenline is extended to Bray it will cause even more capacity issues so the upgrading of the current Green line to Metro as far as Sandyford is a must.
If they want the general public to move away from the car and take public transport seriously we really have to get away from these half thought out plans.
Credit where its due though, at least they did orignially design it so it could be upgraded, just for nimbys to be throwing a spanner in the works now.

bk · 27-11-2018 3:16pm

Oh and compared to the original Metro North project, it avoids a big, costly underground station and turning loop under Stephens Green and the somewhat controversial closure and digging up of Stephens green.

And they get to reuse Sandyford Depot, another saving.

D.L.R. · 27-11-2018 4:43pm

Yes, its a no brainer.

Street trams are not appropriate for long distance commuting.

cgcsb · 27-11-2018 4:56pm

Yes. Future separate metro line to serve South West and North East Dublin, resulting in virtually all areas having decent rail access. Securing funding will be no problem when the public sees the rampant success of metrolink just like more luas lines were screamed for after the 2004 initial launch.

Peregrine · 27-11-2018 6:36pm

Yes. You'd be mad not to include it.

Amirani · 28-11-2018 1:56pm

Yes, 100%.

tom1ie · 28-11-2018 5:35pm

Yes, as long as the overall project is not delayed by the local nimbys giving out about where the tunnel portal will end up.
The tbm needs to start as soon as possible with the view that it will come out at charlemount or wherever is decided, but if the local residents start delaying the project, we’ll then tunnel to ssg only and include a crossover set of points to allow metros to go in the reverse direction while this is still being argued out with the locals.
If in 5 years time the locals and local politicians are still opposing it, re route the tbm to the sw with new funds that should be available (providing the economy hasn’t gone belly up).
When the locals opposing see the success of metrolink to metro sw, they’ll be crying out for a green line upgrade to metro themselves :pac:

Dats me · 28-11-2018 6:00pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes, as long as the overall project is not delayed by the local nimbys giving out about where the tunnel portal will end up.
The tbm needs to start as soon as possible with the view that it will come out at charlemount or wherever is decided, but if the local residents start delaying the project, we’ll then tunnel to ssg only and include a crossover set of points to allow metros to go in the reverse direction while this is still being argued out with the locals.
If in 5 years time the locals and local politicians are still opposing it, re route the tbm to the sw with new funds that should be available (providing the economy hasn’t gone belly up).
When the locals opposing see the success of metrolink to metro sw, they’ll be crying out for a green line upgrade to metro themselves :pac:

This would seem like a good way to go, although I'd feel awfully sorry for what is almost certainly the majority of people who actually use the Green Line who would be in favour of the upgrade given the figures.

Is that possible though? Can a project start and be funded without a defined scope etc?

tom1ie · 28-11-2018 6:10pm

Dats me wrote: »

This would seem like a good way to go, although I'd feel awfully sorry for what is almost certainly the majority of people who actually use the Green Line who would be in favour of the upgrade given the figures.

Is that possible though? Can a project start and be funded without a defined scope etc?

Not sure to be honest and I agree it would be a complete missed opportunity not to connect metro link to the green line, however this approach would certainly focus minds once the tbm goes in the ground and starts it's journey to ssg.
You can imagine the pressure put on the nimby's by the residents and international landlords that'll be based in cherry wood if a sw option was seen as a plausible option. Almost a threatening option.
I live in rathfarnham so I'd love it to come out my way, but I see the obvious choice that would be a link to gl and upgrade to metro, then a sw spur from maybe ssg a few years later.

Synode · 28-11-2018 6:14pm

I'd assume they'd have to dig up SSG completely to allow the metros to turn. Which I don't think is a runner.

tom1ie · 28-11-2018 6:27pm

Synode wrote: »

I'd assume they'd have to dig up SSG completely to allow the metros to turn. Which I don't think is a runner.

But would a set of points not do the job?

CatInABox · 28-11-2018 7:37pm

tom1ie wrote: »

But would a set of points not do the job?

With a train arriving every 90 seconds, probably not.

tom1ie · 28-11-2018 9:19pm

CatInABox wrote: »

With a train arriving every 90 seconds, probably not.

So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.

CatInABox · 28-11-2018 11:20pm

tom1ie wrote: »

So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.

I don't think that it will ever have a spur though. Assuming that the trains are divided even between the lines, that will result in a 50% reduction in potential capacity on those lines. If we're talking hypotheticals here, then a SW line should avoid impacting on what will be the main North-South transport spine, and continue on through the city centre and out the other side, towards the NE.

tom1ie · 28-11-2018 11:37pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I don't think that it will ever have a spur though. Assuming that the trains are divided even between the lines, that will result in a 50% reduction in potential capacity on those lines. If we're talking hypotheticals here, then a SW line should avoid impacting on what will be the main North-South transport spine, and continue on through the city centre and out the other side, towards the NE.

yes agreed it should eventually end up like this, but what im suggesting is people on the sw spur get off at ssg and change onto the mainline at ssg to go to airport or sandyford. Eventually the tunnel will head towards the nw.
At least this way people in the sw would have access to rail, with connectivity options, but the cost (of an eventual sw/ne tunnel) would be spread over several years or decades.
The most important thing would be the spur gives access to metrolink, without impacting the metrolink frequency and capacity.

Qrt · 28-11-2018 11:41pm

Yes.

Tell Rethink Metrolink that they’re idiots.

Build it.

prunudo · 29-11-2018 8:21am

Without wanting to derail the thread, and I'm not sure if it has the same restrictions as the metrolink thread.
Regarding a possible sw line, I think should be a seperate line, not a spur, possibly routing in a large curved route, going roughly from Tallaght (even as far as Rathcoole) through Terenure etc and linking up with the Metrolink north/south at ssg. Then turning back inland towards Blanchardstown (maybe Ballycoolin) and linking up with N3 Parkway p&r. Connecting with any luas or heavy rail along the way.

tom1ie · 29-11-2018 8:42am

jvan wrote: »

Without wanting to derail the thread, and I'm not sure if it has the same restrictions as the metrolink thread.
Regarding a possible sw line, I think should be a seperate line, not a spur, possibly routing in a large curved route, going roughly from Tallaght (even as far as Rathcoole) through Terenure etc and linking up with the Metrolink north/south at ssg. Then turning back inland towards Blanchardstown (maybe Ballycoolin) and linking up with N3 Parkway p&r. Connecting with any luas or heavy rail along the way.

Yes. As long as it has connectivity with metrolink at one of the cc stations. Preferably ssg. Connectivity, in this case, would mean a short walk of 20 seconds to another platform, not a ten minute walk across town.

cgcsb · 29-11-2018 11:13am

tom1ie wrote: »

So if ssg was going to eventually take a sw spur, you could have multiple platforms (2?) that could take a train, therefore staggering the train arrivals so that the same piece of track wouldnt be required for 5 minutes, which would be enough time for a metro turnaround.

A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.

tom1ie · 29-11-2018 11:23am

cgcsb wrote: »

A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.

So if I want to go from rathfarnham to the airport swords, how do I do it if the sw/ne line doesn’t interact with metrolink?
Metrolink on platform 1+2 and sw (then eventually sw/ne) on platform 3+4 in ssg station is what I’m suggesting.

cgcsb · 29-11-2018 11:41am

tom1ie wrote: »

So if I want to go from rathfarnham to the airport swords, how do I do it if the sw/ne line doesn’t interact with metrolink?
Metrolink on platform 1+2 and sw (then eventually sw/ne) on platform 3+4 in ssg station is what I’m suggesting.

Change trains at O'Connell Upper

citycentre · 29-11-2018 1:44pm

cgcsb wrote: »

A future SW line should avoid the Green all together and take in Portobello, St Patrick's, Christchurch/Templebar, Jervis, Upper O'Connell St, Mountjoy Sq, a new Metro/DART at Croke Park, Marino and various other stops to Beaumont. There'll be plenty of demand when people see how good the 24hr driverless service is and coot hoor politicos wouldn't dear placate nimbys and damage the development process. See luas for how attitudes change.

This sounds very sensible...

Kellyconor1982 · 29-11-2018 9:54pm

Metro 1: current plans
Metro 2: Knocklyon, rathfarnham, terenure, rathgar, rathmines, portobello, temple bar, o'connell street, croke park, fairview, marino, donnycarney, artane, coolock, clarehall
Metro 3: Dundrum, rathfarnham, knocklyon and then original metro west.
Metro 4: lucan, fonthill (conmect with metro west), liffey valley, palmerstown, chapelizod, islandbridge, heuston
Metro 5: ballymun (connection with metro 1), finglas, cabra, stoneybatter, heuston, inchicore, drimnagh, walkinstown, templeogue, (maybe terminate in rathfarnham or knocklyon for access to other lines)

That would probably cover the city quite well. Dream stuff though.

Sam Russell · 29-11-2018 10:21pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Metro 1: current plans
Metro 2: Knocklyon, rathfarnham, terenure, rathgar, rathmines, portobello, temple bar, o'connell street, croke park, fairview, marino, donnycarney, artane, coolock, clarehall
Metro 3: Dundrum, rathfarnham, knocklyon and then original metro west.
Metro 4: lucan, fonthill (conmect with metro west), liffey valley, palmerstown, chapelizod, islandbridge, heuston
Metro 5: ballymun (connection with metro 1), finglas, cabra, stoneybatter, heuston, inchicore, drimnagh, walkinstown, templeogue, (maybe terminate in rathfarnham or knocklyon for access to other lines)

That would probably cover the city quite well. Dream stuff though.

I assume Dart Underground is in there somewhere. East West - either Dart or Metro - is needed for rapid travel E/W across the city.

Kellyconor1982 · 29-11-2018 11:38pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I assume Dart Underground is in there somewhere. East West - either Dart or Metro - is needed for rapid travel E/W across the city.

Agree. Maybe the lucan line could be an extension of the du.

Rulmeq · 30-11-2018 10:41am

I see this thread is also turning into an alterantive routes discussion as well... Anyway, in my view not only should the green line be upgraded to metro, but I think they should continue across brewery road (since they are elevating Stillorgan anyway, keep going) along the old harcourt alignment and have metro all the way to Cherrywood/Brides Glen, and on to Bray (or where ever they can interchange with the DART).

That would leave the green line that goes over to Sandyford as a bit of an oddity (maybe it could have a branch to Stepaside, taking in that retail park that's there, maybe Shane Ross can get right on that), but it would mean that there wouldn't be a need for the new developments to have to change modes, so it means that those working in Cherrywood Science and Technology Park (as it was), and those living in the new 3 bed semi-ds they are building in that area would have a direct route to the city centre, and the airport.

D.L.R. · 30-11-2018 3:54pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Agree. Maybe the lucan line could be an extension of the du.

This is a much more sensible solution than a slow street tram meandering through West Dublin.

not1but4 · 30-11-2018 7:07pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rethink-metrolink-steps-up-fight-to-retain-green-line-luas-1.3715788

Rethink Metrolink has also relaunched its website which claims support from a wide range of politicians including Green Party leader Eamon Ryan, TDs Kate O’Connell of Fine Gael and Jim O’Callaghan of Fianna Fail, and independent senator Michael McDowell.

You'd almost think they were all from the same constituency trying to get the metro to their voters. ..Oh wait!

Funny how that article mentions how the line is going to be closed for up to two years (I cannot find anything to back this up) but don't mention how it would double the cost of the construction.

marno21 · 30-11-2018 8:31pm

not1but4 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rethink-metrolink-steps-up-fight-to-retain-green-line-luas-1.3715788

You'd almost think they were all from the same constituency trying to get the metro to their voters. ..Oh wait!

Funny how that article mentions how the line is going to be closed for up to two years (I cannot find anything to back this up) but don't mention how it would double the cost of the construction.

Where were these ***** when the NTA had a public consultation on the GDA Transport Strategy back in 2015?

Kellyconor1982 · 30-11-2018 8:53pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

This is a much more sensible solution than a slow street tram meandering through West Dublin.

Absolutely. Luas style transport is a great addition to a city with top class options. In european cities it works nicely alongside metro systems. We need heavy rail options in all directions of the city. Especially for a heavilly populated area like Lucan where you could also conceivably also have a gigantic park and ride for commuters coming from kildare.

marno21 · 30-11-2018 9:04pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Absolutely. Luas style transport is a great addition to a city with top class options. In european cities it works nicely alongside metro systems. We need heavy rail options in all directions of the city. Especially for a heavilly populated area like Lucan where you could also conceivably also have a gigantic park and ride for commuters coming from kildare.

Or why not provide good rail into Kildare and save them having to drive at all. After all there is a 4 track railway to Kildare which just needs something to tie into on the Dublin side.

Alkers · 30-11-2018 10:38pm

What will be the operational impact to the green line Luas of the upgrade to metro? I'm hearing rumours (could be ill founded) of a two year period with no Luas running. This would be a complete disaster for the areas on the green line

marno21 · 30-11-2018 10:56pm

Simona1986 wrote: »

What will be the operational impact to the green line Luas of the upgrade to metro? I'm hearing rumours (could be ill founded) of a two year period with no Luas running. This would be a complete disaster for the areas on the green line

I will leave someone else answer the length of time required. However if I lived along the line I could put up with a year's closure in order to have significantly improved capacity post-upgrade.

The NIMBYs and their lovely representatives need to learn the cold, hard reality that they have two choices:

1. A lengthy closure of the line, and alterations at the line crossings at Beechwood, Stillorgan and the pedestrian crossings in exchange for improved capacity, improved frequency, faster journey times to the city centre, direct connections to the DART, 2 heavy rail lines, the Airport and other areas, and faster city centre journey times vs the existing Green Line north of Charlemont.

2. Retain the Luas line as is but face being left on the platform after 2027 when the Luas Green Line reaches capacity especially with significant additions of passengers at Cherrywood.

CatInABox · 30-11-2018 11:10pm

Simona1986 wrote: »

What will be the operational impact to the green line Luas of the upgrade to metro? I'm hearing rumours (could be ill founded) of a two year period with no Luas running. This would be a complete disaster for the areas on the green line

Ah yes, that's the number being thrown around by the likes of Rethink Metrolink. They're taking the length of time that works on the green line will be ongoing and disingenuously saying that it'll be closed that entire time.

To be honest, we don't really know the plans yet, but there's no way that it'll be closed for any length of time. Most likely, there'll be multiple weekends where the Green Line is closed, but I'd say that the majority of the work will take place beside the track during the week, with works that involve the track during the weekend.

Alkers · 01-12-2018 12:40am

CatInABox wrote:

Ah yes, that's the number being thrown around by the likes of Rethink Metrolink. They're taking the length of time that works on the green line will be ongoing and disingenuously saying that it'll be closed that entire time.

Yes agreed I'm sure that figure isn't realistic, that's why I asked about the likely duration. I know a lot of people in that area who I'd like to inform of the actual likely disruption so this kind of rumour doesn't gain traction.

CatInABox · 01-12-2018 10:16am

Simona1986 wrote: »

Yes agreed I'm sure that figure isn't realistic, that's why I asked about the likely duration. I know a lot of people in that area who I'd like to inform of the actual likely disruption so this kind of rumour doesn't gain traction.

Until we know the final tie in plans, no one can give an exact figure.

I will say that the NTA know exactly how important the Green Line is, as everyone does, so I can assume that, where possible, they will cater construction os minimise disruption. This could involve building a temporary set of tracks beside the current tracks so that work on the line won't close the Luas.

As Marno said though, this needs to happen regardless. I think that the NTA are optimistic in the figures, and that the Green Line will be at capacity long before 2027. Once overcrowding starts happening, people will be getting the Luas out of town to get the Luas into town, just so they can get on at an earlier station.

cgcsb · 01-12-2018 10:54am

Simona1986 wrote: »

What will be the operational impact to the green line Luas of the upgrade to metro? I'm hearing rumours (could be ill founded) of a two year period with no Luas running. This would be a complete disaster for the areas on the green line

The tie in works with the luas red-green junction were timetable to take 4 months but were completed in 6 weeks as far as I can remember. In that time trams were terminating in Smithfield. I'd expect something similar for tie in, 2 years is rubbish. After it's complete green line passengers will have much bigger trains, operating at 90 second peak frequency, taking them to the north city centre much faster and to the airport in minutes. Also they'll be able to avail of 24hr service provided by driverless trains. I'd happily get the bus for 6 weeks for that trade off.

Alkers · 01-12-2018 11:46am

cgcsb wrote:

The tie in works with the luas red-green junction were timetable to take 4 months but were completed in 6 weeks as far as I can remember. In that time trams were terminating in Smithfield. I'd expect something similar for tie in, 2 years is rubbish. After it's complete green line passengers will have much bigger trains, operating at 90 second peak frequency, taking them to the north city centre much faster and to the airport in minutes. Also they'll be able to avail of 24hr service provided by driverless trains. I'd happily get the bus for 6 weeks for that trade off.

Yes I don't think anymore would complain with a six week disruption, but they absolutely would for two years...

Sam Russell · 01-12-2018 12:29pm

What has to be done for the upgrade:

1: St Raephaela's Road needs a bridge to take the Luas/Metrolink over the road. The published plans show a temporary link rail using the existing car park while the bridge is built. That could happen before any work on Metrolink starts as it is needed anyway. The temporary structures could be put in with only one weekends disruption of services.

2: The decision of where exactly the Metrolink will arrive blinking into the daylight. If it is south of Beechwood, then there is no problem with Donore Ave.

3: If high floor vehicles are chosen, then the platforms will need to be raised for the existing GL platforms. The solutions for this could be to have steps in the trains to accommodate both high and low level platforms. Alternatively, temporary structures could be used while permanent structures are put in place. Neither solution would cause any great delay.

4: The actual tie in. Well, that could take a few months, but it would involve a cut of services around Beechwood (if that is the tie location). I think that would not be an excessive time scale to construct. If the priority is to minimise the disruption, then the closure time could be quite short.

Two years is nonsense.

Bray Head · 01-12-2018 12:48pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

3: If high floor vehicles are chosen, then the platforms will need to be raised for the existing GL platforms. The solutions for this could be to have steps in the trains to accommodate both high and low level platforms. Alternatively, temporary structures could be used while permanent structures are put in place. Neither solution would cause any great delay.
.

Modern mobility policy is for entrances flush with the platform.

Steps would be difficult for people with mobility issues. They would also slow everyone down. And they would be a magnet for compensation claims.

This option is a non starter.

Sam Russell · 01-12-2018 12:57pm

Bray Head wrote: »

Modern mobility policy is for entrances flush with the platform.

Steps would be difficult for people with mobility issues. They would also slow everyone down. And they would be a magnet for compensation claims.

This option is a non starter.

Well, yes, I see your point. It is a possible solution, but not if it causes compo. The mobility issue could be dealt with by an elevated section of the platform for the first door of the train. Anyway, it is a possible solution, but the temporary structure solution is probably better.

Bray Head · 01-12-2018 1:21pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The mobility issue could be dealt with by an elevated section of the platform for the first door of the train.

It's not feasible or practical to insist that people with mobility issues use one door of the carriage. Raised platform sections generate other safety issues too, not least that someone in a wheelchair or a buggy could accidentally roll down and onto the tracks.

Your idea is a complete non starter.

Qrt · 01-12-2018 2:07pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The tie in works with the luas red-green junction were timetable to take 4 months but were completed in 6 weeks as far as I can remember. In that time trams were terminating in Smithfield.

'twas Jervis actually, they put a temporary turnaround on Middle Abbey Street:P

CatInABox · 01-12-2018 4:54pm

Bray Head wrote: »

It's not feasible or practical to insist that people with mobility issues use one door of the carriage. Raised platform sections generate other safety issues too, not least that someone in a wheelchair or a buggy could accidentally roll down and onto the tracks.

Your idea is a complete non starter.

It's not a complete non-starter, most likely they'll raise half the platform before running metro trains, work on the other half, and then swap it around. This isn't a major problem that can't be engineered around.

prunudo · 01-12-2018 6:04pm

I just hope that they are working on their pr and have every eventuality worked out and answers for every possible crank.
They need to have a serious charm offensive to sell this to the locals, luas users and general public.
No point in just having a hand full of boards users thinking its a great idea when everyone else cant see its benefits through the haze of nimby voices.

tom1ie · 01-12-2018 7:01pm

jvan wrote: »

I just hope that they are working on their pr and have every eventuality worked out and answers for every possible crank.
They need to have a serious charm offensive to sell this to the locals, luas users and general public.
No point in just having a hand full of boards users thinking its a great idea when everyone else cant see its benefits through the haze of nimby voices.

Bloody ridiculous that they have to sell anything to anyone.
If the project is crucial to the future growth of this fine city then sorry locals but your not going to be allowed dictate and make yourselves feel important for 15 mins.
That's the way it should work not the nonsense we have now.

Bray Head · 01-12-2018 7:14pm

CatInABox wrote: »

It's not a complete non-starter, most likely they'll raise half the platform before running metro trains, work on the other half, and then swap it around. This isn't a major problem that can't be engineered around.

Perhaps, but the other poster was suggesting platforms at double heights in perpetuity.

As for temporary solutions, I am not sure the footprint is there at stops like Ballaly and Cowper

Sam Russell · 01-12-2018 7:22pm

Bray Head wrote: »

Perhaps, but the other poster was suggesting platforms at double heights in perpetuity.

As for temporary solutions, I am not sure the footprint is there at stops like Ballaly and Cowper

No, all such solutions are pro tem. Once the Metro is running, the full engineering solutions will be put in place asap and any temporary solutions phased out.

Should the Metrolink project include an upgrade of the Luas Green Line?

Comments