Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink
Options
Comments
-
-
antoinolachtnai wrote: »The green line isn't really like a European tram, in that it is mostly off-road. It's not really comparable.
There are plenty of European trams with large off-road sections, but I can't think of any with such a long off-road section as the Green line south of the canal to Sandyford. That is primarily why I don't think that bit needs to be replaced by a 'metro', as it already operates much like a metro and has the capacity to achieve more.antoinolachtnai wrote: »For what you say to be true, it would have to be the case that tens of thousands of people in southwest Dublin are travelling to southeast Dublin to get the Luas.
If this were happening, you would be able to prove it, by reference to census statistics.
But it isn't happening. That's why you can't prove it.
I think it's pretty obvious that the southside Green line catchment area is wider than it would be if there were a competing line in the reasonably near vicinity.
Take a place like Churchtown, in south Dublin. At the moment, the quickest way into town is probably to get to the Dundrum or Windy Arbour stops on the LUAS, though there is also the bus (which is closer, but probably takes a bit longer). If you had a metro to Rathfarnham, that would add another option and would surely take a lot of passengers off the direct bus route or the LUAS green line.
A Rathfarnham metro would probably be a bit quicker than the Green luas, and certainly the bus. If I lived in Churchtown, I might well choose the metro, and there would probably be many people thinking the same way. Ergo, the catchment area for the LUAS green line becomes smaller, the numbers using it drop as a result, and the numbers using it become much more manageable.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »There are plenty of European trams with large off-road sections, but I can't think of any with such a long off-road section as the Green line south of the canal to Sandyford. That is primarily why I don't think that bit needs to be replaced by a 'metro', as it already operates much like a metro and has the capacity to achieve more.
That statement makes absolutely no sense. The very reason that the existing, well-segregated section of the Luas Green Line should be tied into the proposed Metrolink tunnel is so that the full potential of the existing infrastructure can be realised. Like any transport system, the frequency of a tram route is determined by the capacity at the worst bottleneck(s). This occurs, in the case of the Green Line, along the non-segregated parts of the line due to the interaction of trams with motor traffic and pedestrians at non-segregated crossings. It really doesn't matter that you can fit more trams on the section of line between Sandyford and Charlemont if they cannot pass freely through the proceeding on-road alignment without causing congestion.
The design engineers have determined that the current setup, with hugely-elongated trams, offer as much capacity as physically possible along the Green Line. We are fast approaching that capacity limit. The only way to improve capacity along the route is to segregate the entire route. It therefore makes perfect sense to kill two birds with one stone by joining the new Metrolink northern section with the existing Green Line.
I don't think that anyone in their right mind would be against a southwestern metro line in the future. Indeed, I live along the corridor that you have proposed, and would jump at the idea of a decent public transport option. I currently walk into work in town each morning, as it is as fast as taking a bus! Regardless, the proposed Green Line tie-in is a complete no-brainer for the relatively small financial outlay involved. It will solve problems along that route, and surely the overall success of Metrolink will lead to public demand for more routes in the near future.0 -
That statement makes absolutely no sense. The very reason that the existing, well-segregated section of the Luas Green Line should be tied into the proposed Metrolink tunnel is so that the full potential of the existing infrastructure can be realised. Like any transport system, the frequency of a tram route is determined by the capacity at the worst bottleneck(s). This occurs, in the case of the Green Line, along the non-segregated parts of the line due to the interaction of trams with motor traffic and pedestrians at non-segregated crossings. It really doesn't matter that you can fit more trams on the section of line between Sandyford and Charlemont if they cannot pass freely through the proceeding on-road alignment without causing congestion.
If you look back over the thread, I have suggested a way to deal with this problem: a spur from the Green line at Peter Place to Baggot Street Bridge, with (hopefully) an eventual extension to Grand Canal Dock.
This would allow greater utilisation of the Green line at peak times, and greater throughput, along its off-street section. You might need to demolish that derelict building on the Adelaide Road/Peter Place corner to make it more feasible, but you wouldn't be increasing the throughput on the main streets of the city at all. You'd be using the Green line to directly serve other areas which are not currently directly served.
I am aware that this could cause disruption, if you have more trams at the junction of Peter Place and Adelaide Road than there currently are.
I was in Dublin about 3 weeks ago, and I had a close look at this, just after New Year, and it occurred to me that a simple road tunnel between Fitzwilliam Place and/or the early part of Adelaide Road, emerging at Harcourt Road or Harrington Street, would facilitate much greater throughput for the Green line. It probably could be done without a road tunnel, but a road tunnel at that location would be much easier, and could mean that a rail tunnel to Charlemont or Beechwood becomes even less necessary.The design engineers have determined that the current setup, with hugely-elongated trams, offer as much capacity as physically possible along the Green Line. We are fast approaching that capacity limit. The only way to improve capacity along the route is to segregate the entire route. It therefore makes perfect sense to kill two birds with one stone by joining the new Metrolink northern section with the existing Green Line.
The design engineers have been instructed, by people above them, to come up with a metro route between Swords and Sandyford. It's not hugely surprising that the design engineers have chosen to replace the southside LUAS green line with a metro.I don't think that anyone in their right mind would be against a southwestern metro line in the future. Indeed, I live along the corridor that you have proposed, and would jump at the idea of a decent public transport option. I currently walk into work in town each morning, as it is as fast as taking a bus! Regardless, the proposed Green Line tie-in is a complete no-brainer for the relatively small financial outlay involved. It will solve problems along that route, and surely the overall success of Metrolink will lead to public demand for more routes in the near future.
There is hardly a poster on this thread who hasn't expressed their favour for a southwest/central line, eventually. Just, not now. You, Equium, can now be added to that list.
The opportunity is there to do it now, and reduce journey times for many people trying to get in and out of the city rapidly. It should be taken.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »
The opportunity is there to do it now, and reduce journey times for many people trying to get in and out of the city rapidly. It should be taken.
Yes, the opportunity is there.
All that's missing now is;
- The billions
- The studies (feasibility, topographical, technical, environmental, economic...)
- The support of the national government
Delusional.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think one of those buses, freed from having to bring me directly into town, could then perhaps have a route between the Dundrum LUAS, the Rathfarnham metro, and maybe somewhere on the Red LUAS.
People like me, in Churchtown, would then be spoiled for choice.0 -
Yes, the opportunity is there.
All that's missing now is;
- The billions
- The studies (feasibility, topographical, technical, environmental, economic...)
- The support of the national government
Delusional.
I don't think there's any question that it will cost billions to bring Dublin up to speed with comparable European cities, in terms of things like infrastructure. because Dublin is obviously a long way behind citises like Munich now. But I am hopeful that Dublin will get there, eventually.0 -
People in Churchtown already have a luas stop on the lower churchtown road. Not great for people at the nutgrove end in fairness, they have to make do with the Dundrum luas stop or the 14 bus.0
-
strassenwo!f wrote: »There are plenty of European trams with large off-road sections, but I can't think of any with such a long off-road section as the Green line south of the canal to Sandyford. That is primarily why I don't think that bit needs to be replaced by a 'metro', as it already operates much like a metro and has the capacity to achieve more.I think it's pretty obvious that the southside Green line catchment area is wider than it would be if there were a competing line in the reasonably near vicinity.
Show us the numbers so. Prove to us how big the catchment is.Take a place like Churchtown, in south Dublin. At the moment, the quickest way into town is probably to get to the Dundrum or Windy Arbour stops on the LUAS, though there is also the bus (which is closer, but probably takes a bit longer). If you had a metro to Rathfarnham, that would add another option and would surely take a lot of passengers off the direct bus route or the LUAS green line.
A Rathfarnham metro would probably be a bit quicker than the Green luas, and certainly the bus. If I lived in Churchtown, I might well choose the metro, and there would probably be many people thinking the same way. Ergo, the catchment area for the LUAS green line becomes smaller, the numbers using it drop as a result, and the numbers using it become much more manageable.
Of course a rathfarnham metro would be quicker than the green luas.
So what?
It does not follow that just because there is another train line that the traffic on the original train line will decrease. In fact, the opposite is likely to be the case.
Building a new train line to Rathfarnam is a great idea and should be done. The only problem is that it would cost a billion euros and probably two billion euros.
Upgrading the Green Line to Metro will cost a few hundred million euros. It will do nothing to prevent the building of a rail line to rathfarnham. In fact, it will make it much easier to build a rail line to rathfarnham.
Your plan to bridge the Luas road junctions at Dunville Avenue and Sandyford, somehow divert a number of major city sewer lines, compulsorily purchase and infill a load of basements and then build a cut and covered tunnel in the city centre will cost just as much and probably a lot more. The disruption of the city centre would be very significant and the Luas would be closed or curtailed for a significant time0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10150
Nothing Strassenwo!f has come out with changes the dynamic around the cost benefit analysis on any routes on the south side. Upgrading the Green Line, a line that was designed from the get go to be upgraded to metro, will be far, far ahead of a cut and cover N11, and it'll be far, far ahead of an underground route to Rathfarnham.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing Strassenwo!f has come out with changes the dynamic around the cost benefit analysis on any routes on the south side. Upgrading the Green Line, a line that was designed from the get go to be upgraded to metro, will be far, far ahead of a cut and cover N11, and it'll be far, far ahead of an underground route to Rathfarnham.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that a line out to Rathfarnham is a good idea also Walkinstown direction too. We don’t have the money so it’s pretty irrelevant.
He has said a few times quite correctly that those areas don’t have the trip generators that match the airport line for numbers. I’d like to see a second line that splits somewhere between the canal and Harold’s X and goes to Knocklyon via Rathfarnham and ballymount/greenhills direction if it did similar on the north side between 2 areas and linking in with existing services it would be a great use of a central section from say Harold’s X to past Croke Park (don’t know the north side well enough to suggest routes) and splitting again to two suitable places that are between dart and Metrolink.0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 10150
I think pretty much everyone agrees that a line out to Rathfarnham is a good idea also Walkinstown direction too. We don’t have the money so it’s pretty irrelevant.
He has said a few times quite correctly that those areas don’t have the trip generators that match the airport line for numbers. I’d like to see a second line that splits somewhere between the canal and Harold’s X and goes to Knocklyon via Rathfarnham and ballymount/greenhills direction if it did similar on the north side between 2 areas and linking in with existing services it would be a great use of a central section from say Harold’s X to past Croke Park (don’t blow the north side well enough to suggest routes) and splitting again to two suitable places that are between dart and Metrolink.
Strassenwo!f has some great ideas, and I'm all for a metro line out towards the south west, but as far as I'm concerned, the best way for us to get a metro out there is to complete Metrolink as planned.
The successful completion of Metrolink will do more for rail based transport in Ireland than anything else possible, and I'd imagine politicians in Dublin clamouring to get another line going immediately. As an aside, I think that Dart Underground would be next, followed by Luas in Cork, before a second Dublin Metro came around.0 -
I see some FG TDs asking for the MetroNorth/MetroLink Northern section to be built whilst they are arguing over some Rathmine/Rathgar issues. Start it, get the link from the city to the Airport servicing northside, phibsboro, ballymun and on to swords (and connect with Northern Rail Line around Donabate)
by the time they have settled their issues extend it south0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Your plan to bridge the Luas road junctions at Dunville Avenue and Sandyford, somehow divert a number of major city sewer lines, compulsorily purchase and infill a load of basements and then build a cut and covered tunnel in the city centre will cost just as much and probably a lot more. The disruption of the city centre would be very significant and the Luas would be closed or curtailed for a significant time
I am curious about this part of the post.
It would be nice if those road junctions were bridged, or otherwise removed from interaction with the Green luas, but I don't believe it is necessary and I have never suggested it.
I did say that a road tunnel from Fitzwilliam Place or Adelaide Road to Harcourt Road or Harrington Street would probably make it easier to build a LUAS spur to Baggot Street Bridge, but I don't think it would be strictly necessary. Such tunnels are pretty commonplace and needn't cost a huge amount of money or cause major disruption, or indeed necessitate closure of the LUAS.
I can't see where filling in basements come into it. And, as far as I am aware, the major sewer in that area runs under the canal, not under Adelaide Road.0 -
I see some FG TDs asking for the MetroNorth/MetroLink Northern section to be built whilst they are arguing over some Rathmine/Rathgar issues. Start it, get the link from the city to the Airport servicing northside, phibsboro, ballymun and on to swords (and connect with Northern Rail Line around Donabate)
by the time they have settled their issues extend it south
How would trams turn around? design frequency will be 90 seconds.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14066
strassenwolf, you appear to be pushing 2 agendas here:
1. That the Luas Green Line needs upgrading however the main element to consider is that it must remain a Luas tram line at all costs.
2. That the money to be spent on Metro South should instead be ploughed into another Metro line, even though it will only cover the costs of around 2km of tunnelling.
Why would it be a better idea to build a Luas extension to Baggot Street bridge rather than add additional capacity to the existing Green Line corridor via Metrolink?
If the Luas Green Line can remain as is and have all these significant capacity increases, why do you believe the NTA are going down the current route of the Metrolink connection?
If there is such substantial need for a Walkinstown/Rathfarnham Metro vs the Green Line upgrade, why didn't the NTA include it in their 2016-2035 policy? I assume you made a submission at the time given the level of interest you have in this.0 -
Here's the thing people seem to be completely ignoring, to upgrade the green line that "needs to be upgraded because its jam packed" as is, the green line will be closed from Charlemont south best case scenario. Now where on earth do all these people that are currently using this packed luas go? Will buses be added? Doubt it'll be in sufficient quantity if they are. The answer is that most will probably drive, and most will probably go through one of 3 places, Harolds Cross, Rathmines, Donnybrook/Leeson Street lower the only other option for them would be to go along the m50 and come in somewhere else which just moves the problem around and people wont do that because the m50 is crawling at that time too. Have you ever been to these 3 places at rush hour? Car park is the only way to describe them. All this means that to upgrade the green line the whole south side of the city between 8 and 9 am and 4 and 6 pm at best will come to a standstill for however long it takes to upgrade the green line and lets be honest that'll probably be at best a year the way we do things in this country.
Now if instead of covering your ears and repeating "It's packed, its cheaper to do, its quicker, we have to upgrade the green line" you step back and go, right, upgrading the green line will cause, temporary, chaos for the whole southside of the city, how can we avoid this? The answer is relatively simple if not cheap but gets two birds with one stone, run a metro out to the south west. By doing this you help relieve some pressure on two choke points in Rathmines and Harolds Cross, you offer another option off the m50 which would take some traffic from elsewhere, and you offer some current users of the green line a viable if not slightly less convenient option (ie people in nutgrove who currently take the green line in could use the SW metro while the green line is being upgraded instead of driving in).
So a SW metro isn't just for the benefit of people in Knocklyon, Rathfarnham, Terenure, Harolds Cross its wider benefits are that it would relieve pressure on the green line and various traffic choke points into the city which then allow for the upgrading of the green line without inconveniencing half the city for a prolonged period of time.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19128
Here's the thing people seem to be completely ignoring, to upgrade the green line that "needs to be upgraded because its jam packed" as is, the green line will be closed from Charlemont south best case scenario. Now where on earth do all these people that are currently using this packed luas go? Will buses be added? Doubt it'll be in sufficient quantity if they are. The answer is that most will probably drive, and most will probably go through one of 3 places, Harolds Cross, Rathmines, Donnybrook/Leeson Street lower the only other option for them would be to go along the m50 and come in somewhere else which just moves the problem around and people wont do that because the m50 is crawling at that time too. Have you ever been to these 3 places at rush hour? Car park is the only way to describe them. All this means that to upgrade the green line the whole south side of the city between 8 and 9 am and 4 and 6 pm at best will come to a standstill for however long it takes to upgrade the green line and lets be honest that'll probably be at best a year the way we do things in this country.
The work on the GL, if they choose the Beechwood connections would only affect the Luas for a short time as the connection is made - perhaps a month. If they choose to do it in July/August then the traffic is lighter than normal. The actual connection would sever the Luas line and so will be the last action before the service starts, so I do not expect it to be done halfway through.
All work is underground, and only as the tunnel emerges from the ground does it affect the GL.
We are used to road construction that continues while traffic wizzes by - build a bit, then divert traffic onto the new bit, then build a bit more and traffic continues around it. Why can that system not work for Metro?
They built the Aviva stadium while only being given control of the Dart for three long weekends - it might have been four. The Dart was transferred from one platform to the other at GCD with little down time despite the line being severed, so it can be done.
No-one envisages the GL being closed for years - apart from the naysayers. The other issue would be St Raphaella's Road, Stillorgan, but plans are in the published material for a by-pass track going through the car park.
Building a SW line does nothing to support your argument as it costs about twice the current plan. But planning and building such a line makes sense, and maybe planning should start now.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The work on the GL, if they choose the Beechwood connections would only affect the Luas for a short time as the connection is made - perhaps a month. If they choose to do it in July/August then the traffic is lighter than normal. The actual connection would sever the Luas line and so will be the last action before the service starts, so I do not expect it to be done halfway through.
All work is underground, and only as the tunnel emerges from the ground does it affect the GL.
We are used to road construction that continues while traffic wizzes by - build a bit, then divert traffic onto the new bit, then build a bit more and traffic continues around it. Why can that system not work for Metro?
They built the Aviva stadium while only being given control of the Dart for three long weekends - it might have been four. The Dart was transferred from one platform to the other at GCD with little down time despite the line being severed, so it can be done.
No-one envisages the GL being closed for years - apart from the naysayers. The other issue would be St Raphaella's Road, Stillorgan, but plans are in the published material for a by-pass track going through the car park.
Building a SW line does nothing to support your argument as it costs about twice the current plan. But planning and building such a line makes sense, and maybe planning should start now.
You think it'll take them just a month to do all the platforms, at least connect up the new tunnels/bridges that are needed along the existing line, disconnect the luas, surface the tunnel, kit out the tunnel, make the connection, test it, open it? In this country? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
There isn't any space to have the metro surface without cutting off the luas so to surface the tunnel for the underground a huge section at least of the green line is going to have to be closed, and that'll take well over a month I'll tell you that.
you cant divert a tram with no space around it. For road works they do one side and add some lights, you physically cant do that when theres a great big hole being dug the entire width of the space you have to work with.
Redeveloping lansdowne was a completely different kettle of fish. The problem there was just the power lines and such were connected to the underside of the stand and were to be connected to the underside of the new overpass and they built a new underpass. That is a fraction of the work that would be needed to connect the green line to the metro and it could all be spaced out so could be done at convenient times, connecting the green line to the metro can't.
You say it does nothing to support my argument due to cost but then say it is needed so should be in planning. Whats going to happen? The contractors will enjoy building the first bit so much they'll throw in a SW line free after will they? The cost will always be there and a SW line is needed so it makes more sense to do it first, relieve pressure on the green line and the roads needed in the event of its closure, then do the green line and that way there'll be far less disruption.0 -
There isn’t money for a SW line. Having one first may be better alright but it’s irrelevant as we simply can’t afford it.0
-
Advertisement
-
You're doubling the length of the tunnel, therefore the cost.
How likely do you think it is that this €3bn line is going to be built?
How likely do you think it is that a €6bn would be built?
You say yourself that the green line has to be upgraded anyway.
This is by far the best route for a metro in Dublin, the fact that there are (very temporary) downsides doesn't change that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19128
You think it'll take them just a month to do all the platforms, at least connect up the new tunnels/bridges that are needed along the existing line, disconnect the luas, surface the tunnel, kit out the tunnel, make the connection, test it, open it?
I never mentioned platforms. If they can do the Stillorgan work with a temporary work around using temporary structures, they can do it at Beechwood. I think they can plan this well within the limits of acceptable disruption.
They did the replacement bridge that was required on the M7 widening without major problems or disruption to the railway service. Yes it can be done if it is important enough.
The SW Metrolink II should start planning as soon as Metrolink I goes into construction. Small money to get to the railway order, and the success of Metrolink I will force it through. It could be three years behind Metrolink I if it gets popular support.
There is no way Metrolink I is going towards the SW.0 -
You're doubling the length of the tunnel, therefore the cost.
How likely do you think it is that this €3bn line is going to be built?
How likely do you think it is that a €6bn would be built?
You say yourself that the green line has to be upgraded anyway.
This is by far the best route for a metro in Dublin, the fact that there are (very temporary) downsides doesn't change that.
Well now you're just making stuff up because I never said it has to be upgraded. I said it would be upgraded because if you can do it for so little post minimising the disruption it would cost it would make sense to do it but it doesn't have to be done.
You say very temporary but how sure of that are you, I'll answer for you, your not, nobody knows what complications could arise so nobody knows how long the disruptions will last, just look at Tottenhams stadium and the delays with that and that's a private project which are normally much quicker than public projects nevermind public Irish projects.
And you're not necessarily doubling the cost as much if the cost relates to starting the tunneling and the city centre stations so it'll still be expensive but it's not doubling the cost0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »I never mentioned platforms. If they can do the Stillorgan work with a temporary work around using temporary structures, they can do it at Beechwood. I think they can plan this well within the limits of acceptable disruption.
They did the replacement bridge that was required on the M7 widening without major problems or disruption to the railway service. Yes it can be done if it is important enough.
The SW Metrolink II should start planning as soon as Metrolink I goes into construction. Small money to get to the railway order, and the success of Metrolink I will force it through. It could be three years behind Metrolink I if it gets popular support.
There is no way Metrolink I is going towards the SW.
They've said they have to upgrade every single platform along the line at least a bit and they'd have to close them to do that.
"The moneys not there"
"it' could be done three years later"
Can you pick one please.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19128
They've said they have to upgrade every single platform along the line at least a bit and they'd have to close them to do that.
"The moneys not there"
"it' could be done three years later"
Can you pick one please.
There is no way a politician is going to sanction a build of €6 billion to build a SW to Swords Metro. First, it is not planned, and second, it just is too much money. Given the Children's Hospital mess, I think it would be political suicide - as the cry would be 'We cannot afford €10 billion because that is what it will be' from every NIMBY in the land.
However, if the construction starts, and is fixed cost, and funded by the EU development bank, then it is different.
Then the second one sounds like a no-brainer, and given that the construction team could just continue, would sound like a cost saving. Look how we got into the swing of building motorways once we had a few good ones built.
(I am not saying the same contractor would get the gig, but the skills with the subbies would be there).0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »There is no way a politician is going to sanction a build of €6 billion to build a SW to Swords Metro. First, it is not planned, and second, it just is too much money. Given the Children's Hospital mess, I think it would be political suicide - as the cry would be 'We cannot afford €10 billion because that is what it will be' from every NIMBY in the land.
However, if the construction starts, and is fixed cost, and funded by the EU development bank, then it is different.
Then the second one sounds like a no-brainer, and given that the construction team could just continue, would sound like a cost saving. Look how we got into the swing of building motorways once we had a few good ones built.
(I am not saying the same contractor would get the gig, but the skills with the subbies would be there).
Wouldn't be 6billion. There'd be far less NIMBY than the green line upgrade too since everyone in SW Dublin is sick to death of the area being completely ignored infrastructure wise.0 -
Well now you're just making stuff up because I never said it has to be upgraded. I said it would be upgraded because if you can do it for so little post minimising the disruption it would cost it would make sense to do it but it doesn't have to be done.
You say very temporary but how sure of that are you, I'll answer for you, your not, nobody knows what complications could arise so nobody knows how long the disruptions will last, just look at Tottenhams stadium and the delays with that and that's a private project which are normally much quicker than public projects nevermind public Irish projects.
And you're not necessarily doubling the cost as much if the cost relates to starting the tunneling and the city centre stations so it'll still be expensive but it's not doubling the cost
One of the options is to tie in south if Beechwood - basically around the Albany Road pedestrian entrance. Beechwood Metro would be underground and Beechwood Luas would be at surface. The tunnel would rise up in the laneways behind the Moyne Road houses (loss of gardens at least temporarily) and then the metro line would curve across to join the Luas tracks. I can see that there would only need to be a short term closure to accommodate the tie in. Query whether the Luas can continue to run from Beechwood in throughout that time and whether the southbound could continue to Milltown or Cowper.
Adjustments to the platforms are presumably going to have to be effected at some stage. I can see the value of a SW running line. Pity there wasn’t effective lobbying for it earlier. There’s limited appetite to continue deferring the project. Swords at least deserves a better route south!0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14066
Being an adult involves making difficult choices between options none of which are ideal. This is the unfortunate case here and the NTA have two options.
1. Continue the Green Line as is with no interruptions to service however face the consequence of patrons being unable to board due to full trams at stops along the Green Line post 2027 (I actually believe this will be sooner).
2. Close the Green Line to an undetermined extent for an as of yet undetermined amount of time in order to provide significant capacity increases and extensively widen the amount of journey options available to users.
There will be pain while the line is closed. The Red Line was closed for a period to facilitate the Cross City a few years back. It's quite unfortunate there will be a closure, however it's for the greater good.
The ideal solution here would be to go back in time to the 90s and drill it into the politicians of the time that a tram is not sufficient for the future along the old Harcourt Street alignment. At least the engineers had the foresight to construct the tracks to facilitate future Metro running. If only they had gone one extra step and grade seperated Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan.
This can rumble on for as long as people want however either option provides suffering. It's either temporary or permanent.0 -
Being an adult involves making difficult choices between options none of which are ideal. This is the unfortunate case here and the NTA have two options.
1. Continue the Green Line as is with no interruptions to service however face the consequence of patrons being unable to board due to full trams at stops along the Green Line post 2027 (I actually believe this will be sooner).
2. Close the Green Line to an undetermined extent for an as of yet undetermined amount of time in order to provide significant capacity increases and extensively widen the amount of journey options available to users.
There will be pain while the line is closed. The Red Line was closed for a period to facilitate the Cross City a few years back. It's quite unfortunate there will be a closure, however it's for the greater good.
The ideal solution here would be to go back in time to the 90s and drill it into the politicians of the time that a tram is not sufficient for the future along the old Harcourt Street alignment. At least the engineers had the foresight to construct the tracks to facilitate future Metro running. If only they had gone one extra step and grade seperated Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan.
This can rumble on for as long as people want however either option provides suffering. It's either temporary or permanent.
Option 3. Build a sw line, reducing the load on the existing green line and the surrounding roads to help reduce inconvenience if the green line is upgraded.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14066
Advertisement