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

This entire thing is a clusterf**k. The closure periods seem insane to me. On similar projects in other countries , are they of a similar time frame ?

Can the tbm be effective “turned back on” years after it might not have been used ? Would running it to Charlemont as planned and then veering off to rathmines and terminating there make sense ? Tunnel length would be pretty much the same as planned now and would allow for extension to sw in future...and give rathmines a metro stop!

cgcsb wrote: »

The timelines are fudged. The work isn't like luas cross city, maintaining access and moving in small sections. If the line is closed work can be carried out in a completely isolated space, it's a simple, dig and lay tracks kind of a thing, 4 years is complete fudge, the dig-track lay can coincide with platform extension and raising. With complete closure of the line, a year would be pretty generous.

Did you read the report? The 4 year figure is a direct result of the work of the likes of Rethink Metrolink to keep Dunville Avenue open to cars.

The demands that this happen meant that an alternative route was drawn up that would involve far more work than just platform upgrades and track relaying at the tie-in spot. The bulk of time for the closure would have been taken up by excavating for the Beechwood cut-and-cover, and then rebuilding Beechwood station.

Now, I do agree that even with all that, 4 years seems like an excessive estimate for closure, but I'd imagine the same locals would have complaints about construction hours, limiting it to a very small window on weekdays. (Ironically Dunville Avenue would have been closed during construction too!).

Ff Councillor says the below. Is it true ? Holding a meeting on Wednesday in the goat pub ...


So options are:

1) Close minor rd in Ranelagh, disrupt Luas for 3mts, have full metro to Sandyford

2) Keep minor rd in Ranelagh open, increase costs to lengthen tunnel, disrupt Luas for 4yrs, have full Metro

3) Keep minor rd in Ranelagh open, increase costs to lengthen tunnel, disrupt Luas for 8mts – 12 mts to lengthen platforms for longer trams, have no Metro

Looks like we’re heading for option 3!!!

DCC should be looking medium term at densifying all the Gregory Deal and similar era duplex and townhouse units it owns in D1/2/4 anyway. They have more pressing housing matters now though

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness to DCC, they seem to be positive about Metrolink, at least judging from what the Deputy Chief Executive said about the tenants being looked after and "re-accommodated".

I've always found DCC to be quite good at being realistic, and I'm pretty sure that TII, NTA, and DCC are hammering out an agreement around the gym as well.

Professional organisations are generally realistic people. Unfortunately, they get met with politicians of protest, NIMBYist groups and people who just want to stifle progress.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Your link is dead Jamie. Here is what I assume you were linking too. Boo hoo , a few duplex in the city centre get knocked. They’ll be given somewhere else free to live. My heart breaks!

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0329/1039403-metrolink/

No mention of the old buildings on Luke st and Townsend st. Presumably they'll get the chop.

IT notes them in an article about early social housing projects circa 1917. Half expecting some form of protest!

With time, I would expect Dunville Avenue to close to cars. As Luas frequency increase, the closing will be closed for extended periods. Initially it will be closed for a couple of hours in the morning and evening commuter peaks. These hours will get extended and it will become a route to be avoided for most of the day (imagine the hassle of cars trying to do U turns because it is closed, or the queue of traffic when it reopens not clearing it before it closes again for the next Luas). A pedestrian bridge will probably have to be put in to appease the locals when the temporary closure is first introduced.

Rather than tunneling directly under the Green Line, if the end section of the tunnel was slightly to the west, it would allow for future extension (be that tying in to the Green Line or another tunnel along another route). The Oakley Court apartments would become the future College Gate, no choice but to demolish them as part of the next phase. If a new route is pursued, tunnel from its southern end to Oakley Court and connect the tunnels and extract the TBM there. If tying in to the Green Line, it becomes the tunnel portal (along with a few houses) and bring the tracks up to ground level and tie in without the need to excavate under the existing Green Line tracks, minimising disruption. These are all future problems, at this stage we just need to make future extension possible by not ending the tunnel directly under the Green Line.

L1011 wrote: »

The capacity isn't there for an extension to anywhere else - as the Green Line passengers will all be piling on regardless.

That may be but residents along the Green Line fought to prevent it from being upgraded now, they will have to fight to have it upgraded in the future. My point was that ending the tunnel under the Green Line prevents any kind of extension without ripping up a chunk of the Green Line for several years which will never be accepted. If the tunnel terminates beside the Green Line and is accessible without closing the Green Line, knocking a few houses and apartments and closing Dunville Avenue will likely become acceptable as the Green Line exceeds capacity.

Idbatterim wrote: »

what about my idea of initially running it to charlemont as currently proposed and then stopping the tbm in rathmines

I'm going to have to stop you right there. We want the project to proceed, bringing another bunch of entitled headbangers into the mix is not going to help.

A stopped tbm can’t just start up and keep going it needs a huge compound to extract spoil and insert Labour and materials. There is no way we will have hundreds of trucks a week leaving rathmines/Ranelagh or anywhere else near there.