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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Dublin - Metro South (only Luas Green Line upgrade)

  • 11-04-2019 6:30pm
    #1
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,341 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Old thread here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055849587

    This thread is for discussion of the future plan to connect the Luas Green Line to the Metrolink scheme - Metro South.

    Discussion of Metrolink in the other thread, use this for:

    * Discussion of the plan to connect the Metrolink south of Charlemont
    * Discussion of potential future extensions south of Sandyford
    * Discussion of the upgrades required for the Green Line to operate as Metro

    Until there is a clear statement from the NTA confirming a Metro south of Charlemont that does not include the existing Green Line (UCD/Rathfarnham etc), that is considered off topic here


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The current plan is to tunnel directly under the GL to a point South of Ranelagh. Now I assume this is to minimise any disruption to local properties.

    The problem with this is that should they decide to actually connect the two, it would cause significantly disupt the GL as they dig out the tunnel and cut and cover the tunnel portal.

    I would think it better to take the tunnel west of the existing route from SSG and either put no stops before it emerges, or put one near Ranelagh or Portabello and break ground just west of Beechwod on the triangle of land that looks likeit was made for it.

    Probably lots of reason not to do that, but there you go.


  • #3
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭Consonata


    I still find it insane that we are wasting potentially 100s of millions of Euro on the basis that one street in South Dublin where the average house price is circa 1.2 million may have to drive a slightly longer route to get to work.


  • #4
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Consonata wrote: »
    I still find it insane that we are wasting potentially 100s of millions of Euro on the basis that one street in South Dublin where the average house price is circa 1.2 million may have to drive a slightly longer route to get to work.

    There is a bit more than that though.

    There is a large sewer running under the canal which causes the tunnel to be too deep to rise up for the original connection plan. They only found this out through the public consultations - lucky.

    They are also trying to minimise the CPO activity.

    I think it is kicking the can down the road. (mixing my metaphores).


  • #5
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    There is a bit more than that though.

    There is a large sewer running under the canal which causes the tunnel to be too deep to rise up for the original connection plan. They only found this out through the public consultations - lucky.

    They are also trying to minimise the CPO activity.

    I think it is kicking the can down the road. (mixing my metaphores).

    I think the dunville thing is overstated. If the tie in was as intended originally then I think they’d have ploughed on with it. The tie in was going to be awkward so they fudged it as you say kicked the can down the road instead of coming up with a new plan.


  • #6
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    salmocab wrote: »
    I think the dunville thing is overstated. If the tie in was as intended originally then I think they’d have ploughed on with it. The tie in was going to be awkward so they fudged it as you say kicked the can down the road instead of coming up with a new plan.

    Well, they put the revisit to this part of the project into the 2040 time frame.

    However, it will be near a decade before TBM will be south of the canal, so they have a good few years to change their mind again.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Without consulting google maps the next point I can think of that they could surface and do a neat tie in without knocking a pile of houses would be Alexandra college but I couldn’t see that being a runner. I doubt in the future there will be the will to make a tie in that shuts the line down for any significant time especially as it will be busier by then.


  • #8
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    There is a bit more than that though.

    There is a large sewer running under the canal which causes the tunnel to be too deep to rise up for the original connection plan. They only found this out through the public consultations - lucky.

    They are also trying to minimise the CPO activity.

    I think it is kicking the can down the road. (mixing my metaphores).

    Once completed, they're going to be left with the choice of a significant disruption to the Green Line, or a significant CPO along either side of the Luas line south of Ranelagh.

    As powerful as the residents of Ranelagh are, they're not that powerful to ignore all common sense.


  • #9
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    I don't suppose they say anywhere if they are going to build the overpass at Stillorgan anyway, or is that postponed until 2040+


  • #10
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    I don't suppose they say anywhere if they are going to build the overpass at Stillorgan anyway, or is that postponed until 2040+
    It'll be needed to bring the green line to 30 tph, so I suspect we'll see it in a couple of years.


  • #11
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    jd wrote: »
    It'll be needed to bring the green line to 30 tph, so I suspect we'll see it in a couple of years.

    Yes, it's just a separate project now.
    Achieving a frequency of 30 trams per hour while maintaining operational reliability and efficiency would require, at a minimum, additional tram turn back facilities at St. Stephen’s Green and Charlemont, adjustment of signal priority at Dunville Avenue / Beechwood Road and grade separation of the Luas crossing at St Raphaela’s Road. An increase to 30 trams per hour on the Green Line in the morning peak would provide a capacity of 11,016 ppdph.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    "Adjustment of signal priority" is a good one. It's a dangerous street for cyclists and pedestrians that needs to be turned into a Quietway.


  • #13
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The current plan is to tunnel directly under the GL to a point South of Ranelagh. Now I assume this is to minimise any disruption to local properties.

    The problem with this is that should they decide to actually connect the two, it would cause significantly disupt the GL as they dig out the tunnel and cut and cover the tunnel portal.

    I would think it better to take the tunnel west of the existing route from SSG
    This is the most sensible thing to do, even if it is only 15m west. It doesn't make sense that tunnelling under the GL is to avoid disruption to houses, they will be tunnelling under many houses, Trinity College, the Dail, National Gallery, etc. without issues. There is no way Metrolink will be extended (either by linking with GL or tunnelling SW) if the initial tunnel is terminated directly under the GL.


  • #14
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    I don't suppose they say anywhere if they are going to build the overpass at Stillorgan anyway, or is that postponed until 2040+
    Can it be done without closing the Green Line for a significant amount of time?


  • #15
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Can it be done without closing the Green Line for a significant amount of time?

    Yes


  • #16
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yes
    Well it would have to be built off line which would mean losing many of the Stillorgan P&R spaces and possibly closing the Stillorgan stop too.


  • #17
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Well it would have to be built off line which would mean losing many of the Stillorgan P&R spaces and possibly closing the Stillorgan stop too.

    I believe their plan for this was in one of the Green Line reports, but I haven't really got time to go digging atm.

    Basic gist was that it would be built completely offline, with a small bit of disruption to connect the newly built section to the old. Basically about the same amount of disruption as there was to lay the cross-tracks on the Red Line at Abbey Street for the Cross City extension, which I think was done in like a weekend or something.


  • #18
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I believe their plan for this was in one of the Green Line reports, but I haven't really got time to go digging atm.

    Basic gist was that it would be built completely offline, with a small bit of disruption to connect the newly built section to the old. Basically about the same amount of disruption as there was to lay the cross-tracks on the Red Line at Abbey Street for the Cross City extension, which I think was done in like a weekend or something.

    They're good, but not that good. The red line disruption was scheduled to last around three months, but they managed it in six weeks. I'd say the St Raphaela's Rd closure would be even less than that, as the situation out there is far less complicated.


  • #19
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The plan for St Raephaella's Rd was to build a diversion through the car park (P&R) while they built the bridge and station. I cannot recall the duration for the work.

    There is no reason why that cannot be done now as part of a separate project.

    They have an archive of the old plan.


  • #20
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,233 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Honestly they should just get the F@@k in with it and to hell with Michael McDowell and the raneleagh crew.


  • #21
    Qrt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭Qrt


    CatInABox wrote: »
    They're good, but not that good. The red line disruption was scheduled to last around three months, but they managed it in six weeks. I'd say the St Raphaela's Rd closure would be even less than that, as the situation out there is far less complicated.

    It was a fair few weeks, I remember the ugly yellow turnback they installed on Middle Abbey Street. They did it over the summer too.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    The constructability report for the Green Line is now online
    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/ConstructabilityReportGreenLineClosure.pdf


  • #23
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Hopefully we can do this to Dunville Avenue some weekend:

    https://twitter.com/westmeathcoco/status/1121332700856639488


  • #24
    froinky
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭froinky


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Hopefully we can do this to Dunville Avenue some weekend:

    https://twitter.com/westmeathcoco/status/1121332700856639488

    er...no thanks. What would that achieve?

    Dunville avenue underpass/overpass is no longer the issue. Engineering a tie in at Charlemount is now not possible - so it will have to be done in line or not at all -meaning a lengthy disruption between ranelagh and cowper. Personally I'd happy with a 2.5 year disruption but thanks to Shane Ross we were not given that choice.


  • #25
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    froinky wrote: »
    er...no thanks. What would that achieve?

    Dunville avenue underpass/overpass is no longer the issue. Engineering a tie in at Charlemount is now not possible - so it will have to be done in line or not at all -meaning a lengthy disruption between ranelagh and cowper. Personally I'd happy with a 2.5 year disruption but thanks to Shane Ross we were not given that choice.

    Dunville Avenue will need to be pretty much closed to accommodate Luas frequency increases, I'm just suggesting it be made into a proper Quietway with a good underpass.


  • #26
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Dunville Avenue will need to be pretty much closed to accommodate Luas frequency increases, I'm just suggesting it be made into a proper Quietway with a good underpass.

    Dunville Ave will get its Luas as is, rather than a Metrolink with direct fast connection to the Airport, DCU, Tara St, Cross Guns, etc. Extra Luas frequency might be worse than the proposed Metrolink, but so be it.

    Sometimes we get what we ask for, not want we thought we asked for - well that is life.


  • #27
    froinky
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭froinky


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Dunville Avenue will need to be pretty much closed to accommodate Luas frequency increases, I'm just suggesting it be made into a proper Quietway with a good underpass.

    i heard this argument a lot - but it seems like slightly vindictive schadenfreude. I dont see it happening. Its simplistic to say that dunville will be 'as good' as closed.

    the luas needs to stop at the junction anyway as the station is right there. that means that cars and people are free to pass through the junction while passengers are alighting. While the tram will probably stop for longer, I cannot see them creating a situation where an underpass would be needed or the road will be as good as closed...


  • #28
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    froinky wrote: »
    i heard this argument a lot - but it seems like slightly vindictive schadenfreude. I dont see it happening. Its simplistic to say that dunville will be 'as good' as closed.

    the luas needs to stop at the junction anyway as the station is right there. that means that cars and people are free to pass through the junction while passengers are alighting. While the tram will probably stop for longer, I cannot see them creating a situation where an underpass would be needed or the road will be as good as closed...

    It won’t be as good as closed but if they are 30 trams per direction per hour that’s a tram every 60 seconds. Danville is also only one direction at a time which in itself halves the capacity. It will restrict the flow during peak time and may cause back up onto the local one way streets which are narrow with tight parking.


  • #29
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    salmocab wrote: »
    It won’t be as good as closed but if they are 30 trams per direction per hour that’s a tram every 60 seconds. Danville is also only one direction at a time which in itself halves the capacity. It will restrict the flow during peak time and may cause back up onto the local one way streets which are narrow with tight parking.

    To me that's "as good as closed", based on the closure timings per tram *shrugs*


  • #30
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    froinky wrote: »
    er...no thanks. What would that achieve?

    Dunville avenue underpass/overpass is no longer the issue. Engineering a tie in at Charlemount is now not possible - so it will have to be done in line or not at all -meaning a lengthy disruption between ranelagh and cowper. Personally I'd happy with a 2.5 year disruption but thanks to Shane Ross we were not given that choice.


    There were other options further south that were not inline (in the original alignment study)
    It's a shame is no discussion of them in the latest reports.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    froinky wrote: »
    i heard this argument a lot - but it seems like slightly vindictive schadenfreude. I dont see it happening. Its simplistic to say that dunville will be 'as good' as closed.

    the luas needs to stop at the junction anyway as the station is right there. that means that cars and people are free to pass through the junction while passengers are alighting. While the tram will probably stop for longer, I cannot see them creating a situation where an underpass would be needed or the road will be as good as closed...

    This is simply denying the reality of the proposed frequency


Advertisement