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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

12467…123

Comments

  • #152
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    This thread has got a lot less angry since we cut off the southside

    It's indicative of where the project is in the public's mind, I think. The NTA has done an excellent job with removing almost all of the controversial aspects of the project, there's very little that attracts ire. That's why it's just not in the media anymore, even Tara St, which is probably the only controversial aspect left, is not getting much traction at all.


  • #153
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    CatInABox wrote: »
    It's indicative of where the project is in the public's mind, I think. The NTA has done an excellent job with removing almost all of the controversial aspects of the project, there's very little that attracts ire. That's why it's just not in the media anymore, even Tara St, which is probably the only controversial aspect left, is not getting much traction at all.

    And it frees up resources in the NTA previously dealing with objections to much more fruitful tasks which is fantastic given how resource constrained they arw


  • #154
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    The people who find fault with every new project are now putting their energies into fighting Bus Connects. I don't expect Metrolink to be all plain sailing before its built.


  • #155
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    jvan wrote: »
    The people who find fault with every new project are now putting their energies into fighting Bus Connects. I don't expect Metrolink to be all plain sailing before its built.

    At least with BusConnects and MetroLink happening at the same time, people will know just how expensive an underground line is, and less willing to listen to the "just stick it underground" arguments of the BusConnects objectors.

    And anyone against MetroLink arguing for improved bus services will meet the wrath of the CRC dwellers...


  • #156
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Metrolink will be a doddle compared to what’s coming in busconnects. If you thought the people of Ranelagh made a noise bus connects will show us all another level


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    salmocab wrote: »
    Metrolink will be a doddle compared to what’s coming in busconnects. If you thought the people of Ranelagh made a noise bus connects will show us all another level

    Will it though? All the plans have basically been published, and anyone at risk of property acquisition has been informed. The Rathgar thing is a peculiar one, sicne many of the users of that corridor come from Rathfarnham and Knocklyon and the like, pretty strong middle-class areas.


  • #158
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Qrt wrote: »
    Will it though? All the plans have basically been published, and anyone at risk of property acquisition has been informed. The Rathgar thing is a peculiar one, sicne many of the users of that corridor come from Rathfarnham and Knocklyon and the like, pretty strong middle-class areas.

    There will be an unholy sh1tshow once they start taking people’s gardens and parking spaces.


  • #159
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Of all the current project Bus Connects poses the largest amount of disruption day-to-day.

    DART expansion will probably not even make headlines, maybe some feathers ruffled about the quad tracking to Heuston, but again, it's poor people impacted, so no fuss. A couple of level crossings closing in the Blanch area, nobody in the Times even knows where that is. Róisín's petunias in The Nure won't notice DART expansion.

    Metrolink's latest revision may still remain contentious, some road closures in Glasnevin and Ballymun(who cares right?) and then there's the fact that the journos for the Times won't be able to hear themselves write whatever scutter they'll be writing at the time when every single building around their office will be a building site. Una Mullaley will write about the injustice of it all while she 'works'.

    Both projects pale in comparison to BusConnects though, they'll be chaining themselves to their faux victorian railings when the time comes.


  • #160
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Qrt wrote: »
    Will it though? All the plans have basically been published, and anyone at risk of property acquisition has been informed. The Rathgar thing is a peculiar one, sicne many of the users of that corridor come from Rathfarnham and Knocklyon and the like, pretty strong middle-class areas.

    You'd think that would mean all the objections would be in circulation already, but "Rethink Metrolink" only really started making the most noise a fair time after the public consultation had closed.


  • #161
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    salmocab wrote: »
    There will be an unholy sh1tshow once they start taking people’s gardens and parking spaces.

    if they lose the ability to park in their front garden, Id have some sympathy. If not, I couldnt care less for them! Whats it going to stop them doing, sunbathing in their front garden? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    if they lose the ability to park in their front garden, Id have some sympathy. If not, I couldnt care less for them! Whats it going to stop them doing, sunbathing in their front garden? :rolleyes:

    We all saw the crap with Dunville ave it will be much bigger for busconnects. Some with genuine issues such as parking and some just not wanting change.


  • #163
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Metrolink's latest revision may still remain contentious, some road closures in Glasnevin and Ballymun(who cares right?) and then there's the fact that the journos for the Times won't be able to hear themselves write whatever scutter they'll be writing at the time when every single building around their office will be a building site. Una Mullaley will write about the injustice of it all while she 'works'.

    Sure, once the project starts, I'm sure there will be a lot of whining, just like every project in the past has, like remember the whining about Luas Cross City, Port Tunnel, etc.

    But once they get past the planning stage and shovels are in the ground, that whining becomes meaningless. It won't stop the project and I can't think of any major project it Ireland that was halted once started. Hell look at the Children's Hospital.

    And of course once the project is complete, everyone will love it and will forget about the whining.

    It is the current phase that I worry about , it is now that public complaints could kill a project due to politicians getting cold feet or it hitting planning objections, etc.


  • #164
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    agreed with the above, or wait for the first sign of a downturn, theyll be delighted to kick it to the kerb... AGAIN!


  • #165
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    bk wrote: »
    Sure, once the project starts, I'm sure there will be a lot of whining, just like every project in the past has, like remember the whining about Luas Cross City, Port Tunnel, etc.

    But once they get past the planning stage and shovels are in the ground, that whining becomes meaningless. It won't stop the project and I can't think of any major project it Ireland that was halted once started. Hell look at the Children's Hospital.

    And of course once the project is complete, everyone will love it and will forget about the whining.

    It is the current phase that I worry about , it is now that public complaints could kill a project due to politicians getting cold feet or it hitting planning objections, etc.

    Whilst I agree with most of what you say, shovels in the ground didn’t stop the water protests winning out. The only thing that can stop any of this is the one thing we have no shortage of unfortunately and that’s political cowardice.


  • #166
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    salmocab wrote: »
    Whilst I agree with most of what you say, shovels in the ground didn’t stop the water protests winning out. The only thing that can stop any of this is the one thing we have no shortage of unfortunately and that’s political cowardice.

    Well the water charges were something very different. While there was some infrastructure involved, it was more the charging aspect that the protests killed. In fact those water meters that were installed are still being used to identify water leaks and Irish Water as an entity who run our water supply and maintain the infrastructure and continue to expand it is still in operation.

    It is just how we pay for it that has changed.


  • #167
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    bk wrote: »
    Well the water charges were something very different. While there was some infrastructure involved, it was more the charging aspect that the protests killed. In fact those water meters that were installed are still being used to identify water leaks and Irish Water as an entity who run our water supply and maintain the infrastructure and continue to expand it is still in operation.

    It is just how we pay for it that has changed.
    Yeah I get that but that was a done deal, contracts signed meters going in and still protests shot it down. Nothing in this country is done until it’s done. I really don’t think we have a government that will push back once the local TDs start to kick off. We’ll end up with another camel of a project like we got with the original luas lines and are getting with the metro.


  • #168
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    salmocab wrote: »
    Whilst I agree with most of what you say, shovels in the ground didn’t stop the water protests winning out. The only thing that can stop any of this is the one thing we have no shortage of unfortunately and that’s political cowardice.

    Not really comparable. The water meters were and are a recoverable cost for any future retry of the Irish Water fiasco, whereas once Metrolink starts, the sunk costs would be huge and not recoverable.


  • #169
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    salmocab wrote: »
    Well yeah but we were more talking bus connects which isn’t one continuous job, it will be a series of smaller works in front of peoples houses. Anyway it’s OT here but I see it being a huge political issue.

    BusConnects is a different story maybe, but you were actually talking about Metrolink in the last few posts ;)


  • #170
    LongboardPro
    Registered Users Posts: 74 ✭✭LongboardPro


    Sam's gonna be angry when he sees this thread.


  • #171
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    MJohnston wrote: »
    BusConnects is a different story maybe, but you were actually talking about Metrolink in the last few posts ;)

    No I wasn’t talking about metrolink, not sure what your wink is supppsed to convey.

    Apologies MJohnston I see now


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    salmocab wrote: »
    No I wasn’t talking about metrolink, not sure what your wink is supppsed to convey.

    Mod: This thread is about Metrolink - Swords to Charlemont. I think that is the point being made, but obviously too subtle. So to be clear, Busconnects has its own thread.

    Busconnects posts moved.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057859339&page=83


  • #173
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/o-connell-street-and-moore-street-set-for-renewal-1.3879120

    Thought this was interesting, are Hammerson planning to build the metro station first a lá the Matter station box?


  • #174
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    Related to the proposed Northwood Stop - https://www.herald.ie/news/builder-plans-new-homes-beside-metro-thats-due-in-2027-38074297.html
    Bartra Capital Property is promoting the development - at Northwood in Santry - as a Metro North stop.

    The proposal has been delayed due to ongoing reviews of the Metro route, but Bartra has told the Herald it intends to proceed.

    It hopes to get permission for a mixed-use development of 100 build-to-rent apartments, 250 beds in a "shared living" environment and 100 social houses.

    The 4.5-acre site is located 200m south of the M50 and is zoned for development as part of the Metro economic corridor.

    The company said its "general approach" is for high-density, high-rise scheme "appropriate for a location adjacent to a Metro station".

    Around 100 social houses will be leased to the local authority.

    Bartra expects to commence design work shortly and hopes to make a Strategic Housing Development fast track planning application to An Bord Pleanala within six months.

    There was planning permission given recently for developments in Northwood itself. I would not be surprised to see new applications on these sites increasing the number of floors (since the new government guidelines came out)


  • #175
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Spotted this in an article about related to a "stampede by developers to build apartments", there's a development group that have applied for planning permission for 108 social housing units, 350 student accommodation units, 150 Communal Living units near to the Northwood Station on the Metrolink line.

    Can't see this going ahead without Metrolink going ahead, but this is the kind of development that I'd expect to see crop up all along the line. See here.


  • #176
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Varadkar comments on the National Broadband Plan today
    "To me, if we could find €8 billion to link all the cities by motorway, if we can find €4bn or €5bn to build a metro in Dublin, surely we can find around €3bn for broadband," he said.

    Surprising figures he's giving for the Metro there.


  • #177
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    He has to keep claiming that there's a possibility of national finer broadband coverage for the rural vote. I'm just amazed that rural people buy it. Can they not Google how other countries....Oh never mind.

    Anyway when they have to break the news that there's no such thing that's €3bn that can go on better schools hospitals and public transport


  • #178
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Spotted this in an article about related to a "stampede by developers to build apartments", there's a development group that have applied for planning permission for 108 social housing units, 350 student accommodation units, 150 Communal Living units near to the Northwood Station on the Metrolink line.

    Can't see this going ahead without Metrolink going ahead, but this is the kind of development that I'd expect to see crop up all along the line. See here.


    Just a slight tangent if I may be so bold; why so many apartments now? Are the Government (belatedly) encouraging then over houses? Has their been policy changes?


  • #179
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Just a slight tangent if I may be so bold; why so many apartments now? Are the Government (belatedly) encouraging then over houses? Has their been policy changes?

    Developers will build what they deem most profitable at that point in the cycle. Many of these sites would have been developed with low density housing a few years ago and would have gotten planning no problem. There is no Regards to sustainability or good planning here !


  • #180
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Just a slight tangent if I may be so bold; why so many apartments now? Are the Government (belatedly) encouraging then over houses? Has their been policy changes?

    There's the Strategic Housing Development scheme where developments with 100+ houses or 200+ student beds can skip straight to ABP, bypassing local authority approval.

    What's really kicked things off in the last year though is the rise of REITs (commonly called cuckoo funds) which buy up apartment developments en masse to rent them out.

    So basically, the difference is there's more money in it now.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    MJohnston wrote: »
    There's the Strategic Housing Development scheme where developments with 100+ houses or 200+ student beds can skip straight to ABP, bypassing local authority approval.

    What's really kicked things off in the last year though is the rise of REITs (commonly called cuckoo funds) which buy up apartment developments en masse to rent them out.

    So basically, the difference is there's more money in it now.

    Additionally there’s mixed opinions on REITs. Although they’re building many needed apartment schemes, many are worried they’ll become too powerful and influence the market price wise. And since so many apartments will be rental only, it prolongs the idea of apartments being only temporary and that you’ll buy a “proper house” one day. Lots of transience too.

    Personally, I don’t mind them once they’re able to be sold individually at some point in the future as regards their method of construction. Many will be build along transport corridors so they’ll be decent places to live mostly. I don’t like the idea of them buying developments that are due to be build as single units like Fernbank in Churchtown was but sure look, I’m an only child, I’m (a bit depressingly) reminded so any time housing comes up.


  • #182
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Many of these sites would have been developed with low density housing a few years ago and would have gotten planning no problem. There is no Regards to sustainability or good planning here !
    MJohnston wrote: »
    There's the Strategic Housing Development scheme where developments with 100+ houses or 200+ student beds can skip straight to ABP, bypassing local authority approval.

    What's really kicked things off in the last year though is the rise of REITs (commonly called cuckoo funds) which buy up apartment developments en masse to rent them out.

    So basically, the difference is there's more money in it now.
    Qrt wrote: »
    Additionally there’s mixed opinions on REITs. Although they’re building many needed apartment schemes, many are worried they’ll become too powerful and influence the market price wise. And since so many apartments will be rental only, it prolongs the idea of apartments being only temporary and that you’ll buy a “proper house” one day. Lots of transience too.


    Eoghan Murphy has also stripped back some of the over regulations for apartments too - like dual aspect - that I think were stifling developments.

    I actually agree with the Strategic Housing Schemes and even think that they could go further and allow for even greater densities and even tax breaks for locations near metro and train stations.


  • #183
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Tax breaks???

    Definitely not.


  • #184
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Eoghan Murphy has also stripped back some of the over regulations for apartments too - like dual aspect - that I think were stifling developments.

    I actually agree with the Strategic Housing Schemes and even think that they could go further and allow for even greater densities and even tax breaks for locations near metro and train stations.

    They certainly don't need any more tax breaks.


  • #185
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    I don't mean extra tax incentives to big, institutional investor but rather developers on the ground actually building the apartments. Less VAT/levies to make they more viable with conditions that they're near public transport and maybe a portion has to be sold to individuals. Just a way to ensure that there would be significant density along the line(s). Anyway just an idea.


  • #186
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    I don't mean extra tax incentives to big, institutional investor but rather developers on the ground actually building the apartments. Less VAT/levies to make they more viable with conditions that they're near public transport and maybe a portion has to be sold to individuals. Just a way to ensure that there would be significant density along the line(s). Anyway just an idea.

    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    bk wrote: »
    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.

    We should probably have minimum density requirements near major public transport routes.


  • #188
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    bk wrote: »
    The developers on the ground are financed by institutional investors.

    When you start talking about big tall apartment buildings with lots of density (as you should near stations/stops) then you typically need international expertise and funding. So big developers, with lots of experience and lots of international funding.

    What you are suggesting is the opposite of what has happened in the past. Normally developers have had to pay towards the cost of Luas extensions and trams when they build near stations. You don't need to give them free money on top of that.

    Usually relaxed planning permission like SDZ's which allow and even require much taller buildings and more density are attractive enough on their own to attract developers.

    Building an estate of semis, the builder builds a few dozen, sells them and that funds the next few dozen, and so on until the development is finished. With apartments, the whole block must be finished before even one can be sold.

    Deferring some of the local authority fees might help, but not really. It needs very deep pockets, or else there might be bankruptcies.


  • #189
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Apartment blocks have in the past, don’t know if it still happens now, have been sold off the plans.

    And totally sold out within hours.


  • #190
    tobsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭tobsey


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Apartment blocks have in the past, don’t know if it still happens now, have been sold off the plans.

    And totally sold out within hours.

    Sold but not paid for.


  • #191
    specialbyte
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭specialbyte


    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    handlemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Will any of this ever be builth ?


  • #193
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    specialbyte wrote: »
    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction

    I've mentioned a similar bridge here a bunch in relation to the Cabra Luas and access to Glasnevin. Imo it was a no-brainer addition without this temporary greenway closure, and it's an absolute must now.


  • #194
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    specialbyte wrote: »
    Seems like there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up around the Glasnevin station and how it might potentially close a section of the Royal Canal Greenway for a number of years. https://www.thejournal.ie/metrolink-glasnevin-statoin-cycling-greenway-4626638-May2019/

    The level of engineering works at the Glasnevin station is huge so it's not surprising that the construction site might need to include the current towpath, which is also the Royal Canal Greenway on the north bank.

    I went digging and found that Dublin Cycling Campaign are looking for a temporary route along the south bank if NTA/TII need to close the north bank during construction. A new bridge over the canal near Mount Bernard Park and then again over the rail line would also allow people in Glasnevin better access to the canal and Cabra Luas stop. https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/metrolink-close-royal-canal-greenway-6-years-construction

    I've looked into this a bit more, and I don't think that it's going to be closed for any significant length of time. As far as I can surmise, the NTA/TII are planning on keeping the Docklands line open during construction of the station, so what I can see happening is the greenway being closed during the demolition of the Des Kelly building, along with some works to shore up the sides of the Docklands line, then the greenway would reopen while the station is constructed. It may close again during the construction of the above ground station, but I can't imagine the two closures would take years, more along the lines of months.

    Now, there's definitely a case to be made for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge along the greenway anyway, which I'd like to see that regardless of how long the Metrolink closure is.


  • #195
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    The lobbying that went on over Metrolink is starting to come out now, no real surprises, it's just depressing how Irish politics is set up so that national politicians must respond to local concerns, rather than national concerns. Just to note though, I think our system is pretty good in comparison to most others.

    See here.


  • #196
    Alvin Holler
    Registered Users Posts: 383 ✭✭Alvin Holler


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I've looked into this a bit more, and I don't think that it's going to be closed for any significant length of time. As far as I can surmise, the NTA/TII are planning on keeping the Docklands line open during construction of the station, so what I can see happening is the greenway being closed during the demolition of the Des Kelly building, along with some works to shore up the sides of the Docklands line, then the greenway would reopen while the station is constructed. It may close again during the construction of the above ground station, but I can't imagine the two closures would take years, more along the lines of months.

    Now, there's definitely a case to be made for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge along the greenway anyway, which I'd like to see that regardless of how long the Metrolink closure is.

    I would agree with this. Huge exaggeration in terms of impact by the cycling group to get more submissions in.

    In any case it's not just a greenway, there are 4 houses half a mile up that road. I doubt any works would be allowed to close access to those houses for any significant period of time.


  • #197
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    ggff wrote: »
    What happened to the Beilinstown and Lissenhall stops north of the current Estuary stop? Belinstown was supposed to be the northern terminus and the depot as well as a Park and Ride.

    Also, what is the story with the DCU and Griffith Avenue stops? They aren't included on the current Metrolink plans as with the Parnell Street and O'Connell Bridge stops.

    These were all included in the Metro North plans as well as a southern terminus at St. Stephen's Green.

    Why is the current southern terminus not at St. Stephen's Green instead of Charlemont? St. Stephen's Green would be a more central terminus and would link up with the Luas Green Line just as well as a link at Charlemont, and it would save extended construction costs.



    Apart from the Glasnevin interchange, why wasn't the old FF plan just followed?

    On that topic, what happened to Metro West?

    The whole thing was reinvented. Ya know, like reinventing a wheel so to speak.

    MN got the boot due to cost. Stations too big and grandiose etc. Metrolink came about as an alternative, but included an extension to Sandyford at a higher cost and with some deviations to take in previous ideas suggested to FG when they were in opposition, but that was cool because we got more bang for our buck apparently. This new Metro would run to Sandyford. Now it doesn't and won't. It doesn't offer any idea of connectivity to any further proposed DU as it runs under a different part of SSG and DU is apparently back on the drawing board going nowhere anytime soon. If ever.

    Glasnevin is a good idea and always was. It really should have been part of the original MN plan. However, we are in the era of a complete downgrade of what was previously planned. Therefore MW is a concept that while not perfect, will be whistling dixie until it dies. Actually, its dead already.

    The current plan is literally a FG idea based on quick fix budget like solutions that were suggested to them 16 years ago when they were in opposition. Unfortunately they have dragged the entire Metro concept into it, while ditching DU and making an absolute mess of it all.


  • #198
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    The whole thing was reinvented. Ya know, like reinventing a wheel so to speak.

    MN got the boot due to cost. Stations too big and grandiose etc. Metrolink came about as an alternative, but included an extension to Sandyford at a higher cost and with some deviations to take in previous ideas suggested to FG when they were in opposition, but that was cool because we got more bang for our buck apparently. This new Metro would run to Sandyford. Now it doesn't and won't. It doesn't offer any idea of connectivity to any further proposed DU as it runs under a different part of SSG and DU is apparently back on the drawing board going nowhere anytime soon. If ever.

    Glasnevin is a good idea and always was. It really should have been part of the original MN plan. However, we are in the era of a complete downgrade of what was previously planned. Therefore MW is a concept that while not perfect, will be whistling dixie until it dies. Actually, its dead already.

    The current plan is literally a FG idea based on quick fix budget like solutions that were suggested to them 16 years ago when they were in opposition. Unfortunately they have dragged the entire Metro concept into it, while ditching DU and making an absolute mess of it all.

    Metro North had a major flaw though, in that it required another multibillion euro project in order to connect with the dart line in the city centre. It needed Dart Underground to properly work, while Metrolink will interchange with two lines at Glasnevin, and at Tara St.

    Not defending the decisions that got us here or anything, but even shorn of the south side section, Metrolink is definitely a better project.


  • #199
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Metro North had a major flaw though, in that it required another multibillion euro project in order to connect with the dart line in the city centre. It needed Dart Underground to properly work, while Metrolink will interchange with two lines at Glasnevin, and at Tara St.

    Not defending the decisions that got us here or anything, but even shorn of the south side section, Metrolink is definitely a better project.
    Unfortunately if DU is ever built and is not or cannot be modified to interconnect with Metrolink near St. Stephen's Green then Metrolink will interchange with the same DART line (Maynooth-Bray) twice and not at all with the other one (Balbriggan-Hazelhatch). That would be a tremendous pity. It's a real shame we can't just build the proper solutions for the greater good and accept that some small number of people will indeed be disadvantaged by those solutions.


  • #200
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    murphaph wrote: »
    Unfortunately if DU is ever built and is not or cannot be modified to interconnect with Metrolink near St. Stephen's Green then Metrolink will interchange with the same DART line (Maynooth-Bray) twice and not at all with the other one (Balbriggan-Hazelhatch). That would be a tremendous pity. It's a real shame we can't just build the proper solutions for the greater good and accept that some small number of people will indeed be disadvantaged by those solutions.
    If it is ever built, surely there would have to be a stop somewhere around Stephen's Green? I can't remember whether the current DU/MN plan had the DU below or above MN? You'd hope that they'd bury a station-box for DU while building the ML station in Stephen's Green but with the penny pinching involved in getting a truncated ML accepted, it's probably unlikely.

    It's clear that long term strategic planning for public transport is effectively incompatible with the Irish political system. The NTA should just be given a budget of x billion a year for PT in Dublin and then allow the engineers to prioritize and make long term plans without political interference but this will never happen as every transport minister seems to want to start from scratch.

    Drifting off topic now, but I think we may as well forget about seeing a DU for a decade or two at least. Best we can hope for is the DART expansion plan along with building a proper Docklands heavy rail station.


  • #201
    Heartbreak Hank
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Heartbreak Hank


    Engineering aside (!!!) would Tara not be the best place for a DU interchange with the Bray - Maynooth Dart, Metrolink and Hazelhatch - Balbriggan all in the one parcel.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement