Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Zebra3 · 02-04-2019 3:45pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd go further: the Eastern Bypass should never be built. Its construction would be a signal of a complete failure of public transport investment, and an abandonment of sustainable commuting.

Yep, last thing we need is people thinking more roads are the answers to Dublin’s transport problems.

Idbatterim · 02-04-2019 4:47pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, last thing we need is people thinking more roads are the answers to Dublin’s transport problems.

It would complete the m50 circle and buses could utilize it. If the alternative is building m50 Mach 2, at ten times the length. The eastern bypass is far superior.

marno21 · 02-04-2019 5:01pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

It would complete the m50 circle and buses could utilize it. If the alternative is building m50 Mach 2, at ten times the length. The eastern bypass is far superior.

There is already a bus corridor along the N11 which is more effective than building an urban motorway to house one. Plus the N11 bus corridor serves destinations along the N11

If it's buses south of Bray you are thinking of, twin tracking the Bray Head tunnels would be a more meritorious investment

Brian CivilEng · 04-04-2019 2:02pm

Not sure whether to pose this question here or in the other Metrolink thread, but here goes.

From my understanding, the main issue that lead to the cancellation of the green line upgrade was the tie-in requiring closure for a number of years. The closure of Dunville Ave made the most noise, but it was the tie in that killed the plan.

Is there anything stopping the Green Line from being progressively upgraded to improve capacity, e.g. other level crossings removed, platforms lengthened etc? But instead of a tie in, construct a proper interchange station allowing passengers switch to the Metro line. So the green line and metro are two separate lines that have an interchange station, like Tara St./Mobhi Rd with the DART. Metro South whenever it happens and wherever it goes could then be directly tied in to the Metrolink line, in a place where the tie in leads to less disruption.

tldr Split the metro and green line upgrade into separate projects, but allow seamless interchange. Get things built in phases, progressively build a network.

MJohnston · 04-04-2019 2:25pm

Yes, they could do phased closures of the existing level crossings, but it's worth noting that none of them would have resulted in any significant amount of Green Line closure time. St Raphaela's Road maybe, but they had a plan in place there to do that fairly seamlessly. These crossings will need to be closed in order to accommodate Luas frequency increases anyway. Dunville Avenue, well, I think we just have to wait for politicians to grow some mental fortitude, let's say.

Platforms could be lengthened, but if Metro is a high-floor option, then they'll also need to be raised, which can't really be done any time prior to switchover.

I've had thoughts about whether you could do something like what you suggest - have Metro North running Swords to Charlemont (at an underground station), and then run a separate Metro South from Charlemont (overground, at the existing Luas station) to Sandyford on the Green Line. No tie-in required. But you'd need to build turnarounds for Metro South, and it'd probably be unnecessarily wasteful in terms of train units. The main issue with it is that it still requires that you close Dunville Avenue, which is undoubtedly a big reason why the NTA didn't bother with it as an idea.

Brian CivilEng · 04-04-2019 3:14pm

I haven't fully thought it through so excuse the crayoning for a minute. This post is basically me working through a half formed idea in my head. I've given no thought to lands available, this is all top of the head stuff.

The existing Green Line capacity is curtailed by numerous pinch points, but because of the city centre section it will never be possible to upgrade it all it to Metro standard. But by virtue of the previous heavy rail alignment it runs on, the section from Sandyford to Charlemont has the potential for much higher capacity running. So one of our aims should be to exploit this potential.

To upgrade the green line to metro standard (even without a tie in) would require significant closure, due to the requirement for high level platforms and platform screens. So you couldn't just progressively close it station by station, as once upgraded Luas trams could not serve the station (not sure of the loading gauge of metro carriages, but the high level platform stops it in any case). So another one of our aims should be to have a system that allows progressive upgrades.

How about a new Luas line that forks out from the Green Line at Charlemont. So shared track from Sandyford then half of the trams continue on the existing the alignment, and the other half swing off on the new alignment (say following the canal to the docks). Sweats the former heavy rail alignment, and allows progressive capacity upgrades by removing pinch points.

Metro runs Swords to Charlemont with potential for a Ryanline extension to the South West, Luas Green Line keeps it's current Broombridge to Brides Glen alignment, and Luas Crayon Line runs Sandyford to Grand Canal Dock. At Charlemont a new interchange station is constructed.

salmocab · 04-04-2019 5:33pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

I haven't fully thought it through so excuse the crayoning for a minute. This post is basically me working through a half formed idea in my head. I've given no thought to lands available, this is all top of the head stuff.

The existing Green Line capacity is curtailed by numerous pinch points, but because of the city centre section it will never be possible to upgrade it all it to Metro standard. But by virtue of the previous heavy rail alignment it runs on, the section from Sandyford to Charlemont has the potential for much higher capacity running. So one of our aims should be to exploit this potential.

To upgrade the green line to metro standard (even without a tie in) would require significant closure, due to the requirement for high level platforms and platform screens. So you couldn't just progressively close it station by station, as once upgraded Luas trams could not serve the station (not sure of the loading gauge of metro carriages, but the high level platform stops it in any case). So another one of our aims should be to have a system that allows progressive upgrades.

How about a new Luas line that forks out from the Green Line at Charlemont. So shared track from Sandyford then half of the trams continue on the existing the alignment, and the other half swing off on the new alignment (say following the canal to the docks). Sweats the former heavy rail alignment, and allows progressive capacity upgrades by removing pinch points.

Metro runs Swords to Charlemont with potential for a Ryanline extension to the South West, Luas Green Line keeps it's current Broombridge to Brides Glen alignment, and Luas Crayon Line runs Sandyford to Grand Canal Dock. At Charlemont a new interchange station is constructed.

There is some merit in this, strassenwolf suggested it before in a near enough form but really there can still only be x amount of trams of y length that can be put down the green line anyway. It already has some of the longest trams in the world and we need to future proof capacity as much as possible for 30/40 years in the future.

strassenwo!f · 13-04-2019 1:49pm

I'm still not seeing the point of building the proposed metro to a station as far south as Charlemont, and then having an extra bit heading further south to allow trains to turn around.

It would be good if the metro could be brought to St. Stephen's Green West to a station there, and then have the extra section for turning around running south of that point, perhaps along Harcourt Street or some other way. That old Eircom building, for example, is still there, isn't it, and ripe for redevelopment.

The curves involved in bringing the metro between the proposed station at Tara Street and St. Stephen's Green don't seem to be much different to those involved in bringing it between the proposed O'Connell Street station and Tara Street station - even perhaps less difficult given the distances.

An issue would, of course, be constructing a metro station under a functioning LUAS line, but there are many hundreds (or thousands) of precedents for this kind of work.

One advantage would be that it would achieve the same Metro - Green LUAS connectivity as that which could be achieved at Charlemont, but it would be quite a bit shorter, so it should be cheaper.

Instead of people changing between LUAS and metro at Charlemont, they'd change at St. Stephen's Green. There'd be no noticeable difference in journey times.

CatInABox · 13-04-2019 2:21pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm still not seeing the point of building the proposed metro to a station as far south as Charlemont, and then having an extra bit heading further south to allow trains to turn around.

It would be good if the metro could be brought to St. Stephen's Green West to a station there, and then have the extra section for turning around running south of that point, perhaps along Harcourt Street or some other way. That old Eircom building, for example, is still there, isn't it, and ripe for redevelopment.

The curves involved in bringing the metro between the proposed station at Tara Street and St. Stephen's Green don't seem to be much different to those involved in bringing it between the proposed O'Connell Street station and Tara Street station - even perhaps less difficult given the distances.

An issue would, of course, be constructing a metro station under a functioning LUAS line, but there are many hundreds (or thousands) of precedents for this kind of work.

One advantage would be that it would achieve the same Metro - Green LUAS connectivity as that which could be achieved at Charlemont, but it would be quite a bit shorter, so it should be cheaper.

Instead of people changing between LUAS and metro at Charlemont, they'd change at St. Stephen's Green. There'd be no noticeable difference in journey times.

They can't run 30 trams pdph to St Stephens Green, while they can do so to Charlemont.

It's also likely that they will, at some point, still hook the Green line in the Metro, which must be done at Charlemont or further south, so from that perspective, it makes sense to continue the line to beyond Charlemont.

Sam Russell · 13-04-2019 2:32pm

The reason for taking the tunnel south of SSG is to complete the tunneling using the TBM and any further work will be done by cut-and-cover. There is a need for turn around that can be done by using the extra tunnel, and they can stable trains for an early start.

They must complete the tunnel before any fit out because they are starting from Northwood, and all the spoil has to be conveyed to there for the whole length of the tunnel - only then can they start fit out.

Dats me · 13-04-2019 5:03pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The reason for taking the tunnel south of SSG is to complete the tunneling using the TBM and any further work will be done by cut-and-cover. There is a need for turn around that can be done by using the extra tunnel, and they can stable trains for an early start.

They must complete the tunnel before any fit out because they are starting from Northwood, and all the spoil has to be conveyed to there for the whole length of the tunnel - only then can they start fit out.

I was reading the tunnelling method appendix yesterday and apparently because the single more is larger they actually can start a but of the fit out while tunnelling. I presume some of the infrastructure for the overhead wires maybe?

strassenwo!f · 20-04-2019 7:32pm

CatInABox wrote: »

They can't run 30 trams pdph to St Stephens Green, while they can do so to Charlemont.

Realistically they can't run 30 tph through the busiest parts of the city, though I remain to be convinced that they couldn't run 30 tph to/from St. Stephen's Green using the current siding or some adapted form of it. However, I think overall that a Charlemont - Baggot Street Bridge (and onwards?) spur makes more sense as it would allow the Green Line to directly serve other busy parts of the city.

There aren't, currently, any very obvious insurmountable obstacles to building such a spur. Given that a lot of the peak time demand on the line is currently ending up in (or emanating from) the area around Baggot Street and Mount Street, et. cetera, it could be sensible to provide a more direct service to that area.

CatInABox wrote: »

It's also likely that they will, at some point, still hook the Green line in the Metro, which must be done at Charlemont or further south, so from that perspective, it makes sense to continue the line to beyond Charlemont.

They seem to be pretty clear that 30 tph on the Green line south of the canal will be sufficient until around the 2040s, at the least.

It seems a pity for all the focus on the southside to be on the off-street Green line, such that the tunnel will go to Charlemont (all going well in 2027) and then the whole development of rail on the Southside will seemingly stop for another 20 years or more while the city waits for the Green line to again approach capacity.

It would be much better, in my opinion, to plan for the spur mentioned above, and to plan for the TBM to initially head to the southwest/south-central parts of the city, and to develop that over the next 20 years or so.

We already know that areas like Terenure, Rathfarnham and Firhouse have considerably higher densities than, for example, Dundrum/Sandyford (or anywhere south of that). A line to those areas would almost certainly have to pass through Rathmines and Rathgar, which respectively have very similar densities to Ranelagh and the Beechwood/Cowper/Milltown areas.

We also know that people in areas like Firhouse, Knocklyon and Rathfarnham face very high journey times on their journeys into and out of the city. Journey times as high as 90 minutes have been mentioned on this thread.

And we also know that this corridor is one for which no overground LUAS route has so far been identified

If a Baggot Street LUAS spur were built, over approximately the timeline envisaged for metrolink (or preferably sooner), then the TBM would be free to make inroads into the southwest/central area of the south city, for broadly the same money, say to Rathmines.

Over the next 5 years or so, with new funding, this tunnel could be extended, perhaps to Rathfarnham. (I have this possibly crazy idea that the most cost-effective route, and certainly a spectacular one - would be for it to emerge from the tunnel south of Terenure, go over the Dodder, and then continue onward (overground, underground or a bit of both))

Delivering the metro to Firhouse and Knocklyon would probably require another round of funding in the early- to mid-2030s, all going according to the current metrolink schedule, but the colossal savings in journey times into and out of the city should be being enjoyed by many thousands of people at each stage, as the metro progressively reaches these high density areas.

In relation to a possible metro route to the southwest/central area of the city, as outlined above, the situation of Ballinteer is very interesting. It has a very decent population and population density - considerably higher than Dundrum/Sandyford, for example - without being particularly close to the LUAS Green line or any Swords - Firhouse metro such as described above. If arrival of the metro in Rathfarnham/Firhouse were to encourage residents of Ballinteer to use the metro rather than the LUAS (with appropriate bus services, for example), I think this might have a very positive effect on both.

I still believe that there is no one southside route which can provide a proper counterbalance, in terms of passenger numbers, to what is going to be coming in from the northside if the metrolink happens, given the locations which it will serve on the northside.

There really needs to be two southside routes, and I've often said on this board that a line to Walkinstown Cross would make sense, not because the densities along any route to/from there are currently particularly high but because its location - as a major bus junction - could help to make considerable inroads into journey times into and out of the city. (I currently envisage somewhere around the Bleeding Horse in Camden Street as the place where the 'Rathfarnham' metro and the 'Walkinstown' metro would branch off from each other).

Those potential three projects outlined above (LUAS spur to/from Baggot Street and perhaps beyond, a branch of the metrolink to/from Rathfarnham and beyond, and a second branch of the metro line to/from Walkinstown) would be one option which would deliver something for Dublin. In particular, significantly reduced journey times, for many thousands of people, into and out of the city.

Building the tunnel to Charlemont, and then pretty much waiting around for another couple of decades until the Green line is starting to get overcrowded again, doesn't seem - to me - to be a great use of resources.

salmocab · 20-04-2019 7:44pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Realistically they can't run 30 tph through the busiest parts of the city, though I remain to be convinced that they couldn't run 30 tph to/from St. Stephen's Green using the current siding or some adapted form of it. However, I think overall that a Charlemont - Baggot Street Bridge (and onwards?) spur makes more sense as it would allow the Green Line to directly serve other busy parts of the city.

There aren't, currently, any very obvious insurmountable obstacles to building such a spur. Given that a lot of the peak time demand on the line is currently ending up in (or emanating from) the area around Baggot Street and Mount Street, et. cetera, it could be sensible to provide a more direct service to that area.

They seem to be pretty clear that 30 tph on the Green line south of the canal will be sufficient until around the 2040s, at the least.

It seems a pity for all the focus on the southside to be on the off-street Green line, such that the tunnel will go to Charlemont (all going well in 2027) and then the whole development of rail on the Southside will seemingly stop for another 20 years or more while the city waits for the Green line to again approach capacity.

It would be much better, in my opinion, to plan for the spur mentioned above, and to plan for the TBM to initially head to the southwest/south-central parts of the city, and to develop that over the next 20 years or so.

We already know that areas like Terenure, Rathfarnham and Firhouse have considerably higher densities than, for example, Dundrum/Sandyford (or anywhere south of that). A line to those areas would almost certainly have to pass through Rathmines and Rathgar, which respectively have very similar densities to Ranelagh and the Beechwood/Cowper/Milltown areas.

We also know that people in areas like Firhouse, Knocklyon and Rathfarnham face very high journey times on their journeys into and out of the city. Journey times as high as 90 minutes have been mentioned on this thread.

And we also know that this corridor is one for which no overground LUAS route has so far been identified

If a Baggot Street LUAS spur were built, over approximately the timeline envisaged for metrolink (or preferably sooner), then the TBM would be free to make inroads into the southwest/central area of the south city, for broadly the same money, say to Rathmines.

Over the next 5 years or so, with new funding, this tunnel could be extended, perhaps to Rathfarnham. (I have this possibly crazy idea that the most cost-effective route, and certainly a spectacular one - would be for it to emerge from the tunnel south of Terenure, go over the Dodder, and then continue onward (overground, underground or a bit of both))

Delivering the metro to Firhouse and Knocklyon would probably require another round of funding in the early- to mid-2030s, all going according to the current metrolink schedule, but the colossal savings in journey times into and out of the city should be being enjoyed by many thousands of people at each stage, as the metro progressively reaches these high density areas.

In relation to a possible metro route to the southwest/central area of the city, as outlined above, the situation of Ballinteer is very interesting. It has a very decent population and population density - considerably higher than Dundrum/Sandyford, for example - without being particularly close to the LUAS Green line or any Swords - Firhouse metro such as described above. If arrival of the metro in Rathfarnham/Firhouse were to encourage residents of Ballinteer to use the metro rather than the LUAS (with appropriate bus services, for example), I think this might have a very positive effect on both.

I still believe that there is no one southside route which can provide a proper counterbalance, in terms of passenger numbers, to what is going to be coming in from the northside if the metrolink happens, given the locations which it will serve on the northside.

There really needs to be two southside routes, and I've often said on this board that a line to Walkinstown Cross would make sense, not because the densities along any route to/from there are currently particularly high but because its location - as a major bus junction - could help to make considerable inroads into journey times into and out of the city. (I currently envisage somewhere around the Bleeding Horse in Camden Street as the place where the 'Rathfarnham' metro and the 'Walkinstown' metro would branch off from each other).

Those potential three projects outlined above (LUAS spur to/from Baggot Street and perhaps beyond, a branch of the metrolink to/from Rathfarnham and beyond, and a second branch of the metro line to/from Walkinstown) would be one option which would deliver something for Dublin. In particular, significantly reduced journey times, for many thousands of people, into and out of the city.

Building the tunnel to Charlemont, and then pretty much waiting around for another couple of decades until the Green line is starting to get overcrowded again, doesn't seem - to me - to be a great use of resources.

I fully agree with the last paragraph, although a big chunk of time will have passed before the metro is even open so the green line will be at capacity probably a decade or so after the metro opens. That’s incredibly short sighted. Your other ideas are certainly better than the current one of doing nothing but what I would prefer is to have got this one right first and let its success sell the other options. Unfortunately there isn’t a hope of the other things happening as the political will doesn’t exist.

Sam Russell · 20-04-2019 7:58pm

salmocab wrote: »

I fully agree with the last paragraph, although a big chunk of time will have passed before the metro is even open so the green line will be at capacity probably a decade or so after the metro opens. That’s incredibly short sighted. Your other ideas are certainly better than the current one of doing nothing but what I would prefer is to have got this one right first and let its success sell the other options. Unfortunately there isn’t a hope of the other things happening as the political will doesn’t exist.

Well, there are local elections in a few weeks, and a general election later this year or early next year.

All these will be over before ABP even has the proposal for ML. Let us hope they see the idea of stopping at Charlemont as daft as many do here on Boards.ie
- you never know, they may insist that the design must include the Sanyford bit.

salmocab · 20-04-2019 8:06pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there are local elections in a few weeks, and a general election later this year or early next year.

All these will be over before ABP even has the proposal for ML. Let us hope they see the idea of stopping at Charlemont as daft as many do here on Boards.ie
- you never know, they may insist that the design must include the Sanyford bit.

I’ll be honest, I’m not optimistic. Local elections are for a play ground or getting the hedges trimmed. We let our TDs do the local stuff and our councils cut the grass.

strassenwo!f · 23-05-2019 11:17pm

CatInABox, thanks for answering my earlier questions about the Mater construction. It all makes sense.

CatInABox wrote: »

I also disagree with your idea for a Drumcondra St, it's nowhere near as good at interchange as Glasnevin. The lines are 140 metres apart at Drumcondra, and on two vastly different levels. At Glasnevin, they're adjacent in terms of distance and height.

There is absolutely no question that the proposed Glasnevin station would be much easier and cheaper to build than a metro station at Drumcondra which could provide an interchange between the metro and both the overground rail lines there. (Probably involving a metro station between the overground stations and an overground line - metro link at each end of the metro platforms)

However, such a station at Drumcondra should not present any major technical difficulty, relative to some of the obstacles which have been faced and overcome over the years of rail construction. For example, the Royal Canal could be drained in that area for the construction period without any noticeable effect on boat traffic, and the rail line alongside it might be realigned a small bit, if necessary, to facilitate station construction.

The reason for doing this would be to create a metro corridor - and this is best looked at perhaps in relation to its position as it crosses the Royal Canal - which is almost exactly halfway between the northside DART corridor as it crosses that canal and the Green LUAS corridor north of Broadstone, with all the potential that that has for development of an eventual line to/from Finglas and beyond.

The Broadstone alignment has tremendous potential to be used to a greater extent than it currently is, and hopefully it will be if and when a connection to Finglas is made. It is a corridor which would absolutely fit right in as part of any future metro line linking the northwest of the city with the city, with only minimal work needed to upgrade that part.

But the case for even a LUAS connection to Finglas, let alone any eventual upgrade of that corridor north of Broadstone to a metro, will be made much more difficult if a large chunk of its northside catchment is being cannibalised - as it inevitably will be - by a metro line which is just 400 metres away at Des Kelly's.

In terms of passenger uptake it would be much more efficient for Dublin to have a more even spacing between these three corridors: DART, metrolink and Green LUAS.

There was obviously an element of suspicion that there may have been a political element to the choice of Drumcondra as part of the metro north project, and maybe the planners were cautious about resurrecting that idea again.

But now that the corridor north of Broadstone has vehicles running again - which it didn't for many years and didn't at the time of the metro north planning or the railway order stage - we can all see the potential that it has. It doesn't make sense to place a metro line almost right beside some of its key areas.

Despite the certain extra cost and greater technical difficulty of building a metro station at Drumcondra, that seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do, for the long term.

Pete_Cavan · 24-05-2019 9:59am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Despite the certain extra cost and greater technical difficulty of building a metro station at Drumcondra, that seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do, for the long term.

Therein lies the problem.

cgcsb · 24-05-2019 10:47am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Despite the certain extra cost and greater technical difficulty of building a metro station at Drumcondra, that seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do, for the long term.

Extra cost + extra technical difficulty = a really good reason to not do something.

L1011 · 24-05-2019 10:57am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Despite the certain extra cost and greater technical difficulty of building a metro station at Drumcondra, that seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do, for the long term.

There's absolutely zero sense to it at all, due to the planned works for Glasnevin to join with the DART Expansion programme

Put down the crayons and back away from the map.

Sam Russell · 24-05-2019 11:23am

@ Strasenwolf:

Did you submit this suggestion to the public consultation?

CatInABox · 24-05-2019 12:13pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Despite the certain extra cost and greater technical difficulty of building a metro station at Drumcondra, that seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do, for the long term.

I don't see this as sensible at all really. If the line north of Broombridge ever does get upgraded to metro, it won't be anytime soon. I'd be shocked if it happened within the next 80 or 90 years, so I don't see any point in crippling one project now, for the mere possibility of a project close to a century in the future.

There's also the fact that the lines are 140 metres apart at Drumcondra, while the metro stations are only going to be 70 metres or so. It'll result in an absolutely terrible interchange.

Sam Russell · 24-05-2019 12:26pm

Mod: Some posts moved here as posted to wrong thread.

strassenwo!f · 24-05-2019 9:06pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Extra cost + extra technical difficulty = a really good reason to not do something.

If an anti-metrolink group ever assembles, and they're looking for a pithy slogan, your one there should do juust fine.

L1011 wrote: »

There's absolutely zero sense to it at all, due to the planned works for Glasnevin to join with the DART Expansion programme

I see no reason why an alternative route for the metro should affect the plans for the heavy rail lines at the Des Kelly site. The proposed adjustment there is a very sensible way to allow interchange between Maynooth/Dunboyne line trains and PPT trains. It should be an even easier interchange without metro passengers being added into the mix at that location.

CatInABox wrote: »

I don't see this as sensible at all really. If the line north of Broombridge ever does get upgraded to metro, it won't be anytime soon. I'd be shocked if it happened within the next 80 or 90 years, so I don't see any point in crippling one project now, for the mere possibility of a project close to a century in the future.

Almost everybody who has written about the metro on this board is in agreement that if Dublin can produce one metro line then there will be an inevitable call for extensions of that line, building of other lines, etc. This kind of thing has already been the case in Dublin with the extension of the DART and LUAS systems, and is and has been the case in all cities. I'm not aware of any exception.

CatInABox wrote: »

There's also the fact that the lines are 140 metres apart at Drumcondra, while the metro stations are only going to be 70 metres or so. It'll result in an absolutely terrible interchange.

As was pointed out above, such an arrangement would leave Drumcondra as the location for metrolink-DART interchange, with overground rail interchanges happening at the Des Kelly site.

An interchange station with 3 (three) distinct rail lines contained within an overall end-to-end footprint of around 150 metres is tiny, and all metro-DART interchanges there should be very manageable.

Of course, it wouldn't be as tiny as the proposed station at the Des Kelly site, but that would inevitably involve the metrolink cannabilising the catchment of the LUAS Green line, and may well render further development of the Green line more difficult.

An interchange at Drumcondra, although more difficult and costly, wouldn't involve cannibalisation of the Green line, because of its more distant location.

CatInABox · 24-05-2019 9:30pm

I think that adding extra difficult into an interchange is absolutely stupid. While an interchange at Drumcondra could work, the distances involved will turn some people off, and will reduce the interchange potential.

I also think that there won't be any real "cannibalisation" of a Finglas metro either. A Finglas Luas stop will be 2.5 km from the nearest Metro stop, so there won't be much over lap in terms of catchment area. That'll only get better the further out you go as well, as the two lines would diverge dramatically.

MJohnston · 24-05-2019 10:24pm

But the case for even a LUAS connection to Finglas, let alone any eventual upgrade of that corridor north of Broadstone to a metro, will be made much more difficult if a large chunk of its northside catchment is being cannibalised - as it inevitably will be - by a metro line which is just 400 metres away at Des Kelly's.

You'll never provide a straight answer to this question, but:

What makes you think two Metro lines at Cross Guns in close proximity (but heading to different destinations) is worse than a Metro line and a DART line at Drumcondra in close proximity (but heading to different destinations)?

This seems like a completely contradictory argument to me, not to mention it seems totally unfounded - take a look at city that's basically comparable to Dublin, Oslo. Their Metro has multiple lines that run in close proximity to each other.

strassenwo!f · 24-05-2019 11:07pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I think that adding extra difficult into an interchange is absolutely stupid. While an interchange at Drumcondra could work, the distances involved will turn some people off, and will reduce the interchange potential.

If Drumcondra is the location for a northside interchange between the metrolink and the Maynooth line at one end of that station, and the interchange between the metrolink and the PPT line at the other, people are going to do it and it will probably involve, on average, something like a walk of 100 metres or so.

They are not going to whinge that "it would have been only an average of 70 metres" if we'd built the metro through Glasnevin." If the recognised northside metro-DART interchange is at Drumcondra that's where people will make that change and if it is, on average, a bit longer, it will be minimal.

CatInABox wrote: »

I also think that there won't be any real "cannibalisation" of a Finglas metro either. A Finglas Luas stop will be 2.5 km from the nearest Metro stop, so there won't be much over lap in terms of catchment area. That'll only get better the further out you go as well, as the two lines would diverge dramatically.

I think you're jumping the gun with your talk of a 'Finglas metro' in the above post. There isn't even a Finglas LUAS yet, and no concrete plans for one.

marno21 · 24-05-2019 11:11pm

This Drumcondra stuff is proper headbanging nonsense.

Drumcondra was a suitable Metro interchange for Metro North as there was planned to be two DART lines, Maynooth-Greystones and Drogheda-Hazelhatch. These would interchange at Drumcondra and SSG.

Now there will be 3 DART lines. One of these will interchange at Tara Street, and the other two can interchange where they are side by side at Glasnevin, where it is convenient to build one interchange between the 2 DART lines and the Metro. Building this at Drumcondra would be more inconvenient, less effective, require a lot more disruption and provide a far more useful result. In light of all this, why in the name of God would you choose Drumcondra for an interchange? The Glasnevin interchange is a no brainer.

strassenwo!f · 25-05-2019 12:55am

marno21 wrote: »

This Drumcondra stuff is proper headbanging nonsense.

Drumcondra was a suitable Metro interchange for Metro North as there was planned to be two DART lines, Maynooth-Greystones and Drogheda-Hazelhatch. These would interchange at Drumcondra and SSG.

Now there will be 3 DART lines. One of these will interchange at Tara Street, and the other two can interchange where they are side by side at Glasnevin, where it is convenient to build one interchange between the 2 DART lines and the Metro. Building this at Glasnevin would be more inconvenient, less effective, require a lot more disruption and provide a far more useful result. In light of all this, why in the name of God would you choose Drumcondra for an interchange? The Glasnevin interchange is a no brainer.

Marno21, I think we all understand the current metro and heavy rail proposals for Dublin. If you're going to try to explain it to us could you at least not get the suburbs wrong. Within the current discussion about Drumcondra and Glasnevin, it is very relevant.

marno21 · 25-05-2019 1:02am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Marno21, I think we all understand the current metro and heavy rail proposals for Dublin. If you're going to try to explain it to us could you at least not get the suburbs wrong. Within the current discussion about Drumcondra and Glasnevin, it is very relevant.

Post corrected. Apologies for the typo

I stand by my point.

strassenwo!f · 25-05-2019 10:04am

Marno, your post is still saying that Drumcondra would produce a far more useful result.

At this stage it's still difficult to get what point you are 'standing by'.

CatInABox · 25-05-2019 1:01pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Marno, your post is still saying that Drumcondra would produce a far more useful result.

At this stage it's still difficult to get what point you are 'standing by'.

Don't want to speak for Marno, and I'm sure they don't need me to say anything, but I'll say it anyway: His post doesn't say that Drumcondra would be better at all.

I went back and read it again, there's one word that's clearly wrong, where "more" is used instead of "less". I missed it the first time around because "less" was clearly the word meant to be there, and my brain filled it in.

CatInABox · 25-05-2019 1:14pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If Drumcondra is the location for a northside interchange between the metrolink and the Maynooth line at one end of that station, and the interchange between the metrolink and the PPT line at the other, people are going to do it and it will probably involve, on average, something like a walk of 100 metres or so.

They are not going to whinge that "it would have been only an average of 70 metres" if we'd built the metro through Glasnevin." If the recognised northside metro-DART interchange is at Drumcondra that's where people will make that change and if it is, on average, a bit longer, it will be minimal.

I don't deny that it's possible Strassenwolf, I just think that it's an absolutely terrible idea when compared to an interchange station at Glasnevin.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think you're jumping the gun with your talk of a 'Finglas metro' in the above post. There isn't even a Finglas LUAS yet, and no concrete plans for one.

Thanks for making my point, Strassenwolf. There's absolutely zero point in altering the location of this interchange for any future, unplanned project.

MJohnston · 25-05-2019 11:40pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Marno, your post is still saying that Drumcondra would produce a far more useful result.

At this stage it's still difficult to get what point you are 'standing by'.

You know exactly what marno is saying, and you still haven't responded to my post

strassenwo!f · 26-05-2019 11:16am

Thanks for reminding me. I had meant to reply.

MJohnston wrote: »

You'll never provide a straight answer to this question, but:

What makes you think two Metro lines at Cross Guns in close proximity (but heading to different destinations) is worse than a Metro line and a DART line at Drumcondra in close proximity (but heading to different destinations)?

A couple of things need clarification here. Firstly, there are currently no plans to have extended or upgraded the northside Green LUAS by the projected opening date of the metro, so let's focus now on the situation at that date. From the day of opening, people in or around large parts of the Phibsboro area at that time - say Doyle's Corner or Dalymount park - will be in the fortunate position of being a couple of hundred metres from a metro line (heading, in one direction to the major destinations O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green) and a LUAS (also heading to those two locations, but taking a bit more time to get there and possibly not having as frequent a service). What would you do? Inevitable cannibalisation will result.

I don't (think I) have the relevant software but I've seen posts with concentric circles being drawn on a map to show approximate walking distances from a particular point. This might be useful here, and perhaps some poster who has the software could present it. However, in the meantime we can work with some figures - courtesy of Google Maps Pedometer - which should illustrate the massive overlap of catchment areas under the proposed plan, and how this could be reduced by building the metro through Drumcondra. All distances are given as the crow flies:

Cabra LUAS stop: Des Kelly site: DART line at Newcomen Bridge = 0.5 km:2.4 km

Cabra LUAS stop: Drumcondra Road: DART line at Newcomen Bridge = 1.48 km:1.34 km

Secondly, it is my understanding that the current situation at Drumcondra is that there are two overground rail lines being used through the area - one for trains to/from Docklands which has no stop in the Drumcondra area and one for trains to/from Connolly and beyond which does. Neither of these goes to O'Connell Street (though Tara Street is of course not too far away) or St. Stephen's Green. I haven't heard that that's going to change. Moving the metro through Drumcondra and building a more expensive and more technically difficult station there would need to involve an interchange with the line along the canal.

Nobody would claim that either Phibsboro or Drumcondra are badly served, in an overall Dublin context, by public transport. And I can't see that a change to a metro route through Drumcondra (rather than the Des Kelly site) would make any difference to passengers who are already on the network and wish to interchange between the metro and overground rail.

The key point I am making is that it seems to be an inefficient route for getting people onto the network, given the overlap the currently proposed metrolink line would have with the LUAS catchment in Phibsboro and the lack of a direct rail connection between Drumcondra and key areas like O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

MJohnston wrote: »

This seems like a completely contradictory argument to me, not to mention it seems totally unfounded - take a look at city that's basically comparable to Dublin, Oslo. Their Metro has multiple lines that run in close proximity to each other.

Oslo is not really comparable to Dublin. I've never been there but I know there are many islands within the city, and this probably influences their choice of public transport routes, as there's not a whole lot of point in serving the areas between those islands. Norway is also in the fortunate position of being one of the richest countries on the planet, and - although it doesn't generally throw its money around - if it needs to build a metro, tram or overground rail line the money is there. Dublin's situation is different.

MJohnston · 26-05-2019 10:58pm

I noticed a couple of places where I could have made things clearer.

Oh mate....

bk · 27-05-2019 4:11pm

I personally would have directly benefited from a station at Drumcondra and the original MN alignment. Cross and Gun and the new alignment won't directly benefit me. It will be too far from me.

However despite that, I have to honestly say that Cross and Gun makes logically far more sense then Drumcondra. You will have a much easier to use station and quicker interchange station there. I also expect it will be much cheaper and easier to build there.

There is also a lot of space around there for future further expansion. Perhaps they could put some terminating platforms there in future for commuter and intercity services. You couldn't do that at Drumcondra.

There are a few advantages to Drumcondra. It is a core bus route, so folks could have interchanged on their more easily. And it is closer to Croker and St Pats.

But overall the new alignment makes more sense and allows for better future options.

Idbatterim · 27-05-2019 5:22pm

Is there anything to be said for another public consultation?

Sam Russell · 27-05-2019 8:03pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for another public consultation?

Yes there is - NO.

Qrt · 27-05-2019 9:07pm

bk wrote: »

There are a few advantages to Drumcondra. It is a core bus route, so folks could have interchanged on their more easily.

That's true, but there's the point that the buses are all (mostly) going the exact same way as the Metrolink alignment...

Idbatterim · 27-05-2019 10:14pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes there is - NO.

The word sarcasm doesn’t do my suggestion justice. Think father jack Level of sarcasm!

Qrt · 27-05-2019 10:25pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

The word sarcasm doesn’t do my suggestion justice. Think father jack Level of sarcasm!

I read the response in a Dick Byrne à la A Song for Europe manner

strassenwo!f · 03-06-2019 9:20pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Oh mate....

It is a first on this board, for me, where someone quotes a bone fide reason for editing as a reason for a quote, rather than anything in the post itself. In this case, it seems I wasn't making myself clear enough,

But what I posted earlier has been much on my mind over the last number of days or so, so I would like to rephrase the figures, and I hope they help:

I think they should be better rephased as:

it should be Cabra LUAS stop: Des Kelly site: DART line at Newcomen Bridge = 0.5 km:2.4 km. Now rephrased as LUAS Green line:metro:DART = 1:4.8)

And Cabra LUAS stop: Drumcondra Road: DART line at Newcomen Bridge (now rephrased as 1:0.9)

There's a very big discrepancy here, in terms of overlaps of catchment areas of northside rail lines into/out of the city:1:4.8 versus 1:0.9.

If the poster CatinABox is correct, in his earlier post, that it will take 80-90 years for a second metro line to be built in Dublin, then the ratios shown above would be a very inefficient way for Dubliners to be picked up by rail in the meantime.

It should be much more efficient to find a solution for a metro interchange at Drumcondra.

MJohnston · 04-06-2019 10:26am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It is a first on this board, for me, where someone quotes a bone fide reason for editing as a reason for a quote, rather than anything in the post itself. In this case, it seems I wasn't making myself clear enough,

But what I posted earlier has been much on my mind over the last number of days or so, so I would like to rephrase the figures, and I hope they help:

I think they should be better rephased as:

it should be Cabra LUAS stop: Des Kelly site: DART line at Newcomen Bridge = 0.5 km:2.4 km. Now rephrased as LUAS Green line:metro:DART = 1:4.8)

And Cabra LUAS stop: Drumcondra Road: DART line at Newcomen Bridge (now rephrased as 1:0.9)

There's a very big discrepancy here, in terms of overlaps of catchment areas of northside rail lines into/out of the city:1:4.8 versus 1:0.9.

If the poster CatinABox is correct, in his earlier post, that it will take 80-90 years for a second metro line to be built in Dublin, then the ratios shown above would be a very inefficient way for Dubliners to be picked up by rail in the meantime.

It should be much more efficient to find a solution for a metro interchange at Drumcondra.

The ratios are meaningless though — you're just (I'm not entirely clear on this because your posts are rambling streams of consciousness but...) comparing distances between lines? Is that it? That's the only metric you're going to use to compare whether these things can feasibly overlap? That's borderline sociopathic simplification.

strassenwo!f · 04-06-2019 2:47pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The ratios are meaningless though — you're just (I'm not entirely clear on this because your posts are rambling streams of consciousness but...) comparing distances between lines? Is that it? That's the only metric you're going to use to compare whether these things can feasibly overlap? That's borderline sociopathic simplification.

Yes, I think that's the main measure I would use.

A Drumcondra route was fine for An Bord Pleanala when it gave the railway order for the metronorth project, and the opening of the northside part of the LUAS Green line was subsequent to that order.

Now, of course, the station I'd envisage at Drumcondra would be a bit more complicated than the presented to ABP, but still not anything which is ever likely to ever crop up on any 'impossible emgineering' program or some such.

That would then give a nice balance, across the north city within all residents within 500 metres or so, of a rail (Metro, LUAS or DART) line. Building it at Whtworth still leaves large chunks of the north city around 2 km from an accessible rail line.

How you can call my suggestion 'sociopathic' is beyond me.

CatInABox · 04-06-2019 3:31pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If the poster CatinABox is correct, in his earlier post, that it will take 80-90 years for a second metro line to be built in Dublin, then the ratios shown above would be a very inefficient way for Dubliners to be picked up by rail in the meantime.

Just to clarify Strassenwolf, I was referring solely to a speculative Luas line north of Broombridge.

Any Luas line going out there isn't going to be:

A) Built for at least a decade

Upgraded to Metro for decades further.

There may be a second Metro line built in that time, but it sure as hell won't be serving that direction.

strassenwo!f · 04-06-2019 6:47pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Just to clarify Strassenwolf, I was referring solely to a speculative Luas line north of Broombridge.

Any Luas line going out there isn't going to be:

A) Built for at least a decade
Upgraded to Metro for decades further.

There may be a second Metro line built in that time, but it sure as hell won't be serving that direction.

A metro sure as hell won't be serving that direction? But why not?

With the recent reopening of the cutting between Broadstone and the Royal Canal, half of a metro between Finglas and the city has already been built.

MJohnston · 04-06-2019 10:42pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A metro sure as hell won't be serving that direction? But why not?

With the recent reopening of the cutting between Broadstone and the Royal Canal, half of a metro between Finglas and the city has already been built.

They said *the next* Metro line won't be serving that direction.

Alvin Holler · 04-06-2019 10:46pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That would then give a nice balance, across the north city within all residents within 500 metres or so, of a rail (Metro, LUAS or DART) line. Building it at Whtworth still leaves large chunks of the north city around 2 km from an accessible rail line.

I've read this a couple of times but how does this make any sense?

If you build the Metrolink interchange at drumcondra then nobody will be closer to a rail line as it is already a station.

Building a new station has to mean some people will be closer.

strassenwo!f · 04-06-2019 11:42pm

Alvin Holler wrote: »

I've read this a couple of times but how does this make any sense?

If you build the Metrolink interchange at drumcondra then nobody will be closer to a rail line as it is already a station.

It is indeed. But it isn't a station which directly serves key areas in the city like O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

The LUAS Green line directly serves those areas already, and the logic of building a metro line almost on top of that service has thus far escaped me.

Alvin Holler wrote: »

Building a new station has to mean some people will be closer.

I've no problem with a station being built at the Des Kelly site, for interchange between Maynooth/Dunboyne trains and PPT trains. That make a lot of sense.

What doesn't seem sensible is to add the metro into that mix, at that location, as it seems to create a considerable overlap with nearby LUAS services to areas which are not directly served by Maynooth/Dunboyne/PPT trains, like O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

MJohnston · 05-06-2019 10:10am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It is indeed. But it isn't a station which directly serves key areas in the city like O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green.

The LUAS Green line directly serves those areas already, and the logic of building a metro line almost on top of that service has thus far escaped me.

How many times will you go over this same point and be given the same answer before you understand?

There are precisely THREE planned Metro stations that will overlap with the Green Line. Those are O'Connell Street, St Stephen's Green (barely), and Charlemont.

When planning transport stops, planners have to take into account a number of factors, but one of the biggest is that on average, people tolerate about a 1km walk to a stop for a rapid service, and about 400m walk to a bus stop. After those points, usage drops off significantly. Luas probably lies somewhere in between, but let's assume people are willing to walk about 1km to a Luas stop.

These figures allow you to calculate coverage areas for Luas and Metro stops. Another important concept in transport planning is having a balance between building for high usage (which means stops are further apart, the service is faster, and people want to use it more) and building for coverage (which means there's more overlap between coverage areas). Rarely, if ever, do you leave gaps between coverage areas, because that's bad planning.

With me so far?

So, let's look at some of the other stops where the Green Line and the Metro are close but not at the exact same spot:

Mater Metro and Broadstone Luas - approximately 700m walking distance, meaning a medium overlap (this overlap calculation is far from precise because lack of permeability in Irish city design means the actual overlap area will be much lower than that suggested by the shortest walking distance between two points).

Cross Guns Metro and Cabra Luas - approximately 1km walking distance, small coverage overlap.

Tara Metro to Westmoreland/Trinity Luas - approx 450m walking distance, a good amount of coverage overlap, but this is in the dense city centre, where coverage overlaps are useful.

So, there we have it. The Cross Guns/Glasnevin stop that you're worried about will have a minimal-to-no coverage overlap in transport planning terms with the Green Line.

With a bit of extra pedestrian bridging and access work, hopefully they'll be able to pull Cross Guns Metro and Cabra Luas closer to a 850m spacing, to allow for a little bit of interchanging, and a desirable coverage overlap.

In short: your argument that having a Metro station at Cross Guns is too much of an overlap with Cabra Luas is nonsense.

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Comments