Kevtherev1 wrote: » A Saint stevens green underground loop. More govt and nta speculative statements. Transports statements being used by govt as marketing tools. A govt marketing and public consultation to occur in 2021. The greens pippa hackett using transport statements to promote herself. From irish times article here. Yawn.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/underground-loop-at-st-stephen-s-green-potential-option-linking-metrolink-to-luas-1.4364010
Eamon Ryan wrote: On MetroLink, the finalised business case is expected to be submitted to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport during the first quarter of 2021 and brought to Government for its approval in line with the public spending code. It is expected that the railway order and planning permission application will be lodged with An Bord Pleanála next year also. Construction will begin once that procedure is completed.
dublinman1990 wrote: » The Dublin Commuter Coalition will tell you different if you don't like these consultations.https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1309502959198384128
marno21 wrote: » Ryan in the Dail yesterday.https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-24a.88
Rulmeq wrote: » McDowell is an unelected gob****e (and no, I don't count the Seanad, it's about as undemocratic it gets in this country), he should have gone away when he was told where to go by the electorate, instead he's railing against the most important piece of infrastructure that can be built this country.
Sam Russell wrote: » Eamonn Ryan cited the difference between Dublin and Copenhagan as far as Metros are concerned. Both began looking at providing a metro about 1990, we have none, and likely wont have one for another decade, while Copenhagan now have three lines. We ended up with two tram lines that are jammed most of the time, and are not connected - they merely cross each other in O'Connell St.
AngryLips wrote: » Nobody disagrees that our PT doesn't compare to CPH, but there's no need for hyperbole. The Luas lines do connect ...that's what crossing each other with adjacent stops is - a connection.
Sam Russell wrote: » You must have a different understanding of 'connect'. Lines that cross does not make a connection, but you can walk from one stop to the other - even if it is raining. They should have made it possible to go from SSG to Heuston, or SSG to The Point. Missed opportunity.
Zebra3 wrote: » To the average punter on the street, it's a connection because it's a seamless transfer.
LXFlyer wrote: » This has been done to death before, yet you keep bringing it up again. I explained it to you three months ago. There was insufficient roadspace at the junction of Abbey Street and Marlborough Street to fit the track geometry for a connection from Abbey Street coming from the west to the southbound track without demolishing listed buildings.
gjim wrote: » The big mistake was splitting the green line to use Marlborough street in the first place. This added about 70% to the cost of getting from SSG to Dominick St according to the costings done using the "public consultation" phase for the extension. It would have been far less disruptive, cheaper, more operationally efficient (shorter distances) to use the most obvious option - keep the two lines together and run them down Westmoreland St, across O'Connell bridge and have them hug the median in O'Connell street. You could hardly wish for a more perfect route between A and B in the city to connect by tram-lines - straight wide streets all the way. Incidentally the current convoluted route wasn't even presented as an option during the consultation. The whole process stank - the NTA (and anyone sane) wanted to go with the simplest, most efficient and obvious route but the DCC threatened to block and effectively forced the NTA to pick this convoluted route. The reason for the current route was to be able to include the new bridge boondoogle - a bridge DCC traffic engineers have been lusting after for years but never could justify on a cost/benefit basis. The opportunity to raid PT capital funds to get their new toy was irresistible and of course it mean not giving up any further precious car lanes on Westmoreland st or O'Connell st. so effectively the NTA was blackmailed by threats of bogging the whole thing down in a planning quagmire (not that the NTA put up much of a fight). With the original preferred route, it would have been fairly easy to have had a full diamond interchange on O'Connell street if desired. Certainly it was a lost opportunity to civilise Westmoreland Street with a central reservation with trees or whatever between a pair of Luas lines allowing just a single lane for cars with the rest of it's considerable width used for bus/cycle lanes and widened footpaths. Instead Westmoreland Street remains a shabby un-urban traffic dominated thoroughfare - the traffic engineers won in that regard.
BonnieSituation wrote: » It's not really though. If you're going Northbound you get off the tram at GPO, cross the southbound OCS lane and then cross awkwardly over half of Abbey St to the Eastbound island platform or cross Abbey St to the Westbound platform. If you're going Southbound you have to get off at Marlborough and do the same journey in reverse. It's not seamless. It's not the most inconvenient transfer, but in a city that's devoid of logic when it comes to PT, I guess it's passably convenient.
Mr di Perna said that Bombardier was also weighing a bid for the proposed Metro service. This will tie Dublin city centre with the airport, providing a service for both air travellers and commuters. However, various governments have toyed with the idea for decades without making any progress. “We think it’s real this time, there’s momentum behind it,” Mr di Perna said. Bombardier believes its Aventra lightweight electric train would be an ideal fit for projects that the State is now considering. Built at the group’s works in Derby in the UK, the train is used on networks including London’s Crossrail and overground.
jd wrote: » Are Aventra trains operating on a GOA4 rail system?
bk wrote: » I could be wrong, but I'd assume that there Aventra would be for the Dart+ project and that they would offer one of their Metro type trains (e.g. Movia family) for Metrolink.
jd wrote: » Yes, I was wondering. That would make sense. The article mentioned Aventra straight after talking about a metro.
bk wrote: » I'd suspect just a poorly written article. Bombardier probably told the journalist that they are putting the Aventra forward for the Dart+ project and that they also might compete in the future Metro project too (without specifying which train they'd offer) and the journalist just smashed the two together.
CatInABox wrote: » Yes, after that debacle with the Irish Times and the BusConnects blind person, I have zero faith in the Irish media to report anything transport related accurately.
MJohnston wrote: » They claimed his two part journey would become a "six-stage ordeal". Actually, under the BusConnects plan at the time (and maybe still now) he would have gone from a two part journey to a single trip on the N4 bus.
