Sierra Oscar wrote: » Covid-19 impact not expected to affect transport plans - NTA Some positive news.
Kellyconor1982 wrote: » A feasibility study will also be carried out on extending the Metrolink to Rathfarnham/Knocklyon or to UCD.
cgcsb wrote: » Is that an extension or a separate line? A UCD route would be technically difficult considering the end point of the tunnel under Ranalagh The UCD and Malahide Road corridors have sufficient space to accommodate surface luas lines that could have a North-South connection somewhere in the Docklands. The luas needs more capacity in the Central area so a new North-South crossing would be very useful especially in the growing docklands. A Tallaght to Beaumont metro line should also be considered but I just think that's getting way ahead of ourselves. At present we don't have integrated ticketing or bus lane enforcement, the bread and butter of a public transport network.
Marcusm wrote: » National Children’s Hospital Mark II! I don’t think it should finish in Ranelagh or more properly Charlemont. Problem is, suggesting that design changes might be made as the project progresses is just an invitation to be screwed by the contractor.
LXFlyer wrote: » Whatever they decide to do won’t affect the current Swords-Charlemont route. That debate is about the strategy up to 2042 and what to do next, and at last I’d like to think that a proper discussion about how to develop public transport in south Dublin over that period could now take place. The public didn’t engage to any significant degree when the previous strategy was originally published. The debate that has happened since as a result of the Metrolink and BusConnects consultations certainly has awakened the public interest and that is not a bad thing. I've started a separate thread on that topic here:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058136172
Marcusm wrote: » The discussion is about starting construction while contemporaneously considering a change to the design, ie it continuing further under ground. I think it should but that should have been sorted over past 18 months. Without a final design which can be pursued, it is a contractor’s opportunity to extract whatever they want, like BAM at NCH.
LXFlyer wrote: » I think that passive provision will have to be made in the ABP application for continuing beyond Charlemont. It will continue in some form or another. It cannot surface at Charlemont due to the sewer.
Marcusm wrote: » It’s not about planning. It’s about signing a deal with a contractor to dig a tunnel which ends in ranelagh (beyond Charlemont for turn back) probably dumping the tunnel boring machine there. If they decide, during the construction phase, that they want to extend beyond there and surface elsewhere, it will require changes to that contract which can’t be forced and for which the NTA will have no bargaining power. Hence why I say it would be expensive. For example, the contractor may seek to recover any irrecoverable overages on the ore existing contract or simply hold out for his ransom payment.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The chances of changing the contract after signing to extend metro is practically zero. There are many many years of design and planning in any extension before we get to that point. That really isn't a concern.
Marcusm wrote: » How would you plan to “extend” an underground line which terminates in a congested area? You could start from the other end but none of those which have been proposed are easy kick off points either. It’s poor project organisation for something which has been mooted for 20 years or more. One of the reasons why we have disproportionately high costs and, consequently, inadequate infrastructure.
salmocab wrote: » I don’t know the practicalities of it but I hope the ends are done in a way that allows for future extension, whether that means an extra 100 meters of tunnel or having the last bit slightly curved or whatever. Beyond that sort of thing in the initial design nothing from the priced job should really be changed unless completely necessary.
Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: » That's the kind of planning I was hoping for, given the circumstances. It was pointed out that any further tunneling (in same direction) would require a new shaft opening for earth removal or delaying the operation of Swords to Charlemont in order to use existing opes. Phase 2 tunneling from south to north is possible but then you're back to square one regarding from where to start! Most elegant solution is link to green line and upgrade to Metro.
salmocab wrote: » Yeah turning the TBM back on and continuing isn’t practical as it would be a disaster to remove millions of tons of earth and bring in the materials through a city Center portal. I just hope that if something is done in future it’s done so that joint two tunnels can be done with very little disruption to the existing lines. Now I haven’t a clue how that would be achieved but hope that people who do build that contingency in.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I would have thought it would be easier to join into an existing tunnel by tunneling in from the south. Metro stations are generally done by excavating and building the station box, then the TBM bores through into it. You build a box, even if it doesn't have a station, and tunnel into it to make the connection. If the portal is at the southern end near the M50, spoil removal is much easier. There is zero chance of permission being granted anyway if the plan is to cart out huge volumes of soil through suburban residential streets, thats a non-starter.
MJohnston wrote: » The only problem with that is the well-off of Ranelagh will never let their gardens be CPOd. You'd still have the Dunville Avenue crowd to deal with too.
