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

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Options
16768707273189

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭Bsharp


    This looks to be a consistent issue along the corridor; to keep costs low they're avoiding proper integration for passengers. Proposals currently include at-grade street crossings between the Metrolink and the airport as well as along the R132 in Swords.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Dublin Commuter Coalition are saying that there'll be lifts serving both platforms and concourse.





  • Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭yascaoimhin


    This is based on the detailed drawings released as part of the first consultation

    metrolink-concept-engineering-drawings-book.pdf (tii.ie) (Page 63-39)

    The station would be built to allow interchange between both modes much like Glasnevin and, at the time, Charlemont.

    But this was also when there was 2 tunnels instead of one, and we haven't heard of any updates since then to signal that this has changed.

    Some designs show a single encapsulated building allowing interchange, others show the metrolink entrance opening directly next to the Tara Street Southern Concourse, so whilst its still possible that we will be left with a street level interchange, both entrances will be exactly opposite each other, there will be no need to travel to the Quays to access the Northern Concourse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Interchanging via the Tara St southern access would be fine as long as lifts are added up to the IE station. I know people will be able to go up/down two separate staircases but the point I was making was about those needing to use a lift. The best and most efficient thing would be to extend the Metrolink lifts up to meet the IE platform level. Maybe that's what's planned but doesn't look like it from the visualisation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    FCC are progressing a separate project for the R132 which involves traffic calming and pedestrian crossings so I think that is a case of Metrolink images reflecting other proposals.

    At the airport, I think simply crossing the road at the existing crossing is reasonable. It is a pedestrian priority crossing with slow moving traffic. Passengersthen use the existing escalators/lifts at T2. The only other option to avoid crossing the road would be to route people through the multistorey car park which isn't a better option.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    The only option that should be considered is a tunnel under the airport with escalators and lifts up into both terminals with plans in place for T3 if that ever happens. None of this nonsense about stopping it in the carpark and walking in. Every sane country in Europe would do that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭Bsharp


    It'll be more than one at-grade pedestrian crossing at the airport where none are acceptable. It's meant to be catering for high volumes of passengers with luggage, travelling against the clock. Passenger levels are envisaged to be a lot higher than they are now.

    On R132, at-grade will result in jay-walking and reduced level of service for buses and cyclists; particularly at Swords Pavilions and Barrysparks LAP. Think about the amount of Toucan green time needed for a flow of pedestrians arriving to/from Metro services that run every few minutes.

    Balally Luas Stop near Dundrum Town Centre provides some insight. It's a disaster for pedestrians and not something we should set out to design from scratch.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,957 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I've seen implementations that have you come outside to the taxi area, it doesn't seem like a big deal. It would be hard to plan for T3 as we don't know where that will be located. The station will be at the airport's ground transportation area which is reasonable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭specialbyte


    I'm not really sure it is TII's job to ensure that the airport metro station ties in neatly with the terminal buildings at Dublin Airport. That's the job of DAA who run the airport. I usually hate the "that's not my job" line but in this case I think it's fair. TII were given no choice at all as to where the metro station would be located within Dublin Airport. DAA have reserved that plot of land by the chapel and the bus station since before Metro North. They are the ones who decided the metro station should be further away from the front-door than the short-term car parking. It's DAA's job to figure out how they want to connect the metro station at their preferred location into their ground infrastructure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭Bsharp


    They're both state bodies. Their collective job is to provide a decent service for the end user. If the final outcome is a few at grade pedestrian crossings then they've both failed in their role to provide well-integrated sustainable transport.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭specialbyte


    And DAA have 7-8 years from the moment TII start building MetroLink to design, seek planning permission, tender and build the changes to their ground infrastructure. They could even start the design work now before TII even begin constructing MetroLink. DAA are one of the much better public bodies in this country. I suspect that's a task that they can pull off. I have much more hope in DAA than I did in Irish Rail who failed to deliver the new passenger bridge at the Broombridge station in preparation for Luas Cross City.



  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭Bsharp


    As long as they both go far enough to leave suitable options open, that can be delivered, then fair enough.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    After the last couple of years, DAA are basically broke though, and I can't see them getting much more from the gov anytime soon. It'll be interesting how this all shakes out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    As an FYI, my understanding re the new bridge at Broombridge is that the funding was not made available from the NTA in time, so you might want to redirect your lack of faith! IÉ built it as soon as the funds were made available.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Some bits of info regarding the business case in this article on the NTA/TII being questioned the other day.

    Dublin Fingal TD Duncan Smith asked about the business case for the current plans for Metrolink from Swords to Charlemont Street which has been submitted to the Department of Transport for review.

    Ms Graham said it “makes sense from a preliminary business case”.

    Mr Creegan said he expected the review to be finished and submitted to Government early next year and that there would be an planning application sent to An Bord Pleanála “as quickly as possible after” in the first half of 2022.

    Not new really, and perhaps common sense, but at least the NTA doesn't seem to be wavering in their support of Metrolink. Metro South now, I've commented on that in it's own thread.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Last week, it was supposed to go to cabinet before the end of this year. Now it's early next year. Another (small) delay but the railway order application is still not finished so it shouldn't matter as long as cabinet approval happens before it's finished.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    some of you have mentioned how a fortune could be saved, but there is an issue with a church etc around Dublin 2. Could this be demolished etc? if we are talking about staggering amounts of money...



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I don't think demolishing listed Churches to build a railway line would be popular anywhere in the developed world really.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    Agreed and a bizarre suggestion, not a hope in hell that this would get permission and quite right to



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭JohnnyChimpo


    The Government won't even pursue the Church for the billions they voluntarily agreed to surrender for diddling kids (and then reneged on), dont think anyone's gonna touch a historical church building



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    I believe that it's only the facade at the front that's protected, so it's not as tall an order as one might think.

    Still very much doubt that it'd happen along here though, there's too much going on with the proposal here to make me think that it's a runner. Everywhere else in the Metrolink project, the planners have been at pains to reduce complexity and risk, and a tunnel portal here looks to me like it's a recipe for disaster. Still though, it has to eventually go somewhere, and if there's no other better place....



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    What's the issue with the church? What church?



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    This church here is in the way of a potential Metrolink Tunnel Portal, but it's a protected structure, at least the front is anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    People are living in cloud cuckoo land this morning. There is no way this church will be demolished.

    Can you imagine the protests for a start?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    Demolishing that church was never considered - it was the two houses to the right of it - while keeping their facades.

    But that entire option (the Peter Place link up) doesn't seem to have been advanced from the first survey of options - before the canal sewer issue was noticed - although I believe it solves a number of significant issues particularly in terms of cost for stations at Charlemont, Ranelagh and Beechwood/Cowper.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    We've been over this before, they determined that there were too many difficulties associated with cut and cover section on Earlsfort Terrace, all the basements in the area, etc. Metrolink wouldn't have to go directly through the church for it to have significant impacts on it (plus multiple other buildings in the area).



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    It was indeed considered, with two different options (2A and 2B) for putting the metro through the church. Both were knocked out in the initial sift.

    The Peter Place option (Option 3) required significant CPO activity, including the two high spec offices, but they did progress it, with Options 3A and 3C getting looked at. The one that your talking about, with the two houses taken next to the Church, was eventually dropped, because it was too risky basically:

    Option 3(C) delivers a potentially feasible alternative alignment for Stage 1 – Option 3. There are however significant environmental and logistical challenges associated with constructing a TBM receiving shaft and cut and cover section on Earlsfort Terrace. There are also significant technical challenges to be overcome in terms of the design and construction of a cut and cover tunnel section on Earlsfort Terrace and in particular the close proximity of the alignment to Adelaide Road Presbyterian Church and several buildings with basements and lightwells on the northwest corner of the Adelaide Road/Earlsfort Terrace junction. Given the extent of technical difficulties and significant environmental challenges associated with Option 3(C), this option is not brought forward for detailed appraisal. 




  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    It was about a metre away, and completely severed the road as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    You're mixing up the options - the one we're talking about link-up was 3(C). There was no severing of any road involved. It involved cut n' cover under Earlsfort terrace and under Adelaide road before emerging south of those Georgian houses joining with the green line just south of the Charlemont stop. Options 1 and 2 involved elevated or at street-grade tracks so were never going to be considered never mind the church.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    If things were slightly different, no church there etc and this plan could be done. Would the savings be substantial ?



Advertisement