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)

14546485051123

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    My problem is that the Minister for Transport is completely silent about this project which ought to be top of his Green Party projects.

    Why is he ignoring it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Because firstly that isn’t how government works, and it is going through a statutory process right now which won’t be any faster with Ministerial proclamations.

    Nothing he might have to say right now is going to speed things up, and frankly the less ministerial re-announcements the better.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Its not that he should be side stepping due process, but his lack of support, certainly publicly, for the project doesn't look good. I'd go as far as to say I don't think he believes in it himself.

    He should be singing from the roof tops at the prospect of a modern public transport project getting the go ahead during his tenure as minister for transport.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,921 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    When we get to railway order application stage, I’d be quite sure that there will be a lot of PR happening.

    Given the lengthy lead times involved, people will get fed up if they hear Ministers going on and on about investment projects every week.

    The key times are the milestones and the next one of those is cabinet approval of the business case and then the railway order application.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    It is the way politics works - particularly when you are a junior member of the Gov in charge of the project. A running commentary of his efforts to get this project over the line would help - if only with his own support group. The next step is the business case which is within his dept.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    if it's politics and optics you're concerned about, bear in mind the Metro is not a Green project; it wasn't started by them and Ryan will probably be long retired when it opens; it's unlikely he'll even still be in Govt when the shovels go in the ground. There's very little political capital in it for him. Unlike Busconnects, cycle lanes, cheaper fares etc all of which should see some tangible progress before the next election.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    All things going well, MetroLink should start construction before the next election. That would be huge for him.

    But, in truth, there's not much he could say. There has been no update since what he said in November other than it's still on track for a business case approval next month and a railway order application next quarter. That doesn't make for a great progress update to anyone except people in this thread. He's not going to criticise his own department and agencies publicly for the delays that happened up until now. It would look silly and would backfire. All that gets dealt with internally.

    Post edited by Peregrine on


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    When did the fact the project was started by someone else stop any politician from claiming credit - whether justified or not.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,528 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    What timeline are we looking at now for construction actually to get underway - i.e. beyond procurement when we can rest easy knowing that it's actually happening without any political meddling?



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    You'll have to add around five months onto everything here. This is from when they were supposed to lodge the railway order application at the end of 2021.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Mad that we can be 2 years from construction start on a project announced 4 years ago.

    Metrolink aside, we cannot function as a country if major projects can't be planned in reasonable time. Something really needs to change going forward.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Dublin Live continuing to display no journalistic ability at all. Check out these quotes:

    The proposed final stop at Charlemont would also require a second entrance to be built at Darthmouth Square on the other side of the Grand Canal.

    Hmm... No body decided to check the Metrolink docs before pushing that particular turd out. The rest of the article is shot through with similar inaccuracies. Councillor Lacey also hasn't looked at a map of this:

    "You have a station at Charlemont and then immediately across the canal they are proposing this station which I think is about six or seven stories deep.

    Getting the location/setup of the Station wrong, and also complaining about the depth of an underground rail system? Jesus wept.

    In other news, as part of the independent expert analysis of Metrolink, RINA has pried free some docs from the NTA/TII. They're only around for another 19 days, but they're definitely more up to date than anything else we have. They include the vertical and horizontal alignment along the line. I'll upload them here too, just for posterity:

    I got them from the GADRA website, which is proving to be quite the treasure trove of Metrolink info. See the GADRA website here if you want to download them from the original source, but as I mentioned above, they'll only last another 19 days there.



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


    Thanks for posting those. There is a lot of detail there.

    I want to apologize in advance for this because it has probably been discussed to death but I thought the tunnel was stopping north of Beechwood to allow for a future connection to the upgraded green line there. I knew that Charlemont was the last stop but I didn't realize the tunnel was ending just south of the turnback.

    Surely the arrangement as shown means the green line will never be connected as a new TBM will be needed for the c. 1 km of tunnel.

    Again apologies because I am sure this is covered here already.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    It probably was covered, but it's a shocking omission. Dunno if they've any gameplan for the future extension at all now.



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


    Yeah - it seems to me that there's no proper plan for future extension. Part of the design should not only cover the line to Charlemont but also include a detailed plan for the future extension so that the works can be designed to dovetail with the extension. I can understand the urgency to get something built and avoid NIMBY battles by burying the plan for future extension but it doesn't really look like there is a plan. Without one, it would make more sense to stop at Stephen's Green and provide the interchange with the Green line there and not bother with the expense and aggravation over Charlemont.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    I've a feeling that the plan at Charlemont changed when they took the need for ventilation into account, you can see that they've added a ventilation shaft onto Charlemont station. Finishing the tunnel just north of Beechwood would have meant they'd need another intervention/ventilation shaft, ala Albert College Park, except this one wouldn't have a huge park to place it in. It'd also be a lot harder to justify as well, as there won't be a station further on, it'd literally be a shaft stuck at the end of the line.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,243 ✭✭✭p_haugh



    You should see the exchange between him & the Dublin Commuters Coalition on twitter today, comedic stuff right there!

    Charlemont supposedly has 2 separate stations on each side of the canal as far as Lacey's concerned, a governmental body (the NTA) apparently is unaccountable,.... just two of a good few wild claims he's made so far 😂😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,478 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    What's the likely outcome of this? Will it actually delay anything? Will NTA power on regardless?



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Just that a bunch of retired angry southside NIMBYs will get angrier.

    This group have been harassing politicians for a long time. There's been an uptick in activity recently with this new angle. Here's a SF TD asking the same thing last week:

    Ryan basically said no and he's the only person that can make the NTA change the plan. He's probably taking a hit on votes here but I think he sees that it's more important for him to get the project started in his term than to fiddle around with the details to appease this group.

    This is all the usual stuff:

    This is the important bit:


    Post edited by Peregrine on


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,539 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    It just goes to show you that if they're any other local politicians out there asking for more changes to be put forward by their own constituents that will attempt to delay this project all over again. It just shows that there will be no attempts to bound any form of stupidity when it comes to building infrastructure projects in this state.

    Thankfully though; Eamon Ryan wants to get this project through to the planning system asap because he really do not want to see this project getting delayed in the eyes of the public all over again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I assume when the likes of Lacey and Mannix say they've "supported cycling projects" in the past what they actually mean is they haven't actively campaigned against some of them. Unlike actual pro-cycling councillors who are pushing for better infrastructure and actively working to improve things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,243 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    Obviously Metrolink has yet to have its business case accepted but it would be great if this was actually the case. ABP will definately have their hands full over the next few years with the amount of infrastructure projects in progress!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    As of December, late April/early May was the railway order application submission date. This was subject to business case approval in early March. Business case approval won't happen until late March now so I'd estimate early/mid May for the submission date.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Should we factor in a half-month delay for every other step of the project as well? Where would that leave us with completion dates?



  • Registered Users Posts: 266 ✭✭Ronald Binge Redux


    Half a month? More like half a lifetime. Attached map is now nearly fifty years old.




  • Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭MyLove4Satan


    Converting the Harcourt Street line to a BRT was pure CIE though. That was them being unable to admit they screwed up closing it and removing the bridges ASAP.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Dermot Lacey is at it again.


    Post edited by Peregrine on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,319 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The reservation from Blanchardstown Centre down to the railway line is still in place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu



    what is the endgame for these councillors? is it just some Portobello locals who don't want a metro station nearby?

    "virtually no consultation" = 5 years of constant consultation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,546 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Lacey knows what areas vote for him and is willing to pander to those against the policies of his own party.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    true, but I'm still not clear on why they don't want the station at Charlemont.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    The problem is the closer you are to the city Center the less public transport affects you, so people that live near charlemont are much likelier to just walk to work than those further out, they also already have a luas if they need it. These people are happy with what they have and don’t want it disturbed and councillors like him don’t give a toss about anything beyond getting the votes in so will pander to any aul nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭JohnnyChimpo


    "vurtually". We're dealing with a formidable intellect here



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Great news! F**k the residents' groups, they have done nothing but delay this. They quite rightly are being ignored.

    A spokesman for TII said Hines had undertaken enabling work to allow a station to be developed at this this location in the future.

    “Under the agreement the State will fund the cost of the enabling works [approximately €12.5 million] and will reimburse Hines for the works when completed.”




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭prunudo


    These residents groups have caused untold delays to various public transport schemes over the years. Far too much sway and more concerned for the property prices than the greater good of the capital.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,243 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    Would they rather the NTA not arrange prepatory works to be done for the station, so that these brand new buildings would instead have to be knocked down in a few years time so that a station can be built???

    And they would 100% complain at that fact if that was the case in a few years time as well!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,270 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    more concerned? They don't care about the good of the capital full stop. They only care about property prices and amenities for themselves in the local area and should be treated as such.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭prunudo


    On the flipside, the authorities should listen to their concerns and how projects intergrate with their communities but the balance seems to be weighted on their often overhyped concerns.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,270 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    They should listen to them sure, and good changes have been made to BusConnects on the back of their comments (more interestingly some amendments to one-way routing instead of tree-cutting). But they are but one party, and a massively biased one at that, when it comes to city-wide infrastructure.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Interestingly enough, the residents had gone to court over this, but dropped it before anything happened. Presumably, they got advice that the enabling works didn't prejudice the route selection (as the existing enabling works at the Mater didn't prejudice the route either), or that the selection of Charlemont and the upgrade of the green line was always part of the plan, and had statutory backing.



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


    Is it property prices or inconvenience of construction work?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,539 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    I have no idea why enabling works are a problem as a way to prepare for a major infrastructure project like this one.

    If these residents associations are complaining that works are being carried out to prevent demolition of an existing building so it can include a metrolink station in Charlemont; what is the major issue here with getting on that part of the project while it will prevent more major costly mistakes later on during construction of this major piece of infrastructure.

    To my knowledge; if these residents associations from the Charlemont area are making complaints on why these projects have to include enabling works to be built on the former INBS building even if they don't want it just tells me what they want. It's just them taking part in dithering & pure knit-picking just for the sake of boosting their ignorance on these matters.

    The way they went to court over this matter just highlights that ignorance taking hold on a certain number of people who live in the area. They then have the gumption to go on and complain that the transport infrastructure within the capital is not running to their required standard.

    It's the unknown work of the hypocrite at hand while the rest of society get to struggle on right alongside them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭MyLove4Satan


    NIMBYs are traitors when you think about it. This is great to see.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40 jumpinsheep


    "Almost a quarter of a billion euro has been spent on Dublin’s various Metro projects in the past 15 years, without any construction having ever taken place." (source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40773486.html)

    Now, we'll add 12.5M euro of public funds to the above, while the project is still pending Gov approval and who knows what will happen if it reaches ABP; it'll probably take them at least 1.5 to 2yrs minimum, before reaching a final verdict on the project.

    By the way, building a station box before the project, already happened before, see this 2019 article: https://www.thejournal.ie/mater-metrolink-metro-north-nta-dublin-4585274-Apr2019/

    "THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT Authority has defended its decision to build a new MetroLink station at the Mater Hospital in Dublin despite a €12 million spend on a ‘station box’ structure 500 metres away for the shelved Metro North. [...]

    According to a spokesperson for the NTA, the alignment of MetroLink has changed from Metro North which has resulted in “the angle of approach to the Mater shifting away from the previously planned station box”. [...] "

    I agree it make sense build a metro box before new buildings that will sit on top of it, so there is no need to demolish them at a later stage; it would be a total waste. I think the Gov should have made the decision to reimburse Hines, only after the Metrolink project is completed (if ever). It should otherwise been a risk that the builder alone should had to take, for the privilege to build in that location now already. That's the issue I think, more public money down the drain continuously been spent on Metro projects, without any tangible result in sight... maybe in 10yrs time and not without a certain degree of luck.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,040 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    "I think the Gov should have made the decision to reimburse Hines, only after the Metrolink project is completed (if ever). It should otherwise been a risk that the builder alone should had to take, for the privilege to build in that location now already."

    So if the government later approve Metrolink, they then have to CPO a new building, likely with tenants with a long time to run on leases, how exactly is that a risk for the builder? The building owner would likely get paid everything he was going to earn from those leases, a whole pile of damages, all their legal costs, plus a huge wedge in CPO, they'd be made up. The state would still have to pay the full cost of building the station after.

    Such a situation would mean the cost of that station would not be justifiable, better off just not building a station there at all in that case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a full station box that they built at the hospital. That said, it still mystifies me that they would change the alignment north of the city centre, given the previous MN route had been fully scoped and money spent on it - money that is now wasted. There was no reason for the change of route to be honest.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,040 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The new interchange station at Glasnevin is the reason for the change in the alignment north of the city centre and it is very good reason for the change. The benefits of that station will be considerable, particularly in the context of DART+.



Advertisement