Metrolink - Alternative Routes - See post one for restrictions.

My start of this thread was prompted by Sam, and by the interesting article by Derek Scally in the Irish Times re Warsaw.

The Poles are certainly pressing ahead, with infrastructure. But it is interesting that not a single one of the existing (two) metro lines or (three) proposed metro lines has a feasible interchange with the central mainline station.

Warsaw Central has tracks from all over that country at a fairly deep level, so it might be difficult to build a metro line under that. But why not adjacent?

I like the idea of metro branches, in the outer reaches of a city, to maximise uptake and efficiency. This has been tried and tested in many cities, and usually not found wanting. Warsaw seems not to be trying this.

From my experience of the Poles, it seems unlikely that they have completely blundered, but, who knows?

But, anyway, back to the main topic of the thread: It seems that a walk from a College Green metro station to the Townsend Street entrance to Tara Street station would be about 400 metres. Thus, quite a bit shorter than the currently proposed 500+ metres for the allegedly 'easy' connection between the LUAS and metro at O'Connell Street.

If you were to build a proper LUAS-metro interchange at O'Connell Street, you could reduce that to a matter of metres.

The DART-Metro interchange would be longer than currently proposed, but the LUAS- metro interchange could be much better. What you lose on the swings, you win on the roundabouts.

And a metro station nicely in situ, in College Green, hopefully in the process of pedestrianisation, would be a target for a rejuvenated plan to build the long-wished DART Underground.

During a discussion many years ago, a poster (Monument) posted a link to a study by, I think, Maynooth University, of workplaces in the country. This was to give a picture of the number of workers in a particular ward or district. Areas were readily defined by colour (black for the highest density of workers, then red for a step down, then orange, etc).

It was very informative, but I can't seem to find anything similar now. The density figures for where people live are readily available, from the census, but a combination of those figures and the current workplace figures would be informative, as it assuredly was during that earlier discussion, for all parties.

I'd be surprised if such information wasn't also freely available, but I just can't seem to find it. Any help would be much appreciated.

I am a person who has lived in a couple of countries in continental Europe, and the public transport ethos in those countries seems to be, broadly, to spread PT spending fairly and according to need.

I'm not seeing that in relation to Metrolink on the southside of Dublin, where the temination of the proposed route at Charlemont is clearly designed to facilitate replacement of the Green Line south of the Grand Canal, rather than do anything to improve public transport in other areas, such as districts in the south-central/west of the city.

The Green Line south of the Grand Canal is well able to handle the current volumes - and if those volumes were to increase in the future, many cities in Europe have even on-street tram systems which handle tram throughputs of 50% higher than that tram section (30-32 trams per hour, from what I've seen).

Capacity, for now and the next many years, is thus not an issue. Any replacement of the Green Line with a metro would only incrementally increase speeds - the vehicles would still, presumably, be calling at most of the current stops - while still requiring large investment of time and money.

Time: the line would have to be closed for an unspecified period during the replacement with a 'Metro' service.

Money: All of the stops would need to be reconfigured. I seriously doubt you could have walkways across the tracks, as the LUAS currently does (at, e.g. Windy Arbour, Milltown and a host of others) if you've got a 'Metro' service. This might involve tunnelling or bridges.

The objective of unnecessary replacement of a well-functioning line diverts funds, and focus, from development to other areas, including areas which are known to have higher densities that those along the line to be 'upgraded'.