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
1…4748505253…189

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    Kevtherev1
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭Kevtherev1


    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


  • Options
    #1473
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    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
    We've known about this public consultation since 2015. It's an essential part of the Strategy.


  • Options
    #1474
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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

    Plenty of opportunity for going around in circles then.


  • Options
    #1475
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users Posts: 8,301 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    The Dublin Commuter Coalition will tell you different if you don't like these consultations.

    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1309502959198384128


  • Options
    #1476
    Qrt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭Qrt


    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

    A loop? What would that even do?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    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.

    Ryan in the Dail yesterday.

    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-24a.88


  • Options
    #1478
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    dublinman1990 wrote: »
    The Dublin Commuter Coalition will tell you different if you don't like these consultations.

    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1309502959198384128


    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.


  • Options
    #1479
    DumbBrunette
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    It's encouraging to read the entire exchange.

    Ryan is clearly strongly in favour of Metrolink and expresses frustration that it has taken so long to get to this stage. He seems to understand the huge benefits it can bring, not just the old 'it's a train to the airport' s**te.
    marno21 wrote: »
    Ryan in the Dail yesterday.

    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-24a.88


  • Options
    #1480
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭prunudo


    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.

    Always a worthwhile reminder that when his name is mentioned regarding anti metro south news that he has a property adjoining the current green line in Ranalagh which will be effected by any possible upgrades.

    Edited (thought it was Rathmines)


  • Options
    #1481
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.

    Actually, he was elected a TD many moons ago. So he was elected once as a TD.

    He has a vested interest in that he owns an apartment backing onto Ranalagh Luas stop that would be affected by the Metro upgrade.

    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.

    We have very serious problems with the provision of infrastructure - particularly when it involves public transport. If the money spent on planning various infrastructure projects was actually spent providing it, we would have a great city.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users Posts: 8,301 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Our planning system is a major source of frustration with firms wanting to build a lot of decent infrastructure in this country.

    One firm who are not involved in building transport here, The Irish Wind Energy Association, who were attempting to build more wind farms in Ireland have said to the Irish Examiner very recently that our planning laws are part of a 'broken' system and were implying that the system would need to be fundamentally rebuilt from scratch. Their view was that the length of time for appeals to go through the planning system here were taking too long to get resolved. I would have a lot of sympathy for them expressing that view.

    I'm sure other firms who are involved in building projects like the Metrolink & BusConnects would agree with the IWEA on that opinion.

    If we had a better planning system set up here in Ireland that was able to deal with big projects like Metrolink in getting built very quickly along with Dart+ & BusConnects; we would be very happy to see that intention fulfilled with the reduced time they would take to get these projects built quicker. However all of the people who have the task of building Metrolink are still trying to get very important planning documents submitted as they were apparently talking to some posters here on Boards via their Twitter account recently.

    But all of that work that was being done at that point was apparently hampering their progress in getting it submitted on time.


  • Options
    #1483
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    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.


    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.


  • Options
    #1484
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1485
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Interchanges are perfectly fine for transport systems the world over. I don’t see any benefits in a literal connection, especially given the frequency of the services


  • Options
    #1486
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    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.

    To the average punter on the street, it's a connection because it's a seamless transfer.


  • Options
    #1487
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    To the average punter on the street, it's a connection because it's a seamless transfer.

    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.


  • Options
    #1488
    MICKEYG
    Registered Users Posts: 749 ✭✭✭MICKEYG


    You do the same on all metro systems in the world. The only difference is you are underground so it feels more integrated.


  • Options
    #1489
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    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.

    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.

    It wasn't possible. Full stop. The documentation at the time of LUAS BXD went into some detail about it and how it would not be possible.

    Having two separate lines delivers a relatively consistent product on both, and keeps the service simple.

    Interchanges are the norm the world over in public transport, and you cannot expect direct services to everywhere. Let's be honest, it is a relatively simple connection to make.

    Incidentally, even if it is raining, you can take the 145 bus from SSG to Heuston directly.

    Can we please move on from this now?


  • Options
    #1490
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    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.
    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.


  • Options
    #1491
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    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.

    I am no fan of the LUAS BXD route due to the negative impact it has had on cross-city bus services, which was diminished in the business case and not properly assessed.

    But one reason for only one direction using O'Connell Street was to reduce the impact of the line on bus services during construction , and a second was the need for a turnback facility to allow the focus of services to be on the Parnell-Sandyford section where demand would be highest. The current route allows trams to turn around at Parnel without having drivers changing ends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    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.
    This is a very handy interchange. If u want to see awkward: Chatelet Les Halls in Paris or Pasaige de Gracia in Barcelona


  • Options
    #1493
    tallaghtfornia
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭tallaghtfornia


    Notice over the last two week there is a Metrolink survey vehicle parked outside Fingallians GAA again - it was parked there pre the crisis but I notice it there again the last few weeks.


  • Options
    #1494
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    From
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/plans-for-2bn-dart-expansion-lure-bombardier-to-dublin-1.4368746
    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.

    Are Aventra trains operating on a GOA4 rail system?


  • Options
    #1495
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    jd wrote: »
    Are Aventra trains operating on a GOA4 rail system?

    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.


  • Options
    #1496
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    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.
    Yes, I was wondering. That would make sense. The article mentioned Aventra straight after talking about a metro.


  • Options
    #1497
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    jd wrote: »
    Yes, I was wondering. That would make sense. The article mentioned Aventra straight after talking about a metro.

    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.


  • Options
    #1498
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1499
    tobsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭tobsey


    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.

    What was that about?


  • Options
    #1500
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    They wrote an article filled with inaccuracies about the changes BusConnects would bring to the commute of a blind man who lived on Collins Avenue. Previously he would have had to take a 14 to Connolly and then change to the Luas to get to his workplace at Spencer Dock.

    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.

    I presumed the journalist involved, Brian Hutton, was simply too lazy to do his own checking of what he heard from the man, and simply repeated the incorrect assertion. I requested if the IT and Brian himself could at least reach out to the man to ensure his anxiety over the route changes wouldn't continue, if they weren't going to do a correction.

    Heard nothing at all.

    It's rare to come across real journalism in this country anymore, and this was an example of very bad journalism with a real victim. I'll never take anything printed in the Irish Times on faith ever again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    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.

    Yes, it's one of the orbitals, the N2 or the N4, so that's something at least.


Advertisement