Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Sam Russell · 02-12-2020 11:47am

Just a bit of reality here.

The Luas Green Line is currently hugely oversubscribed. It uses the longest trams available and so longer trams are not an option - also longer trams are slower and cause traffic congestion.

The current proposal, as published, increases the capacity many time over. Current planning applications for housing and industry show that this extra capacity is needed. The route is designed and is ready to go to ABP. [Apart from a few small problems - a sewer, a few objectors, and a problem at St Raphaela's Road]

It would be madness not to proceed as planned.

A new metro line is needed through the SW route and should continue through to the NE of the city. That should be a different project, and planning should start now. The current metro plan started in the 1970s so it takes a long time.

It is always possible to improve on a plan, but it is not an improvement to start again. We have already lost a decade over this redesign nonsense. Let us not lose another decade.

CatInABox · 02-12-2020 12:50pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is always possible to improve on a plan, but it is not an improvement to start again. We have already lost a decade over this redesign nonsense. Let us not lose another decade.

Yes, this. I happen to think that the current Metrolink plan is far, far better than the old Metro North plan. If I was given the choice of having Metro North up and running on schedule in 2015 (or so, can't remember when it was meant to be finished) or the MetroLink running in 2027/28 on this better alignment, I'd bite your arm off to get Metro North back then.

Again, once the first line is operational, there'll be others planned and built in a fraction of the time.

Sam Russell · 02-12-2020 1:12pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, this. I happen to think that the current Metrolink plan is far, far better than the old Metro North plan. If I was given the choice of having Metro North up and running on schedule in 2015 (or so, can't remember when it was meant to be finished) or the MetroLink running in 2027/28 on this better alignment, I'd bite your arm off to get Metro North back then.

Again, once the first line is operational, there'll be others planned and built in a fraction of the time.

You could go back to the plans from the 1970s that only saw the position on the shelf along with other such plans.

I have one bit of advice for our Green Party Minister of Transport - "Build it and build it now. Accelerate the building in any way that can be done."

He has in the past, when looking for votes in Dunville Ave, suggested all sorts of crayon wielding routings for metro and Luas, but now is the time to build it.

MJohnston · 02-12-2020 9:58pm

There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

salmocab · 02-12-2020 10:05pm

MJohnston wrote: »

There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

UCD doesn’t make sense to me. The students only attend for so many weeks a year anyway and have various start times, if a line was being built that passed that way it would be a good idea but to build a line that appears to be using The university as a justification for a route seems a stretch.

MJohnston · 02-12-2020 10:14pm

salmocab wrote: »

UCD doesn’t make sense to me. The students only attend for so many weeks a year anyway and have various start times, if a line was being built that passed that way it would be a good idea but to build a line that appears to be using The university as a justification for a route seems a stretch.

Maybe, although there is a large amount of residential development due to happen on the RTE Montrose site soon.

UCD is also the kind of university that is in heavy use well outside of term times.

tom1ie · 02-12-2020 10:17pm

MJohnston wrote: »

There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

Why look to put it in the east as opposed to the west?
The east already has the dart and GL plus a very good bus corridor along the n11, whereas the west has.......... well nothing really.

MJohnston · 02-12-2020 10:25pm

Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

salmocab · 02-12-2020 10:37pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

Apologies wasn’t suggesting you were pushing it or having a pop was just voicing my feeling on it.

tom1ie · 02-12-2020 10:56pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

I don’t see the point in putting a metro line in between a Luas line and a dart line when there’s a large swathe of the city with no access to decent PT.
This is all hypothetically speaking of course.

The GL needs to be upgraded to metro standard and connected to metro link of course, but yeah metro SWNE should come next not metro ucd.

gjim · 02-12-2020 11:49pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

All right, since you're disowning it and making it Eamon Ryan's baby, I won't hold back.

Ideas like this come from people gazing at maps of Dublin and seeing "gaps" and thinking it would make sense to have a metro/tram/heavy rail/BRT/etc. in the gap - "because area X is starved of PT options".

Try overlaying the route on a population density map for Dublin:

And look at where the line goes - it traces a path which manages to avoid any areas with any sort of population density. You're talking about digging 7km of metro tunnels and mining out 3 underground stations - probably costing in the ballpark of 2B. And this area has no easy wins in terms of scope for real densification and the existing (sparse) population is largely mature so there is little scope for "organic" growth either.

It's not quite as daft as suggesting a circle metro line for the hill of Howth but that swath of Dublin does not need a metro line.

We need to sort out the capacity problem getting in and out of the centre first and foremost.

lucernarian · 03-12-2020 2:05am

MJohnston wrote: »

There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

Hmmmm I'd rather see something go southwest to be honest, given the options available on the N11 corridor and land set aside for the eastern bypass (which could be repurposed) Vs the lack of options for a large part of Dublin.

D.L.R. · 03-12-2020 2:11am

This country really is a joke sometimes.

Use the line that's already there morons.

lucernarian · 03-12-2020 2:43am

D.L.R. wrote: »

This country really is a joke sometimes.

Use the line that's already there morons.

The idea of replacing functional "tram" lines with something else is not exactly established anywhere in the world. Happy to stand corrected.

cgcsb · 03-12-2020 9:37am

lucernarian wrote: »

The idea of replacing functional "tram" lines with something else is not exactly established anywhere in the world. Happy to stand corrected.

Other countries wouldn't put trams on a perfectly grade separated pre existing route though.

MJohnston · 03-12-2020 10:34am

gjim wrote: »

All right, since you're disowning it and making it Eamon Ryan's baby, I won't hold back.

Ideas like this come from people gazing at maps of Dublin and seeing "gaps" and thinking it would make sense to have a metro/tram/heavy rail/BRT/etc. in the gap - "because area X is starved of PT options".

Try overlaying the route on a population density map for Dublin:

And look at where the line goes - it traces a path which manages to avoid any areas with any sort of population density. You're talking about digging 7km of metro tunnels and mining out 3 underground stations - probably costing in the ballpark of 2B. And this area has no easy wins in terms of scope for real densification and the existing (sparse) population is largely mature so there is little scope for "organic" growth either.

It's not quite as daft as suggesting a circle metro line for the hill of Howth but that swath of Dublin does not need a metro line.

We need to sort out the capacity problem getting in and out of the centre first and foremost.

In fairness, this area does actually have quite a few projects ongoing that will increase density. There are a couple of major SHD projects around Donnybrook depot, for example, as well as the RTE site I mentioned before.

First, I think the map you're linking to is based on either 2011 or 2016 census data. There was a projected 2018 map in the BusConnects reports that may be more useful to go off:

The main thing I'd say is that although the UCD spur route is not high density, neither is a south-west route (at least in areas not served by the Red Line).

The other thing I'd note is that we absolutely and urgently need to upgrade capacity from Sandyford to the city — we all know about the future demand potential of the areas beyond Sandyford on the Green Line.

The problem with that upgrade is two-fold:

1. If you try to upgrade the Green Line itself between Ranelagh and Sandyford, beyond objections, you're going to have huge logistical problems involving long closures of the Luas line.
2. If you don't upgrade the Green Line directly, but instead provide some alternative relief between Ranelagh and Sandyford, then building anything that parallels the route of the Green Line would be exceptionally wasteful.

For example, I think the only practical way to make a Green Line upgrade happen is to extend the tunnel from Ranelagh down to Milltown, and then use the available open space around the Dodder valley to complete a less intrusive connection to the existing line. The problem with that is you're wasting about 33% of the potentially upgradable existing line! That has its own cost in addition to the cost of the extra tunnelling.

So the question becomes — do you spend money on that Milltown option, or do you spend a wee bit more and spur off somewhere else between Ranelagh and Sandyford?

I genuinely don't know which I'd pick.

salmocab · 03-12-2020 11:36am

MJohnston wrote: »

For example, I think the only practical way to make a Green Line upgrade happen is to extend the tunnel from Ranelagh down to Milltown, and then use the available open space around the Dodder valley to complete a less intrusive connection to the existing line. The problem with that is you're wasting about 33% of the potentially upgradable existing line! That has its own cost in addition to the cost of the extra tunnelling.

So the question becomes — do you spend money on that Milltown option, or do you spend a wee bit more and spur off somewhere else between Ranelagh and Sandyford?

I genuinely don't know which I'd pick.

I would think an issue with dodder valley is it’s actually quite a deep valley so at that point the tunnel would be very deep in relation to the level the Luas runs at which is ground level either side. The nine arches bridge is a good height so most of the land on the south side is probably too low to be of use for having an interchange

riddlinrussell · 03-12-2020 11:36am

If you were to pop out at Milltown, would there be any scope at all for a continuation of the stubbed Green line either in UCD direction or towards the South West then? I know it would miss out a few central South western population centres, but you could conceivably hit Rathfarnham/Terenure and out towards Tallaght?

I guess there's no space available there though

ted1 · 03-12-2020 12:15pm

gjim wrote: »

My drawing skills aren't the best - let me try again:

You wouldn't be going directly under any buildings so I don't see the undermining issue - it would be close to existing buildings we seem to able to build new buildings with underground car parking levels next to existing historic stock without issue.

It would be cut 'n cover down the middle of Earlsfort Terrace and across Adelaide Road.

But I agree the issue is the gradient. I'm not sure it's impossible though but it may be.

As you say, you have less than 100m to get from under the ground at the footpath on Adelaide road to above ground to join the existing tracks. The curve gives you a few more meters so it's close enough to 100m.

The tunnel height at the portal would need to be 4m - I'm guessing here. Plus say one meter containing the steelworks to support the footpath (further back under the road you'd have more as the level drops). So you need to rise 5m in the 100m which is 5%. Even if it were 6%, metro systems I believe can deal with these sorts of gradients.

Is it perfect? No but the other options (linking south of Ranelagh) are worse in every respect to the extent that I don't think we'll see the southern section of the Green Luas line upgraded to metro in our lifetimes.

That curve is to tight for a metro and will slow down the system

MJohnston · 03-12-2020 12:16pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

If you were to pop out at Milltown, would there be any scope at all for a continuation of the stubbed Green line either in UCD direction or towards the South West then? I know it would miss out a few central South western population centres, but you could conceivably hit Rathfarnham/Terenure and out towards Tallaght?

I guess there's no space available there though

Doing that above ground would involve a level of CPOing that would make a tunnel the far more financially viable option.

riddlinrussell · 03-12-2020 12:22pm

That's what I suspected, not being able to use the full length of the old railway alignment for the Metro is going to be a real pain, I do like the ideas of turning the stub section into a 'highline' style park though.

MJohnston · 03-12-2020 12:30pm

salmocab wrote: »

I would think an issue with dodder valley is it’s actually quite a deep valley so at that point the tunnel would be very deep in relation to the level the Luas runs at which is ground level either side. The nine arches bridge is a good height so most of the land on the south side is probably too low to be of use for having an interchange

I think it could work like this:

Alternatively you close South Richmond Avenue and build a parallel bridge over the Dodder before merging on the southside.

salmocab · 03-12-2020 2:33pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I think it could work like this:

Alternatively you close South Richmond Avenue and build a parallel bridge over the Dodder before merging on the southside.

I walk the dog there a bit it’s quite steep I’d be surprised if was within tolerance for the gradient.

LXFlyer · 03-12-2020 4:20pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

Well I don't think that the western option should not be assessed and just be ignored just because of potential objectors. That's as ludicrous as some of the more hyperbolic reactions of some of the D6 objectors.

Anyone who has to put up with 90 minute commutes on the likes of the 15, 15b or 16 will testify to the gridlock in the central southern area leading to the south and southwest. BusConnects isn't going to make that go away sadly.

There are quite a few new apartment developments in the pipeline in Dublin 16 which is only going to make matters worse.

MJohnston · 03-12-2020 4:45pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well I don't think that the western option should not be assessed and just be ignored just because of potential objectors. That's as ludicrous as some of the more hyperbolic reactions of some of the D6 objectors.

Anyone who has to put up with 90 minute commutes on the likes of the 15, 15b or 16 will testify to the gridlock in the central southern area leading to the south and southwest. BusConnects isn't going to make that go away sadly.

There are quite a few new apartment developments in the pipeline in Dublin 16 which is only going to make matters worse.

I agree with all of that! Nowhere did I say that a south-west line should not be explored.

However, I don't think there's any equivalence between a south-western Metro line and something that alleviates Green Line capacity pressure, other than both are required.

But a line to the southwest does nothing to solve the GL capacity problems, and vice versa.

gjim · 03-12-2020 6:04pm

MJohnston wrote: »

For example, I think the only practical way to make a Green Line upgrade happen is to extend the tunnel from Ranelagh down to Milltown, and then use the available open space around the Dodder valley to complete a less intrusive connection to the existing line. The problem with that is you're wasting about 33% of the potentially upgradable existing line! That has its own cost in addition to the cost of the extra tunnelling.

It's more than wasting the line or the cost of tunnelling - what about underground stations? Your earlier proposed route via UCD does not include any underground stations between Donnybrook and NE Stephen's Green?

Tunnelling to Milltown will surely require at the very least constructing two underground stations - four/five if you were to try to replicate the accessibility of the current Luas. Mining out underground stations is no joke - in terms of money, time and disruption - it might not even be feasible at all in the most optimal places like somewhere around the Ranelagh triangle.

This is why I was bringing up the idea of connecting north of the Canal - like option 3C - from this appraisal document that specialbyte linked to: http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-2/metrolink-1-gl-tie-in-options-appraisal-report.pdf - upgrading an existing Luas stops to metro standard is trivial in comparison to constructing underground stations so existing accessibility could be preserved for little cost - you'd have 5 stations between the Canal and Milltown almost for free.

gjim · 03-12-2020 6:21pm

ted1 wrote: »

That curve is to tight for a metro and will slow down the system

The curve was not deemed an issue when this option was appraised in the document specialbyte linked to. Metros would be slowing to come to a stop at Charlemont (or starting North from stopped) here. It's not like the metro would be going at 70km/hour along here anyway.

lucernarian · 03-12-2020 8:00pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Other countries wouldn't put trams on a perfectly grade separated pre existing route though.

London has grade separated former railways that now operate as tram routes? You should correct your claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon%E2%80%93West_Croydon_line

donvito99 · 03-12-2020 8:14pm

lucernarian wrote: »

London has grade separated former railways that now operate as tram routes? You should correct your claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon%E2%80%93West_Croydon_line

Trams are suitable for ferrying people into, around and out of a borough of London, that's fine. The same cannot be said for their application to radial commuter routes in South and West Dublin - probably explains why both the Tallaght and Sandyford lines were originally proposed as heavy rail (DART) and then Metro (including tunneling along the Abbey St axis) before the inadequate option was embraced.

The fact that the Green line was designed with an upgrade to Metro in mind tells you all you need to know about the adequacy of trams along the old Harcourt St line.

lucernarian · 03-12-2020 8:28pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Trams are suitable for ferrying people into, around and out of a borough of London, that's fine. The same cannot be said for their application to radial commuter routes in South and West Dublin - probably explains why both the Tallaght and Sandyford lines were originally proposed as heavy rail (DART) and then Metro (including tunneling along the Abbey St axis) before the inadequate option was embraced.

The fact that the Green line was designed with an upgrade to Metro in mind tells you all you need to know about the adequacy of trams along the old Harcourt St line.

Sure, but I wanted to set the record straight. It's quite a jump to say this has never been done in any other country. Another one that springs to mind is converting the Hoek van Holland train line to light metro, but that's not being described as a tram so I left that out.

mfceiling · 03-12-2020 8:34pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

donvito99 · 03-12-2020 8:38pm

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

A metro is unlikely to relieve the traffic though. If there's space for a car to fill, it'll be filled.

D.L.R. · 03-12-2020 10:29pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Sure, but I wanted to set the record straight. It's quite a jump to say this has never been done in any other country. Another one that springs to mind is converting the Hoek van Holland train line to light metro, but that's not being described as a tram so I left that out.

The luas system is, and always was, a cheap cop out by a gombeen govt more interested in land banking half of rural Ireland.

LXFlyer · 03-12-2020 10:41pm

donvito99 wrote: »

A metro is unlikely to relieve the traffic though. If there's space for a car to fill, it'll be filled.

A metro is far more likely to get people out of their cars than buses, particularly when you consider that the area has the worst traffic congestion and the lowest bus speeds in the city, and it has the highest proportion of people commuting by car.

With even more apartment developments being built in Dublin 16 and Dublin 24 this is only going to get worse.

D.L.R. · 03-12-2020 10:51pm

Regards Charlemont as an end point.

To play devil's advocate a bit, if the route were indeed go SW or SE instead of linking into the Green line, then why go to Charlemont at all?

Why not serve a district east or west of it instead, such as Leeson Street or Portobello.

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where the line is even headed yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

gjim · 03-12-2020 10:53pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where you're even going yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

Agree completely - there's absolutely no point progressing past SSG without an actual plan. I presume the TBM can just be left underground a bit south of the station box.

MJohnston · 04-12-2020 11:33am

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm one of those terenure "arseholes" and I can assure you there is a lot of support for a metro line through here. Traffic is chronic at times and anything to alleviate that will be welcomed.

I'm sure there's plenty of support in Terenue and Rathgar — by those arseholes I'm referring to the "communities not corridors" idiots.

Sam Russell · 04-12-2020 12:11pm

I am coming to the conclusion that connecting to the GL north of Charlemont as it solves the problem of the sewer, and the long term closure of the GL. This would mean that all current Luas stops south of Charlemont would become ML stops. Dunville Ave would close and as for St Raphaela's Road, that needs to be bridged, which is needed anyway, and could be done now..

Alternatively, route the ML to Portobello bridge, with a underground station, then take it south to Beechwood, just west of the station, coming to surface just adjacent to the line. The Metrolink station would be just South of the Beechwood Luas, with perhaps an underground station there, or alternatively, a surface station just south. Only one stop from SSG to Beechwood/Cowper.

Basically, SSG would be the interchange for Luas/Metrolink for passengers south of SSG, unless they walk a few hundred metres from Beechwood, or Cowper, or from Harcourt to Charlemomt.

lucernarian · 04-12-2020 12:36pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

The luas system is, and always was, a cheap cop out by a gombeen govt more interested in land banking half of rural Ireland.

That's fine, but inaccurate claims are not. Is that hard to understand or what is the issue here?

MJohnston · 04-12-2020 12:49pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Regards Charlemont as an end point.

To play devil's advocate a bit, if the route were indeed go SW or SE instead of linking into the Green line, then why go to Charlemont at all?

Why not serve a district east or west of it instead, such as Leeson Street or Portobello.

Its all just so half baked. If you're not sure where the line is even headed yet, just stop at SSG until you DO know.

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

So then, you're leaving Charlemont, which had a Luas stop and has developed as such, without a Luas stop. Harcourt would be impacted too, which is a problem as there are lots of big offices being constructed here.

Whereas, if you terminate the Metrolink at an underground Charlemont station, with a new canal footbridge from the station entrance to Harcourt Terrace, you've provided a solution that let's you remove both Harcourt and Charlemont Luas stops in the future.

Sam Russell · 04-12-2020 2:47pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

So then, you're leaving Charlemont, which had a Luas stop and has developed as such, without a Luas stop. Harcourt would be impacted too, which is a problem as there are lots of big offices being constructed here.

Whereas, if you terminate the Metrolink at an underground Charlemont station, with a new canal footbridge from the station entrance to Harcourt Terrace, you've provided a solution that let's you remove both Harcourt and Charlemont Luas stops in the future.

I would think the Luas should go along Adelaide Road as far as Leeson St or even further - maybe as far as Grand Canal Dock. Even if they allow the GL to go as far as Ranelagh, some could go on the Adelaide Rd extension - perhaps 50% or more. GCD is less than 2 km from Charlemont.

gjim · 04-12-2020 11:48pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am coming to the conclusion that connecting to the GL north of Charlemont as it solves the problem of the sewer, and the long term closure of the GL. This would mean that all current Luas stops south of Charlemont would become ML stops. Dunville Ave would close and as for St Raphaela's Road, that needs to be bridged, which is needed anyway, and could be done now..

Great! I think that makes two of us.

The downsides identified previously by the old MN team are the technical and engineering challenges of cut n' cover along Earlsfort terrace.

But the upsides are compelling for me - never mind the extra tunnelling, you save all the cost and disruption of building/mining underground stations from Charlemont potentially to Milltown. You're talking about 3 to 5 underground stations to replicate the catchment of the existing Luas. And you extract maximum value of the existing alignment for metro.

This leaves the Luas terminating in Harcourt St which offers natural paths for extension for an on-street tram - down Adelaide Rd to Irishtown, Ballsbridge or Donnybrook or west to Terenure - places where I think on street tram makes a lot more sense.

gjim · 04-12-2020 11:57pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Because the future plan is still to upgrade the Green Line. And if you do that, you have to stop the existing Luas line at SSG (with it continuing north to Finglas) as Charlemont wouldn't be able to accommodate all the turnbacks and parking required (SSG is already capable of this and was for years before BXD was completed).

Actually when they evaluated connecting the metro to the existing Luas alignment north of Charlemont, they suggested the Harcourt St stop as the new Green Line terminus with turn-back facilities around the corner on Adelaide Rd. So there'd be little/no waste of existing infrastructure.

Sam Russell · 04-12-2020 11:59pm

gjim wrote: »

Great! I think that makes two of us.

The downsides identified previously by the old MN team are the technical and engineering challenges of cut n' cover along Earlsfort terrace.

But the upsides are compelling for me - never mind the extra tunnelling, you save all the cost and disruption of building/mining underground stations from Charlemont potentially to Milltown. You're talking about 3 to 5 underground stations to replicate the catchment of the existing Luas. And you extract maximum value of the existing alignment for metro.

This leaves the Luas terminating in Harcourt St which offers natural paths for extension for an on-street tram - down Adelaide Rd to Irishtown, Ballsbridge or Donnybrook or west to Terenure - places where I think on street tram makes a lot more sense.

In fact I would put a new Luas line from GCD to Dolphins Barn following the canal to Portabellow and then the South Circular to meet up with the Red Line, with facilities for trams to go to Parnell from either end.

It would transform travel along that route.

salmocab · 26-01-2021 4:04pm

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

Paddico · 28-01-2021 1:51pm

salmocab wrote: »

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

What a load of Christmas cake.
Typical BS from politicians

strassenwo!f · 21-05-2021 8:35pm

The simple thing is, of course, to build the metrolink from Swords/The Airport to the city, via Ballymun, Drumcondra, Mountjoy Square. O'Connell Street (and this time with a decent connection to the LUAS red line), College Green , St. Stephen's Green West (Green LUAS), and on to points in the south-west of the city:Camden Street, Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, etc.

You'd then have an obvious target, College Green, which the city is struggling to pedestrianise, as a potential metrolink/DART/LUAS interchange for any east-west DART Underground project which might happen in the future.

iffandonlyif · 21-05-2021 8:42pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The simple thing is, of course, to build ... to points in the south-west of the city: Camden Street, Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, etc.

Am I missing something? The simplest thing is surely what they’re doing, i.e. converting pre-existing track? SW is a massive undertaking.

1huge1 · 21-05-2021 9:40pm

iffandonlyif wrote: »

Am I missing something? The simplest thing is surely what they’re doing, i.e. converting pre-existing track? SW is a massive undertaking.

You must be new here

(You are 100% correct by the way)

GerardKeating · 21-05-2021 9:49pm

salmocab wrote: »

I see Francis Noel Duffy is pushing his metro SW He had his flyers delivered after the date had passed for making submissions, which is about what I expect from the GO these days. He’s hoping to have it go from SSG to Tallaght.

In the original "Platform for Change" Metro South was the continuation of Metro North to Tallaght, via Kimmage, Harold Cross etc.

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Comments