Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Going from that IT article on Bombardier. In terms of aesthetics; I would think that the Innovia Metro 300 would be a perfect fit to have as a driverless train being provided for Metrolink. The passengers in Dublin & beyond that would probably consider it to be a huge hit for them if people are commuting to work from outside the GDA because it just looks so attractive to the naked eye.

I mean just look at it from the point of aesthetics. It is fresh, it is modern & it is a very sleek looking piece of infrastructure. Does anyone else love the look of it?

bk wrote: »

The N4 is the one on Collins Avenue.

I can't wait for these orbitals. One of them will take me almost from my door to my office, a journey I currently would never dream of taking at the moment as it currently involves getting a bus into town and back out again.

Also it opens up easy access, with no changes, to Phoenix Park, Heuston and Connolly Stations and Blanchardstown.

They will really revolutionise access to the whole city for those without cars IMO.

That article was terrible.

One question I have about these orbitals:
Will there be continuous bus lanes/ bus priority on these routes and if so how long before this infrastructure is in place to service the new orbitals.
Thanks.

Apologies only seen the mid note after I posted.
Off to the bus connects forum with me!!

The additional billion is an increase though. It'll probably be used on bringing smaller projects to completion faster. More money won't really help metrolink at this stage. It'll be 2022 at the earliest for any building work to start, perhaps 2023 more likely, if at all.

I see Nurnberg opened a metro extension.

1.1km plus a station for 69m, seems good value.

Does anybody know was it bored tunnel or cut-and-cover?

Our costs seem higher?

Our Greens aren't real Greens.

So what has become of the 'micro consultations' on highly technical matters like siting intervention shafts. I really hope this goes ahead, would love to see building work in 2022. I can't recall the state having spent this much money on one item before although relatively speaking I bet Ard na Croise cost more.

If there is work on site in 2022 it may be possible to complete and open by 2028 but I think it's more likely 2029/30, assuming the project goes ahead.

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

A feasibility study will also be carried out on extending the Metrolink to Rathfarnham/Knocklyon or to UCD.

Is that an extension or a separate line? A UCD route would be technically difficult considering the end point of the tunnel under Ranalagh

The UCD and Malahide Road corridors have sufficient space to accommodate surface luas lines that could have a North-South connection somewhere in the Docklands. The luas needs more capacity in the Central area so a new North-South crossing would be very useful especially in the growing docklands. A Tallaght to Beaumont metro line should also be considered but I just think that's getting way ahead of ourselves. At present we don't have integrated ticketing or bus lane enforcement, the bread and butter of a public transport network.

cgcsb wrote: »

Is that an extension or a separate line? A UCD route would be technically difficult considering the end point of the tunnel under Ranalagh

The UCD and Malahide Road corridors have sufficient space to accommodate surface luas lines that could have a North-South connection somewhere in the Docklands. The luas needs more capacity in the Central area so a new North-South crossing would be very useful especially in the growing docklands. A Tallaght to Beaumont metro line should also be considered but I just think that's getting way ahead of ourselves. At present we don't have integrated ticketing or bus lane enforcement, the bread and butter of a public transport network.

You do realise that the mention of reviewing Metro lines here is in the context of the NTA implementing the review of the Dublin Area Transport Strategy, which they are legally obliged to do.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/nta-publishes-issues-paper-ahead-of-revising-greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/

Certainly I think that the recent consultations on Metro and BusConnects will have raised the profile amongst the general public of the strategy and the need to actually make a submission.

I think it largely went over peoples' heads the last time around, until they began to understand the implications of it when the detailed proposals got published.

I am sure that a separate thread will be started on the subject in due course.

I do think your comment about "integrated ticketing" which you seem to keep repeating, needs a reply here. You are implying that nothing has been happening about it, which isn't the case at all.

Firstly I'd point out that for regular commuters, there have been integrated multi-mode period passes for years, with monthly and annual tickets on offer.

But, the 90 minute ticket is presumably what you are referring to, which will allow an individual journey to be made across all modes provided the final journey starts within is an integral part of BusConnects, and it is coming.

There has been a steady restructuring of all the fares charged every year in annual NTA fare determination reports, and indeed of the monthly and annual ticket pricing. This was done over a period of years to avoid an unnecessary shock to the operating company finances and to consumer pockets, with a view to arriving at two fares - one a short journey fare and a second 90 minute fare. It would not have been affordable otherwise.

I would fully expect the 90 minute ticket to be introduced when the BusConnects network changes start being implemented in 2021 given that the redesigned network will be encouraging many new trips using more than one single journey.

Perhaps it may not happen with phase 1 as that would appear to be just a restructuring of the Howth Road routes, but I'd certainly expect it with the next phases as the new orbital and local bus routes start being rolled out. The plan won't work without it.

Edit - Apologies Sam - was writing this and got interrupted before you'd posted your Mod Comment

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

A feasibility study will also be carried out on extending the Metrolink to Rathfarnham/Knocklyon or to UCD.

National Children’s Hospital Mark II! I don’t think it should finish in Ranelagh or more properly Charlemont. Problem is, suggesting that design changes might be made as the project progresses is just an invitation to be screwed by the contractor.

Marcusm wrote: »

National Children’s Hospital Mark II! I don’t think it should finish in Ranelagh or more properly Charlemont. Problem is, suggesting that design changes might be made as the project progresses is just an invitation to be screwed by the contractor.

Whatever they decide to do won’t affect the current Swords-Charlemont route.

That debate is about the strategy up to 2042 and what to do next, and at last I’d like to think that a proper discussion about how to develop public transport in south Dublin over that period could now take place. The public didn’t engage to any significant degree when the previous strategy was originally published.

The debate that has happened since as a result of the Metrolink and BusConnects consultations certainly has awakened the public interest and that is not a bad thing.

I've started a separate thread on that topic here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058136172

Marcusm wrote: »

The discussion is about starting construction while contemporaneously considering a change to the design, ie it continuing further under ground. I think it should but that should have been sorted over past 18 months. Without a final design which can be pursued, it is a contractor’s opportunity to extract whatever they want, like BAM at NCH.

I think that passive provision will have to be made in the ABP application for continuing beyond Charlemont.

It will continue in some form or another.

It cannot surface at Charlemont due to the sewer.

Marcusm wrote: »

It’s not about planning. It’s about signing a deal with a contractor to dig a tunnel which ends in ranelagh (beyond Charlemont for turn back) probably dumping the tunnel boring machine there. If they decide, during the construction phase, that they want to extend beyond there and surface elsewhere, it will require changes to that contract which can’t be forced and for which the NTA will have no bargaining power. Hence why I say it would be expensive. For example, the contractor may seek to recover any irrecoverable overages on the ore existing contract or simply hold out for his ransom payment.

The chances of changing the contract after signing to extend metro is practically zero. There are many many years of design and planning in any extension before we get to that point. That really isn't a concern.

Marcusm wrote: »

How would you plan to “extend” an underground line which terminates in a congested area? You could start from the other end but none of those which have been proposed are easy kick off points either. It’s poor project organisation for something which has been mooted for 20 years or more. One of the reasons why we have disproportionately high costs and, consequently, inadequate infrastructure.

Whatever you want to do, you still need need to go through feasibility, various stages of design, plenty of consultations and ultimately get planning permission before anything can happen. Given how long that has taken for the progressing metro scheme, any new scheme is unlikely to be possible to add onto Metrolink. There would also be lots of question marks over adding multi billions in extra works onto another contract. In reality, any extension will have to be a separate project after Metrolink is built.

salmocab wrote: »

I don’t know the practicalities of it but I hope the ends are done in a way that allows for future extension, whether that means an extra 100 meters of tunnel or having the last bit slightly curved or whatever. Beyond that sort of thing in the initial design nothing from the priced job should really be changed unless completely necessary.

That's the kind of planning I was hoping for, given the circumstances. It was pointed out that any further tunneling (in same direction) would require a new shaft opening for earth removal or delaying the operation of Swords to Charlemont in order to use existing opes.

Phase 2 tunneling from south to north is possible but then you're back to square one regarding from where to start!

Most elegant solution is link to green line and upgrade to Metro.