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)

1…2930323435…123

Comments

  • #1552
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah turning the TBM back on and continuing isn’t practical as it would be a disaster to remove millions of tons of earth and bring in the materials through a city Center portal. I just hope that if something is done in future it’s done so that joint two tunnels can be done with very little disruption to the existing lines. Now I haven’t a clue how that would be achieved but hope that people who do build that contingency in.


  • #1553
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    salmocab wrote: »
    Yeah turning the TBM back on and continuing isn’t practical as it would be a disaster to remove millions of tons of earth and bring in the materials through a city Center portal. I just hope that if something is done in future it’s done so that joint two tunnels can be done with very little disruption to the existing lines. Now I haven’t a clue how that would be achieved but hope that people who do build that contingency in.

    I would have thought it would be easier to join into an existing tunnel by tunneling in from the south. Metro stations are generally done by excavating and building the station box, then the TBM bores through into it. You build a box, even if it doesn't have a station, and tunnel into it to make the connection. If the portal is at the southern end near the M50, spoil removal is much easier. There is zero chance of permission being granted anyway if the plan is to cart out huge volumes of soil through suburban residential streets, thats a non-starter.


  • #1554
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I would have thought it would be easier to join into an existing tunnel by tunneling in from the south. Metro stations are generally done by excavating and building the station box, then the TBM bores through into it. You build a box, even if it doesn't have a station, and tunnel into it to make the connection. If the portal is at the southern end near the M50, spoil removal is much easier. There is zero chance of permission being granted anyway if the plan is to cart out huge volumes of soil through suburban residential streets, thats a non-starter.

    Yeah that’s pretty much what I was getting at


  • #1555
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    The current Metrolink design has the tunnel proceed 650m past Charlemont, in fact it follows the route of the Luas all the way past the Ranelagh Luas stop.

    Personally, I could see them CPOing gardens (and maybe some houses) around there, using that space to construct a temporary Luas diversion, getting that operational, digging straight down through the existing tracks, connect up to the Metrolink, get that operational, and then remove the temporary diversion.

    No extra tunnelling, and a reduction in the amount of time that the Luas is out of operation.


  • #1556
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    The only problem with that is the well-off of Ranelagh will never let their gardens be CPOd. You'd still have the Dunville Avenue crowd to deal with too.


  • #1557
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The only problem with that is the well-off of Ranelagh will never let their gardens be CPOd. You'd still have the Dunville Avenue crowd to deal with too.

    The CPOing would be a political nightmare, I feel Danville could be engineered with a decent compromise.


  • #1558
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The only problem with that is the well-off of Ranelagh will never let their gardens be CPOd. You'd still have the Dunville Avenue crowd to deal with too.

    Temporary CPO really, as they'd get their gardens back in the end. Well, most of them anyway.

    I still don't think that the NTA/TII had a problem with facing down the Dunville avenue residents, the only reason the plan changed was because of the sewer, not local opposition there.


  • #1559
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I said it in my submission at the last consultation and I still think the optimal solution is to stop tunneling under the Oakley Court apartments immediately west of the existing line. That gives you a good sized site and >120m with which to come out of the ground. The Green Line will have to close for a period in any case so do open cut under existing tracks and raise up Dunville Ave a bit to go under it, then tie in at existing track level on other side. The apartments site also becomes Ranelagh station, convert the now unused section of track to a HighLine type link back into the village.

    Start consulting with residents now about buying up all the apartments with a view to having them vacated in the next few years. That gives residents time to look for alterative accommodation. Most of the apartments are probably rented anyway so you are not dealing with many of the wealthy homeowner types. Any hold outs can be CPOed and there is time to fight legal battles without delaying the project.


  • #1560
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    Could you explain how that would that work, pete? Are you talking about joining the existing line north of Dunville Av?

    Isn't that area chock-a-block with houses and gardens and the like?

    edit - sorry I've had a look on google maps and re-read your message and think I see what you mean now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    Although I prefer your suggestion over the idea of tunnelling as far as Milltown/Alex, I still can help but think that joining the Green line north of the canal would provide so many advantages that the option should be explored.

    There is just about enough room to stay within gradient limits for metros (about 5% by rough calculation) if the line emerged from just under Adelaide road to get up to the Charlemont bridge.

    There would be massive disruption to Adelaide Road and Earlsford terrace but at least you're not dealing with well-connected residential NIMBYs so much here - although you might have to take out one or two houses around Peter's place and the Georgian next to the listed presbyterian church.

    But the advantages seem very considerable to me - you'd save the cost and disruption of mining out a metro station or even two if the link-up was south of Cowper. There would be little disruption to the running of the Green line during construction. And the severed end of the Green line would be in a far better place to be usefully extended - e.g. it could be redirected down Richmond St - Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, etc.
    534753.jpg


  • #1562
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    gjim wrote: »
    Although I prefer your suggestion over the idea of tunnelling as far as Milltown/Alex, I still can help but think that joining the Green line north of the canal would provide so many advantages that the option should be explored.

    There is just about enough room to stay within gradient limits for metros (about 5% by rough calculation) if the line emerged from just under Adelaide road to get up to the Charlemont bridge.

    There would be massive disruption to Adelaide Road and Earlsford terrace but at least you're not dealing with well-connected residential NIMBYs so much here - although you might have to take out one or two houses around Peter's place and the Georgian next to the listed presbyterian church.

    But the advantages seem very considerable to me - you'd save the cost and disruption of mining out a metro station or even two if the link-up was south of Cowper. There would be little disruption to the running of the Green line during construction. And the severed end of the Green line would be in a far better place to be usefully extended - e.g. it could be redirected down Richmond St - Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, etc.
    534753.jpg

    I'm pretty sure that option was explored and found to be impractical. It would also involve severing Adelaide Road, demolition of at least one Georgian building, destruction of historic streetscape, even if the church remained all vistas of it would be ruined, centuries old trees would be cut down, basically it is guaranteed to poke every bear of an objector in the city.


  • #1563
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that option was explored and found to be impractical. It would also involve severing Adelaide Road, demolition of at least one Georgian building, destruction of historic streetscape, even if the church remained all vistas of it would be ruined, centuries old trees would be cut down, basically it is guaranteed to poke every bear of an objector in the city.
    I didn't draw that very well - the idea is that it wouldn't involve severing Adelaide Road - it would emerge just south of of it. There would be potentially no affect on the streetscape if the Georgian's facade were kept like they often do in other cities (it would become a "fake building" - https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/ or like the ones in Paris and London.) - so there would be little or no affect on historic streetscapes or vistas.

    But I'd love to hear of what was found when exploring this option? Once the sewer thing became an issue (ignoring the Dunville Av. debacle), all I heard of was how and where to bring up the tunnel south of Ranelagh. The only issue I can think of is the gradient at 5% or so would be relatively steep although not unheard of in metro systems globally.

    We're talking about potential savings of 1/2 billion euro by connecting here when you take into account there would be no need to mine out a station at Charlemont or a further station if they decide to link up between Cowper and Milltown which looks more likely. And you save 1.5km to 2.5km of tunnelling.

    And because you're not tunnelling under or beside the existing line, disruption to Green line operations during construction would be minimised. And it gives the potential of being able to naturally extend the Green line either SW (towards Terenure) or SE (towards Ballsbridge) from the end of Hardcourt St instead of having a terminus surrounded by suburban back gardens with no scope to extend it - given the nature of the surrounding roads.

    Let's face it, they're in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here - what should be the cheapest possible metro/km (by upgrading the Green line south of Charlemont) is going to be a messy, disruptive, expensive and prolonged process if it involves tunnelling, mining stations and CPOing houses and gardens in well-healed suburbia.


  • #1564
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    gjim wrote: »
    I didn't draw that very well - the idea is that it wouldn't involve severing Adelaide Road - it would emerge just south of of it. There would be potentially no affect on the streetscape if the Georgian's facade were kept like they often do in other cities (it would become a "fake building" - https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/ or like the ones in Paris and London.) - so there would be little or no affect on historic streetscapes or vistas.

    But I'd love to hear of what was found when exploring this option? Once the sewer thing became an issue (ignoring the Dunville Av. debacle), all I heard of was how and where to bring up the tunnel south of Ranelagh. The only issue I can think of is the gradient at 5% or so would be relatively steep although not unheard of in metro systems globally.

    The tunnel would have to be deep enough to avoid undermining buildings on Adelaide Road, particularly the church, then emerge from the ground and climb to meet the level of the existing ramp and bridge over the canal. There is <100m from the back of the church to the ramp to the bridge, there is no way it would get from several metres below ground to several metres above it in such a short space.


  • #1565
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,923 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    gjim wrote: »
    I didn't draw that very well - the idea is that it wouldn't involve severing Adelaide Road - it would emerge just south of of it. There would be potentially no affect on the streetscape if the Georgian's facade were kept like they often do in other cities (it would become a "fake building" - https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/ or like the ones in Paris and London.) - so there would be little or no affect on historic streetscapes or vistas.

    But I'd love to hear of what was found when exploring this option? Once the sewer thing became an issue (ignoring the Dunville Av. debacle), all I heard of was how and where to bring up the tunnel south of Ranelagh. The only issue I can think of is the gradient at 5% or so would be relatively steep although not unheard of in metro systems globally.

    We're talking about potential savings of 1/2 billion euro by connecting here when you take into account there would be no need to mine out a station at Charlemont or a further station if they decide to link up between Cowper and Milltown which looks more likely. And you save 1.5km to 2.5km of tunnelling.

    And because you're not tunnelling under or beside the existing line, disruption to Green line operations during construction would be minimised. And it gives the potential of being able to naturally extend the Green line either SW (towards Terenure) or SE (towards Ballsbridge) from the end of Hardcourt St instead of having a terminus surrounded by suburban back gardens with no scope to extend it - given the nature of the surrounding roads.

    Let's face it, they're in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here - what should be the cheapest possible metro/km (by upgrading the Green line south of Charlemont) is going to be a messy, disruptive, expensive and prolonged process if it involves tunnelling, mining stations and CPOing houses and gardens in well-healed suburbia.

    That almost reads like "well it's ok to demolish a small council estate (Peter Place), rather than CPO further south" (effectively all the houses in that estate would have to go if your suggestion were to be implemented).

    You would walking on dynamite politically with that suggestion I would suggest.


  • #1566
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    gjim wrote: »
    The only issue I can think of is the gradient at 5% or so would be relatively steep although not unheard of in metro systems globally.
    I was on a luas during one of the earlier snows (maybe 2008) when it failed to make it up that existing slope beside the Hilton. I can't imagine it would get any better if it had to make it up any thing any steeper.


  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    My drawing skills aren't the best - let me try again:
    534782.jpg

    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.


  • #1568
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    The gradient there would be difficult enough on its own, as would the heavy curve. Combine them both and I'd say that's well outside of design limits.

    The "best option" here is determined by the will of the government and how much money they're willing to spend.

    Regardless, let's continue this discussion on the appropriate thread for it.


  • #1569
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    gjim wrote: »
    My drawing skills aren't the best - let me try again:
    534782.jpg

    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.

    What you have drawing is clearly going directly under buildings on Adelaide Road. Those buildings have a half basement level and then foundations below which you need to pass under before the top of the tunnel. The Metrolink Preferred Route document shows an indicative tunnel diameter of 9.2m. The track level would be at least 10m below ground there. No chance you would be able to get up to the canal bridge level in the space available. Thats with little or no space under building foundations, there is a reason why top of the tunnel in the city centre is to be 17+m below the surface.


  • #1570
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    That almost reads like "well it's ok to demolish a small council estate (Peter Place), rather than CPO further south" (effectively all the houses in that estate would have to go if your suggestion were to be implemented).

    You would walking on dynamite politically with that suggestion I would suggest.
    There's nothing great about having to CPO people's homes (or land in the case of farmers) but it's a cost that society has accepted has to be paid for vital infrastructure development. And it's not exactly consistent to criticise this on the basis that people would have to be displaced - there's an entire apartment block full of people displaced near Tara St. for ML and it was deemed an unfortunate but necessary cost. The number of people in this case would be far fewer than the apartment dwellers.

    There's no snobbery involved in my suggestion - nothing could be further from the truth actually - I've zero sympathy for the denizens of D6 after their shameful NIMBYism wrt to Dunville Avenue not that it actually mattered in the end given the canal sewer - it's that the alternatives are simply much worse, more expensive and deliver far less utility at a much higher cost.

    So by all means attack the suggestion but it'd be fairer if it were criticised on the basis of a comparison with linking up somewhere between Ranelagh and Milltown. Otherwise it seems just like an argument against completing the metro link to Sandyford.


  • #1571
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The gradient there would be difficult enough on its own, as would the heavy curve. Combine them both and I'd say that's well outside of design limits.

    The "best option" here is determined by the will of the government and how much money they're willing to spend.

    Regardless, let's continue this discussion on the appropriate thread for it.
    Fair enough - further responses will be on that thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,614 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that option was explored and found to be impractical. It would also involve severing Adelaide Road, demolition of at least one Georgian building, destruction of historic streetscape, even if the church remained all vistas of it would be ruined, centuries old trees would be cut down, basically it is guaranteed to poke every bear of an objector in the city.

    Demolition of a Georgian house? Shur you can't be doing that.

    I can think of one group who'd be very vocally against that.

    Seriously that group instead of preserving Georgian Dublin have allowed it be carved up like a chop shop. A friend of mine had a bedsit in one and there was a recess in the wall. I asked him what it was and he explained it was the old Georgian fireplace that had been split in half with plasterboard to make what was a sitting room, two separate bedsits.


  • #1573
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: This thread is about the published Swords to Charlemont route. Please post ideas about deviations to that route in the other thread.

    Thank you.


  • #1574
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    gjim wrote: »
    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.

    No point in leaving the TBM in the ground to continue on at some stage, once the tunnel is in use the bore needs to be done from the suburb to the city.


  • #1575
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    gjim wrote:
    There's nothing great about having to CPO people's homes (or land in the case of farmers) but it's a cost that society has accepted has to be paid for vital infrastructure development. And it's not exactly consistent to criticise this on the basis that people would have to be displaced - there's an entire apartment block full of people displaced near Tara St. for ML and it was deemed an unfortunate but necessary cost. The number of people in this case would be far fewer than the apartment dwellers.


    That block near Tara st. has 70 apartments; there is also the DCC Markievicz swimming pool/gym and next to it, also about 10 DCC houses with ederly ppl living there. All the above are basically under CPO threat.

    Let's see if NTA/TII is going to submit to ABP by June 2021 or if there will be further delay, given covid19, etc.; won't be surprised if so.

    Curious as well to see what comments will be made by politicians (if any, as these are just apts in such a central area that is being completely revamped, and not the "poor" home gardens of the affluent Ranelagh, which seems - from a previous comment by CatInABox- that they would mostly have them back in the end), when the news of 70 apt being CPO'ed (for good then?) will be out again in the news - given the lack of apartments in general and also in the city centre.
    Also 'cause it seems that a CPO of an entire block of 70 apts, it's a first in Ireland (please correct me if it's not the case, reference are welcome).


  • #1576
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,755 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Imagine the housing scheme that could be built there when the metro is complete with a bit of vision and the abandonment of anti high rise sentiment.


  • #1577
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Imagine the housing scheme that could be built there when the metro is complete with a bit of vision and the abandonment of anti high rise sentiment.

    Wasn't there plans to replace the 70 apartments with new buildings with over 3 times as many apartments?


  • #1578
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    bk wrote:
    Wasn't there plans to replace the 70 apartments with new buildings with over 3 times as many apartments?

    Never heard of this before but plausible if it's not going to be just another office or hotel. Any available reference about it?

    Sure is that from when the ML project was made public, in one of the first few documents published, is clearly specified the possibility to build again on top of that underground station; where the College Gate apt block and swimming pool are now.

    The latest artist's drawing published for ML Tara st. station, shows a very little park and few trees (where College Gate apt block and swimming pool are now).

    While a bit of green would be nice in an area otherwise surrounded by high rise bulding once completed (the new 22 or 23 storey high office/hotel of Johnny Ronan, next to Tara St. Dart station {construction not yet started but has been approved by ABP} + the new building where the Apollo house once was, likely 20 floors high {as few apts built to rent added on top, been approved by ABP}), I find it impossible to think that such a prime city centre location, would be left without any new building (likely going to be high rise, won't make sense otherwise).

    I think builders are going to fight over this very valuable piece of land (and its air space), if and when it'll become available to be built upon.
    It's a pity that no information at all are available anywhere, about of what the block and swimming pool could potentially be replaced with.


  • #1579
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    jumpinsheep wrote: »
    Never heard of this before but plausible if it's not going to be just another office or hotel. Any available reference about it?

    Sure is that from when the ML project was made public, in one of the first few documents published, is clearly specified the possibility to build again on top of that underground station; where the College Gate apt block and swimming pool are now.

    The latest artist's drawing published for ML Tara st. station, shows a very little park and few trees (where College Gate apt block and swimming pool are now).

    While a bit of green would be nice in an area otherwise surrounded by high rise bulding once completed (the new 22 or 23 storey high office/hotel of Johnny Ronan, next to Tara St. Dart station {construction not yet started but has been approved by ABP} + the new building where the Apollo house once was, likely 20 floors high {as few apts built to rent added on top, been approved by ABP}), I find it impossible to think that such a prime city centre location, would be left without any new building (likely going to be high rise, won't make sense otherwise).

    I think builders are going to fight over this very valuable piece of land (and its air space), if and when it'll become available to be built upon.
    It's a pity that no information at all are available anywhere, about of what the block and swimming pool could potentially be replaced with.

    The Artist Impression faintly shows the outline of a building next to the Irish Times. When(if) the buildings are CPOed, the land will be in public ownership so builders unlikely to get the opportunity to fight over it. A replacement leisure centre is very likely I'd say with apartments above.

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/StationsArtistImpressions/MetroLink_Station_ArtistImpressions_Tara_A4_0419.pdf


  • #1580
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    bk wrote: »
    Wasn't there plans to replace the 70 apartments with new buildings with over 3 times as many apartments?

    Nothing beyond a plaza was ever confirmed. I had assumed that they'd eventually sell the land to a developer, but considering the new bent to the council, it's possible that they'd try and keep it to do something with it themselves.


  • #1581
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The Artist Impression faintly shows the outline of a building next to the Irish Times. When(if) the buildings are CPOed, the land will be in public ownership so builders unlikely to get the opportunity to fight over it. A replacement leisure centre is very likely I'd say with apartments above.

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/StationsArtistImpressions/MetroLink_Station_ArtistImpressions_Tara_A4_0419.pdf

    From what I gather, a replacement centre in the area must be found before construction starts. No idea if that'll be a temporary centre, with a permanent one built onsite, but then again, DCC won't own the land, it'll be in the hands of NTA/TII.


  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    CatInABox wrote: »
    From what I gather, a replacement centre in the area must be found before construction starts. No idea if that'll be a temporary centre, with a permanent one built onsite, but then again, DCC won't own the land, it'll be in the hands of NTA/TII.

    There is little chance of a new swimming pool being built in that area before construction starts. They obviously need a big enough site (which are hard to come by in the city centre), design it, go through planning process, etc. Building a replacement on the site is a more realistic proposition, it could be done when the station box structure is substantially complete which would be well before Metrolink becomes operational. The foundations may even be designed/constructed at the same time, its also easier building a swimming pool if starting with a big hole already.

    I'd imagine NTA/TII would be happy to give DCC a long lease to operate a leisure centre there to minimise complaints. They would probably want to retain ownership of the entire site anyway.


  • #1583
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    TII have tendered for Procurement Advisor services to assist with the procurement and then the delivery of the MetroLink project

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/178797/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

    The early 2020 plan was to publish a tender notice for the Metrolink consturction contract in the quarter before the project was to be submitted to ABP for a railway order. By that timeline, the procurement process for MetroLink should commence in Q1 2021.


  • #1584
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,755 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Sounds very positive. Wasn't expecting it, at least not at this stage. Fingers crossed but I won't be happy till there's great big holes in the ground


  • #1585
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    TII are procuring an Independent Engineering Expert to review the Railway Order for Metrolink

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/165452/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

    Must be close to completion if this is what they're after.


  • #1586
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    marno21 wrote: »
    TII are procuring an Independent Engineering Expert to review the Railway Order for Metrolink

    https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/165452/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

    Must be close to completion if this is what they're after.

    Good that they are being so thorough with it but it sounds like it could be tight for the application to be made in H1 next year. Tenders returned end of Jan, appoint someone end of Feb, they'd surely need a couple of months to review what is surely a huge amount of documentation, prepare and submit a report, review report and decide what actions to take, make changes if necessary... Late summer would seem like the earliest it could go in.


  • #1587
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Good that they are being so thorough with it but it sounds like it could be tight for the application to be made in H1 next year. Tenders returned end of Jan, appoint someone end of Feb, they'd surely need a couple of months to review what is surely a huge amount of documentation, prepare and submit a report, review report and decide what actions to take, make changes if necessary... Late summer would seem like the earliest it could go in.

    How would that fit with the schedule?


  • #1588
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    There is little chance of a new swimming pool being built in that area before construction starts. They obviously need a big enough site (which are hard to come by in the city centre), design it, go through planning process, etc. Building a replacement on the site is a more realistic proposition, it could be done when the station box structure is substantially complete which would be well before Metrolink becomes operational. The foundations may even be designed/constructed at the same time, its also easier building a swimming pool if starting with a big hole already.

    I'd imagine NTA/TII would be happy to give DCC a long lease to operate a leisure centre there to minimise complaints. They would probably want to retain ownership of the entire site anyway.

    Yes, I agree it would be easier to build a swimming pool if starting with a big hold already.

    There is indeed a big hole, where the Apollo House once was (among other nearby buildings already demolished) and it'll be even bigger once Hawkins House will be gone (already in progress); that is big enough for a swimming pool and certainly a metro station too.

    DCC could also have used this opportunity to make a deal with Marlet and build there a replacement new swimming pool.

    Marlet could also have used this opportunity to make a deal with TII and build a new building on top of a metro station box, I think it could have been cool and modern; also thinking about potential underground shops in what could have been a possible underground walking connection, from there to the Tara dart station (about ~100mt). Plenty of such examples when thinking of metro in Paris, London, and many other big cities.

    The idea to move the Tara metro station from its preferred location to where the Apollo House once was, has already been rejected by TII due to a number of reasons; here's the reference in case anyone is interested: https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development.pdf#page=271 (from page 271 to 300)

    Given those missed opportunity for DCC and Marlet; and as TII own CPO guideline document is published (https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_CPOGuideline_Doc_FinApp_310820.pdf), it seems that those living in College Gate have (unfortunately) their days numbered, along with the leisure centre and the DCC townhouses.


  • #1589
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    Just noticed in the metrolink.ie website > news > an update published on the 18th Dec 2020: "Market Update for December 2020"
    https://www.metrolink.ie/#/news

    While TII mention the RO application will be made in June 2021, I have a couple of questions, in case anyone could help:

    1. the Business Case needs to be submitted for government approval prior the RO application. Is it possible to check somewhere online, the business case once submitted and most importantly, the government's decision?
    I understand that by many, it's like a given it'll be approved but still, I'm interested in reading the final outcome, if it's available to the public.

    2. what PPP refers to in the update published? here's the text:
    "
    [...] The preliminary market consultation on the main contract packages including in relation to the PPP option has now been re-scheduled for Q1 2021. The intention is to further explore potential interest and market capacity to support the financing of a PPP option and to consult on its planned scope and potential commercial structure with interested sponsors. This consultation will be conducted by TII with the assistance of the National Development Finance Agency (NDFA). [...]
    "


  • #1590
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Full text of the Market Update:
    Metrolink wrote:
    Market update: December 2020

    TII continues to develop the MetroLink scheme in preparation for the Railway Order
    application which it anticipates will be made in June 2021. Preparation of the Preliminary
    Business Case is also well advanced in accordance with the summary timetable issued with
    the October update.

    Current activities funded by TII in support of the development of MetroLink include a
    number of significant developments:
    * Appointment of a preferred bidder for the provision of a Common Data Environment
    * Appointment of an advisor on BIM and Information Management
    * Appointment of a consultant to prepare the MetroLink Sustainability Plan
    * Tender competition launched (November 2020) for the appointment of a Project Conservation Architect for MetroLink
    * Tender competition launched (7 December 2020) for Procurement Advisor to support TII to prepare tender documents and to procure the appointments for i) a Client Partner and ii) a Project Delivery Partner
    * Tender competition launched (10 December 2020) for Independent Expert in support of MetroLink Property Owners’ Protect Scheme (“POPS”)
    * Progression of the enabling works for the station box at Charlemont Station
    * Supplementary ground investigations (boreholes and trial pits)
    * Seasonal environmental monitoring surveys
    * Supplementary preliminary building condition surveys
    * Ongoing archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations

    An update in relation to the expected selection of a provider of client services to TII is now expected to follow in January 2021, including the anticipated timing for the PIN and OJEU notice.

    The preliminary market consultation on the main contract packages including in relation to the PPP option has now been re-scheduled for Q1 2021. The intention is to further explore potential interest and market capacity to support the financing of a PPP option and to consult on its planned scope and potential commercial structure with interested sponsors.

    This consultation will be conducted by TII with the assistance of the National Development Finance Agency (NDFA).

    TII’s offices at Parkgate Business Centre, Dublin have re-opened. However, in keeping with government guidelines on COVID 19, attendance is by essential workers only. Consequently, the MetroLink team continues to work remotely. At this stage TII proposes to arrange for any consultation to take place remotely, although this will be kept under review following any change in health guidelines.

    A Prior Indicative Notice (PIN) will be published by TII in the Official Journal of the EU in advance of any Contract Notice in respect of the metro works and operations.


  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    jumpinsheep wrote: »
    J1. the Business Case needs to be submitted for government approval prior the RO application. Is it possible to check somewhere online, the business case once submitted and most importantly, the government's decision?
    I understand that by many, it's like a given it'll be approved but still, I'm interested in reading the final outcome, if it's available to the public.

    Projects must have a business case submitted to DTTAS which will be approved if the business case makes sense. For projects over €100m (we can safely assume this will be) the Business Case must be approved by Cabinet. Once the Business Case is approved, TII will submit the project to An Bord Pleanala (railway order).

    I'm not sure if the business case will be made available publicly in full. The decision of Government will be published in the media on the day it's approved (like this: https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2018/1002/1000457-galway-by-pass)[/QUOTE]
    2. what PPP refers to in the update published? here's the text:
    "
    [...] The preliminary market consultation on the main contract packages including in relation to the PPP option has now been re-scheduled for Q1 2021. The intention is to further explore potential interest and market capacity to support the financing of a PPP option and to consult on its planned scope and potential commercial structure with interested sponsors. This consultation will be conducted by TII with the assistance of the National Development Finance Agency (NDFA). [...]
    "

    PPP = public private partnership. As opposed to directly funded by the exchequer. You can find more information on PPPs on Google rather than me copying and pasting here.


  • #1592
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,923 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Business cases tend not to be published until significantly after the project has started construction and will be heavily redacted where commercially sensitive information is included.

    In the case of LUAS Cross-City it was published well into the construction period.


  • #1593
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    One of the latest Dublin Commuter Coalition tweet (23rd Jan 21):
    "Metrolink will begin Construction next Summer. BusConnects will begin implementation this year. The Public want to have a say in these projects. Public consultation is a good thing."

    tweet link: https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1352772447834173441?s=20
    They seem quite confident with that timeline, however the operational deadline of 2027 is no longer shown in the current website (e.g. see Key Facts , Cost Forecasting > The Business Case) VS Key Facts and Project Timeline pages from the archived Metrolink website.

    I guess the Metrolink construction would need to start in multiple places at the same time, to potentially be operational by 2027 as initially proposed, rather than starting with TBM at one end of the line and build stations progressively.


  • #1594
    1huge1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭1huge1


    I'm assuming by "next" summer, they mean Summer of 2022? That seems reasonable.


  • #1595
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,755 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    No official estimate of completion time yet but 2027 is completely out at this stage I'd say.


  • #1596
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Are they planning a staged opening or for it to happen at once?


  • Advertisement
  • #1597
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Are they planning a staged opening or for it to happen at once?

    I'd imagine all at once, with things like signalling etc along the line to be tied together I don't think the time between a section being 'complete' and the whole project being complete would be in any way significant?


  • #1598
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    riddlinrussell wrote: »
    I'd imagine all at once, with things like signalling etc along the line to be tied together I don't think the time between a section being 'complete' and the whole project being complete would be in any way significant?

    Unless they do the bit north of the M50 as a separate project, doing both at the same time, but the northern bit is shorter and could be done quicker.


  • #1599
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    cgcsb wrote: »
    No official estimate of completion time yet but 2027 is completely out at this stage I'd say.

    Wasn't the original timeline based on the initial scope which included upgrading Green Line to Metro and more tunneling? Has a timeline been given for the current scope? They plan to split construction across three civil works contracts which might make things a bit faster, having multiple companies pouring resources into different elements rather than one resourcing the whole lot.

    I wouldn't say 2027 is completely out the window for the current scope if everything runs to plan and no further delays. If the RO is approved before the end of 2022 and procurement has been advanced during that time, you could possibly see construction start in early 23 which gives four full years to the start of 27. It could conceivably be open by end of 27 but that requires full RO approval within 18 months, construction commencing within months of RO approval and then no major delays during construction.


  • #1600
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    Was checking if there was anything in the news about Metrolink and found this article (6th Jan 21):
    https://dublingazette.com/news/covid-transport-59202/
    [...]
    "Just months ago Finance Minister Pascal Donohue said capital projects such as the Dublin MetroLink could be deferred because of the Covid-19 crisis and its impact."
    [...]
    "However despite this, Transport Minister Eamon Ryan believes the three major projects will get under way in 2022 because “we can’t afford not to do it”."
    [...]
    "“I don’t have the full cost estimates yet. I’m confident I can get it through government quickly that these are the right strategic investments.
    “Metro will take five years to build but once we start it gives a signal to the housing sector it’s happening, that’s where you build. And probably the most important thing we have to do is going to transport-led housing development.”    "
    [...]

    Not sure how much the Finance Minister Pascal Donohue can influence (either positively or negatively) the Metrolink project.


  • #1601
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,270 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    jumpinsheep wrote: »
    Not sure how much the Finance Minister Pascal Donohue can influence (either positively or negatively) the Metrolink project.

    It is a massive distortion of what Donohue said. He said that the govt had no plans to defer anything and that the large infrastructure projects would in fact be a key part of the recovery from COVID-19, however they could not guarantee that some of the contractors would not face delays due to the pandemic impacting their ability to deliver.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement