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
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 - future routes for next Metrolink
Comments
-
Again - why should anyone in the south central and south west part of the city effectively be abandoned?
The southeast has DART, the N11 QBC, and LUAS.
You go on about this as if no one is living in the south or southwest - there are thousands of homes there already and they don’t have proper public transport.
Yet your solution is to spend money on an area that does have several functioning public transport systems and to hell with the rest of the people who don’t.
For the record I’ve commuted across the city over my working life and nowhere is as bad as the south central area.
I accept my solution would cost more, but there are already the thousands of homes already built that have not got an acceptable level of public transport available to them. That may not happen in my lifetime if this plan happens as it stands.
And I still maintain that an extended closure (talking far more than Ranelagh-Charlemonth of the Green Line to facilitate the conversion to Metro (as suggested by a TII engineer) will cause utter mayhem in the entire south Dublin area.
And for the record I have never been accused of not seeing the bigger picture - the big picture is that a huge swathe of Dublin is being ignored here. That’s enough for me.0 -
First of all, BusConnects is supposed to cost 1 billion over 10 years, not 2 billion!
That is just 100 million per year, which really isn't that much.
At the moment we buy 100 buses a year as replacements for old buses. Each new bus costs about €400,000 so that is €40 million per year alone for normal fleet replacement and they are expecting to increase the umber of buses bought per year. So really your only talking about €50m per year being spent on improving bus infrastructure throughout the city, it really isn't that much.
This thread seems to have turned into just focusing on a narrow corridor in the South West and it's issues! There are similar issues all over the city and BusConnects will be trying to help the entire city, all 16 core bus corridors.
Ok so going on your reasoning what timeframe do we have to get bus connects implemented and finished as a whole 10 years!!! How is that going to alleviate any traffic problems in dublin? In 10 years time there will be far more traffic on the road anyway, and we’ll be back to square one.
This thread is veering towards one area of Dublin in particular because that area has no pt apart from a woefully inadequete bus service, which is due to traffic, which is caused by lack of qbc’s, which is caused by space constraints.
Other areas have access to light rail and heavy rail that the sw corridor just doesn’t.
By the way thanks for pointing out it’s only 1 billion I was sure I seen a figure of 2 billion. Maybe that was wishful thinking!0 -
In my experience, buses in Dublin are not limited by road capacity, they're limited by no physical segregation, poor bus lanes design, poor bus stop design, limited bus lane enforcement by AGS, excessive dwell time caused by limited doors and poor ticketing options and, of course, the biggest one of all: too many taxis (legally) in the bus lanes. None of those will be solved by building a metro anywhere. They'll be solved by investing in the bus system, as is proposed.
Who's actually responsible for bus stops and bus lánes at the moment...? Could one body work on improving bus infrastructure line by line.. So stops the right size for the bus that uses them, barriers to keep pedestrian clear of the bus as driver pulls in, dedicated tow trucks (or parking wardens) to remove offender from stops and lanes.. A single body to work on improving junctions and light sequences for rush hour buses... And that's before you get to luas style ticketing... Anything to make the existing buses move more efficiently....Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
That value of tens of thousands has never been justified, considering most of the space available (per the govt's own register of land available for development) is not around an expanding international airport :pac: there's really not much (in the hundreds of units maybe) in the vicinity of the MetroLink, almost all on the northside unless Windy Arbour Golf Course could be CPOd and rezoned for the greater good.Shrug, we currently have a housing crisis in Dublin. They is little or no space for new housing on this SW corridor, there is lots of space for tens of thousands of new homes along the Green Line, thus it is a higher priority and would have a much better business case. It really is as simple as that.
A SW line needs to happen eventually, I agree, but it simply isn't a priority now.
I've refuted that point before too, there's no point in pedalling it yet again, as it's not that relevant to the thread - except for if it could be extended to Donabate, and I think that would radically change the potential for residential growth to something like what Almere offered to Amsterdam over the last 30 years. (nearing 200k residents)
Certainly the SSW corridor has significant issues which are not going to be solved with buses alone (Though the dodder cycling route would help a little). The problem is, it's also the part of Dublin that will be furthest away from rail transport when MetroLinky is hypothetically built.0 -
Shrug, we currently have a housing crisis in Dublin. They is little or no space for new housing on this SW corridor, there is lots of space for tens of thousands of new homes along the Green Line, thus it is a higher priority and would have a much better business case. It really is as simple as that.
A SW line needs to happen eventually, I agree, but it simply isn't a priority now.
Just to point out I wasn’t advocating building a sw metro (metro2) instead of upgrading Luas Green, I was suggesting diverting the money from bus connects to fund metro2 as well as going with the metrolink plan as it stands.0 -
First of all, BusConnects is supposed to cost 1 billion over 10 years, not 2 billion!
That is just 100 million per year, which really isn't that much.
At the moment we buy 100 buses a year as replacements for old buses. Each new bus costs about €400,000 so that is €40 million per year alone for normal fleet replacement and they are expecting to increase the umber of buses bought per year. So really your only talking about €50m per year being spent on improving bus infrastructure throughout the city, it really isn't that much.
This thread seems to have turned into just focusing on a narrow corridor in the South West and it's issues! There are similar issues all over the city and BusConnects will be trying to help the entire city, all 16 core bus corridors.
I got that 2 billion figure from an article wrote in the indo by Paul Melia. Apparently it’s for an entire reorganization of Dublin’s bus system.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
It is not just the SW of Dublin that suffers from the lack of PT and particularly rapid PT. The whole of Dublin suffers from the lack of PT with the exception of those within a short distance of a few narrow corridors.
We must get started with something and Metrolink is a start. Let that be built and in the meantime, design Metro II, Bus Connects, and BRT where these are appropriate.
There have been too many plans over the decades that all came to nothing much.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It is not just the SW of Dublin that suffers from the lack of PT and particularly rapid PT. The whole of Dublin suffers from the lack of PT with the exception of those within a short distance of a few narrow corridors.
We must get started with something and Metrolink is a start. Let that be built and in the meantime, design Metro II, Bus Connects, and BRT where these are appropriate.
There have been too many plans over the decades that all came to nothing much.
I agree that we have to make a start ASAP, but we need to be lining up other projects that are going to deliver proper results aswell. Unlike bus connects which from what I can see is an over hyped bus replacement scheme that will build fancy new shelters and bits of bus lanes here and there. That money could be better spent keeping a tbm going past charlemount/ green line tunnel , and spurring off in the sw direction.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
I agree that we have to make a start ASAP, but we need to be lining up other projects that are going to deliver proper results aswell. Unlike bus connects which from what I can see is an over hyped bus replacement scheme that will build fancy new shelters and bits of bus lanes here and there. That money could be better spent keeping a tbm going past charlemount/ green line tunnel , and spurring off in the sw direction.
Well, it will not be next week, or even next year when the TBM crosses the Grand Canal to break to the surface. By the time it gets south of SSG, there might be plans afoot for Metro II, whatever that will involve.
The current plan does not even speculate what will happen the the stub of Green Line that is south of SSG. It could go east towards Docklands, or west towards Harold's Cross or south towards UCD and the N11. It needs to go somewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »It is not just the SW of Dublin that suffers from the lack of PT and particularly rapid PT. The whole of Dublin suffers from the lack of PT with the exception of those within a short distance of a few narrow corridors.
We must get started with something and Metrolink is a start. Let that be built and in the meantime, design Metro II, Bus Connects, and BRT where these are appropriate.
There have been too many plans over the decades that all came to nothing much.
Again it is worth restating that the south central QBCs (they are not just southwest Dublin and people should recognise that) have the slowest bus speeds in the city - yes there’s a citywide problem, but no other area has slower bus speeds. That point seems to go over people’s heads.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, it will not be next week, or even next year when the TBM crosses the Grand Canal to break to the surface. By the time it gets south of SSG, there might be plans afoot for Metro II, whatever that will involve.
The current plan does not even speculate what will happen the the stub of Green Line that is south of SSG. It could go east towards Docklands, or west towards Harold's Cross or south towards UCD and the N11. It needs to go somewhere.
Do you mean the bit that will be north of the metro tie in at charlemount and south of ssg? If so surely that cant go anywhere as there’s no room for on street running. Surely it’ll just be a charlemount to boombridge route and eventually on out to finglas.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Do you mean the bit that will be north of the metro tie in at charlemount and south of ssg? If so surely that cant go anywhere as there’s no room for on street running. Surely it’ll just be a charlemount to boombridge route and eventually on out to finglas.
If you actually look on the road, there is room to go down Adelaide Road towards Leeson St, and then, perhaps, head for GCD. There is room for a turn back on Adelaide Rd. What happens after that is up to your imagination.
Going west might be more difficult, but heading for Harold's Cross might be good and then turning south. After that, well, it is again up to suggestions.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, it will not be next week, or even next year when the TBM crosses the Grand Canal to break to the surface. By the time it gets south of SSG, there might be plans afoot for Metro II, whatever that will involve.
The current plan does not even speculate what will happen the the stub of Green Line that is south of SSG. It could go east towards Docklands, or west towards Harold's Cross or south towards UCD and the N11. It needs to go somewhere.
Presumably, in the event that the current metrolink plan comes to pass, the plan is for it to continue its work as a line between Broombridge (and/or possibly Finglas by that time) and the southside of the city.
A solution to that issue would be for the current metrolink plan not to come to pass, which would have several advantages.
There would be no need to spend money upgrading a line which is already fine, in infrastructure terms, but probably does need to have a higher throughput of trams.
There would be no need for passengers south of Sandyford to make a change to get into/out of town. At present they can get into and out of town without a change, and the current metrolink plan introduces a change, without reducing journey times into/out of the city.
There would be no need to close down the LUAS green line while the unnecessary upgrade takes place.
The money saved could be used to start making inroads into the southwest, then gradually extending it (probably by cut and cover) to other suburbs in that part of the city as funds become available. Hundreds of cities have built lengthy metro lines in this way, and the idea that a line has to be built all the way to Knocklyon (or wherever) in one go is a nonsense.
An advantage of this is that you open up new areas of the city to rapid transport, and these are areas where construction of an overground LUAS has been found to be impossible or nearly impossible. Plus, if there is a decent connection at (say) St. Stephen's Green, between the southwest/north metro and the southeast/northeast LUAS, you open up many new routes which can be achieved with just one change.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »Presumably, in the event that the current metrolink plan comes to pass, the plan is for it to continue its work as a line between Broombridge (and/or possibly Finglas by that time) and the southside of the city.
A solution to that issue would be for the current metrolink plan not to come to pass, which would have several advantages.
There would be no need to spend money upgrading a line which is already fine, in infrastructure terms, but probably does need to have a higher throughput of trams.
There would be no need for passengers south of Sandyford to make a change to get into/out of town. At present they can get into and out of town without a change, and the current metrolink plan introduces a change, without reducing journey times into/out of the city.
There would be no need to close down the LUAS green line while the unnecessary upgrade takes place.
The money saved could be used to start making inroads into the southwest, then gradually extending it (probably by cut and cover) to other suburbs in that part of the city as funds become available. Hundreds of cities have built lengthy metro lines in this way, and the idea that a line has to be built all the way to Knocklyon (or wherever) in one go is a nonsense.
An advantage of this is that you open up new areas of the city to rapid transport, and these are areas where construction of an overground LUAS has been found to be impossible or nearly impossible. Plus, if there is a decent connection at (say) St. Stephen's Green, between the southwest/north metro and the southeast/northeast LUAS, you open up many new routes which can be achieved with just one change.
Problem being when the Luas comes into contact with road traffic cyclists pedestrians on Luas Cross City. The trams have to go underground to increase speed and length.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22602
strassenwo!f wrote: »There would be no need to spend money upgrading a line which is already fine, in infrastructure terms, but probably does need to have a higher throughput of trams.
Higher throughput of trams simply isn't possible. It is already running at an impressive 3 minutes frequency which is considered pretty much at the limits of non segregated services.
54m trams will help tide us over for a few years, but we are quickly approaching the absolute limits of a tram service in terms of both frequency and length.
10 years from now, there won't be any choice but to turn it into Metro.strassenwo!f wrote: »There would be no need for passengers south of Sandyford to make a change to get into/out of town. At present they can get into and out of town without a change, and the current metrolink plan introduces a change, without reducing journey times into/out of the city.
A 30 second change would hardly be the end of the world and in fact their overall A to B journey time would likely actually be quicker due to likely higher speeds of the Metro section.
They would also benefit from access to the airport, etc.
Also the Metrolink will almost certainly reduce journey times for these people. Say you are heading to O'Connell St. The Luas currently crawls through College Green, etc. A Metro running underground will clearly run much faster between the Charlemont and OCS scetion then Luas Cross City ever could, most likely easily making up for the change over time at Sandyford.strassenwo!f wrote: »There would be no need to close down the LUAS green line while the unnecessary upgrade takes place.
10 years from now it will be necessary to make this change anyway due to the Luas line having reached capacity. Either way it will need to be done.strassenwo!f wrote: »The money saved could be used to start making inroads into the southwest, then gradually extending it (probably by cut and cover) to other suburbs in that part of the city as funds become available. Hundreds of cities have built lengthy metro lines in this way, and the idea that a line has to be built all the way to Knocklyon (or wherever) in one go is a nonsense.
The money saved wouldn't even pay for 1km of a SW line and you would still need to spend the money to upgrade the green line anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
Higher throughput of trams simply isn't possible. It is already running at an impressive 3 minutes frequency which is considered pretty much at the limits of non segregated services.
54m trams will help tide us over for a few years, but we are quickly approaching the absolute limits of a tram service in terms of both frequency and length.
10 years from now, there won't be any choice but to turn it into Metro.
According to the LUAS website, the minimum peak time separation between trams (at, say, Ranelagh) is two minutes, while the maximum peak time separation is 7 minutes. The average peak time frequency is 4 minutes.
Reducing the average peak time frequency to 3 minutes would add 25% capacity to the route.
Reducing the frequency on the Cherrywood-St. Stephen's Green section to 2 minutes and using the St. Stephen's Green siding for every third tram would increase capacity further and still leave a very manageable 3 minute frequency through College Green and across O'Connell Bridge. This frequency would be well outside the 2 minute frequency which can, according to the LUAS website, be achieved.
The rollout of the longer trams should increase capacity yet further.
So there's lots that can be done to massively increase capacity, without any upgrades to the Green LUAS.A 30 second change would hardly be the end of the world and in fact their overall A to B journey time would likely actually be quicker due to likely higher speeds of the Metro section.
It is not at all clear that the metro speeds between Sandyford and Charlemont would be significantly different to what the LUAS can currently do. It appears that the stops would be the same as they are now, so the metro trams would probably never be able to achieve the top speeds they are capable of in that area. It would probably be at best a very marginal reduction in travelling time through that section.They would also benefit from access to the airport, etc.
In the event that a line to/from the southwest is built, passengers using the Green LUAS would still have access to the airport, but they would make a change at wherever the metro and Green LUAS interchange meet, which could perhaps be at St. Stephen's Green.
I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of workers at the airport live on the Northside, especially in Swords, Malahide, etc., and they would be unaffected by any change to the route on the Southside. Most travellers between the Southside and the airport are doing so on a very infrequent basis, so this proposed change should not significantly affect them.Also the Metrolink will almost certainly reduce journey times for these people. Say you are heading to O'Connell St. The Luas currently crawls through College Green, etc. A Metro running underground will clearly run much faster between the Charlemont and OCS scetion then Luas Cross City ever could, most likely easily making up for the change over time at Sandyford.
I think there is no doubt that it would be quicker. But it is a question of priorities. The poster lxflyer mentioned above that it can take up to 90 minutes for a bus from Knocklyon to get to the centre of the city.
If you had an initial southwest phase going as far as Rathmines, for example, you would probably reduce the time from Rathmines to St. Stephen's Green to about 4 minutes and the time from Rathmines to the river to about 6. If this metro line were to eventually reach Knocklyon (say) after a further 6-8 years, you would reduce the travel time between there and the city to around 20-25 minutes or so. That is a very significant reduction in travel time and one worth striving for.10 years from now it will be necessary to make this change anyway due to the Luas line having reached capacity. Either way it will need to be done.
I'm not against the Green LUAS being upgraded at some stage and to some extent the presence of a southwest line could reduce the disruption caused by a LUAS upgrade. It is to be hoped that the arrival of the metro will be accompanied by major changes to the bus system in the suburbs. There could, for example, be a bus route between Dundrum LUAS and a metro station at Rathfarnham via Churchtown. Residents of Churchtown would probably use this bus to get to the LUAS because it is closer, but it would be no great hardship for them to use it to get to Rathfarnham if the LUAS is closed for a period while it's being upgraded.
Clearly there will never be a good time to close the LUAS Green line for a long period, but the above example illustrates how the effects of the closure could be reduced a bit.The money saved wouldn't even pay for 1km of a SW line and you would still need to spend the money to upgrade the green line anyway.
Why would you need to upgrade the Green LUAS anyway, in the early years of metro construction in Dublin, if you were building a line towards the southwest?
The money seems to be there to make a connection between the metro and the current overground section of the Green LUAS, wherever that might be. There's been talk on this board of that connection being made at Charlemont, beyond Dunville Avenue and even as far out as Alexandra College, and extra costs of upgrading - perhaps including major work at Dunville Avenue.
Wherever it is, it would seem reasonable to suggest that you could tunnel as far as, say, Rathmines, for the same money, in an initial phase. When that is a massive success, as it would be, the money would then, I feel sure, be found to continue gradually over 6-8 years to new areas, like Terenure and Knocklyon.
And, as I mentioned above, each step towards the southwest also introduces another raft of potential journeys which can be completed rapidly by rail, with one change, by spreading the rail footprint across the Southside. Upgrading the Green LUAS would not do this.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14155
The Luas Green Line (Line B - not Cross City/BXD) as is is a very hetereogenous mix of capacity and demand.
The line can be split into 3 distinct sections. SSG-Charlemont, Charlemont-Sandyford, Sandyford-Brides Glen.
The capacity of the overall line is defined by the lowest capacity section here, which is the SSG-Charlemont section. This is also the busiest with traffic from all the outer stops inbound filling up as the tram heads in, which will only grow as more development takes place further out the line. The highest capacity section (Charlemont-Sandyford) is limited by the section further in which has a lower capacity, so you can't put on extra services from Charlemont out without dumping everyone there.
The idea that you build the Metro from Swords to Charlemont and switch to Luas there is a bit stupid when the Charlemont-Sandyford section is the cheapest per km and would massively upgrade that stretch. Lets not forget that Charlemont-Sandyford is already setup for Metro running bar the segregation issues as discussed before.0 -
The Luas Green Line (Line B - not Cross City/BXD) as is is a very hetereogenous mix of capacity and demand.
The line can be split into 3 distinct sections. SSG-Charlemont, Charlemont-Sandyford, Sandyford-Brides Glen.
The capacity of the overall line is defined by the lowest capacity section here, which is the SSG-Charlemont section. This is also the busiest with traffic from all the outer stops inbound filling up as the tram heads in, which will only grow as more development takes place further out the line. The highest capacity section (Charlemont-Sandyford) is limited by the section further in which has a lower capacity, so you can't put on extra services from Charlemont out without dumping everyone there.
The idea that you build the Metro from Swords to Charlemont and switch to Luas there is a bit stupid when the Charlemont-Sandyford section is the cheapest per km and would massively upgrade that stretch. Lets not forget that Charlemont-Sandyford is already setup for Metro running bar the segregation issues as discussed before.
Marno, on this thread, we've broadly moved beyond discussion of the Swords-Sandyford route. This is a discussion of alternative routes to the official proposal.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14155
strassenwo!f wrote: »Marno, on this thread, we've broadly moved beyond discussion of the Swords-Sandyford route. This is a discussion of alternative routes to the official proposal.
The primary topic here seems to be that the Metrolink uprgade of the Green Line should not be undertaken and the money spent elsewhere, and that the existing Green Line should have capacity increases.0 -
The primary topic here seems to be that the Metrolink uprgade of the Green Line should not be undertaken and the money spent elsewhere, and that the existing Green Line should have capacity increases.
Yes, you're broadly right. I think, at the moment, on this thread, the primary topic is that the Green LUAS doesn't need to be upgraded yet, though there should be (and can be) increases to its capacity without major infrastructural changes. And, yes, that the money could be more efficiently spent elsewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
The primary topic here seems to be that the Metrolink uprgade of the Green Line should not be undertaken and the money spent elsewhere, and that the existing Green Line should have capacity increases.
I disagree. I’m agreeing that the ****ty end of the green Luas (ssg to charlemount) be bypassed by metrolink and that charlemount to sandyford be upgraded to metro standard as it’s not gonna cost a whole lot of money to do so in the grand scheme of things. However I am saying that we should look at keeping that tbm in the ground and turn it towards Rathmines direction and fund it using money allocated to bus connects.
As bk said bus connects breaks down to 1 billion over 10 years, Hal though I have seen a reported total figure of 2 billion in the indo and a couple of other publications), so 100 million a year. Delay bus connects by 2 years and you have 200 million.
It costs approx 100 mill per km of tunneling and it’s less that a km to the swan centre in rathmines, so 100 million plus 80 million for a station is 180 million to continue the tunnel to rathmines.
When is bus connects due to start?
When is the tbm due to get to charlemount? (Obviously depending on getting the go ahead)0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
strassenwo!f wrote: »Yes, you're broadly right. I think, at the moment, on this thread, the primary topic is that the Green LUAS doesn't need to be upgraded yet, though there should be (and can be) increases to its capacity without major infrastructural changes. And, yes, that the money could be more efficiently spent elsewhere.
The upgrade will not be in service for a decade. The upgrade is needed before that, and might be enough if the sticking plaster solutions you suggested were implemented. A second metro line is needed to deal with the SW and NE, and it should be planned now while there is a team assembled withthe correct skills.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The upgrade will not be in service for a decade. The upgrade is needed before that, and might be enough if the sticking plaster solutions you suggested were implemented. A second metro line is needed to deal with the SW and NE, and it should be planned now while there is a team assembled withthe correct skills.
Sam, we're concentrating here on the possibilities which could be offered to the city by alternative routes for a southside metro. That should be clear from the title of the thread.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »Sam, we're concentrating here on the possibilities which could be offered to the city by alternative routes for a southside metro. That should be clear from the title of the thread.
Yes but realistically none of these alternative routes will be built unless we get money from other sources, which as I’ve suggested, could be bus connects.
In my opinion there’s no point in not upgrading the Luas Green as it’ll cost relatively little money, increase frequency, increase capacity, create a backbone for north and south of the river, connect south Dublin to the airport via rail and cater for a massive amount of housing that is coming on stream in the next 5 years.
However in my opinion we are wasting money on other projects that could contribute to extending the metro system to other areas of the city, that other projects simply won’t have any effect on.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
strassenwo!f wrote: »Sam, we're concentrating here on the possibilities which could be offered to the city by alternative routes for a southside metro. That should be clear from the title of the thread.
The title actually says nothing about restricting discussion to the possibilities on the south side of the city.
If the possibility of upgrading the currently oversubscribed Green Line to Metrolink was not carried through, it would be a significant missed opportunity, given the small incremental cost. [Projected cost at €90 m to €150 m, according to the published information on www.metrolink.ie]. In a budget of €3 billion, it would be stupid to not do it. If disruption is going to be an issue, then spend more to reduce it.
So, assume that Metrolink gets built as planned, then what else could be done?
1. Spur off at Charlemont. But why? Charlemont has nothing going for it as an interchange, and it would reduce the capacity of the line, dividing it between the spur and the Sandyford line. [Maybe it should be a completely new Metro line altogether. This makes more sense.]
2. Spur off at SSG. Same as above, but a few km nearer the city centre.
3. Build a Metro II line with its own tunnel alignment. Costs more but covers much more catchment, and could interact with all other lines as it crosses. We would get closer to a rail based PT network, like they planned in the 1970s, and built one line (Dart). Well actually, they just upgraded the existing line which opened in 1982, and extended it later to Greystones (a single line extension with limited capacity) and to Malahide (which interferes with the Northern Line).
4. Go for a new design - New Metrolink, that spurs off every few kms to serve every housing estate, and avoids Na Fianna and Dunville Ave/Beechwood. Yea - that sounds like a good idea.
5. Just build Metrolink and Dart Expansion as designed and hope it solves the current housing needs by opening up lots of brown field and green field development areas. Then look at what is required post 2030.
6. Cancel Metrolink altogether because it is an awful lot of zeros and follow Colm McCarthy's plan and build his 10 Luas lines. I'm sure he has a list of appropriate routes serving lots of suburbs.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14155
Sam Russell wrote: »6. Cancel Metrolink altogether because it is an awful lot of zeros and follow Colm McCarthy's plan and build his 10 Luas lines. I'm sure he has a list of appropriate routes serving lots of suburbs.
That's Michael McDowell's idea. Colm McCarthy wants the 3bn spent on buses, but he might not be aware of the BusConnects plan also funded in the NDP.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The title actually says nothing about restricting discussion to the possibilities on the south side of the city.
If the possibility of upgrading the currently oversubscribed Green Line to Metrolink was not carried through, it would be a significant missed opportunity, given the small incremental cost. [Projected cost at €90 m to €150 m, according to the published information on www.metrolink.ie]. In a budget of €3 billion, it would be stupid to not do it. If disruption is going to be an issue, then spend more to reduce it.
So, assume that Metrolink gets built as planned, then what else could be done?
1. Spur off at Charlemont. But why? Charlemont has nothing going for it as an interchange, and it would reduce the capacity of the line, dividing it between the spur and the Sandyford line. [Maybe it should be a completely new Metro line altogether. This makes more sense.]
2. Spur off at SSG. Same as above, but a few km nearer the city centre.
3. Build a Metro II line with its own tunnel alignment. Costs more but covers much more catchment, and could interact with all other lines as it crosses. We would get closer to a rail based PT network, like they planned in the 1970s, and built one line (Dart). Well actually, they just upgraded the existing line which opened in 1982, and extended it later to Greystones (a single line extension with limited capacity) and to Malahide (which interferes with the Northern Line).
4. Go for a new design - New Metrolink, that spurs off every few kms to serve every housing estate, and avoids Na Fianna and Dunville Ave/Beechwood. Yea - that sounds like a good idea.
5. Just build Metrolink and Dart Expansion as designed and hope it solves the current housing needs by opening up lots of brown field and green field development areas. Then look at what is required post 2030.
6. Cancel Metrolink altogether because it is an awful lot of zeros and follow Colm McCarthy's plan and build his 10 Luas lines. I'm sure he has a list of appropriate routes serving lots of suburbs.
I’d go for spurring off at charlemount or ssg. The cost will be too much for a separate crossing off the cc at, let’s say, Christ church. It would be great but will cost too much and won’t be built until after 2030. That’s 12 years from now! We can’t wait that long.
Yes it’ll reduce frequency in the metrolink tunnel from 90 sec to 180 sec, but so what? If you have 90m hfv, it won’t make much of a difference.
Spurring off at ssg or charlemount allows movement from sw to s with one change.
If the interchange with metrolink was at o Connell street Tara or matter, you’d be traveling too far north to go south if your ultimate end journey is sandyford, from let’s say rathfarnham.
The max north the interchange should be is ssg, which is also the centre of the city to southsiders. The drawback to this is it’ll be more costly to tunnel to ssg than to charlemount for the sw spur.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
I’d go for spurring off at charlemount or ssg. The cost will be too much for a separate crossing off the cc at, let’s say, Christ church. It would be great but will cost too much and won’t be built until after 2030. That’s 12 years from now! We can’t wait that long.
Yes it’ll reduce frequency in the metrolink tunnel from 90 sec to 180 sec, but so what? If you have 90m hfv, it won’t make much of a difference.
Spurring off at ssg or charlemount allows movement from sw to s with one change.
If the interchange with metrolink was at o Connell street Tara or matter, you’d be traveling too far north to go south if your ultimate end journey is sandyford, from let’s say rathfarnham.
The max north the interchange should be is ssg, which is also the centre of the city to southsiders. The drawback to this is it’ll be more costly to tunnel to ssg than to charlemount for the sw spur.
No one in their right mind would go from Rathfarnum to Sandyford via the city centre, no matter what frequency the metro would offer. That is for buses to offer.
In a decade's time, the CC will move as there is more development of districts. For example, in the last decade, Grand Canal Dock has risen in importance, and previously, the north docklands has increased in importance, but not as much as was predicted - the financial crash saw to that.
There is an element of 'build it and they will come'. If the Metro II is built, then industry and housing will follow. That is the way it works.0 -
-
It would halve capacity thats a big difference with no room to improve
Ok so the other alternative is to build a completely separate line that’ll cost the 3billion that metrolink will cos, which I think is optimistic anyway, plus the extra tunneling out to sw. this will take years of planning and political hand ringing meaning it won’t be done. Not much of an alternative to halving capacity on a metrolink tunnel that’ll have massive capacity anyway.
Imagine, people from sandyford having to wait 3 whole minutes on a metro to go to cc or airport instead of 90 sec. :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok so the other alternative is to build a completely separate line that’ll cost the 3billion that metrolink will cos, which I think is optimistic anyway, plus the extra tunneling out to sw. this will take years of planning and political hand ringing meaning it won’t be done. Not much of an alternative to halving capacity on a metrolink tunnel that’ll have massive capacity anyway.
Imagine, people from sandyford having to wait 3 whole minutes on a metro to go to cc or airport instead of 90 sec. :rolleyes:
It’s not the 3 minute wait it’s the fact that if you halve the capacity then people may not be able to get on the metro and in your plan it starts at half the capacity that is currently being pushed for with no room to increase the capacity.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Ok so the other alternative is to build a completely separate line that’ll cost the 3billion that metrolink will cos, which I think is optimistic anyway, plus the extra tunneling out to sw. this will take years of planning and political hand ringing meaning it won’t be done. Not much of an alternative to halving capacity on a metrolink tunnel that’ll have massive capacity anyway.
Imagine, people from sandyford having to wait 3 whole minutes on a metro to go to cc or airport instead of 90 sec. :rolleyes:
If the Metrolink is a success, it will be like the Motorways - once they are seen to work, then every part of Dublin will want one. Also, Cork, Limerick and Galway will want their one as well.
North South is the current problem. East West is Dart Expansion territory. That leaves SW to NE to be Metro II.
Just need a few billion to solve that.0 -
Have you any evidence of it happening in a Dublin context? I'm pretty sure every major industrial district predates the M50, or modern public transport routes.Sam Russell wrote: »No one in their right mind would go from Rathfarnum to Sandyford via the city centre, no matter what frequency the metro would offer. That is for buses to offer.
In a decade's time, the CC will move as there is more development of districts. For example, in the last decade, Grand Canal Dock has risen in importance, and previously, the north docklands has increased in importance, but not as much as was predicted - the financial crash saw to that.
There is an element of 'build it and they will come'. If the Metro II is built, then industry and housing will follow. That is the way it works.
The Green Line certainly didn't spur industrial and residential development anywhere along it's line to Sandyford in the 4 years prior to the recession, and even though house prices started increasing 6 years ago, development around the green and red line extensions has been glacial compared to many areas not in Luas catchment areas (including the residential developments in SW Dublin).
The main argument for the existing metro plan is "The Green line is already approaching (or over) capacity so we should expand on that first" which is rather incoherent. Public transport expansions should be based on cost benefit analyses that include factors such as I dunno
a) Projected passenger journies
b) Private car journies removed from roads
c) Private + public transport passenger time gained due to decrease in journey times
d) Emissions reduced
as well as considering intangibles such as promoting residential developments in areas close enough to employment zones that not only can people take high speed high frequency public transport, they can also walk or cycle.
Swords is closer to the City Centre than Cherrywood is and there are vast tracts of greenfields in the South, South West, West, North West, North and North East that are also closer.
The obsession with
1) Cherrywood is being developed
&
2) Because the green line is reaching capacity
such that no thought processes should be applied in stating that a green line Metro should be first on the board is laughable.
I would have hoped that people were smarter than that!
Even looking at it simplistically, it should be obvious that a SW Metro (or even a high quality N11 bus corridor) would reduce Green Line passenger journeys significantly obviating the "IT MUST BE BUILT IT MUST BE BUILT" mantra.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Deleted User wrote: »Have you any evidence of it happening in a Dublin context? I'm pretty sure every major industrial district predates the M50, or modern public transport routes.
I think the M50 is a good example of 'build it and they will come'. I know it is not PT, but it certainly allowed the increase in use such that it had to be expanded, and the Mad Cow improved.
Sandyford has seen incredible expansion - just go back twenty years before the Green Line was built and look at it now. The Green Line is heaving.
Yes, 'build it and they will come'. Of course, it was not so with the Ennis to Athenry line, so it is not always true. If it is daft before you build it, it is still daft after you build it.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The main argument for the existing metro plan is "The Green line is already approaching (or over) capacity so we should expand on that first" which is rather incoherent.
I think you're looking at it slightly backwards. A metro from Swords to the city centre is the main focus of the project. After that, it would only take a relatively small amount of money to add 9km of Luas to the metro line. Adding those 9km along any other route would be vastly more expensive. It helps that the expected residential growth in Cherrywood and office growth in Sandyford means that the return on investment on upgrading that section of line is presumably quite high.
The alternative is adding some other rail line to the metro but the red Luas doesn't have the segregation to cope with the expected headway and the Dart/Irish Rail network would involve relaying the tracks.
The last option is extending the metro by tunneling but the cost will be much higher than upgrading existing track.0 -
What is "a relatively small amount"? If they have to tunnel to e.g. Milltown, that would be a tidy amount extra. If they go for high-floor cars, this will cost a lot more. The platforms are going to need serious work anyway, and passenger bridges/tunnels at each station if driverless is opted for. Going for 90 metre LFHV with drivers probably is the best capex value for significantly extra capacity. But without grade separation, that could be done for the Green line luas without Metro involvement. I still think that the capacity gains would struggle to go past 12,000 ppdph and I don't know if that is enough for the next 20 years. Luas extensions to Bray, with DART improvements in the future, could take care of demand increases in the 2030s but this is a bit speculative.I think you're looking at it slightly backwards. A metro from Swords to the city centre is the main focus of the project. After that, it would only take a relatively small amount of money to add 9km of Luas to the metro line. Adding those 9km along any other route would be vastly more expensive. It helps that the expected residential growth in Cherrywood and office growth in Sandyford means that the return on investment on upgrading that section of line is presumably quite high.
The alternative is adding some other rail line to the metro but the red Luas doesn't have the segregation to cope with the expected headway and the Dart/Irish Rail network would involve relaying the tracks.
The last option is extending the metro by tunneling but the cost will be much higher than upgrading existing track.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
lucernarian wrote: »If they go for high-floor cars, this will cost a lot more.
Have you any basis for that?
HFV should cost less, as they are more basic with ancillaries hanging below the train, and also lower maintenance costs for the same reason.
Driverless allows more capacity, and lower operating costs plus the possibility of 24 hour operation. Driverless does come with higher captial costs, and would likely require passenger doors for safety.0 -
-
Sam Russell wrote: »If the Metrolink is a success, it will be like the Motorways - once they are seen to work, then every part of Dublin will want one. Also, Cork, Limerick and Galway will want their one as well.
North South is the current problem. East West is Dart Expansion territory. That leaves SW to NE to be Metro II.
Just need a few billion to solve that.
Yep 1 billion of which we have available in the bus connects pot and I think the cost of the sw line seems to grow on this boards forum, it’s approx 100 million per km and 80 mill per station, so that’d be 1.4 billion, not a few billion.
That’s going off the costs of metrolink.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14155
Taking away the 2* billion for BusConnects which will serve 16 radial corridors and putting it into a Metro for SW Dublin (1 radial corridor) is not happening. A Metro for SW Dublin is not part of the NTA policy so won't happen soon (this policy will be reviewed soon).
The only one that would argue with the above is John Lahart. It's not politically wise to put all the investment into one constituency
* 2bn as per page 59: http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/NDP-strategy-2018-2027_WEB.pdf0 -
Taking away the 2* billion for BusConnects which will serve 16 radial corridors and putting it into a Metro for SW Dublin (1 radial corridor) is not happening. A Metro for SW Dublin is not part of the NTA policy so won't happen soon (this policy will be reviewed soon).
The only one that would argue with the above is John Lahart. It's not politically wise to put all the investment into one constituency
* 2bn as per page 59: http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/NDP-strategy-2018-2027_WEB.pdf
I knew I seen that 2 billion figure somewhere. Well 16 radial corridors that will have very little effect on getting people to switch from car to pt compared to one radial corridor which would be a game changer for that area (which is a large part of Dublin), and would have large amounts of people converting to pt, thus freeing up road space, and allowing less busses to do more in the sw areas as they’re no longer battling with traffic.
This would mean the excess busses no longer required in the sw area could be used to bolster the service connecting Adamstown and Lucan via the n4 qbc’s for example.
Ps. Just because you say “it’s not happening” doesn’t mean it defiantly won’t. I’m sure people were 100% sure the previous version (swiftway or something) of brt was coming to town aswell, look what happened there.0 -
Taking away the 2* billion for BusConnects which will serve 16 radial corridors and putting it into a Metro for SW Dublin (1 radial corridor) is not happening. A Metro for SW Dublin is not part of the NTA policy so won't happen soon (this policy will be reviewed soon).
The only one that would argue with the above is John Lahart. It's not politically wise to put all the investment into one constituency
* 2bn as per page 59: http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/NDP-strategy-2018-2027_WEB.pdf
You keep saying this is about Dublin South West. But again it is not one constituency and it is not just Dublin South West
Geographically it is the south central and south west parts of Dublin. Last time I checked Terenure and Rathfarnham are due south of the city and not southwest. Feeder buses would further expand the reach.
Politically it is 3 constituencies:
Dublin South West
Dublin Rathdown
Dublin Bay South (this extends west to Terenure)0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14155
Regardless, BusConnects will serve more constituencies. And so will MetroLink (I am in Kerry and I expect to benefit from it through better airport access - which I would use were it to open tomorrow).You keep saying this is about Dublin South West. But again it is not one constituency and it is not just Dublin South West
Geographically it is the south central and south west parts of Dublin. Last time I checked Terenure and Rathfarnham are due south of the city and not southwest. Feeder buses would further expand the reach.
Politically it is 3 constituencies:
Dublin South West
Dublin Rathdown
Dublin Bay South (this extends west to Terenure)0 -
-
How are you halving capacity? There’s still a metro through it every 90 seconds, ones from sandyford the others from the sw, it’s just that now your serving much more of the population of Dublin.
I was referring to the current green line part, as well you know because in the very next post after mine you said that it just meant people in sandyford would have to wait 3 mins instead of 90 seconds.0 -
Advertisement
-
Regardless, BusConnects will serve more constituencies. And so will MetroLink (I am in Kerry and I expect to benefit from it through better airport access - which I would use were it to open tomorrow).
What are the 16 radial routes?
How many radial routes go through the 3 constituencys lx flyer has mentioned?
What will the guaranteed travel times to cc be?
How will they build the neccesary ABC's for this brt service when there is no room?
What's the best way of solving all of the above?
Answer build metro 2 and reorganise the bus routes to feed into metro2.0 -
I was referring to the current green line part, as well you know because in the very next post after mine you said that it just meant people in sandyford would have to wait 3 mins instead of 90 seconds.
Of course. That answer was tounge in cheek to be fair.
But seriously there will be a metro travelling the tunnel every 90 secs it'll just be serving a much bigger area, with plenty of capacity to spare on the green line. Surely that's a good thing?0 -
Of course. That answer was tounge in cheek to be fair.
But seriously there will be a metro travelling the tunnel every 90 secs it'll just be serving a much bigger area, with plenty of capacity to spare on the green line. Surely that's a good thing?
But building a y shaped line means that the 2 branches would never have room to increase capacity. It would also mean scheduling nightmare because it’s not as easy as saying every second train goes the other direction as the 2 legs aren’t the same length so one side has a longer return leg which means they can’t just come back together like a zip merge every 90 seconds.
I have absolutely no issue with the idea of s second line going sw or even people arguing that the first line should go that way but a Y shaped line is a compromise from the start.0 -
But building a y shaped line means that the 2 branches would never have room to increase capacity. It would also mean scheduling nightmare because it’s not as easy as saying every second train goes the other direction as the 2 legs aren’t the same length so one side has a longer return leg which means they can’t just come back together like a zip merge every 90 seconds.
I have absolutely no issue with the idea of s second line going sw or even people arguing that the first line should go that way but a Y shaped line is a compromise from the start.
Yeah true but there are plenty of examples of spurs off a main line in use around Europe and they seem to work OK.
My point is I don't think we have the political backbone in this country to digest the cost of another tunnel going under the cc and heading ne or whatever direction it'll go.
You could always have it that the sw line goes from firehouse to ssg (or charlemount) only. If u wanna go sandyford- change. If u wanna go swords- change. Same for metrolink, if u wanna go swords to firehouse, change at ssg.
Not ideal I know but when the money and political will materialises in decades time a second north south tunnel could be built and incorporated into the system then.0 -
The fact that the green line platforms would have to be changed, inevitably taking out stations (and revenue) for periods of time. I think that's a strong basis.Sam Russell wrote: »Have you any basis for that?
HFV should cost less, as they are more basic with ancillaries hanging below the train, and also lower maintenance costs for the same reason.
Driverless allows more capacity, and lower operating costs plus the possibility of 24 hour operation. Driverless does come with higher captial costs, and would likely require passenger doors for safety.
I *suspect* that driverless has lower operating costs, but I haven't found any actual proof of this yet. 24 hour operation is separate to the issue of driver or automatic operation, as oftentimes maintenance can be carried out on the right of way/trackage plus the sets during the out-of-service hours. That maintenance is going to be required one way or another in any kind of mass transit rail system.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement