Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

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

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

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

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

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

From previous crayoning by the Greens, they wanted a Metro spur from Charlemont or Ranelagh to UCD and then onwards to Sandyford. That would alleviate some of the pressure on the Green Line.

I was firmly against that proposal when they were talking about doing it instead of the Green Line upgrade, originally, but given that that upgrade seems like a non-starter, I’d be supportive of a UCD extension.

But only when it’s proposed as an extension. Get the Ranelagh to Swords Metro permitted, get the tunnelling commenced. While you’re doing that, plan the UCD spur separately, and if it all works out, the tunnelling could potentially be able to continue from the Swords segment without interruption.

Eamon Ryan is too gormless to think that clearly about it though, so god knows how they’ll mess it up.

Another thought - the UCD spur should 100% use the Eastern Bypass reservation and it should link up with the DART at Booterstown.

cgcsb wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

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

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

Marcusm wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Marcusm wrote: »

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

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

It will continue in some form or another.

It cannot surface at Charlemont due to the sewer.

Marcusm wrote: »

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

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

Marcusm wrote: »

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

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

salmocab wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.