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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink
Comments
-
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: 19012
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: 22,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22042
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: 14,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14038
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: 14,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14038
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: 19012
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: 19012
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: 14,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14038
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: 19012
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: 19012
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: 19012
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: 19012
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: 14,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14038
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
![[Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6d8a632a9fb85629e1cafb0fd27003c4.svg)
Advertisement