Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Qrt · 21-06-2018 9:58pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Clondalkin/lucan needs to be really looked at in metro 3 asap. Consideration should be given to an orbital route but I can see how this might be a long way down the line.

Most of Lucan and a fair bit of Clondalkin is a sprawly hell with plenty of road space so I don't think a metro would be ideal, especially since the railway line runs through the area. Now if this metro 3 were to be an orbital route...

tom1ie · 21-06-2018 10:10pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Good points there and interesting to hear about Munich. I think there will be hell to pay among a lot of wealthier people in terenure and rathfarnham over busconnects with them losing gardens etc and this could turn into a political hot potato.

The Na Fianna incident and the political manouvering of Paschal et al will probably be replicated and sink busconnects in terenure/rathfarnham. The irony is that it may (hopefully) lead to metro 2 along this route being looked at faster than it otherwise might because a lot of these people have political clout and wealth and metro 2 would be more to their satisfaction than losing their big front gardens. In fairness, many of these gardens are quite beautiful so aesthetically i think it would be a shame if they were lost. As you say, it's hard to see Rathmines being widened anyway so these buses will only hit a bottle neck there.

Eamon Ryan makes sensible points. I think the concerns of most of us are more an indictment of the political parties and the terrifying thought that metrolink 1 is further delayed or heavan forbid doesn't go ahead than what he is saying. It is essential that it is built as planned.

I would love to see metro 2 going out through rathmines, terenure, rathfarnham, knocklyon and on to tallaght. Clondalkin/lucan needs to be really looked at in metro 3 asap. Consideration should be given to an orbital route but I can see how this might be a long way down the line.

I really don’t think Lucan needs a metro or a Luas. If any bus connects rout is going to work it’ll be the n4 corridor which has the potential to give uninterrupted qbc all the way to Hueston and then the quays are getting qbc’s aswell so you would have a high frequency high capacity bus going to Lucan. Local feeder busses could feed into it and this route could have a minimal amount of stops that enable commuters to change onto orbital routes if required and thus onto other radial routes be they brt or light/heavy rail.

schemingbohemia · 22-06-2018 10:32am

citizen6 wrote: »

Another benefit of Metro tunnelling to Windy Arbour - it's only 1.2km from Windy Arbour to Roebuck Rd. You could put the Luas from Windy Arbour into a tunnel to Roebuck Rd and continue overground into the middle of UCD.

This would be as well as or instead of Luas tunnel from WA to Rathfarnham. If you do both the UCD-WA section would be a shuttle.

And how much would that 1.2km tunnel cost? Compared to walking it in 15 minutes?

bk · 22-06-2018 11:30am

schemingbohemia wrote: »

And how much would that 1.2km tunnel cost? Compared to walking it in 15 minutes?

It does show we need to also solve the last mile problem.

We need to encourage people to cycle and take e-scouters to get to and from stations as most people do in places like Amsterdam.

schemingbohemia · 22-06-2018 11:48am

Well that, and for people not to be lazy. I read a report a while ago that stated people were driving around UCD looking for a free car parking space for longer than their drive to UCD, that's just stupid.
If you really don't want to walk from Windy Arbour to UCD then wait for a 17 - we certainly don't need to spend mad money on a tunnel for such a short journey.

tom1ie · 22-06-2018 12:38pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Well that, and for people not to be lazy. I read a report a while ago that stated people were driving around UCD looking for a free car parking space for longer than their drive to UCD, that's just stupid.
If you really don't want to walk from Windy Arbour to UCD then wait for a 17 - we certainly don't need to spend mad money on a tunnel for such a short journey.

Agreed. Although I’m pretty sure there’s people on this forum that’ll be looking for a metro line in between metrolink and the dart once metrolink is built

I jest of course.

cgcsb · 22-06-2018 12:46pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Agreed. Although I’m pretty sure there’s people on this forum that’ll be looking for a metro line in between metrolink and the dart once metrolink is built
I jest of course.

You can bet a Beaumont-City-Tallaght metro will be sought, and rightly so.

Sam Russell · 22-06-2018 1:27pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

And how much would that 1.2km tunnel cost? Compared to walking it in 15 minutes?

According to data published on the metrolink.ie site, you could use the ballpark figure of €100 million per km up to €150 million depending on configuration.

See the individual studies.

citizen6 · 22-06-2018 9:24pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

And how much would that 1.2km tunnel cost? Compared to walking it in 15 minutes?

That's a fair point. You certainly wouldn't dig that tunnel unless you were digging another one anyway.

It's worth bearing in mind though that some people have a long journey before they get to WA. Drive to a P&R, get a train, change to Metro. The extra 15 minute walk at the end is the last straw on choosing public transport.

We have the same problem if you spend 90 minutes on a bus to OCS and then have to get to Merrion Square. Or Heuston to SSG. Cycling is probably the answer but it doesn't work for everyone.

strassenwo!f · 22-06-2018 11:35pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Agreed. Although I’m pretty sure there’s people on this forum that’ll be looking for a metro line in between metrolink and the dart once metrolink is built
I jest of course.

There's no need to jest, tom. We are already here:)

I worked for a time in Frankfurt, Germany, and i occasionally used the city's no. 32 bus to travel along a section of the city's inner orbital road, which would broadly be similar to the South or North Circular Road in Dublin. My local stop was Danziger Platz, down by what is now the HQ of the European Central Bank, which backs on to the main river (the Main) flowing through the city. My destination was usually the 'German National Library' stop.

I'm not sure of the distances involved, but the journey usually took about 20 minutes. In Dublin terms you're probably looking at me living somewhere close to the Samuel Beckett Bridge, travelling from that bridge along Guild Street, Seville Place and the North Circular Road to a destination somewhere around Saint Peter's Church in Phibsboro or the start of the Navan Road.

My bus stop there was shared with a tram travelling between the suburb Fechenheim and the centre of the city. The next stop was for access to the U6 metro line between Ostbahnhof and the centre of the city. The next one was the Habsburgeralle stop, for access to the U7 underground line (which runs between the suburb Enkheim and the city centre), and the stop after that could be used for connection to a tram (Number 14) which runs between the major suburb Bornheim and the centre of the city.

The next one was a connection to Hohenstrasse (on the U4 line, which links other parts of Bornheim with the city centre), then a couple of stops with didn't link with anything, as far as I remember, followed by a link with tram #12 at Rothschildallee (which links the city centre with other parts of the Bornheim suburb), a couple of stops where I don't remember any link to other transport and a final stop at the National Library where the option was there to get onto the metro lines U1, U2, U3 (and now the U8, which wasn't there in my time) which travel between the centre of the city and various suburbs.

There is no getting away from the fact that Frankfurt is the financial capital of the fourth largest economy in the world, and as such it has enormous power to source capital if it needs to make an investment, to (for example) achieve the kind of transport integration which I witnessed over a three-year period in that city.

Dublin's situation is obviously very different, but there are lessons to be learnt from places like Frankfurt. It wasn't always so rich, but the focus was definitely on making sure that everyone had ready, quick access to the city, where they could do an effective days' work, not burdened by a very lengthy journey at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day.

It doesn't make sense to me, at this stage, to develop the N11 corridor as a LUAS/metro line, because it already has a very fine bus lane and bus service. But when the time comes that pretty well all other areas of the city have access to a rapid connection along a route to/from the city, then a LUAS or metro connection along that route should be built. That seems obvious, to me anyway.

strassenwo!f · 23-06-2018 12:42am

Unfortunately my memory seems to be failing me.

The connection at the German National Library is with Frankfurt's U5, which connects the suburb Preungesheim with the city centre. The connection of bus route 32 with lines U1 U2, U3 and U8, which link suburbs with the city centre, is a couple of stops later on the orbital bus route. How did I forget that?

bk · 25-06-2018 9:58am

As you mention, Frankfurt is one of the richest cities in the world and likely to get richer with Brexit, but it's population is also 5 times higher then Dublin. So it isn't a particularly great comparison to Dublin.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen are probably better comparisons to Dublin. Same population size and density and somewhat similar economy.

They don't have Metros going to every corner of the city, like you'd find in Paris, London, etc. But instead what they have is 4 or 5 core Metro/DART lines which are then feed by extensive bus, tram and cycling networks.

The is more like the model we should be aiming for in the medium term. We need to start somewhere and Metrolink and DART Expansion are solid plans that will give us a high quality core like Amsterdam/Copenhagen to build on. Hopefully BusConnects will also be successful and will help feed buses and bikes into this network too.

We should of course also be planning for Metrolink line 2, etc. But we need to be realistic and aim for Amsterdam/Copenhagen type transport, rather then Paris/London/Frankfurt.

The reason I mention this, is that it is important that we learn the lessons from Amsterdam/Copenhagen, what they do to solve the last mile problem. Good, well integrated bus services, lots of good quality cycling infrastructure, etc.

Paris/London/Frankfurt don't have as much to teach us as they are such big and rich cities, they can have very extensive Metro networks that service most of the city and few people are more then 5 minutes walk from a station. That of course is brilliant, but it is also unrealistic for a city of the size and population density of Dublin/Amsterdam/Copenhagen.

Sam Russell · 25-06-2018 1:20pm

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II. All engineering decisions will have been made and just the route needs to be chosen.

The Metro II could be built much quicker than the near decade for this one.

Bray Head · 25-06-2018 2:22pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II.

I would start long before that.

Sam Russell · 25-06-2018 2:26pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I would start long before that.

Well, yes. It will take about three years to tunnel, and if they get the act together, they could keep the TBM boring on Metro II. They would be ready to do that if ABP approve their plans in time.

bk · 25-06-2018 2:33pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I would start long before that.

Well pretty much every person in the country with rail planning and engineering experience is currently working on Metrolink, so until that work is finished and the Metrolink is near to starting, you realistically won't have the resources to work on anything else.

And then their is DART Expansion, DART Underground and Luas extensions to do too. Oh and BusConnects.

Of course you can start coming up with a rough idea of where a second line might go. But I'm talking about detailed planning.

It is the same problem we are having in the construction sector and frankly all infrastructure. We don't have the human resources due to the recession and it will take time to gear up.

CatInABox · 25-06-2018 2:37pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II. All engineering decisions will have been made and just the route needs to be chosen.

The Metro II could be built much quicker than the near decade for this one.

From reading the docs on the metrolink website, they've prepared them for "Metrolink/Dart Underground", so it's clear that they've been planning for the future.

marno21 · 25-06-2018 2:39pm

The only rail projects currently on the NTA's radar are the Metrolink, DART Expansion, then following from that the 4 Luas lines and the DART interconnector tunnel.

Any further Metros are not in their 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy so until that is amended, their resources will be fully concentrated on the above rail projects,

Consonata · 25-06-2018 2:55pm

marno21 wrote: »

The only rail projects currently on the NTA's radar are the Metrolink, DART Expansion, then following from that the 4 Luas lines and the DART interconnector tunnel.

Any further Metros are not in their 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy so until that is amended, their resources will be fully concentrated on the above rail projects,

I didn't know DU was approved under project 2040?

marno21 · 25-06-2018 3:03pm

Consonata wrote: »

I didn't know DU was approved under project 2040?

The funding plan for Project 2040 (National Development Plan 2018-2027) invisages that the DART Underground route will be finalised and protected during this period. The tunnel will then be advanced to construction after 2027 (perhaps before it depending on timelines for other projects). It's in the NTA 2016-2035 GDA transport policy so will likely be implemented between 2027-2035

(I realise that's very idealistic and likely to change but that's current situation)

Consonata · 25-06-2018 3:16pm

marno21 wrote: »

The funding plan for Project 2040 (National Development Plan 2018-2027) invisages that the DART Underground route will be finalised and protected during this period. The tunnel will then be advanced to construction after 2027 (perhaps before it depending on timelines for other projects). It's in the NTA 2016-2035 GDA transport policy so will likely be implemented between 2027-2035

(I realise that's very idealistic and likely to change but that's current situation)

If, in the ideal situation, that a Cork-Belfast HSR route becomes viable, would they route it through a hypothetical Dart Underground, or through upgrading the already existing PPT

bk · 25-06-2018 4:46pm

Consonata wrote: »

If, in the ideal situation, that a Cork-Belfast HSR route becomes viable, would they route it through a hypothetical Dart Underground, or through upgrading the already existing PPT

No and no.

First of all, we are unlikely to ever see a Cork to Belfast HSR. It would likely cost 12 billion. We just don't have the population size and densities to support that.

Second, the DART Underground tunnel will likely be built in a way that it can only support DART's and nothing else. Perhaps even only 4 carriage DARTs to save money (which would be fine with a high enough frequency). BTW the clue is in the project name.

Trying to route other types of trains through what is supposed to be a tunnel for mass transit with very high frequencies would simply be a recipe for disaster. It is this type of low quality solution of mixing DART with heavy rail that already makes DART less reliable and frequent then it should be.

Ideally you want to completely separate out your commuter and long distance rail from your mass transit. That is how it is done all over Europe.

Look at the example of Crossrail in London. It is completely it's own tunnel, it doesn't try and share a London Underground tunnel, that would be crazy.

tom1ie · 25-06-2018 4:55pm

bk wrote: »

Well pretty much every person in the country with rail planning and engineering experience is currently working on Metrolink, so until that work is finished and the Metrolink is near to starting, you realistically won't have the resources to work on anything else.

And then their is DART Expansion, DART Underground and Luas extensions to do too. Oh and BusConnects.

Of course you can start coming up with a rough idea of where a second line might go. But I'm talking about detailed planning.

It is the same problem we are having in the construction sector and frankly all infrastructure. We don't have the human resources due to the recession and it will take time to gear up.

Would it not just be a case of copy and paste though? Metrolink would be the standard that metro 2 would be built and the engineers would design the exact same stations and tunnel system, even use the same methods for working out station catchment areas and hopefully if the timings right use the same tbm.
I know local geology would be different but that’s hardly going to take up a lot of time to figure out.

strassenwo!f · 25-06-2018 6:13pm

bk, where are you getting the idea that Frankfurt is much denser than Dublin?

Frankfurt is bigger in area than Dublin, as defined by wikipedia (248 sq.km vs 114.9 sq. km), and in population (736,000 vs 553,000), but Dublin has a vastly higher population density (4,800 per sq. km vs 3,000 per sq. km).

Now, Dublin, as most of us understand it, has a different meaning to Wikipedia's Dublin, because that Dublin includes areas in three other local councils. Most people would consider Dundrum, for example, to be part of 'Dublin'.

To make a fairer comparison between the two, you might take wikipedia's 'Dublin' and add bits of the surrounding councils to bring the total area up to 248 sq.km (Frankfurt's size) and see what the density is. As the other three councils have lower densities, you would get a lower density figure for the whole - I'd guess somewhere close to 3,000 per sq.km.

The metropolitan area around Frankfurt also has a much larger population than Dublin's, but you need to remember that the other cities in that area have their own bus and tram services covering their cities, so it's not particularly useful to make comparisons of population. In any case, I wasn't intending to make these comparisons, and just wanted to point out that there is very good distribution of rail-based transport in that city. (It's probably almost as good as Dublin's was, back in the day).

bk · 25-06-2018 6:54pm

Frankfurt's Metro population is 5.6 million people.
Dublins Metro population 1.3 million people.

Even if you want to stretch Dublin out to the greater Dublin region, it still is only 1.9 million.

Frankfurt is on a very different scale in terms of both wealth and population. It would be a foolish comparison.

marno21 · 25-06-2018 7:07pm

Dublin is increasingly hard to define given the amount of sprawl right across North Leinster these days, and which is continuing and will do so until proper transport links are built and more development centred around the city rather than "3 and 4 bedroomed semi detached houses only 5 minutes from the M3" out in County Meath.

Having one local authority to manage Dublin rather than the lunatic situation at present would be useful too. Seeing a "Welcome to Dun Laoighre Rathdown" at the UCD Flyover before driving through another 8-9km of suburbia makes no sense.

25-06-2018 7:52pm

bk wrote: »

Frankfurt's Metro population is 5.6 million people.
Dublins Metro population 1.3 million people.

Even if you want to stretch Dublin out to the greater Dublin region, it still is only 1.9 million.

Frankfurt is on a very different scale in terms of both wealth and population. It would be a foolish comparison.

How much of Frankfurt's metro population does it's combination of rail systems serve? Because looking at maps, it's a very small fraction.

bk · 25-06-2018 8:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How much of Frankfurt's metro population does it's combination of rail systems serve? Because looking at maps, it's a very small fraction.

Well it has 9 "Metro lines" and 9 "DART" lines and 9 tram lines. So pretty extensive. Though obviously it is unlikely to cover everywhere.

Interestingly looking at that map, you can easily see how their are large areas of housing radiating out along the rail lines near the stations, but then a lot of green fields in between. Not exclusively of course, but still a very noticeable pattern.

strassenwo!f · 25-06-2018 11:26pm

So, I guess at this stage, bk, you're not going to acknowledge your error about the densities of the two cities?

Frankfurt is very much the centre of the Rhein-Main metropolitan area, but the other cities on the S-Bahn network which links them all have lots of their own stuff going on too. For example, two of the other cities served by the S-Bahn network are state capitals.

The original point I was making was that Frankfurt's tram network (which is entirely within the city limits) and U-bahn network (which almost totally is) serve pretty much all the corners of Frankfurt.

This is of great benefit to the residents of the city, as they can get anywhere in the city pretty rapidly, often (or mostly) with just one change. It's also of great benefit for S-bahn travellers from other outlying cities, who undoubtedly make up a significant portion of peak-time travellers, as they can get to most areas of Frankfurt, the most important city in the area, also often (or mostly) with just one change.

In my opinion Dublin is getting things broadly right with the plans for the Northside bit of the metro, opening up new areas to rapid transport with the centre. Places like Swords and Ballymun don't currently have this, and it is very much to be welcomed. But, also in my opinion, it's getting it very wrong on the Southside by deciding to pile more investment into one particular corridor which is already well served and squandering the chance to use the metro to open up one or two other corridors in the city to areas which are not currently well served. It is very short-sighted.

salmocab · 26-06-2018 8:38am

The cost of the Southside bit is the driving factor, there isn’t money available to do the Southside metro that everyone wants. If money wasn’t an issue I would think that nearly everyone would agree that the SW would be better served than the Green LUAS.

bk · 26-06-2018 9:22am

salmocab wrote: »

The cost of the Southside bit is the driving factor, there isn’t money available to do the Southside metro that everyone wants. If money wasn’t an issue I would think that nearly everyone would agree that the SW would be better served than the Green LUAS.

If we had billions extra then we would do both. Both Metrolink 2 and the Green line upgrade.

In fact Metrolink would still be exactly as planned, with Metrolink 2 being ideally a completely separate tunnel (obviously with integration points) from NE to SW.

It is important to remember, upgrading the Green line isn't just cheap, it is completely necessary. The Green line will be overcapacity and needing to be upgraded either way in 10 years time (if not sooner).

Consonata · 26-06-2018 3:54pm

If we had billions extra then we would do both.

See this is the thing. Billions extra are there, either through borrowing from the EIB or elsewhere. Which makes me really wonder what is the case being made against a vital expansion of infrastructure that is guaranteed to be giving a return on investment

Amirani · 26-06-2018 3:59pm

Consonata wrote: »

See this is the thing. Billions extra are there, either through borrowing from the EIB or elsewhere. Which makes me really wonder what is the case being made against a vital expansion of infrastructure that is guaranteed to be giving a return on investment

Above all else is the fact that it's not feasible politically. If you increase the cost of Metrolink by another few billion then it won't get over the line.

CatInABox · 26-06-2018 4:12pm

Amirani wrote: »

Above all else is the fact that it's not feasible politically. If you increase the cost of Metrolink by another few billion then it won't get over the line.

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

Sam Russell · 26-06-2018 4:21pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

The EIB would not be able to finance the health service.

They would finance Metrolink, and possibly Metro II.

CatInABox · 26-06-2018 4:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EIB would not be able to finance the health service.

They would finance Metrolink, and possibly Metro II.

Oh yeah, I know that, but people and politicians would look for a corresponding drop in infrastructure spending, and that would be what they want put into the health service.

I do have to wonder though, why isn't the EIB being used? What's stopping them from asking?

salmocab · 26-06-2018 4:57pm

bk wrote: »

If we had billions extra then we would do both. Both Metrolink 2 and the Green line upgrade.

In fact Metrolink would still be exactly as planned, with Metrolink 2 being ideally a completely separate tunnel (obviously with integration points) from NE to SW.

It is important to remember, upgrading the Green line isn't just cheap, it is completely necessary. The Green line will be overcapacity and needing to be upgraded either way in 10 years time (if not sooner).

I suppose what I meant was if it was a straight choice between upgrading the Green LUAS and another tunnel going SW then the other tunnel would be the better option.
I fully agree the green line needs upgrading, as an occasional user I’ve seen it in action.

bk · 26-06-2018 4:58pm

Or more to the point, the Dart Underground would be up to get such funding is available. After all DU is actually part of the Ireland 2040 plan.

As far as I know, this Metrolink 2 that we are discussing here has never been mentioned in any Dublin area development plan. It is purely an idea that has developed on this forum.

I do think it is important and should be considered, be in reality it doesn't seem to be even on agenda amongst planners for the moment.

What is on the radar at the moment is:

- Metrolink - 3bn - Currently active and a priority over next 10 year plan.
- BusConnects - 1 to 2 bn - Currently active and part of the 10 year plan.
- Dart Expansion - 2bn - Seemingly currently active and part of the 10 year plan.
- Dart Underground Tunnel - 2bn - Seems to be on hold, but marked down for post 2027
- Various Luas Extensions, Finglas, Bray, etc. Seem to be on hold, but marked down for post 2027

If more money is available, then the DU tunnel and Luas extensions are what would go ahead sooner.

tom1ie · 26-06-2018 5:04pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

It doesn’t matter how much you put into the health service, the money will not be spent where it’s needed while the governments emphasis is pushing private medical insurance for all.
Anyway that’s beside the point.
Metro2 should be marketed as a completely different project that won’t increase the cost on metrolink.
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.
It sorts out the multiple cpo issues at charlemount.
It sorts out the main sewage line at charlemount.
It provides immediate readily accessible affordable housing on a pt route.
It removes a lot of traffic from the sw via the bus connects corridor straight to rathmines.
It provides people on the sw a pt link to the airport.
It is not a massive amount of money in the context of things whereas a metro 2 line would cost billions.

salmocab · 26-06-2018 5:09pm

tom1ie wrote: »

It doesn’t matter how much you put into the health service, the money will not be spent where it’s needed while the governments emphasis is pushing private medical insurance for all.
Anyway that’s beside the point.
Metro2 should be marketed as a completely different project that won’t increase the cost on metrolink.
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.
It sorts out the multiple cpo issues at charlemount.
It sorts out the main sewage line at charlemount.
It provides immediate readily accessible affordable housing on a pt route.
It removes a lot of traffic from the sw via the bus connects corridor straight to rathmines.
It provides people on the sw a pt link to the airport.
It is not a massive amount of money in the context of things whereas a metro 2 line would cost billions.

There is no way the whole of Milltown gc would be cpo’d it would cost millions and then to build houses with those roads around it already gridlocked, coupled with I’d imagine the members and locals are well heeled and well able to mount legal battles that run for years.

Sam Russell · 26-06-2018 6:49pm

tom1ie wrote: »

I
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.

The first stop would be at Portabello Bridge, 1 km from SSG. (Stations need to be every Km).

Then go to Beechwood (another Km) using the southern tie-in in the published emerging route documentation for Beechwood.

Going further south adds too much to cost. I agree that could be the branch off towards Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, then surface and follow the Dodder.

tom1ie · 26-06-2018 7:49pm

salmocab wrote: »

There is no way the whole of Milltown gc would be cpo’d it would cost millions and then to build houses with those roads around it already gridlocked, coupled with I’d imagine the members and locals are well heeled and well able to mount legal battles that run for years.

the roads around the golf course wouldnt need to be massivley upgraded as the houses going in would be built on a high capacity frequent pt line
do you not think the houses to be cpoed around charlemount are owned by well healed types?
At least with a golf course you are only dealing with one entity as opposed to many different owners.

salmocab · 26-06-2018 8:07pm

tom1ie wrote: »

the roads around the golf course wouldnt need to be massivley upgraded as the houses going in would be built on a high capacity frequent pt line
do you not think the houses to be cpoed around charlemount are owned by well healed types?
At least with a golf course you are only dealing with one entity as opposed to many different owners.

The lower churchtown road is one of the worst bottlenecks on the south side of the city, even a few extra cars would be a mess and the golf club could fit thousands of homes if even a small amount of the thousands of people that could fit on that land drove out onto the road it would be chaos. The golf club is one entity but has presumably hundreds of members which would make them a very difficult set of people to fight as they already have a structure in place as opposed to a handful of residents trying to organize themselves on an ad how basis. The golf club has employees which means they could have people fighting this on a full time basis.

Kellyconor1982 · 26-06-2018 10:59pm

I think the government will have great difficulty getting busconnects through in rathgar,terenure and rathfarnham. The consequence of this might be more local pressure for the metro 2 built there.

I think once metro 1 is built there will be a real drive for lines around the city. A metro 2 going sw is so obviously needed, but it's hard to see it being operational for 15-20 years. More luas lines should be secondary to building dart underground/metro lines. A better and faster bus service is essential to be fair, especially as this is more immediate while the city waits for rail transport.

I completely agree that there should be numerous large scale public transport projects built right now, especially with the m50 at breaking point and the population of the city increasing at a very steady rate. As mentioned, this pays for itself. We are not meeting our emission targets anyway so we are going to be fined a large amount if we don't which is money down the drain.

I think the current government recognise this at some level, but they are also likely to engage in cute hoorism as seen by the Na Fianna debacle. They will try and balance the sane argument with appealing to nimbyism and the rural populace (who have their own justifiable issues to be fair).

I think (perhaps naively) Dublin will have a quality public transport system in 30 years but i really fear we have a horrendous period ahead of us especially in the next 20 years. The city is creaking and even moderate economic growth and modest population growth will be incredibly challenging for the city. I just hope politicians can think of the bigger picture in order to help ease us through these difficulties but I have great doubts about all of them.

tom1ie · 27-06-2018 9:35am

salmocab wrote: »

The lower churchtown road is one of the worst bottlenecks on the south side of the city, even a few extra cars would be a mess and the golf club could fit thousands of homes if even a small amount of the thousands of people that could fit on that land drove out onto the road it would be chaos. The golf club is one entity but has presumably hundreds of members which would make them a very difficult set of people to fight as they already have a structure in place as opposed to a handful of residents trying to organize themselves on an ad how basis. The golf club has employees which means they could have people fighting this on a full time basis.

Traffic on the lower churchtown road could be drastically reduced by the addition of a metro stop in dartry, which I have accounted for in my previous point. Bus routes could be re-routed to dartry metro station to feed the metro and give a reduction in traffic.
A lot of the traffic going this route to the cc are avoiding terenure village and the canal, so bus connects going to rathmines and feeding metrolink at rathmines will also take a lot of this traffic.
The point is we have to start promoting pt as the normal not as the exception. If you build mid density housing on milltown gc and provide limited car parking spaces but plenty of bike parks, a good bus service and a fantastic metro that allows you to go south, north, and even west (to rathmines in my plan) do you not think people will not buy houses here and ditch the car?
I agree the cpo of milltown gc will have problems, but so will the cpo of the houses around charlemount, where you’ll be dealing with multiple people who might have legal backgrounds etc, plus you have the sewage problem, plus you have the at grade problems.
Beechwood is a decent option but doesn’t allow for stations at rathmines and dartry, plus there’d be cpoing of individual houses and that won’t open up milltown gc for mid density housing.

antoinolachtnai · 27-06-2018 11:24am

The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.

The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.

tom1ie · 27-06-2018 11:26am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.

The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.

But there is no space for a line to run alongside the green line? Or am I picking you up wrong?

LXFlyer · 27-06-2018 11:44am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The other possibility I see would be to tunnel to beechwood where a line would be brought to the surface to continue along the Green Line, but then leave the TBM underground to continue towards Rathfarnam, and surfacing along the Dodder somewhere.

The tunneling for this would not be an awful lot of extra expense since the TBM is already underground.

Not a bad idea, but then you’d have to reduce capacity on the Green Line branch of the Metro when the Rathfarnham line came live. Sadly I think they do need to be two separate lines.

antoinolachtnai · 27-06-2018 11:54am

tom1ie wrote: »

But there is no space for a line to run alongside the green line? Or am I picking you up wrong?

There would be a 'Y' in the route. One of the two 'arms' of the Y would be the green line. The other would be an underground line going towards the Dodder.

antoinolachtnai · 27-06-2018 12:02pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Not a bad idea, but then you’d have to reduce capacity on the Green Line branch of the Metro when the Rathfarnham line came live. Sadly I think they do need to be two separate lines.

The capacity of a grade separated underground train line with long trains is immense. The frequency could be as high as a train every 90 seconds or even a train a minute.

The Picadilly Line seems to do OK in London, for example, with a slightly similar 'Y' arrangement.

One problem with the existing proposal is that it doesn't really open up very much development land. This proposal could potentially serve a lot of development land to the west.

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Comments