Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

strassenwo!f · 31-05-2018 8:28pm

It looks very nice. Bring it on.

But what is achieved by not giving the people living in this development a direct run into town?

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to get on their tram in Cherrywood and travel directly into town, with no change, as they could if they were living there now?

Introducing a change to a metro line at Sandyford won't make their journey noticeably any quicker and just involves disruption to their reading of the newspaper, doing the crossword or scanning facebook.

By all means increase the throughput on the line, which would seem to be very doable, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any need to upgrade the infrastructure, and it's hard to see that there will be for the next 20-30 years or so.

salmocab · 31-05-2018 8:31pm

tom1ie wrote: »

which can be remedied by running driverless 90m hfv every 3 mins which equates to 90 secs in the cc tunnel. Connectivity is also streamlined this way.

But surely you can see that this means that the two south side spurs would for ever have half the capacity of the one northern line. This is just bad planning. I’m very keen on the SW line as I would benefit directly from it but the bigger picture is surely to get it right from day one and this idea seems like a compromise that can’t be righted. Two lines forever separate with appropriate interchanges with each other buses luas and dart is what I really want in the long run

Sam Russell · 31-05-2018 8:40pm

tom1ie wrote: »

if a seperate ne/sw line was chosen where would the interchange on the southside of the city be located? as in if i live in rathfarnham and want to travel to lets say ssg, i shouldnt have to go to glasnevin to get a metro back the way i came.
i understand the point about cutting frequency on the green line if a spur was built, but there would still be a metro travelling through the tunnel every 90 secs, and if that metro was driverless 90m hfv there would be plenty of capacity for sw, south and north.
The advantages being:
the capital cost would be far less with a sw spur than a seperate line sw/ne.
connectivity on the south side of the city, as generally ssg is the centre of town on the southside, also allows for sw to south movements, and of course allows sw to north movements with one simple change at whatever interchange station is chosen.

Just to be clear, I am not a transport planner and any ideas are at best crayon wielding.

I would run the line from Tallaght throgh Harold's Cross, Christchurch, Smithfield, Whitworth Rd, Then of East towards Whitehall and onto Clongriffin.

Now that allows connection at Christchurch, if ever they build DU, Smithfield for the Red line, Whitworth for Metrolink, Maynooth, Sligo, Connolly, etc. Then Whitehall to connect with buses, and onto Clongiffin, where it connects with the Northern Line.

Now, inside the Canal, the Metro II is no more than 1 km fron SSG, or Charlemont. Now a km is a reasonable walk, but there are connections further on if it is too far. There should be feeder buses to go orbital routes as well. For example, Rathfarnum to Sandyford would be best achieved by an orbital route than a trip into town and back out.

If you put the connection at Tara ST, the two lines are almost one tunnel, so not much capture area. Whitworth could also be a changeover interchange, so trains could go Sandyford- Clongriffin or Sandyford - Swords, and Tallaght - Swords or Tallaght - Clongriffin. To me, the aim should be to create a network that allows a rail connection from anywhere to anywhere else on the network with only one or perhaps two changes.

Now, in true crayon mode, you can rub out the bits you disagree with and draw them elsewhere.

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 8:41pm

salmocab wrote: »

But surely you can see that this means that the two south side spurs would for ever have half the capacity of the one northern line. This is just bad planning. I’m very keen on the SW line as I would benefit directly from it but the bigger picture is surely to get it right from day one and this idea seems like a compromise that can’t be righted. Two lines forever separate with appropriate interchanges with each other buses luas and dart is what I really want in the long run

yes agreed but where would the south side interchange be?
ill use the example, i start in firhouse and i want to go to ssg. i don't want to have to go to glasnevin to get a train back in the direction i just came from, that makes no sense.
what capacity per direction per hour do driverless 90m hfv with psg's fitted achieve? lets say they run every 3 mins?

CatInABox · 31-05-2018 8:46pm

tom1ie wrote: »

if a seperate ne/sw line was chosen where would the interchange on the southside of the city be located? as in if i live in rathfarnham and want to travel to lets say ssg, i shouldnt have to go to glasnevin to get a metro back the way i came.

If Metro II is built as a seperate SW to NE line, then just by doing some crayoning, I say a station at SSG for Metrolink interchange, and a station at Pearse for Dart Interchange.

It's also possible that they'd have the interchange at Tara St, as that's going to have both Dart and Metrolink.

Realistically, Dart Underground will probably be built first, and where that goes is all up in the air after the redesign of Metrolink. It's been suggested that it could go down under Dame St, and have an interchange station at Tara as well.

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 8:58pm

also i wonder what percentage of people that get on at firhouse are only going as far as the cc, so if the spur went from ssg to firhouse, via rathmines. that way if anyone from firhouse wants to go to the airport/swords they change at ssg where they are guaranteed that a metrolink metro will come along in less than 90 secs as the metro 2 metro only runs on the spur so dosent half the capacity on the metrolink tunnel-if you understand me.

citizen6 · 31-05-2018 9:02pm

tom1ie wrote: »

someone suggested an idea where metrolink could tie in north of windy arbour via rathmines where an underground station could be built. provision for a future spur to the sw could be integrated in rathmines.
positives being you are making the tie in a simpler affair as milltown golf course could be cpo'ed and the line tie in could proceed there.
this would solve the at grade issues the green line luas has at the minute (cant remember the specific pinch points)
it would be a start towards serving the sw with a rail based transport system anyway.
obviously the negatives is trying to cpo milltown golf course, and the extra cost of tunneling the 4.2 km to go to windy arbour via rathmines.

The idea was to avoid the messes at Charlemont, Dunville Ave etc, and still provide the extra capacity on the current green line, while also setting up a relatively easy SW Luas (as a separate project).

Using the dead end of the post-Metro green line (which would be at Windy Arbour rather than Charlemont) as the starting point of a SW line makes it much more likely that we'll see such a thing any time soon. And wouldn't take any capacity away from Sandyford.

The new Luas would only need 5km of tunnel (Windy Arbour to Knocklyon Road) and would serve Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght.

I take the point that changing the plan risks killing the whole project. But the green line closures required to resolve Charlemont tie-in, Dunville Ave and Richmond Ave do that too.

salmocab · 31-05-2018 9:10pm

tom1ie wrote: »

yes agreed but where would the south side interchange be?
ill use the example, i start in firhouse and i want to go to ssg. i don't want to have to go to glasnevin to get a train back in the direction i just came from, that makes no sense.
what capacity per direction per hour do driverless 90m hfv with psg's fitted achieve? lets say they run every 3 mins?

Well I’d think that the interchange should be very central Stephen’s green or Connell street would seem obvious

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 9:15pm

citizen6 wrote: »

The idea was to avoid the messes at Charlemont, Dunville Ave etc, and still provide the extra capacity on the current green line, while also setting up a relatively easy SW Luas (as a separate project).

Using the dead end of the post-Metro green line (which would be at Windy Arbour rather than Charlemont) as the starting point of a SW line makes it much more likely that we'll see such a thing any time soon. And wouldn't take any capacity away from Sandyford.

The new Luas would only need 5km of tunnel (Windy Arbour to Knocklyon Road) and would serve Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght.

I take the point that changing the plan risks killing the whole project. But the green line closures required to resolve Charlemont tie-in, Dunville Ave and Richmond Ave do that too.

yeah its a good idea, the problem i have on it would the the luas from firhouse would have its capacity limited by the max capacity and frequency luas cross city can handle. I suppose people travelling from firhouse to anywhere along the northern half of metrolink could just change at windy arbour and get on the metro there, anyone going to the cc would just stay on the luas.
what is the capacity of the luas that runs on the cross city section per direction per hour at the minute?

salmocab · 31-05-2018 9:15pm

tom1ie wrote: »

also i wonder what percentage of people that get on at firhouse are only going as far as the cc, so if the spur went from ssg to firhouse, via rathmines. that way if anyone from firhouse wants to go to the airport/swords they change at ssg where they are guaranteed that a metrolink metro will come along in less than 90 secs as the metro 2 metro only runs on the spur so dosent half the capacity on the metrolink tunnel-if you understand me.

That’s not a spur then it’s a separate line just going SSG to firhouse

citizen6 · 31-05-2018 9:22pm

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah its a good idea, the problem i have on it would the the luas from firhouse would have its capacity limited by the max capacity and frequency luas cross city can handle. I suppose people travelling from firhouse to anywhere along the northern half of metrolink could just change at windy arbour and get on the metro there, anyone going to the cc would just stay on the luas.
what is the capacity of the luas that runs on the cross city section per direction per hour at the minute?

They are claiming 8000 ppdph once new trams are in place. It would make a significant difference to Rathfarnham and Firhouse I'd imagine (and indirectly to Terenure with fewer buses passing through). Benefit to Rathmines as well which would have a Metro stop.

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 9:45pm

salmocab wrote: »

That’s not a spur then it’s a separate line just going SSG to firhouse

ok. My bad. i got the terminology wrong. Well, if it was constructed like this what would the consensus on this forum be?

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 9:51pm

citizen6 wrote: »

They are claiming 8000 ppdph once new trams are in place. It would make a significant difference to Rathfarnham and Firhouse I'd imagine (and indirectly to Terenure with fewer buses passing through). Benefit to Rathmines as well which would have a Metro stop.

that would make a huge difference. Excuse my amatuer maths but thats the equivalent of more than 80 jammed full double decker busses heading into the cc from firhouse per hour. (taking it that a db double decker has a capacity of 100 people)

salmocab · 31-05-2018 10:02pm

tom1ie wrote: »

ok. My bad. i got the terminology wrong. Well, if it was constructed like this what would the consensus on this forum be?

Well I’m sure everyone would be delighted at a second metro line, I doubt a single person here would be disappointed with that. The obvious thing would be to then tunnel out NE from that point creating the full second metro that lots have suggested

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 10:06pm

salmocab wrote: »

Well I’m sure everyone would be delighted at a second metro line, I doubt a single person here would be disappointed with that. The obvious thing would be to then tunnel out NE from that point creating the full second metro that lots have suggested

yeah agreed but it has to start somewhere and i think we need metrolink+ green upgrade and before metrolink is finished start ssg to firhouse or windy arbour to rathfarnham. my preference is ssg to firhouse

salmocab · 31-05-2018 10:12pm

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah agreed but it has to start somewhere and i think we need metrolink+ green upgrade and before metrolink is finished start ssg to firhouse or windy arbour to rathfarnham. my preference is ssg to firhouse

Again I doubt anyone actually disagrees that that would make sense, the general disagreement has been about money or which of the southern sections is better/more likely.
If a line is going SW I would certainly like to see it hit Harold’s x terenure Rathfarnham ballyboden knocklyon and firhouse.

strassenwo!f · 31-05-2018 10:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just to be clear, I am not a transport planner and any ideas are at best crayon wielding.

I would run the line from Tallaght throgh Harold's Cross, Christchurch, Smithfield, Whitworth Rd, Then of East towards Whitehall and onto Clongriffin.

Now that allows connection at Christchurch, if ever they build DU, Smithfield for the Red line, Whitworth for Metrolink, Maynooth, Sligo, Connolly, etc. Then Whitehall to connect with buses, and onto Clongiffin, where it connects with the Northern Line.

Now, inside the Canal, the Metro II is no more than 1 km fron SSG, or Charlemont. Now a km is a reasonable walk, but there are connections further on if it is too far. There should be feeder buses to go orbital routes as well. For example, Rathfarnum to Sandyford would be best achieved by an orbital route than a trip into town and back out.

If you put the connection at Tara ST, the two lines are almost one tunnel, so not much capture area. Whitworth could also be a changeover interchange, so trains could go Sandyford- Clongriffin or Sandyford - Swords, and Tallaght - Swords or Tallaght - Clongriffin. To me, the aim should be to create a network that allows a rail connection from anywhere to anywhere else on the network with only one or perhaps two changes.

Now, in true crayon mode, you can rub out the bits you disagree with and draw them elsewhere.

Sam, it was mentioned earlier in this thread, by the poster lxflyer, that your proposal doesn't hit any of the main points in the city.

We know, from cities of a similar size to Dublin, that it is vital that a line hits one or more of the key points in the city.

In Dublin, the key area lies broadly in a triangle between the Parnell Monument, St. Stephen's Green and somewhere around Parliament Street (though that could be stretched, at a push, to Christchurch).

These areas are the only areas which are busy all the time, and that's not going to change. You need to hit at least one of those points.

The formerly proposed interconnector did this at two points (St. Stephen's Green and Christchurch). The proposed metrolink does it at O'Connell Bridge and St. Stephen's Green, and I've no problem, broadly, with what the authorities are trying to do, as it hits the key area at two points.

But a line to/from the southwest of the city would also hit this key area at two points, and might (or would, in my opinion) deliver more for the city overall.

The line you propose for metro 2 would, at a stretch, hit just one of the main points in the key area of the city, at Christchurch. But we should be able to to do better.

Consonata · 31-05-2018 10:52pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You need to hit at least one of those points.

Not necessarily, Orbital routes do exist, and Dublin could definetly use one to link up the Dart lines with the west of Dublin

citizen6 · 31-05-2018 11:01pm

Like it or not, we now have a fairly high capacity line running through the city centre - Luas Cross City. It will be extended to Finglas on the northside. It would be criminal to terminate it at Charlemont on the southside.

We should be looking at where, post-Metrolink, we will tie in a S/SW *Luas* tunnel to the Cross City's new terminus. Whether that's at Charlemont or Beechwood or Windy Arbour. (And Charlemont looks like it would be a nightmare.)

An entirely separate SW Metro would be fantastic but I can't see it opening in the next 40 years. And a SW Metro along the N81 isn't really serving Rathfarnham anyway.

tom1ie · 31-05-2018 11:35pm

citizen6 wrote: »

Like it or not, we now have a fairly high capacity line running through the city centre - Luas Cross City. It will be extended to Finglas on the northside. It would be criminal to terminate it at Charlemont on the southside.

We should be looking at where, post-Metrolink, we will tie in a S/SW *Luas* tunnel to the Cross City's new terminus. Whether that's at Charlemont or Beechwood or Windy Arbour. (And Charlemont looks like it would be a nightmare.)

An entirely separate SW Metro would be fantastic but I can't see it opening in the next 40 years. And a SW Metro along the N81 isn't really serving Rathfarnham anyway.

both charlemount and beechwood look like theyd be a nightmare for a tie in, very limited space. Windy arbour looks like a good possibility, but its too far south to provide terenure with a service. The line cant start at windy arbour, head back north to terenure and then go south again to rathfarnham.
for me it has to be a seperate metro line servicing firhouse knocklyon ballyboden rathfarnham terenure rathgar rathmines and ssg.

bk · 01-06-2018 11:50am

tom1ie wrote: »

both charlemount and beechwood look like theyd be a nightmare for a tie in, very limited space. Windy arbour looks like a good possibility, but its too far south to provide terenure with a service. The line cant start at windy arbour, head back north to terenure and then go south again to rathfarnham.
for me it has to be a seperate metro line servicing firhouse knocklyon ballyboden rathfarnham terenure rathgar rathmines and ssg.

I'd actually say there is pretty decent space for a tie in at Beechwood, south of Dunville Avenue, as a plan B if those junctions are too complicated. CPO of an apartment building and one house, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Though I'm not sure what you would do with the Luas at Beechwood then. I suppose it could go underground there and head towards Rathmines, Terenue, etc.

bk · 01-06-2018 12:32pm

This is the area I'm talking about:

This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

tom1ie · 01-06-2018 12:38pm

bk wrote: »

This is the area I'm talking about:

This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

yeah i like this plan. A station at belgrave square would be only a 5min walk to rathmines main road, the station would be better under the swan centre but i presume thatd put too much of a curve on the track when heading off to beechwood.
The station in rathmines would become an important hub for transport, with many bus routes, cycling routes, metrolink and metro 2 all converging in a high density area. Sounds quite plausible.

Sam Russell · 01-06-2018 12:41pm

bk wrote: »

This is the area I'm talking about:

This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

tom1ie · 01-06-2018 12:45pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

why would it do that sam? Are you saying if the connection was kept it could mean lfv instead of hfv. moving the tunnel further south past beechwood wont change things from lfv to hfv or am i missing something?

bk · 01-06-2018 12:49pm

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah i like this plan. A station at belgrave square would be only a 5min walk to rathmines main road, the station would be better under the swan centre but i presume thatd put too much of a curve on the track when heading off to beechwood.
The station in rathmines would become an important hub for transport, with many bus routes, cycling routes, metrolink and metro 2 all converging in a high density area. Sounds quite plausible.

Yes, the City Council depot behind the Swan center looks like the obvious place for a Metro station for Rathmines, but it looks to me like it would be too tight a curve from their to this location at Beehwood, so that is why I think Belgrave Square would be more doable, it is more inline with it. Obviously that is all something the planner could look at, might be possible.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

Why would it tip the preference? If it was just a engineering link, then it wouldn't matter, trams could still run on this section, just not stop at stations along it (high platforms).

Sam Russell · 01-06-2018 12:57pm

tom1ie wrote: »

why would it do that sam? Are you saying if the connection was kept it could mean lfv instead of hfv. moving the tunnel further south past beechwood wont change things from lfv to hfv or am i missing something?

What I mean is if the Luas/Metrolink tie in allows the Luas trams through, the platforms north of Sandyford could be left as is to accommodate trams, which makes the Metro tram like - that is low floor. If the Luas north of the tie in is severed then there is no need to maintain the low floor option for the platforms, and the high floor option becomes the better option.

Now there is no need to allow trams passing along the Metro line for engineering reasons to carry passengers, but the temptation will there to allow it by the politicos.

Just another trip up.

bk · 01-06-2018 12:58pm

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

Sam Russell · 01-06-2018 12:59pm

bk wrote: »

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

You give great credit to the planners of the Green Line.

bk · 01-06-2018 1:01pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

What I mean is if the Luas/Metrolink tie in allows the Luas trams through, the platforms north of Sandyford could be left as is to accommodate trams, which makes the Metro tram like - that is low floor. If the Luas north of the tie in is severed then there is no need to maintain the low floor option for the platforms, and the high floor option becomes the better option.

Now there is no need to allow trams passing along the Metro line for engineering reasons to carry passengers, but the temptation will there to allow it by the politicos.

Just another trip up.

If it is just an engineering connection, then it would never carry passengers anyway, it wouldn't be allowed, just as they aren't allowed when trams use the other engineering connections around the city.

I get what you are saying about the political temptation, but I think it would be an easy one to avoid.

tom1ie · 01-06-2018 1:31pm

bk wrote: »

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

Yeah but that would point to unbelievable miss communication on the part of the nta in not being told about it and incompetence in not seeing this for the prefered option.

salmocab · 01-06-2018 1:37pm

Given the railway cut was always there that bit of land might just be a leftover from the original harcourt line, maybe a siding of some sort.

bk · 01-06-2018 1:40pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah but that would point to unbelievable miss communication on the part of the nta in not being told about it and incompetence in not seeing this for the prefered option.

Actually it would be TII, not NTA. Transport Infrastructure Ireland are the ones who design and run all major infrastructure projects here. They were formed out of the old NRA (National Road Authority) and RPA (Rail Procurement Authority). It was the RPA who designed Luas and the same folks working on Metrolink now.

I'm sure they know, either I'm wrong on this idea or perhaps there are other design or cost reasons that might make it more expensive or difficult.

Edit: salmocab, that would make sense, though looks like a good opportunity to use it as a plan B if necessary.

specialbyte · 01-06-2018 1:51pm

bk wrote: »

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

If you look at maps of the area from 1900 you see that the angle of the alley has been like that for 120 years. I think this probably has a lot more to do with the embankment that led up to the old railway overpass over Dunville Avenue.

Here's an image of the map: https://imgur.com/a/5t6btfK (You can find the original map on the OSI website GeoHive: http://map.geohive.ie/mapviewer.html > Base Information > Historic Map 25 inch)

Good forward planning on the green line would have been to retain the over bridge over Dunville Avenue instead of knocking it down in 2003/2004 during the Luas construction.

Former Taoiseach and great Irish transport planner Garret Fitzgerald railed against removing the over-bridge and also predicted many of the early issues that the Luas would face in this article from June 2003: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/from-luas-to-metro-insanity-compounded-1.364287

What your suggesting is pretty similar to option 6(A) - Beechwood South Inline (Pg 48) or Option 6 - Beechwood South (Pg 31) of the Green Line tie-in report. Honestly I feel like this is a much better option to go with that the option near Charlemont if they can't figure out traffic for Dunville Avenue.

Edit: salmocab you beat me to it

bk · 01-06-2018 2:00pm

Brilliant history lesson there specialbyte, very interesting and it does look to be a decent alternative.

bk · 01-06-2018 2:35pm

specialbyte looking at the report, yes Option 6 is the area I'm talking about.

Looking at the report, I can see why it isn't that easy. Forgot about the need to put a Metro station there too! That complicates things. Having said that, I'm surprised it takes such a length to tie-in there! It is a bit more expensive then the Ranelagh option, at 80m more, but still WAY cheaper then going SW.

Beechwood North and South are shortlisted options, so they do look like they could be plan B's depending on how everything else works out.

bk · 01-06-2018 3:16pm

Reading through the docs, Option 6 (at-grade) or Option 6(A) (inline) at Beechwood South look to be really decent alternative options if we end up going for the full HFV, fully segregated option (which we really should) and Ranelagh and Dunville Avenue turn out to be too costly and difficult.

Beechwood South seems far more straight forward, only downside is an extra km of tunnel that will add about 80m cost. Though you might save a lot of that cost on not needing to do the Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue anyway.

citizen6 · 01-06-2018 3:55pm

Agree that south of Beechwood is a better Metro tie-in than Charlemont. Downside of Beechwood rather than Windy Arbour for Metro tie-in is that it would be very difficult (I'm guessing) to create a portal for a new Luas tunnel between Beechwood Luas station and the Metro tie-in. So Luas would be stuck terminating at Beechwood permanently.

strassenwo!f · 01-06-2018 10:43pm

If we could just get back to possible alternatives to the proposed metrolink route, which is the main objective for discussion on this thread if you look at the title, it certainly makes one wonder what advantages are gained by a tunnel portal at Beechwood.

Given that the LUAS Green line most probably doesn't need to be upgraded anyway, as there is a lot that can readily be done to increase its capacity, it would seem very wasteful to spend a lot of money building the tunnel as far out as Beechwood, which is well south of the canal, and introduce unnecessary complications for those south of Sandyford and those north of Beechwood in their daily commute.

And, apart from introducing these complications for many users of the current LUAS Green line, it won't noticeably increase the speed into/out of town for users on the proposed metro section.

For the same money you could certainly tunnel to, say, Rathmines, and lay the groundwork for a line (or lines) to/from the southwest of the city, with gradual investment after the initial phase leading to massive reductions in commuting times for people in several areas of the city which are not currently served by any form of rapid transport.

Kellyconor1982 · 02-06-2018 10:28am

I quite like the idea of gradual tunnelling along towards the sw of the city. This could take place while the upgrades are going on with the green line.

The people on this thread all want world class transport for the city and recognise that it is needed. A large majority of the population of the city want this, even if a lot of people want it on their terms.

Gradual tunnelling with stop openings was not something i previously considered but opens up more of the city. Depending on how it might look, i guess it could mean that areas like rathfarnham, knocklyon and firhouse/tallaght could get a metro stop around 2034-2040. People living near rathmines or harold's cross could benefit in the meantime.

I completely see the counter argument for getting the green line built first. Obviously, my own opinion would do the two lines together but this is ireland with nimbyism and political interests taking priority over the common interest.

jd · 02-06-2018 10:35am

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Gradual tunnelling with stop openings was not something i previously considered but opens up more of the city.

That's not straightforward - you'd have to build multiple turnarounds.

strassenwo!f · 02-06-2018 3:31pm

jd wrote: »

That's not straightforward - you'd have to build multiple turnarounds.

It certainly doesn't have to be complicated. It could be, for example, like the current turnaround at Howth, or like St. Stephen's Green was before the link-up.

Sam Russell · 02-06-2018 4:11pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It certainly doesn't have to be complicated. It could be, for example, like the current turnaround at Howth, or like St. Stephen's Green was before the link-up.

Or even the turnaround at GCD. It requires a set of points to change track.

Dats me · 02-06-2018 11:32pm

Strassenwolf all of your points re green line rely on ignoring the fact that it will exceed the capacity that can be provided by a light rail system, as stated by the NTA in the documentation at metrolink.ie

lucernarian · 03-06-2018 1:28pm

bk wrote: »

Actually I 100% honestly wrote a long post answering each of your questions, as I've been answering lots of peoples questions here. Your questions on PSD made it clear that you hadn't read the documents for yourself or done any research into it.

I mean it is not a problem in itself that you haven't read them, many people haven't and I'm happy to try and answer peoples questions based on my reading of them.

The problem is that you have been throwing around authoritative statements like "What is relevant is that the documents that have come with Metrolink have obvious, gaping holes in places involving critical decisions like infrastructure choices and cost estimates." when it is very obvious that you haven't actually read any of them yourself!

And how would you know if you haven't read the publicly available documents yourself?

Again, how would you know if you haven't read the documents?

You have been throwing out lots of statements like you have read them, but it is clear from your questions that you haven't read them.

Which has nothing to do with Metrolink.

To quickly answer some of your earlier questions. The HFV option is not just 40 million, it is 40 million higher then the 90m LFV option, which in turn is roughly 40 million higher then the 60m LFV option. So really it is 80m more then 60m LFV and about 120million all in.

While 120m isn't much money overall out of a 3 billion project, it still is a lot of money in it's own right.

PSD's aren't particularly hard or expensive to do. More significant will be the pedestrian overpass bridges and lifts. Yes platforms will need to be raised for HFV, but even with the LFV options they will need to be widened and lengthened anyway, so not a massive difference.

They are some tough engineering problems here, no one is saying it is trivial, but that is what engineers do and I don't see anything impossible here and I don't see anything that shouldn't be possible to fit in a 120m budget.

This is an inane post, how am I to prove I've read through the documents? I'm not posting my submission here. Red herrings spring to mind, when I and others are making salient criticisms of the way the CBA was carried out. High level estimates and all that.

Kellyconor1982 · 03-06-2018 3:58pm

jd wrote: »

That's not straightforward - you'd have to build multiple turnarounds.

Fair point.

It might not be straightforward but it's a really good way of gradually building a better transport service for the city. A metro station at harold's cross or rathmines being operational while the rest of metrolink 2 is being built gives a lot of people in the south central area a transport option. It might not quite hit the knocklyon/firhouse/templeogue/rathfarnham/tallaght populace but there would be a positive knock on impact for them if there were less people in rathmines/harold's cross and even rathgar and possibly terenure driving. Buses would be quicker and commutes would be reduced.

strassenwo!f · 21-06-2018 1:13am

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Fair point.

It might not be straightforward but it's a really good way of gradually building a better transport service for the city. A metro station at harold's cross or rathmines being operational while the rest of metrolink 2 is being built gives a lot of people in the south central area a transport option. It might not quite hit the knocklyon/firhouse/templeogue/rathfarnham/tallaght populace but there would be a positive knock on impact for them if there were less people in rathmines/harold's cross and even rathgar and possibly terenure driving. Buses would be quicker and commutes would be reduced.

There's a great deal of sense in this post. You are entirely right that incremental development of an underground towards those areas should also reduce bus times to/from suburbs which haven't yet been reached.

It has been established that there is no suitable route along which a LUAS line can connect the city centre with areas like Terenure, Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Walkinstown. The BusConnects proposal may change that to an extent by, for example, cutting a number of gardens and delivering wider routes along which LUAS lines might eventually be developed. But it is hard to see how pinchpoints like Rathmines can ever be LUAS-friendly.

The current metrolink plan is very flawed because it envisages development of the Swords - Sandyford plan in the years to 2027, and then presumably nothing on the southside or northside in the following 10-12 years or so. This is totally unrealistic because the inevitable success of the plan, if that southside portion of the metro is built, will demand further investment in similar lines for other areas. And it may not be forthcoming. [The timelines are so huge that it is very difficult to be specific]

Munich's first metro line, the U6, which travels between the north and the southwest of that city, did not have any upgrades for several years after it opened, as the city focused on laying the groundwork (other cross-city tunnels - i.e the difficult bits) for other areas of the city to eventually have a similar level of service. When that had been done, work resumed on the U6, and I it has been extended 5 or 6 times, with possible further extensions being looked at.

That city, which now has one of the best public transport systems in the world, and almost certainly the best of any city of a similar size and density to Dublin, didn't leave any suburb out to dry while they were developing their network.

Dublin's current plan is to leave many suburbs out to dry, for decades.

It is my belief that the needs of the Tallaght-Clondalkin corridor, with its 100,000+ people, can only be adequately provided by a new model for the previously proposed interconnector. I understand the Department of Transport has engaged a team of consultants to work on how that project should now be progressed.

Apart from that, my broad outline of how the two metro lines Dublin will probably need might be developed in the coming decades in the southside of Dublin would be as follows:

Line 1a: City to Galloping Green/Cherrywood along the N11 (nicely covering the gap between the DART and the Green LUAS line and reducing pressure on both, and serving areas like UCD, Donnybrook and other places which are not very well served by the DART or LUAS) and sharing a tunnel with line 1b in the city centre, probably to Broadstone;

Line 1b: City to Cherrywood, sharing tunnel with line 1a in the city centre, (probably to Broadstone);

Line 2a: Swords to Walkinstown, sharing tunnel with line 2b in the city centre; and

Line 2b: Swords to Rathfarnham/Firhouse/Knocklyon, sharing tunnel with line 2a in the city centre.

This seems, to me, a sensible plan of action over the next two-three decades or so, for development of Dublin's southside.

Hopefully, if something like my outline plan for the southside comes to pass, the northside of the city will be enjoying similar development over that time. The key thing now is to get the Swords - City metro section built, as a starting point.

Kellyconor1982 · 21-06-2018 7:41am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There's a great deal of sense in this post. You are entirely right that incremental development of an underground towards those areas should also reduce bus times to/from suburbs which haven't yet been reached.

It has been established that there is no suitable route along which a LUAS line can connect the city centre with areas like Terenure, Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Walkinstown. The BusConnects proposal may change that to an extent by, for example, cutting a number of gardens and delivering wider routes along which LUAS lines might eventually be developed. But it is hard to see how pinchpoints like Rathmines can ever be LUAS-friendly.

The current metrolink plan is very flawed because it envisages development of the Swords - Sandyford plan in the years to 2027, and then presumably nothing on the southside or northside in the following 10-12 years or so. This is totally unrealistic because the inevitable success of the plan, if that southside portion of the metro is built, will demand further investment in similar lines for other areas. And it may not be forthcoming. [The timelines are so huge that it is very difficult to be specific]

Munich's first metro line, the U6, which travels between the north and the southwest of that city, did not have any upgrades for several years after it opened, as the city focused on laying the groundwork (other cross-city tunnels - i.e the difficult bits) for other areas of the city to eventually have a similar level of service. When that had been done, work resumed on the U6, and I it has been extended 5 or 6 times, with possible further extensions being looked at.

That city, which now has one of the best public transport systems in the world, and almost certainly the best of any city of a similar size and density to Dublin, didn't leave any suburb out to dry while they were developing their network.

Dublin's current plan is to leave many suburbs out to dry, for decades.

It is my belief that the needs of the Tallaght-Clondalkin corridor, with its 100,000+ people, can only be adequately provided by a new model for the previously proposed interconnector. I understand the Department of Transport has engaged a team of consultants to work on how that project should now be progressed.

Apart from that, my broad outline of how the two metro lines Dublin will probably need might be developed in the coming decades in the southside of Dublin would be as follows:

Line 1a: City to Galloping Green/Cherrywood along the N11 (nicely covering the gap between the DART and the Green LUAS line and reducing pressure on both, and serving areas like UCD, Donnybrook and other places which are not very well served by the DART or LUAS) and sharing a tunnel with line 1b in the city centre, probably to Broadstone;

Line 1b: City to Cherrywood, sharing tunnel with line 1a in the city centre, (probably to Broadstone);

Line 2a: Swords to Walkinstown, sharing tunnel with line 2b in the city centre; and

Line 2b: Swords to Rathfarnham/Firhouse/Knocklyon, sharing tunnel with line 2a in the city centre.

This seems, to me, a sensible plan of action over the next two-three decades or so, for development of Dublin's southside.

Hopefully, if something like my outline plan for the southside comes to pass, the northside of the city will be enjoying similar development over that time. The key thing now is to get the Swords - City metro section built, as a starting point.

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.

tom1ie · 21-06-2018 9:17am

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.

If we can get the bus connects corridor built as far as rathmines, but then have a metro station built in rathmines as part of the metrolink plan (if the metrolink tie in occurs just north of windy Arbour) then I think this would be a cost effective method for reducing traffic gridlock on the south side.
Obviously integrated ticketing would have to be up and running, but the idea would be, you hop on a bus in rathfarnham, you have an uninterrupted brt bus running to rathmines via a qbc, where you can change to the metro to go swords/airport, or south to cherrywood/sandyford or get metro to ssg and change for green line to finglas (eventually) or get off at Tara for heavy rail options, or stay on the bus to go cc, or get off at ssg or rathmines where there would be dcc rent a bike stations where you cycle 5 or 10 mins to your workplace.

citizen6 · 21-06-2018 9:41pm

tom1ie wrote: »

If we can get the bus connects corridor built as far as rathmines, but then have a metro station built in rathmines as part of the metrolink plan (if the metrolink tie in occurs just north of windy Arbour) then I think this would be a cost effective method for reducing traffic gridlock on the south side.
Obviously integrated ticketing would have to be up and running, but the idea would be, you hop on a bus in rathfarnham, you have an uninterrupted brt bus running to rathmines via a qbc, where you can change to the metro to go swords/airport, or south to cherrywood/sandyford or get metro to ssg and change for green line to finglas (eventually) or get off at Tara for heavy rail options, or stay on the bus to go cc, or get off at ssg or rathmines where there would be dcc rent a bike stations where you cycle 5 or 10 mins to your workplace.

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.

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Comments