Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
02-12-2020, 09:58   #1201
gjim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by strassenwo!f View Post
But why bother with any of the above plans for converting the Charlemont to Sandyford section into a metro at all?
Because the current configuration is a dogs dinner and wasteful - you have a high speed/high capacity section from Charlemont to Sandford connected to an on-street, at-grade speed and capacity limited section from Charlemont to Broadstone.

The only way to actually use the available capacity between Charlemont and Sandford involves stupid stuff like 55m trams and adding turn-back facilities near Ranelagh which just means dumping people who want to get to the centre kms from their desired destination.

The fix is simple and obvious - connect the segregated metro-like section to the end of the METRO line that is being built and run it as a metro. Extend the on-street tram system south from Harcourt St. to wherever you want and run it as a tram line.

Build a proper north/south metro spine connecting high density and high employment centres and build the Interconnector to provide east/west and heavy rail interconnectivity. Everything else is not only a distraction - it's a direct hindrance to developing PT in Dublin.
gjim is offline  
Advertisement
02-12-2020, 10:47   #1202
Sam Russell
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,715
Just a bit of reality here.

The Luas Green Line is currently hugely oversubscribed. It uses the longest trams available and so longer trams are not an option - also longer trams are slower and cause traffic congestion.

The current proposal, as published, increases the capacity many time over. Current planning applications for housing and industry show that this extra capacity is needed. The route is designed and is ready to go to ABP. [Apart from a few small problems - a sewer, a few objectors, and a problem at St Raphaela's Road]

It would be madness not to proceed as planned.

A new metro line is needed through the SW route and should continue through to the NE of the city. That should be a different project, and planning should start now. The current metro plan started in the 1970s so it takes a long time.

It is always possible to improve on a plan, but it is not an improvement to start again. We have already lost a decade over this redesign nonsense. Let us not lose another decade.
Sam Russell is offline  
02-12-2020, 11:50   #1203
CatInABox
Moderator
 
CatInABox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Russell View Post
It is always possible to improve on a plan, but it is not an improvement to start again. We have already lost a decade over this redesign nonsense. Let us not lose another decade.
Yes, this. I happen to think that the current Metrolink plan is far, far better than the old Metro North plan. If I was given the choice of having Metro North up and running on schedule in 2015 (or so, can't remember when it was meant to be finished) or the MetroLink running in 2027/28 on this better alignment, I'd bite your arm off to get Metro North back then.

Again, once the first line is operational, there'll be others planned and built in a fraction of the time.
CatInABox is online now  
02-12-2020, 12:12   #1204
Sam Russell
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatInABox View Post
Yes, this. I happen to think that the current Metrolink plan is far, far better than the old Metro North plan. If I was given the choice of having Metro North up and running on schedule in 2015 (or so, can't remember when it was meant to be finished) or the MetroLink running in 2027/28 on this better alignment, I'd bite your arm off to get Metro North back then.

Again, once the first line is operational, there'll be others planned and built in a fraction of the time.
You could go back to the plans from the 1970s that only saw the position on the shelf along with other such plans.

I have one bit of advice for our Green Party Minister of Transport - "Build it and build it now. Accelerate the building in any way that can be done."

He has in the past, when looking for votes in Dunville Ave, suggested all sorts of crayon wielding routings for metro and Luas, but now is the time to build it.
Sam Russell is offline  
(2) thanks from:
02-12-2020, 20:58   #1205
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,702
There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

Attached Images
File Type: jpg metro_ucd_spur.jpg (540.1 KB, 246 views)
MJohnston is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
02-12-2020, 21:05   #1206
salmocab
Registered User
 
salmocab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

UCD doesn’t make sense to me. The students only attend for so many weeks a year anyway and have various start times, if a line was being built that passed that way it would be a good idea but to build a line that appears to be using The university as a justification for a route seems a stretch.
salmocab is online now  
02-12-2020, 21:14   #1207
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmocab View Post
UCD doesn’t make sense to me. The students only attend for so many weeks a year anyway and have various start times, if a line was being built that passed that way it would be a good idea but to build a line that appears to be using The university as a justification for a route seems a stretch.
Maybe, although there is a large amount of residential development due to happen on the RTE Montrose site soon.

UCD is also the kind of university that is in heavy use well outside of term times.
MJohnston is offline  
Thanks from:
02-12-2020, 21:17   #1208
tom1ie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

Why look to put it in the east as opposed to the west?
The east already has the dart and GL plus a very good bus corridor along the n11, whereas the west has.......... well nothing really.
tom1ie is offline  
02-12-2020, 21:25   #1209
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,702
Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.
MJohnston is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
02-12-2020, 21:37   #1210
salmocab
Registered User
 
salmocab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.
Apologies wasn’t suggesting you were pushing it or having a pop was just voicing my feeling on it.
salmocab is online now  
02-12-2020, 21:56   #1211
tom1ie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.
I don’t see the point in putting a metro line in between a Luas line and a dart line when there’s a large swathe of the city with no access to decent PT.
This is all hypothetically speaking of course.

The GL needs to be upgraded to metro standard and connected to metro link of course, but yeah metro SWNE should come next not metro ucd.
tom1ie is offline  
02-12-2020, 22:49   #1212
gjim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
Hold the f**k up lads — I'm not the one whose talking about this UCD spur, that's Eamon Ryan. Given that he IS talking about it, I think it's fair and fun to try and estimate where it might go. That's all!

Besides which, a south western route will be held up for years by the unrepentant arseholes of Rathgar and Terenure. I know they keep going on and on about having a Metro instead of BusConnects, but I guarantee they'll complain about a Metro just as much.
All right, since you're disowning it and making it Eamon Ryan's baby, I won't hold back.

Ideas like this come from people gazing at maps of Dublin and seeing "gaps" and thinking it would make sense to have a metro/tram/heavy rail/BRT/etc. in the gap - "because area X is starved of PT options".

Try overlaying the route on a population density map for Dublin:


And look at where the line goes - it traces a path which manages to avoid any areas with any sort of population density. You're talking about digging 7km of metro tunnels and mining out 3 underground stations - probably costing in the ballpark of 2B. And this area has no easy wins in terms of scope for real densification and the existing (sparse) population is largely mature so there is little scope for "organic" growth either.

It's not quite as daft as suggesting a circle metro line for the hill of Howth but that swath of Dublin does not need a metro line.

We need to sort out the capacity problem getting in and out of the centre first and foremost.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dublin_pop_density.jpg (45.3 KB, 287 views)
gjim is offline  
03-12-2020, 01:05   #1213
lucernarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
There's been some discussion of a potential future (and I stress that it should be a future addition to Metrolink, not a modification of that project) UCD spur that connected to Sandyford and Charlemont. It's not the worst idea I've heard — it could alleviate Luas capacity issues while also serving other parts of the city that lack rapid transport.

Where would you put it though? IMO the only route that works would have to be entirely underground. Here's my crayon attempt:

Hmmmm I'd rather see something go southwest to be honest, given the options available on the N11 corridor and land set aside for the eastern bypass (which could be repurposed) Vs the lack of options for a large part of Dublin.
lucernarian is offline  
Thanks from:
03-12-2020, 01:11   #1214
D.L.R.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
This country really is a joke sometimes.

Use the line that's already there morons.
D.L.R. is offline  
03-12-2020, 01:43   #1215
lucernarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.L.R. View Post
This country really is a joke sometimes.

Use the line that's already there morons.
The idea of replacing functional "tram" lines with something else is not exactly established anywhere in the world. Happy to stand corrected.
lucernarian is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet