Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Options
1…5455575960…189

Comments

  • Options
    #1682
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    yascaoimhin wrote: »
    The campaign to save this apartment block has largely gone silent.
    Save for retweeting the ramblings of Cormac Rabbitt from "Metro Dublin" they haven't said anything about fighting the CPO since May last year.

    At a guess, I'd say a few things are happening here.
    • They're holding off until the project is back in the news, as there's definitely going to be stories on the cost once the final amount is known.
    • Their earlier protests fell on relatively deaf ears, as the vast majority of people think that the CPO is regrettable but necessary.
    • The number of people actually protesting is relatively small, as some owners are ok with the CPO, including the majority of landlords owning the apartments.

    All guesses on my part, but I'd put money on them being mostly right. Expect to hear from these guys once you start seeing articles about the cost. I think the fact that DCC is fully on board with the CPO, pending a replacement being found for the Markievicz centre being found, really took the wind out of any protests sails.


  • Options
    #1683
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,683 ✭✭✭jd


    Letters are now being sent to some home owners prior to application to ABP

    550339.png


  • Options
    #1684
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Sounds positive. Hopefully a railway order will be submitted to ABP by June.


  • Options
    #1685
    Bsharp
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭Bsharp


    Think September/October is a best case. The amount of documentation to pull together, and then finalise the final version, is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #1686
    Kevtherev1
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭Kevtherev1


    Above letter confirmation of what has been said before. Construction now to start in 2023, with six years maybe complete and open December 2029 two years late. God knows when or if metro extends to sandyford. Good letter thanks for posting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1687
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    MetroLink FAQ April 2021

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_FAQ.pdf


  • Options
    #1688
    ncounties
    Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ncounties


    marno21 wrote: »
    MetroLink FAQ April 2021

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_FAQ.pdf

    "5. What are the current timelines for the project?
    Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) will apply for a Railway Order for the project in late summer
    2021."


  • Options
    #1689
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,968 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    That’s a slippage. RO was meant to be end Q2 this year.


  • Options
    #1690
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    spacetweek wrote: »
    That’s a slippage. RO was meant to be end Q2 this year.

    Not too surprising, the Updated Business Case was delayed as well.

    I hadn't had a laugh in a while, so I decided to check in with my favourite residents association, GADRA. While there's much to dislike about them, I have to admit that their commitment to their website is phenomenal. TII held a presentation about the intervention tunnel in Albert Park for them, and they've kindly put the presentation, and their own minutes up on their site.

    Nothing really new if you've already been following it, but it is somewhat what interesting to see the engagement. It's primarily NTA/TII going through many, many different variation of "We've looked into it, and we're not doing it because X".

    See presentation and meeting notes


  • Options
    #1691
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Not too surprising, the Updated Business Case was delayed as well.

    I hadn't had a laugh in a while, so I decided to check in with my favourite residents association, GADRA. While there's much to dislike about them, I have to admit that their commitment to their website is phenomenal. TII held a presentation about the intervention tunnel in Albert Park for them, and they've kindly put the presentation, and their own minutes up on their site.

    Nothing really new if you've already been following it, but it is somewhat what interesting to see the engagement. It's primarily NTA/TII going through many, many different variation of "We've looked into it, and we're not doing it because X".

    See presentation and meeting notes

    It shows you why these type of projects take so long and cost so much. Not saying that engagements with communities is a bad thing.
    Everyone was the station close to their front door but none of the other necessities of public transport infrastructure


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1692
    yascaoimhin
    Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭yascaoimhin


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Not too surprising, the Updated Business Case was delayed as well.

    I hadn't had a laugh in a while, so I decided to check in with my favourite residents association, GADRA. While there's much to dislike about them, I have to admit that their commitment to their website is phenomenal. TII held a presentation about the intervention tunnel in Albert Park for them, and they've kindly put the presentation, and their own minutes up on their site.

    Nothing really new if you've already been following it, but it is somewhat what interesting to see the engagement. It's primarily NTA/TII going through many, many different variation of "We've looked into it, and we're not doing it because X".

    See presentation and meeting notes


    God the amount of times, they say "A Station would be larger and take more park land" only to have a councillor repeat, "This should be a station and shouldn't take so much park space"


  • Options
    #1693
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    yascaoimhin wrote: »
    The campaign to save this apartment block has largely gone silent.
    Save for retweeting the ramblings of Cormac Rabbitt from "Metro Dublin" they haven't said anything about fighting the CPO since May last year.

    Some news on the proposed Tara Street St route alignment:

    https://www.oic.ie/decisions/mr-x-and-transport-infras-2/index.xml

    https://twitter.com/savemarkievicz/status/1384151378033987585?s=20

    More detailed information was requested under FOI on alternative routes that they found unfeasible . TII maintained that by releasing the information it would put undue influence on the decision makers as the decision making process was still ongoing. (Compare this to how they were influenced to change the route in the beginning of the process. I thought the idea was to allow people to shape the process).
    The OIC felt that the burden was on TII to demonstrate how releasing the information would be against the public interest.she said they failed to do so and ruled in the applicants favour. They must release the information or appeal to the High Court within 4 weeks


  • Options
    #1694
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Yeah first step was to agree the route, then doing surveys to ensure the route was possible.

    Now that we know the route, they've to prove that there are enough people going to use the route on a daily basis and that capacity can meet demand etc, to make it worthwhile. In theory it should hopefully be a formality.

    They couldn't do a business case until they knew where the stops would be to show how many people live within catchment of each stop

    According to the findings of the OIC, the route hasn't been decided?

    https://www.oic.ie/decisions/mr-x-and-transport-infras-2/index.xml

    "TII says that no final decision on the Metrolink route has been made and deliberations remain ongoing, including in relation to the proposed station at Tara Street."


  • Options
    #1695
    Elessar
    Registered Users Posts: 5,239 ✭✭✭Elessar


    CatInABox wrote: »
    At a guess, I'd say a few things are happening here.
    • They're holding off until the project is back in the news, as there's definitely going to be stories on the cost once the final amount is known.
    • Their earlier protests fell on relatively deaf ears, as the vast majority of people think that the CPO is regrettable but necessary.
    • The number of people actually protesting is relatively small, as some owners are ok with the CPO, including the majority of landlords owning the apartments.

    All guesses on my part, but I'd put money on them being mostly right. Expect to hear from these guys once you start seeing articles about the cost. I think the fact that DCC is fully on board with the CPO, pending a replacement being found for the Markievicz centre being found, really took the wind out of any protests sails.

    I dunno tbh. The Irish love a sob story. I reckon once the threat of CPOs raise their heads again you'll see parish politics at its finest as TDs and other representatives get behind their constituents and decry the big bad metro for threatening to evict 'vulnerable' people from their homes, most of whom won't get anywhere close to them again for any sort of price (I'm talking the apartments here).

    I think there will be enormous pressure to reroute metro to avoid this at all costs and the government will have to bend. This is Ireland remember, the only country in the world where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

    I'll eat my hat if the above doesn't happen.


  • Options
    #1696
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    https://www.oic.ie/decisions/mr-x-and-transport-infras-2/index.xml

    Check this out from the OICs findings, I was going to ask what are Metrolink hiding, but it seems they don't have anything, 2 powerpoint presentations and a report with less information than the published document Appendix M.

    "Essentially, TII’s position is that the public interest in granting the request is adequately served by the public availability of Appendix M and that releasing the records at this point in time i.e. before the final decisions are made on the route and design of the project, would be contrary to the public interest."

    "TII says that the records represent the collective technical and professional opinions of the project team at a point in time."

    "the Investigator noted that the Jacobs IDOM report is largely similar to and in some aspects less detailed than the information published as Appendix M. The Investigator noted that Appendix M also reflects the other two records. She asked TII to identify the differences between Appendix M and the records at issue and to describe the impact of the disclosure of those differences on the deliberative processes that remain in relation to the Metrolink and/or Tara Street Station. TII’s submissions did not address these matters."


  • Options
    #1697
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Fugazifan wrote: »
    I thought the idea was to allow people to shape the process).

    This works both ways. Interchange at Tara allows an even larger section of the public to benefit from Metrolink.


  • Options
    #1698
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    donvito99 wrote: »
    This works both ways. Interchange at Tara allows an even larger section of the public to benefit from Metrolink.

    I don't think anyone is against an interchange at Tara St? I'm not.
    The point I'm trying to raise is the selection of the particular route chosen, while vacant sites were dismissed on technical grounds, now it is apparent that there is very little evidence of any due diligence on the part of TII.


  • Options
    #1699
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    donvito99 wrote: »
    This works both ways. Interchange at Tara allows an even larger section of the public to benefit from Metrolink.

    I'm really not sure what your point is, are you saying that citizens should not be allowed to have an input into the process of selecting the route? It's fair to ask the question why not find an alternative to knocking down the only public swimming pool and leisure centre provided by the city council in the city centre as well as an apartment block and other houses? That will certainly not benefit the people who it affects.


  • Options
    #1700
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Fugazifan wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is against an interchange at Tara St? I'm not.
    The point I'm trying to raise is the selection of the particular route chosen, while vacant sites were dismissed on technical grounds, now it is apparent that there is very little evidence of any due diligence on the part of TII.

    That's not what was said at all. The decision seems to be that TII have to produce a report on yhe report ghat they didn't publish, even though the report which wasn't published is less detailed than the report which was published.

    There doesn't seem to be any flaws or incorrect information identified or any lack of due diligence. Just seems like a lot of people making work (money) for themselves and/or trying to justify the existence of their job. These projects are mana from heaven for jobsworths.


  • Options
    #1701
    Fugazifan
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Fugazifan


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    That's not what was said at all. The decision seems to be that TII have to produce a report on yhe report ghat they didn't publish, even though the report which wasn't published is less detailed than the report which was published.

    There doesn't seem to be any flaws or incorrect information identified or any lack of due diligence. Just seems like a lot of people making work (money) for themselves and/or trying to justify the existence of their job. These projects are mana from heaven for jobsworths.

    The decision is that TII release the information as it was , they don't write a report!
    The 3 documents which justify the reasons they said they could not find an alternative route are two Powerpoint presentations and a Jacobs IDOM report, all which she noted had same or less information than published Appendix M.
    Appendix M was scant and so lacking in detail which prompted the FOI request in the first place. TII are hiding behind an excuse that it would not be in the public interest to release them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1702
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    I know you probably have a vested interest in this and your only objective is to stop your apartment in the city centre being knocked down. It's blatantly clear by looking at the map that the metro station should be right beside the rail station. Suggesting there should be a few hundred metres between the stations is frankly ridiculous.

    I presume this CPO will make you all millionaires and if there's 78 apartments that's a lot of money for TII even before you think that it's actual people picking the route who I'm sure care deeply. They just think this is the best route. Tbh he suggestion that TII are engaging in conspiracy to knock down college gate makes you look a but unhinged.

    Everyone on this forum just wants the city to have a transport system that is fit for purpose. There was a lot of sympathy about this issue when it first arose but suggesting that the Tara Street-Metro interchange should be terrible with a decent walk between the station to avoid annoying 100 people is so silly. The city council have said they're happy enough that the pool will.be replaces, suggesting five years without a swimming pool at that exact site is worth butchering the most important station on a piece of national infrastructure like the metro...

    As a final aside to my rant, if they did build it on Hawkins House say, you'd have three(?) years of station building and then the years of building Hawkins House on top of that - right beside you, I'm sure you've thought about this but the money and an apartment somewhere else could better?


  • Options
    #1703
    MyLove4Satan
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭MyLove4Satan


    The massive Cherrywood residential development just got the go ahead. They literally have no choice but to run the MetroLink out there now as the Luas simply won't be capable of meeting the capacity needs of the population.


  • Options
    #1704
    VonLuck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,181 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    MyLove4Satan wrote: »
    The massive Cherrywood residential development just got the go ahead. They literally have no choice but to run the MetroLink out there now as the Luas simply won't be capable of meeting the capacity needs of the population.

    I think a better initial approach would be to extend the metro south, running parallel to the Luas to ease the volumes using it. If you completely replicated the Luas line with the metro it would pretty much become redundant.


  • Options
    #1705
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I think a better initial approach would be to extend the metro south, running parallel to the Luas to ease the volumes using it. If you completely replicated the Luas line with the metro it would pretty much become redundant.

    Ummm...wouldn’t it just be completely replicating the LUAS line to run the Metro parallel to it though?

    To be clear - the current Metro South upgrade plan subsumes the existing LUAS line, it doesn’t replicate it.


  • Options
    #1706
    jumpinsheep
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭jumpinsheep


    Dats me wrote:
    As a final aside to my rant, if they did build it on Hawkins House say, you'd have three(?) years of station building and then the years of building Hawkins House on top of that - right beside you, I'm sure you've thought about this but the money and an apartment somewhere else could better?

    If I'm not mistaken, ABP approved a number of apartments to be built on top of the new Hawkins House building (40 or 50 apt, don't remember exactly and don't know if the new building there has already a name).
    However, if memory doesn't fail, all of those are "built to rent", thus I doubt any of them will be available to the market (or at least for a very long time).
    Same goes for other developments in the Tara St area, seems they're all made with the "built to rent" scheme.


  • Options
    #1707
    VonLuck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,181 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Ummm...wouldn’t it just be completely replicating the LUAS line to run the Metro parallel to it though?

    To be clear - the current Metro South upgrade plan subsumes the existing LUAS line, it doesn’t replicate it.

    Sorry, I missed a key part of my own post! I meant that it should run in parallel up to a point, say Milltown. It could then diverge to another population centre like Dun Laoghaire or towards Rathfarnham. It would relieve pressure on the Luas whilst also connecting other areas not served by good transport options.

    By the way, where can I find the current Metro South plan?


  • Options
    #1708
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Sorry, I missed a key part of my own post! I meant that it should run in parallel up to a point, say Milltown. It could then diverge to another population centre like Dun Laoghaire or towards Rathfarnham. It would relieve pressure on the Luas whilst also connecting other areas not served by good transport options.

    By the way, where can I find the current Metro South plan?

    I should have said 'strategy' rather than 'plan', because I'd consider 'plan' to be something that's actually got a likelihood of happening soon.

    Page 66-67 in the NTA's GDA Transport Strategy:
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035.pdf

    And there's loads about the Charlemont to Sandyford bit specifically in the Metrolink reports:
    https://www.metrolink.ie/#/TheGreenLine


  • Options
    #1709
    yascaoimhin
    Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭yascaoimhin


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Sorry, I missed a key part of my own post! I meant that it should run in parallel up to a point, say Milltown. It could then diverge to another population centre like Dun Laoghaire or towards Rathfarnham. It would relieve pressure on the Luas whilst also connecting other areas not served by good transport options.

    By the way, where can I find the current Metro South plan?

    Here's a link to the Constructability Report showing the under and overpasses, and the plan to keep Dunville Avenue open

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5IsTpZ5PJ4-MxcASK3D3PfGhlmM0UsJ/view?usp=sharing

    These upgrades are required to bring Metrolink to Sandyford but some of the changes like the under and overpasses could be built ahead of time.


  • Options
    #1710
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Fugazifan wrote: »
    The decision is that TII release the information as it was , they don't write a report!
    The 3 documents which justify the reasons they said they could not find an alternative route are two Powerpoint presentations and a Jacobs IDOM report, all which she noted had same or less information than published Appendix M.
    Appendix M was scant and so lacking in detail which prompted the FOI request in the first place. TII are hiding behind an excuse that it would not be in the public interest to release them.

    If TII could avoid spending money on all that CPOing they would. What do you think their motive is?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1711
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Elessar wrote: »
    I dunno tbh. The Irish love a sob story. I reckon once the threat of CPOs raise their heads again you'll see parish politics at its finest as TDs and other representatives get behind their constituents and decry the big bad metro for threatening to evict 'vulnerable' people from their homes, most of whom won't get anywhere close to them again for any sort of price (I'm talking the apartments here).

    I think there will be enormous pressure to reroute metro to avoid this at all costs and the government will have to bend. This is Ireland remember, the only country in the world where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

    I'll eat my hat if the above doesn't happen.

    If history tells us anything it's that people who are actually vulnerable will be steam rolled over and those that are privileged will get their way, we've seen this play out recently with the Sandymount Cycle Route and some SHDs. We've recently been told that Ballyfermot residents, living at the most densely populated point of the DART+ SW route will be getting heavy disruption from construction but no station, in favor of stations in rural areas that people can drive to.


Advertisement