Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

New Luas/Metro lines we might like.

Options
12357…19

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    That’s different from saying “they can’t leave the trams terminate above the Canal” which suggested you thought there was an engineering reason for not doing so.

    No, just a missed opportunity if they did. With just 2 km of Luas track to make a link with Dart would certainly count as a missed opportunity.


  • Options
    #123
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yeah I totally understand the capacity constraints on the green line as it is now.
    But in my scenario if your traveling from brides glen:

    Luas all the way to charlemount or cc at the minute
    Metro from charlemount to either firhouse or airport/swords.
    Also
    metro from firhouse to swords with change to sandyford if needed via charlemount Luas.

    Look I know it’s going to cost more (167 million extra per construction year)
    But it will service so many more people, it will bring extra political pressure to get this project built, it will connect Dublin south, south west and north like never before, and it will be cheaper than if we have to build two separate lines with a break of a couple of years in between, cost saving on ordering more tbm’s etc.
    even if the line just went to rathmines or Terenure to start with.

    So in this scenario the green line doesn’t get upgraded at all? Also why are you pedaling the price as a per construction year thing? Is it just to make it seem cheaper?


  • Options
    #124
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The Swords-Sandyford Metro will only be going ahead as a Swords-Sandyford Metro so talking about vast changes in the alignment is pointless, it's not going to change. It's a NTA policy and they won't be changing it. The Green Line needs upgrading more than the SW Dublin Metro is needed. No matter what Sinn Fein motions are raised, if they raise a motion to reallocate the funding to a Waterford Metro should we take that seriously?

    I suggest anyone interested take a read of the NTA 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy. That policy document outlines how the Dublin public transport network will be developed over the next 17 years, subject to funding. We already to know under current Government policy that upto 2027 we will get Metro Swords-Sandyford, DART to Hazelhatch, Maynooth and Drogheda, BusConnects and planning for Luas lines to Lucan, Finglas, Poolbeg and Bray.


  • Options
    #125
    citizen6
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭citizen6


    I think the most useful discussion we can have here is how to make the Lucan Luas work. The previous proposal would affect busses around Christchurch and Dame St, and possibly Red line Luas as well, so it may not be a runner.

    The proposed housing in Clonburris and Adamstown may be affected if a Lucan Luas doesn't happen.


  • Options
    #126
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,733 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    the reason they're connecting it to the green line is that upgrading the green line is relatively cheap. Tunnelling to Firhouse or wherever would double the cost of the whole project which would make it less likely to be approved and the green line would still be overloaded.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    loyatemu wrote: »
    the reason they're connecting it to the green line is that upgrading the green line is relatively cheap. Tunnelling to Firhouse or wherever would double the cost of the whole project which would make it less likely to be approved and the green line would still be overloaded.

    I think they are taking an opportunity to upgrade the Green Line for small money by linking it to NMN (now Metrolink). The projected cost of €100 m to €150 m depending on choices yet to be made.

    For a doubling of capacity that sounds cheap.


  • Options
    #128
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    salmocab wrote: »
    So in this scenario the green line doesn’t get upgraded at all? Also why are you pedaling the price as a per construction year thing? Is it just to make it seem cheaper?

    Green line doesn’t get upgraded until there are 1,2, or 3 stations in operation on the sw line. That’d be rathmines Harold’s x and Terenure. Meanwhile the tbm is tunneling towards firhouse, so Dublin south, south west and north all have access to rail, albeit the green line will be at capacity.
    The longer trams and the fact every second tram will only have to go cc as the majority of commuters will get off at charlemount to change to the metro to go cc/airport/swords or Terenure direction.

    And yes I’m saying construction cost per year to make it sound more palatable. But what’s wrong with that? That’ll be how it’s paid for.


  • Options
    #129
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I think they are taking an opportunity to upgrade the Green Line for small money by linking it to NMN (now Metrolink). The projected cost of €100 m to €150 m depending on choices yet to be made.

    For a doubling of capacity that sounds cheap.

    I’ve seen figures of 300 million for this on this forum no?


  • Options
    #130
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    tom1ie wrote: »
    I’ve seen figures of 300 million for this on this forum no?

    Read the reports on Metrolink.ie.

    Particularly page 35.

    It gives figures between €49 m and €138 m depending on choices.


  • Options
    #131
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    loyatemu wrote: »
    the reason they're connecting it to the green line is that upgrading the green line is relatively cheap. Tunnelling to Firhouse or wherever would double the cost of the whole project which would make it less likely to be approved and the green line would still be overloaded.


    Well how much is the current project costing per km?
    The charlemount to firhouse tunnel would be approx 7.5 km.
    I think the cost is 3billion and the length is 26km on the current project so very simple maths equate the cost to approx 116 million per km 3billion/26km, So if the sw tunnel is 7.5 km that’s approx 870 million.
    Now I know the entire 26 km isn’t underground, but there won’t be 15 new stations on the sw part and you won’t have to re order tbm’s as the tbm just carries on.
    So we are looking at costing an extra billion to get this done which is 167 million a year over the projected construction time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    loyatemu wrote: »
    the reason they're connecting it to the green line is that upgrading the green line is relatively cheap. Tunnelling to Firhouse or wherever would double the cost of the whole project which would make it less likely to be approved and the green line would still be overloaded.

    The issue I have is that apart from BusConnects (which I remain to be convinced about), the south central area is not gaining anything from any plans, yet it is the area with the slowest QBC speeds in the city.

    Journey times of up to 90 minutes for buses to get to/from the city in peak is nothing short of scandalous.

    People there are rightly very frustrated.


  • Options
    #133
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The issue I have is that apart from BusConnects (which I remain to be convinced about), the south central area is not gaining anything from any plans, yet it is the area with the slowest QBC speeds in the city.

    Journey times of up to 90 minutes for buses to get to/from the city in peak is nothing short of scandalous.

    People there are rightly very frustrated.

    That's not strictly true, bus connects will improve the radial QBC situation, but it'll also provide high frequency orbital services that'll offer south west Dublin good connections to the new Sandyford-Swords metro.


  • Options
    #134
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    cgcsb wrote: »
    That's not strictly true, bus connects will improve the radial QBC situation, but it'll also provide high frequency orbital services that'll offer south west Dublin good connections to the new Sandyford-Swords metro.

    How do you know that? I thought the plans weren't out until June? I really hope this is the case but I can't see how an orbital route from (for example) green hills or walkinstown to the sandyford Metrolink's will improve journey times to the cc from the ridiculous 90minutes it is now.
    Even rathfarnham to the cc is over an hour and 10 mins at peak times. Bus connects will do nothing for this problem as there's no room for brt qbc's.


  • Options
    #135
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    That's not strictly true, bus connects will improve the radial QBC situation, but it'll also provide high frequency orbital services that'll offer south west Dublin good connections to the new Sandyford-Swords metro.

    Well I’ll wait and see on that. I’m not sure that’s going to improve overall journey times. I’m very skeptical that the necessary infrastructure works that BusConnects would need to deliver the promises will actually see the light of day.

    And again it is south central Dublin - not south west.


  • Options
    #136
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I thought we had already discussed this to death and put it to bed.

    Upgrading the green line will cost about 150m extra and triple to quadruple it's capacity.

    Go South West instead will cost in the region of about 1.5 billion extra!

    That would make a 3 billion project about 4.5 billion and thus risk it going ahead at all. And you would still need to upgrade the Green Luas line anywya as it is already hitting it's max capacity.

    Don't get me wrong, once Metro is built we should all absolutely be screaming for a second North East to South West Metro line. But now is not the time for it.


  • Options
    #137
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    I thought we had already discussed this to death and put it to bed.

    Upgrading the green line will cost about 150m extra and triple to quadruple it's capacity.

    Go South West instead will cost in the region of about 1.5 billion extra!

    That would make a 3 billion project about 4.5 billion and thus risk it going ahead at all. And you would still need to upgrade the Green Luas line anywya as it is already hitting it's max capacity.

    Don't get me wrong, once Metro is built we should all absolutely be screaming for a second North East to South West Metro line. But now is not the time for it.

    With all due respect this is a thread about future plans - where else should we discuss it? Last time I checked you were not a mod here??

    There is a swathe of south Central Dublin being pretty much ignored here and I think that the residents/commuters are perfectly entitled to express their frustration at the lack of any real measures to alleviate it. I suspect if you had to endure a 90 minute journey on a bus to travel 12km as many people do every day in both directions you might change your tune and be less patronising.

    It’s utterly frustrating to see nothing tangible being done to offer that massive area any form of reliable rapid transit.


  • Options
    #138
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    bk wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, once Metro is built we should all absolutely be screaming for a second North East to South West Metro line. But now is not the time for it.

    This. Look what happened with Luas. Once the economy got back to a half way decent place after the economic meltdown we had, we build the cross city. This new framework has provisions in place for extensions to existing Luas lines and new Luas lines in it. The same should hopefully happen with Metro. Once it's built and people realise how useful it is, there'll be calls for more lines to be built.


  • Options
    #139
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    bk wrote: »
    I thought we had already discussed this to death and put it to bed.

    Upgrading the green line will cost about 150m extra and triple to quadruple it's capacity.

    Go South West instead will cost in the region of about 1.5 billion extra!

    That would make a 3 billion project about 4.5 billion and thus risk it going ahead at all. And you would still need to upgrade the Green Luas line anywya as it is already hitting it's max capacity.

    Don't get me wrong, once Metro is built we should all absolutely be screaming for a second North East to South West Metro line. But now is not the time for it.

    Why will it cost 1.5 billion extra? Based on Metrolink costs it’d be less that a billion.
    I didn’t say the whole sw line has to be built straight away just get a couple of stations opened up on the sw stretch and run the trains from swords to firhouse direction, via charlemount , where the green line Luas passengers can get off and change.
    The tbm can be tunneling in the meantime as and when money is available.
    The green line can be upgraded to metro standard from charlemount to sandyford and the line wouldn’t have to be closed to enable the tie in as the tunnel would be continuing out to firhouse.
    Yes sandyford green line users will have to change at charlemount from metro to metro but that’s how every metro system in the world works.


  • Options
    #140
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    sugarman wrote: »
    Id like to see the original Metro West as seen below. Itd link up with the Red Line Luas line, Metro North and both Kildare commuter services to Naas & Maynooth.

    Theres so little in the way of orbital routes in this city. So many people are forced into the city centre each day only to come straight back out on another route to get to their destination. Its madness.

    Itd also massively decrease congestion on the M50.

    Plus, itd open up massive potential for new towns and estates along the route. Serving the likes of the already planned Clonburris.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5prJe0l7M64

    Is there a promo video for Metrolink yet?


  • Options
    #141
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    sugarman wrote: »
    Not that Im aware of. Id image it would be on the official metrolink site if there was.

    It’s a pity, as all the attention in the media seems to be negative. If the public only receive the negative side they’ll believe there is only a negative side.
    I’m surprised the nta haven’t been more proactive in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    tom1ie wrote: »
    It’s a pity, as all the attention in the media seems to be negative. If the public only receive the negative side they’ll believe there is only a negative side.
    I’m surprised the nta haven’t been more proactive in this regard.

    misery sell! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #143
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Green line doesn’t get upgraded until there are 1,2, or 3 stations in operation on the sw line. That’d be rathmines Harold’s x and Terenure. Meanwhile the tbm is tunneling towards firhouse, so Dublin south, south west and north all have access to rail, albeit the green line will be at capacity.
    The longer trams and the fact every second tram will only have to go cc as the majority of commuters will get off at charlemount to change to the metro to go cc/airport/swords or Terenure direction.

    And yes I’m saying construction cost per year to make it sound more palatable. But what’s wrong with that? That’ll be how it’s paid for.

    But again in your plan the green line metro will just stop outside the cc this makes no sense, a metro to charlemont is only slightly better than what’s there now. People would be rightly pi55ed off if we built a metro to near the city it has to go through the city, getting people to change onto a different line in the city doesn’t make sense sure people all over the world change trains on their commute but in your scenario thousands an hour will be looking to get onto an already busy train all in one location with very few transferring the opposite way. 2 lines with 4 proper terminuses in the suburbs passing each other in the cc in an X pattern also linking up with luas darts and normal trains is where we need to end up.


  • Options
    #144
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    misery sell! :rolleyes:

    It does when there's no other narrative to be heard of!!
    At least have the positive points of metrolink advertised in the media.


  • Options
    #145
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    salmocab wrote: »
    But again in your plan the green line metro will just stop outside the cc this makes no sense, a metro to charlemont is only slightly better than what’s there now. People would be rightly pi55ed off if we built a metro to near the city it has to go through the city, getting people to change onto a different line in the city doesn’t make sense sure people all over the world change trains on their commute but in your scenario thousands an hour will be looking to get onto an already busy train all in one location with very few transferring the opposite way. 2 lines with 4 proper terminuses in the suburbs passing each other in the cc in an X pattern also linking up with luas darts and normal trains is where we need to end up.

    Yeah but the problem with that is the cost of the sw to nw axis. It'd be enormous compared to Metrolink's as you wouldn't already have a luas line there, which as you quire rightly point out won't cost much to upgrade, and the majority of the line will be underground.
    In my scenario you have 3 areas that have a rail service for 4 billion as opposed to two areas (one of which already has rail, albeit heavily utilised) for 3 billion.
    My scenarios not perfect but a sw nw line would be prohibitively expensive and never get built.


  • Options
    #146
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yeah but the problem with that is the cost of the sw to nw axis. It'd be enormous compared to Metrolink's as you wouldn't already have a luas line there, which as you quire rightly point out won't cost much to upgrade, and the majority of the line will be underground.
    In my scenario you have 3 areas that have a rail service for 4 billion as opposed to two areas (one of which already has rail, albeit heavily utilised) for 3 billion.
    My scenarios not perfect but a sw nw line would be prohibitively expensive and never get built.

    Look I see where your coming from but a metro to near the city will never be a runner and in the long run charlemont is not the place for an interchange. Even to get to Harold’s cross from charlemont mesns a hard right turn then from there to terenure would mean a hard left. That’s a poor alignment The corridor from the SW needs to pass the metro link in the cc so would probably need to go under the canal at Harold’s cross then start a wide sweep toward o Connell street to pass the other line and creating a convenient interchange


  • Options
    #147
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    If the price of a Charlemont-Firhouse Metro was found down the back of the sofa in the morning, it'd go on construction of the 4 planned Luas lines (Bray, Poolbeg, Finglas and Lucan) and kickstart DART Undeground. There are no policy provisions at the minute for a Metro to Firhouse so unless that policy is reviewed and amended, Metro Firhouse and indeed Metro West will not happen until after 2035.


  • Options
    #148
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,542 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    marno21 wrote: »
    If the price of a Charlemont-Firhouse Metro was found down the back of the sofa in the morning, it'd go on construction of the 4 planned Luas lines (Bray, Poolbeg, Finglas and Lucan) and kickstart DART Undeground. There are no policy provisions at the minute for a Metro to Firhouse so unless that policy is reviewed and amended, Metro Firhouse and indeed Metro West will not happen until after 2035.

    Well perhaps that’s something that should be questioned?

    I’m assuming that you don’t have to subject yourself to the daily snail’s pace bus speeds in the south central area?

    I’d seriously question the value of Lucan LUAS given the lack of segregated space for it closer to the city. The shambles that is LUAS cross city should tell us that much.


  • Options
    #149
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Why will it cost 1.5 billion extra? Based on Metrolink costs it’d be less that a billion.

    No I did the maths on this earlier, based on the per km cost of Swords to Charlemont. Charlemont to Tallagth/Firhouse would be about 1.5 billion more.

    Charlemont to Firhouse is about 8.5km. Charlemont to Swords is 16km, so half 3 billion is about right.

    They put a station about every 1 km. So you are looking at about 8 extra stations, most of them underground, definitely not cheap! Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you would be talking about closer to 2 billion extra, given the value of land in this area (CPO's for stations) and the density which would preclude above ground running and cut and cover like they are planning to do on a lot of the section towards Swords.


  • Options
    #150
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Well perhaps that’s something that should be questioned?

    I’m assuming that you don’t have to subject yourself to the daily snail’s pace bus speeds in the south central area?

    I’d seriously question the value of Lucan LUAS given the lack of segregated space for it closer to the city. The shambles that is LUAS cross city should tell us that much.

    I don't but then again I didn't have any part whatsoever in deciding the policy.

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    bk wrote: »
    No I did the maths on this earlier, based on the per km cost of Swords to Charlemont. Charlemont to Tallagth/Firhouse would be about 1.5 billion more.

    Charlemont to Firhouse is about 8.5km. Charlemont to Swords is 16km, so half 3 billion is about right.

    They put a station about every 1 km. So you are looking at about 8 extra stations, most of them underground, definitely not cheap! Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you would be talking about closer to 2 billion extra, given the value of land in this area (CPO's for stations) and the density which would preclude above ground running and cut and cover like they are planning to do on a lot of the section towards Swords.

    Good points.
    The problem will be when/if we go on to build metro sw, it’s going to cost a hell of a lot more money than MetroLink, as the tunnel will have to go under the cc and out to nw direction.
    To be honest the way public discontent is building I’ll be surprised if we get any kind of metro.
    Sorry for being so negative!


Advertisement