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.
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.
Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink
Comments
-
Taking away the 2* billion for BusConnects which will serve 16 radial corridors and putting it into a Metro for SW Dublin (1 radial corridor) is not happening. A Metro for SW Dublin is not part of the NTA policy so won't happen soon (this policy will be reviewed soon).
The only one that would argue with the above is John Lahart. It's not politically wise to put all the investment into one constituency
* 2bn as per page 59: http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/NDP-strategy-2018-2027_WEB.pdf
I knew I seen that 2 billion figure somewhere. Well 16 radial corridors that will have very little effect on getting people to switch from car to pt compared to one radial corridor which would be a game changer for that area (which is a large part of Dublin), and would have large amounts of people converting to pt, thus freeing up road space, and allowing less busses to do more in the sw areas as they’re no longer battling with traffic.
This would mean the excess busses no longer required in the sw area could be used to bolster the service connecting Adamstown and Lucan via the n4 qbc’s for example.
Ps. Just because you say “it’s not happening” doesn’t mean it defiantly won’t. I’m sure people were 100% sure the previous version (swiftway or something) of brt was coming to town aswell, look what happened there.0 -
Taking away the 2* billion for BusConnects which will serve 16 radial corridors and putting it into a Metro for SW Dublin (1 radial corridor) is not happening. A Metro for SW Dublin is not part of the NTA policy so won't happen soon (this policy will be reviewed soon).
The only one that would argue with the above is John Lahart. It's not politically wise to put all the investment into one constituency
* 2bn as per page 59: http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/NDP-strategy-2018-2027_WEB.pdf
You keep saying this is about Dublin South West. But again it is not one constituency and it is not just Dublin South West
Geographically it is the south central and south west parts of Dublin. Last time I checked Terenure and Rathfarnham are due south of the city and not southwest. Feeder buses would further expand the reach.
Politically it is 3 constituencies:
Dublin South West
Dublin Rathdown
Dublin Bay South (this extends west to Terenure)0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14040
Regardless, BusConnects will serve more constituencies. And so will MetroLink (I am in Kerry and I expect to benefit from it through better airport access - which I would use were it to open tomorrow).You keep saying this is about Dublin South West. But again it is not one constituency and it is not just Dublin South West
Geographically it is the south central and south west parts of Dublin. Last time I checked Terenure and Rathfarnham are due south of the city and not southwest. Feeder buses would further expand the reach.
Politically it is 3 constituencies:
Dublin South West
Dublin Rathdown
Dublin Bay South (this extends west to Terenure)0 -
-
How are you halving capacity? There’s still a metro through it every 90 seconds, ones from sandyford the others from the sw, it’s just that now your serving much more of the population of Dublin.
I was referring to the current green line part, as well you know because in the very next post after mine you said that it just meant people in sandyford would have to wait 3 mins instead of 90 seconds.0 -
Advertisement
-
Regardless, BusConnects will serve more constituencies. And so will MetroLink (I am in Kerry and I expect to benefit from it through better airport access - which I would use were it to open tomorrow).
What are the 16 radial routes?
How many radial routes go through the 3 constituencys lx flyer has mentioned?
What will the guaranteed travel times to cc be?
How will they build the neccesary ABC's for this brt service when there is no room?
What's the best way of solving all of the above?
Answer build metro 2 and reorganise the bus routes to feed into metro2.0 -
I was referring to the current green line part, as well you know because in the very next post after mine you said that it just meant people in sandyford would have to wait 3 mins instead of 90 seconds.
Of course. That answer was tounge in cheek to be fair.
But seriously there will be a metro travelling the tunnel every 90 secs it'll just be serving a much bigger area, with plenty of capacity to spare on the green line. Surely that's a good thing?0 -
Of course. That answer was tounge in cheek to be fair.
But seriously there will be a metro travelling the tunnel every 90 secs it'll just be serving a much bigger area, with plenty of capacity to spare on the green line. Surely that's a good thing?
But building a y shaped line means that the 2 branches would never have room to increase capacity. It would also mean scheduling nightmare because it’s not as easy as saying every second train goes the other direction as the 2 legs aren’t the same length so one side has a longer return leg which means they can’t just come back together like a zip merge every 90 seconds.
I have absolutely no issue with the idea of s second line going sw or even people arguing that the first line should go that way but a Y shaped line is a compromise from the start.0 -
But building a y shaped line means that the 2 branches would never have room to increase capacity. It would also mean scheduling nightmare because it’s not as easy as saying every second train goes the other direction as the 2 legs aren’t the same length so one side has a longer return leg which means they can’t just come back together like a zip merge every 90 seconds.
I have absolutely no issue with the idea of s second line going sw or even people arguing that the first line should go that way but a Y shaped line is a compromise from the start.
Yeah true but there are plenty of examples of spurs off a main line in use around Europe and they seem to work OK.
My point is I don't think we have the political backbone in this country to digest the cost of another tunnel going under the cc and heading ne or whatever direction it'll go.
You could always have it that the sw line goes from firehouse to ssg (or charlemount) only. If u wanna go sandyford- change. If u wanna go swords- change. Same for metrolink, if u wanna go swords to firehouse, change at ssg.
Not ideal I know but when the money and political will materialises in decades time a second north south tunnel could be built and incorporated into the system then.0 -
The fact that the green line platforms would have to be changed, inevitably taking out stations (and revenue) for periods of time. I think that's a strong basis.Sam Russell wrote: »Have you any basis for that?
HFV should cost less, as they are more basic with ancillaries hanging below the train, and also lower maintenance costs for the same reason.
Driverless allows more capacity, and lower operating costs plus the possibility of 24 hour operation. Driverless does come with higher captial costs, and would likely require passenger doors for safety.
I *suspect* that driverless has lower operating costs, but I haven't found any actual proof of this yet. 24 hour operation is separate to the issue of driver or automatic operation, as oftentimes maintenance can be carried out on the right of way/trackage plus the sets during the out-of-service hours. That maintenance is going to be required one way or another in any kind of mass transit rail system.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19031
lucernarian wrote: »The fact that the green line platforms would have to be changed, inevitably taking out stations (and revenue) for periods of time. I think that's a strong basis.
I *suspect* that driverless has lower operating costs, but I haven't found any actual proof of this yet. 24 hour operation is separate to the issue of driver or automatic operation, as oftentimes maintenance can be carried out on the right of way/trackage plus the sets during the out-of-service hours. That maintenance is going to be required one way or another in any kind of mass transit rail system.
The Port Tunnel manages 24/7 operation but closes for maintenance regularly. That appears the way these things are done. The Dart was closed for weekends for a rewire over 6 months. Also, it has closed for long weekends quite often for maintenance, and currently it is closed from Dalkey to Greystones for the past two weeks. Maintenance can be fitted in - no matter what.
Driverless trains would require supervision by a conductor/ticket checker, but not all trains. I would imagine these employees would cost 50% of train drivers. The whole system would be overseen by signalmen at the depot, but not one per train.
The cost of driver wages is a major cost, so removing that major cost by more capital expenditure will be seen as making sense.0 -
The devil is in the detail - not all western countries and cities have opted for driverless systems in their new builds, and as alternatives go for Metrolink - most accept Swords will have a metro route eventually, but going grade separated there adds significant cost vs the cheaper at-grade running and walkovers to the other platform. I would hope that driverless running is achieved, though I don't quite see why it leads to a significant capacity increase. No driver cabs at the end (not that the Citadis type sets' cab space takes up much either).Sam Russell wrote: »The Port Tunnel manages 24/7 operation but closes for maintenance regularly. That appears the way these things are done. The Dart was closed for weekends for a rewire over 6 months. Also, it has closed for long weekends quite often for maintenance, and currently it is closed from Dalkey to Greystones for the past two weeks. Maintenance can be fitted in - no matter what.
Driverless trains would require supervision by a conductor/ticket checker, but not all trains. I would imagine these employees would cost 50% of train drivers. The whole system would be overseen by signalmen at the depot, but not one per train.
The cost of driver wages is a major cost, so removing that major cost by more capital expenditure will be seen as making sense.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19031
lucernarian wrote: »The devil is in the detail - not all western countries and cities have opted for driverless systems in their new builds, and as alternatives go for Metrolink - most accept Swords will have a metro route eventually, but going grade separated there adds significant cost vs the cheaper at-grade running and walkovers to the other platform. I would hope that driverless running is achieved, though I don't quite see why it leads to a significant capacity increase. No driver cabs at the end (not that the Citadis type sets' cab space takes up much either).
I suggest you take a read of this.
Extra capacity comes from the absent cab and the higher possible frequency. Paris Metro claim a 30% reduction in cost with Driverless trains.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22053
lucernarian wrote: »The fact that the green line platforms would have to be changed, inevitably taking out stations (and revenue) for periods of time. I think that's a strong basis.
I *suspect* that driverless has lower operating costs, but I haven't found any actual proof of this yet. 24 hour operation is separate to the issue of driver or automatic operation, as oftentimes maintenance can be carried out on the right of way/trackage plus the sets during the out-of-service hours. That maintenance is going to be required one way or another in any kind of mass transit rail system.
Driverless has a number of signficant avnatages:
- Higher frequency (every 90 seconds for driverless, versus 2 minutes for driver) and thus higher capacity.
- Driverless means no space taken up with the cab, so more capcity for passengers.
- Driverless means it much easier to operate at night and at much higher frequency off peak and at weekends.
Driver wages play a MAJOR part in why we don't have 24/7 bus and rail services or higher frequency off peak and weekends.
Wages make up 80% of Dublin Buses costs. Add to that less demand overnight and off-peak and extra driver payments for Night time/Sunday driving and it makes these sort of services economically hard to justify.
Copenhagens Metro is operated by just 4 or 5 controllers, actually only two actually monitor the trains, the others operate secondary systems and passenger information. Note that even with driver operated trains, you would have roughly the same number of controllers anyway.
This makes it much cheaper to operate at the normally less economic times, nights, weekends and off peak. Basically just some electricity and allows them to operate a high frequency service more or less around the clock.
This makes perfect sense to me, if you are going to spend 3bn on capital building a very expensive piece of infrastructure, then it makes sense to maximise it's usage.0 -
But building a y shaped line means that the 2 branches would never have room to increase capacity. It would also mean scheduling nightmare because it’s not as easy as saying every second train goes the other direction as the 2 legs aren’t the same length so one side has a longer return leg which means they can’t just come back together like a zip merge every 90 seconds.
I have absolutely no issue with the idea of s second line going sw or even people arguing that the first line should go that way but a Y shaped line is a compromise from the start.
A y-shaped arrangement is quite common, because the demand nearer to the centre is greater than on the outskirts. Thus, demand on the outskirts for, say, a 6 minute frequency on one branch, translates into a 3 minute frequency in the most expensive central section where the two branches of the y run together.
Munich would be a very nice example of this, as its 3 metro lines all have y arrangements at either end, giving around 10 termini currently (some termini are shared by different routes in the suburbs) and extraordinarily good coverage of the city.
Scheduling is obviously a challenge, but seems to be manageable. One way of reducing problems with this, which often remains as a relic of gradual construction - like Munich had - is typically an island platform (but does not have to be) which is shared by the two incoming lines and a single platform for the line going out of the city. If two trains heading into the city happen to be in the station at the same time, on the shared platform, then both drivers know where they stand in relation to other trains heading into the city at the same time on that line, and the signals will guide them as to what order happens next. With trains heading out of the city, just before the split, they just press on and the railway points will guide them to wherever they are supposed to go.
So, for example, in Dublin, if it were decided to extend the metrolink towards the southwest of the city, it might well be sensible to construct a metro station in or around Camden Street with 3 platforms. One (#1) would be for trains from Swords to, say, Knocklyon, via Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarham, etc., one (#2) would initially be for terminating trains (because no one line in the south of the city is going to match the northside demand frequency into the city of a line which includes the airport, Swords, Ballymun, etc.), and the third (#3) would be for trains into the city.
When you've completed a line to, say, Knocklyon, you then extend the system and make some rearrangements so that the track on platform #1 remains a track serving Knocklyon and also a new line serving Harold's Cross, Kimmage, Walkinstown, etc., the track on platform #2 (the former terminus track) becomes a track from Harold's Cross, Kimmage, Walkinstown, etc. into the city and track #3 continues doing its work bringing Knocklyon trains into the city.
The drivers on both tracks #2 and #3 are well aware of where they stand in relation to each other before heading into the common shared section through the city.
This seems to be how it is best done for arrangements where the plans for future development of a y system are there.0 -
It makes sense, but lacks specifics. These cost-related specifics haven't been provided yet when it comes to Metrolink. Why is this so hard to understand? Driverless also means grade separation, which I'm in favour of but will have a cost. If it was going to be 100% better in all circumstances, why is it even being discussed as an option rather than an inevitability?Driverless has a number of signficant avnatages:
- Higher frequency (every 90 seconds for driverless, versus 2 minutes for driver) and thus higher capacity.
- Driverless means no space taken up with the cab, so more capcity for passengers.
- Driverless means it much easier to operate at night and at much higher frequency off peak and at weekends.
Driver wages play a MAJOR part in why we don't have 24/7 bus and rail services or higher frequency off peak and weekends.
Wages make up 80% of Dublin Buses costs. Add to that less demand overnight and off-peak and extra driver payments for Night time/Sunday driving and it makes these sort of services economically hard to justify.
Copenhagens Metro is operated by just 4 or 5 controllers, actually only two actually monitor the trains, the others operate secondary systems and passenger information. Note that even with driver operated trains, you would have roughly the same number of controllers anyway.
This makes it much cheaper to operate at the normally less economic times, nights, weekends and off peak. Basically just some electricity and allows them to operate a high frequency service more or less around the clock.
This makes perfect sense to me, if you are going to spend 3bn on capital building a very expensive piece of infrastructure, then it makes sense to maximise it's usage.0 -
So, you don't have any examples for your truism?Sam Russell wrote: »I think the M50 is a good example of 'build it and they will come'. I know it is not PT, but it certainly allowed the increase in use such that it had to be expanded, and the Mad Cow improved.
Sandyford has seen incredible expansion - just go back twenty years before the Green Line was built and look at it now. The Green Line is heaving.
Yes, 'build it and they will come'. Of course, it was not so with the Ennis to Athenry line, so it is not always true. If it is daft before you build it, it is still daft after you build it.
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,718306,725017,8,0
Sandyford emphatically is not a 'build it and they will come', easily verified by using OSIs historical satellite views. Carrickmines started construction approximately 6 years before the luas extension and 12 years later it still does not have pedestrian access to the luas. Central Park began construction in the late 90s well before the 2010 extension.
Cherrywood is the last large parcel of undeveloped land in the entirety of South, SE and SW Dublin. If "built it and they will come" was true, it would not be the last development to happen. It's proof that the mantra is nonsense.
And? The Dublin South/Southwest spur is being talked about in addition to the Sword -> City Centre metro, not as a replacement for having a Northside metro.I think you're looking at it slightly backwards. A metro from Swords to the city centre is the main focus of the project.
I haven't seen any in-depth RoIs on the matter.After that, it would only take a relatively small amount of money to add 9km of Luas to the metro line. Adding those 9km along any other route would be vastly more expensive.
'Presumably' based on what analysis exactly?It helps that the expected residential growth in Cherrywood and office growth in Sandyford means that the return on investment on upgrading that section of line is presumably quite high.
Which is why you perform exhaustive in-depth RoIs including every conceivable factor rather than, as most users here have done, assume it to be true for no reason other than they want it to be that way.The last option is extending the metro by tunneling but the cost will be much higher than upgrading existing track.
The EIB is lending €15-€20bn per year at negligible interest rates and with very flexible financing terms for infrastructural projects that align with EU policy goals. One recent large Irish project financed via matched EIB funding had a 5 year interest only followed by a 20 year repayment schedule. There is absolutely the money out there to invest in long-term infrastructure projects that:
a) Generate significant positive externalities even if they are only midly profitable as a going concern
&
b) Will only recoup costs over several decades.
There is the money out there to invest in Dublin public transport, there simply isn't the political will and it seems armchair pundits aren't really willing to think outside their carefully constructed and biased boxes.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19031
Deleted User wrote: »So, you don't have any examples for your truism?
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,718306,725017,8,0
Sandyford emphatically is not a 'build it and they will come', easily verified by using OSIs historical satellite views. Carrickmines started construction approximately 6 years before the luas extension and 12 years later it still does not have pedestrian access to the luas. Central Park began construction in the late 90s well before the 2010 extension.
Cherrywood is the last large parcel of undeveloped land in the entirety of South, SE and SW Dublin. If "built it and they will come" was true, it would not be the last development to happen. It's proof that the mantra is nonsense.
Sandyford Industrial Estate and Stillorgan Industrial Park have been built a long time - well over twenty years. Stillorgan IP was a warehouse area and not too successful until the Green line appeared. Sandyford has seen huge development since the Green line - just look at the bulk and density of the buildings. Now the crash put a halt to all these developments - including Cherryvale. There was a long running planning dispute ever Carrickmines which gave rise to the planning tribunal. That basically stopped all the development in the area and the crash put paid to the rest.
However, now the Green Line is heaving.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Sandyford Industrial Estate and Stillorgan Industrial Park have been built a long time - well over twenty years. Stillorgan IP was a warehouse area and not too successful until the Green line appeared. Sandyford has seen huge development since the Green line - just look at the bulk and density of the buildings. Now the crash put a halt to all these developments - including Cherryvale. There was a long running planning dispute ever Carrickmines which gave rise to the planning tribunal. That basically stopped all the development in the area and the crash put paid to the rest.
However, now the Green Line is heaving.
That's even more nonsensical. How are you linking the Green Line to the success of Sandyford other than saying "Well they both exist now so it must be that"?
Cherrywood lands were bought for development and a joint venture launched in 1989, or approximately 21 years prior to the Green Line extension. Yet you're arguing that Cherrywood is an example of "if you build it they will come"?
The crash put paid to almost all development around Dublin, it doesn't stop there having been tens (hundreds?) of developments since the crash with Cherrywood still being some time away.
You made a bad argument that all available Dublin evidence appears to show to be untrue and your only examples highlight that your statement is not correct. Stop prevaricating, changing the goalposts and being evasive.
The Stillorgan Industrial Park thing is hilarious. There have been a handful of new buildings in that area in the last two decades and it's still largely car showrooms, tile stores and the like. Apparently though, it's been revolutionised because of the Green Line.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »That's even more nonsensical. How are you linking the Green Line to the success of Sandyford other than saying "Well they both exist now so it must be that"?
Cherrywood lands were bought for development and a joint venture launched in 1989, or approximately 21 years prior to the Green Line extension. Yet you're arguing that Cherrywood is an example of "if you build it they will come"?
The crash put paid to almost all development around Dublin, it doesn't stop there having been tens (hundreds?) of developments since the crash with Cherrywood still being some time away.
You made a bad argument that all available Dublin evidence appears to show to be untrue and your only examples highlight that your statement is not correct. Stop prevaricating, changing the goalposts and being evasive.
The Stillorgan Industrial Park thing is hilarious. There have been a handful of new buildings in that area in the last two decades and it's still largely car showrooms, tile stores and the like. Apparently though, it's been revolutionised because of the Green Line.
Well I suppose the questions we have to ask ourselves are:
Is the green line near full capacity at peak- yes
Will it cost a relatively small amount to upgrade to metro standard in the context of the overall metrolink project- yes
Is there more housing projects going to be coming on stream in the near future, with the potential to add thousands of more cars onto our motorway network, if a viable alternative is not provided- yes.
And my own personal favorite:
Should we defer bus connects, in Dublin, and transfer the money into metrolink and allow the tbm tunnel out to firhouse......... you know my answer!0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22053
lucernarian wrote: »It makes sense, but lacks specifics. These cost-related specifics haven't been provided yet when it comes to Metrolink. Why is this so hard to understand? Driverless also means grade separation, which I'm in favour of but will have a cost. If it was going to be 100% better in all circumstances, why is it even being discussed as an option rather than an inevitability?
Well the MetroLink documents do in fact layout the capital cost differences between driverless and driver operated and it is €40 million extra, in order to make the Green line fully segregated (platform screen doors and overpasses).
It doesn't layout the operational savings this would lead to, probably because that is operational costs, rather then capital costs that this part of the project involve (though I certainly do think they should be considered). Also it is possible that they don't want to discuss it in public too much, due to it's sensitive nature and the likeliness of the usual unions blowing a casket.
Of course, going fully segregated has other, non economic, safety advantages and I also think it is well worth it for those.
From what we've heard so far. It seems the planners very much favour the driverless option and will most likely to go for it.
As for why consider the other options? Most likely so that if/when the unions blow up about it, they can point out that they did look at all the options and point to the advantages of driverless that their study found. The due diligence that is normal for all engineering planning.0 -
I'd be quite happy for the Green line upgrade to go ahead, but there's a few issues. Tie-in at Charlemont, separation at Dunville and Richmond Ave, nothing for SW Dublin. And a Luas terminus at Charlemont, which seems a bit of a waste.
Any alternative would still need to provide significant extra capacity for Sandyford, Cherrywood etc.
If the tunnel continued from Charlemont to Rathmines, and then rejoined the proposed route at Windy Arbour, there would be a few advantages. We'd be looking at a Broombridge-Windy Arbour Luas with all the existing stops, and a Swords-Sandyford Metro via Charlemont, Rathmines, Windy Arbour, Dundrum etc. An extra 3.5km of tunnel, 2 extra underground stations, but the total bill could be reduced, especially when you factor in the cost of Green line closure and legal problems.
1. No tie-in at Charlemont. Underground Metro station instead. No Green line closure during construction.
2. Metro to Rathmines. Fewer buses from Rathmines to City Centre.
3. No work needed at Dunville Ave or Richmond Ave. No Metro for Ranelagh, Beechwood, Cowper or Milltown, but they still have the Luas. Fewer court cases and delays. Shorter Metro journey time as there are 3 fewer stops.
4. Easier tie-in, at-grade at Windy Arbour. Work can take place from the golf course. Realignment or underpass needed for Churchtown Road.
5. Option to retain golf course permanently for housing.
6. Last but not least - when money is available, as a separate project, the Luas could continue into a new, separate tunnel from north of Windy Arbour Luas stop, straight across to Rathfarnham Castle. Continue in tunnel under Butterfield Ave, to Rathfarnham Shopping Centre, and to the top of Knocklyon Road (eastern end). Then continue above ground either to Firhouse or via Spawell and N81 to Tallaght. This is less than 5km of Luas tunnel, 2 or 3 underground stations (Rathfarnham Castle and Shopping Centre, maybe Windy Arbour). Tunnel mostly under roads and golf courses. Could be cut and cover in places. It's a 55m Luas service for Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght. Connecting to Metro (Charlemont and possibly Windy Arbour), SSG, OCS and Finglas. Takes a lot of buses out of Terenure, and benefits those worst affected by delays in Terenure/Harold's Cross/Rathmines. Much of the route to the city centre is there already, the trams are already running. The tie-in north of Windy Arbour would mean terminating Luases one stop earlier at Milltown during construction.
Seems a lot more likely than full-on South-West Metro, while preserving the benefits of the Green line upgrade, and solving a few of the problems at the same time. But creating a few new ones, obviously. Milltown golf club wouldn't be happy.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22053
Not a bad idea, though I'd expect it would require an extra 3 stations if not 4.
Another option would be at Beehwood Luas stop, that strip of land to the south of it and West of the tracks looks like it could be perfect for a tie in. Avoids Dunville Avenue and Ranelagh Bridge issues and just 800m's more tunnelling from Charlemont and maybe just one extra underground station.
You might need to CPO and knock that apartment building South of Beechwood station, but maybe not, depends on how much space they need for a tie in.
Now that is without including Rathmines, if you wanted to include that, then it would be about 1.5km of extra tunnel and 2 stations underground.0 -
I'd be quite happy for the Green line upgrade to go ahead, but there's a few issues. Tie-in at Charlemont, separation at Dunville and Richmond Ave, nothing for SW Dublin. And a Luas terminus at Charlemont, which seems a bit of a waste.
Any alternative would still need to provide significant extra capacity for Sandyford, Cherrywood etc.
If the tunnel continued from Charlemont to Rathmines, and then rejoined the proposed route at Windy Arbour, there would be a few advantages. We'd be looking at a Broombridge-Windy Arbour Luas with all the existing stops, and a Swords-Sandyford Metro via Charlemont, Rathmines, Windy Arbour, Dundrum etc. An extra 3.5km of tunnel, 2 extra underground stations, but the total bill could be reduced, especially when you factor in the cost of Green line closure and legal problems.
1. No tie-in at Charlemont. Underground Metro station instead. No Green line closure during construction.
2. Metro to Rathmines. Fewer buses from Rathmines to City Centre.
3. No work needed at Dunville Ave or Richmond Ave. No Metro for Ranelagh, Beechwood, Cowper or Milltown, but they still have the Luas. Fewer court cases and delays. Shorter Metro journey time as there are 3 fewer stops.
4. Easier tie-in, at-grade at Windy Arbour. Work can take place from the golf course. Realignment or underpass needed for Churchtown Road.
5. Option to retain golf course permanently for housing.
6. Last but not least - when money is available, as a separate project, the Luas could continue into a new, separate tunnel from north of Windy Arbour Luas stop, straight across to Rathfarnham Castle. Continue in tunnel under Butterfield Ave, to Rathfarnham Shopping Centre, and to the top of Knocklyon Road (eastern end). Then continue above ground either to Firhouse or via Spawell and N81 to Tallaght. This is less than 5km of Luas tunnel, 2 or 3 underground stations (Rathfarnham Castle and Shopping Centre, maybe Windy Arbour). Tunnel mostly under roads and golf courses. Could be cut and cover in places. It's a 55m Luas service for Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght. Connecting to Metro (Charlemont and possibly Windy Arbour), SSG, OCS and Finglas. Takes a lot of buses out of Terenure, and benefits those worst affected by delays in Terenure/Harold's Cross/Rathmines. Much of the route to the city centre is there already, the trams are already running. The tie-in north of Windy Arbour would mean terminating Luases one stop earlier at Milltown during construction.
Seems a lot more likely than full-on South-West Metro, while preserving the benefits of the Green line upgrade, and solving a few of the problems at the same time. But creating a few new ones, obviously. Milltown golf club wouldn't be happy.
So part of Milltown golf course would have to be cpo’ed.
55m Luas tram servicing the sw, so commuters would change at windy Arbour to go to swords or airport or rathmines for that matter, but if going to cc you could stay on the Luas. Change at windy Arbour to get metro to sandyford also. Another underground station at dartry perhaps?
Thinking about it more, the Luas north of windy Arbour will go underground to rathfarnham castle, this Luas will be limited to a 55m, lfv, driver set, which is the max the Luas Cross City can handle. Could be a potential capacity problem in the future on a sw line.0 -
And what about Beechwood? Just close the road? How about the platform doors? I've yet to see any platform doors placed in exposed environmental conditions, which the Luas platforms currently are. The trainsets themselves would clearly be more expensive, not sure if there's different/more expensive signalling required, and then a larger nerve centre.Well the MetroLink documents do in fact layout the capital cost differences between driverless and driver operated and it is €40 million extra, in order to make the Green line fully segregated (platform screen doors and overpasses).
It doesn't layout the operational savings this would lead to, probably because that is operational costs, rather then capital costs that this part of the project involve (though I certainly do think they should be considered). Also it is possible that they don't want to discuss it in public too much, due to it's sensitive nature and the likeliness of the usual unions blowing a casket.
Of course, going fully segregated has other, non economic, safety advantages and I also think it is well worth it for those.
From what we've heard so far. It seems the planners very much favour the driverless option and will most likely to go for it.
I'm not sure which question I'd pick, but €40 million is hopelessly optimistic and can't be taken seriously. Like several other financial claims they've made so far. For the CBA, they haven't redacted their figures, they just gave "high-level estimates", a noxious euphemism for pulling something out of their behind.
I think you missed my point. I meant that they are considering other options for one or more possibly good reasons - for one, they're basically guessing the costs of several parameters and when they gather even more info (preferably suitable to the NTA) they can then pass the buck to the minister. There's also the matter of tram length and the height of the vehicles. The additional cost of fitting platform doors would be lower if they also raise platforms as part of one build for HFVs, compared to doing either/or.As for why consider the other options? Most likely so that if/when the unions blow up about it, they can point out that they did look at all the options and point to the advantages of driverless that their study found. The due diligence that is normal for all engineering planning.
If, as you imply when you mention union unhappiness, that they're just putting the options to look transparent or whatever, that would all assume that the existing D6 locale especially are going to be fine about overpasses giving a good view of everyone's back yard in Cowper, or everyone having no service at some stations for several months or more, and so on. If the line has to be closed at Charlemont for a year for instance, I can see them going for HFV 60 metre driverless if it's really not much more expensive capex wise (which I doubt).
This is probably also why they didn't look into low floor vehicle driverless operation, as significant station changes would be required either way for driverless operation.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22053
lucernarian, rather then ask questions like these and make lots of suppositions, why don't you go and read the very detailed documents published on the Metrolink site.0 -
Of course, rather than telling me what to do, you could try to rebut or add to my points - two questions I asked are not covered very well in their documentation, the rest of what I wrote isn't a supposition. "High level estimates" for instance. And that stuff about unions was in response to a point you earlier had totally missed.lucernarian, rather then ask questions like these and make lots of suppositions, why don't you go and read the very detailed documents published on the Metrolink site.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22053
lucernarian wrote: »Of course, rather than telling me what to do, you could try to rebut or add to my points - two questions I asked are not covered very well in their documentation, the rest of what I wrote isn't a supposition. "High level estimates" for instance. And that stuff about unions was in response to a point you earlier had totally missed.
You know, honestly I had written up a long post answering each of your questions, but I deleted it and wrote that reply, because I realised why should I go to the bother of answering your questions if you aren't willing to take the time to read the documents which answer most of your questions.0 -
lucernarian wrote: »How about the platform doors? I've yet to see any platform doors placed in exposed environmental conditions, which the Luas platforms currently are.
Take your pick.
0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement