Metro North Route

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

Regarding the height of the M50 embankment, it is a fair height. But, it is a very long way away from Ballymun and indeed the DC from Santry Cross to the M50 intersection is a quite easy gradient, albeit a long one. Should the Metro simply go up the median it will be at the height of the overbridges when it gets to the M50.

Would you like to give a flyer at the enbankment height? What do you mean by DC? I'm not familar with that.

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

You then have to consider if you are going to copy the LUAS red cow idea or have it hoofed over the intersection itself?

You have another, slightly easier idea as well. You coulfd go back into the ground at Santry Cross. Plenty of time to clear under the M50 and hear towards the airport and have your stop as well.

I prefer the last suggestion to having a second Mad Cow !

I still cann't see the advantage in breaking the continuety of tunnelling for Ballymun Centre, with all the costs in relocating the TBM such a short distance

[Mark]

The RandstadRail project in the Nederlands was an influence on the RPA when designing the metro system and here are some examples of elevated tramways, good and bad, old and modern:

http://www.humanhub.nl/RandstadRail_Melanchtonweg.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/66/155014816_2f18ebbd9b_m.jpg

http://foto.denhaag.org/html/randsta...ojecten_00.jpg

http://www.stipdelft.nl/files/Netkou...ndstadRail.jpg

http://www.fotofinity.com/files/user...edee923dae.jpg

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/o...cameo_octa.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthij...7594049321240/

One of the best examples however of what the RPA might be looking at would be the bridge that forms part of the extension to Cherrywood:



Gobdaw, the metro north shall be crossing the M50 east of the interchange so the elevated structure will only have to rise above the carriageway level and could possibly be at the same road height as the actual interchange so it could still go at grade up to Santry Demesne stop AND clear the M50.

[Thomas J Stamp]

DC = Dual Carraigeway.

A flyer? Sure I know it like the back of my hand.

Its not correct to say that the embankment was to meet the roads in the area. You can see the orignal road to your left coming down the embankment into Ballymun, the embankment was created to allow the bridges to pass over the M50, you go down both sides north and south, admiddedly there was a hill there before where the junction is now.

I am not aginst a tunnell all the way at all, in fact that's what it should be.

If it were stilts it could be this:



which is from the Amsterdam Metro's above ground bit.

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by Mark

The RandstadRail project in the Nederlands was an influence on the RPA when designing the metro system and here are some examples of elevated tramways, good and bad, old and modern:

http://www.humanhub.nl/RandstadRail_Melanchtonweg.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/66/155014816_2f18ebbd9b_m.jpg

http://foto.denhaag.org/html/randsta...ojecten_00.jpg

http://www.stipdelft.nl/files/Netkou...ndstadRail.jpg

http://www.fotofinity.com/files/user...edee923dae.jpg

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/o...cameo_octa.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthij...7594049321240/

One of the best examples however of what the RPA might be looking at would be the bridge that forms part of the extension to Cherrywood:

Attachment 357

Gobdaw, the metro north shall be crossing the M50 east of the interchange so the elevated structure will only have to rise above the carriageway level and could possibly be at the same road height as the actual interchange so it could still go at grade up to Santry Demesne stop AND clear the M50.

Gobdaw, most of the above is why I think it could look well. Again, not familiar with the area but just because a rail line is elevated it does not mean it will ruin an area. Some can add character. I don't expect anything like the loop line or the green metal bridge above. Rather something modern and interesting looking.

[sean]

I don't know much about Ballymun either, but I wonder:

how much of the Metro is to run on EL besides the bit through Ballymun?

and how much would it cost money/time to put the disputed section underground via cut and cover? C&C I think is the best way to build a Metro anyway.

[Colm Donoghue]

Some of the alignment through Swords will be elevated I presume or else the roundabouts will need to be re-aligned

I wonder if all those who are complaining now could publish their comments to the rpa they wrote during the public consultation?

I wonder if it is the people of Ballymun that Rosin Shorthall is concerned about or the people of Ballymun road?

I presume the route is going to surface in Hampstead park?
It'll have to rise to >= 6m to cross Ballymun road southbound to the median.
It'll have to stay above this for the junction at Ballymun church/ old Scout den
It'll have to be elevated for the Collins ave/Glasnevin ave junction.
There's a u turn lane aross from the Library. This may be closed, allowing the metro to come down to ground level for a while. The metro will need to rise up again to pass therough the "main st" in Ballymun. I'm not sure of the new layout but approximately from where the old Roundabout/ towers pub was to the Santry Avenue junction. There's too many crossroads here to do any on grade stuff. there's a median crossing at northwood/petrol station this may be closed but the metro route is gonna bear east here and run parallel to the m50 for a time before crossing it.

The difference as I see it about this is the metro will pass elevated in fromt of people's homes. All elevated rail lines in Dublin so far pass behind people's homes (Dart lines, luas). Personally I'd much rather have a rail line in front, leaving some privacy in the back.



I presume the metro can take hills as steep as Adelaide road to Charlemont stop on the luas line?

[Thomas J Stamp]

We were told that the reason why the RPA have favoured the system they have chose is that its adaptability allows for on street running, so along the median of the ballymun road, LUAS style traffic controll at junctions and up and over the main street (and it is from the old roundabout, past St. Pappins Church and School as far as Santry Avenue) and then either back down or simply merge with the incline of the embankment.

Personally, I think its a lot simpler to stick it underground, they have a tunnelling yoke, the tunnel can come out at Santry Cross instead of Hampsted Park, its only about two/three miles.

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

.....allows for on street running, so along the median of the ballymun road, LUAS style traffic controll at junctions and up and over the main street...

Am I getting that right? Metro crossing road traffic at grade, controlled by traffic lights? Should we not be at least looking for total grade separation, however that is achieved? The future has to be the elimination of level crossings not the building of others.

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

Personally, I think its a lot simpler to stick it underground, they have a tunnelling yoke, the tunnel can come out at Santry Cross instead of Hampsted Park, its only about two/three miles.

Amen to that, but also keep it underground to north of airport and be done with it.

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by Gobdaw

Amen to that, but also keep it underground to north of airport and be done with it.

Go to Paris, they have one of the best metro systems in the world. A huge amount of this is overground

I am totally against level crossing or traffic lights. However, just because a system is not underground does not make it bad. Just because a system is overground it does not necessarily make the environs ugly.

[Thomas J Stamp]

I have just been reviewing this thread as a whole.

I'm doing a letter to the RPA, here it is:

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

Go to Paris, they have one of the best metro systems in the world. A huge amount of this is overground

I am totally against level crossing or traffic lights. However, just because a system is not underground does not make it bad. Just because a system is overground it does not necessarily make the environs ugly.

The point of my posts is not about overground, but about elevated rail. Not at all the same thing. I did not know that a huge amount of Paris metro was elevated. I do happpen to know that in common with other cities a large proportion of it is overground. I would have thought that that was fairly basic information, but thank you. I have been posting, as you must know, on elevated sections, particularly in Ballymun urban centre. I think it is now you that is putting words in my mouth.

If the reason for elevated rail is cost, which I believe, then that does not inspire confidence in the creation of something beautiful but rather the almost Inevitablity of leading to the creation of something ugly.

Well, thats my experience, for what it's worth.

[PaulM]

Gobdaw, be civil. </mod>

Now, I actually meant elevated. Yes, much of the Paris metro is elevated. When I said overground I meant as in over the ground, above ground level. Whether any of it is at grade I do no know. Now, if Paris can manage with elevated rail lines, I'm sure Dublin can manage too.

Thomas, I'm sure your letter will have a big effect.

[2Funki4Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

I'm doing a letter to the RPA, here it is:

Don't forget to cc in Roisin on it.

[Gobdaw]

Apologies for seeming uncivil in my posts.

I have looked up Wikipedia ( God help us) and it says the following:

"World War II had a massive impact on the Paris métro. During the German occupation, metro services were limited and many stations were closed. Because of the bombing risk, it was decided that the service between Place d’Italie and Eloile would be transferred from line 5 to line 6 so that most of the elevated portions of the Paris metro would be on a single line: line 6. As a result, lines 2 and 6 together now form a metro circle."

Line 6 is stated to be 13.6 km of the overall of 210.2 km, or 6.5% of the total.

Thomas, the letter is good, but the handwritting needs a lot of improvement.

[PaulM]

I didn't know that. Anyhoo, my point is still elevated is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a habit in this country to hear something and assume it will be awful and disastrous and a waste of money.

This is to me what people are doing with the metro. There is an instant elevated=bad to this idea and I really don't think it will be.

[al2637]

In fairness, I think this has more to do with Ms Shortall electioneering than any concern for the impact of Metro on Ballymum. I'm sure the people of Ballymum will accept any reasonable proposal put forward by the RPA once it doesn't cause the problems they are raising.

Underground, at ground level, overground... there are ways to do them all in a good way, we just need to make sure the RPA do, and don't create something which will undermine all the good work which has taken place in Ballymum in recent years.

On a side issue, the A'dam Metro runs underground, at ground level, and also elevated at certain points. They all seem to work just fine.

http://de.geocities.com/m_pix1/ams/a...am-gallery.htm

[Oisin88]

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

There is an instant elevated=bad to this idea and I really don't think it will be.

I think the "EL" would give a bit of character to some places.

Also, alot of people would be less afraid in elevated stations than in underground ones. Some of the other threads speak a little about an "atmosphere" on part of the blue luas line. Can you imagine this atmosphere in a hole in the ground?

[colmoc]

Originally Posted by Oisin88

I think the "EL" would give a bit of character to some places.

Also, alot of people would be less afraid in elevated stations than in underground ones. Some of the other threads speak a little about an "atmosphere" on part of the blue luas line. Can you imagine this atmosphere in a hole in the ground?

eh where is the blue luas line ??

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by colmoc

eh where is the blue luas line ??

The metro.

[sean]

I think they ought to just cut and cover the whole thing as much as possible: my opinion is that C&C makes the best 'finished product'.

Since it's technically underground, arriving/waiting passengers are protected from the weather = more comfort. But since it's just below the street level, it's easy to get to and from and you're rarely more than a few meters away from surface if for whatever reason you need to. Also you can use grates in the street to take care of ventilation and a lot of emergency access.

I've used C&C systems in New York, Munich and Berlin, and having your train being just below the ground is the most pleasent experience possible.