Metro North Route

[Mark]

Money money money..

TBMs still going from Albert College Park?

[PaulM]

I don't know Ballymun at all. If the metro really would have to cross three roads then it probably is best to put it underground.

Again not familiar with the area, would elevated really be that bad? I've seen it work fine in Paris, a city which has a lot more in it than Dublin.

[philip]

I think the point being made is that if elevated is good enough for Ballymun then why not along the entire route? I reckon digging a trench is 75%+ of the cut and cover process anyway, so why not go the whole hog and bury it. It'd be better in the long run. I know Ballymun well enough to know that the idea of running at grade is crazy and elevated would be a retrograde step, given the money spent on re-engineering Ballymun following years of neglect. I'd imagine that cut and cover might actually be not much more expensive than elevating the line in any case.

[Mark]

I would agree with that Phillip.

[Navan Junction]

Irish Times, 20th November 2006

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) is to meet public representatives from Ballymun tomorrow in a bid to find a solution to local concerns about Dublin's Metro North. Tim O'Brienreports.

Local politicians and representatives of Ballymun Regeneration, who have already met the RPA on one occasion, want the metro to run underground.

But while the RPA agreed to consider its options following the last meeting, a spokesman insisted going underground "is not being considered".

The Irish Times understands that cost is a critical factor in the agency's deliberations.

However, Labour TD for the area Róisín Shortall said no other option was suitable for the community or for the success of the line, and she believed it would become an election issue if the RPA did not accede to local wishes.

The three options for the route through the north Dublin suburb include an overground "on stilts" option; running the train line up the median of Ballymun Road and Main Street; or running it in a trench along the median.

But locals point to the presence of three junctions on Ballymun's Main Street at which they claim a high-speed train could not be expected to stop and queue at traffic lights. They also believe the line would represent a permanent barrier down the middle of Main Street, a feature which it is claimed would negate much of the refurbishment in the area.

Locals are also strongly opposed to the elevated option, claiming that such a design has led to anti-social behaviour underneath similar rail-lines in other cities.

They say there is also an issue with the route passing houses at first-floor level, as passengers would have a direct line of sight into private homes.

The third option to put the line in a trench is also less than desirable, according to Ms Shortall, who said it it would be a potential hazard.

If agreement cannot be reached at tomorrow's meeting, locals have pledged to make it an election issue.

But the RPA told The Irish Timeslast night it was satisfied that it was proceeding with the plans as they were proposed in the public consultation.

The agency said it was prepared to look at all the options and "work through the difficulties", but it repeated that putting the metro underground at Ballymun "is not being considered".

[markpb]

I'm so confused. Last week we were told that "there are no level crossings on Metro North".

How does it cross three junctions without any level crossings?

[Mark Gleeson]

Which is true if you go on the preferred evalated route

[2Funki4Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

Irish Times, 20th November 2006

Locals are also strongly opposed to the elevated option, claiming that such a design has led to anti-social behaviour underneath similar rail-lines in other cities.

Not really a valid reason to rule elevation out, there's anti-social behaviour at the current Luas stations already and I'm sure "under stilts" areas would have CCTV. And since underground and level crossings are bashed in that article, do the locals not want this transport at all??

I think a reminder of the rubbish 13 bus service is in order, then a Luas is a lot more attractive. A little disruption vs a big benefit?

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

Locals are also strongly opposed to the elevated option, claiming that such a design has led to anti-social behaviour underneath similar rail-lines in other cities.

Mother of God! This country drives me insane sometimes. What countires, where?

What about the evelated metro lines that don't have anti-social behaviour under them. Why do they never get any attention.

If the locals have such an issue why was this not brought up at the route selection?

[Mark Gleeson]

So the locals dont want it elevated, its the best option, nice bit of modern concrete and we know the RPA know how to do it, e.g. Dundrum

No one wants it at ground level since it screws the traffic up and results in a disaster from a operating point of view

And the cut and cover option, very messy in disruption terms they don't want that either

The undergound option is expensive and requires a underground station in Ballymun

Which option results in more anti social behavour my money is on the underground option

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

So the locals dont want it elevated, .....
No one wants it at ground level since it screws the traffic up......
And the cut and cover option, very messy in disruption terms.....
The undergound option is expensive and requires a underground station in Ballymun

The height of the "stilts" will have to be considerable to clear the M50 embankment. It's like a wall running accross the alignment. The proposal for stilts can only be justified on cost grounds, certainly not on aestetic ones.

It will be like a switchback, as proposed, rising from the city tunnel at DCU, stilts rising to a fair height through Ballymun town centre until it clears M50. (Anyone got a height for this? Certainly much higher than "First floor" house level per La Shortall). Then it has to drop fairly quickly to tyhe airport tunnel at Metro Park.

The only two options are underground or elevated, certainly.

Cut n cover method will run into problems crossing M50, having carriageways closed for long periods and gridlocking the motorway.

My preference would be for tunnel route. What cost difference, approx, between stilts v tunnel machine continueing from DCU to airport tunnel?

[colmoc]

I would agree with the opinion that elevated does attract a degree of anti social behaviour but it does not create that anti social behaviour. these individuals already partake in this behaviour elsewhere but will be attracted by the cover an elevated line provides.

Solution design an elevated section which is well lit (single supporting pylons so no area under the line is obscured from view) well serviced by cctv (this includes monitering the footage), is well patrolled by gardai (not going to happen but put it in anyway) and most importantly is within a busy focal point for people to congregate (have open businesses in the area).

When elevated sections of track are stuck down side streets the they do have a tendency to become "dodgy places" (see areas of Sydney if you dont believe me Kings cross to bondi in particular)

With regard the underground option if the metro is an open system then this would lead to much more anti social behaviour.

[PaulM]

Why not try doing something clever with the elevated section, put kiosks underneath or something that will attract people to the area and keep those bridge dwelling trolls away?

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

Why not try doing something clever with the elevated section, put kiosks underneath or something that will attract people to the area and keep those bridge dwelling trolls away?

Paul, we're talking several miles of "elevated section". What has been suggested by RPA is a ballymun solution not acceptable elsewhere in Dublin. It will march down the centre of Ballymun Road like a Berlin Wall. It will be no addition to the regeneration being carried out by Dublin City Co. It will look what it is, the cheap solution for a percieved cheap part of the city.

It's a row just waiting for it's day.

I understood that the largest costs in tunnelling was the insertion and recovery pits for the TBM. Here we are getting two sets, Stephen's Green (or wherever) to DCU, then Metro Park to north of airport. I dont see, in overall scheme of things, extra cost of tunnelling to be huge when offset by saving cost of entry and extraction pits with cost of stilt structure.

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by Gobdaw

Paul, we're talking several miles of "elevated section". What has been suggested by RPA is a ballymun solution not acceptable elsewhere in Dublin. It will march down the centre of Ballymun Road like a Berlin Wall. It will be no addition to the regeneration being carried out by Dublin City Co. It will look what it is, the cheap solution for a percieved cheap part of the city.

Right, as my name is the first word in that post, I am assuming it was directed at me.

1. I already stated I am not familiar with the area. I have no idea how long it will be. Instead of saying "Down with that sort of thing", try suggesting ways to improve it.

2. I never said it wasn't good enough for Dublin, I would be quite happy to see it all elevated. Do not put words in my mouth.

3. You know, for definite, that a rail line will not help regeneration? Please explain how. I do know other cities manage fine with elevated rails. Dublin can too.

4. As Mark said, look at Dundrum.

[al2637]

Again, I'm not too familiar with the area, but would it not be possible to run it at ground level and have the roads cross it at grade rather than the other way around? or maybe some combination of both? Given that it's not heavy rail, will the metro be able to deal with steeper gradients than the DART?

I guess it all depends on the overall design. A large impressive suspension bridge would probably work quite well, whereas a long concrete embankment would be a disaster.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Since I lived there for 29 years I guess I'm familiar with the area.

The elevated section would afaik run from what is now Ballymun Senior Comprehensive School up to the new hotel at Santry(?) Cross. The reason why is because whilst the old Ballymun road was a dual carraigeway all the way from Mobhi road to the M50, it is now a DC to the Library, then a main street (albeit a bit wide) and then a DC again. I can only really see the need for an elevated section alone the main street.

The new Civic Offices and the new main plaza are also on the main street, it wouldnt be feasable to have it between the road, also there are several new intersections and about four pedestrian crossings. If it is the be stilts i dont see it being for any more than that section, and if it is for that section only, you can easily have it at first floor level, bear in mind that the buildings alone the main street are pretty big as it is, its not as if it'll be going past normal houses.

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. 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.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by 2Funki4Wheelz

Not really a valid reason to rule elevation out, there's anti-social behaviour at the current Luas stations already and I'm sure "under stilts" areas would have CCTV. And since underground and level crossings are bashed in that article, do the locals not want this transport at all??

I think a reminder of the rubbish 13 bus service is in order, then a Luas is a lot more attractive. A little disruption vs a big benefit?

When people hear "under stilts" they think of the old lock ups and the like in London under the rail lines. This will be a lot more like you get in New York and places like that, the stilts would be fairly far apart, and there would be as much anti secial behaviour as you'd get under any normal bridge.

As for the 13, i like the 13. Its a lot better then the 36 was, believe me.

[2Funki4Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

As for the 13, i like the 13. Its a lot better then the 36 was, believe me.

36? Back when things were in black & white?
No, seriously, 13s suffer from a lack of dependibility,sometimes they simply mightn't show up leaving a huge gap. I assume Metro will have Luas-esque displays - 3 mins etc.

Excellent point re the height/line of sight if it runs through that part, no actual houses to look into. And as previously mentioned, if it was designed anything like Dundrum I think it adds to the area.

[Gobdaw]

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

Right, as my name is the first word in that post, I am assuming it was directed at me.

1. I already stated I am not familiar with the area. I have no idea how long it will be. Instead of saying "Down with that sort of thing", try suggesting ways to improve it.

I did read that and why I'm saying to you that the section is quite long, not a bridge structure for commercial units to be tucked under, as I read from your post. The M50 is enbanked to pass over original road system running North/South, being some 6-7 metres (at least, I feel higher, but don't know) over "ground" level. Metro will need to rise a further 6-7 metres to clear M50. Overhead power would be another 6 metres higher again. We're talking a structure around 20 metres (65 feet) through domestic houses 7.2m high. Its an understatement that the stilts will have quite an impact on the visual environment and will attract opposition. Thats why I'm suggesting continual tunnelling be considered to north of airport.

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

2. I never said it wasn't good enough for Dublin, I would be quite happy to see it all elevated. Do not put words in my mouth.

I dont believe I quoted the idea as yours but rather being RPA. I would be very doubious to see it all elevated, and without doubt I'd be more that unhappy to see it elevated to the height I'm suggesting it needs be. Aestestically, Loop line Bridge is still decried visually, even thought most of the Loop Line is hidden with buildings now. Loop Line is nowhere the height Ballymun needs to be.

Originally Posted by Paul Mulcahy

3. You know, for definite, that a rail line will not help regeneration? Please explain how.

I did not express myself well. I was referring to the architectural regeneration of Ballymun, which is the result of years of planning and consultation with all strands. The elevated metro will overshadow all and be out of proportion, needlessly. Of course a rail line will help social and commercial regeneration. It would do that weither on stilts or underground.

QUOTE=Paul Mulcahy;13791]
I do know other cities manage fine with elevated rails. Dublin can too.[/quote]

You have the advantage on me there. I am aware of very high bridges in urban environments, usually with either higher buildings imediately around, or lower ones below in gorge/valley situations. I cannot think of any rail line 300% taller than the immediate built environment.

QUOTE=Paul Mulcahy;13791]
4. As Mark said, look at Dundrum.
[/quote]

Its a bridge. What cost per km? I feel tunnelling would not suffer in a financial conparision, and would not create the opposition that the stilt structure will generate.