Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Are there still plans to run the DART up to Donabate/Rush&Lusk/Skerries/Balbriggan? If so, an airport spur from Clongriffen makes a bit more sense to me, if the line can handle the required frequency. Not sure how having termini at Balbriggan, Airport and Howth willl work in terms of scheduling and so on.

It also doesn't solve anything for Swords, Santry or Ballymun, but that's a bigger issue that requires a bigger pot of money...

Can someone explain to me why it's such a big deal to extend the DART to these 4 stops? In my simplistic mind it's just a case of electrocuting the line which shouldn't take that long? I assume there are numerous other factors I'm ignoring such as capacity and signalling?

I'm not sure anyone wants to "electrocute" anything!!

murphaph wrote: »

No guts just to build metro north as proposed. Fudge fudge fudge instead.

Actually, I think the report raises some interesting ideas, amongst some truly awful ones. However, there is an element of going over old material.

I think the suggested economies on MN are at least worth looking at and deciding what is or isn't good value.

D.L.R. wrote: »

"Optimised Metro North" interests me.

It does away with Parnell and O'Connell Bridge stations, instead placing a station at Upper O'Connell Street.

This leaves too big a gap between SSG and Upper O'Connell IMO.

But it does create the opportunity to do this:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/123858/331130.jpg

Of course this undermines the whole idea of a less costly Metro North :rolleyes:

It is assumed that DART Underground goes ahead (with the implication that at least some of the Maynooth line is electrified). Therefore, there is no particular need for Metro North to meet Tara Street, as a transfer could be done at Drumcondra.

roddney wrote: »

In all fareness the last 4 boxes in table for report are environmental impact stuff which is of low value.

Perhaps to you. Someone else might say that environmental impact stuff which is of low value when building a road, forgetting the huge number of people that die from air pollution.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I remember. O'Reilly consultants. They were asked to give an opinion on MN and pointed out Glasnevin junction as an interchange point for Metro and then actually went further by pointing out that DART could be a "Metro" if a tunnel was built under Glasnevin and onwards to the airport.

Robbing bastards!:D

Grandeeod wrote: »

And if I'm not mistaken, the above was followed up by a proposal for running the DART from Glasnevin to the airport along the MN route that was then in the public domain. Not saying it was feasible, but its a little sad that the idea was ripped off in this latest document. A document that certainly looks like a fudge to not build anything meaningful anyway.

If the idea works and/or helps inform the debate, isn't that the important thing?

L1011 wrote: »

Manchester Metrolink to the Airport is also slower than the trains from memory yet the Metrolink is brand new and the trains have been there for ages.

But between which points?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Oh noooo. Not bendy buses - we just got rid of those dreadful things. Who thinks they are the Wright solution?

Sam Russell wrote: »

My memory of bouncing along in the back of that smelly, noisy, dreadful wagon will never fade.

In fairness, they were put on the wrong routes and some buses of that era were poorly maintained.

Bray Head wrote: »

The Luas Red line undershot forecast demand.

Is that why they extended the trams from 30 to 40 metres, ordered more trams and moved trams from the Green Line?

Bray Head wrote: »

Opportunity cost
The report completely omits to mention that on-surface options such as BRT and light rail mean room for cars and/or other public transport. This can lead to congestion elsewhere or lower frequencies for buses which are not necessarily substitutes for BRT or light rail. Personally I have serious concerns about what Luas Cross City will do to Dublin Bus and Aircoach services in the College Green and O'Connell St areas, many of which serve areas which will not be improved by Luas Cross City. I guess we'll know in a few years.

That is a separate matter, outside the scope of the report.

cgcsb wrote: »

If IÉ are that keen on DART to the airport they really need to sell the intercity possibilities.

That is a separate matter, outside the scope of the report.

Bray Head wrote: »

But staying on the hypotheticals, supposing I'm coming from Galway with final destination Dublin Airport. Assume that Metro North, DART Underground and Clongriffin Spur are all in place. Do I a) change at Stephen's Green and take a metro that runs 10 times an hour; b) stay on the train and have one or possibly two changes via a circuitous route to get to Dublin Airport? Metro wins every time from a frequency and journey time perspective. It also serves a large chunk of densely populated city that isn't well served by public transport.

lxflyer wrote: »

If DART Underground and Clongriffin Spur were in place you would take the train from Galway to Heuston and then go directly on the DART from Heuston to Dublin Airport with no further changes.

You stay on the train all the way from Galway to the Airport. :cool:

Aard wrote: »

In fairness to Fingal CoCo, the Public Safety Zones need to be better defined by the Minister for Environment. Fingal's hands are a little tied until clarification is forthcoming from the DoE.

These are already well defined by the IAA and Fingal County Council have a developed policy around them.

Aard wrote: »

Just to avoid any confusion, and trying to remain on topic (ahem), there are no proposals put forward from the document that go through Finglas.

Routes LR1 and LR2.

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why it's such a big deal to extend the DART to these 4 stops? In my simplistic mind it's just a case of electrocuting the line which shouldn't take that long? I assume there are numerous other factors I'm ignoring such as capacity and signalling?

Signalling would be a factor if frequencies are increased, although that would depend on the nitty gritty of train performance (DART can only do 100km/h = 60mph, but has better acceleration) and signal spacing. Additionally, you would like a depot or at least a stabling area at the rural end of the electrified line, so that trains wouldn't have to go from Fairview to Balbriggan (or where ever) in the morning, while carrying no passengers.

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is beyond a joke, we can afford amongst other things a world class welfare budget?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I love how they came up with the name "Optimised" Metro North. Sound much better than the Austerity Metro, which I'm sure Paul Murphy or RBB are itching to use.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am sure he would decry even a BRT as excessive and a waste of resources which would be far better contributing towards world class welfare rates than leaving a decent transport legacy...

roddney wrote: »

Also,rRunning of all new lines and Dart should be put out to tender as part of new works. Irish Rail shouldn't be running it anymore.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Yeah socialists hate public transport. They're all for the proliferation of the private motor car.

DERP

This is the Infrastructure forum. Let's stay on topic, even when jesting.

zetalambda wrote: »

Fingal area rapid transport aka the FART. Sorry, I couldn't resist it!

'Congratulations'.

Moderator

Victor wrote: »

I think the suggestions made in the report for Finglas are poor and don't avail of existing open space near the (former) N2 corridor.

Or indeed the fact that most of it is dual carriageway. Luas down the middle, like parts of the Red line. Tunnel to connect with Cabra BXD stop.

Victor wrote: »

You stay on the train all the way from Galway to the Airport. :cool:

Not necessarily - there have been no indications that diesels will be allowed to use the tunnel.

BXD doesn't go very far past the city centre. MN goes all the way to Swords. Not exactly overlapping catchments.

AngryLips wrote: »

Something I don't quite understand, MN is often cited as being demanded by public transport requirements for the northside because Luas wouldn't be able to cater for the number of expected users along a similar on-street alignment ...yet BXD is being built with a turnback loop at Parnell Street becuause it's envisioned that there won't be enough demand on the Broombridge spur to justify routing all services to this terminus. What gives? Both lines have overlapping catchments

I think that is more a case of if there isn't demand. Come 2017, you can't expect the new section to have the same level of demand on day 1 as an existing section that will have been operating for 7-13 years.

I have to agree with monument, HR8 has potentially much wider scope than MN - the national impact could be as big as Dart Underground. Its the best option in this document imo because it combines a Dublin subway line with potentially national services too.

You could even use the same personnel, skills and machinery from the Dart Underground project to build it, assuming DU happens first.

Regards Metro North - its my contention that previous govts made a pigs ear of the Luas/Metro North/Green Line strategy in Platform for Change/Transport 21, and we were ultimately sold a pup in the end.

We need to take stock of that before moving forward with a proper clear strategy for a high capacity N-S line.

D.L.R. wrote: »

I have to agree with monument, HR8 has potentially much wider scope than MN - the national impact could be as big as Dart Underground. Its the best option in this document imo because it combines a Dublin subway line with potentially national services too

The experience of the northern line tells us that mixing suburban/intercity services with commuter services doesn't work. Also, this option doesn't open up any new areas of the city core to the rail network limiting its utility for commuters. Already, the existing loop line with stations at Connolly, Tara and Pearse does a poor job of serving the city centre (being at the periphery) and what is proposed here is another option that does a bad job also. I think there's merit in feeding Heuston services through to Dublin airport but it shouldn't be at the expense of getting good coverage in the city centre.

AngryLips wrote: »

The experience of the northern line tells us that mixing suburban/intercity services with commuter services doesn't work. Also, this option doesn't open up any new areas of the city core to the rail network limiting its utility for commuters. Already, the existing loop line with stations at Connolly, Tara and Pearse does a poor job of serving the city centre (being at the periphery) and what is proposed here is another option that does a bad job also. I think there's merit in feeding Heuston services through to Dublin airport but it shouldn't be at the expense of getting good coverage in the city centre.

On your first point about mixing services, Vienna mixes its S Bahn services with national services on two tracks quite successfully. The Northern line gets by (just) and the signalling upgrade will improve matters. Quadding would be nice, but decades of bad planning has unfortunately made that a very difficult task.

Second, regards penetration, well there's no magic bullet that will fix all of Dublin's shortcomings. Realistically I think 2 or 3 heavy rail tunnels are required if we're serious about giving this city a proper system. I think DU and HR8 would solve an awful lot, if not everything.

The levies are a matter for Dublin City Council to decide, not the RPA or NTA or whoever else. Councillors can decide not to make a development contribution scheme. It's a separate decisionmaking body from the one that plans the infrastructure.

Aard wrote: »

The levies are a matter for Dublin City Council to decide, not the RPA or NTA or whoever else. Councillors can decide not to make a development contribution scheme. It's a separate decisionmaking body from the one that plans the infrastructure.

Do you not realise that by accepting this daft and stupid study, you are simply contributing to a further delay of offering anything whatsoever to North Dublin. Politicians are playing games here and the word "STOP" should be screamed from the rooftops!

monument wrote: »

Metro North was pushed down the road a good while ago, it just took many of us a while to fully admit that. Mainly because of lack of support.

Look at the route in my post above -- spending Metro North -type funding on a project that links the airport to the rest of island is far more likely to get EU funding and wider support.

Well done you! All you have done is contribute to yet another contrived indulgence that will result in absolutely nothing. People on boards called all this crap years ago. Continue on with your crayonism.

Aard wrote: »

Metro North doesn't have the political will for funding. Engaging with the NTA will not change that. It is possible to engage with the NTA, while lobbying central politicians to keep MN on the agenda. It is also possible to submit your views to the NTA that you believe MN is the best solution. Not engaging, for whatever reason, is akin to not voting and then complaining after the fact.

Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?

Grandeeod wrote: »

Are you blind to whats going on here? The engaging was done years ago. What age are you? So many have gone before you to get all this started. I personally sat with consultants 10 years ago! This is a fudge that is sucking in a new generation of contributors. How long does it have to go on?

Until people vote in politicians who really care about public transport.

monument wrote: »

He's getting annoyed that metro north isn't going to get built. Toys out of pram comes to mind.



Things change.

While Dublin is behind EU cities of similar size in its rail provision, many of the most comparable cities are in countries which are not as car obsessed, don't have our rural-focused parliament, dysfunctional city government made that way by national government, and they were not as poor as us in the 70s and 80s.

Too many people in Dublin are unrealistic of what can be done for public transport in the city because they have their blinkers on to the above facts which hampers Dublin. Few Dubliners demand change and the issue is made worse by too many Dublin TDs acting as national politicians in a system where you have to look after your own area, at least to some extent. Acting as national politicians is what all TDs should be doing, but the system will punish areas where TDs can't see the benefits in pushing projects for their city. I did not like Bertie myself, but at least he had some vision for our capital city beyond more road building and a few small public transport projects.

Being a car obsessed country also does not help. Co Dublin and more-so the commuter belt around is also largely car obsessed. Large spending on public transport will be just as hard if not harder for many GDA-based car-only users (ie people who rarely use public transport) -- and there's many such people.

You don't like change so you're best to tell the NTA to stick with MN and then tell your TDs that and tell your councilors that etc. Speaking to consultants 10 years ago does not really cut it.

But HR8 modified to allow for IC is a far better idea whlch would have far wider appeal (to the city, the region and the country), far better connectivity, and better funding support.

Yep, I'm getting annoyed that MN isn't going to be built. What's the problem with that?

You talk about things changing? You obviously like change and that changing will go on and on and on and deliver nothing while the likes of you invent yet more drawings that you havent the ability to bring beyond this forum or a free for all public consultation.

As for speaking to consultants 10 years ago and your disrespect for that....WTF are you on about? This was happening. It was engagement to try and make things better. But you think that your crayon fetish and acceptance of HR8 and any submission you make is better than face to face dealings 10 years ago? You are merely a lamb to the slaughter that will make no difference. Some people put in the work a decade ago that brought us to the brink of something tangible. Instead of bull****ting on an irrelevant forum , they were meeting people that had influence. Unfortunately they were victims of politics, the same way you will be.

Quite frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Jesus, wouldn't want to be stuck in front of you in traffic.

Is that the best you have to offer? Or maybe you just accept all the BS that's being thrown out to you?

Anyone supporting this study is nothing more than misguided and I can't apologise for saying that. History repeats itself and if any of you care to consult history, you could educate yourselves.

I'm not all that keen on a Metro North-Lite just because I've seen what spacing out stations and providing inadequate platform lengths or loading gagues does in other cities. It makes a lasting mess of things that can never be rectified. I'm not sure about at grade running either, especially at the junction for the road to Santry and also perhaps at Collins Ave. I would accept leaving out the O'Connell Bridge station with its engineering complexities in exchange for an O'Connell St. station but shortening the platforms by like 30% is just tempting fate.

I'd rather the completely new plan that monument and others outlined (similar to HR8) than the miserly haircuts to Metro North.

But... I have two salient points to make about HR8 itself.

In the report HR8 will apparently cost about €1950 million +/- €200 million. Metro North apparently will cost €2500 million +/- 800 million. Even optimised, they think it will cost around €2100 million +/- 700 million. It's under the light rail category while HR8 is well, heavy rail. Do those numbers sound convincing to other posters? Especially when an organisation like Irish Rail will be basically running it.

It also really heavily relies on Dart Underground being built to be of further benefit.

The other thing is that Metro Dublin's route is similar to what Monument drew but the report disingenuously throws it in the bin rather than simply proposing an alternative that drops the unnecessary tunnel to St. James' hospital. And brings the northern end away from the estuary and a bit more towards Donabate. Using their own rolling stock in the Phoenix Park tunnel is not a big deal if Dart Underground is also built.

And what's this about single bore tunnels being necessarily more dangerous? It's all about how they are built?? I doubt they can be built for as cheaply as the Metro Dublin crowd suggested.

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm not all that keen on a Metro North-Lite just because I've seen what spacing out stations and providing inadequate platform lengths or loading gagues does in other cities.

Is this actually a problem in other cities and what cities are we talking about?

AngryLips wrote: »

Is this actually a problem in other cities and what cities are we talking about?

The biggest example I can think of was Shanghai Metro Line 6 (and to a certain extent Line 8) and the Kuala Lumpur Monorail.

As to whether this is actually problem in other cities, you can take it for granted that some city, somewhere in the world would have experienced this problem. I suppose the examples above are what springs to mind, I haven't looked through many examples yet. I thought I was stating the obvious to be honest!

Aard wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rules for metro station spacings. Paris has incredibly short distances between stations, which poses its own problems. London has quite long distances between stations, even in zone 1.

A paper I read on the matter (honestly can't find the reference) suggested that longer spacing in central areas could better serve passengers due to less slow-down-speed-up time wasted. I'd prefer to see two central station with many exits each, than three stations with just one exit, for example.

Have a look at more than the first line of my earlier post again. I did say I would accept leaving out the O'Connell St. Bridge station and besides this is a revised proposal that has only recently reached the light of day. It's going to need further evaluation and debate. I said "what spacing out stations... does" in a post and that was all. A passing reference to a very material change to the plan.

You haven't said anything about the reduction in platform lengths and the problems with HR8 etc. I.e. the vast bulk of what I wrote. One poster quotes a line from my whole post to enquire what we can all take for granted (that there are badly-planned metro lines in the world) and no comment on anything else said.