Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Grandeeod · 11-12-2014 11:05am

And we're off!

You know there's an election coming when politicians start dangling the prospect of super-duper new infrastructure projects in front of voters.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/metro-north-was-a-turkey-a-decade-ago-nothings-changed-30817923.html

hfallada · 11-12-2014 11:15am

Grandeeod wrote: »

And we're off!

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/metro-north-was-a-turkey-a-decade-ago-nothings-changed-30817923.html

Does this journalist think the Metro will stop at the Airport and then the only other stop is St. Stephens Green? The Metro will contact the suburbs of Swords, Glasnevin, Drumcondra, Santry, Phisboro to the city centre. It will also connect DCU and St.Pats to Town. These areas are badly congested and spending €780 connecting the airport wont help congestion in these areas.

The Dublin metro is about connecting these areas to the city with rapid transport. There is no good reason why it can take over an hour to get from Ballymun to town, when its about 6 kms away. The DART to the airport offers poor value for money when you look at the amount of people that can use the Metro to get into Town.

The Metro needs to be looked at over a long period. It may cost nearly €3 billion. But the London underground was built well over a hundred years ago and its tunnels are still fine. The metro has a high initial cost, but will last for generations

ClovenHoof · 11-12-2014 2:54pm

Heavy Rail from the Airport to the Northern Line and new short cut off to the Maynooth line east of Drumcondra and then the PPT opens up the airport to the entire rail network. Easy. Direct services from the airport to Cork would be possible.

cgcsb · 11-12-2014 3:19pm

I always do a major face palm evertime a jurno writes something on a technical issue without having the foggiest idea what he's on about. He claims that a DART spur would cost a quarter of metro north, and goes on to say: 'so why are we still considering metro north'. As if the DART spur rubbish and metro north are projects with equal and identical benefits.

Can editors of papers allow such sloppiness?

Idbatterim · 11-12-2014 3:25pm

the ignorance of some of those comments is infuriating, are we not the only city capital city in europe without a rail link to the airport? An airport that currently has the capacity to serve 35,000,000!!! I was in Edinburgh recently, a way smaller airport and they have just completed a light rail tram service to the airport, the trams are smaller than dublins and it was adequate for the demand over there...

I am now more convinced than ever, that anything other than MN to airport is beyond a joke, if they dont want to build it properly now, then we can wait, god knows we have been living with this joke for over a decade, whats another few years for a solution that will put a huge dent in the citys traffic problems?

Carawaystick · 11-12-2014 4:09pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

the ignorance of some of those comments is infuriating, are we not the only city capital city in europe without a rail link to the airport?

No,
Luxemburg, Prague, Bratislava, Berne, Belgrade have none.
Helsinki may or may not have one, it was supposed to get a rail link this year.

That's just off the top of my head.

Then if you move from capital cities to major cities, Linate Airport in Milan only has a bus to the centre for example.

D.L.R. · 11-12-2014 4:39pm

Optimised Metro North boils down to 4 major cost saving measures:

- Smaller Stations: It is assumed that a 60m long tram will provide sufficient capacity to meet the long term demand on the Airport-Swords corridor. This would allow the station platforms to be reduced from their current 94m to 60m. Reducing the length of platforms in stations to 60m would result in savings of approximately €79 million

The assumption that redundancy is unnecessary, immediately made me think of the M50 fiasco back in the 90s. You'd hope we'd have learned from that. Sacrificing 30% of your potential capacity to cut 3% off your initial cost, for me represents poor value and likely a costly mistake.

- Rolling stock: In addition to the construction savings outlined above, the revised capacity requirement of 12,000 ppdph reduces the quantity of rolling stock required by one third. This results in an additional saving of €46m

This represents less than 2% of the total, but its a pretty reasonable proposition. You can always buy more trains.

- Fewer Stations: The opening of Luas Cross City will provide greater accessibility around the city centre for public transport users. This offers an opportunity to review and rationalise the Metro North city centre stations. At present, Metro North includes stations at O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square. The O’Connell Bridge station involves major construction sites in both Westmoreland Street and O’Connell Street Lower, with consequent significant disruption to Luas Cross City services. The Parnell Square station was complex and involved difficult interfaces with both the Rotunda Hospital and the Abbey Presbyterian Church. Parnell Square station is also relatively close to the next station to its north at the Mater Hospital. Greater accessibility provided by Luas Cross City offers an opportunity to combine these two stations into a single station at O’Connell Street Upper. The street at this point is wide and would allow for phased delivery of the station in a manner which would minimise disruption to Luas Cross City services. Omitting O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square stations in favour of a station at O’Connell Street Upper is estimated to save approximately €131 million

The suburbs should be the place to cut a station, not the centre of the city. I'd have thought that was obvious. You lose the interchange with the red line and Tara St, and you have a mile gap between city centre stations. Overcrowding would be a real problem. Why not reduce OCB station by 50% and create a station box at Parnell and one or two other places instead?

- Vertical Alignment Changes: Running the service at grade where possible could offer significant savings. An at-grade alignment for Metro North through Ballymun was previously considered. It is recommended that Metro North revert to an at-grade alignment in this area and any grade separation required in the future be included in the scope of the Metro West project. Metro North ran on an elevated viaduct along the R132 at Swords. It is recommended that this also reverts to an at-grade alignment. Adopting an at-grade alignment through Ballymun, Dardistown and on the R132 at Swords would save approximately €196 million.

This is a more pragmatic measure, and a good saving. Overall you have to wonder with some of the suggestions they've made.

Idbatterim · 11-12-2014 5:13pm

Optimised Metro North boils down to 4 major cost saving measures:

- Smaller Stations: It is assumed that a 60m long tram will provide sufficient capacity to meet the long term demand on the Airport-Swords corridor. This would allow the station platforms to be reduced from their current 94m to 60m. Reducing the length of platforms in stations to 60m would result in savings of approximately €79 million

The assumption that redundancy is unnecessary, immediately made me think of the M50 fiasco back in the 90s. You'd hope we'd have learned from that. Sacrificing 30% of your potential capacity to cut 3% off your initial cost, for me represents poor value and likely a costly mistake.

- Rolling stock: In addition to the construction savings outlined above, the revised capacity requirement of 12,000 ppdph reduces the quantity of rolling stock required by one third. This results in an additional saving of €46m

This represents less than 2% of the total, but its a pretty reasonable proposition. You can always buy more trains.

Absolutely agreed on the above. the cost difference is miniscule from the lower rolling stock requirement and the shorter platforms. it actually makes the project marginally cheaper, but value for money is appalling in comparison, going forwards. Its not as if all they say, we will save X on the project and it is that simple, a large amount will simply go back into the economy and into their coffers.... Bang on about the trains, they can always buy more of them later if needs be.

No,
Luxemburg, Prague, Bratislava, Berne, Belgrade have none.
Helsinki may or may not have one, it was supposed to get a rail link this year.

I have repeatedly heard some fact that puts us in a fairly bad light, maybe it wasnt the only capital. Maybe it is for an airport that size etc.

Oasis_Dublin · 11-12-2014 5:40pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I was in Edinburgh recently, a way smaller airport and they have just completed a light rail tram service to the airport, the trams are smaller than dublins and it was adequate for the demand over there...

I was in Edinburgh the weekend of the Ireland/Australia rugby match and thought the tram service was crap. As you mention, it was tiny, and I felt as though I was nearly inconveniencing people with my case (even though it' supposed to be an airport link, as far as I'm aware). On my return to the airport, I got the bus, and had much more space to put my bags.

The tram paled in comparison to the likes of the Gatwick Express (bigger airport I know, but far better service).

Similarly the Edinburgh tram was more expensive than the bus.

So realistically, there should be no talk of luasing us to the airport. The aircoach would always win out between those two!

LXFlyer · 11-12-2014 5:53pm

I think that people need to remember that in many cases (including Edinburgh), serving the Airport is only one element of the service.

The primary purpose of the Edinburgh tram is to serve all the local areas en route - it can also provide a link for airport employees to get to/from work.

Such systems are not always designed with putting the fastest link to the city centre in place. Indeed Edinburgh has retained the express bus between the city and the airport.

Both Metro North and a DART connection from Clongriffin would facilitate employees getting to/from the airport from areas of North and North East Dublin.

L1011 · 11-12-2014 9:35pm

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.

liamog · 11-12-2014 10:13pm

markpb wrote: »

I suspect it's because it's all they believe they'll get funding for.

I suspect your right, however I don't believe they should be manipulating reports to show its the best option.

The climate is changing in the EU, Junkcker has been tasked with bringing down Euroscepticism and the ECB is looking at ways to release money into the system without it appearing to be quantative easing.

Two shovel ready projects in a country that wore the bailout hair shirt and came out the other side could be green lit. Of course wether our politicians have the insight to push for that is a whole other kettle of fish.

Grandeeod · 11-12-2014 10:28pm

liamog wrote: »

I suspect your right, however I don't believe they should be manipulating reports to show its the best option.

The climate is changing in the EU, Junkcker has been tasked with bringing down Euroscepticism and the ECB is looking at ways to release money into the system without it appearing to be quantative easing.

Two shovel ready projects in a country that wore the bailout hair shirt and came out the other side could be green lit. Of course wether our politicians have the insight to push for that is a whole other kettle of fish.

They don't have the insight. They never had the insight. They will never have the insight...ever.

I hate to sound negative, but this is simply fact. Apologies.

Ren2k7 · 11-12-2014 11:39pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

And we're off!

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/metro-north-was-a-turkey-a-decade-ago-nothings-changed-30817923.html

Sigh. Another ill-informed rant about MN. The way this chap is talking you'd think the government wanted to build its own fleet of space shuttles costing trillions, instead of a fairly small (by international standards) metro system. 3.5 Billion?!?! Gasp, horror, oh someone think of the children. :rolleyes: More gutter journalism from the Indo. Please hurry up and go bankrupt!

Ren2k7 · 11-12-2014 11:41pm

liamog wrote: »

I suspect your right, however I don't believe they should be manipulating reports to show its the best option.

The climate is changing in the EU, Junkcker has been tasked with bringing down Euroscepticism and the ECB is looking at ways to release money into the system without it appearing to be quantative easing.

Two shovel ready projects in a country that wore the bailout hair shirt and came out the other side could be green lit. Of course wether our politicians have the insight to push for that is a whole other kettle of fish.

Paschal Donoghue will announce BRT as the winner of the study and proclaim it as the dawn of a bright future for public transport in the capital, yada yada, * usual government spin*.

Sam Russell · 11-12-2014 11:54pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Paschal Donoghue will announce BRT as the winner of the study and proclaim it as the dawn of a bright future for public transport in the capital, yada yada, * usual government spin*.

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

Zebra3 · 12-12-2014 1:20am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Sigh. Another ill-informed rant about MN. The way this chap is talking you'd think the government wanted to build its own fleet of space shuttles costing trillions, instead of a fairly small (by international standards) metro system. 3.5 Billion?!?! Gasp, horror, oh someone think of the children. :rolleyes: More gutter journalism from the Indo. Please hurry up and go bankrupt!

It was actually in Wednesday's Herald. What's supposed to be a Dublin newspaper. :rolleyes:

Idbatterim · 12-12-2014 1:59am

lads honestly, there is no way they can think the joke that is BRT is up to the job can they, can they?! A luas isnt even up to it IMO...

liamog · 12-12-2014 2:41am

There's a place for BRT in this city but this is not it!

AngryLips · 12-12-2014 11:00am

Sam Russell wrote: »

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

How quickly memories fade...

Sam Russell · 12-12-2014 12:02pm

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

cgcsb · 12-12-2014 3:15pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

No,
Luxemburg, Prague, Bratislava, Berne, Belgrade have none.
Helsinki may or may not have one, it was supposed to get a rail link this year.

oh come now, small cities with small airports.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Then if you move from capital cities to major cities, Linate Airport in Milan only has a bus to the centre for example.

Yes but Milan has more than one airport doesn't it.

The only other airport in Europe similar in passenger numbers to Dublin with no rail link is Palma de Majorca. And there is discussion of building one.

cgcsb · 12-12-2014 3:26pm

It was my understanding that the BRT scheme was going ahead and the metro(or some nonsense alternative) is a separate scheme altogether. The NTA report on BRT clearly shows that without Metro North, the Swords BRT would exceed it's capacity after opening.

Bray Head · 14-12-2014 7:26pm

I read the report. I found it quite accessible for a non-specialist.

A few obervations:

Heavy Rail
The report comes down pretty badly on all the heavy rail options. It suggests that the Clongriffin spur would cost a lot more than IR suggest. It also says that heavy rail alternatives will essentially be pushing carriages full of air around County Fingal. Some of you with long memories will remember Aerdart. It was very like the Clongriffin Spur in that it was a bus to the airport from Howth Junction. I took it a few times. It was invariably very slow and very empty. It lasted about 18 months.

Optimised Metro North
The report rightly points out that this will have the highest capital cost. But it also scores highly on a range of other criteria such as speed, integration with other modes and crucially the population in the catchment corridor. It's also as good as any other option for facilitating future development around Swords.

The 'optimised' part has got a bit of bad press. I'm not sure it's justified. The big saving is on going above-ground at Ballymun and reducing the number of stations by one. I think the latter is a good thing as it will increase journey times. I think the other bits of the optimised part - reducing platform lengths - are essentially straw men. If you're going to spend that much on a metro it costs very little extra to future-proof the stations with longer platforms.

BRT
I am sceptical about some of the journey times they suggest, especially to the airport at congested periods. BRT only works if other buses, taxis and cyclists are excluded from its lanes. And that has knock-on impacts on the rest of us. Short of CPO-ing and demolishing houses in chunks of the north city centre I don't see how the interaction with other traffic won't slow BRT down a lot. There is simply a finite amount of road space as it stands.

I've taken bendy buses in other cities. They are uncomfortable for journeys over 15 minutes, and particularly uncomfortable at high speed. For going to the airport from city centre I would stick to the Aircoach even if BRT was half the price and ten minutes slower.

The Luas Red line undershot forecast demand. The Green Line way overshot it. The reason in my view is that the Green line is simply a lot faster as it does not share space with traffic for 95% of its route. Passengers like that.

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.

cgcsb · 14-12-2014 7:36pm

The optimised metro seems to be the front runner in the report. All the other options have massive operational downsides, ling journey times, poor frequency, low capacity etc. Hopefully there'll be some give on platform length. There's really no point making a tiny saving when you'll invariably need to change it in the future.

Sam Russell · 14-12-2014 7:52pm

Eirdart failed for several reasons. If I recall, there was a major lot of roadworks that made its route difficult - perhaps it was terminal two or M50/M1 freeflow. Also, it got no assistance from traffic planners for turning right, so was caught for ages by traffic. It started in a dark, unlit, bleak station - not a place I would like anyone to wait. It was very slow and used uncomfortable single-decker buses. At least Aircoach use comfortable coaches.

L1011 · 14-12-2014 8:23pm

It was the weekend DART closures they blamed in the end but they had to contend with the tailbacks from the port tunnel works as well as the extra traffic from before the freeflow was built.

AngryLips · 14-12-2014 11:07pm

Bray Head wrote: »

The Luas Red line undershot forecast demand.

Just out of curiously, is there a source for this? I ask because passenger numbers on both lines are almost unrivalled by comparable system in any other cities I know of.

Grandeeod · 14-12-2014 11:54pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I read the report. I found it quite accessible for a non-specialist.

A few obervations:

Heavy Rail
The report comes down pretty badly on all the heavy rail options. It suggests that the Clongriffin spur would cost a lot more than IR suggest. It also says that heavy rail alternatives will essentially be pushing carriages full of air around County Fingal. Some of you with long memories will remember Aerdart. It was very like the Clongriffin Spur in that it was a bus to the airport from Howth Junction. I took it a few times. It was invariably very slow and very empty. It lasted about 18 months.

Optimised Metro North
The report rightly points out that this will have the highest capital cost. But it also scores highly on a range of other criteria such as speed, integration with other modes and crucially the population in the catchment corridor. It's also as good as any other option for facilitating future development around Swords.

The 'optimised' part has got a bit of bad press. I'm not sure it's justified. The big saving is on going above-ground at Ballymun and reducing the number of stations by one. I think the latter is a good thing as it will increase journey times. I think the other bits of the optimised part - reducing platform lengths - are essentially straw men. If you're going to spend that much on a metro it costs very little extra to future-proof the stations with longer platforms.

BRT
I am sceptical about some of the journey times they suggest, especially to the airport at congested periods. BRT only works if other buses, taxis and cyclists are excluded from its lanes. And that has knock-on impacts on the rest of us. Short of CPO-ing and demolishing houses in chunks of the north city centre I don't see how the interaction with other traffic won't slow BRT down a lot. There is simply a finite amount of road space as it stands.

I've taken bendy buses in other cities. They are uncomfortable for journeys over 15 minutes, and particularly uncomfortable at high speed. For going to the airport from city centre I would stick to the Aircoach even if BRT was half the price and ten minutes slower.

The Luas Red line undershot forecast demand. The Green Line way overshot it. The reason in my view is that the Green line is simply a lot faster as it does not share space with traffic for 95% of its route. Passengers like that.

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.

You left out a few bits and I presume it was to fit your argument. No problem with that, but I'd prefer if you put everything on the table.

Bray Head · 15-12-2014 12:08am

Grandeeod wrote: »

You left out a few bits and I presume it was to fit your argument. No problem with that, but I'd prefer if you put everything on the table.

I clearly prefaced it with 'a few observations'.

Feel free to put whatever you think I've missed on the table.....

Bray Head · 15-12-2014 12:12am

AngryLips wrote: »

Just out of curiously, is there a source for this? I ask because passenger numbers on both lines are almost unrivalled by comparable system in any other cities I know of.

I read it somewhere awhile back but can't recall where. I thought it was the wikipedia page but it's not there.

I know it referred to demand forecast in the business case compared to usage in the first full year of operation. Extensions and the like have made some of these comparisons moot at this point.

People will walk further to a faster, more frequent service. I'm not sure that a slow, held-up BRT would stimulate as much modal shift as Metro would.

Bray Head · 15-12-2014 12:21am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Eirdart failed for several reasons. If I recall, there was a major lot of roadworks that made its route difficult - perhaps it was terminal two or M50/M1 freeflow. Also, it got no assistance from traffic planners for turning right, so was caught for ages by traffic. It started in a dark, unlit, bleak station - not a place I would like anyone to wait. It was very slow and used uncomfortable single-decker buses. At least Aircoach use comfortable coaches.

I took it a few times off peak. I used it because I lived on the Dart Line and I didn't have much cash but plenty of time back then. Getting off at Connolly and taking the 747 would have been a lot quicker, but more expensive.

Getting to the airport at uncongested times on the aerdart bus took no more than 18 minutes. Maybe the Clongriffin spur would take 10 minutes on a train.

My point is that the route has to chug all the way out to Howth Junction first before turning abruptly east. It is not a direct route to Dublin Airport from nearly anywhere.

There's also issues with frequency. Some DARTs would presumably have to go to Malahide still so people would have to change on every other train to get to the airport.

Aerdart is a real-world example of why the Clongriffin spur would be a large waste of time. Journey times and frequency would be far less than any comparable coach service.

cgcsb · 15-12-2014 10:53am

If IÉ are that keen on DART to the airport they really need to sell the intercity possibilities. People coming from the North to Dublin Airport use aircoach in their droves. This service may be of use to them. Similarly if Intercity trains ran direct from Cork and Galway to Dub airport via Stephen's green (pending intercity electrification), it'd really up the competition anti for the private bus operators that whisk people between the airport and regional destinations. As a link from Central Dublin to the airport it's of no benefit and no improvement on existing service.

Grandeeod · 15-12-2014 6:18pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I clearly prefaced it with 'a few observations'.

Feel free to put whatever you think I've missed on the table.....

The other heavy rail option of tunnelling under Glasnevin and following the route of Metro North.

Now personally I'm not one for re-inventing the wheel, but it does at least appear an interesting proposal.

cgcsb · 15-12-2014 9:33pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

The other heavy rail option of tunnelling under Glasnevin and following the route of Metro North.

Now personally I'm not one for re-inventing the wheel, but it does at least appear an interesting proposal.

We'd be paying almost the same for an infrequent congested service

Grandeeod · 15-12-2014 9:34pm

cgcsb wrote: »

We'd be paying almost the same for an infrequent congested service

How?

AngryLips · 15-12-2014 10:39pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

How?

Heavy rail can't match the frequency of light rail, plus in this example the frequency of service will be limited by the capacity at Connolly/the Loop Line Bridge and/or Dart Underground. Think about it, assuming Dart Underground is constructed, there will be two termini on the southside whereas the northside will have four: Maynooth, Dublin Airport, Malahide and Howth - so branches on the northside will have half the services of those on the south.

GerardKeating · 16-12-2014 12:57am

AngryLips wrote: »

Heavy rail can't match the frequency of light rail

Not true, Nothing to stop it, with the right signalling system

AngryLips wrote: »

plus in this example the frequency of service will be limited by the capacity at Connolly/the Loop Line Bridge and/or Dart Underground. Think about it, assuming Dart Underground is constructed, there will be two termini on the southside whereas the northside will have four: Maynooth, Dublin Airport, Malahide and Howth - so branches on the northside will have half the services of those on the south.

Not a real problem, either

Have half the trains on the Northside turnback in town
Build more lines on the South Side (Remember Metro South)

Carawaystick · 16-12-2014 10:41am

AngryLips wrote: »

Heavy rail can't match the frequency of light rail,

LGV Nord can have tgvs at 3 min headway in parts.
Thats trains 3 mins apart at 200+ kmh

Maybe light rail can do better, but I don't think Dublin needs much more'n that.

The dash upgrades are planned to have 20 trains per hour across the loop line bridge, or 5 min headways.
Of course unless some other operator is involved in running the trains, you may get irish rail type unexplained delays where the late train last Friday was 8 mins delayed leaving Pearse. This was because the train stayed immediately south of the platform for those 8 mins, and the last train had left northbound 2 hours previous...

Bray Head · 17-12-2014 7:43pm

cgcsb wrote: »

If IÉ are that keen on DART to the airport they really need to sell the intercity possibilities. People coming from the North to Dublin Airport use aircoach in their droves. This service may be of use to them. Similarly if Intercity trains ran direct from Cork and Galway to Dub airport via Stephen's green (pending intercity electrification), it'd really up the competition anti for the private bus operators that whisk people between the airport and regional destinations. As a link from Central Dublin to the airport it's of no benefit and no improvement on existing service.

I know we can all think big but in practice networks are built in small, incremental steps.

Inter-city electrification has been debated here for a long time. Basically the costs don't stack up short of a massive increase in urban populations or a huge fall in the cost of the technology.

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.

The report is very good at looking at the heavy rail options and they really don't shine.

LXFlyer · 17-12-2014 8:06pm

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.

Bray Head · 17-12-2014 8:25pm

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.

Agreed. But not every DART will go to the Airport. Presumably some will still go to Malahide and Howth.

Citylink can do Galway city to Dublin Airport in 2.5 hours off-peak. This will never be trumped by a rail solution.

I agree there is rationale for DU. But connecting Dublin Airport with the rest of the country is not part of it.

LXFlyer · 17-12-2014 8:47pm

Bray Head wrote: »

Agreed. But not every DART will go to the Airport. Presumably some will still go to Malahide and Howth.

Citylink can do Galway city to Dublin Airport in 2.5 hours off-peak. This will never be trumped by a rail solution.

I agree there is rationale for DU. But connecting Dublin Airport with the rest of the country is not part of it.

The likelihood would be that Howth would be a branch shuttle if this happened, so DART would split between the Airport and the Northern Line.

As with everyone else you are focussing on speed and also getting from the city centre to the airport, and only looking at airport customers.

What about the fact that people from the North East of Dublin who work at the airport would have a direct service as well - people seem to perpetually ignore the fact that thousands of people actually work at the airport and their transport needs have been largely ignored.

And I don't think that people going to the airport from long distances are going to be that focussed on the time taken necessarily - it boils down to personal choice and convenience.

cgcsb · 17-12-2014 10:01pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I know we can all think big but in practice networks are built in small, incremental steps.

Inter-city electrification has been debated here for a long time. Basically the costs don't stack up short of a massive increase in urban populations or a huge fall in the cost of the technology.

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.

The report is very good at looking at the heavy rail options and they really don't shine.

I would propose that electric trains could use a heavy rail spur from clongriffin and travel direct to the airport, perhaps stopping at Pearse and stephen's green. Of course that may not be possible with high frequency dart sharing the track space. But IE thinks its possible anyway. IE also plan to electrify the 3 main intercity lines by 2030, provided they get the funding. Well be due new train sets at that stage anyway, so the additional cost of rolling stock will be marginal taking into account less ware on track and better speed/reliability.

Bray Head · 17-12-2014 11:35pm

lxflyer wrote: »

As with everyone else you are focussing on speed and also getting from the city centre to the airport, and only looking at airport customers.

What about the fact that people from the North East of Dublin who work at the airport would have a direct service as well - people seem to perpetually ignore the fact that thousands of people actually work at the airport and their transport needs have been largely ignored.

The report is quite interesting on this. It says that all the heavy rail options around North Dublin have much lower catchment than other options. This is because most of them would run through empty fields. Most of these fields will never be developed on either as they are on flight paths.

lxflyer wrote: »

And I don't think that people going to the airport from long distances are going to be that focussed on the time taken necessarily - it boils down to personal choice and convenience.

Maybe not for you personally, but selection and design of any public transport investment project should have journey time as part of the assessment criteria.

I just don't see the Clongriffin spur adding much value compared to the alternatives, despite its much lower price.

Sam Russell · 19-12-2014 2:24pm

Bray Head wrote: »

I just don't see the Clongriffin spur adding much value compared to the alternatives, despite its much lower price.

It also has the benefit of being easy to build, and could be built quickly, and would integrate into the existing Dart structure. It also could be integrated into the DU project if/when that happens.

It is a few Kms of electrified dual rail across green fields.

Aard · 19-12-2014 4:18pm

I'm only getting around to this thread now, as I have just finished reading the NTA's document. I won't comment here at length as I will put my thoughts in a more coherent form privately to submit as part of the public consultation, WHICH I URGE EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO TOO!

My main gripe with the document is the focus on connecting Swords, the Airport, and the City Centre, as laid out in the introductory pages. This in and of itself is fine, of course. It's a radial corridor, and there is political impetus to improve travel speeds between Swords and Central Dublin. Fair enough. It's convenient that the Airport sits between the two. Great -- three major destinations.

However, and here is where I have a problem with ranking/rating of each of the couple dozen proposals -- Dublin Airport is a HUGE national piece of strategic infrastructure. I could probably phrase that better. Dublin Airport is the ~25th busiest airport in the world. It's the most important entry and exit point on the entire island. People land/take-off from the Airport, but they also need to get to/from there. The rating criteria mention nothing about the national (even international?) importance of the airport. It's all about speed to/from Swords.

Would it have killed AECOM to investigate how the transport proposals would improve airport accessibility for the entire country? I realise that the scope outlined by the NTA probably did not consider that. But honestly -- any scoping that includes the airport as a specific (along with Swords and Central Dublin) destination but fails to recognise that people access the airport from all over the country is a failure from the get go, imo.

Neither Belfast nor Cork are mentioned in the document. I don't think it is beyond the realms of reason to assume that any heavy-rail proposal to Dublin Airport might at least venture the slightest mention of access from the next two biggest cities on the island.

Option HR8 is on the cards: This is a very interesting proposal as it contains a route that heretofore has not been publicly considered. I think this route could be improved upon if the Swords tail is connected to the main line at Donabate (let's call it "Optimised" Option HR8). It adds redundancy to the system should there be another Malahide Viaduct incident. It makes Swords/Airport directly accessible from the entire East Coast including Belfast. Even without modification, this route keeps a station at Ballymun (forever neglected) and DCU (major trip generator), and includes the possibility of a Cork-Interconnector-Airport route, which would revolutionise rail travel in the Capital region. With a link at Donabate, you could have Cork-Dublin-Airport-Belfast all on one seat. I don't think it's too much to say that, given our current situation, that would be nothing short of incredible.

Option HR2 connects Swords and the Airport to Central Dublin with that amazing dog-leg via Clongriffin. It's cheap, it's slow, and not worthwhile imo.

In the context of having to pick one of the six options, Option LR3 should be strangled immediately. Mainly at-grade Luas is a poor cousin of underground rail with fewer stations. There is poor Airport connectivity, and running time is slow. The only advantage is that it's cheap! Cheap in every sense, imo, compared to the other options.

Option LR7 ("Optimised" Metro North) could work out as more expensive than the heavy rail option. It also has a couple of stations in fields around the M50. It does have Central Dublin penetration, which is good, but crucially (and as has always been a weak point of MN) there is still no indication of what is likely to happen south of St Stephen's Green. Imo, at this stage, any Metro ("Luas Underground") option that does not address what is to happen south of SSG is a cop-out. I wish somebody in the NTA would just admit that if MN goes ahead, its future direction will be down the N11/dualler to UCD/Stillorgan. Which wouldn't be bad, but is way beyond the scope of this document, or indeed this thread. Given the potential of Option HR8, I don't think Optimised MN should go ahead.

I don't want to comment too much on Option BRT5. The current BRT consultation has left a sour taste in my mouth, and judging by the plans provided for the Swords BRT, I would have much hope that BRT5 would be rolled out in a manner that would fulfil the aspirations of this report.

Given my misgivings about Option LR3, I also rule out Option C1.

In case I haven't been clear, I support Option HR8 out of the six put for consultation. I furthermore suggest that it include a connection to Donabate. It's the only option that can address the national importance of Dublin Airport in terms of direct rail accessibility. It could potentially reduce congestion on the Northern Line. If there is a "triangle" interchange at Liffey Junction, it could also direct trains down the Phoenix Park Tunnel, but maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Bray Head · 19-12-2014 5:53pm

Aard wrote: »

My main gripe with the document is the focus on connecting Swords, the Airport, and the City Centre, as laid out in the introductory pages. This in and of itself is fine, of course. It's a radial corridor, and there is political impetus to improve travel speeds between Swords and Central Dublin. Fair enough. It's convenient that the Airport sits between the two. Great -- three major destinations.

However, and here is where I have a problem with ranking/rating of each of the couple dozen proposals -- Dublin Airport is a HUGE national piece of strategic infrastructure. I could probably phrase that better. Dublin Airport is the ~25th busiest airport in the world. It's the most important entry and exit point on the entire island. People land/take-off from the Airport, but they also need to get to/from there. The rating criteria mention nothing about the national (even international?) importance of the airport. It's all about speed to/from Swords.

Would it have killed AECOM to investigate how the transport proposals would improve airport accessibility for the entire country? I realise that the scope outlined by the NTA probably did not consider that. But honestly -- any scoping that includes the airport as a specific (along with Swords and Central Dublin) destination but fails to recognise that people access the airport from all over the country is a failure from the get go, imo.

Neither Belfast nor Cork are mentioned in the document. I don't think it is beyond the realms of reason to assume that any heavy-rail proposal to Dublin Airport might at least venture the slightest mention of access from the next two biggest cities on the island.

This is a very good point. I'm just not sure that it's relevant. Since the late 1990s a huge inter-urban road network has been put in place. It so happens that Dublin airport is pretty much at the centre of it. I am open to correction but I cannot think of any other place on the island that has as many people within a one-, two- or three-hour driving time. Rail will always be competing against that.

Allied to this is the speed issue on the inter-city rail network in Ireland. I just don't think it will ever be cost effective to address this short of the population doubling. We just don't have enough >1m cities on the island. It is also an island, and we can't connect to other rail networks. Dublin Airport operates 16 hours a day for passengers. There's pretty much someone travelling to or from it all the time. No rail solution is going to get you from Cork for anything earlier than an 11am flight. And no landing later than 6pm would be guaranteed to get you home.

HR8 and optimised metro north are the two best solutions to come out of the report I agree. The issue is that MN works well if no other investment (ie DU) takes place, although DU would indeed be complementary too it. By contrast all of the heavy rail solutions need DU to really make them worth their while. There's no point in having a train take 15 minutes from Dublin Airport to just outside Connolly and then spend another 15 minutes just to get to Pearse. I've had too many delays on the Pearse-Connolly corridor over the years to believe the guff about signalling enhancements, etc.

In an ideal world I would build both MN and DU. But in reality I think we all know that they are competing for the same pot of money. And my vote would be MN.

Icepick · 22-12-2014 3:37pm

Metro North is the only sane solution. Everything else will be short-sighted and regretted almost immediately.

Aard · 22-12-2014 3:55pm

How are the other 5 options short sighted?

Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Comments