Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

LeinsterDub · 09-12-2014 10:04am

Isn't it madness to say the boom growth projection figures were too optimistic but not recession figures aren't too conservative. Now I've not read the report yet just the rte story.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1208/665495-dublin-transport/

cgcsb · 09-12-2014 10:27am

Idbatterim wrote: »

exactly, in the scheme of things, 70 million is nothing, isnt the entire cost of the project put at 2,500,000,000?! The 200,000 saving mentioned, from running it above ground in ballymun etc, that is a significant enough saving. The rolling stock, at least if they get the platform lengths right from the start, they can always purchase more rolling stock if and when needed at a later stage...

Exactly, I see no issue with surface running where there is space available, provided junctions are grade separate. Afterall the only reason one tunnels through cities at all is because of lack of surface space and /or to achieve grade separation.

cgcsb · 09-12-2014 10:29am

RTÉ put a very negative slant on it in last nights news saying 'metro north may be scrapped'. Yet this morning RTÉ were reporting that the government were in fact seeking EU infrastructural funding for metro north. Perhaps they got a bit ahead of themselves with the excitement.

roddney · 09-12-2014 11:45am

I have to say I do like the H8 option which is a totally new proposal. Heavy Rail line from Maynooth line (Glasnevin/Cabra to Swords) with relevant tunnels. There is a rail alignment from Cabra still preserved. Would add transport to Finglas rather than Ballymun.

Caveat would be they could build a new tunnel from here to Stephen's Green (and beyond) at a later date. And it would be at Standard Irish gauge so linkable to rest of network.

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.

cgcsb · 09-12-2014 12:53pm

roddney wrote: »

I have to say I do like the H8 option which is a totally new proposal. Heavy Rail line from Maynooth line (Glasnevin/Cabra to Swords) with relevant tunnels. There is a rail alignment from Cabra still preserved. Would add transport to Finglas rather than Ballymun.

Caveat would be they could build a new tunnel from here to Stephen's Green (and beyond) at a later date. And it would be at Standard Irish gauge so linkable to rest of network.

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.

a heavy rail tunnel would be required, i.e. it'd work out more expensive and would be less direct and result in more new pinch points on the rail network.

Idbatterim · 09-12-2014 3:45pm

Dublin airport numbers up 12% in November!

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/14-12-09/Almost_1_6_Million_Passengers_In_November_At_Dublin_Airport.aspx

Building anything other MN, to an airport that will likely handle close to, if not over 30,000,000 people by the time this bloody thing is eventually built, is insane!

say its 22,000,000 this year, with 5% growth per year, over the next 5 years, it would hit 28,000,000...

yermanoffthetv · 09-12-2014 3:49pm

cgcsb wrote: »

a heavy rail tunnel would be required, i.e. it'd work out more expensive and would be less direct and result in more new pinch points on the rail network.

True, but if your building a core piece of infrastructure for the next 100 odd years might as well go with heavy rail.The direct route down O'Connell St. isnt going to happen but as roddney said it leaves the option open at a later stage, also its probable it would link up with DU and then who knows, potentially even a loop line. It just seems (to me anyway) like the long term solution that could be built upon over time.

D.L.R. · 09-12-2014 4:20pm

roddney wrote: »

I have to say I do like the H8 option which is a totally new proposal. Heavy Rail line from Maynooth line (Glasnevin/Cabra to Swords) with relevant tunnels. There is a rail alignment from Cabra still preserved. Would add transport to Finglas rather than Ballymun.

Caveat would be they could build a new tunnel from here to Stephen's Green (and beyond) at a later date. And it would be at Standard Irish gauge so linkable to rest of network.

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.

I like HR8 too, it makes a lot of sense, especially if a junction was built for trains to both Connolly and Heuston, and access to DU at Docklands provided. The route from Liffey Jn to the city is 4-track too, if you consider the Canal line.

ClovenHoof · 09-12-2014 5:44pm

roddney wrote: »

I have to say I do like the H8 option which is a totally new proposal. Heavy Rail line from Maynooth line (Glasnevin/Cabra to Swords) with relevant tunnels. There is a rail alignment from Cabra still preserved. Would add transport to Finglas rather than Ballymun.

There was a group about a decade ago calling Platform Eleven who proposed just this. I can recall the document they did in conjunction with a consultancy firm. The map was even on the website. The map showed a tunnel from Liffey Junction bringing trains from the Dunboyne, Maynooth and Western Lines(via the Park Tunnel) into the airport.

With Dublin Airport being BE's fastest growing customer base, Irish Rail are missing the ball on this one. Big Time.

AngryLips · 09-12-2014 5:57pm

The problem with all the proposals for a rail connection to the airport other than Metro or Luas is that none of them bring people into the city centre. And of the two that do, Luas would probably be frustratingly slow and under capacity.

If the intention is to provide a rail connection to the airport that doesn't serve the city centre then the least they could do is make it a rail connection that feeds into the national rail network, that is by terminating all Heuston-bound services at the airport and looping northern line services via the airport also. It would make Dublin airport much more accessible to the rest of the country. They've already done much the same with the Bus Eireann network, it just makes sense. Solve the problem of city transport for the Fingal area through some other solution because they're two separate problems if you ask me.

Oasis_Dublin · 09-12-2014 6:29pm

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...

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

DERP

Ren2k7 · 09-12-2014 6:40pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The whole document seemed to be orientated towards an 'optimised metro' which actually doesn't sound too bad at first then you get to the part where platforms would be reduced to 60m instead of 90m to save 70m. Fast forward 20 years and due to crush loading at peak times, perhaps someone has been killed at this point, 700mil is spent extending platforms.

And an engineering nightmare to boot. The whole thing seems to be based around the idea that because there is slightly less demand now for public transport than forecast the whole thing should be redesigned. Long term thinking simply doesn't exist in Ireland.

Ren2k7 · 09-12-2014 6:42pm

cgcsb wrote: »

RTÉ put a very negative slant on it in last nights news saying 'metro north may be scrapped'. Yet this morning RTÉ were reporting that the government were in fact seeking EU infrastructural funding for metro north. Perhaps they got a bit ahead of themselves with the excitement.

Frank McDonald must have been nursing one hell of a hangover this morning. :pac:

Grandeeod · 09-12-2014 11:00pm

ClovenHoof wrote: »

There was a group about a decade ago calling Platform Eleven who proposed just this. I can recall the document they did in conjunction with a consultancy firm. The map was even on the website. The map showed a tunnel from Liffey Junction bringing trains from the Dunboyne, Maynooth and Western Lines(via the Park Tunnel) into the airport.

With Dublin Airport being BE's fastest growing customer base, Irish Rail are missing the ball on this one. Big Time.

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 · 09-12-2014 11:05pm

It went something like this!

Extract from O'Reilly Report

Platform 11 also supports Iarnród Éireann's plan for an Interconnector and believes that Iarnród Éireann's plan for an Airport DART is preferable to a Metro. However, if a Metro were to be built, they strongly believe that it should intersect with the Phoenix Park line at Glasnevin Junction transfer station to allow for full integration of the Greater Dublin suburban network. Page 40 O'Reilly Metro report

Platform 11's proposals for a transfer station at Glasnevin Junction accommodating an underground Metro station are very interesting and clearly merit evaluation. Page 41 O'Reilly Metro report

Grandeeod · 10-12-2014 1:31pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

It went something like this!

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.

GerardKeating · 10-12-2014 2:29pm

roddney wrote: »

I have to say I do like the H8 option which is a totally new proposal. Heavy Rail line from Maynooth line (Glasnevin/Cabra to Swords) with relevant tunnels. There is a rail alignment from Cabra still preserved. Would add transport to Finglas rather than Ballymun.

Caveat would be they could build a new tunnel from here to Stephen's Green (and beyond) at a later date. And it would be at Standard Irish gauge so linkable to rest of network.

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.

IMHO, the Best option is the Metro Route, but Built as a DART.

It would run from DU in Stephens Green to the Airport, Swords and join the northern line near Rush/Lusk.

jd · 11-12-2014 12:20am

I think it's going to be a fudge - luas from Cabra to Swords with a ug section at Glasnevin + Dart to Airport from Clongriffin...

liamog · 11-12-2014 1:40am

jd wrote: »

I think it's going to be a fudge - luas from Cabra to Swords with a ug section at Glasnevin + Dart to Airport from Clongriffin...

NTA has an odd obsession with BRT right now, the report conveniently shows the BRT with note greens than any other option.

I think BRT wouldn't work on this corridor as it would reach capacity really quickly.

markpb · 11-12-2014 8:27am

liamog wrote: »

NTA has an odd obsession with BRT right now,

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

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.

Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Comments