Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

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.

Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Comments