Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Aard · 06-01-2015 2:39pm

You're absolutely right about the platform lengths, particularly in the underground stations which can't be easily modified after the fact.

I would be in favour of the at-grade stop in Ballymun. The at-grade running through Collins Ave would have to be handled well to succeed. I suppose this makes it more of a Luas with some underground sections. In fact were this option to go ahead, I would hope that the branding etc would be that of Luas. I digress... a matter for another thread.

---

Wrt costings... I can only take what the report says. MN is stated to have a more significant negative impact on the environment than Option HR8. I imagine that would add to its cost.

And yes, it completely relies on DU, imo. Can we take it for granted that DU will go ahead... I'm not 100% sure we can. However, the funding appears to have been more readily available for DU than MN in the recent past. The connection to the PPT (i.e. Option HR9 as I think you suggest) is poorly dealt with in the report. I think that if HR8 goes ahead, it should have a tie-in to the PPT at Liffey Junction, allowing suburban trains to bypass Heuston and the city and go straight to the Airport/Belfast.

Grandeeod · 06-01-2015 7:12pm

Aard wrote: »

In fairness to Grandeeod, Gerry Murphy (ex CEO of the NTA as of yesterday) pointed out that by 2011 Metro North had already cost €156,000,000. Of course since then, central government seem disinclined to fund the project -- as can be seen by MM's absence from the NTA's implementation plan. If MN dies, it won't be the NTA's fault.

This a quote from Leo Varadkar when he was Minister for Transport. I don't recall him being reprimanded for saying it. He asserts that the money would be better spent on roads and presumedly on smaller public transport projects. Its my belief that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects. So whether its MN or a DART version of MN, I can't see it happening. Thats why I believe this study is a fudge. In relation to my anger and I make no apology for it, for many years this and other forums hotly debated MN and if memory serves me correctly the debate was about the spec rather than the idea. A lot of public consultation went into MN and its final route and spec was based on that. It now appears that a new Government has decided to ignore those public consultations, the money already spent and start from scratch all over again. There is no basis for it. Yep, that makes me angry and you'll have to forgive me for directing it at posters that eagerly engage with these new proposals.

This is typical of Irish Governments and their careless politicing. Constant interference and attempts to stamp their mark on proposals. It happened with the DART and more recently with the luas. Im sure we all remember the last FG lead Government bringing it to the brink of construction and then after an election in 1997, a FF lead Government delaying the whole thing while ordering more reports and studies about tunneling under the city. I recall Bertie Ahearn in opposition staunchly resisting any surface running of the luas green line in the Harcourt st/Stephens Green area.:rolleyes:

"I don't think that was money well-spent, but it's not all lost because I do think that DART Underground will happen someday. In the case of Metro North, even if I had €3 billion or €4 billion, would you spend it that way? You'd get a lot of roads and public transport for that. Like a lot of things at the time, it was based on projections that the economy would grow fast forever, and there were plans to have 120,000 people in Swords, etc."

Victor · 06-01-2015 8:04pm

AngryLips wrote: »

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

London. Crossrail is getting full-sized 12-car trains. Passengers on some other lines might feel hard done by.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/London_Underground_Tube_SSL_Comparison.jpg

D.L.R. · 06-01-2015 8:07pm

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.

What eejit gave that reason above? Sure lets close Tara Street station too, it will speed up the Dart.

That kind of mentality led to the M50 only having 2 lanes.

Its light rail, it'd get mobbed. If money is tight, scale down OCB. Defer one of the stations. But changing the spacing is a bad way to go about saving money.

Aard · 06-01-2015 8:42pm

If you focus on the sentence after the one you've bolded, you will see my point.

monument · 06-01-2015 9:35pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

This a quote from Leo Varadkar when he was Minister for Transport. I don't recall him being reprimanded for saying it. He asserts that the money would be better spent on roads and presumedly on smaller public transport projects. Its my belief that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects. So whether its MN or a DART version of MN, I can't see it happening. Thats why I believe this study is a fudge.

You're selective reading of Leo's speech is telling. He said: "I do think that DART Underground will happen someday" and made it clear that his issue with Metro North was that it was based on massive other projects going ahead (north Swords city, airport city etc).

Dart Underground is such a large rail project and he said he sees that as a runner. He has said this on more than a few occasions and so has the current minister for transport!

Grandeeod wrote: »

In relation to my anger and I make no apology for it, for many years this and other forums hotly debated MN and if memory serves me correctly the debate was about the spec rather than the idea. A lot of public consultation went into MN and its final route and spec was based on that. It now appears that a new Government has decided to ignore those public consultations, the money already spent and start from scratch all over again. There is no basis for it. Yep, that makes me angry and you'll have to forgive me for directing it at posters that eagerly engage with these new proposals.

"There is no basis for it" -- except for Realpolitik. There's not near enough support for Metro North at the moment -- the pressure for it is likely building again in the city but not far outside the confines of its route. But the feeling that it's dead and was just a boom project has also set in

An expanded version of HR8 would have far better connectivity, far greater benefits and wider appeal in the city, in the county, in the regional, across the country, over the border and with possibly EU lenders/funders (ie EIB/T-TEN).

Also you're not fully right about ignoring "the money already spent" -- HR8 and some of the LTR options might not be able to take advantage of all of the prep work done on Metro North, but it could take advantage of everything from geo surveys; drawings etc of what's there now (building, services etc); property already bought / CPOed etc.

Grandeeod wrote: »

This is typical of Irish Governments and their careless politicing. Constant interference and attempts to stamp their mark on proposals. It happened with the DART and more recently with the luas. Im sure we all remember the last FG lead Government bringing it to the brink of construction and then after an election in 1997, a FF lead Government delaying the whole thing while ordering more reports and studies about tunneling under the city. I recall Bertie Ahearn in opposition staunchly resisting any surface running of the luas green line in the Harcourt st/Stephens Green area.:rolleyes:

What happened leading up to Luas is actually fairly typical of what happens in other motoring dominated cities which propose LRT/trams/BRT on surface which will displace space and priority away from cars. You'll find many US and UK case studies.

So, it's in no way just typical of Irish anything -- it's typical of a society so dependent on motoring.

The stuff about Dart was also crazy but also not that surprising given the context of the 70s, the decade where the car is the future craze really caught on* in the UK and by extension Ireland. This was a gem from the Sindo in 1979: "You and I — the taxpayers — would have to fork out less if instead of electrifying it the government bought a brand-new car for each of the line’s present adult passengers to do their suburban travel in; and in doing so they would use less fuel than the proposed system would." http://dublinobserver.com/2011/03/white-elephant-on-tracks/

lucernarian wrote: »

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.

HR8 would have less stops underground and you'd also expect cost savings if Irish Rail are starting it after Dart Underground is finished.

lucernarian wrote: »

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

That's a given, but DU is seen as a relatively safe bet and would now come before any MN type route.

lucernarian wrote: »

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.

The real failing point of trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" is that it requires a re-think / replacement of Dart Underground and there's few people who want to do that to a project which is so close to shovel ready and has relatively good political support. Without the full project it seems very unconnected of a route and possible services are limited.

Re unnecessary tunnel to St James' hospital: HR9 -- Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel -- is that, just without the northern line connection north of Swords.

The "Metro Dublin" as evaluated does go near to Donabate? See the map on page 40 of the report's PDF: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf

D.L.R. · 06-01-2015 10:18pm

Aard wrote: »

If you focus on the sentence after the one you've bolded, you will see my point.

No I saw that, I just think demand would overwhelm 2 stations, regardless how many exits. Multiple exits are better though, I'm with you on that.

AngryLips · 07-01-2015 12:01am

Victor wrote: »

London. Crossrail is getting full-sized 12-car trains. Passengers on some other lines might feel hard done by.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/London_Underground_Tube_SSL_Comparison.jpg

If your point is to compare crossrail to the tube then you're comparing a system that was built almost in its entirety 50-100 years ago. Although, I completely agree that the jubilee line extension was totally under-spec'd from the beginning for the sake of consistency with the rest of the network and that was a massive mistake.

lucernarian · 07-01-2015 12:05pm

monument wrote: »

HR8 would have less stops underground and you'd also expect cost savings if Irish Rail are starting it after Dart Underground is finished.

The second part of that is something I hadn't at all considered and could be significant, but it's not a point made in the report. My point about costs is more a criticism of methodology of the report than just the findings. The report's own description of the infrastructure considerations mentions a twin bore tunnel under Ballymun while the impact under construction mentions cut and cover tunnelling? I guess that doesn't change the maths they used as they simply offer a min and max cost per km for "tunnelled" but I presume that different methods of tunnelling would come with different costs? At least for Ballymun Road specifically.

That's a given, but DU is seen as a relatively safe bet and would now come before any MN type route.

I'm not sure if I understand the point here or if you were trying to make any when you replied to that specific part. It's a given, and.... Either way, to say what order these major projects will be developed in is really too speculative - even if I think you're right. At the end of the day the capital costs are larger for Dart Underground and nothing from govt or involved parties seems to suggest this is a done deal, beyond reading between the political lines. The Swiftway proposal is some evidence of a priority shift away from Metro North but perhaps the revamping of the Phoenix Park tunnel could be read in a similar way. The latter part is just my own opinion.

The real failing point of trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" is that it requires a re-think / replacement of Dart Underground and there's few people who want to do that to a project which is so close to shovel ready and has relatively good political support. Without the full project it seems very unconnected of a route and possible services are limited.

Don't quite get what a "real failing point" is but I'm looking at the Metro Dublin proposal as if it were a CIE-developed scheme and how that would pan out. I'm not trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" as to me it's just a website with some crayons on a map and a few different and interesting ideas about tunnel and station construction and alternative stop locations. I was talking to a friend about this earlier today, the thing that struck us was there were some interesting nuggets in the proposal that could be adapted to existing plans but that wasn't really grasped in the AECOM report. Like they didn't explore whether their single bore method was truly cost-effective or if it was technically feasible in Dublin or not (The NTA certainly don't going by their refutals of Metro Dublin) and I would like to know more about the safety concerns the consultants mentioned. And could they have commented on the feasibility or otherwise of the short Swords tunnel section?

Re unnecessary tunnel to St James' hospital: HR9 -- Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel -- is that, just without the northern line connection north of Swords.

It's similar but not the same? I don't see any underground tunnel under Swords for instance? Different possible stations also. Along with different cost expectations and interoperability with other modes of transport.

The "Metro Dublin" as evaluated does go near to Donabate? See the map on page 40 of the report's PDF: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf

"As evaluated". Have a look at the map you quickly drew up and compare it to Fig. 2.13 from the report. The tie-in with the northern line looks rather different wouldn't you say. Going by the AECOM report, they evaluated a map they generated themselves that showed some station and a junction with the northern line actually overlapping with the estuary bridge.

That aside, what are the thoughts here on the feasiblity of having an alignment and tunnel portal dug at Glasnevin junction that would allow for a twin bore tunnel going northwards/northeastwards? And allowing for a minimum bend radius for Irish Rail trains. Google Earth suggests quite a lot of houses and graveyards in the way.

Grandeeod · 07-01-2015 9:28pm

monument wrote: »

Nothing in principal. Expect the way you're going about it (trying to dictate others can't have different views).

I don't always like change but when there is change that you can't stop, you should try to adapt to that change.

It's your choice how you adapt -- from agreeing with another option or pushing stronger for MN. Sure getting annoyed with people, on an irrelevant forum, because they have a different view is an option, but it's not a very productive one.

You say "free for all public consultation", but that's just really what bog standard public consultation should be. Consultation only with people who have influence is not public consultation, it's selective consultation.

I think you missunderstood me -- when I said the face-to-face 10 years ago would not cut it, I mean in the context of things moving on -- if you or others want MN to still go ahead you need to push for that now. That includes engaging with the NTA.

If you have given up that's fine. But in the time it takes to post here, you could email the NTA and your local TD etc.

If this forum is as irrelevant as you say, it's unclear why you're getting so worked up.

Why get so worked up if this place is so irrelevant?

I'm dictating nothing. I am merely pointing out the reality. This forum discussed MN ad nauseum. Nobody disagreed with it in principle.

HR8 is untested in a public consultation scenario. You had never heard of it before this study.

Adapting to change we can't stop is capitulating to a political process that has proven itself of incapable of delivering. The evidence is overwhelming and I don't need to outline it for you.

Please don't insult me, my intellience or my posts by picking on my angry tone or my remarks about an irrelevant forum. My comments contain emotion that is justified.

The free for all public consultation I referred to was based on everyone having a say, so please don't twist it into something else.

As for "moving on", we are not moving on from anything. We are merely introducing tactics to delay building anything. If you really understood the history of rail transport since 1970, you would see this.

Please tell me why HR8 is better than MN? And tell me when you first heard of this HR8 idea.

lucernarian · 07-01-2015 9:56pm

A lot of time being spent angry there. Can you elaborate more on the issues surrounding HR8, just to put some context for the various users of this forum? I myself have not come across the proposal in the past but I see some potential issues with it that would make it impractical if I am right.

I can see some merits of the HR8 idea, not least good integration with the (post-DU) DART system and especially if stations could also be fitted in in the vicinity of Glasnevin or if some kind of easy transfer to the Luas BXD extension was possible. And many other benefits of providing a connection to the Northern line in terms of operational flexibility, greater range of destinations that could be served directly in the region and *perhaps* for less cost than Metro North IF AECOM's sums are accurate.

Grandeeod · 07-01-2015 9:57pm

monument wrote: »

You're selective reading of Leo's speech is telling. He said: "I do think that DART Underground will happen someday" and made it clear that his issue with Metro North was that it was based on massive other projects going ahead (north Swords city, airport city etc).

Dart Underground is such a large rail project and he said he sees that as a runner. He has said this on more than a few occasions and so has the current minister for transport!

"There is no basis for it" -- except for Realpolitik. There's not near enough support for Metro North at the moment -- the pressure for it is likely building again in the city but not far outside the confines of its route. But the feeling that it's dead and was just a boom project has also set in

An expanded version of HR8 would have far better connectivity, far greater benefits and wider appeal in the city, in the county, in the regional, across the country, over the border and with possibly EU lenders/funders (ie EIB/T-TEN).

Also you're not fully right about ignoring "the money already spent" -- HR8 and some of the LTR options might not be able to take advantage of all of the prep work done on Metro North, but it could take advantage of everything from geo surveys; drawings etc of what's there now (building, services etc); property already bought / CPOed etc.

What happened leading up to Luas is actually fairly typical of what happens in other motoring dominated cities which propose LRT/trams/BRT on surface which will displace space and priority away from cars. You'll find many US and UK case studies.

So, it's in no way just typical of Irish anything -- it's typical of a society so dependent on motoring.

The stuff about Dart was also crazy but also not that surprising given the context of the 70s, the decade where the car is the future craze really caught on* in the UK and by extension Ireland. This was a gem from the Sindo in 1979: "You and I — the taxpayers — would have to fork out less if instead of electrifying it the government bought a brand-new car for each of the line’s present adult passengers to do their suburban travel in; and in doing so they would use less fuel than the proposed system would." http://dublinobserver.com/2011/03/white-elephant-on-tracks/

HR8 would have less stops underground and you'd also expect cost savings if Irish Rail are starting it after Dart Underground is finished.

That's a given, but DU is seen as a relatively safe bet and would now come before any MN type route.

The real failing point of trying to evaluate "Metro Dublin" is that it requires a re-think / replacement of Dart Underground and there's few people who want to do that to a project which is so close to shovel ready and has relatively good political support. Without the full project it seems very unconnected of a route and possible services are limited.

Re unnecessary tunnel to St James' hospital: HR9 -- Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel -- is that, just without the northern line connection north of Swords.

The "Metro Dublin" as evaluated does go near to Donabate? See the map on page 40 of the report's PDF: http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf

I wasn't selective about Varadkars speech. You have no basis to refer to my comments as "telling". Nor did I discuss DU. As for MN's Swords and beyond aspects, even as Swords stands now, it will justify it and its Park and Ride. Your HR8 fetish and thats how it comes across in your posts, is barely different from MN apart from a few hundred million in cost.

The "not near enough support for MN" is nothing more than a Government unwilling to think about a shovel ready project.

The expanded HR8 idea is yours. The time to fap over it was 10 years ago, not now. I would have been far more supportive then. It will require yet more planning, public consultation etc etc. In fact aspects of it were shot down 10 years ago. If Glasnevin cemetery enters the mix, expect major objections and delays.

I am fully right about money already spent. The DART is different to MN, not withstanding, it was the RPA that spent the money and not IE. I genuinely shudder at that remark and its assumptions.

The rest of your post in relation to what I said re luas and DART, displays a blase attitude of acceptance and unwillingness to appreciate the political process that involves itself in these projects. But that's probably why you are willing to accept the opportunity to engage in this latest process, which will result in absolutely nothing. I will agree to differ with you and hope that you will man up when this latest fudge proves itself to be yet another pointless exercise.

monument · 08-01-2015 12:15am

What we're discussing as HR8 is really HR8 plus some, so I'll refer to it as HR8+...

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm dictating nothing. I am merely pointing out the reality. This forum discussed MN ad nauseum. Nobody disagreed with it in principle.

Quite a few people disagreed with it in principle, not just one or two people. It's just that those on the pro-metro side (including myself at the time) outnumbered everybody else and were able to clearly cut a lot of the anti-metro arguments to bits with clear-cut facts.

Grandeeod wrote: »

HR8 is untested in a public consultation scenario. You had never heard of it before this study.

Adapting to change we can't stop is capitulating to a political process that has proven itself of incapable of delivering. The evidence is overwhelming and I don't need to outline it for you.

...

As for "moving on", we are not moving on from anything. We are merely introducing tactics to delay building anything. If you really understood the history of rail transport since 1970, you would see this.

There's a clear case of wider appeal for a project which would more directly link the regional and country with the airport and other areas to each other as outlined below....

Grandeeod wrote: »

Please don't insult me, my intellience or my posts by picking on my angry tone or my remarks about an irrelevant forum. My comments contain emotion that is justified.

If you want to call this place an irrelevant forum and post as if things are a matter of life and death, expect to be challenged!

Grandeeod wrote: »

The free for all public consultation I referred to was based on everyone having a say, so please don't twist it into something else.

Just to be clear: It did seem like you have a problem with everyone having a say -- when that's a key to public consultation.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Please tell me why HR8 is better than MN?

More local connectivity -- ie a service which would take in the north Dublin coastal towns (ie Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk, Donabate) to Swords, Airport and onwards. This would connect workplaces and shopping/entertainment centres to nearby residential areas -- a link with currently is heavily used by motorised traffic on a congested and (largely poor) road network and poorer public transport.
More regional connectivity: Directly connecting places like Drogheda to Swords/DUB; Kildare to Swords/DUB; West Dublin to Swords/DUB etc.
More national connectivity: Intercity services to Dublin Airport; at the very least direct Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast services. You could also terminate some Galway etc services at Dublin Airport.
For the above it has more local and national appeal and is more likely to be built.
Would make up part of the T-TEN route which is better for funding.

Grandeeod wrote: »

And tell me when you first heard of this HR8 idea.

Lots of elements of HR8+ were discussed in general discussions of MN years ago -- from having an interchange at Glasnevin to linking up to the Northern Line, but without the ability for services to run on both, the benefits were much more limited.

Firmly in an official report the first time is the study mentioned in the OP.

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 12:46am

Is Glasnevin Junction even feasible? It's a dangerous question I know as not everyone will be convinced, as can be seen with College Green in the DU alternatives thread. But this is the location: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.366552,-6.2754578,460m/data=!3m1!1e3 Lots of canal, gravestones, and existing trainlines to worry about. And Claremont Lawns...

monument · 08-01-2015 1:03am

lucernarian wrote: »

Is Glasnevin Junction even feasible? It's a dangerous question I know as not everyone will be convinced, as can be seen with College Green in the DU alternatives thread. But this is the location: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.366552,-6.2754578,460m/data=!3m1!1e3 Lots of canal, gravestones, and existing trainlines to worry about. And Claremont Lawns...

The further look at HR8 will look at how feasible it is. The report notes the sensitive issue of the cemetery.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I wasn't selective about Varadkars speech. You have no basis to refer to my comments as "telling". Nor did I discuss DU.

Yes, you were selectively reading it -- you were selective by trying to claim that " that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects" while quoting a minister for transport who wants to proceed with such a large rail project (Dart Underground).

Grandeeod wrote: »

As for MN's Swords and beyond aspects, even as Swords stands now, it will justify it and its Park and Ride.

Not in Realpolitik terms -- Metro North is still seen as a route mainly from the city centre to the Airport, as well as a small town called Swords.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Your HR8 fetish and thats how it comes across in your posts, is barely different from MN apart from a few hundred million in cost.

Let me get this straight, you think number 1 here is barely different from 2?

A route with long Luas trams which can only run on that route (and maybe some day Metro West too)
A route which can take Dart, Commuter and Intercity; and allow for intercity services such as Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast

Grandeeod wrote: »

The "not near enough support for MN" is nothing more than a Government unwilling to think about a shovel ready project.

No, it's not. There was significant opposition and limited support for Metro North and that has not changed.

Grandeeod wrote: »

The rest of your post in relation to what I said re luas and DART, displays a blase attitude of acceptance and unwillingness to appreciate the political process that involves itself in these projects. But that's probably why you are willing to accept the opportunity to engage in this latest process, which will result in absolutely nothing. I will agree to differ with you and hope that you will man up when this latest fudge proves itself to be yet another pointless exercise.

What I said was not at all a "blase attitude of acceptance". You labeling the political process as "typical of Irish Governments" rather than something which is typical of lots of places like Ireland -- that a massive misunderstanding of the issue.

Sure, the new process might "result in absolutely nothing" -- I don't need to "man up" in the future, I can freely admit that now. That's also not unique to public transport projects -- the same happens sometimes on motoring projects where the whole thing never works out or is dragged along or is brought back to square one.

But while it could well be yet another pointless exercise, it has a better change of coming to anything over just wishing away or denying Metro North's issues.

Victor · 08-01-2015 1:56am

Grandeeod wrote: »

The time to fap over it was 10 years ago, not now.

Some decorum wouldn't go astray.

Moderator

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 1:58am

The report "notes" it. That's not much fun. They were able to succinctly point out a problem at Heuston within the Metro Dublin proposal but didn't give Glasnevin Junction the same treatment. I'm hoping for some opinions on it here.

The RPA happily provided AECOM with a basic drawing of the tunnel entrance for the Luas D2 option that goes under Glasnevin. There is a park that lies along the old Broadstone alignment and it seems like the RPA have done their calculations and shown it can work. With option HR8 and HR9 and to a lesser extent Metro Dublin (as their tunnel could break ground beside the siding on the line towards the phoenix park)

Godge · 08-01-2015 7:21pm

monument wrote: »

It's not going to be built anytime soon and there are better options to look at.

What I love about this design (which mostly combines options in the official report) is that it:
It allows for a Dart service to serve most of the Metro North route

It allows for Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast Intercity

It's on the main IRL-NI T-TEN route and fits in with the goal of greater EU connectivity by linking the airport to the rest of the island by rail and linking the republic with the north by rail

It allows for strong public transport connectivity for areas of Fingal -- Dart services could run between the north Co Dublin coastal towns and Swords (which is already a hub for many of the coastal towns);

It's the HR8 option, which scores well + extra high density areas + far better connectivity -- so, it's it's possible it could be the best scoring route

It frees up the northern line, with the reduction / removal of IC trains

Isn't your idea just HR8 + HR9 + HR4?

A nice idea but do you need the HR8 bit? Could it not just be HR9 +HR4?

Sam Russell · 08-01-2015 9:44pm

With NTMA placing donds at less than .9%, is it not the time to borrow a few billion to build these projects?

It would have a very positive effect on so many aspects of Irish life, with few downsides.

Grandeeod · 08-01-2015 11:26pm

monument wrote: »

Yes, you were selectively reading it -- you were selective by trying to claim that " that there is no will within Irish politics to fund such large rail projects" while quoting a minister for transport who wants to proceed with such a large rail project (Dart Underground).

Not in Realpolitik terms -- Metro North is still seen as a route mainly from the city centre to the Airport, as well as a small town called Swords.

Let me get this straight, you think number 1 here is barely different from 2?
A route with long Luas trams which can only run on that route (and maybe some day Metro West too)

A route which can take Dart, Commuter and Intercity; and allow for intercity services such as Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast

No, it's not. There was significant opposition and limited support for Metro North and that has not changed.

What I said was not at all a "blase attitude of acceptance". You labeling the political process as "typical of Irish Governments" rather than something which is typical of lots of places like Ireland -- that a massive misunderstanding of the issue.

Sure, the new process might "result in absolutely nothing" -- I don't need to "man up" in the future, I can freely admit that now. That's also not unique to public transport projects -- the same happens sometimes on motoring projects where the whole thing never works out or is dragged along or is brought back to square one.

A route which can take Dart, Commuter and Intercity; and allow for intercity services such as Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast

1. I'm not being selective because I don't believe that DU will be funded/built either. Varadkars comments re DU are equally full of political crap aswell. As an ex minister for transport, his comments on MN are just as laughable as his comments on DU. He's in a different portfolio now.

2. Realpolitic? You are hung up on MN being so stand alone. Nothing wrong with that. If it was in place now, it would be heaving with passengers and successful. If it was a DART based solution, it would be subject to IE and all its inherent problems.

A route which can take Dart, Commuter and Intercity; and allow for intercity services such as Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast

3. Your assumption that a DART/Heavy rail based solution can or will allow what you claim is in your head for now. You have absolutely nothing to back that up apart from any submission you make.

What I said was not at all a "blase attitude of acceptance". You labeling the political process as "typical of Irish Governments" rather than something which is typical of lots of places like Ireland -- that a massive misunderstanding of the issue.

I've no misunderstanding at all. Check your history and look at the repetition. Give me one example in Europe that equates with Ireland.

Sure, the new process might "result in absolutely nothing" -- I don't need to "man up" in the future, I can freely admit that now. That's also not unique to public transport projects -- the same happens sometimes on motoring projects where the whole thing never works out or is dragged along or is brought back to square one.

I fully agree to disagree, but I will not change my opinion. You are arguing your points, but you also accept that it may come to nothing. Jesus H Christ Monument, how can you simply partake in a processs and accept that it may come to damn all? I'm sorry, but you are coming across as a person that is happy to make submissions to plans as and when they are presented to you.

My major gripe is that we are nowhere near building anything. Please tell me how you would feel if MN and DU were nearly finished and ready for passengers. In fact I put that out to all on this thread and I'll repeat it.

How would you all feel right now if MN and DU were just about ready for passengers this year?

Victor · 09-01-2015 6:45am

Sam Russell wrote: »

With NTMA placing donds at less than .9%, is it not the time to borrow a few billion to build these projects?

It's not that simple - there is still the matter of running a deficit (limited to 3%, but his will change to 2%), although some fancy accounting could be done to have it 'off balance sheet', but getting it approved under those principles may be difficult.

Carawaystick · 09-01-2015 9:54am

Victor wrote: »

although some fancy accounting could be done to have it 'off balance sheet', but getting it approved under those principles may be difficult.

And figuring whose greasy palms to enrich with the baksheesh of ppp...

monument · 11-01-2015 11:57am

Godge wrote: »

Isn't your idea just HR8 + HR9 + HR4?

A nice idea but do you need the HR8 bit? Could it not just be HR9 +HR4?

The evaluation of HR8 is or is closer to the posable route I'm suggestion for Dart services -- my suggestion is (a) from Glasnevin take the route towards Docklands but go on into the DU tunnel or (b) the HR8 route.

The section south of Glasnevin (which is shown on HR9) is being suggested mainly or only for Intercity services.

If taking the Docklands route I'd add stations to service the very high density areas along the route. A Phibsborough / Glasnevin station (likely west of the Phibsborough Road) is a no-brainer add on to even with the current Dart plans, but with this idea it would become an interchange station.

Grandeeod wrote: »

1. I'm not being selective because I don't believe that DU will be funded/built either. Varadkars comments re DU are equally full of political crap aswell. As an ex minister for transport, his comments on MN are just as laughable as his comments on DU. He's in a different portfolio now.

Varadkar's and Donohoe's comments on Dart Underground are distinctly different than those on Metro North.

Saying that he's in a different portfolio now misses three points: (1) as noted above and in previous posts, the new transport minister holds the same view; (2) his comments mirror the general overwhelming support for DU; (3) in the maybe unlikely event that it was deemed that there was money / they want to buy the election / invest in the future / FG form part of the next Gov etc, such a project needs more than just the minister for transport's sign off, it needs cabinet support and approval.

Grandeeod wrote: »

2. Realpolitic? You are hung up on MN being so stand alone. Nothing wrong with that. If it was in place now, it would be heaving with passengers and successful. If it was a DART based solution, it would be subject to IE and all its inherent problems.

Nothing wrong with that if the project could still sustain wide-spread support, but it can't! In fact Metro not only has weak support outside its catchment area, it also has notably strong opposition (which goes far beyond the normal anti-rail stuff).

That's the Realpolitic reality of the matter.

Grandeeod wrote: »

3. Your assumption that a DART/Heavy rail based solution can or will allow what you claim is in your head for now. You have absolutely nothing to back that up apart from any submission you make.

Welcome to boards.ie! If you have a reason what's being put forward won't work, than say so.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I've no misunderstanding at all. Check your history and look at the repetition. Give me one example in Europe that equates with Ireland.

We're closer to Boston* than Berlin on that one. But there's more than one example in the UK.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I fully agree to disagree, but I will not change my opinion. You are arguing your points, but you also accept that it may come to nothing. Jesus H Christ Monument, how can you simply partake in a processs and accept that it may come to damn all? I'm sorry, but you are coming across as a person that is happy to make submissions to plans as and when they are presented to you.

Err... "and accept that it may come to damn all" -- that applies to everything. No project is ever 100% going to go forward and even if something does come of it, lots of what will be commented at early-stage planning like this will never be seen as there's so many options.

Grandeeod wrote: »

My major gripe is that we are nowhere near building anything. Please tell me how you would feel if MN and DU were nearly finished and ready for passengers. In fact I put that out to all on this thread and I'll repeat it.

How would you all feel right now if MN and DU were just about ready for passengers this year?

It'd be great to have had progress but we don't.

richieDIRL · 11-01-2015 2:06pm

I'm a boards.ie newbie and can't post links or pic, so I fleshed out this idea myself on my blog, if you want a look, go to the URL "richiedirl.blogspot.ie" and the page "/p/richieds-transport-ideas.html". But basically, the ideas are:

1. Have a rail spur off the Dublin-Belfast line to the airport between Malahide and Portmarnock to the Airport.
All of the existing ideas for a DART/Rail spur to the airport have the spur starting between Clongriffen and Malahide. My idea is for a spur a few miles further north which would approach the Airport from the north.

2. Have a new line from Heuston go through the Phoenix Park Tunnel to Broombridge/Cabra and on to the Airport, going around Finglas and then outside the M50 to the Airport.
Put a new (updated) platform in Heuston on the line that goes through the phoenix park tunnel. Instead of meeting the Sligo/Maynooth line going towards the city center meet it going westbound instead. Between Broombridge and Ashtown (or just after Ashtown), have the new line go north around Finglas, crossing the M50 and around the city, approaching the Airport from the south.

3. Join the two lines up with a station in Dublin Airport
Add in a Spur for a commuter line to Swords and we have a Belfast to Cork Rail line with stops in Dublin Airport and Heuston. Additionally we have a Dart line to Dublin Airport and a commuter rail line to Swords.

This approach would give us:
1. A Belfast to Cork train line via Heuston and the Airport.
2. A commuter line to Swords
3. A Dart line to the Airport

See the map on the blog for a rough look at what the layout would look like (if someone else wants to repost it feel free). Sure, some people are going to accuse me of crayoning and others are going to say the government is too corrupt to implement a good idea but I thought I'd try at least. Anyway, the idea has some similarities to some other posters, but I thought I'd get my version out there.

monument · 11-01-2015 2:15pm

If you don't mind, I'll post your map:

The route around Finglas scores poorly in the report. The main issue is that is does not add much service to the high population area within the M50 and does not serve trip generators such as DCU.

richieDIRL · 11-01-2015 3:09pm

monument wrote: »

The route around Finglas scores poorly in the report. The main issue is that is does not add much service to the high population area within the M50 and does not serve trip generators such as DCU.

Thanks for posting that!

The route around finglas in the report, HR7, doesn't start at Heuston, it starts at Broombridge, thus it misses out on a lot of possible interconnects. But, yea, you have a point, my general feeling is that trying to combine the perfect transport system for a single point destination like the airport, with the relatively low population density of north Dublin City is doomed to compromise. The airport needs heavy rail, so that's what we should do first, and properly, then build the tram systems around that.

Zebra3 · 11-01-2015 4:23pm

Isn't the small red bit of new track in that map being taken up by the latest Luas extension?

Sam Russell · 11-01-2015 4:27pm

richieDIRL wrote: »

The airport needs heavy rail, so that's what we should do first, and properly, then build the tram systems around that.

I would favour the Clongriffin spur because otherwise the time to Connolly/DU is 7 min longer at least. The Clongriffin spur could be extended either through Ballymun or onto Swords.

The Ballymun direction could take to the Glasnevin and onto Heuston, via the PPT.

The Swords route could be continued on to join the Northern line north of Malahide, connecting better with Belfast.

Victor · 11-01-2015 4:56pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Isn't the small red bit of new track in that map being taken up by the latest Luas extension?

There is a fair amount of space: http://binged.it/14JAB42

Grandeeod · 11-01-2015 5:14pm

monument wrote: »

The evaluation of HR8 is or is closer to the posable route I'm suggestion for Dart services -- my suggestion is (a) from Glasnevin take the route towards Docklands but go on into the DU tunnel or (b) the HR8 route.

The section south of Glasnevin (which is shown on HR9) is being suggested mainly or only for Intercity services.

If taking the Docklands route I'd add stations to service the very high density areas along the route. A Phibsborough / Glasnevin station (likely west of the Phibsborough Road) is a no-brainer add on to even with the current Dart plans, but with this idea it would become an interchange station.

Varadkar's and Donohoe's comments on Dart Underground are distinctly different than those on Metro North.

Saying that he's in a different portfolio now misses three points: (1) as noted above and in previous posts, the new transport minister holds the same view; (2) his comments mirror the general overwhelming support for DU; (3) in the maybe unlikely event that it was deemed that there was money / they want to buy the election / invest in the future / FG form part of the next Gov etc, such a project needs more than just the minister for transport's sign off, it needs cabinet support and approval.

Nothing wrong with that if the project could still sustain wide-spread support, but it can't! In fact Metro not only has weak support outside its catchment area, it also has notably strong opposition (which goes far beyond the normal anti-rail stuff).

That's the Realpolitic reality of the matter.

Welcome to boards.ie! If you have a reason what's being put forward won't work, than say so.

We're closer to Boston* than Berlin on that one. But there's more than one example in the UK.

Err... "and accept that it may come to damn all" -- that applies to everything. No project is ever 100% going to go forward and even if something does come of it, lots of what will be commented at early-stage planning like this will never be seen as there's so many options.

It'd be great to have had progress but we don't.

Once again, I stress that all this talk of HR8 plus, is in your head. It is not an official proposal. It is an idea you have concocted based on ideas floated years ago by lobbyists. Furthermore, all this talk of connectivity with the rest of the country, looks to me like you are trying to suggest that MN was merely a project for Dubs and Dubs only.

Your point about MN having no support outside its catchment area, doesn't mean that your DART for all plan will have any more support outside the catchment area. Are you seriously suggesting that Mary in Galway gives a damn? Poor Mary will still see it as "money being spent in Dublin". The only lack of support for MN that is relevant is the current Governments lack of support and the only reason they have given is cost and how that money could fund roads and other public transport projects. HR8 or even your HR8 plus will cost approx. the same or maybe more than MN. For the record, can you elaborate on who objects/doesn't support MN apart from the Government?

I believe that this Governments lack of support is because it was essentially the brainchild of the last few Governments that were not FG lead. Not that I'm convinced the last Government would've built it even if they had the money. MN went through an exhaustive public consultation process and as an airport connection, was proven to be of benefit to the population along the mainline rail network especially in conjunction with DU.

richieDIRL · 11-01-2015 5:22pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would favour the Clongriffin spur because otherwise the time to Connolly/DU is 7 min longer at least. The Clongriffin spur could be extended either through Ballymun or onto Swords.

The Ballymun direction could take to the Glasnevin and onto Heuston, via the PPT.

The Swords route could be continued on to join the Northern line north of Malahide, connecting better with Belfast.

Sure, linking just north of Clongriffen is going to be a bit faster, but where did you get the 7 minute figure? I'd have thought 3 or 4 minutes.

I'm also a fan of bringing a Swords route to join the Northern line north of Malahide, but that means you have to cover the expense of two links From the Northern line to the Airport.

D.L.R. · 11-01-2015 6:54pm

This study is about how to connect the city centre to the airport & Swords.

As such, any HR line would be required to serve Connolly and/or Pearse. Heuston isn't in the city centre.

Victor · 11-01-2015 7:11pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Your point about MN having no support outside its catchment area, doesn't mean that your DART for all plan will have any more support outside the catchment area. Are you seriously suggesting that Mary in Galway gives a damn? Poor Mary will still see it as "money being spent in Dublin".

Which two roads would Kerry County Council like to see built? The Macroom (Cork) and Adare (Limerick) bypasses. some people can actually be less than myopic(!).

LXFlyer · 11-01-2015 7:52pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

This study is about how to connect the city centre to the airport & Swords.

As such, any HR line would be required to serve Connolly and/or Pearse. Heuston isn't in the city centre.

Well actually it's about the public transport along the entire Swords corridor and the surrounding areas, including improved connectivity with all those areas.

D.L.R. · 11-01-2015 8:40pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Well actually it's about the public transport along the entire Swords corridor and the surrounding areas, including improved connectivity with all those areas.

"The overall objective of this Fingal/North Dublin transport study is to identify the optimum long term public transport solution to connect Dublin City Centre, Dublin Airport and Swords."

Heuston is obviously important in the national context, but its not the priority in this particular study.

I would like to see any HR8-style route branch at Glasnevin Jn to serving both Heuston and the city centre. But if expense was an issue, Heuston is the secondary consideration.

Aard · 11-01-2015 9:53pm

It might be worth noting that there is one week left to make a submission as part of this public consultation. Engaging with the process does not indicate support of the project, study, or the process itself. Not engaging means missing an opportunity to have your voice heard.

Grandeeod · 11-01-2015 10:11pm

Victor wrote: »

Which two roads would Kerry County Council like to see built? The Macroom (Cork) and Adare (Limerick) bypasses. some people can actually be less than myopic(!).

What are you on about? Is this some kind of test to disprove my analogy with Mary? What have roads on the Cork and Limerick borders with Kerry got to do with any point I've made? Monument is the one going on about objections to MN and apart from central Government, I can only assume he is referring to the stixs factor.

You of all people should appreciate what I have talked about here.

Grandeeod · 11-01-2015 11:04pm

Aard wrote: »

It might be worth noting that there is one week left to make a submission as part of this public consultation. Engaging with the process does not indicate support of the project, study, or the process itself. Not engaging means missing an opportunity to have your voice heard.

My submission has been made on the basis of what I have said here. However I am fully aware of how this is going to play out because all is not right.

1. The current Government stated that a decision on MN would be made in 2015. That is on course.

2. The Labour Party are against MN since before they entered Government.

Eamonn Gilmore was quoted in 2010 as saying that "MN would be shot back" if they were in Government.

Once the election campaign got under way, Labour did a u-turn.

Deputy Gilmore said: 'Labour is committed to progressing with Metro North and there is absolutely no doubt about that.

'What we have said is that we are going to take all of the projects in the National Development Plan and all of the transport projects and other projects and revise them in Government.

'What we are going to do is prioritise those projects that are in a position to generate employment at an early stage.'

Asked if Metro North will be one of those projects, he said: 'I have received communications and heard what Fingal County Council, in particular, has had to say about Metro North and the local authority and both Brendan (Senator Brendan Ryan) and Tom (Kelleher) have convinced me that when the test, if you like, is applied on the number of jobs created by the project, Metro North will stand up to that and should be in that priority list.'

Our current FG lead Government, that have gone cold on the idea are quoted many times in opposition, including a completely contradictory Leo Varadkar.

Recently Leo in the Transport portfolio, wrote off MN, saying that the money would be better spent on roads and other public transport projects. But when trying to get elected, he said the following.

· ‘For the record, I strongly support Metro North’, and
· ‘On Friday, February 25th, a vote for Fine Gael is vote for a party that has a positive view of Metro North.’

Since getting elected he has said the following.

In a letter to Fingal county councillors, Mr Varadkar said he is "as disappointed as anyone that Metro North has been deferred indefinitely".

"It just isn't affordable," he added, explaining that even if Metro North was built, fares would have to be €20 each way to cover the operating costs as "we would not be able to subsidise it". The minister raised the possibility of substituting the underground proposal with an above-ground option.

"I hope that someday it will be possible to built Metro North or perhaps an on-street project would be cheaper," he said.

Alarm bells start to ring and the oul Fingal study comes into play.

Politicians do not care and we merely make yet more submissions in the hope that something comes out of it. Argue with me all you like lads, but there just isn't enough guts to build anything big including Monuments big HR8 Plus and beyond.

For 40 odd years this nation has fudged any serious investment in rail transport, but it has delivered lots of opportunities for wannabe engineers to add a contribution.

monument · 12-01-2015 12:32am

Grandeeod wrote: »

Once again, I stress that all this talk of HR8 plus, is in your head. It is not an official proposal.

It's mostly made up of a few options in the report jointed together and it is noted that HR8 would have to be developed further.

That's pretty clear from my post of the map which clearly states that I Photoshoped it mainly based on different bits of the report.

Grandeeod wrote: »

It is an idea you have concocted based on ideas floated years ago by lobbyists.

Err... not sure what you're on about here? Who are are the lobbyists you're talking about and what did they lobby for?

Grandeeod wrote: »

Furthermore, all this talk of connectivity with the rest of the country, looks to me like you are trying to suggest that MN was merely a project for Dubs and Dubs only.

It's not a suggestion. That's just the way it is. Or at least the way it's viewed. And it's worse than that really -- it's largely seen as just a project for a section of Dublin.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Your point about MN having no support outside its catchment area, doesn't mean that your DART for all plan will have any more support outside the catchment area.

The catchment area with a direct service along HR8+ could include Balbriggan to Hazelhatch and Celbridge, and on Intercity to Dublin Airport it would at the least include direct services from Cork to Belfast, if not also some services direct from the airport to Galway.

The amount of single-transfer rail trips to the airport would also increase.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Mary in Galway gives a damn? Poor Mary will still see it as "money being spent in Dublin".

I'm suggesting that's there's a good chance that Mike in Cork, Sara in Portlaoise, Jim in Drogheda and Jane in Dundalk will see the point of a direct service to the airport.

I'm suggesting Alex in Balbriggan, Harry in Skerries, Emily in Rush, James in Adamstown, Aaron in the Dublin Docklands, and Amelia in Phibsborough are likely to see the point of a direct service to the DCU, and/or the airport, and/or Swords.

Grandeeod wrote: »

The only lack of support for MN that is relevant is the current Governments lack of support...

For the record, can you elaborate on who objects/doesn't support MN apart from the Government?

Which one is it? Only the government's support is relevant or you want me to elaborate who else objects to Metro North? It can't be both.

Grandeeod · 12-01-2015 8:07pm

monument wrote: »

It's mostly made up of a few options in the report jointed together and it is noted that HR8 would have to be developed further.

That's pretty clear from my post of the map which clearly states that I Photoshoped it mainly based on different bits of the report

I understand that, but I'm sure you appreciate my point about it being a concoction of ideas.

Err... not sure what you're on about here? Who are are the lobbyists you're talking about and what did they lobby for?

Back in the early/mid noughties, groups like Platform 11 and others were floating ideas like yours. I believe it was based on a viewpoint that MN wasn't necessary and HR should be the priority. The Dublin rail plan was backed heavily and I once saw a Platform 11 graphic proposing a HR tunnel under Glasnevin and joining the MN alignment when it was originally proposed to run further west than the current planned route via Drumcondra. That's more or less HR8. I know for a fact that the MN O'Reilly Report featured a watered down version of this by recommending further study of a MN/HR interchange at Glasnevin junction, because the original MN proposal actually lacked any interchange with the Maynooth line in this area. Subsequently MN was routed under Drumcondra road and the planned interchange made at Drumcondra station.

It's not a suggestion. That's just the way it is. Or at least the way it's viewed. And it's worse than that really -- it's largely seen as just a project for a section of Dublin.

You really do need to back this up with evidence. Honestly, I'm not being smart, but I would like to see some solid evidence for this opinion.

[The catchment area with a direct service along HR8+ could include Balbriggan to Hazelhatch and Celbridge, and on Intercity to Dublin Airport it would at the least include direct services from Cork to Belfast, if not also some services direct from the airport to Galway.

The amount of single-transfer rail trips to the airport would also increase.

Interesting idea, but based on many assumptions and adding IC trips to what should essentially should be a commuter project. Any rail solution that can connect an International Airport to the mainline rail network in two transfers is more than acceptable. However, I believe your HR8 idea is more about "connecting the country" as opposed to "connecting a city". It also comes across as very centred on the Airport.

I'm suggesting that's there's a good chance that Mike in Cork, Sara in Portlaoise, Jim in Drogheda and Jane in Dundalk will see the point of a direct service to the airport.

I'm suggesting Alex in Balbriggan, Harry in Skerries, Emily in Rush, James in Adamstown, Aaron in the Dublin Docklands, and Amelia in Phibsborough are likely to see the point of a direct service to the DCU, and/or the airport, and/or Swords.

Still sounds very centred on the Airport. Within DU and MN these trips are easily doable with the added city centre/nothside penetration that MN affords. I don't think you are selling it well and it just comes across as access to the Airport.

Which one is it? Only the government's support is relevant or you want me to elaborate who else objects to Metro North? It can't be both.

I know the Government stance and all its condradictions. I would like to hear who you think objects to MN outside of political circles.

Aard · 12-01-2015 8:22pm

I cannot provide written evidence, unfortunately, but most transport professionals I have spoken to have a middling to negative view of MN. The main issue professionals have is that there is no coherent transport infrastructure strategy for the Dublin region, and MN represents another piecemeal, incremental patch as opposed to part of an integrated plan. (The Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study too represents more or less another incremental approach.) Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much political will for a GDA transport strategy, so we're left with piecemeal approaches where each one has to stack up for its own set of indicators, as opposed to a holistic approach accross the GDA (or at least the four Dublin authorities).

Grandeeod · 12-01-2015 9:56pm

Aard wrote: »

I cannot provide written evidence, unfortunately, but most transport professionals I have spoken to have a middling to negative view of MN. The main issue professionals have is that there is no coherent transport infrastructure strategy for the Dublin region, and MN represents another piecemeal, incremental patch as opposed to part of an integrated plan. (The Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study too represents more or less another incremental approach.) Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much political will for a GDA transport strategy, so we're left with piecemeal approaches where each one has to stack up for its own set of indicators, as opposed to a holistic approach accross the GDA (or at least the four Dublin authorities).

I agree. Piecemeal is the important word here. Since the original DART plan from the early 70s was first presented, we have continuously stumbled through report and plan after report and plan. The DTO's Platform for change was more or less based on the original DART plan with the additon of LR and Metro. That was once again stripped apart to come up with the joke that was the Dublin aspects of T21. If we look at things since the early 70s until now, we are actually going backward instead of forward. We effectively just got luas.

My despondency here is based on the above. The most progressive period was between 2001 and 2008 when it seemed like a concrete decision had been made to build DU and MN. Despite my doubts, which I base on history, I believe it was a solution really worth following despite being watered down. However, we now find ourselves back at square one in relation to the Northside and I have no faith in any positive DU talk from Government. I trully believe we will stumble on and on and achieve nothing. Sorry for the negativity.

monument · 12-01-2015 10:40pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

I understand that, but I'm sure you appreciate my point about it being a concoction of ideas.

Is there a problem with this?

Grandeeod wrote: »

Back in the early/mid noughties, groups like Platform 11 and others were floating ideas like yours. I believe it was based on a viewpoint that MN wasn't necessary and HR should be the priority. The Dublin rail plan was backed heavily and I once saw a Platform 11 graphic proposing a HR tunnel under Glasnevin and joining the MN alignment when it was originally proposed to run further west than the current planned route via Drumcondra. That's more or less HR8. I know for a fact that the MN O'Reilly Report featured a watered down version of this by recommending further study of a MN/HR interchange at Glasnevin junction, because the original MN proposal actually lacked any interchange with the Maynooth line in this area. Subsequently MN was routed under Drumcondra road and the planned interchange made at Drumcondra station.

Ah, that's all grand. Lobbyists in a north Dublin context usually has a slightly different meaning.

Grandeeod wrote: »

You really do need to back this up with evidence. Honestly, I'm not being smart, but I would like to see some solid evidence for this opinion.

Are you out of the loop that much? When Metro North was still in planning did you not take in any of the newspaper articles, and TV and radio shows which covered it?

If you want to do some reading up, try here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-to-Metro-North/132969966748869

Grandeeod wrote: »

Interesting idea, but based on many assumptions and adding IC trips to what should essentially should be a commuter project.

The IC part is a great plus then. The cost benefits of tunneling should be enhanced. Good stuff!

Grandeeod wrote: »

Any rail solution that can connect an International Airport to the mainline rail network in two transfers is more than acceptable.

Two might be more than acceptable to some. But you won't win the support of many Marys down the country with that -- which is the point I was replying to.

Grandeeod wrote: »

However, I believe your HR8 idea is more about "connecting the country" as opposed to "connecting a city". It also comes across as very centred on the Airport.

It will connect the city, the region, the country and the island. I've already outlined this in some detail.

In my last post I clearly mentioned Swords, DCU, and the airport -- not just one of those. I also referred to Phibsborough, Docklands, Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush, Adamstown and other locations in Co Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Still sounds very centred on the Airport. Within DU and MN these trips are easily doable

Jim in Drogheda and Jane in Dundalk would have significant extra journey times.

Alex in Balbriggan, Harry in Skerries, and Emily in Rush would also have significant extra journey times and have to switch in the city centre on Metro North -- with HR8+, the north Dublin towns to Swords areas local trips would be competitive with car trips between these locations adding extra very important non-city centre focused point-to-point trips.

Grandeeod wrote: »

with the added city centre/nothside penetration that MN affords.

Sure, more localised penetration can be a pull factor, but connectivity can be more important, Metro North looks extremely standalone compared to HR8+...

(connections in brackets)

Metro North

Estuary
Swords
Fosterstown
Airport
Dardistown
Northwood
Ballymun
Dublin City University
Griffith Avenue
Drumcondra (Irish Rail)
Mater
Parnell Square
O'Connell Bridge
St Stephen's Green (Luas, green line)

Possible HR8+ Dart route

Balbriggan (Commuter, northern line)
Skerries (Commuter, northern line)
Rush and Lusk (Commuter, northern line)
Donabate (Commuter and Dart, northern line)
North Swords
Swords
Fosterstown
Airport (Cork-Belfast IC)
Dardistown
Ballymun
Dublin City University
Phibsborough / Glasnevin (Sligo IC & Maynooth-Greystones Dart)
Possible second and third extra station between Glasnevin Junction & Docklands
Docklands (Luas, red line; Irish Rail, northern line Dart)
Pearse (Maynooth-Greystones Dart, Commuter)
St Stephen's Green (Luas, green line)
Christchurch
Heuston Station (Luas, Intercity, Commuter, IC bus routes)
Inchicore
Park West and Cherry Orchard
Clondalkin/Fonthill
Kishoge
Adamstown
Hazelhatch and Celbridge

Possible HR8+ Intercity

Belfast
...
Dundalk
Drogheda
Dublin Airport
Heuston
...
Cork

strassenwo!f · 13-01-2015 1:35am

I find it very hard to see how priority should be given to satisfying the very occasional needs of Noneen from Nenagh. She's going to possibly travel along this route twice a year, maybe four times, mostly to and from the airport.

Of course, if Noneen isn't travelling, then there's probably Nora, or Niall, or Naoise, or Niamh, who are travelling on any one day to and from the Airport.

But we know that Dublin City Centre is the most in-demand area in the country. And we know that each of Sean, Sylvester, Sorcha, Siobhan, Sinead, Seamus and Samuel want to travel between Swords and the City Centre, directly, every weekday, shouldn't that be the priority?

monument · 13-01-2015 8:58am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I find it very hard to see how priority should be given to satisfying the very occasional needs of Noneen from Nenagh. She's going to possibly travel along this route twice a year, maybe four times, mostly to and from the airport.

Of course, if Noneen isn't travelling, then there's probably Nora, or Niall, or Naoise, or Niamh, who are travelling on any one day to and from the Airport.

But we know that Dublin City Centre is the most in-demand area in the country. And we know that each of Sean, Sylvester, Sorcha, Siobhan, Sinead, Seamus and Samuel want to travel between Swords and the City Centre, directly, every weekday, shouldn't that be the priority?

The only HR8+ services suggested run directly from Swords into the city centre via Dart Underground. It would link Swords directly with several city centre stops and have far better connectivity to Luas, Dart, Commuter, IC, and even BRT than Metro North would. It would also be a direct link to the Docklands.

Jim in Drogheda is traveling to DCU every day to study. Jane in Dundalk uses the airport every week.

Alex in Balbriggan is going into Swords to work every day. Harry in Skerries is also studying in DCU, and Emily in Rush works in the DCU business park.

The names have been changed but these are all close to actual trips which I know which people take now or in the recent past.

liamog · 13-01-2015 9:27am

I really like the idea of HR8+ seems to have some very positive network effects and would enable lots of connections.

I believe we'll break ground on DU before 2020.

I see the usual naysayers on boards who believe that all PT in Dublin should be designed to get people from the suburbs to Westmoreland St in record time.

We've already got a spoke bus system running in Dublin so how's about we build a heavy transport system that gets people to the canals where they can transfer to light rail / Dublin bikes.

If we see an opportunity to this whilst also enabling IC routes to the Airport from the rest of the Ireland then even better.

Bray Head · 13-01-2015 12:21pm

We built a very nice inter-urban motorway network over the last 20 years. It is one of the best in the world, largely because it is so new. It is very hard for the rail network to compete on speed given we have a country with both low average population density and a dispersed population.

The MN corridor has both very high current demand and would also serve future development in Dublin in a way that other options do not. The point about HR8 getting greater buy-in from the rest of Ireland/EU funding is perhaps valid from a political economy perspective. But I doubt a cold look at the numbers would suggest it would generate many extra trips.

Speaking personally, inter-urban rail speeds would want to triple before I would use it regularly. Public transport speeds within Dublin would only want to increase by 50% and I would make a lot more modal switches.

Grandeeod · 13-01-2015 1:59pm

monument wrote: »

Are you out of the loop that much? When Metro North was still in planning did you not take in any of the newspaper articles, and TV and radio shows which covered it?

If you want to do some reading up, try here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-to-Metro-North/132969966748869

Out of the loop that much?

Nope. Very much in the loop. That facebook page is drivel. Socialist clap trap. It objects to and dislikes anything it deems to be a waste of money. I'm quite sure they'd be happy to object to your HR8 plus idea too. Now it just looks like a dumping ground for anti Government ranting.

I have followed the Metro concept since it was mooted in Platform for change. Every step of the way. I do not recall objections of any substance or merit to MN. The ramblings of opinionated journos, doesn't count. The tired logic of a few other so called "experts" with a history of being wrong about rail transport doesn't count either. (I won't name any of them.)

IMN had cross party support at a political level. It had support in its catchment area. The only negativity I witnessed was that generated by a media, hungry to take pot shots at the Government over cost. Your HR8 plus trainset will have these same guys shaking in their boots Monument.

As I said in an earlier post, we'd all be delighted if MN and DU were in place. But they aren't and I stand by my belief that MN should proceed as is, along with DU, if Dublin is to stand any chance of developing a decent rail based system in the near future. Even if HR8 was selected as the preferred option, we are facing into many more years of planning, design and public consultations. While that is happening, it may be financially viable to build MN and we could miss the chance.

Anyway, my prediction is a mixture of luas and BRT.

cgcsb · 13-01-2015 3:13pm

Bray Head wrote: »

Speaking personally, inter-urban rail speeds would want to triple before I would use it regularly. Public transport speeds within Dublin would only want to increase by 50% and I would make a lot more modal switches.

Surely that's excessive no? Journey time to Cork =2h30min for a 266km journey. That's an average of 106.4km/h including stops of course. Triple that = 320km/h including stops i.e. faster than ANY railway in the world at present with the exception of some maglevs and some experimental technology.

Such a train would complete the distance to Cork in 50 minutes in theory. However the distance between stops isn't long enough to even get up to that speed.

Bray Head · 13-01-2015 9:20pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Surely that's excessive no? Journey time to Cork =2h30min for a 266km journey. That's an average of 106.4km/h including stops of course. Triple that = 320km/h including stops i.e. faster than ANY railway in the world at present with the exception of some maglevs and some experimental technology.

Such a train would complete the distance to Cork in 50 minutes in theory. However the distance between stops isn't long enough to even get up to that speed.

I'll be more literal when I am being facetious in future:)

My point is that the advantages of my car for travelling from Dublin to Cork are considerable at the moment. The speed premium from rail over car would want to be massive to compensate me for making the switch.

Things would not need to improve as much in Dublin to encourage me out of my car.

Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Comments