What's up with the Metro

rs · 17-05-2004 9:30am #1

A few weeks back I heard news reports of the Metro to the Airport was being given the green light. I've heard nothing about it since.

When do that plan to start building it?

thejollyrodger · 17-05-2004 2:15pm

When do that plan to start building it

like 2 years ago

antoinolachtnai · 23-05-2004 9:25pm

I can't understand why they would want to build a metro to the airport. It's an expensive project, the population is relatively thin and there's a perfectly good road link going in which will bring you to the airport from the city centre in 22 minutes.

If they really want to dig some holes in the ground to run trains through, why don't they put a tunnel from Stephen's Green to O'Connell St? That would allow them to link the two luas lines and maybe run the service north to Ballymun without too much disruption of city centre traffic by crossing trams. Surely that was the original idea for the Metro?

rs · 24-05-2004 2:40pm

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
I can't understand why they would want to build a metro to the airport. It's an expensive project, the population is relatively thin and there's a perfectly good road link going in which will bring you to the airport from the city centre in 22 minutes.

Couple of points.

Firstly, it takes amout 20 minutes from the airport to town when there is NO traffic. It takes over an hour in heavy traffic, I drive it daily. The removal of the port tunnel works will help a little, but there are several sections of that road that are only one lane each way, which slows traffic to a crawl.

The metro will service more than just the airport. It will serve swords and several other places along the way. There are lots of places on the route that would benefit greatly from decent public trainsport to the airport and swords.

Having a driect train from the airport will benefit tourism. If I were a tourist and had the option of either paying a small fourture for a taxi, or spending over an hour on a packed bus just to get into the city center, I would be less than pleased.

Every major european city I have ever visited has had a direct rail link from the airport to the city center. I think it's about time we had one too. It's not like it won't be used.

If they really want to dig some holes in the ground to run trains through, why don't they put a tunnel from Stephen's Green to O'Connell St? That would allow them to link the two luas lines and maybe run the service north to Ballymun without too much disruption of city centre traffic by crossing trams. Surely that was the original idea for the Metro?

I can't argue with this. Linking stephens green with the rest fo the rail infrastructure should be done asap.

Sleipnir · 24-05-2004 2:43pm

It will also mean that you won't have to pay a taxi about a fiver before you even start moving.
22 minutes? I wish, it usually takes far longer than that in my experience.

antoinolachtnai · 25-05-2004 10:05am

rs writes

The removal of the port tunnel works will help a little, but there are several sections of that road that are only one lane each way, which slows traffic to a crawl.

Well, with the tunnel, you'll be able to get to the airport pretty consistently in 22 minutes. It will take 7 minutes in the tunnel (according to the website), 7 minutes to get from the tunnel to the airport (my own measurement). So allow 8 minutes to get from, say O'Connell St to the tunnel entrance, and that's 22 minutes. It might be a bit longer when the city centre is congested, but it won't be that much longer.

It is possible to run a bus service which isn't unpleasant. The aircoach is perfectly pleasant. The only fault with it is that the price is a bit strong and the stops aren't as comfortable or as well located as they might be.

On the other hand a metro service wouldn't necessarily be a great service for tourists. There would be a number of stops on the way to the city, and it would probably take 35 minutes or more to get there. If the airport link were implemented as a spur to the maynooth lines, it would take even longer, and the frequency of services would be much lower.

Added to that, you would probably have to walk for 5 to 10 minutes or take a shuttle bus to get from the arrivals at the airport to the train station.

At Narita, there is a train service and a bus service linking to Tokyo, but the bus service seems to be just as popular, because the standard of service is higher, it brings you directly to the major hotels, and you don't have to climb or ascend to get to it. If you took the train, you'd have to make connections. The distance is much greater than the distance in Dublin.

jesus_thats_gre · 25-05-2004 2:02pm

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai

Well, with the tunnel, you'll be able to get to the airport pretty consistently in 22 minutes. It will take 7 minutes in the tunnel (according to the website), 7 minutes to get from the tunnel to the airport (my own measurement). So allow 8 minutes to get from, say O'Connell St to the tunnel entrance, and that's 22 minutes. It might be a bit longer when the city centre is congested, but it won't be that much longer.

Well this is irrelevent, as the primary purpose of the port tunnel is to take trucks of the street, i.e. there is a fairly substantial premium incurred to bring a car through it.. The benefit of the tunnel being finished will be the removal of the road works and trucks from the city streets!!

antoinolachtnai · 25-05-2004 6:34pm

Jesus, haven't you ever heard of buses?

Trebor · 25-05-2004 11:50pm

would it not be better for them to implement a city wide metro instead of building one line and then adding to it bit by bit as they realise that the city's population is going to continue to grow?

John R · 25-05-2004 11:50pm

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai

On the other hand a metro service wouldn't necessarily be a great service for tourists. There would be a number of stops on the way to the city, and it would probably take 35 minutes or more to get there. If the airport link were implemented as a spur to the maynooth lines, it would take even longer, and the frequency of services would be much lower.

Added to that, you would probably have to walk for 5 to 10 minutes or take a shuttle bus to get from the arrivals at the airport to the train station.

A lot of probablys there mate, you really don't know what you are on about do you?

Dun Laoghaire (which is a greater distance away) to the city takes just over 20 minutes by train with 9 intermediate stops, more than there will be from the Airport. Non-stop shuttles could also be used to cut the time even more. Why would service frequency be lower if the (Maynooth) line was used?

The plans I have seen have the line running underground as it approaches the airport to a station in close proximity to the airport terminal, no long hikes or shuttle buses.

As for tourists, I know from my experience that when in an unfamiliar city I would always opt for rail as it is much easier to navigate then a bus system.

John R · 25-05-2004 11:54pm

Originally posted by Trebor
would it not be better for them to implement a city wide metro instead of building one line and then adding to it bit by bit as they realise that the city's population is going to continue to grow?

Of course it would but that would require forward thinking and a commitment to public services, not really the FForte of our great leaders.

antoinolachtnai · 26-05-2004 1:06am

Well, I can't give you the exact figures because I don't have access to all the planning and source material. Nor do I have the gift of clairvoyance. If I had these, I could be more accurate.

A spur would have to have a lower frequency, because (a) it might only be single-track and (b) it would have to share a track that is already congested.

Yes, you are right, you could make a train go faster than I said. In fact, they are proposing 17 minutes to Stephen's Green with relatively few stops. I would say it would take a few more minutes than that, because extra stops might get added during the planning process

One older proposal (http://osamuabe.ld.infoseek.co.jp/subway/mappage/constmap/dublin.jpg) suggests the metro taking a more circuitous route, going west as far as the N2 junction. It basically depends on how many people you want to serve with the system.

Where would you put the metro station so it would be close to the airport arrivals? You can't put it under the apron. It would be very tricky to put it under the terminal. The nearest place you could put it, as far as I can see would be where the coach park is now, or where one of the car parks is. It would have to be underground and you'd have to descend a lifts or long escalators to get to it. There is also the question of what would be done to serve the second terminal.

You couldn't have an express train co-existing with stopping trains unless you had an express track. It's a high-frequency metro, not a suburban or intercity train, so passing loops and express platforms at stations wouldn't really be enough. There is no proposal for an express track that I have ever heard of.

Certainly, if we were planning everything out from scratch, a rail link to the airport would be a good idea. Trains are convenient, especially for tourists who aren't sure of their way round town.

But we're not planning from scratch. We have limited capital and we have to invest it as best we can.

There over 600m journeys in Dublin every year (1m people at 1.4 journeys per day, which is a conservative estimate). There are 15m arrivals/departures at Dublin airport every year. Even if it doubled, which it probably will, and assuming that all of those people travel to or from a destination in Dublin, that's only 5 percent of the total number of journeys.

In the light of this, I can't see how a metro link to the city centre is such a brilliant way to spend money, when we're after spending so much on a road link.

There are things that would make it worthwhile. If the population around Swords and along the M1 were expected to grow at a rapid pace and the other aspects of the infrastructure needed to do that were going to be in place, it would be a good idea, fair enough.

rs · 26-05-2004 9:45am

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai

On the other hand a metro service wouldn't necessarily be a great service for tourists. There would be a number of stops on the way to the city, and it would probably take 35 minutes or more to get there.

Even with a few stops, I doubt it would take that long. Most importantly, it's direct. No changing trains or anything like that.

At Narita, there is a train service and a bus service linking to Tokyo, but the bus service seems to be just as popular, because the standard of service is higher, it brings you directly to the major hotels, and you don't have to climb or ascend to get to it. If you took the train, you'd have to make connections. The distance is much greater than the distance in Dublin.

Was in Tokyo last month. Took the train. The Narita Express train is a very fast direct train to Tokyo station. The only problem is that it's pretty expensive. We had Japan rail passes which means we didn't have to pay anything. The regular (cheaper) trains from Narita take much longer and require several different trains. We took these on the way back, (passes had expired) and it was more hassle, because of changing trains. There is a big difference between a direct train and a non-direct train.

When given a choice between a train and bus in a foreign city (particularly one where I don't speak the native language) I always take the train. The reason is that I can always read the station names, so I never get lost. You take this train to station X is much easier than you get on this bus and get off at location X. How do you recognize location X if you've never been there before. What if it's dark and raining and you can't read the street signs or see any points of reference?

There are things that would make it worthwhile. If the population around Swords and along the M1 were expected to grow at a rapid pace and the other aspects of the infrastructure needed to do that were going to be in place, it would be a good idea, fair enough.

I believe that fingal is re-zoning a huge amount of land in North County Dublin for housing at the moment, and swords itself has grown rapidly in the last several years.
Personally, I don't think it makes sense to build a metro unless it extends to swords because I don't think the airport will provide enough passagers by itself. However, the combined Airport + swords + surrounding areas should provide plenty.

But then again, I live in swords so I would think that way

But I'd take a train to work over driving any day of the week.

Building a spur off and existing over-crowded rail line is very short sighted. Dublin is growing, and we need to plan for the future, not for now.

Personally, I think as soon as we build trains to an area, builders will start building houses in that area, because the property will be worth more. Because of this, any rail link we build will be well used.

If we build it, they will come

GreeBo · 26-05-2004 10:10am

Originally posted by rs

Personally, I think as soon as we build trains to an area, builders will start building houses in that area, because the property will be worth more. Because of this, any rail link we build will be well used.

If we build it, they will come

Exactly. In Dallas they built the infrastructure first and then let the companies/towns come. So much easier than trying to stick it in afterwards.

John R · 26-05-2004 2:10pm

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
Well, I can't give you the exact figures because I don't have access to all the planning and source material. Nor do I have the gift of clairvoyance. If I had these, I could be more accurate.

Then don't post uninformed supposition as fact.

A spur would have to have a lower frequency, because (a) it might only be single-track and (b) it would have to share a track that is already congested.

Again with the supposition, has anyone suggested a single track section? No.
Part of the project would be to increase capacity where needed, besides the section of old lines that some have proposed using (Phibsborough - Spencer dock) has four running lines and is currently lightly used.

Yes, you are right, you could make a train go faster than I said. In fact, they are proposing 17 minutes to Stephen's Green with relatively few stops. I would say it would take a few more minutes than that, because extra stops might get added during the planning process

17 mns/20mns/22mns does it really matter? FFS it can take that long to get from Parnell Square to Stephens green by road.

Where would you put the metro station so it would be close to the airport arrivals? You can't put it under the apron. It would be very tricky to put it under the terminal. The nearest place you could put it, as far as I can see would be where the coach park is now, or where one of the car parks is. It would have to be underground and you'd have to descend a lifts or long escalators to get to it. There is also the question of what would be done to serve the second terminal.

Building a tube station and a rail station underneath Heathrow didn't seem to pose such a huge problem.
There is no second terminal yet, how difficult can it be to incorporate rail access into a terminal that is still in the planning stages?

You couldn't have an express train co-existing with stopping trains unless you had an express track. It's a high-frequency metro, not a suburban or intercity train, so passing loops and express platforms at stations wouldn't really be enough. There is no proposal for an express track that I have ever heard of.

Personally I doubt there would be a need for a dedicated Airport only service but even if there was all that is needed for fast and stopping services to co-exist on the same line is proper timing. It is only a few short miles of suburban line not 100s of miles of high speed inter-city travel.

There over 600m journeys in Dublin every year (1m people at 1.4 journeys per day, which is a conservative estimate). There are 15m arrivals/departures at Dublin airport every year. Even if it doubled, which it probably will, and assuming that all of those people travel to or from a destination in Dublin, that's only 5 percent of the total number of journeys.

In the light of this, I can't see how a metro link to the city centre is such a brilliant way to spend money, when we're after spending so much on a road link.

1. It is just one rail link, it can only take people to the areas it goes through. On it's own it will not solve Dublin's travel problems,what do you expect it to do? If more traffic is to be carried by rail then we need rail services to more parts of the city.
2. Many more people travel to/from an airport than fly out from one.
3. The rail link will serve much more than just the airport, it will also give a fast and reliable service to parts of north Dublin with no rail and bad road congestion.
4. Road building create more congestion, rail has the opposite effect, instead of questioning why we should be spending all this money on rail links we should be questioning why so little is spent on rail and public transport in general. Our car-centric policies have led to us now being proud inhabitants of the most congested city in Europe. A proper public transport system and strong car control is the only viable solution.

rs · 26-05-2004 2:49pm

I suppose it's also important to note that the airport and supporting industries employ a few thousand people, who would also benefit greatly from a metro to the airport.

antoinolachtnai · 26-05-2004 4:06pm

Road building create more congestion, rail has the opposite effect, instead of questioning why we should be spending all this money on rail links we should be questioning why so little is spent on rail and public transport in general. Our car-centric policies have led to us now being proud inhabitants of the most congested city in Europe. A proper public transport system and strong car control is the only viable solution.

Exactly. We have to look at how we can reduce congestion in the city overall, in a reasonable timeframe, without unnecessarily burdening ourselves with debt.

We don't necessarily have to use trains. They may or may not be the best form of public transport for a particular situation. Trains have a lot of downsides (high maintenance costs; expensive rolling stock; inflexibility) as well as upsides (regularity, comfort) which we have to consider in the equation.

17 mns/20mns/22mns does it really matter? FFS it can take that long to get from Parnell Square to Stephens green by road.

With the Dublin Port Tunnel, you won't have to go to Parnell Square to get to the Airport. You will easily be able to make it from the airport to the city centre, kerb-to-kerb in 30 minutes or less on a bus. That's still allowing 15 minutes to get from the tunnel exit to the city centre.

It's a matter of value for money. Is it worth the extra money to get a few minute's improvement in journey time, a smoother ride and greater ease of use for tourists visiting the city?

You may think it is, and that's fair enough. But I think you would need to justify your argument in terms of the growth in population along the line. (To form an overall plan, we would also need to understand what proportion of these people we would expect to be moving from another part of Dublin, and what proportion would be moving to the city for the first time.)

I think that congestion would be reduced more by an investment in services to the west of the city, where there are more people, and where the traffic is absolute bedlam at the moment. (I agree with you that we will not be able to road-build our way out of our problems, certainly not out of the problems with the capacity of the M50.)

Other points: the Tube station at Heathrow is a good walk away from the terminals. I'm pretty sure (but am open to correction on this) that when the station at Terminal 1/2/3 was built, there was nothing above it. The Heathrow Express was certainly built much more recently, but it was a really massive project, which was only justified by the scale of Heathrow's air traffic. (You can see a map of it at http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/heathrow/heathrow1.html .)

The issue about the second terminal is that the station can't really be on the doorstep of both terminals. There's going to be a walk with luggage or a change of train involved whatever way you do it. You couldn't justify building two stations in such a small airport. I'm not saying that it's such a big deal, because obviously this is the way it works at most multi-terminal airports. But it's better to find ways to minimise long walks as much as possible. A bus is more flexible at dealing with this sort of situation, since it can easily stop at one or either terminal. As ever, it's a trade-off.

Victor · 27-05-2004 1:32pm

Originally posted by Trebor
would it not be better for them to implement a city wide metro instead of building one line and then adding to it bit by bit as they realise that the city's population is going to continue to grow?

Actually, incremental expansion of a sytem is the best way to go, because *nobody* can predict *exactly* how a system is going to work. As you might have guessed, Luas during the construction stage hasn't been great. Imagine if that contractor was building say another 4 lines at the same stage over the last few years? The general opinion is MVM will never be allowed work on Luas again.

The Moscow undergound is considered one of the best in the world as is still being expanded decades later.

Trebor · 27-05-2004 8:31pm

Originally posted by Victor
Actually, incremental expansion of a sytem is the best way to go, because *nobody* can predict *exactly* how a system is going to work. As you might have guessed, Luas during the construction stage hasn't been great. Imagine if that contractor was building say another 4 lines at the same stage over the last few years? The general opinion is MVM will never be allowed work on Luas again.

The Moscow undergound is considered one of the best in the world as is still being expanded decades later.

i can understand that kind of incremental system when you are working off an existing system and you want to wait to see where in the region is going to need a new line. however as we do not have a metro yet would it not be more economical to build a system that incorporates the already busy routes instead of building them in stages which would just add to the cost and the time before the entire city becomes accessible through the metro.

Victor · 27-05-2004 8:40pm

No, a "big bang" approach is much more expensive as demand would far exceed supply for a short(ish) period and you would have meteoric price rises (remember the wages paid to some programmers for Y2K?)

GeorgeBush · 30-05-2004 5:17pm

yeah, i agree with victor and his anti big bang theory, but they would need to start soon !!

dublin needs a metro, damn it, whats that breenan guy holdin back for ? I hear that he STILL hasnt given the green light for the second terminal in dublin

Victor · 31-05-2004 1:16pm

Originally posted by GeorgeBush
dublin needs a metro, damn it, whats that breenan guy holdin back for ?

Theres something about an announcement in today's paper.

Kappar · 31-05-2004 1:30pm

The Minister for Transport, Mr Brennan, said he intends to proceed with plans for a new underground metro link between Dublin Airport and the city centre, and that he has now ruled out an alternative proposal for a small link between the airport and the existing DART line.

Speaking in Dublin yesterday he said the route for the proposed metro had now been finalised, but it would not be serving either of the two main train stations in the capital.

He told The Irish Times he intended to bring the plans to the Cabinet before the summer break, and that the underground line could be operationing by the end of 2009.

An underground metro system was first mooted four years ago for the capital by the then minister for public enterprise, Ms Mary O'Rourke.

However, the plans were effectively stalled two years ago after it emerged the costs of the first stage, a line between Dublin Airport and the city centre, could exceed 4 billion.

Mr Brennan said the latest revised figures he has received indicate the total cost of the link, including land costs and risk contingent, will be €2.4 billion, he told The Irish Times.

Mr Brennan said he had also examined an alternative to the metro, proposed by Iarnród Éireann, which would involve the construction of a rail spur off the Belfast-Dublin train line to the airport, along with an underground inter-connector tunnel between Heuston and Connolly stations.

"At this stage I am not attracted to the CIÉ alternative," he said. "The inter-connector alone would cost €1.5 billion. As it stands, Heuston and Connolly are being linked by Luas I also have concerns about its ability to meet the capacity that is needed."

He said he was now finalising the detailed plans for the metro, which he intended bringing before the Government "in the next few months, definitely before the summer break."

Mr Brennan said the final route of the proposed metro does not include Connolly Station, as he had originally hoped.

"I asked the Rail Procurement Agency and the Dublin Transportation Office to look at this, but both have advised against this. It would add an extra seven minutes onto the journey between Dublin Airport and St Stephen's Green. If we had included Connolly on the route, we would have had to omit O'Connell Street as a stop."

The proposed route starts at Dublin Airport, continue overground through Ballymun, before going underground at Glasnevin, through Phibsboro, O'Connell Street. It will terminate at the top of Grafton Street.

The underground Tara Street stop would link with the DART station. "It effectively links up with Connolly Station, which is just one stop on that line," Mr Brennan said.

The Department has received 20 expressions of interest in building and operating the new metro, he said. The expected cost to the Government under this method of construction would be an annual payment of €250 million for 20 years. It is understood there is still opposition to the metro within the Department of Finance, which is concerned about the potential of spiralling costs, as has been the case in relation to the construction of Luas.

Irish Times 31/05/04

rs · 31-05-2004 4:49pm

Is it just me or does this seem pretty cool?

I would be nice to have it link with connolly, but I think the fact that it links with tara street should be ok (with an integrated ticket system of course).

I assume it will join the luas at stephens green, and connect the dart and luas lines together.

and a big metro station under o'connel street would be great

I just love big underground metro stations.

The whole thing sounds fairly sensible really. Surely that has to be a first.

My biggest concern would be that the dart would not be frequent enough between tara and connelly. Waiting 20 minutes for a dart just to go one station is way too long.

Also, coming from the tallaght luas line to sanyford line would have similar problems.

BrianD · 31-05-2004 5:00pm

I think Brennans proposal is mickey mouse and his approach seems to be built something - anything - as long as it gets to the airport.

Dublin Metro = monumental white elephant and waste of money.

I would adopt Irish Rail's plan for an expanded DART network using existing rail lines with the provision of a new line to the airport and preferably to Swords. This would guarantee an integrated system and of the same guage.

and a big metro station under o'connel street would be great

and also very empty!

Light rail can service other areas not close to heavy rail lines.

antoinolachtnai · 31-05-2004 5:27pm

I wouldn't get too excited about all this just yet.

It is the run-in to an election, after all.

thejollyrodger · 31-05-2004 8:47pm

Brennan promises metro plan within weeks

Monday, May 31 08:47:03

(BizWorld)

Transport Minister Seamus Brennan has predicted that he will bring a finalised plan for a metro to cabinet before the summer break.

He says that the line, which he has now decided will serve O'Connell Street but not Connolly Station, could be in operation by 2009.

Mr Brennan says the latest revised figures he has received for the project show a total cost of 2.4bn euro, including land purchases and and risk contingent.

He also says his Department has received 20 expressions of interest in building and operating the metro.

If it is contracted out in this way, he says, the likely cost to the government would be an annual payment of 250m euro for 20 years.

He says he has now finalised the route from the airport, which will see the line going underground at Glasnevin and then passing via O'Connell St and Tara St to terminate at the top of Grafton Street.

He tells the Irish Times this morning that he had originally wanted to route it via Connolly Station but the Rail Procurement Agency and the Dublin Transportation Office had both advised against this.

It would add an extra seven minutes onto the journey between Dublin Airport and St Stephen's Green, he says.

And if he had included Connolly on the route, we would have had to omit O'Connell Street as a stop.

thejollyrodger · 31-05-2004 8:50pm

The fact that there is no Swords link, no mention of the Interconnector and no link up with Connolly is a COMPLETE JOKE and PADDY PLANNING AT IT'S WORST if i ever saw it.

I was all for the Metro, but now I just think its a complete and utter sham.

Trebor · 31-05-2004 8:57pm

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
The fact that there is no Swords link, no mention of the Interconnector and no link up with Connolly is a COMPLETE JOKE and PADDY PLANNING AT IT'S WORST if i ever saw it.

I was all for the Metro, but now I just think its a complete and utter sham.

if they do it this way it will leave them with more options when they extend it to other parts of the city, which will happen. they should have o'connel street or grafton street as a central hub for a metro system that goes all over the city. then if people want to get a train out of the city they can just walk from o'connel street up to the dart station, it's just a fifteen min walk. i agree that it should run to swords though.

thejollyrodger · 31-05-2004 9:18pm

more options when they extend it to other parts of the city

Thats a good point, maybe its the better option. And in the future they can extend it to Swords as well.

Another thing I forgot to point out, what the stupidness of the engineers and contractors who are going to build this Metro.completed by 2009 thats COMPLETLY PATHETIC. In spain they can build such a line in one or 2 years, not 5!!!

and thats only the 1st line OMFG !

This country is a bit of a joke when it comes to building ANYTHING eg..... landsdowne road, 2009 also FFS!!

most of us will be dead before they fix 1/2 the stuff in this country for slow builders.

No word about the D connector either, looks like brannen has made a balds of that one as well, along with the never never never "were going to build the 2nd Terminal at Dublin soon" ending story, and the "Dublin Port Tunnel that doh is too small" / do it all again in Shannon next year tunnel.

lunetics in charge,

Trebor · 31-05-2004 9:29pm

i can understand the metro talking a bit longer to build as they are digging through granite. the bit about the terminal, i say their waiting to sell off aer rinta and will leave it up to whoever buys it to build a second terminal.
the reason it will be 2009 though is probably because they won't start till 2006 cause of the red tape and they will want to keep it as an election promise

What's up with the Metro

Comments