Metro Full Report

P11 Comms

by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport.

www.platform11.org

look under "P11 Update"

morlan

Just read the report, very good. They have a section about your 'D-Connector'. Well done

Hecate

Interesting, and it seems to contain a bit of sanity for once. Let's hope they can implement it as planned. These things aren't really that big a deal, other european cities have built undergrounds from scratch in a very short period of time - no reason why it should be any different here.

P11 Comms

cheer for that Morlan.

Not sure if the Government are going to make the RPA re-route the line or not to serve a new station at Glasnevin Junction just yet. Would be a fantastic interchange point though.

sliabh

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the report on integration with the Luas Green line even though it always has been said that this line is to be upgraded to Metro.

From reading the report and riding on the Luas I can see there are a number of major (and costly) problems here:

- The report says a Metro should use the Irish rail gauge, but this is different from what is in use for Luas.
- Wouldn't metro carraiges be higher and wider than Luas trams? So all the existing Luas platforms will have to be raised and narrowed.

This would lead me to believe that the green line would have to be Metro only when it is upgraded, and it would be out of action while the upgrade is in progress?

And I won't even get into wondering where you would put the site works for a major tunneling project in either Ranelagh or St Stephens Green (without suggesting the obvious of digging up the green for a few years)

Am I missing something here?

BrianD

Personally, I am with the Irish Rail proposal which I believe is the way forward. The metro idea must be scrapped immediately and is only being punted around for cheap political reasons. Building the line as proposed will be a irresponsible use of public funds and a monument to bad planning.

Integration is the buzz word yet the proposed metro offers none of this. It is a single line, different guage to other lines, links to no transport hubs ... the list goes on. I am surprised that anybody could actually consider this plan as realistic. Why Stephens Green as a terminus? Oh I forgot, that's where all the passengers and employees hang out.

The Irish Rail plan can delivery us a fully electric integrated metro system within a few years. Most of the infrastructure is already there. Why can't our politicans see this? Maybe it's not sexy enough as the white elephant metro system! Additional tram lines can fill in the gaps in the network.

sliabh

The Irish Rail plan is discussed in the consultant's report and found to be wanting. They find it to be cheaper, but less effective and constrained when it comes to future growth.

Metro is being suggested because it addresses more problems and provides greater capacity.

CIE are a heavy rail operator with an existing infrastructure and they fear being left behind as money is spent to ugrade Dublin's transport. So "when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail" their solution to Dublin's problems are to build more heavy rail links that they will operate. It may help but it's far from the full solution.

BrianD

Well I would say the quality of the report would have to be questioned.

With the proposed upgrade DART will have good coverage of the city and surrounds. The trains are the same as a metro and I am sure that similar frequencies can be achieved.

Here's what I find ridiculous about the report? Our metro as proposed consists of one line, unlinked to anything else and will have massive overheads. It will serve the airport and swords and provide a very needed link. There are no indications how this single line will expand or where other lines will go.

Therefore thefollowing statement

Metro is being suggested because it addresses more problems and provides greater capacity.

... is false as there is nothing to substantiate it.

IR have put their proposal as it is can meet the needs of the city. There is absolutely no way there could be an "upgrade of transport needs" without all IR lines being close to the top of the list.

It may help but it's far from the full solution.

I would suggest that it would more than help as you say. It would be a key component of Dublin's transit system. Take a look at a rail map for Dublin and pencil in the extra bits proposed. Then draw a line to show our single line metro - then you'll how inadequate the metro is in meeting requirements.

sliabh

BrianD wrote:

Well I would say the quality of the report would have to be questioned.

I have read it and it seems quite reasonable to me.

BrianD wrote:

Here's what I find ridiculous about the report? Our metro as proposed consists of one line, unlinked to anything else and will have massive overheads. It will serve the airport and swords and provide a very needed link. There are no indications how this single line will expand or where other lines will go.

But the proposed metro line will cross the Red Luas line in the city centre and the report is favourable to the construction of a connecting station at Glasnevin Junction. So that would make two links. The report scope was to cover a single metro line and not the whole system. It is implicit that further lines will be built elsewhere. And it also has long been the plan that the metro will replace/supplement the Luas B line.

BrianD wrote:

Therefore thefollowing statement
"Quote: Metro is being suggested because it addresses more problems and provides greater capacity."
is false as there is nothing to substantiate it.

Huh? If you read the report in Section 6.4 Assessment - DART link to Airport M1 and Malahide Rd. Park & Ride stations Vs Metro project (and apologies for cutting in large chunks of this) there is plenty to substantiate it:
"• If the project objective is to provide a rail link between the Airport and the city centre, then that objective can be fulfilled much more cheaply by opting for the Iarnrod Éireann DART option... However, if the objective of the Metro project is to build the first link in a major infrastructural undertaking designed to solve Dublin transport problems, then the Metro project has undoubted advantages.

• While the cost would be lower than for the Metro project, the benefits of the Airport DART are unlikely to be anywhere near as great. The RPA projects that only about 25% of its total patronage will come from the Airport. Most of the Airport-city centre DART route is already served by the Northern Line of the DART and the area between the Airport and Grange Road has no major population centres as it is in the Airport flight path. In contrast, the Metro project will open up the north side of Dublin city, providing a transport link/regeneration to Swords, Ballymun, Finglas, and Glasnevin etc.

• The Airport DART would share a line with the Dublin-Belfast diesel train and the commuter services from Dundalk, Drogheda, Balbriggan and Skerries.... Given that it will operate on a line with limited capacity, the limited frequency of services possible may mean that the Airport DART only provides a short-term solution for linking the Airport to the city centre. A bout of economic and population growth may quickly overtake the project.

•The Metro, being on a dedicated rail route with regular train frequencies, is more likely to produce reliable performance, compared to the Airport Dart which has to compete with other conflicting line occupancy as it heads for the City Centre."

And their summary is:
"The DART option will provide a cheaper, stop-gap piece of infrastructure that links the Airport to the city centre, while the Metro project offers the first phase of a long term solution to Dublin’s traffic problems.

The Iarnrod Éireann proposal is not a satisfactory alternative to the Metro proposal."

It's better to go for the option that works rather than the one that is easy/cheap. It's that sort of short term thinking that has us in much of the transport mess we are in today.

BrianD

I'll be honest, I have only scanned through the report so far.

The problem is with the Metro is that I can see nothing on the horizon other than this one line. If we are building a line from the airport it needs to go to other transport hubs (like in other cities) and not to a public park!

Where the other lines are going to be is hugely important and will dictate the future expansion of other transport modes e.g. tram and existing heavy rail. We need to know now! Furthmore will it be feasible to tap in other lines to the initial line so that rolling stock can be shared and will it be fasible for, say, an east-west line to be tunnelled under the nort-south lines. The metro plan is not in the least though out. Thus the plan is the ultimate stop-gap plan.

I agree that a spur to the Belfast line is not the idea solution and I would be more supportive of a line from the Maynooth line or perhaps a totally new line on a different route as long as it joins an existing rail link somewhere. I also agree that Swords should be served and it would be great if the line ran down through say DCU and on into the city.

In my opinion, The existing rail system upgraded, with the additional lines/spurs is well placed to service the city for the forseeable future.

GerardKeating

sliabh wrote:

I have read it and it seems quite reasonable to me.

•The Metro, being on a dedicated rail route with regular train frequencies, is more likely to produce reliable performance, compared to the Airport Dart which has to compete with other conflicting line occupancy as it heads for the City Centre."

Why not build a DART (Heavy Rail) line along the route of the proposed Metro?

Once the line reaches Glasnevin, there is the option of two routes to Connolly, or to Spenser Dock or Hueston. We could have through services from Portlaois/Kildare and Arklow/Bray to the Airport and beyond if the line continued past the airport to swords and the northern line.

Another option, since there seems to be money to tunnell the Metro to Stephens Green, why not Tunnel to Pearse and continue to Bray

The Loop line is over a hundred years old, it will have to be replaced eventually.




Would this not give the best of both Worlds?

gurramok

The specific Metro strategy required a network as follows -

North to South: Swords / Airport / City Centre / Sandyford / Shanganagh
Orbital: Tallaght West / Tallaght / City Centre / Finglas / Airport
: Tallaght West / Clondalkin / Blanchardstown / Airport

.

I thought the strategy above looks reasonable with the 1st and 3rd options above as the more sensible ones.
Put the proposed metro/rail between all major business parks and dense residential areas with links to all other rail. (Luas was a start with Sandyford)
Hope the powers that be realise that a huge proportion of commuters on the 3rd option use the M50 at present hence congestion for the suburbs. Not everyone commutes from suburb to city centre as final destination

Forgive my lack of google skills but has there been a study done of the commuting habits of M50 drivers ?

silverside

Look forward to reading it in detail at a later stage. Had a quick scan and it was a bit lacking in diagrams/bullett points.

It is remarkable how little coverage this whole matter is getting. When there is anything published (usually in the Indo following a leak) there is no reference to any press releases etc. The dto.ie site has not been updated (content-wise) in ages although it has been revamped.

It would make total sense to me to proceed with the original DTO plan (metro shankill-ranelagh-airport and glasnevin-blanch-clondalkin-tallatht-kimmage-ranelagh ) ASAP, though I know bertie has reservations about cost. Just my 2c.

sliabh

Well whatever your views, pro/anti metro nothing is going to happen with any project until we have a new finance minister. McCreevy and the department of Finance were often identified as delaying major infrastructure projects as he was holding the government purse strings so tightly. Let's hope Cowen is a little more forward thinking (as I believe that he is the man tipped for the job in future).

antoinolachtnai

Well, a lot depends on how it is planned for the city to grow. If we expect to have a 'bout of population growth' as the report suggests, then we need to be thinking about a Metro.

If the population is going to grow more slowly, and industrial development is going to be moved outside of Dublin, then a more lightweight solution (a lot of buses and QBCs, some Luas and better utilisation of heavy rail capacity to provide links to the suburbs and other cities) is probably a better game for us.

Personally, I think that serious consideration should be given to curtailing growth in Dublin. The population is getting pretty substantial, and it is going to be hard to scale it much bigger. The problem isn't just transport; property prices are just too high, development of new property can't keep up and there aren't enough amenities. Service prices are driven up by the high cost of housing and scarcity of premises. If we improve suburban transport, there is a high risk we will just spur further sprawl and even more people will become involved in even longer commutes.

If we do decide that the city should grow to a population of say, 2 million over the next thirty or forty years, we need a wider plan for where we're going to put the people so they will be reasonably close to work. It takes a lot more than just drawing in a few metro lines and doing a cost-benefit analysis.

halenger

This may sound silly but I'd like to see a Luas Metro. They way I'm thinking of it is like the Muni in San Francisco. It's utterly fantastic. It runs underground in the city and overground in suburbs etc. I think the government, eh on reconsidering maybe not. I really don't want them using our money to go on a nice holiday to San Fran. But they should look at that system and see how they do it.

The other system which is quite good is one I've seen in Amsterdam and other places in Europe. Not really for metro more inter-city. Those nice electric double decker trains. Problems would be having to raise the height of the overhead lines and lowering tracks under bridges etc.

The Muni is really the one that sticks out for me. Such a handy service. $1 for a 90 minute ticket too. Pure class. And by 90 minutes I mean you get 90 minutes from the time of getting on to reboard. Like a quick trip to town and back. Easily covered in the $1 dollar fair.

thejollyrodger

I still havent a clue about when/if the Metro begins construction :eek: they are talking way to much. Thank god the sent Mc Creevy off to Brussels otherwise it would be another 10 years before we would have actually started.

The same goes for the road building. The NRA website is CRAP no diagrams of what has been done, what will be done etc...

The RPA website is even worse, 3 pages of flash and a few pictures,,, what a joke

Im in favour of a Dublin Wide LUAS/Metro and reducing the number of cars and trucks on the road. (Even a city congestion charge for those single person drivers.)

They can build these metro systems in madrid in 2 years max...

jd

halenger wrote:

This may sound silly but I'd like to see a Luas Metro. They way I'm thinking of it is like the Muni in San Francisco. It's utterly fantastic. It runs underground in the city and overground in suburbs etc.

AFAIR, the green line of the T in Boston is similar

antoinolachtnai

As I understand it, a Dublin Metro as proposed by the current plans would be quite a distance underground. You would have to take a few escalators to get down to the platform. So it wouldn't be as quick to get on and get off as the services you see in places like Boston, which are mostly built quite close to the surface.

sliabh

antoinolachtnai wrote:

As I understand it, a Dublin Metro as proposed by the current plans would be quite a distance underground. You would have to take a few escalators to get down to the platform. So it wouldn't be as quick to get on and get off as the services you see in places like Boston, which are mostly built quite close to the surface.

I don't think any of the plans so far have discussed this. The report says a route decision should be made which would then allow an estimate to be made on how deep it would have to go.

If I remember correctly after the Port Tunnel difficulties the Gov was planning legislation to limit property ownership to 10m below the ground (rather than the current to the centre of the earth standard). So presumably the tunnels would generally be below this.

antoinolachtnai

I think it has been mentioned. I recall seeing cross-sections in some of the papers some time ago. It basically has to do with geological considerations. You have to go a certain depth if you want to get under the river safely.