Metro North open days

antoinolachtnai

paulm17781 wrote:

The DART is being re-routed Bray - Maynooth / Pace. That is why they will need 16 tph. Perhaps you should read up on what is planned in Dublin for 2015 and then tell us why we actually need buses instead.

I never said we needed buses instead. I said we needed buses as well.

I don't doubt that it is a good idea to upgrade the DART line to 20 tph or more the tracks are there so they should definitely be used. But it is a reality that commuter use of the bray line has a negative impact on the service to Wexford (which is already slower than driving, I think - 2 hours 38 minutes for a 141km road journey). So people from Wexford will be forced to take the car or the bus.

What's the deal with joining the luas to the metro? Why is this not being done? (I am sure there is a good reason). Similarly, why is it cheaper to build single-bore metros in Madrid, but cheaper to build twin-bore metros in Ireland?

And still, I come back to the point: Is it worth having a metro station at the airport that will actually result in slower overall journey times than a far less expensive coach service?

Is it worth spending in the order of EUR 100m in order to put an underground train station at the airport, which will only be used for 6 or 7 million journeys a year (compared to a city centre station, which would probaby be used for twice that).

And not building now doesn't mean it can't be built later on. This is not a once-only opportunity.

MarkoP11

The airport to Stephens Green metro time is quoted as 17 minutes, the only time you can match that by road is in a taxi early in the morning. Try Stephens Green to Parrnell Square at 5:30pm and it an take almost as long. Dublin Bus quote 30 minutes. Metro will be operating at up to 90 kph, a double decker is limited to 65 kph. Without any question metro will be faster to the airport.

You can pay Dublin Bus €5 single for the dedicated service or you can take the slower regular bus at normal price. This pay more for a slower service line is total utter rubbish, pay less for faster is the reality. Now it is true if you buy a single Airport Dublin you may pay a premium but those of us with weekly, monthly etc won't get stung

2015 you are looking at 200 million DART/Luas/Metro passengers per annum thats whole lot more than Dublin Bus currently manage

Airport station would accommodate roughly 6-7 million air passengers per year that doesn't include those working in the airport which could double that number, that would make it busier than any existing station in the country

Its a whole lot easier do stations with twin bore as you simple excavate the gap between the tunnels to give an island platform

Unless it is built right in the first place you won't be able to add bits on

antoinolachtnai

I am talking about capital costs, not ticket costs. The ticket cost is completely irrelevant at this stage of planning.

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

The relationship between the traffic at the airport station and any existing station is not really relevant that I can see. An underground station is a completely different financial proposition (if it is indeed put underground).

The current volume that Dublin Bus carries is not really relevant to anything either.

aliveandkicking

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I am talking about capital costs, not ticket costs. The ticket cost is completely irrelevant at this stage of planning.

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

The relationship between the traffic at the airport station and any existing station is not really relevant that I can see. An underground station is a completely different financial proposition (if it is indeed put underground).

The current volume that Dublin Bus carries is not really relevant to anything either.

The 32 minute coach service you advocate goes via the port tunnel so it won't serve O'Connell Street, won't interchange with the thousands of passengers coming off the train at Drumcondra, won't interchange with the thousands of passengers coming from western suburbs on Metro West and won't serve Swords or the thousands of people using the M1 park and ride at Lissenhall.

Earlier on in this thread I said you should stop thinking of Metro North as just the airport line but to think of it in its context as an overall integrated transport corridoor. Your entire rationale of favouring a coach service from Stephen's Green to the airport is based on the assumption that people only want to travel directly from St Stephen's Green to the airport. This is a totally flawed assumption. As I said before according to the RPA 80% of the passengers using Metro North will be ordinary commuters whose destination will NOT be the airport. How will your coach service serve these commuters better?

paulm17781

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

Once again, please actually read up on this stuff before criticising it. 40m down, that may take a minute possibly 2 :eek: :rolleyes: If it isn't put underground it will be linked by a travellator that will take less than 5 minutes. You will be level with the metro if this is the case.

MarkoP11

Exactly very few journeys originate in the city, the airport will be a sizable destination but in reality there are plenty of major demand centres such as Swords, Ballymun and DCU on the route which are equal to the airport in demand terms. The capacity required to cope with all this is in excess of 10k per hour

If the airport wasn't there the metro would still make a whole lot of sense. There is far too much emphasis on the airport with respect to metro partly due to the fact the RPA had stuck with it as a terminus. What you have to remember is the bulk of people visit the airport only a handful of times in a year

A frequent service with a reliable journey time with good connections is what public transport is about

antoinolachtnai

I completely agree that too much emphasis is put on the airport. I agree that the metro (or most of it) makes good sense without the airport. The needs of commuters need to come ahead of the needs of airport users.

I am just staying that the airport link needs to be able to stand on its own two feet. We should do it if the numbers and the price justify it. We shouldn't do it just because it sounds like a good idea.

If the bus service to the airport is just level with the metro, then we have to look hard at whether the whole thing is worthwhile, or whether the idea of a train to the airport has become too diluted.

I agree that there is a better customer experience on a quality rail service than on a bus service, even a good one. However, we have to look at the whole picture - the frequent changes in mode (from walking to escalator to train to escalator to travelator) make a big difference to the customer's experience when they are carrying a load of luggage to the airport. So the road and rail options turn out to be better-matched than you'd expect when you evaluate them thoroughly.

paulm17781

So the road and rail options turn out to be better-matched than you'd expect when you evaluate them thoroughly

Right. You get the bus as it is clearly the better option. We'll be on the metro.

markpb

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If the bus service to the airport is just level with the metro, then we have to look hard at whether the whole thing is worthwhile, or whether the idea of a train to the airport has become too diluted.

But they're not level, they're nowhere near level.

A metro service to the airport is reliable. A bus service to the airport simply is not. Breakdowns, traffic jams, road works, protests and parades are just a few of the things that can make a bus service unreliable and the last thing an airport link needs is to be unreliable.

Dublin has a really poor set of bus lanes and almost no bus priority junctions and there's no sign of it improving any time soon so I wonder how you could suggest that a bus service to the airport could be anywhere near as fast as a segregated train service.

bryanw

paulm17781 wrote:

Right. You get the bus as it is clearly the better option. We'll be on the metro.

Right on!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I agree that there is a better customer experience on a quality rail service than on a bus service, even a good one. However, we have to look at the whole picture - the frequent changes in mode (from walking to escalator to train to escalator to travelator) make a big difference to the customer's experience when they are carrying a load of luggage to the airport.

Firstly, the whole purpose of a travelator is that you don't have to walk and drag luggage around.

I think that the best idea, of course, for the RPA would be to do the underground link at the airport. We have been told that with modifying the plans in the city centre, the money can be redistributed. T2 at the Airport is due to be open in 2009. This is when construction is also due to begin on the Metro. I think that the Metro should be completely integrated into the T2 plans so that it can be built with ease if construction hasn't started when T2 is finished. If the metro were to be in the vicinity of T2 then a much shorter distance can be achieved to T1 by a travelator. This would all be within the airport and be a relatively short distance.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

I would be very surprised if you could make it to the Airport in 32 minutes by bus. There would have to be little or no stops - stops are not possible on the motorway at all, which is most of the route. The Port Tunnel is
1) Situated at the port, not the city centre, so its a bit of a diversion.
2) Is not intended for bus use - why would it be? There are also no toll charges specified for buses. What do they do?

The period of time taken to get to the platform of an underground station is miniscule. There will also be lifts in the stations - further reducing time to platform. Also, don't forget that only densly populated areas will have underground stations.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Is it worth spending in the order of EUR 100m in order to put an underground train station at the airport....And not building now doesn't mean it can't be built later on. This is not a once-only opportunity.

I agree that it's not a once-only oppurtunity and such a situation is not impossible - but if it were done it would the most stupid mistake in the entire history of the state :mad: . If we wait, further development at the airport could make an even worse situation of the stop location.
The Airport stop will be on of the most important on the line. If somebody in the RPA were to even think about carrying out the above situation - they should be fired on the spot.

John R

bryanw wrote:

I would be very surprised if you could make it to the Airport in 32 minutes by bus.

25-30mns is currently the average off-peak time from O'Connell street to the airport for Aircoach and Airlink.

bryanw wrote:

There would have to be little or no stops - stops are not possible on the motorway at all, which is most of the route. The Port Tunnel is

Stops are not wanted anyway.

bryanw wrote:

1) Situated at the port, not the city centre, so its a bit of a diversion.
2) Is not intended for bus use - why would it be? There are also no toll charges specified for buses. What do they do?

Not pay anything.
It is intended for road vehicles, a bus is a road vehicle. Using the Port Tunnel is only an option if it proves faster than the current route although an express Airport-Blackrock/DunLaoghaire via PT would be a good idea.

Service buses should get free passage through all tolls but that is another discussion.

bryanw wrote:

The period of time taken to get to the platform of an underground station is miniscule. There will also be lifts in the stations - further reducing time to platform. Also, don't forget that only densly populated areas will have underground stations.

True, an underground station is by far the best option. Building a line that goes right past the Airport without efficiently serving it is lunacy. It is a huge hub for passenger journies and a big cause of car use, a good rail link is essential.

bryanw wrote:

I agree that it's not a once-only oppurtunity and such a situation is not impossible - but if it were done it would the most stupid mistake in the entire history of the state :mad: . If we wait, further development at the airport could make an even worse situation of the stop location.

It will also add considerably to the overall cost as there will be the original cost of the overland line. If it is built on the cheap the likelihood is that a retrofit underground link will never be done.

Victor

bryanw wrote:

This will be say 6 years from now... what happens when oil runs out??? Then everyone will have to use an electric train...(or whatever other alternatives).

Well everyone in Swords will be out of a job because the airport will close. :eek:

antoinolachtnai

Well, just think of the route. Stephen's Green -> Merrion Square (uncongested) -> Grand Canal St (uncongested) -> Macken St (bus lane) -> Macken St. Bridge (bus lane) -> North Quays (no traffic to/from port) -> Port Tunnel (tolled, free-flowing) -> M1 (free-flowing) -> airport.

It's not that congested a route. From the entrance to the tunnel at the Port to the airport is only 14 minutes at most. Granted, you have to allow some time, to get through the city. But 18 minutes is more than enough. (80 percent of the time you will be able to make it in 5 or 6 minutes)

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Granted, you have to allow some time, to get through the city. But 18 minutes is more than enough. (80 percent of the time you will be able to make it in 5 or 6 minutes)

Ahh...what a dream...if only we could make it that quickly. The M1/M50 (soon to be south of J3) is pretty congested, and it will be more so with HGVs as they will all be diverted onto this route when the port tunnel is finished.

The reason there wouldn't be much traffic is because there wouldn't be that many people around. So you'll only have one real stop at Stephen's Green. And what toll can a private bus operator like AirCoach expect to pay at the tunnel? I'm sure they won't be able to avail of an amnesty like Dublin Bus could...(btw - I'm not aware of any other tolls apart from car/light commercials.)

antoinolachtnai

You would have stops in Stephen's Green, near the IFSC, South Docklands and Spencer Dock handy enough. These are densely populated areas. Since you have saved EUR 100m+ in tunneling fees, you could splurge on another bus and use it to serve Parnell Square, O'Connell St, Busaras/Connolly and maybe part of Dublin 7 as well.

Because the infrastructure is more lightweight, you don't need tens of thousands of people per day to justify a stop.

What real difference does the toll make to anything? Why not just subsidize it out of the exchequer (the same way the metro and its interest bill will be subsidized)? Private bus operators are entitled to the same benefits that Dublin Bus is. And who said anything about it having to be a private operator?

I'm not saying it's perfect, because it's not, but there's a good opportunity there to use existing infrastructure to provide a very good service. And this isn't something that would take seven years and two billion euros to do - this could be done in August.

murphaph

Sorry, I'm all for cost benefit analyses etc. but this is our national airport with major growth predicted. Dublin's population is growing and as much as 20% of our population will be foreign born in a couple of decades, further enhancing the demand for air travel. Skimping on a quality station at Dublin Airport on a metro that will be fit for purpose for at least a century is shortsightedness of the highest order.

Running the metro to Swords and ignoring Dublin airport in favour of a bus alternative through Dublin port is crazy. Nobody would be able to board once you reach the docks! The metro on the other hand will actually stop along the route and interchange with all modes and crucially above all else, will provide a reliable journey time, independent of weather and traffic conditions.

As Paul said, you take the bus, I'll take the metro!

antoinolachtnai

Well, don't bother running the metro to Swords, unless it stands up as a destination in the short term. All of the above about Airport applies to Swords too, it's only six or seven minutes further up the road. Build the western phase now to serve the real traffic blackspots.

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

paulm17781

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

Oh sweet Jesus! Have you been to Swords ever? It's huge already, maybe, just maybe the people of Swords deserve public transport. Don't mention the bus it takes ages to get to Swords and no 'if we do this' as fact is we don't and won't 'do this'.

Do you even live in Dublin? Have you tried to go to Swords or the airport by bus? It is a nightmare and takes ages and this metro will be of huge benefit to the population of Swords and air travellers alike. Before you ask I live in Dublin cc, not Swords.

antoinolachtnai

There were 27,000 people living in Swords at the last census. It will certainly grow, but it is not 'massive'. A better word would be 'sprawling'. Most of the Swords population is quite spread out.

The people of Swords richly deserve public transport. It is nothing short of a scandal that the service is so poor. There is no reason why they shouldn't get a better service, especially when the port tunnel opens. They shouldn't have to wait another 5 or 6 years.

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, don't bother running the metro to Swords, unless it stands up as a destination in the short term. All of the above about Airport applies to Swords too, it's only six or seven minutes further up the road. Build the western phase now to serve the real traffic blackspots.

Swords is a bit of a traffic blackspot itself remember!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

FCC are applying (section 29?) development levies to new properties all along the route of metroNorth as it passes through Swords. So that's that answered.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

Ach, come off it. Dublin is only starting to develop now ffs. The city has the LOWEST population density of ANY capital city in Europe! Building the metro will help spur high-density redevelopment in places like Glasnevin/Drumcondra and even Swords (my uncle has a small bungalow and now that metroNorth is heading his way he's investigating developing the site into an apartment block, as will happen all along such routes).

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

In my opinion, I hope the population of Dublin does grow a lot bigger...and don't worry - most other counties are seeing considerable growth. (e.g. Cork is getting pretty developed now). Maybe if Dublin grows quite a lot bigger maybe many more big infrastructure projects will have to be provided. More metro - yay!

But if Dublin is going to grow considerably - which it most likely will, don't vote for the Green Party in 2007. They are completely opposed to the sprawl of Dublin...but wait, they're also completely opposed to high density, high-rise development, not to mention them hindering growth with their carbon taxes and the like.

...back to Metro!

adk1

just my take on things
-the fundamental idea of the metro to connect the airport right?????


had a look at fingal cocos airport action plan
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/Services/Planning/PlanningItemsOnDisplay/DublinAirportMasterplan/FileDownload,3256,en.pdf
showing a "western campus" my opinion is that a variation of the green line should be used that swings around to a terminal 3 station (which connects to the western spur to tallaght) and then on to an underground terminal 1+2 station then onto swords- to me this would cause the least disruption to the airport-although I am no expert.

my idea is longer line however it would mean a shorter western spur and takes account of the planned expansion of the airport which the blue and red routes dont account for--any thoughts???

MarkoP11

The aim of metro north is to provide a high capacity public transport system on the northern transport corridor identified by the DTO

The continued obsession with Dublin Airport is completely unproductive, there is no point in building the metro if Swords is not on the system.

The problem at Dublin Airport is quite simple, is the station explicitly for air passengers or for those working at the airport. The Great Southern site would serve the airport staff better while the underground option is more focused on people using the terminal. The classic point to note is that most people visit the airport only a handful of times a year while the staff do so 50 weeks a year.

The underground route would come closer to any new terminals than the overground route, plus an underground route makes life a lot simpler on the surface for further development

A Dub in Glasgo

MarkoP11 wrote:

The continued obsession with Dublin Airport is completely unproductive, there is no point in building the metro if Swords is not on the system.

Totally agree

The problem at Dublin Airport is quite simple, is the station explicitly for air passengers or for those working at the airport. The Great Southern site would serve the airport staff better while the underground option is more focused on people using the terminal. The classic point to note is that most people visit the airport only a handful of times a year while the staff do so 50 weeks a year.

Every capital city I have travelled to that has a rail link to the airport does it mainly for the visitors to the Airport. The workers will not have far to go if the station is closer to the terminal. I think it is a travesty if a new rail link that services the airport is penny pinched insofar that the station is located a distance from the terminal.

antoinolachtnai

Is there not some way to route the Metro through above-ground or with selective cut-and-covering? It would certainly be messy, but surely some of those buildings are getting old anyway? And putting the metro under the apron and buildings is going to be messy whatever way it's done.

There are 13000 people working at the airport. That's about 3.25 million trips per year, 8,000 or 9000 a day. If one-third of those trips moved to Metro, it would still only be 1 million trips a year, or 3000 a day. It's less trips than passengers make (4 million initially, growing to maybe 6 or 8 million).

When you're investing that sort of dough, you really need to come up with something that caters fairly well for both groups.

murphaph

It should be built with passenger comfort in mind as they are the ones hauling the luggage. The staff's sandwiches aren't such a burden!

Selective C&C always seemed the likely method to me but they're talking bored tunnels. It must be down to the Team building.

jd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

. I think it is a travesty if a new rail link that services the airport is penny pinched insofar that the station is located a distance from the terminal.

Repeat to the Civil Servitude (Department of Finance) ad nauseam
Mad Cow Roundabout.
Most Interchanges on the Irish "Motorway" System.
In other words-
Do something properly for once.
jd

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I find it hard to believe that there will be the demand for 16 tph from Bray

Not all of those trains need necessarily operate all the way from Bray, some could start at say Dalkey or Dun Laoghaire.

Metrobest

From ireland.com:

RPA prefers central Ballymun route for Dublin's metro line north

The proposed metro line linking Swords and Dublin airport with St Stephen's Green is now likely to run via Ballymun and Glasnevin rather than taking a route to the east or west of this central alignment, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
There is now a strong preference within the Railway Procurement Agency for the central route after positive feedback about it from the public during a round of consultations that started in February.


However, the RPA will be reviewing proposals to run the line on an elevated structure in the middle of Ballymun Road after this emerged as the most contentious issue with the public.

The RPA distributed 100,000 flyers to people in the potential catchment areas, held six "open days" on the three principal route options and received more than 1,000 written submissions from members of the public. An RPA spokesman said all of these responses will be assessed before a final decision is made on the route in July by the project team, after which there will be another round of public consultations on its detailed design.

However, not even ballpark estimates of the cost of Metro North are being released. The RPA's revised "business case" for the line was submitted to Minister for Transport Martin Cullen last year, but it is being kept strictly confidential.

"The Minister is not giving out information, so we can't either," RPA project leader Rory O'Connor said. This includes a cost-benefit analysis which was audited by Goodbody Consultants for the Department of Finance.

Mr O'Connor said there was "massive support" for the metro and "most people see it as the beginning of a commuter network linking up with other services".

However, although the metro line would cross two existing railway lines at the southern end of Glasnevin, he conceded that there would be no direct connection between them - unless the east route, via Drumcondra, was chosen.

The proposed Botanic station on the central alignment would be located at the Smurfit site on Botanic Road. This would be at least 400m from a new Prospect station planned by Iarnród Éireann on the Maynooth commuter line.

Dublin City University would be served by Metro North, with a station south of Collins Avenue. But there is a very long gap - 1.8km - between it and Botanic station. This is more than three times longer than the optimum distance of 500m.

The west route, via Liffey Junction and Broadstone, is likely to be ruled out because it would be 5km longer. However, it would serve the proposed Dublin Institute of Technology's new campus at Broadstone, where there is major development potential.

The most likely location for the airport metro station would be close to the existing main terminal, Mr O'Connor said. An alternative option of locating it at the Great Southern Hotel - remote from the terminal - was put forward to save money. "The Great Southern option avoids having to go underground. It would also be closer to the centre of gravity of where people work at the airport, which we estimate would account for half of the people using the airport metro station."

Metro North's capacity to carry is critically dependent on a huge increase in the density of development along the route it will serve, especially north of the airport.Studies by Fingal County Council suggest the population of Swords could grow from 34,000 to 120,000 over 10 years, developing along the metro corridor.

Mr O'Connor said Metro North will have the same gauge as Luas, although its vehicles would be wider-bodied - 2.65m, as against 2.4m. It would also be "much more like light rail than heavy rail", such as Dart and most metro systems elsewhere.

The big difference is that it would run on segregated track, without crossing road junctions. For example, assuming the central alignment is chosen, it would run either over or under the busy junction of Ballymun Road and Collins Avenue.

Mr O'Connor conceded that Ballymun Road is wide enough to accommodate Metro North on the surface, running along the middle of it. However, it is likely to run on an elevated structure along the main street of Ballymun, now being intensively developed.

The RPA is working closely with Iarnród Éireann on the design of St Stephen's Green underground metro station, to ensure there is no clash with the proposed €1.2 billion rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock.

The centre of Upper O'Connell Street would have to be excavated to create an underground metro station, which would have entrances near the Spire and the Parnell monument.

Metrobest

Frank McDonald wrote:

The proposed metro line linking Swords and Dublin airport with St Stephen's Green is now likely to run via Ballymun and Glasnevin rather than taking a route to the east or west of this central alignment, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

There is now a strong preference within the Railway Procurement Agency for the central route after positive feedback about it from the public during a round of consultations that started in February..

Looks like it is Tara Street for the interchange.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, the RPA will be reviewing proposals to run the line on an elevated structure in the middle of Ballymun Road after this emerged as the most contentious issue with the public..

..Thanks in no small part to media scaremongering and ill-informed politicians. Elevated metros, when set against a backdrop of tall buildings, look futuristic and fantastic. Think the metro line 50 in Amsterdam as it approaches Sloterdijk station.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, not even ballpark estimates of the cost of Metro North are being released. The RPA's revised "business case" for the line was submitted to Minister for Transport Martin Cullen last year, but it is being kept strictly confidential..

Note the loaded language, "not even ballpark" estimates. They're not being released for good reasons. Frank seems to view it as a personal affront.

Frank McDonald wrote:

Mr O'Connor said there was "massive support" for the metro and "most people see it as the beginning of a commuter network linking up with other services"..

Again, note the inverted commas at "massive support". Inverted commas are the verbal equivilent of a raised eyebrow and were insterted by Frank to add doubt to the metro's support level.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, although the metro line would cross two existing railway lines at the southern end of Glasnevin, he conceded that there would be no direct connection between them - unless the east route, via Drumcondra, was chosen..

Again, conceded is a loaded term. To concede is to acknowledge reluctantly.

Frank McDonald wrote:

Dublin City University would be served by Metro North, with a station south of Collins Avenue. But there is a very long gap - 1.8km - between it and Botanic station. This is more than three times longer than the optimum distance of 500m..

There will be a station at DCU. What's Frank's point here?

Frank McDonald wrote:

Mr O'Connor said Metro North will have the same gauge as Luas, although its vehicles would be wider-bodied - 2.65m, as against 2.4m. It would also be "much more like light rail than heavy rail", such as Dart and most metro systems elsewhere..

Again the metro is being subtly and overtly criticised here. The aim is to turn the readers against metro.

The RPA is working closely with Iarnród Éireann on the design of St Stephen's Green underground metro station, to ensure there is no clash with the proposed €1.2 billion rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock.

Frank McDonald wrote:

The centre of Upper O'Connell Street would have to be excavated to create an underground metro station, which would have entrances near the Spire and the Parnell monument.

Well at least we know the Trinity stop is back on track. Phew! Or is Frank wrong again?

On a side issue, I don't know why the Irish Times gives FMcD free reign to litter his would-be reportage with barely concealed opinions presented as fact.

He's got every right to question and oppose the metro, so long as he does it transparently and the readers know this bias exists.