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

NavanJunction1

Irish Times, Tue, Apr 18, 06

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.

© The Irish Times

Chris_533976

I guarantee that this Metro line, in typical Irish methodology, will be built in the absolute cheapest way possible, with absolutely no regard for medium or long term development potential of the areas it could potentially serve.

John R

One area of long term development that is instantly ruled out is interconnection with the Dub-Belfast main line which will only be a few miles away from the current planned terminus due to it being standard guage.

If the original semi-plan to connect Metro to Luas Green line was going ahead then it makes sense but now that it is off the table Irish standard guage should be used.

I would prefer a through Metro from Swords to Cherrywood with the Green-O'connell St luas extension scrapped but failing that there is no sense in making Metro incompatible for all time with the rest of the rail network.

Bill McH

John R wrote:

One area of long term development that is instantly ruled out is interconnection with the Dub-Belfast main line which will only be a few miles away from the current planned terminus due to it being standard guage.

If the original semi-plan to connect Metro to Luas Green line was going ahead then it makes sense but now that it is off the table Irish standard guage should be used.

I would prefer a through Metro from Swords to Cherrywood with the Green-O'connell St luas extension scrapped but failing that there is no sense in making Metro incompatible for all time with the rest of the rail network.

I agree entirely. I am really puzzled as to what advantage can be obtained by having two different gauges. We don't know what's going to happen 20, 30, 40 years down the line. But it isn't difficult to see that having two different gauges could limit our options in the years to come.

I'd be very interested to know if there are there any other countries which are currently developing urban lines on two different gauges? I'd be surprised.

I'd really love to know what the advantage is.

Can anyone assist with an example of another country which is going down the two-gauge route?

Zebra3

NavanJunction1 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.

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.

This is scary.

Billions(?) to be spent on a new line that doesn't connect with another line it crosses.

Like building two light rail lines that don't join up..... :mad:

murphaph

The meto system is to be of the light variety (same as metro do Porto in Portugal) so the trains could never operate on the same tracks as an 071 class locomotive for safety reasons. Anyway, the reason for the light metro is accessibility. It provides the same high speed benefits in town underground yet accomplishes much better accessibility on it's at grade stretches by allowing people to cross the tracks at the platform ends rather than ascending and descendng stairs to get across.

There is no reason why in the future the metroNorth can't be extended to allow interchange at Donabate DART station as the trains will be frequent tnough to allow this though I hear the RPA are already lookin at extending metroWest towards the DART someday so it would fit in with that strategy.

The metro running from Swords to Cherywood and beyond is a long way off. It would not be easily justifiable to upgrade the Luas before other elements of rail such as he orbital metro from Tallaght to te city are in place.

As for there being no interchange with the Maynooth line-I think the RPA have that sorted and will run via Drumcondra. This allows them to build a station of their own and it allows interchange with an existing IE station. The advantage being thet you're not relying on the lethargic IE to actually pull the finger out.

It will cost billions and it looks like it will be well integrated (the airport being the only unresolved issue for me). So what?

(othe rcities with unusual gauge national networks have also adopted standard gauge for new builds as the olling stock is readily available, anyway, as metro light is highly interoperable with most of the existing Luas trackage it will form more miles of track in Dublin than IE's network and unlike IE's network it will actually all carry trains at high frequency (think Midland line and Phoenix Park Tunnel for empty urban railways).

spacetweek

John R wrote:

One area of long term development that is instantly ruled out is interconnection with the Dub-Belfast main line which will only be a few miles away from the current planned terminus due to it being standard guage.

This isn't ruled out at all. Nothing stopping Metro curving around towards the east and hitting the DART at Donabate or something. You change there.

John R wrote:

If the original semi-plan to connect Metro to Luas Green line was going ahead then it makes sense but now that it is off the table Irish standard guage should be used.

It's not off the table, it's still the long term goal. The RPA still occasionally make reference to it.

spacetweek

Bill McH wrote:

I'd really love to know what the advantage is.

Can anyone assist with an example of another country which is going down the two-gauge route?

Advantage: Equipment and trains don't have to be specially built.

Two gauges? Practically any country that doesn't use standard gauge for railways, which is far more than is commonly realised, probably has more than one gauge operating. This map of Europe shows all the various interoperability issues affecting just this continent. Spain is an example of a country with a non standard gauge but there are some standard gauge lines (e.g. the Euro High Speed.) In Australia, the various states all use different gauges.

You seem to be forseeing more problems with this than happens in practice. Certainly in the case of Dublin's light rail and heavy rail networks, there is/will be virtually no interchange so it's not a problem in reality.

NavanJunction1

And I've heard rumours of an attempt to get the Metro turned into a DART service and get it extended from Swords to Ashbourne..:eek:




Joke:)

Bill McH

spacetweek wrote:

Advantage: Equipment and trains don't have to be specially built.

I'm no expert on this, but I do recall a discussion on the old P11 board about the difficulty involved in producing trains to our gauge. The opinion of some of the contributors was that the main features of the trains were fairly standard and that the width of the axles would not present much of a problem for the train producers. I'd imagine that their beef might be maintenance of an Irish test track for relatively small amounts of trains, if they actually do that. It'd certainly be interesting to know if there were a shortage of bidders to make the new Cork-Dublin trains, or if we had to pay over the odds to buy them.

spacetweek wrote:

Two gauges? Practically any country that doesn't use standard gauge for railways, which is far more than is commonly realised, probably has more than one gauge operating. This map of Europe shows all the various interoperability issues affecting just this continent. Spain is an example of a country with a non standard gauge but there are some standard gauge lines (e.g. the Euro High Speed.) In Australia, the various states all use different gauges.

A very interesting set of maps. It's not immediately clear whether there would be individual cities with two suburban train systems operating on different gauges, which is what we're planning.

spacetweek wrote:

You seem to be forseeing more problems with this than happens in practice. Certainly in the case of Dublin's light rail and heavy rail networks, there is/will be virtually no interchange so it's not a problem in reality.

Well, remember, this is only Transport 21. I reckon there will be room for stuff to be done after 2015.

Let's say, purely hypothetical example, that the Metro West is eventually extended to the DART at, say, Howth Junction. Maybe it might make sense to continue it to Howth. This would be a whole lot easier if the two lines had the same gauge.

Alternatively, let's say the year is 2030, and the area around Heuston Station has become a real powerhouse for offices and so forth. Residents of Dunboyne who work in the Heuston area are at this stage a bit sick of two changes every morning to get to Heuston (or one change if they're prepared to travel the whole way to Pearse Station, assuming that the interconnector is built at that stage). An occasional train from Dunboyne onto the Metro West line (basically alongside the M50) and then east into Heuston might be a lot handier. This kind of thing would be more difficult to arrange if the DART and metro lines have a different gauge.

All I'm saying is that we don't know how the whole thing will develop. It may not be a good idea to start off by getting some basic things wrong.

A Dub in Glasgo

spacetweek wrote:

Advantage: Equipment and trains don't have to be specially built.

Two gauges? Practically any country that doesn't use standard gauge for railways, which is far more than is commonly realised, probably has more than one gauge operating. This map of Europe shows all the various interoperability issues affecting just this continent. Spain is an example of a country with a non standard gauge but there are some standard gauge lines (e.g. the Euro High Speed.) In Australia, the various states all use different gauges.

You seem to be forseeing more problems with this than happens in practice. Certainly in the case of Dublin's light rail and heavy rail networks, there is/will be virtually no interchange so it's not a problem in reality.

This and this is clearer

The reason that Spain has a different gauge for the high speed lines is the EU High Speed Interoperibilty Directive.

spacetweek

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The reason that Spain has a different gauge for the high speed lines is the EU High Speed Interoperibilty Directive.

Yea, but it's also for the practical reason that they can have the Paris-Madrid line be uninterrupted at the border.

craigybagel

Anyone ekse wondering about whatll happen if the IE/Metro connection is located in drumcondra and if the maynooth line trains get diverted away from drumcondra running direct to spencer dock as seems to be the current plan?

MarkoP11

craigybagel wrote:

Anyone ekse wondering about whatll happen if the IE/Metro connection is located in drumcondra and if the maynooth line trains get diverted away from drumcondra running direct to spencer dock as seems to be the current plan?

Maynooth DART services will be routed via Drumcondra thats the plan, all existing services that call at Drumcondra will continue to do so

murphaph

craigybagel wrote:

Anyone ekse wondering about whatll happen if the IE/Metro connection is located in drumcondra and if the maynooth line trains get diverted away from drumcondra running direct to spencer dock as seems to be the current plan?

Yes. I wondered that too. As Mark says, the plan is to continue with Drumcondra but in a proper country that wouldn't be the case and Maynooth/Navan DARTs would take the southern track (Midland Line) straight into Connolly and leave the Drumcondra track for trains from the Phoenix Park Tunnel. A new station would be needed just east of Drumcondra Road on the Midland Line. This station would be (relatively) cheap to construct. I asked the RPA to take account this (albeit remote possibility of IE being proactive) in my submission. Find the image I included in that submission attached....

Victor

Its a little tight there with the houses and canal, but its peanuts moneywise to fix it in the context of a multi-billion euro project.

Winters

Be it a lateral platform layout or an island platform layout access could be in the form of ramps from both Jones's Road and Swords Road or indeed from Whitworth Avenue. A simple shelter and a TVM could suffice.

MarkoP11

I did a walk around on the site a while back

Island platform is the only solution the tracks are already slightly further apart than normal due to the bridge

Actual access will require some thought, but as Winters has pointed out you can keep it really simple self service. IE already have deployed that at some stations with level crossings

dowlingm

The interesting point is that they are emphasising workers rather than passengers at the airport, and I can't help but feel this might be the right approach even though you'd wish it weren't. Most people with baggage really don't want to try negotiating with public transport given the frequently inadequate luggage space especially for suitcases. This accounts for the very low public transport % use at most international airports.

Bill McH

Victor wrote:

Its a little tight there with the houses and canal, but its peanuts moneywise to fix it in the context of a multi-billion euro project.

Could the Royal canal concede a foot or two for the project?

Airmail

dowlingm wrote:

The interesting point is that they are emphasising workers rather than passengers at the airport, and I can't help but feel this might be the right approach even though you'd wish it weren't. Most people with baggage really don't want to try negotiating with public transport given the frequently inadequate luggage space especially for suitcases. This accounts for the very low public transport % use at most international airports.

Have to disagree here. Locating the station at the terminal building surely wont bother airport workers who will not be carrying luggage whereas locating the airport station 700+metres from the terminal building will lose many potential pasengers who will be very reluctant to cart their luggage the distance.
The numbers speak for themselves really.
Average passengers per day outnumber staff by 3 to 1 which is set to rise to 4 to 1. In 2003 16 million passengers = 43836 passengers per day and 14,500 direct jobs. 2020 forecast 33 million = 90410 passengers per day and 22,500 employed at airport. So in 2020 5% of passengers would equate to 20% of workers.

Current Mode Split
Transport Mode Passengers Staff
Private Cars 43.5% 80.2%
Car-Hire 12.0% 0%
Taxis 21.8% 1.5%
Bus/Coach 22.3% 16.2%
Other 0.4% 2.1%

dowlingm

Airmail - two points:

First, the 80% figure of staff via private cars is the one you want to reduce since staff should be *more* likely to take transit. Second, it's a question of how much that moving 700m adds to the project (if the GSH stop is at grade and the T1 stop is tunnelled) and how many pax you get for your buck. If T2 is separated from T1 by substantial distance then you lose T2 pax either way (at GSH or T1 stop) according to your thinking.

Do you spend extra money getting pax to T1 or extending metro to Swords expeditiously (where the workers live)?

Victor

The workers do account for a lot of the car journeys and a lot of the peak time usage. However, given there are substantial existing bus services, one wonders why staff don't already use public transport more. Part of it will be down to working odd hours and social class, but I imagine free workplace parking may also be an issue. Bus services could be beefed up to places like Ballymun though (has historicly had a very low percentage of airport workers, despite being right next to it).

http://www.dto.ie/web2006/airportservices.htm

Airmail

dowlingm wrote:

Airmail - two points:

First, the 80% figure of staff via private cars is the one you want to reduce since staff should be *more* likely to take transit. Second, it's a question of how much that moving 700m adds to the project (if the GSH stop is at grade and the T1 stop is tunnelled) and how many pax you get for your buck. If T2 is separated from T1 by substantial distance then you lose T2 pax either way (at GSH or T1 stop) according to your thinking.

Do you spend extra money getting pax to T1 or extending metro to Swords expeditiously (where the workers live)?

80% of 22,500 workers is 18,000. 43.5% of 90,000 passengers is 39,000. Granted the workers will be all be in the Dublin region while the passengers wont. The 700m will probably make less of a difference to staff than passengers.

I realise the tunnel is substantially more expensive but if the call is anyway near 50/50 the tunnel should be opted for.
Take into consideration that even for swords where the workers live the total number of passenger trips to Dublin Airport forecast for 2007 is 11,364 versus 17,400 employee trips. http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2588-0.pdf

Terminal 2 as planned is about 250m from terminal 1.

Surely the airport tunnel could be done at the same time as the city tunnel so time would not really be a factor.

murphaph

Airmail wrote:

Surely the airport tunnel could be done at the same time as the city tunnel so time would not really be a factor.

Well that would require two more TBMs of course. That would add c.€20M to the project and that's using secondhand TBMs. The thing to do would be to bore the city sections first and assuming the depot goes in the metropark area (immediately north of M50) as originally proposed then they could begin operations from there to the city and keep going under the airport. €20M shouldn't matter, but it appears the govt. have given the RPA a very strict budget and so it probably will.

Victor

murphaph wrote:

Well that would require two more TBMs of course.

The contractor's methodology is little of the client's business. If the contractor wants to dig it by hand, then provided he can do it on time, on cost and safely, then so be it.

murphaph

Victor wrote:

The contractor's methodology is little of the client's business. If the contractor wants to dig it by hand, then provided he can do it on time, on cost and safely, then so be it.

Indeed, but the contractor's not going to do it for free. They will pass on the cost and there will be an additional cost in boring two sets of tunnels in parallel. That's all I was saying. It should still be done but the budget's so tight it probably won't and they'll phase it. They can built the elevated stuff and the P&R from Lissenhall to the aiport in parallel with the tunnel/at grade/elevated stretch from the city to the airport.

ergo

just wondering...

was there much/will there be much made of the need for Croke Park to have a metro link when the final route is selected?

I know Drumcondra IE is already there and probably underused but a link from St Stephen's green via the Eastern Metro route would definitely be in demand for internationals, concerts etc. not to mention for the summer GAA games with the huge number of Dublin and non-Dublin GAA fans living and working in Dublin

MarkoP11

It has been mentioned but doesn't seem to be flagged a big issue, its only a handful of days a year when Croke Park is used on the scale to demand serious transport. RPA don't seem worried, I am particularly if Meath play

murphaph

In any case, the metro stop at Drumcondra would serve Croker just fine. If the RPA go this way and IE someday build a station on the Midland line then Croker could be the best rail served stadium in Europe.

paulm17781

murphaph wrote:

In any case, the metro stop at Drumcondra would serve Croker just fine. If the RPA go this way and IE someday build a station on the Midland line then Croker could be the best rail served stadium in Europe.

The MEN is directly connected (It's own entrance) to one of the biggest stations in Manchester. The met and heavy rail lines meet in that station.