[Article] Agency to name proposed stops on Metro West

bk

strassenwolf wrote:

I think I am getting a bit confused about which of the projects proposed by the Department of Transport or other Government agencies charged with Dublin's transport have actually made it into T21. But let's see.

Out of interest I've just taken a look at the Platform for change document and it is an incredible plan. It would be brilliant if we could do all that it planned, but realistically it was far too much, in too short of a period of time.

In comparing it with T21, the T21 seems to incorporate the more important and cost effective elements of the Platform for change plans.

Luas to Finglas:

There was never a Luas planned for Finglas, they planned to run a Luas up the Drumcondra/Swords road, skirting Finglas and heading to the airport.

They also had a Metro that headed straight to the airport right through Finglas.

It seems that these two projects have been merged into Metro North and will follow the Luas alignment. That isn't necessarily a bad idea to save money. The original plan was great but also slightly overkill IMO.

In the T21 there is now a Luas to Liffey Junction, which was originally part of the Metro alignment.

BTW a Luas along Collins Avenue would be great.

Metro to Tallaght

You are right to planned to have both a Luas and Metro heading to Tallaght, with the Metro coming from Stephens Green, through Harolds cross and the Luas following the current alignment.

Again a good idea, but overkill for the moment, but definitely something for the future.

They have also left the Luas through Rathfarnham (south dublin) out and the original Luas to Lucan took a much more useful route then the current plan IMO (less overlap with the interconnector).

BTW, yes, Metro West is part of the plan.

To be honest it is a great plan (it also included the Eastern Bypass and an outer ring road, but not the M50 upgrades), very visionary, but there was absolutely no way it could be all done and in the time scales given. Comparing it to T21, T21 consists of the most important and realistic parts of this plan, while leaving room for the remaining parts to be continued in a post T21 plan.

The things I do see happening in a future T21 plan are:
- Luas green line upgraded to Metro
- Metro through south Dublin maybe heading for Tallaght
- Eastern Bypass
- A few extra minor Luas projects.

strassenwolf wrote:

Can you tell us what the densities in these new developments will be. Finglas, as an electoral area, is running at 4,229 people per square kilometre. Are these developments going to be much higher than that?

I don't have exact numbers but they will be much, much higher density then Finglas. Finglas was developed as a low density urban sprawl area with lots of housing estates. The planners have learned from their mistakes and all the planned developments along Metro West are very, very high density, as in 8 to 10 storey apartment buildings, it is ridiculous to even compare it to Finglas. If you live in Finglas, take a walk down to Ashtwon, it will be similar to all the new apartment developments along the Dart line at Ashtown. Very high density apartment buildings, not housing estates.

strassenwolf wrote:

Unfortunately, those other lines that have been mentioned are not going to get any cheaper, or any easier, either.

As I said the only major line really missing is the Metro to Tallaght, as there is already a Luas going to Tallaght, the makes Metro West more important. Yes another Metro serving the south side of Dublin would be very useful, but I can see why it is the least important of all the developments and therefore dropped from T21, but hopefully included in a future plan.

BTW give the current circumstances, what would you propose to serve Finglas? Maybe a Luas running the Lenght of Collins Avenue, going between the heart of Finglas and running to the Dart in the east, with a connection to Metro north.

I suppose a local bus service running around Finglas, connecting with the Dart and Metro north would be simpler solution.

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

Islandbridge (or Inchicore) to Leixlip. Travel east for a few miles to Pearse, then up the stairs to a train which is heading west of where you started?

Seems workable to me - today you'd take one bus into town and another one back out again. And buses are slow, where these train links would be mucho fast. If the journey is fast enough, people will make it in preference to other options. That said...

strassenwolf wrote:

Wouldn't it just be better to have better bus services between Islandbridge (or Inchicore) and, say, Clonsilla? That way you end up with a one change journey on public transport, and a no-change journey on rail transport. Rather than what you are suggesting, a one-change journey on rail transport which involves a very large detour in a direction which is the opposite of the desired direction.

You're quite determined to be confused here, you're going to quite a bit of trouble to achieve said confusion. I wasn't aware that we had ruled out strategic bus links to improve the reach of the new rail lines. In fact, pretty much every advocate of the proposed network (except Metrobest ) has indicated feeder buses as an important element in it.

Yes, such a bus route would be even better than a connection through town. I anticipate that the bus services in areas well served by rail will (as a result of sheer market forces) evolve towards routes either feeding local stations or providing strategic cross-links between existing lines.

In fact, the importance of cross-links is officially acknowledged in the proposals for Metro West.

Victor

strassenwolf wrote:

But a lot of them will not be one-change journeys. Clonsilla-Heuston, Islandbridge-Leixlip, Adamstown-Coolmine.

Change at Pearse.

bk wrote:

There has never been a planned Luas line to Finglas.

It was the route for Metro in PFC and and serveral options for Luas went through Finglas.

There is a proposed Luas line to Liffey Junction, but it was not envisaged going unto Finglas, however it probably will eventually.

There is 'talk' of it doing so post T21.

Finglas isn't particularly high density

Parts of it are.

Places like Blancardstwon and Tallaght are actually some of the highest density places in the city. All future development close to the Metro West will be 8 to 10 storey apartment buildings. These areas will be far higher density then some housing estates in Finglas and other places closer to the city.

Don't confuse height with density. Liberty hall is 17 storeys and nobody lives there (I know people work there).

Since Metro West is so cheap and easy, cancelling it wouldn't really free up much more money to put on any other much more expensive projects like a Metro to Sandyford, etc.

Actually, both Metro West and Metro North have up-front construction costs of "in excess of €1billion"

Ste.phen

How is Metro West so expensive? Is it actually construction costs, or are there significant costs associated with land aquisition, etc?

bk

Victor wrote:

It was the route for Metro in PFC and and serveral options for Luas went through Finglas.

As I clarified in a later post, yes in the original platform for change doc, Metro went through Finglas and Luas skirted it. Under T21 they have both been merged into Metro North.

Victor wrote:

There is 'talk' of it doing so post T21.

I'm not terribly familiar with the area, but looking at a map, I just don't see how a Luas could get from Liffey Junction, into Finglas, without tunneling (which is very unlikely to happen). Would anyone who is more familiar with the area care to comment if there is a possible route?

I suppose a new bridge and some house knocking might make it possible.

Victor wrote:

Parts of it are.

As I already said, the high density parts, like all the new apartments like Royal Canal Park will be serviced by Dart. So we are really only talking about the older, estates area of Finglas.

Victor wrote:

Don't confuse height with density. Liberty hall is 17 storeys and nobody lives there (I know people work there).

But these are actually apartment buildings (typically with ground floor retail), so they will in fact be much higher density. It is the stated goal of the city planners.

Enigma365

Wouldn't it just be better to have better bus services between Islandbridge (or Inchicore) and, say, Clonsilla? That way you end up with a one change journey on public transport, and a no-change journey on rail transport.

Strassenwolf. Do you travel on buses regularly? I know I would prefer a one/two change dart/metro journey 9 times out of 10 instead of a direct bus. This journey would probably be a 30 minute comfortable, timetabled dart trip with one change at pearse. I'd prefer that over a 20 minute uncomfrtable bus journey with an unpredictable timetable and heavily affected by traffic.

Winters

bk wrote:

I'm not terribly familiar with the area, but looking at a map, I just don't see how a Luas could get from Liffey Junction, into Finglas, without tunneling (which is very unlikely to happen). Would anyone who is more familiar with the area care to comment if there is a possible route?.

The original Light Rail Project Office were looking along the lines of tunnelling to south Finglas from Broadstone. The RPA however were looking at elevating it through the industrial estate and onwards to the median of the dual carriageway. Nothing concrete yet tho, sorry about the pun!

bk

Winters wrote:

The original Light Rail Project Office were looking along the lines of tunnelling to south Finglas from Broadstone. The RPA however were looking at elevating it through the industrial estate and onwards to the median of the dual carriageway. Nothing concrete yet tho, sorry about the pun!

That is interesting, I assume the tunnel was for the Metro to Finglas (you can see the tunnel on the project for change doc maps), but that isn't happening now and it would seem to be a too expensive option.

Elevating it seems like a much more reasonable idea.

Winters

Has anyone any feedback from the RPA meetings?

monument

strassenwolf wrote:

Unfortunately, bk, a lot of those short journeys could be achieved by putting in an appropriate bus route, to bring people to the nearest rail line,

The cost of building a rail line, such as the metro west, to bring people these short distances will be quite large.

In city-wide terms in reality, I would have though that distances such as Swords to Blanchardstown or Liffey Valley were medium to long distances, not short distances.

strassenwolf wrote:

As I said before, on another thread, the order of priorities which is generally followed around the world, when public transport is being developed, is the following:

1) Into the city;
2) Across the city;
3) Around the city.

And such is the overall priority in T21…

New Dart lines (into city)
Metro North (will run into city)
Lucan Luas (will run into city)
Extending current Dart lines (will run into city)
Extending current Luas lines (will run into city)
Expanding commuter services (will run into city)

And some of these will create more lines “Across the city”, and will allow for “Into the city” connections.

Navan Junction wrote:

Not proposing anything instead of Metro West.

Just for fun, I will...

http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Orange_Line

Navan Junction wrote:

What I don't understand is that there isn't a interim bus version of it being put in place now, or why there isn't an M50 bus service already in existance.

I remember asking about that here a few years ago - I got my head bitin off.

Winters wrote:

Has anyone any feedback from the RPA meetings?

I'm thinking of going to one next week.

strassenwolf

monument wrote:

In city-wide terms in reality, I would have though that distances such as Swords to Blanchardstown or Liffey Valley were medium to long distances, not short distances.

They probably would be medium to long, alright. There is a serious question though about the numbers of people who wish to make those journeys in comparison to the numbers who wish to make journeys into the city. And there's a question about how much of a priority should be put on construction of the metro west, at the very least at this stage, while it is still so difficult for many people to get into the city.

Let's look at these journeys and compare them to what might be achieved if lines into the city were built or improved. In this case, just two lines into the city , though there could be other lines eventually built into the city which could achieve other large benefits. Namely, the proposed interconnector, and the Maynooth line in the period after the interconnector is built.

Swords to Blanchardstown, for example. Having the metro west up and running before the proposed interconnector is in place, would most likely involve the following: Swords to Ballymun on metro north, Ballymun to Blanchardstown on the metro west. We don't yet know the journey time, but we can say that scenario involves enabling this particular journey to be done by rail before many people will be able to get readily into town using the interconnector tunnel or the consequently improved Maynooth line.

On the other hand, prioritising the building of the proposed interconnector tunnel and thus improving the performance of the Maynooth line, would enable lots more people to get comfortably into town on those rail lines. The Swords-Blanchardstown journey, in such a scenario, would probably be something like: Swords-Drumcondra on the Metro, Drumcondra to Castleknock on the improved Maynooth line and a shuttle bus to Blanchardstown. A one-change journey on the rail network and a two change journey overall.

It's hard to know which of the Swords-Blanchardstown journeys would be quicker, though my guess is that the first one would be marginally quicker. We'll have to see what journey times are likely on the metro west. But it is clear which of the scenarios would deliver the better system for more people, given that more people wish to travel into the city than wish to travel between Swords and Blanchardstown.

You can do the same thing for Swords-Lucan. A) Swords-Ballymun on the metro north, Ballymun-Lucan on the metro west; or Swords-City, City to most appropriate station on the Kildare line via the interconnector, shuttle bus to Lucan. Again, it's hard to tell which is quicker, though my guess is that scenario (A) would be quicker. However, scenario A offers no improved delivery for people wishing to get to the city, scenario B does.

It gets harder to see what improvement is offered by the metro west for an even longer journey like Swords-Tallaght. No metro west: Swords-O'Connell Bridge on metro north, followed by 14 km on the red LUAS line to Tallaght; or metro west: Swords-Ballymun on metro north, followed by a 24-28 km journey (approx 21 stations) on metro west.

One of the problems here is that a lot of people are assuming that the interconnector will be built, and also that it will be built in the timeframe proposed in T21. They do seem to think that the year 2015 will arrive and it will all just click together snugly into a wonderful system. The assumptions earlier on in this thread that people can "change at Pearse" in order to have a one-change journey are indicative of this.

Sure, I even made that assumption myself in one of my posts!:D

I hope that the interconnector will be built, (along, eventually, with other lines into the city), because I think it could deliver an enormous amount to the city, in combination with the consequently improved Maynooth line, but I am not confident that this is a project which will be delivered "on time", whatever about "on budget".

It is clear to most people that the transport situation in Dublin is nothing short of chronic. If the powers that be are giving priority at this stage to a metro line which is to be built largely through fields, when it is quite clear that this line just cannot deliver value for most people, then I think we can assume that they either don't know how to tackle the real problems, or they're afraid to.

Monument wrote:

And such is the overall priority in T21…

New Dart lines (into city)
Metro North (will run into city)
Lucan Luas (will run into city)
Extending current Dart lines (will run into city)
Extending current Luas lines (will run into city)
Expanding commuter services (will run into city)

Well, can't we get on with the more important of those, for a start?

bk

I understand what you are saying strassenwolf, but I honestly don't believe that Metro West is a higher priority then the Interconnector.

The Interconnector is going to take as long as Metro West, because it is a far more complicated project (tunnelling) and we hear less about it because the RPA who are doing the Metro and are far more transparent and far better at PR then Irish Rail.

If Metro West was cancelled in the morning it wouldn't make a single difference to the interconnector tunnel, as I don't think in can be built any faster.

As for the interconnector not coming in on time and on budget, IR actually has an excellent reputation of coming in on time and on budget. Just look at the Dart station lengthening project or the recent re-signalling projects or even the new Docklans station that is absolutely flying up. IR has a very good reputation of getting things quietly done.

Of course the interconnector is the biggest project they have evet undertaken, by lets be positive about it.

monument

Unless I’m missing his point, he is not saying that Metro West is a higher priority then the Interconnector ("prioritising the building of the proposed interconnector tunnel and thus improving the performance of the Maynooth line, would enable lots more people to get comfortably into town on those rail lines." etc). Not only do I agree, I’d say the interconnector should have one of the highest priorities in T21 (can it not be built any faster?).

The point about Irish rail and PR is a good one, but their PR problems are somewhat due to government level PR focus on Metro and Luas type projects.

The image of the expanded Dart network after the interconnector and the associated electrification of lines is something that has been swept under the carpet compared to the media coverage so-far obtained by the Metro projects.

Victor

You can't just build a tunnel "just like that". The Interconnector is a much more immature project than Metro. The RPA have had years to investigate the Metro route (geology, land ownership, etc.). The same hasn't happened with the Interconnector.

Slice

bk: Metro West isn't really about making long journeys across it's entire length (of course you can and people will), rather it is about making short journeys from Blanchardstwon, Liffey Valley, etc. to the nearest DART station along the Kildare and Maynooth lines or the Metro North up North or the Luas in Tallaght, which you will transfer unto to bring you into the city.

Strassenwolf: As I said before, on another thread, the order of priorities which is generally followed around the world, when public transport is being developed, is the following:

1) Into the city;
2) Across the city;
3) Around the city.

bk: Why do people keep ignoring the developments to the Dart under T21. When you take into account the interconnector, Metro West makes lots of sense.

Anyone from Lucan, Clondalkin or Blanchardstown using MetroWest on completion to get into the South City Centre will discover that they they'll either have to change at Tallaght for a Red line Luas or change somewhere on the Northside for MetroNorth. If they tried to get the 'Dart' on the Kildare commuter line they'll either face a wait of several years while the Interconnector is completed or else they'll have to settle for a suburban commuter service to Heuston (not a regular service off-peak) where they would then have to change again for the Red line Luas or a bus. Or maybe even change for the 'Dart' on the Maynooth line; again not due for completion until several years after MetroWest or settle for a Maynooth commuter service (also not a regular off-peak service) and change in the North city centre for bus or Dart to Tara / Pearse. Altogether it would still be allot quicker to just catch the bus from one of these places direct into town in the meantime. And while everyone is doing this who will be using MetroWest? Those folk who want to go on 'shopping-centre crawls' across Dublin's suburbs??

I don't think so.

mackerski

Slice wrote:

And while everyone is doing this who will be using MetroWest? Those folk who want to go on 'shopping-centre crawls' across Dublin's suburbs??

In the absence of viable city-bound rail links, you'd expect MetroWest's patronage to be made up mostly of people undertaking journeys generally along the corridor itself, probably including a reasonable catchment area reachable by onward bus connections.

Many of the kinds of people who today have little option but to clog up the M50, perhaps?

monument

Victor wrote:

You can't just build a tunnel "just like that". The Interconnector is a much more immature project than Metro. The RPA have had years to investigate the Metro route (geology, land ownership, etc.). The same hasn't happened with the Interconnector.

Victor, I cant see where anybody claimed it can be built ‘just like that’. If you’re answering my question (“can it be built any faster?”) you’re doing so in a manor I’d expect for a government minister, department, agency or semi-state company – ie indirectly and not very clearly.

So, I’ll make the question clearer for you or anybody willing to answer it…

Is there any possibility that the interconnector could be built faster then planned?

bk

sigh, Metro West is due to be completed in 2014 and the Interconnector in 2015. So assuming thet meet their schedule, there shouldn't be much of a gap between the projects.

Slice

mackerski: Many of the kinds of people who today have little option but to clog up the M50, perhaps?

If the solution to the congestion on the M50 was as simple as building a public transport corridor to mirror it then where are the QBCs and 46A-style bus routes serving the places MetroWest will serve when completed?

monument

Slice wrote:

If the solution to the congestion on the M50 was as simple as building a public transport corridor to mirror it then where are the QBCs and 46A-style bus routes serving the places MetroWest will serve when completed?

Err, DB have enough problems trying to fill current QBCs due to the government, how exactly are they to get buses for such new routes, magic?

mackerski

Slice wrote:

If the solution to the congestion on the M50 was as simple as building a public transport corridor to mirror it then where are the QBCs and 46A-style bus routes serving the places MetroWest will serve when completed?

A few places:

• Snugborough Road (and looks like they're building on on Blanch Road North too)
• Blanchardstown Road South
• Fonthill Road (IIRC)
• Belgard Road (also IIRC)

The stretch from Blanch to Swords is cross-country, so you'd actually have to build busways or widen existing roads to provide bus lanes. Also, you'd need a new Liffey crossing just for the buses. Conflict at existing junctions would be troublesome, of course, and you'd certainly want to bridge Newland's Cross.

All things considered, laying rails from the outset has a lot going for it.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

You can't just build a tunnel "just like that". The Interconnector is a much more immature project than Metro. The RPA have had years to investigate the Metro route (geology, land ownership, etc.). The same hasn't happened with the Interconnector.

Victor, in fairness, you've been watching threads about the interconnector for some time now.

You were watching, and occasionally (rightfully) locking, rows between Metrobest and various members of Platform 11 about the plus points of the interconnector as against the metro about two to three years ago. And since Platform 11 were opposed to the proposed interconnector for the first few years after its birth, I think we can say that it has been around for a number of years.

Therefore, I think we can assume, that the interconnector is not a new idea.

(Though it is, in my opinion, only one of a number of lines which should be built into the city.)

IE started to formuate their plans for the interconnector serveral years ago. It appears that the RPA are only now starting to develop their ideas about the metro west at this stage.

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

One of the questions is, which of the two projects would deliver more people to where they want to go?

The interconnector would, clearly. Or rather, it would be the enabler of adequate service levels on already existing lines.

However, the RPA has a budget, and the one thing they will not be building is a Heuston to Spencer Dock tunnel laid to Irish Gauge, so unless you think that divesting them of it will give us the interconnecter quicker (or with greater certainty), I don't see the point in agitating against either Metro project.

strassenwolf

mackerski, I just edited that line out of that out of my earlier post. my apologies. I'm not really in a position to post properly at the moment, but 'll get back to you as quick as I can.: About an hour or so. )

strassenwolf

mackerski wrote:

The interconnector would, clearly. Or rather, it would be the enabler of adequate service levels on already existing lines.

However, the RPA has a budget, and the one thing they will not be building is a Heuston to Spencer Dock tunnel laid to Irish Gauge, so unless you think that divesting them of it will give us the interconnecter quicker (or with greater certainty), I don't see the point in agitating against either Metro project.

I see a clear pont in agitating against the metro west.

I realise that there are problems with the DOT promoting construction of IE''s line across the city, possibly because there are overall problems within IE.

I am not aware of all the goings-on between the RPA, IE and the DOT. Others possibly are.

I am only saying what I believe is the general case, in cities around the world. It should not be a question of whether is built by IE, by the RPA or whoever. The city needs a line, or lines, which are delivering people to it. The suburbs need to have lines along which people can be rapidly delivered to the city, in order to get to work, or to play, or travel to other parts of the city. Such lines are the priority for Dublin.

The metro west. Does that do any of those things?

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

The city needs a line, or lines, which are delivering people to it. The suburbs need to have lines along which people can be rapidly delivered to the city, in order to get to work, or to play, or travel to other parts of the city. Such lines are the priority for Dublin.

The metro west. Does that do any of those things?

I respectfully suggest that your premise is flawed, or at least incomplete. What the residents of the metropolitan area (city + suburbs) need is ways to make the journeys they need to make without getting into a car. In a lot of cases, that means carrying people from the suburbs into the city, but that's not even the beginning of the story.

The proof? Out there on the M50 every rush hour. Those people are not going into town. They're going to Sandyford and Blanch and citywest and Park West and Leixlip and Clonshaugh and Swords.

The reasoning you are attempting to employ is what has 90% of bus routes terminating in An Lár and most of the remainder going through it. This board is full of people who can confirm that this is not their reality.

The old assumption that you live in suburbs and work in the city doesn't cut it any more. If you want cars off the road, you have to provide transport for the non city workers too.

strassenwolf

mackerski wrote:

I respectfully suggest that your premise is flawed, or at least incomplete.

I never came to boards.ie looking for respect, but it's very welcome. More of the same, please!:D

What the residents of the metropolitan area (city + suburbs) need is ways to make the journeys they need to make without getting into a car. In a lot of cases, that means carrying people from the suburbs into the city, but that's not even the beginning of the story.

In most cases it involves people travelling between the suburbs and the city.

The proof? Out there on the M50 every rush hour. Those people are not going into town. They're going to Sandyford and Blanch and citywest and Park West and Leixlip and Clonshaugh and Swords.

A lot of the people on the M50 are making journeys into or out of town. They're joining the M50 at, say, the N7 junction, and travelling along the M50 to, say, the N4 junction, then travelling into town (or doing the same journey in the opposite direction in the evening).

And a lot of the people on the M50 are not going into or out of town, as you say.

But what use is the metro west going to be to many of them? Sandyford to Blanchardstown? None whatsoever. Swords to park west - we've already seen that the time saved over a journey through the city (Swords-City on the metro, City-park west onthe LUAS) will probably be minimal.

And that journey is going to be one of the longest journeys possible on electrified rail in County Dublin in the post T21 era. But probably no time-saving over an arrangement without the metro west?:rolleyes:

The reasoning you are attempting to employ is what has 90% of bus routes terminating in An Lár and most of the remainder going through it. This board is full of people who can confirm that this is not their reality.

The logic of buses going to the centre of the city is that most people do want to go there. As Dublin has a mainly bus-based transport system, that's why most of the buses go to the centre. It suits most people. Cities like Munich or Frankfurt or Barcelona would have a lot of journeys on rail, which Dublin does not currently have. In those cities, journeys between the equivalents of Blanchardstown and Sandyford, or between park west and Swords, are achieved by changing in or around the centre. This suits people who want to go to the centre, and it's also pretty good (though not as good as a door-to-door service) for those who wish to travel between different suburbs.

In cities like Munich, Frankfurt and Barcelona, or pretty well wherever, the default option is that trains go into the city. If you want to travel between different suburbs, you change. And, usually, you change in the centre.

The metro west proposal does not do anything for people who want to go to the city, as it does not improve the capacity along the Maynooth line, the Kildare line or any other proposed line into the city. As a consequence, it also is not capable of doing anything for people who wish to travel between different suburbs, other than those who live or work fairly close to the line itself.

It is not, therefore, a priority. Lines into the city are the priority for most cities, as they have the advantage of delivering people into the city, and also enabling people to change in the city to lines heading to various suburbs.

The metro west could make sense if it was connecting with lines into or out of the city which had excess capacity. This is not the case at the moment.

The old assumption that you live in suburbs and work in the city doesn't cut it any more. If you want cars off the road, you have to provide transport for the non city workers too.

Whether you work in the city or the suburbs, the standard system which is present in most cities, i.e. that the lines into the city serve both those who wish to travel to the city and those who wish to travel between different suburbs, is most probably the one which Dublin should be aiming to copy.

In the absence of serious capacity along the Kildare line or the Maynooth line, or any other line into the city, I'm saying that the metro west is not a priority.

Erm. I'm respectfully saying it.:D