RPA defends capacity of proposed metro trams

BrianD

murphaph wrote: »

It's all relative Ernest. Much of the Northern Line is on an embankment. This secton could (relative to tunnel building!) easily be quad tracked by the replacement of the earthen embankments with vertical retaining walls.

There is no doubt that there are pinch points that would require CPO and demolition however I maintain that the added benefits and reduced cost compared to the tunnel option the other poster suggested are obvious. It could even be an option that on the really tight bits you could run the 2 express tracks over the local ones on a deck-still cheaper than tunneling.

Having four tracks side by side is better than 2 on the surface and 2 in a tunnel because in the event of a train failure you can make use of the other track(s) to bypass the failed train. It provides more flexibility.

I think this would make perfect sense if the objective was to create a rail link to the airport. It provides connection with commuter rail, intercity rail, luas and bus. Nearly all public transport users would be able to get to the airport with one to changes. It would provide significant cost savings over a metro.

However, even the RPA have copped on that the airport is no longer the prize and that a rail link while in theory seems desirable is only of limited use to airport users. It's fine if you are an airport or a single traveller. A family of 4 on the way to Spain are never going to use a rail service to the airport no matter how good it is.

The real challenge is to provide a rail corridor northwards to Swords that will take in the airport. The dinky underground LUAS is not sufficient to do this. Bear in mind that the entire route of the 'metro north' line will be designated for higher density planning so any new developments along the route will be high density. We also need to allow for possible park and ride facilities at Swords that can serve commuters in north co. dublin and into areas of Co. meath. This is why heavy rail is a superior but more expensive option. The 'metro north' could then be interlinked with an existing rail line so you could have a 'Swords-Bray' line. Far more options, better capacity and more sense.

We've already seen that the existing LUAS is just about coping within urbanised areas of Dublin. What hope will it have if it has deal with the population of a town like Swords and 10km of urbanised areas from the airport to the city centre?

marmajam

BrianD wrote: »

I think this would make perfect sense if the objective was to create a rail link to the airport. It provides connection with commuter rail, intercity rail, luas and bus. Nearly all public transport users would be able to get to the airport with one to changes. It would provide significant cost savings over a metro.

However, even the RPA have copped on that the airport is no longer the prize and that a rail link while in theory seems desirable is only of limited use to airport users. It's fine if you are an airport or a single traveller. A family of 4 on the way to Spain are never going to use a rail service to the airport no matter how good it is.

The real challenge is to provide a rail corridor northwards to Swords that will take in the airport. The dinky underground LUAS is not sufficient to do this. Bear in mind that the entire route of the 'metro north' line will be designated for higher density planning so any new developments along the route will be high density. We also need to allow for possible park and ride facilities at Swords that can serve commuters in north co. dublin and into areas of Co. meath. This is why heavy rail is a superior but more expensive option. The 'metro north' could then be interlinked with an existing rail line so you could have a 'Swords-Bray' line. Far more options, better capacity and more sense.

We've already seen that the existing LUAS is just about coping within urbanised areas of Dublin. What hope will it have if it has deal with the population of a town like Swords and 10km of urbanised areas from the airport to the city centre?

Metro North = Dinky Luas?
Metro nth capacity 20,000 per hour. Luas capacity 5,000 per hour.
Metro Nth capacity comparable with 90% of London underground lines.

Victor

Maskhadov wrote: »

Along with the in correct capacity for Metro North, the line has also the wrong route. It should just head straight south in a straight line from Santry Via IFSC via merrion square. The current route is nonsense

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Why??

BendiBus wrote: »

Because so far he's only learned to do straight lines in crayon class.

BendiBus: No fair.
Maskhadov: You should really expand your comments.

marmajam

Maskadov is not serious.
Laughing at your engagement. You people should get out more......
Maskadov even more so.

Maskhadov

Subways travel in straight lines. The capacity is ok for now but they really should plan for the future and put the 60,000 capacity in. The rail units are weak and pathetic. Pretty much like LUAS. the route heading south from the airport via Santry whitehall IFSC UCD and Sandyford but be a lot better. Although there are some bends in that route.

Victor

OK, how about we go back to the original topic.

Maskhadov, how about starting a thread debating the merits of "fairly straight" -v- "very straight" railways?

I must warn you in advance of the Circle Line.

carlmango11

What I don't get is why they don't build something similar to the DART that's like the most successful system we've built. Just smaller trains but more frequent to compensate (underground of course). I really don't understand why we seem to never expand on one system. And to all the people who just say a spur off of the DART, the metro is not just an airport link, it's going to serve all of the areas around it. It's such an Irish thing. Ooh let's just go for the cheap option for now, it'll be grand. :mad: All the talk about higher densities and better transport but yet rather than a new line just an expansion of an old one?

End of angry moaning

Capt'n Midnight

carlmango11 wrote: »

What I don't get is why they don't build something similar to the DART that's like the most successful system we've built.

With regard to the concept and route, 1834 was a long time ago.

In the UK london underground shares track with other trains, we already have lines to huston and connolly and broadstone, a full size metro could connect them to o'connell street or it could save costs by tunneling to boradstone and then using existing rail/tunnels to get to the liffey

Maskhadov

The whole metro project should be called off and built the proper way. The project looks like a cross between a bendi bus and mono rail. Subways are never built like this. The stations and lines are planned rather than moving the line to suit small groups of people. The jubilee line extension is a great example, it wont have to be rebuilt because of capacity and the development around the stations is planned.

paulm17781

Maskhadov wrote: »

The whole metro project should be called off and built the proper way. The project looks like a cross between a bendi bus and mono rail. Subways are never built like this. The stations and lines are planned rather than moving the line to suit small groups of people. The jubilee line extension is a great example, it wont have to be rebuilt because of capacity and the development around the stations is planned.

I think there's quite a bit you have to learn about metros and planning.

munchkin_utd

Maskhadov wrote: »

The whole metro project should be called off and built the proper way. The project looks like a cross between a bendi bus and mono rail. Subways are never built like this. The stations and lines are planned rather than moving the line to suit small groups of people. The jubilee line extension is a great example, it wont have to be rebuilt because of capacity and the development around the stations is planned.

But.......
The jubileeeeeee line isn't straight. I thought you wanted a straight metro. Now you want a "dont go where theres people currently living metro".
Heres is the pin straight Jubileeeeeeeeeee line for ya just for reference. No doubt built through barren wastelands to ensure that they make an operational loss for the forseeable future.

Maskhadov

Circle lines put people up the wall. Relatively straight means passing all the main places (eg Airport, IFSC/centre, Sandford ?) . But just the main places not turning infrastructure lines into squiggles. The line has to be properly planned and the stops properly developed. The Metro west is farcical.

The jubilee line extension encompassed all the lessons learnt from previous lines. It would be the best example to follow.

There is nothing wrong with having a high capacity 60,000 subway line, the problem with subways was having too many stops. Also cars into the city are the problem. That new bridge over the liffey is wrong. It would be a lot better for people in the centre to remove the Santiago Bridge and build a proper metro line. Spencer dock is just one block. Trying to make several areas out of that and the IFSC is embarrassing. One metro stop there would be perfect or on the south side of the city.

Subways by rule DON’T travel under the main street. If O Connell Street is the main thoroughfare then the metro line shouldn’t really pass underneath it. The same principle applies with stadia; a small walk away to the stadium is a lot better than right next to it.

murphaph

Maskhadov wrote: »

Circle lines put people up the wall. Relatively straight means passing all the main places (eg Airport, IFSC/centre, Sandford ?) . But just the main places not turning infrastructure lines into squiggles. The line has to be properly planned and the stops properly developed. The Metro west is farcical.

The jubilee line extension encompassed all the lessons learnt from previous lines. It would be the best example to follow.

There is nothing wrong with having a high capacity 60,000 subway line, the problem with subways was having too many stops. Also cars into the city are the problem. That new bridge over the liffey is wrong. It would be a lot better for people in the centre to remove the Santiago Bridge and build a proper metro line. Spencer dock is just one block. Trying to make several areas out of that and the IFSC is embarrassing. One metro stop there would be perfect or on the south side of the city.

Subways by rule DON’T travel under the main street. If O Connell Street is the main thoroughfare then the metro line shouldn’t really pass underneath it. The same principle applies with stadia; a small walk away to the stadium is a lot better than right next to it.

The Jubilee line isn't straight. You said metros should be straight. Make up your mind.

Maskhadov

the EXTENSION is a lot straighter than ours and properly planned.

monument

What is known as the Jubilee Line extension, goes from Westminster to Stratford.

That's not at all straight. In fact, you could say the older section is straighter.

Maskhadov

vs metro west ? Metro North is not ok for route selection. The trim in the stations is equally crap. This is one of the main subway lines and its a very poor job they are making of it.

monument

Even compared to Metro West it is not straight! And Metro North is a good bit straighter then your glowing example...

Slice

Subways by rule DON’T travel under the main street.

London Underground's Central Line runs under all of Oxford Street and most of LU's cut-and-cover lines run under main streets as well

Maskhadov

Metro West - Hillarious

Metro North - a better effort but still pathetic.

Most subways arent the best they can be. There is a lack of city planning here with this attempt at a subway. It doesnt marry development with travel. A lot more urban sprawl will result. another green belt yipee

Ham'nd'egger

Maskhadov wrote: »

Metro West - Hillarious

Metro North - a better effort but still pathetic.

Most subways arent the best they can be. There is a lack of city planning here with this attempt at a subway. It doesnt marry development with travel. A lot more urban sprawl will result. another green belt yipee

Mask, you seem to have a lot of answers, yet you never seem to give them, nor do you back up your many criticisms with any factual observations or alternatives. Any chance you can answer the following, ideally using some fact and figures....

What route should the Metro and/or LUAS go?
What areas should it serve?
How much capacity ought it to be able for?
What way should the stations be built?
What rolling stock is best?

Nostradamus

Maskhadov wrote: »

Subways by rule DON’T travel under the main street.

Maskhadov wrote: »

If O Connell Street is the main thoroughfare then the metro line shouldn’t really pass underneath it.

You're not one for the oul 'Basic Research' lark are you.

John R

Nostradamus wrote: »

You're not one for the oul 'Basic Research' lark are you.

This is the internet, sure it's so difficult to research anything here.


Straight lines or not; you be the judge:

Major subway systems of the world to scale.

bazzer06

Have to say Mashkadov huh ?????

Metro line 1 in paris follows the champs-elysees, the rue de rivoli, and the rue st antoine and is one of the busiest in the world....

Most of the rest follows roads quite precisely aswell

Your logic is...erm...interesting

Metrowest serves a particular need in a very particular city - think IN the box!

paulm17781

We clearly need an expert opinion on this. Where's Metrobest?

Maskhadov

the project was drawn up by those who arent people. the place will look like Florianópolis if they dont stop ]]]]]]

***just look at the two bridges down there,

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Florian%C3%B3polis&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.195129,0.6427&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.597817,-48.565814&spn=0.009052,0.027122&t=k&z=16


hillarious

trellheim

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ above

Gets my vote for most incoherent post of the day.

spacetweek

Maskhadov wrote: »

the project was drawn up by those who arent people. the place will look like Florianópolis if they dont stop ]]]]]]
***just look at the two bridges down there,
hillarious

Maskhadov, lay off the silly pills.

Let me set you straight on a few things:
- Yes you DO route a subway so that it takes in the population centres along the line, otherwise what's the point.
- You DO place the metro right in the main thoroughfare or right beside the stadium, as Metro North will be and Landsdowne Rd is.
- Subways don't need to be straight as the two biggest things slowing them up are the number of stations and the congestion on the line - not winding routes.
- Your idea to route MN via the IFSC and UCD doesn't fit with any existing plans (eg. Platform for Change), which must be respected if a joined up transport network is to be planned. The planned alignment for MN is very well integrated into existing infrastructure.
- You say that you reckon MN won't be planned in conjunction with new development - what evidence do you have for this? All the areas along the alignment will see higher density.
- There is no corridor in the whole of Dublin that could possibly support a 60,000 ppdph metro - even 30,000 is years away, so MN's 20,000 initial capacity (4x Luas) is very reasonable for a city like this.
- It's true that Metro West is taking a windy route, but remember it isn't designed for end-to-end journeys, rather for getting from one rail line (Luas, Dart) to another. Very few people will need to travel from Tallaght to Ballymun, and you'd probably be as fast using Luas Red Line and Metro North to do that journey anyway.
- I disagree with your comments about having only 1 station for the whole IFSC. Connolly Station is already overcrowded and needs to concentrate on intercity services and its DART obligation. Separating out the area into two corridors makes lots of sense when you understand that a railway triangle is being constructed in the city centre, consisting of the two future (post IC) DART lines, and MN. The triangle structure distributes the passenger loads, avoiding blitzing one big central station with all the trunk routes.

Metrobest

paulm17781 wrote: »

We clearly need an expert opinion on this. Where's Metrobest?

Here, to the rescue...

I'm confident Metro North has MORE THAN ENOUGH capacity to deal with the increases in population density that will inevitably occur along its corridor.

Comparing it with the metro of a densified city like Barcelona, which has 6 car metros every 2-3 minutes in the rush hour, I don't see why if Barcelona's metro is rarely overcrowded, in a city with a population density many times higher than Dublin, that the Dublin metro could be overcrowded with 90 metre trains every 90 seconds, as it possible with the system the RPA has planned. MetroNorth is the best system for Dublin's population profile and projected growth patterns. In fact the more realistic accusation is that it is overcapacity, not undercapacity.

Dublin isn't a world city, it's a glorified town. Its tallest building, Liberty Hall, would look like a cottage in Manhattan. Most Dubliners live in semi detached or terraced houses with gardens. Yes, the city is changing, new styles of living are being realised and new transport systems are being buildt But to talk of building a New York or London style subway system for a city like Dublin just doesn't stand up to any proper analysis.

MetroNorth is a terrific transport system for Dublin and just wait and see, all the moaning and griping that's taking place will all be forgotten the day after it opens and all the whingers on this forum will end up coming on and demanding extensions to MetroNorth left right and centre, just like they did with luas. Remember?

ardmacha

so MN's 20,000 initial capacity (4x Luas)

This is a fine capacity, the only observation is that if it is based on a very high frequency service, then it cannot be easily increased. Start of with 120m trams, at 3 or 4 mins, then you can easily increase capacity. But if your frequency is high initially then capacity can only be increased by long trams and consequently longer station platforms.

steve-o

Metrobest wrote: »

just wait and see, all the moaning and griping that's taking place will all be forgotten the day after it opens and all the whingers on this forum will end up coming on and demanding extensions to MetroNorth left right and centre, just like they did with luas. Remember?

I hope that, unlike Luas, the planned Metro North has sufficient built-in capacity for all those extensions.