ESRI and Transport

DWCommuter

In todays media the ESRI report on the economy was featured. Their findings in relation to transport suggested that the Government may lack a plan in relation to Public Transport provision and its ability to take cars off the road. They referred to T21 rail based projects as only impacting on a "fraction" of existing car users. Furthermore it doubted the Governments ability to manage large scale public transport projects. Full article was in todays indo.

Anyone who knows me will confirm that I regularly criticise T21 and its lack of foundation. While I often express doubt that many of the rail projects will happen, I'm also prone to expressing my disappointment and shock that T21 was accepted without any detailed analysis of Dublins commuting problems. I wasn't always of this mindset and like many others I was releived in 2005 that an Irish Government could recognise the importance of public transport when T21 was announced. But my own doubts and subsequent study/research over the years since, has lead me to the conclusion that T21 is flawed and billions could be spent, with very minimal impact on Dublin's horrendous car dependency. Even if all projects in T21 were implemented and congestion charging was introduced, I'd predict utter chaos or yet another "charge" that Irish commuters would pay and moan about.

Anyway, Im glad that the ESRI share my view, as I know that many on the internet don't. With all the economic uncertainty and poor implementation of public transport projects, I often get the feeling that the time has come for an all encompassing commuters lobby to crack the whip.

ofjames

derek, i know you have a particular issue regarding the governments view of luas as the pannacea for dublins transport woes (and i very much agree with you on that). but to a less-informed punter like myself, what else is 'wrong' with T21, presuming it all gets built?

to my mind, interconnector - great
metro north - good
metro west - crap
other luas - inadequate

i am sure the PPT will form part of what's wrong in your view?

Are there other rail lines that should have been included? or what would you do different with those that are proposed?

DWCommuter

ofjames wrote: »

derek, i know you have a particular issue regarding the governments view of luas as the pannacea for dublins transport woes (and i very much agree with you on that). but to a less-informed punter like myself, what else is 'wrong' with T21, presuming it all gets built?

to my mind, interconnector - great
metro north - good
metro west - crap
other luas - inadequate

i am sure the PPT will form part of what's wrong in your view?

Are there other rail lines that should have been included? or what would you do different with those that are proposed?

First and foremost, T21 has failed to address commuting patterns. Im on the road in Dublin everyday and I see the usual snarl ups that cannot be solved by rail solutions, unless we have a bottomless pit of cash for T21. Dealing with your points.

Interconnector - all it does is make the commuter rail system function at a level that is sustainable. Its a must do, but not a project that will alleviate Dublins gridlock. However it should have been developed between Kildare town and Drogheda. That was the original plan and for a reason as IE could operate "one" service as opposed to two. (Diesel and electric)

Metro North - Not a must do, but a useful project that provides high frequency public transport on a busy corridor. Impact on congestion will be minimal. The plan should include tunnelling further south in anticipation of extensions. Digging up Stephens green is a retrograde step in terms of construction and future proofing.

Metro West - Ive no interest in it and its not a priority as planned, because its too far west and too much like luas. If built its going to be a meandering facility connecting "communities" rather than an effiecient ,mass mover of commuters to points of employment and residencey. Many years down the road, it will work, but the key corridor in this area is the Kylemore road axis. Thats a route that is stuffed with traffic and cross radial in nature. While Metro West is cross radial, its (as I said) too far west from centres of employment and commuting patterns. A solution more centred between the Belgard road and Kylemore road would have more impact.

Luas - you know my views on this. Firstly its not the de facto solution to Dublins gridlock as its not a mass transit people mover over long distances. Secondly the extensions currently under construction represent money that could be better spent developing shorter luas lines that negate car commuting within the city environs or in areas that are currently poorly served by public transport. Overall luas is limited in how it can contribute to alleviating road congestion, due to how the GDA is laid out. Its primary function should be within a 5 mile maximum radius, north, south and west of the city centre with cross radial routes feeding into it. For the record, luas is empty departing Tallaght. (a population of over 80,000) What does that tell us?

As for the PPT, well its not the answer to our woes, but it has been ignored within the biggest public transport spend in the history of the state, despite the fact that it runs through a densely populated region. To have a rail line running through such an area without any plans to use it for commuters is nothing short of criminal. The line is not just about connectivity or an alternative to the interconnector, its about serving car dependent communities. Add the Interconnector into the equation and we have a really nice link up of north and south Dublin with northern, western and southern suburbs. I'd rate the PPT as more important that the two luas extensions currently under construction.

T21 is flawed because it has failed to examine patterns. Its rail proposals are valid (except for metro west) but lack the PPT option. It doesn't go far enough in terms of how luas can contribute within the city limits for short commutes to "an lar" and cross radial. Outside of the city limits we need better served QBCs with a targeted focus. Ultimately an underground metro feeding the city centre and providing cross radial routes that serve centres of employment and connections to public transport options from the GDA, would be the way forward, but they must penetrate the existing residential areas rather than pay lip service to new developments. T21 suits the new kind of thinking, but it abandons commuting patterns that existed 20 years ago and have now become even more congested due to economic growth.

Come back to me with qeustions. I have the ideas, but their hard to articulate in one post at this time of night.

helimachoptor

DWCommuter wrote: »

Luas - you know my views on this. Firstly its not the de facto solution to Dublins gridlock as its not a mass transit people mover over long distances. Secondly the extensions currently under construction represent money that could be better spent developing shorter luas lines that negate car commuting within the city environs or in areas that are currently poorly served by public transport. Overall luas is limited in how it can contribute to alleviating road congestion, due to how the GDA is laid out. Its primary function should be within a 5 mile maximum radius, north, south and west of the city centre with cross radial routes feeding into it. For the record, luas is empty departing Tallaght. (a population of over 80,000) What does that tell us?

I mostly cycle in from my house to the city centre now but the odd day I get the Luas. Yes I think at most leaving from the square it's been half full. But by the time it gets to Kingswood it has picked up a good few more people and then once it hits the Red Cow stop it fills up. Now again this is dependant on time of day and even the weather! TBH The Luas should have went to from Heuston to the IFSC because once the Luas gets past Heuston it really empties on at the end of the day.

But i'm not gonna complain as they are exteding the Luas to the end of my road.

Metro West is a complete waste of money though.

murphaph

trams could meet demand in Dublin for mass transit but only of they tunnel sections in the centre and keep at grade crossings to a minimum. Cologne has 2 tram lines (which actually go to Bonn!) that are 25 odd miles long each. They use 2 x 30m coupled trams.

The key is segregation in the right places. The Tallaght line is mostly segregated and runs more like a metro from Rialto to Tallaght. If a tunnel could be driven from Rialto to link with metro north (or something!) it'd create that added dimension metro needs.

I am glad of one thing-that the RPA are making metro an underground Luas. It leaves a glimmer of hope for the future.

Metro west is premature but the alignment is quite direct and if the at grade crossings could be eliminated by the tram dipping under it wouldn't be far off true metro. The alignment should be preserved of course.

The interconnector is going to be under utilised unless the electification is extended to Sallins and a very large P&R built just west of the town where the M7 virtually kisses the railway. This is the perfect location to take actual cars off the roads. The same goes for the northern line which should be electrified the extra bit to Drogheda IMO.

The Lucan Luas is the greatest joke ever. It will have none of the good bits of the red line and all of the bad bits. It should be canned and the money spent on north-south roads/liffey bridges (and buses!) feeding the Kildare Route and Maynooth line.

If we are brutally honest, Dublin could be gotten moving with no rail investment at all and a massive focus on (real) QBCs and a steep congestion charge to keep cars off the roads. There has to be a carrot of course and rail is it.

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

trams could meet demand in Dublin for mass transit but only of they tunnel sections in the centre and keep at grade crossings to a minimum. Cologne has 2 tram lines (which actually go to Bonn!) that are 25 odd miles long each. They use 2 x 30m coupled trams.

The key is segregation in the right places. The Tallaght line is mostly segregated and runs more like a metro from Rialto to Tallaght. If a tunnel could be driven from Rialto to link with metro north (or something!) it'd create that added dimension metro needs.

I am glad of one thing-that the RPA are making metro an underground Luas. It leaves a glimmer of hope for the future.

Metro west is premature but the alignment is quite direct and if the at grade crossings could be eliminated by the tram dipping under it wouldn't be far off true metro. The alignment should be preserved of course.

The interconnector is going to be under utilised unless the electification is extended to Sallins and a very large P&R built just west of the town where the M7 virtually kisses the railway. This is the perfect location to take actual cars off the roads. The same goes for the northern line which should be electrified the extra bit to Drogheda IMO.

The Lucan Luas is the greatest joke ever. It will have none of the good bits of the red line and all of the bad bits. It should be canned and the money spent on north-south roads/liffey bridges (and buses!) feeding the Kildare Route and Maynooth line.

If we are brutally honest, Dublin could be gotten moving with no rail investment at all and a massive focus on (real) QBCs and a steep congestion charge to keep cars off the roads. There has to be a carrot of course and rail is it.

Im not sold on light rail Philip, but as you well know, I'd be in agreement with the rest. While I come from a rail background, I think buses are key in Dublin and its that aspect that needs the overhaul, once its done on the basis of research and not the whims of the DOT.

OTK

There are no specific goals and no scope for transport 21. A project without goals or scope is usually judged a failure after it completes. In 2015, people will be able to point out any transport problem they have and say that T21 was a failure.

The Transport 21 site lists some vague goals but there are no specific measurable targets, so they are meaningless. For example, "expand capacity" is a stupid goal. By how much and where?

T21 website goals wrote:

• increase accessibility – making it easier for everybody to get to and from work, school, college, shopping and business.
• ensure sustainability – recognising that a modern transport system must be sustainable from an economic and environmental perspective.
• expand capacity – addressing existing deficiencies and providing for future growth.
• increase use - managing the transport network and seeking to increase the use of public transport
• enhance quality – improving safety, accessibility, integration, reliability, speed and comfort.

It's not enough to say that there may be some internal measurable goals, the goals need to be agreed between the project sponsors and the client (in this case the government and the public).

Nostradamus

The Luas passenger carrying numbers are colossal by any international light rail benchmark and in particular within an Irish context were there is historically a cultural unwillingness to use public transport (due mainly to 60 years of CIE union inflicted misery on commuters) the Luas remains highly impressive. It's not perfect, it has its faults but its still the best public transport system on the island (DART is crap considering the investment).

Luas has proved its worth. The only main gripe I have with it is the lines are getting too long. If that is even something to be concerned about. I am not 100% sure. I agree that a central undergrund corridor would transform Luas into top notch transit system alright. I can see this happening in time as well.

You are right about the Interconnctor being crisis management rather than visionary planning. The only reason the government is funding the Interconnector is the same reason they funded OnTrack 2000 - to avoid certain, imminent meltdown. But its great to see it happen nonetheless.

We can fret and complain over Transport21 and not everyone is going to be happy with all aspects of it - but it's pretty good considering we are coming from half nothing - it has to be done and it is happening rapidly. I know about 6 people now who are directly employed as a result of T21 rail projects. Everything from a JCB driver to a former senior engineer on the channel tunnel rail link.

Let's complete T21 first, then we have a solid base to really move things forward. Rome wasn't built in a day.

As for the ERSI - they have such a schizo view of rail from one report to the next over the last 10 years they are best ignored on the matter. The ERSI have been gushingly pro Western Rail Corrdor while at the same time "expressed concerns" about the viability of the Dublin Rail Plan.

So it really goes to show that the ERSI are just another quango talking esoteric bollox about something they have very little understanding of from either a technical or end-user point of view.

So who cares once new trains are being ordered and new tracks are being laid.

strassenwolf

Nostradamus wrote:

The Luas passenger carrying numbers are colossal by any international light rail benchmark

While the LUAS is a very welcome addition, one has to be rather careful here with the figures.

Frank Allen of the RPA was congratulating himself before the Oireachtas committee on Transport recently on this very point.

Frank Allen wrote:

We are pleased to be invited to meet members of the committee which identified a few matters to which I will draw attention. I will deal, first, with the plans for Luas and the metro in Transport 21, the framework for all the work under way. As the committee is aware, Luas opened for passenger service almost four years ago and there has been rapid growth in passenger numbers since. There were 22 million passengers in 2005 and 29 million last year. That represents approximately 1.2 million passengers per kilometre per annum, which, by European standards, is exceptionally high. The providers of other light rail systems throughout Europe are coming to Dublin to examine the features that make Luas a success or, to put the matter in context, that account for it carrying 1.2 million passengers per kilometre. The DART carries about 500,000 passengers per kilometre. We are very pleased with the public take-up of Luas.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=TRJ20080326.xml&Node=H3#H3

The providers of other light rail systems may well be popping over to Dublin to have a look at LUAS, and I'm sure they're impressed.

However, the figures achieved are not being achieved by some RPA wizardry. They are achieved because of the very lack of a network of lines and the great gaps between lines heading effectively in the same direction (i.e. into or out of town).

This is nicely illustrated by the distance between the red and green lines on the Southside. The catchment area for the two lines are both very large because there are no competing lines in between.

The providers of other light rail systems are burdened in many cases by the fact that they have such competing lines. In Praque, for example, (population 1.2 million) there are 26 tram lines going to all corners of the city, along with 3 metro lines. Dresden (around 500,000) has 12 tram lines, all fanning out around the city. These cities could never achieve similar passenger numbers per kilometre simply because people are, on average, much closer to a tram line in those cities than is the case on the southside of Dublin.

The providers of other light rail systems may be burdened with this situation, though I suspect they do not see it as a burden but rather an opportunity to make people's lives easier. Public transport users of those system are certainly not burdened, because they find it easier to get to a tram line.

And it's worth noting that the passenger numbers per kilometre are considerably higher on the tram lines through the northern suburbs of, say, Dresden, than they are on those through the northern suburbs of Dublin. Frank did not mention that.:D

Prof_V

Strassenwolf, I think you make a good point as regards Europe (which, after all, was what Frank Allen was referring to). However, the figures are very impressive when compared to British and US ones; Luas as a whole outperforms every US light rail system bar the Boston Green Line and every British one bar the Docklands Light Railway on passengers per kilometre. Most British and US cities with light rail don't have dense networks.

Of course, low population density could be a partial explanation for low usage in the US, but Calgary in Canada gets usage levels slightly better than Luas overall, though somewhat less than the (Dublin) Green Line, at US-type densities; anyway, British cities don't have noticeably lower densities than Dublin. Bus deregulation could be a partial explanation in Britain - and the light rail systems in London, where buses are regulated, are the best performers [1] - but I'm not convinced Luas is that much better integrated with buses than its British peers, and anyway US systems tend to be very highly integrated (converting bus routes to feeders, etc.).

Not that any of this is an endorsement of the RPA or the Government's role in planning Luas; however, you could argue that with things like lines that connected up, better integration with buses, integrated ticketing, and higher tram capacity the passenger figures would be even more impressive. I'd say that bus and car speeds explain some of the differences (though I haven't got figures to hand; anyway, they probably wouldn't explain the Calgary - US difference, though that's off topic). However, I think the comparisons are important because the US and, to a lesser extent British, examples were being widely touted here before 2004 as proof that light rail couldn't work in lower-density cities.

[1] It's generally accepted, however, that there are important differences between London and the rest of Britain in other respects than how the buses are run - car ownership, access to parking, even the whole culture around using public transport.