DART+ (DART Expansion)

jd

Is he getting mixed up? The NTA recommended a redesign in September 2015
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/lower-cost-re-design-of-dart-underground-project-proposed/

murphaph

Middle Man wrote: »

Our planners would surely look like prize winning idiots!

The politicians and the electorate that puts them there you mean. The original plans for DU and MN are solid enough.

Bray Head

jd wrote: »

Is he getting mixed up? The NTA recommended a redesign in September 2015
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/lower-cost-re-design-of-dart-underground-project-proposed/

Maybe he's mixed up or maybe there is an error in the transcript or maybe there actually was an NTMA study.

The Oireachtas transcript says 'NTMA' twice and also spells out 'National Treasury Management Agency'.

Either way it is all very odd.

cgcsb

Tunneling heuston to pearse is a waste of money, the extra tunnel to docklands is only an extra 1.5km and building a turnaround station under pearse would absorb that cost easily. The net result would be commuter services from Kildare to Pearse which we already have. The key issue here is providing a second Liffey crossing and taking the heat off Connolly. It'd make more sense to build the docklands to pearse section first if u wanted to d!ck around that much

murphaph

Indeed. If you're going to dick about with partial tunnels then Docklands<->Pearse actually delivers much more bang for the buck and you can bring Kildare line trains in around non-stop from Heuston P10 to Docklands and Pearse. But of course they should just build the damn thing as originally planned.

Middle Man

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. If you're going to dick about with partial tunnels then Docklands<->Pearse actually delivers much more bang for the buck and you can bring Kildare line trains in around non-stop from Heuston P10 to Docklands and Pearse. But of course they should just build the damn thing as originally planned.

Yes! The whole thing, lock stock and barrel!

That's right from Inchicore and includes the station there plus Kildare Route Project Phase II along with the proposed grade separation at the junction.

BonnieSituation

I got on the 25A this evening at the terminus 8 minutes after it was due to leave the terminus. It took nearly 15min to get to the other side of Merrion Square and over all took just under 25min to get to Westland Row.

A whole 47min passed before I got to Con Colbert Road.

It wasn't raining. There were no accidents in the area. It was just traffic volumes.

Seriously, if an expanded rail network can't get built in this environment then when the fupp will it get built?


---

I just read the last line of that indo article there again:

"Modelling is under way to determine if the system could run to Pearse Street station and still provide the required connectivity."

What model would you run to get the result that a terminating/cul de sac line will provide the same connectivity as a run-through?

Do you ever feel like you're in an endless bad dream in this country?

thebsharp

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I got on the 25A this evening at the terminus 8 minutes after it was due to leave the terminus. It took nearly 15min to get to the other side of Merrion Square and over all took just under 25min to get to Westland Row.

A whole 47min passed before I got to Con Colbert Road.

It wasn't raining. There were no accidents in the area. It was just traffic volumes.

Seriously, if an expanded rail network can't get built in this environment then when the fupp will it get built?


---

I just read the last line of that indo article there again:

"Modelling is under way to determine if the system could run to Pearse Street station and still provide the required connectivity."

What model would you run to get the result that a terminating/cul de sac line will provide the same connectivity as a run-through?

Do you ever feel like you're in an endless cad déan in this country?

The model where they've been asked to show a pre-determined outcome.

BonnieSituation

How cynical

thebsharp

Cynical but realistic.

"required connectivity" can be subjective and that's where the difference comes in. It provides the modelers flexibility to provide for a minimum level of connectivity, which could mean a 10min walk.
The thing is that the project team would be desperate to build something, and know that the option is either to build a watered down version or nothing at all. That's how infrastructure generally gets built in this country, and across the world for the most part.

spuddy

Pat Kenny had the NTA, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus on today. Unfortunately Kenny was clueless (eg: saying an underground Luas would become a DART with change of ownership to IR), and tried to cover too many topics with the result that none were discussed in any meaningful way.

One nugget of information was that the redesign of DU is to be completed this year.

Listen back here (slide to 50%).

Middle Man

spuddy wrote: »

Pat Kenny had the NTA, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus on today. Unfortunately Kenny was clueless (eg: saying an underground Luas would become a DART with change of ownership to IR), and tried to cover too many topics with the result that none were discussed in any meaningful way.

One nugget of information was that the redesign of DU is to be completed this year.

Listen back here (slide to 50%).

My Plan...

1) Scrap the NTA - waste of money IMO;
2) Declare 'State of Emergency' (well, we're heading for gridlock) in the Dublin area and overrule the planning lapse on the DART Inter-connector - reactivate the Railway Order (all of it!) and extend for at least 10 years;
3) Get on with procurement with a view to having construction underway by 2020 at the very latest;
4) Get on with the Kildare Route Project Phase II and electrify the lines to both Hazelhatch and Maynooth - all these projects to be done by 2027;
5) Start planning on North City rail capacity - either quad tracking to Malahide or North City Express Rail Tunnel - Electrify Northern Line to at least Balbriggan.

alias no.9

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I got on the 25A this evening at the terminus 8 minutes after it was due to leave the terminus. It took nearly 15min to get to the other side of Merrion Square and over all took just under 25min to get to Westland Row.

A whole 47min passed before I got to Con Colbert Road.

It wasn't raining. There were no accidents in the area. It was just traffic volumes.

Seriously, if an expanded rail network can't get built in this environment then when the fupp will it get built?


---

I just read the last line of that indo article there again:

"Modelling is under way to determine if the system could run to Pearse Street station and still provide the required connectivity."

What model would you run to get the result that a terminating/cul de sac line will provide the same connectivity as a run-through?

Do you ever feel like you're in an endless bad dream in this country?

Modelling can be used to demonstrate that an idea is a big steaming pile of poo without having to endure the lingering smell of the poo. I'm hoping this is what's happening, that IE/TFI/Whoever return to the government and say we really liked your cost cutting ideas but when we ran them through our model, computer says no.

Grandeeod

alias no.9 wrote: »

Modelling can be used to demonstrate that an idea is a big steaming pile of poo without having to endure the lingering smell of the poo. I'm hoping this is what's happening, that IE/TFI/Whoever return to the government and say we really liked your cost cutting ideas but when we ran them through our model, computer says no.

I think thats what anyone interested in DU will be hoping for. However, the history of rail development in this country suggests we may yet witness another serious attempt to kick the can down the road.

liamog

Maybe the models will show that not only are the new plans so bad, but the old ones were also underspecced so we're going to need more time to design for the extra capacity.

Job Done, kicked the can.

Middle Man

Grandeeod wrote: »

I think thats what anyone interested in DU will be hoping for. However, the history of rail development in this country suggests we may yet witness another serious attempt to kick the can down the road.

When the M50 Upgrade was first planned, a recession hit in 2001 and they tried to scale back, so the redesign process got underway - what actually happened was that it got scaled back a bit and was then gradually scaled up again until we ended up with more or less, the same spec as per the original design - just a few different ramp layouts, but the same spec. The Red Cow Interchange is a prime example - original design proposed free flow connections for most movements before a substitute design saw an inferior 3 level layout with many movements signalled controlled - that included the Luas line. Of course, the present junction provides free flow connections for most major movements along with a completely segregated Luas track alignment - apart from an originally proposed N7 to R110 sweep to the north, the interchange is more or less as originally planned in 2001. What a waste of time and resources - if we have learned anything, we would just get the finger out and get on with the DART Inter-connector - like
NOW!!!

LeinsterDub

liamog wrote: »

Job Done, kicked the can.

The can will be kicked eventually but currently we are in the process of redesigning the kicking boot. It's clear that the boot was deigned for boom time demand for kicking and as for the can we are considering a plastic bottle instead

Heartbreak Hank

spuddy wrote: »

Pat Kenny had the NTA, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus on today. Unfortunately Kenny was clueless (eg: saying an underground Luas would become a DART with change of ownership to IR), and tried to cover too many topics with the result that none were discussed in any meaningful way.

One nugget of information was that the redesign of DU is to be completed this year.

Listen back here (slide to 50%).

Listened to this yesterday (thanks for the link).

I found it awfully depressing. First, the NTA's Chief Executive Officer, Anne Graham, agreed with Pat that Metro North would be lower capacity than DART as it is "narrow gauge". I can forgive Pat for such a statement, but surely the woman with whom the transport buck stops, should know that the "narrow gauge" referred to is standard gauge and is the gauge that many (I would guess most) rail systems in the world run on, including the London, Paris and New York metros.

Then Barry Kenny, Corporate Communications Manager with Irish Rail, freely spoke about the redesign of DART Underground without giving any indication of the implications to the level of service of the other options being looked at. I appreciate that he must toe the party line, but surely he could have used the opportunity to explain the cost, in terms of the impact to the whole network, of the "savings" to be made by the redesign.

spuddy

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Listened to this yesterday (thanks for the link).

I found it awfully depressing. First, the NTA's Chief Executive Officer, Anne Graham, agreed with Pat that Metro North would be lower capacity than DART as it is "narrow gauge". I can forgive Pat for such a statement, but surely the woman with whom the transport buck stops, should know that the "narrow gauge" referred to is standard gauge and is the gauge that many (I would guess most) rail systems in the world run on, including the London, Paris and New York metros.

Then Barry Kenny, Corporate Communications Manager with Irish Rail, freely spoke about the redesign of DART Underground without giving any indication of the implications to the level of service of the other options being looked at. I appreciate that he must toe the party line, but surely he could have used the opportunity to explain the cost, in terms of the impact to the whole network, of the "savings" to be made by the redesign.

I'd agree with the sentiment, but I'd maintain the problem lay with the scope of the discussion, they tried to cover everything and in the end covered nothing, there wasn't enough time for either presenter nor representative to discuss a topic with enough detail, and from a listener's perspective, I just felt confused.

If anyone in Newstalk (or other outlets) are reading this, there's plenty of content for a series of slots of this topic, we'll do your job for you!

I'd recommend, rather than take public transport as a topic, look it from another angle, ask the question: why is Dublin one of the top 10 worst cities in the world (of any size) for peak time traffic volumes? Discuss the reasons people avoid PT (capacity, poor connection possibilities, slowness, costs associated with each mode etc) to help the listener understand the need for change.

Then it's far easier to take a topic like DU and talk about it in terms of the practical the benefits it would bring to the population. Eg: being able to get from Heuston to Croke park on match days, the expanded service to commuter towns like Maynooth, the frequency with which it could run etc, the capacity it would bring (eg: # people a double decker transports vs a DART), and the knock on benefits for everyone in getting home to their family on PT quickly, rather than sitting in traffic in a car on their own...

You could do similar things with MN, and other schemes.

marno21

Barry Kenny will be long gone from IE by the time DU opens so I'm not surprised it's not a major concern of his. IE have plenty of current issues at the minute DU aside that he'll be dealing with such as the persistantly late and jam packed trains amongst other regular problems especially with commuter trains in Dublin. There's a full thread on them in the Commuting & Transport forum

antoinolachtnai

The problem is that DU is not a particularly well planned scheme. The business case bears this out. According to the modelling, it just doesn't generate a lot of new journeys on public transport.

DU wouldn't provide any straightforward way to run a train from Houston to Croke Park. It is possible by using a shunting link, but it isn't really something you could promote.

The expanded service to Maynooth is really not of any great consequence to any significant number of people. The population on the Maynooth line beyond Clonsilla is pretty small and there is no real magnet there to attract extra trips. It is true to say that trains have a lot of capacity compared to buses, but half of the distance of the proposed DART Underground routes would run along the coasts and so the capacity will serve a limited enough catchment. All these problems could be resolved by a better design.

LeinsterDub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that DU is not a particularly well planned scheme. The business case bears this out. According to the modelling, it just doesn't generate a lot of new journeys on public transport.

What are you basing this one?

marno21

What I see as the main selling of DU is that it goes a long way to finally creating a public transport NETWORK in Dublin.

A commuter from Co. Kildare can get the new service to St Stephens Green, and the Luas/Metro to places such as DCU or Sandyford or Cherrywood. With current PT options that's not possible except by using buses which use the same congested roads as the current car commuters. With proper timetabling and services, DU would go a long way towards solving congestion on for example the N7.

liamog

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that DU is not a particularly well planned scheme. The business case bears this out

The cost benefit of DU showed it was 1.6
The tunnel itself was only 0.9.

Grandeeod

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that DU is not a particularly well planned scheme. The business case bears this out. According to the modelling, it just doesn't generate a lot of new journeys on public transport.

DU wouldn't provide any straightforward way to run a train from Houston to Croke Park. It is possible by using a shunting link, but it isn't really something you could promote.

The expanded service to Maynooth is really not of any great consequence to any significant number of people. The population on the Maynooth line beyond Clonsilla is pretty small and there is no real magnet there to attract extra trips. It is true to say that trains have a lot of capacity compared to buses, but half of the distance of the proposed DART Underground routes would run along the coasts and so the capacity will serve a limited enough catchment. All these problems could be resolved by a better design.

I don't think you have much of a clue what you are talking about. Sorry for being blunt. Saying it doesn't generate a lot of new journies on PT is the starting point of why I have said you don't know what you are talking about.

But hey, its your opinion.

Middle Man

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that DU is not a particularly well planned scheme. The business case bears this out. According to the modelling, it just doesn't generate a lot of new journeys on public transport.

DU wouldn't provide any straightforward way to run a train from Houston to Croke Park. It is possible by using a shunting link, but it isn't really something you could promote.

The expanded service to Maynooth is really not of any great consequence to any significant number of people. The population on the Maynooth line beyond Clonsilla is pretty small and there is no real magnet there to attract extra trips. It is true to say that trains have a lot of capacity compared to buses, but half of the distance of the proposed DART Underground routes would run along the coasts and so the capacity will serve a limited enough catchment. All these problems could be resolved by a better design.

The DART Inter-connector is a no brainer - simple as. Too many people seem to be looking at this proposed tunnel in isolation or don't think it will do much. The fact is that the inter-connector will properly integrate all rail lines in the city and eliminate to need for many of the turnarounds that use up time and space - instead of just one DART line running through from end to end, there'll by two - 1) Bray/Greystones to Maynooth and 2) Hazelhatch to Balbriggan/Drogheda - these lines will intersect at Pearse Station. Also, the inter-connector will open up new areas in the city centre to the rail network - Spencer Dock, Stephen's Green (Grafton Street) and the Liberties. Sure your argument could have been made against the initial DART lines in the early 1980's - 'they do just the same thing as the push cars did up to then'. The fact is that the DART transformed the railway between Howth and Bray - it's kind of like comparing the old trams to the Luas - apples and oranges!

antoinolachtnai

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What are you basing this one?

I am basing it on the modelling in the business case. See table 2.3 of the Business Case (http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf)

Note the number in the bottom right of the table.

According to the table, DU will generate only an extra 1266 public transport journeys a day at the peak time.

This is a very poor result for such an expensive and important project.

A redesign would sort this out.

antoinolachtnai

Middle Man wrote: »

The DART Inter-connector is a no brainer - simple as. Too many people seem to be looking at this proposed tunnel in isolation or don't think it will do much. The fact is that the inter-connector will properly integrate all rail lines in the city and eliminate to need for many of the turnarounds that use up time and space - instead of just one DART line running through from end to end, there'll by two - 1) Bray/Greystones to Maynooth and 2) Hazelhatch to Balbriggan/Drogheda - these lines will intersect at Pearse Station. Also, the inter-connector will open up new areas in the city centre to the rail network - Spencer Dock, Stephen's Green (Grafton Street) and the Liberties. Sure your argument could have been made against the initial DART lines in the early 1980's - 'they do just the same thing as the push cars did up to then'. The fact is that the DART transformed the railway between Howth and Bray - it's kind of like comparing the old trams to the Luas - apples and oranges!

Unfortunately the modelling of the effect of DU on the overall transport network does not bear out what you are saying.

What you don't seem to understand is that the two proposed DART lines mostly run on beach and through agricultural land.

I am not comparing push cars to trams or whatever you are talking about. I am comparing a badly designed east-west tunnel scheme to what a well-designed scheme could achieve.

antoinolachtnai

Grandeeod wrote: »

I don't think you have much of a clue what you are talking about. Sorry for being blunt. Saying it doesn't generate a lot of new journies on PT is the starting point of why I have said you don't know what you are talking about.

But hey, its your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's the conclusion of respected experts, commissioned by CIE themselves.

LeinsterDub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's not my opinion, it's the conclusion of respected experts, commissioned by CIE themselves.

Link please

antoinolachtnai

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Link please

The reference is there in the thread, in post 3728.

Any other city would conservatively expect a project involving a city centre tunnel and electrification of tens of kilometres of track to deliver at least tens of millions of new public transport journeys per year, not hundreds of thousands. This should be easy in Dublin, where there is such a low base to start from. DART Underground can't and won't deliver high volumes of new public transport users, because of fundamental design flaws. The principle of an east-west tunnel is good, but it has to be redesigned.

LeinsterDub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The reference is there in the thread, in post 3728.

Any other city would conservatively expect a project involving a city centre tunnel and electrification of tens of kilometres of track to deliver at least tens of millions of new public transport journeys per year, not hundreds of thousands. This should be easy in Dublin, where there is such a low base to start from. DART Underground can't and won't deliver high volumes of new public transport users, because of fundamental design flaws. The principle of an east-west tunnel is good, but it has to be redesigned.

BCR of 2.4 , 55% increase in dart demand

On a traditional transport appraisal, the scheme has a Net Present Value (NPV) of [text deleted] with
a Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.4 – this indicates a high value for money

Afford real choice for commuters (higher frequencies, better central area access, more competitive journey times, easier modal interchange) and hence deliver a modal shift from the private car and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

As would be expected, there is a substantial increase (of around 55%) in DART demand.
Most of this is a result of mode shift from suburban rail, Luas and bus. There is also a small amount of public transport trip generation (around 1-1.5%).

marno21

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am basing it on the modelling in the business case. See table 2.3 of the Business Case (http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf)

Note the number in the bottom right of the table.

According to the table, DU will generate only an extra 1266 public transport journeys a day at the peak time.

This is a very poor result for such an expensive and important project.

A redesign would sort this out.

You are reading that wrong.

If it only created another 400k journeys on the DART a year a 4bn project would not have a benefit:cost ratio of 1.6.

antoinolachtnai

LeinsterDub wrote: »

BCR of 2.4 , 55% increase in dart demand

It would be better if you read the reference and looked at the specific table and the specific figure mentioned.

A large proportion of the extra passengers on DART just transfer from Suburban rail and Luas, and to a lesser extent form Dublin Bus.

antoinolachtnai

marno21 wrote: »

You are reading that wrong.

If it only created another 400k journeys on the DART a year a 4bn project would not have a benefit:cost ratio of 1.6.

According to table 2.3 (http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf) , the forecast was that in 2030, the whole DART Underground project would only be resulting in an extra 1266 journeys per morning peak in 2030.

That is what the figures say.

I can't see what other way you could read that table.

There are more effective ways of delivering an east-west tunnel that can deliver far greater benefits.

Even a bad project of this scale will deliver economic benefits because of multiplier effects and other non-transport impacts. The aim is to develop a project which will maximise benefits.

LeinsterDub

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It would be better if you read the reference and looked at the specific table and the specific figure mentioned.

A large proportion of the extra passengers on DART just transfer from Suburban rail and Luas, and to a lesser extent form Dublin Bus.

I quoted the bit you reference to so I've read it

ricimaki

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

According to table 2.3 (http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf) , the forecast was that in 2030, the whole DART Underground project would only be resulting in an extra 1266 journeys per morning peak in 2030.

The 1266 figure is the total from DART, Suburban Rail, LUAS, Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann. Points 2.5.3 - 2.5.5 explain this:

2.5.3 Table 2.3 summarises the impacts on public transport demand as a result of DART
Underground. It shows total boardings for an average morning peak period in the Do
Minimum and Do Something.

2.5.4 As would be expected, there is a substantial increase (of around 55%) in DART demand.
Most of this is a result of mode shift from suburban rail, Luas and bus. There is also a
small amount of public transport trip generation (around 1-1.5%).

2.5.5 In terms of impacts on highway journeys, there are expected to be approximately 25,000
fewer highway kilometres travelled per morning peak period by 2030.

People going from Hueston station to Howth Junction (as an example) wouldn't need to take the LUAS or a bus when this is built. The just hop on the Dart and arrive at their destination.

When the wider economic benefits of the scheme are included, the BCR is 4.04, with an Internal rate of return of 13.54%. Dart Underground would pay for itself 7 years after it opens.

antoinolachtnai

Exactly. All DART underground does is shift users from one mode to another. It doesn't attract new hoardings.

The reason for this is that the design is very bad. it can't deliver on this thread's ambitions for it. It is not an urban rail system and isn't designed as one.

It is great that there is positive NPV and High BCR. It doesn't mean that DU is a good project that should be built. Imagine how high the NPV and BCR would be if it was capable of attracting the hundreds of millions of yearly passengers that a good urban rail design would attract.

It is all moot anyway. DU is being redesigned.

liamog

Why are you ignoring the Wider Benefit associated with the programme and only focussing on the Net New Journeys.
You sound exactly like a politician picking and choosing facts to justify a complete redesign to kick it down the road for another ten years.

If the current assessment returns that the changes are not optimal, do we have the option to resubmit the railway order and planning application?

antoinolachtnai

When the facts come out and someone disagrees with you, you start the name calling and shouting people down.

As I understand it the project is already being redesigned.

A bad project has wider benefits for sure and I am not ignoring them. A good project (which attracted new passengers to public transport in significant numbers) would have much greater benefits.

The choice should not be between doing a bad project and doing no project.

Chivito550

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Exactly. All DART underground does is shift users from one mode to another. It doesn't attract new hoardings.

The reason for this is that the design is very bad. it can't deliver on this thread's ambitions for it. It is not an urban rail system and isn't designed as one.

It is great that there is positive NPV and High BCR. It doesn't mean that DU is a good project that should be built. Imagine how high the NPV and BCR would be if it was capable of attracting the hundreds of millions of yearly passengers that a good urban rail design would attract.

It is all moot anyway. DU is being redesigned.

Please enlighten us as to how you would design DU?

antoinolachtnai

Chivito550 wrote: »

Please enlighten us as to how you would design DU?

I would link the underground tunnel with grade separated junctions to both the Northern (Belfast) and western (maynooth) lines. I would run a line along the reservation from near Coolmine to serve the large population in Blanchardstown and the N3 as a priority over electrifying out to parkland and dormitory towns. I would make provision to link a further line serving the finglas or ballymun areas to be linked in to use the same tunnel in the near future. A high frequency urban style service from Blanchardstown to Adamstown via Docklands and st Stephens Green would be at the heart of the schedule.

liamog

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

When the facts come out and someone disagrees with you, you start the name calling and shouting people down.

As I understand it the project is already being redesigned.

A bad project has wider benefits for sure and I am not ignoring them. A good project (which attracted new passengers to public transport in significant numbers) would have much greater benefits.

I'm asking why you are concentrating on the one figure

The project is about network expansion, and improved utilisation of our existing infrastructure with a demonstrated benefit to the city and a predicted payback of 7 years.

In any other jurisdiction this would have gone ahead while we had unemployed construction workers and the EIB offering cheap money as part of quantities easing.

The redesign is not looking at improved options, it's looking at cost savings, most of which neuter the network expansion.

DU is not a tunnel across the city, it is a enabler for cross city Dart Traffic, similar to what Cross Rail has achieved.

Sam Russell

liamog wrote: »

DU is not a tunnel across the city, it is a enabler for cross city Dart Traffic, similar to what Cross Rail has achieved.

The Port Tunnel was a project that was a tunnel across the city that has been more successful than expected. Luas was to be a limited tram service but has been much more successful than expected and has been extended at both ends of both lines, however they still do not link, only cross each other. Dublin Airport is already 5 years ahead of predictions re passenger numbers (25m lastyear) but still no rail link. The M50 had to be revamped because it was at gridlock, and now post expansion, it is at gridlock.

Do you see a pattern here?

DU will be more successful than expected as well if it is ever built, whatever is built. Predictions for infrastructure in Dublin are always too low and the build is always too late.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Port Tunnel was a project that was a tunnel across the city that has been more successful than expected. Luas was to be a limited tram service but has been much more successful than expected and has been extended at both ends of both lines, however they still do not link, only cross each other. Dublin Airport is already 5 years ahead of predictions re passenger numbers (25m lastyear) but still no rail link. The M50 had to be revamped because it was at gridlock, and now post expansion, it is at gridlock.

Do you see a pattern here?

DU will be more successful than expected as well if it is ever built, whatever is built. Predictions for infrastructure in Dublin are always too low and the build is always too late.

Not just Dublin.

Look at all the N40 upgrades, 2 upgrades so far and another on the way. The recent capital plan includes widening the M7 that's overcapacity, the Dunkettle interchange which should have never been built as so, a second bypass/relief road for Galway.

Watering down DU and MN as they are planning will do one thing and one thing only. Kick the financial can down the road when necessary upgrades are needed in 10 years because they were built with minimal savings in mind.

antoinolachtnai

liamog wrote: »

I'm asking why you are concentrating on the one figure

You also started name-calling.

I am concentrating on the figure because when all the talk is done it demonstrates straightforwardly how weak the project is.

The project is about network expansion, and improved utilisation of our existing infrastructure with a demonstrated benefit to the city and a predicted payback of 7 years.

That is what the project should be about.

If it were really going to deliver on this, then the modelling would show a far greater uplift in passenger numbers and the benefits would be much greater.

The 'predicted payback of 7 years' is an economic payback, not a money payback. A better-designed project could return a far greater economic payback.

I cannot see how failing to provide a grade-separated link with the line towards Maynooth, running through the most populous suburbs, can be overlooked. It is a really enormous design failing. It means that the network benefits to which you rightly refer cannot be fully realised.

liamog

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You also started name-calling.

Let's stick to the topic of discussion.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am concentrating on the figure because when all the talk is done it demonstrates straightforwardly how weak the project is.

That is what the project should be about.

If it were really going to deliver on this, then the modelling would show a far greater uplift in passenger numbers and the benefits would be much greater.

The 'predicted payback of 7 years' is an economic payback, not a money payback. A better-designed project could return a far greater economic payback.

I cannot see how failing to provide a grade-separated link with the line towards Maynooth, running through the most populous suburbs, can be overlooked. It is a really enormous design failing. It means that the network benefits to which you rightly refer cannot be fully realised.

We had a shovel ready project, which could presumably be brought back to that status relatively quickly with the political will.

A link to the Maynooth line would enable trains to run Maynooth to Hazelhatch.
These journeys are already covered by the connection at Pearse.

The expanded service was designed to cover Maynooth to Bray and Hazelhatch to Balbriggan/Howth. With transfers at a central station (Pearse).

The link to the Maynooth line is redundant, and would probably have a very low effect on trip generation.

I'd be in favour of a connection to Blanchardstown from Coolmine, but that's one for a future project.

MJohnston

I actually would agree with part of what antoinolachtnai is saying, in that I don't think DU as most recently planned would do much to expand the catchment areas of Dublin public transport - it would certainly expand usage within the existing western rail catchment areas, but not open up new areas of the outer city/county to commuter habitation.

I've argued as much on another thread, or maybe this one? But that said, I argued that in the context of the hypothetical prioritization of DU or MN, where I believed MN would be more valuable for network expansion. I think that most of what antoin is talking about is merely additional work in addition to the most recent DU plan, rather than a completely alternate plan.

Chivito550

DU would also enable a lot more fast short distance trips though. A personal example. I work close to Stephens Green and train on the track out in Irishtown. If DU existed I'd be able to get from Stephens Green to Lansdowne Road station easily. I'm assuming with the DART lines split and therefore with less congestion, DARTs would run at greater frequencies, and so changing at Pearse would be no great deal.

Currently I walk 15 minutes to get the infrequent and often phantom number 1 bus, which crawls through traffic.

MJohnston

Chivito550 wrote: »

DU would also enable a lot more fast short distance trips though. A personal example. I work close to Stephens Green and train on the track out in Irishtown. If DU existed I'd be able to get from Stephens Green to Lansdowne Road station easily. I'm assuming with the DART lines split and therefore with less congestion, DARTs would run at greater frequencies, and so changing at Pearse would be no great deal.

Currently I walk 15 minutes to get the infrequent and often phantom number 1 bus, which crawls through traffic.

Yes, I understand the improvements to reliability and frequency, which will expand options for people already near train stations which are part of the DU upgrades.

I'm not arguing that DU won't be a huge positive for DART usage I'm arguing that it doesn't geographically expand the network map.