Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

Ernest

bk wrote: »

At night in Dublin you just have some drunk people that are easily avoided and you be perfectly fine.

I've seen and been a victim of actual crime a lot more in other European cities then I've ever been in Dublin. As in bag snatching, pickpocketing, etc.

My OH use to walk home from work at 3am on her own around Parnell St almost every night, never a problem. Not many cities you can really say that for.

I agree that the onstreet drunkenness and junkies make it perhaps feel more dangerous then it actually is. Other cities take a zero tolerance of that sort of thing, police would round you up and lock you up for doing the same in Eastern Europe. So they might feel safer, but they actually can have more serious organised crime issues that aren't as obvious unless you live there.

BTW there is plenty to do in Dublin in the evenings other then pub/clubs. Though you are right not much else to do after 11 and yes weather plays a very big part in that.



I agree, I suppose if your only experience of Dublin is visiting and seeing the core city center, then it would look pretty bad. But actually living here you see the nice leafy suburban towns that make for great places to live.

I agree with what you are saying above about the core city center, which is why I'm a big fan of improving it and making it a more liveable city center like you see in other European cities. Get rid of cars/taxis, reduce buses, more trams/metros, wider footpaths and way more pedestrianisation, more cycling, etc. I do think Dublin has great potential to be a great European city. Though lots to do.

"get rid of cars, taxis...." You cannot be serious!!

LeinsterDub

Ernest wrote: »

"get rid of cars, taxis...." You cannot be serious!!

Why not?

roadmaster

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why not?

Get the Metro Built, DU and maybe more luas lines and then when there is good public transport alternative you can look at removing cars from the equation.

LeinsterDub

roadmaster wrote: »

Get the Metro Built, DU and maybe more luas lines and then when there is good public transport alternative you can look at removing cars from the equation.

bk wrote: »

Get rid of cars/taxis, reduce buses, more trams/metros, wider footpaths and way .

Isn't that what bk said?

roadmaster

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Instead that what bk said?

yes but maybe i am just not explaining myself correctly before we put a ban on cars we need am alternative we cant just stop cars and say live with public transport we have

LeinsterDub

roadmaster wrote: »

yes but maybe i am just not explaining myself correctly before we put a ban on cars we need am alternative we cant just stop cars and say live with public transport we have

I don't think bk was suggesting that . As we increase Metro, Luas and Cycling infrastructure road space for other traffic with naturally (becoming Luas only) and unnaturally decrease (Closing college green)

bk

roadmaster wrote: »

yes but maybe i am just not explaining myself correctly before we put a ban on cars we need am alternative we cant just stop cars and say live with public transport we have

Most people are already. 81% of people who shop in Dublin City Center got their by walking, cycling, bus, luas, dart, etc. Only 19% by car!

The vast majority of people are already using the alternatives.

Remove cars and you have plenty of space to improve public transport, walking and cycling even further for those last 19% and the majority too.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Most people are already. 81% of people who shop in Dublin City Center got their by walking, cycling, bus, luas, dart, etc. Only 19% by car!

The vast majority of people are already using the alternatives.

Remove cars and you have plenty of space to improve public transport, walking and cycling even further for those last 19% and the majority too.

If you remove cars, then bus speeds increase resulting in more buses and transition time reduces. This makes buses more attractive, so more people will see them as a positive alternative.

So removing cars improves PT on its own. Now obviously, it will be an incremental change, helped by the likes of DU and MN.

MN is a massive game changer.

Grandeeod

bk wrote: »

Most people are already. 81% of people who shop in Dublin City Center got their by walking, cycling, bus, luas, dart, etc. Only 19% by car!

The vast majority of people are already using the alternatives.

Remove cars and you have plenty of space to improve public transport, walking and cycling even further for those last 19% and the majority too.

If you don't mind me asking and its in the interests of the many opinions you express here and the thread topic, but where in general do you live in Dublin and where do you work in relation to where you live. How do you travel to work?

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you remove cars, then bus speeds increase resulting in more buses and transition time reduces. This makes buses more attractive, so more people will see them as a positive alternative.

So removing cars improves PT on its own. Now obviously, it will be an incremental change, helped by the likes of DU and MN.

MN is a massive game changer.

MN is far from a game changer never mind a massive game changer. DU is the actual game changer. It shouldn't be, but it still is. During the previous boom we exported people to what was known as the GDA, which became a vast area of Leinster. A lot of it had existing rail lines where services had to be increased and in turn lead to the complete clusterfook congestion issue we still talk about today. The housing issue is still forcing people outside the county line, so yet again without DU the current commuter rail lines will grind on unable to cope.

MN is a great idea if integrated with luas AND the heavy rail network. But remember its just a spine via the central northside area that includes the airport. If it opened tomorrow, it would undoubtedly take road traffic off its route, but it wouldn't change any game.

MJohnston

You don't need Metro North, DU, or anything other new transport line in order to ban cars from the city centre (note: it's important that we're talking about the city centre here, not the entire inner-M50 zone).

My thinking would be there would be a complete ban on traffic inside the Inner Orbital Route (or at the very absolute least, O'Connell Bridge, O'Connell Street, College Green, and the north and south Quays).

Outside of that zone there are already plenty of multi-storey and surface car parks, as well as lots of street parking. This would be sufficient for the numbers of commuters heading to work directly inside the city centre, they'd have at most a 1km walk after parking up, and they can transfer to existing public transport like the Red/Green lines to speed that "last leg" up.

Anyone attempting to commute say from the west to the Docklands area would be pushed to use the Outer Orbital Route to bypass the city centre, and get where they're going.

At most, we'd need some additional car parks outside that Inner Orbital Route (and as I've said before, I'd like to see large Park and Rides built along the major N-corridors to interlink with the Luas lines that don't have them already), but it's certainly not necessary to wait for more public transport lines to be built to start doing this. The only obstacle is the city centre car parks, and the reluctance of the council to piss them off.

bk

Grandeeod wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking and its in the interests of the many opinions you express here and the thread topic, but where in general do you live in Dublin and where do you work in relation to where you live. How do you travel to work?

Not at all, I live in the suburbs of the City, not far from the city center, inside the M50.

I usually walk to work, about 35 minutes one way. I could also cycle, but I enjoy the walk.

Grandeeod wrote: »

MN is far from a game changer never mind a massive game changer. DU is the actual game changer. It shouldn't be, but it still is. During the previous boom we exported people to what was known as the GDA, which became a vast area of Leinster. A lot of it had existing rail lines where services had to be increased and in turn lead to the complete clusterfook congestion issue we still talk about today. The housing issue is still forcing people outside the county line, so yet again without DU the current commuter rail lines will grind on unable to cope.

MN is a game changer as it actually reverses that trend, densifying areas closer to the city and actually encouraging people to live in and near the city, not way out and commuting long distances.

You know, what is pretty normal for most European cities.

I'm not sure if we really want to continue to encourage the wide urban sprawl happening in West Dublin.

Grandeeod wrote: »

MN is a great idea if integrated with luas AND the heavy rail network. But remember its just a spine via the central northside area that includes the airport. If it opened tomorrow, it would undoubtedly take road traffic off its route, but it wouldn't change any game.

You seem to be forgetting the extra 40,000 homes that will be able to be built in Swords due to it or the 10's of thousands of extra homes in the south of the city if they also upgrade the Green line to Metro at the same time.

MJohnston wrote: »

You don't need Metro North, DU, or anything other new transport line in order to ban cars from the city centre (note: it's important that we're talking about the city centre here, not the entire inner-M50 zone).

Absolutely, when I talk about banning cars from the city, I mean the core city center, roughly an area from Parnell Square to Stephens Green, not the whole city and suburbs, that would obviously make no sense.

cgcsb

Metro North is definitely a game change for 2 reasons:
1) one of the cities busiest arteries will have high capacity reliable frequent public transport all the way out to Swords. The level of service will be greater than the existing green line which is hailed as a prophet sent form God by Dubliners.

2)Psychology. For the first time Dubliners will see a serious metro system in action in their home City. They'll want MORE, a second line serving the south west of the City seems an obvious choice.

CreativeSen

First off, I am in favor of MN, I think the game changer is not the direct city to airport connection but the direct/fast/efficient connection between Swords and surrounding area and the city centre. I also think it will go a long way to increasing the quality of life for 1000s of people and will help make the city centre a more pleasant place to be.

All that said....having read the 2015 final report which recommends Optimized/New Metro North (NMN) as the preferred route and system I have some questions on the economics of it all.

Expected cost in 2015, based on 2014 pricing is 2.3 billion.

Expected exchequer returns are a gain of €21 million in 2033 rising to €54 million in 2062. The present value of the exchequer impact over the 30-year appraisal period is in excess of €214 million. This excludes the capital cost and any potential fleet renewal costs during the appraisal period. When initial capital costs (€988 million, 2014 values and prices) are taken into account this results in a negative exchequer impact of circa €774 million over the 30 year appraisal period.

They also did a study into the impact that NMN on other modes of public transport and found that there will be a significant shift from both Regional
and City buses to NMN and a very limited impact on DART and Suburban Rail. This will result in a loss of revenue for existing transport routes and so fares will have to rise to compensate....

Im not an economist and I may be reading sections 14.7-14.10 in the linked report incorrectly.

So my question, why would we build something that we know will be loss making and will result in increased costs for all consumers whether or not they use or have access to the service, in the long run?

MJohnston

CreativeSen wrote: »

So my question, why would we build something that we know will be loss making [..]?

Because that's what public transport usually is? I've cut out the rest of that question because I disagree with the premise.

CreativeSen

MJohnston wrote: »

Because that's what public transport usually is? I've cut out the rest of that question because I disagree with the premise.

Disagree that fares will increase in all other modes of public transport or disagree that fares increasing in all other modes of transport should be a concern?

bk

CreativeSen wrote: »

First off, I am in favor of MN, I think the game changer is not the direct city to airport connection but the direct/fast/efficient connection between Swords and surrounding area and the city centre. I also think it will go a long way to increasing the quality of life for 1000s of people and will help make the city centre a more pleasant place to be.

All that said....having read the 2015 final report which recommends Optimized/New Metro North (NMN) as the preferred route and system I have some questions on the economics of it all.

Expected cost in 2015, based on 2014 pricing is 2.3 billion.

Expected exchequer returns are a gain of €21 million in 2033 rising to €54 million in 2062. The present value of the exchequer impact over the 30-year appraisal period is in excess of €214 million. This excludes the capital cost and any potential fleet renewal costs during the appraisal period. When initial capital costs (€988 million, 2014 values and prices) are taken into account this results in a negative exchequer impact of circa €774 million over the 30 year appraisal period.

Those are simply direct costs and income (fare revenue), it doesn't look at the overall economic benefit of such a service. I'd have to go and look again, but if I remember correctly, the overall economic benefit was something like 2 to 1. As in, it will indirectly bring into the economy twice as much money as it costs.

You have to remember there is a massive economic benefit to services like this. At the moment we are losing out on a lot of post Brexit business because their simply isn't enough housing to support more business here. We need to build lots more public transport to open up the ability to build more housing, which in turn attracts business, which has a big positive impact on the economy.

CreativeSen wrote: »

They also did a study into the impact that NMN on other modes of public transport and found that there will be a significant shift from both Regional
and City buses to NMN and a very limited impact on DART and Suburban Rail.

Of course, just like Luas and DART did.

CreativeSen wrote: »

This will result in a loss of revenue for existing transport routes and so fares will have to rise to compensate....

Why would it? Either redirect those resources to other areas where they are needed or eliminate those services and thus their cost.

What we saw from the Luas is that yes it caused a drop in demand for Dublin Bus along the route. As a result DB decreased frequency along those routes, however as demand for public transport is up all around the city, the same resources (drivers and buses) were needed elsewhere anyway.

bk

CreativeSen wrote: »

Disagree that fares will increase in all other modes of public transport or disagree that fares increasing in all other modes of transport should be a concern?

The idea is completely faulty. It won't cause an increase in fares in all other services, it will however cause a re-alignment in services.

CreativeSen

bk wrote: »

The idea is completely faulty. It won't cause an increase in fares in all other services, it will however cause a re-alignment in services.

Im just reading what the report says is all and asking the question

Markcheese

Well, yes it's loss making, but what's the alternative, build more roads (at massive social and financial cost), and no profit..
, put on more buses (good idea, but not free)

Do nothing.. (we're good at this), with time there's a huge economic cost in lost opportunity because of congestion,lack of devolpment ect.

So yes, it makes sense to sweat what assets we've got. And to do careful cost /benefit of projects.. But you can't not build..

bk

CreativeSen wrote: »

Im just reading what the report says is all and asking the question

Fair enough, but I do think you misunderstood elements of the report.

I just looked at the report, did you read page 167 which says:

Benefit Cost Ratio of Monetised Benefits & Costs, LR7 (the metro option): 1.56

Not quiet the 2 to 1 benefit I mentioned, but close enough. What this means is that if we spend 2 billion building this, they expect that the economy will benefit to the tune of 3 billion back! It will actually more then pay for itself.

BTW the report has entire pages explaining the wider economic benefit, 12.7 on page 165

Looking at Fig 14.7 on page 199, that you mentioned, I think you totally misread it and took the wrong meaning from it.

If you look closely, they show no increase in fare fare revenue for DART, surburban rail and regional bus and only a bit of a drop in city bus fares (due to people using Metro instead).

What is probably confusing you is Luas, which shows a big increase in fare revenue. That is because they are including the new Metro North as part of the Luas network. They aren't saying that Luas users will suddenly start paying higher fares, what they are saying is that the combined Luas + Metro network will take in 10's of millions of extra fares due to the opening of the Metro and thus overall fare revenue will greatly increase.

I can see why the graph could be a little confusing.

But just to make sure, again, they aren't saying that anyone will pay more per trip on bus or Luas. They are saying that the government will take in 70 million more revenue in total from people paying to use the newly opened Metro.

Very different to what you understood.

lucernarian

The report is full of false numbers and forecasts. The expected ridership of LR7 after construction was put at 8000 peak or thereabouts, only slightly higher than what the green line is carrying each direction per hour at peak right now.

It's a completely inaccurate measure of expected demand and no one is challenging this here. And the report is used to suit whatever convenient argument despite these glaring issues with the data, and therefore the conclusions within.

Idbatterim

how much of this spend, goes back to government coffers nearly immediately in terms of corporation tax, increased PAYE, PRSI returns etc? the circular flow of income etc. If they are so hell bent on the bottom line all the time, well then I really hope they automate this bloody line! It will be nearly 2030 by the time it is delivered!!!

Idbatterim

lucernarian wrote: »

The report is full of false numbers and forecasts. The expected ridership of LR7 after construction was put at 8000 peak or thereabouts, only slightly higher than what the green line is carrying each direction per hour at peak right now.

It's a completely inaccurate measure of expected demand and no one is challenging this here. And the report is used to suit whatever convenient argument despite these glaring issues with the data, and therefore the conclusions within.

people are actually avoiding using it now at peak time or using other services though, if they are out on the green line, certainly further out in the morning, on the way into town. When these new trams arrive and are extended, wont the green line carry more than 8000 at peak?

lucernarian

Idbatterim wrote: »

people are actually avoiding using it now at peak time or using other services though, if they are out on the green line, certainly further out in the morning, on the way into town. When these new trams arrive and are extended, wont the green line carry more than 8000 at peak?

Indeed it will, to a rather specific value of 8760 ppdph.
So the very premise of the recommendations of the AECOM report are bogus.

On a vaguely related note, there needs to be a complete look at the city's rail transport needs, seeing as the Metro North is very quickly becoming something of a Metro South too - and a system that offers service to the densely-populated southwest of Dublin City should also be considered - service in virgin areas should honestly come ahead of expensive improvements to the already-serviced and relatively new Green Line.

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

Indeed it will, to a rather specific value of 8760 ppdph.
So the very premise of the recommendations of the AECOM report are bogus.

On a vaguely related note, there needs to be a complete look at the city's rail transport needs, seeing as the Metro North is very quickly becoming something of a Metro South too - and a system that offers service to the densely-populated southwest of Dublin City should also be considered - service in virgin areas should honestly come ahead of expensive improvements to the already-serviced and relatively new Green Line.

That would be true if we had an unlimited pile of cash to spend. A Metro to Dublin south west is out of the question until this is done - may as well include the Green Line extension which would massively increase the usefulness of this project.

Metro South West can follow in the next Capital Plan. Until then what we're getting is quite significant

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

service in virgin areas should honestly come ahead of expensive improvements to the already-serviced and relatively new Green Line.

The thing is, upgrading the Green Line wouldn't be expensive, it would be relatively very cheap for these sort of projects and would give you big bang for your buck in terms of opening up loads of space for new high density apartments along the line.

By comparison, going South West would cost you WAY more and offers little space for new housing development. It of course should eventually happen, but not a priority IMO.

mickmmc

The draft National Planning Framework 2040 could set the growth of Swords at 25% out to 2040 (see article below). The population of Swords in 2016 was 39,000. The NPF 2040 could have implications for any Metro stations north of Swords if the draft plan is not amended.

Fingal Co. Council want to grow Swords to 100,000 by 2035 but the NPF 2040 could have implications for that level of population (only 50,000).

The Engineer/Architect quoted below makes the point that Metro North will bring people from the city centre to Swords. It will not solve the issue of the lack of local infrastructure to deal with the growth.

Up the road, Fergus O' Dowd FG is under pressure for Drogheda to be included as an emerging city under NPF 2040. He has stated that he could lose his seat at the next election if Drogheda is not granted city status.
Senator James O' Reilly is hoping to win back his seat at the next election and is fighting for Swords.

The NPF 2040 could have implications for MN but in particular stations North of Swords.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-growth-leaves-swords-facing-crucial-decisions-1.3345061

Idbatterim

Will they link it up with the northern line, north of swords?

mickmmc

What Metro stop or stops will be North of Swords is the issue the article has raised.

Stephen15

mickmmc wrote: »

The draft National Planning Framework 2040 could set the growth of Swords at 25% out to 2040 (see article below). The population of Swords in 2016 was 39,000. The NPF 2040 could have implications for any Metro stations north of Swords if the draft plan is not amended.

Fingal Co. Council want to grow Swords to 100,000 by 2035 but the NPF 2040 could have implications for that level of population (only 50,000).

The Engineer/Architect quoted below makes the point that Metro North will bring people from the city centre to Swords. It will not solve the issue of the lack of local infrastructure to deal with the growth.

Up the road, Fergus O' Dowd FG is under pressure for Drogheda to be included as an emerging city under NPF 2040. He has stated that he could lose his seat at the next election if Drogheda is not granted city status.
Senator James O' Reilly is hoping to win back his seat at the next election and is fighting for Swords.

The NPF 2040 could have implications for MN but in particular stations North of Swords.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-growth-leaves-swords-facing-crucial-decisions-1.3345061

"Preserve the village atmosphere" what a load of nonsense the usual type of parish pump nimby, sentimental nonsense which holds this country back. What most people want is decent housing, decent public transport, decent schools and generally good infrastructure with good local ammenties such as shops etc. Not a bloody village feeling.

Swords is far from a village anyway when it's bigger than most towns in the country just like most suburban areas around Dublin.