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

Uriel.

Stephen15 wrote: »

"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.

There's absolutely no reason you can't have both. The last thing that's needed for anyone's sake is soulless concrete jungles. We're seeing this coming through all the time in research around health and positive Ageing. Given the demographic situation on the horizon I think we'd do very well to be a bit more strategic and careful with our planning. Significant development proposals are on the cards for Swords, some of which are referenced in the article. The "village" is an excellent focal point for activity in Swords, although significant work is required to rejuvenate the main street following the natural creep of footfall towards the pavilion. Recent years {and future plans} have been excellent around the development of the castle environs into a central amenity.

Fingal CoCo have really done a lot to open this up, organise events and reenergise this part of Swords. The plans to develop a caste cultural quarter as well as other proposals with regard to the main street have a lot of potential and fingal need to be commended for that.

The article does point to the issue of local infrastructure though and this is fast becoming an issue. It is also worth mentioning that the proposed route of metro North will not allow easy and timely access to quite a chunk of the current population of Swords. If metro develops there will be a need to invest in or reconfigure local infrastructure and possibly convert some of the 41 bus serves to local shuttle services etc.

Dr_Bill

Stephen15 wrote: »

"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.

Have to agree with you there, how can they talk about preserving the village atmosphere around Swords, when there is one of the largest retail parks in the country located at Airside, not to mention the Super Pub (Wright Venue) or Ryanair's head office or the thousands of housing units build there during the Tiger years.

To label Swords a village is hilarious and even by an estate agent's standard is stretching the marketing to the limit. Next we are gonna be told that Swords "Village" is only 20 minutes to the city center... maybe in the early hours of the morning and if you drove it like you stole it!

Maybe the planners mean we'll move any proposed station then away from the "main street", I wonder if they will make adequate provision for sufficient park and ride facilities at the station or if poor decisions will be taken and expect everyone to the take the bus to the station!

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

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

I don't agree with the sentiment there, but "Massively increase" is particularly subjective - I'm trying to base my points as much as possible off the "known unknowns" - pricing taken from the RPA, whose submissions to AECOM were rather more fleshed out than the others. Right now the costs and benefits of different actions, good estimations of the potential impact and capacity enhancements, are rather thin on the ground. Saying it would massively increase the usefulness of the project doesn't make it so if it comes at too high a price.

The Green Line extension does open up the possibility to more objectors, who would LOVE to hear that Beechwood will need the LC closed for instance, or that frequencies (noise) will increase beyond what was originally envisaged during the ABP hearings in the 90s.

I'd also like to see what changes to the existing stations can be managed, and at what cost, to allow necessary 90 metre sets to be used as far as, I presume, Sandyford.

Where along the green line can a tunnel portal be "cheaply" dug, allowing integration to the existing line?

Where can each station have its platform extended by over 50%? Or do we stick with the 60 metre limit, which brings its own problems.

How will existing services be mixed with a completely separate but extremely frequent service? I suspect it can't be done, so the Luas BXD will serve something like Broombridge-Charlemont, but building an interchange station like that, between elevated and underground, will be an expensive challenge also.

With regards to potential new stations on the way, can a station at Tara St. work as an option when it's so close to the Liffey? It would be a better option in my mind compared to the "new Metro North" idea fleshed out in the AECOM report.

cgcsb

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.

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?

Are you serious? public transport isn't about ticket revenue. It won't be built with the intention of making a direct profit for the exchequer.

CreativeSen

cgcsb wrote: »

Are you serious? public transport isn't about ticket revenue. It won't be built with the intention of making a direct profit for the exchequer.

I did say i was in favor of it and i did state the intangible benefits that will come with it, the increased quality of life, reduced commute times, decrease in emissions, make the city centre more pleasant, the opening up of North County Dublin and environs to greater investment etc. etc. etc.

I was just asking the question, is building something that is forecast to run at a substantial loss the best idea? I appreciate that public service is exactly that, a public service, it must operate even if it itself is loss making, for the greater good and the ultimate exchequer return (in this instance 1.56). But it is a big forecast loss...

LeinsterDub

CreativeSen wrote: »

I did say i was in favor of it and i did state the intangible benefits that will come with it, the increased quality of life, reduced commute times, decrease in emissions, make the city centre more pleasant, the opening up of North County Dublin and environs to greater investment etc. etc. etc.

I was just asking the question, is building something that is forecast to run at a substantial loss the best idea? I appreciate that public service is exactly that, a public service, it must operate even if it itself is loss making, for the greater good and the ultimate exchequer return (in this instance 1.56). But it is a big forecast loss...

Your including the capital cost in that figure which is unfair. Something will have to be done be that buses, BRT, more roads. It's not like we have the option to do nothing.

Idbatterim

How will existing services be mixed with a completely separate but extremely frequent service? I suspect it can't be done, so the Luas BXD will serve something like Broombridge-Charlemont, but building an interchange station like that, between elevated and underground, will be an expensive challenge also.

given how reliant we are on buses and will continue to be, until at least MN and DU are built. When MN opens, can they reduce frequency across OCB on the existing line, to like one every five minutes?

Idbatterim

Stephen15 wrote: »

"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.

yes but this is Ireland, all the care about are current votes, not hypothetical future ones!

roadmaster

i am starting to think the public are not to bothered about the metro because if they where it would be built by now. Look what happened with the pensioners a few years ago, Our political class reacted because they saw they may lose votes. When they call to the doors asking for votes i wonder how many voters say the most important thing to me is the metro? I have a feeling they dont and thats why these things get dragged out because it dose not seam to cost a TD there job.

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't agree with the sentiment there, but "Massively increase" is particularly subjective - I'm trying to base my points as much as possible off the "known unknowns" - pricing taken from the RPA, whose submissions to AECOM were rather more fleshed out than the others. Right now the costs and benefits of different actions, good estimations of the potential impact and capacity enhancements, are rather thin on the ground. Saying it would massively increase the usefulness of the project doesn't make it so if it comes at too high a price.

The Green Line extension does open up the possibility to more objectors, who would LOVE to hear that Beechwood will need the LC closed for instance, or that frequencies (noise) will increase beyond what was originally envisaged during the ABP hearings in the 90s.

I'd also like to see what changes to the existing stations can be managed, and at what cost, to allow necessary 90 metre sets to be used as far as, I presume, Sandyford.

Where along the green line can a tunnel portal be "cheaply" dug, allowing integration to the existing line?

Where can each station have its platform extended by over 50%? Or do we stick with the 60 metre limit, which brings its own problems.

How will existing services be mixed with a completely separate but extremely frequent service? I suspect it can't be done, so the Luas BXD will serve something like Broombridge-Charlemont, but building an interchange station like that, between elevated and underground, will be an expensive challenge also.

With regards to potential new stations on the way, can a station at Tara St. work as an option when it's so close to the Liffey? It would be a better option in my mind compared to the "new Metro North" idea fleshed out in the AECOM report.

Incorporating the Green Line south of Charlemont would require a short stretch of tunnel and as the Green Line is already fairly well segregated it would be a waste not including it as part of the build.

To me it doesn't make much sense to build a Metro as far as SSG when for the sake of a few km of tunnel you make it much more extensive.

The finer points of the scheme need to be revealed yet but when the Emerging Preferred Route is revealed in the next month or so it'll answer a lot of our questions.

cgcsb wrote: »

Are you serious? public transport isn't about ticket revenue. It won't be built with the intention of making a direct profit for the exchequer.

Exactly. If it was going to be built with the intention of making a profit the private sector would've done it years ago.

cgcsb

CreativeSen wrote: »

I was just asking the question, is building something that is forecast to run at a substantial loss the best idea? I appreciate that public service is exactly that, a public service, it must operate even if it itself is loss making, for the greater good and the ultimate exchequer return (in this instance 1.56). But it is a big forecast loss...

It's not a business it's infrastructure. It's developed on the basis of economic return not financial gain.

bk

mickmmc wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, I've said it a few times before myself, we tend to talk a lot about the lack of transport infrastructure, but housing tens of thousands of more people will require building all sorts of infrastructure to support them:

- Hospitals
- Schools
- Community centers and sporting facilities.
- Shops/bars/restaurants, etc.
- Water treatment and sewage facilities
- Enhancements to the power grid, etc.

We need to start looking to Europe to start thinking how to build high quality and dense commuter towns with all the facilities needed to make them successful.

Uriel. wrote: »

The article does point to the issue of local infrastructure though and this is fast becoming an issue. It is also worth mentioning that the proposed route of metro North will not allow easy and timely access to quite a chunk of the current population of Swords. If metro develops there will be a need to invest in or reconfigure local infrastructure and possibly convert some of the 41 bus serves to local shuttle services etc.

Local frequent bus services surving the Metro stations is certainly a big part of the NTA plans for buses and Metro. They have already announced a local bus service for Finglas to the Luas station starting from March.

Such local services are a major element of the upcoming BusConnects plan.

We just need to make sure it is done right. Easy, non punitive integrated ticketing, very fast and frequent service, etc.

CreativeSen wrote: »

I was just asking the question, is building something that is forecast to run at a substantial loss the best idea? I appreciate that public service is exactly that, a public service, it must operate even if it itself is loss making, for the greater good and the ultimate exchequer return (in this instance 1.56). But it is a big forecast loss...

All public transport makes a direct loss and has to be subsidised.

Metro North will actually be better then most. It is projected to make an operational profit. It just won't make enough to directly cover the capital costs.

But then NO public transport does. In fact Dublin Bus, BE, Dart, Irish Rail are worse, they not only make a capital loss, but they also make a yearly operational loss and have to be subsidised yearly.

Luas is currently the only public transport to make an operational profit (but still not enough to cover the original capital loss), Metro North will be similar.

Idbatterim wrote: »

given how reliant we are on buses and will continue to be, until at least MN and DU are built. When MN opens, can they reduce frequency across OCB on the existing line, to like one every five minutes?

Well MN should make us much less reliant on buses, so we will most likely end up with less buses in the city center, not more.

bk

Dr_Bill wrote: »

To label Swords a village is hilarious and even by an estate agent's standard is stretching the marketing to the limit. Next we are gonna be told that Swords "Village" is only 20 minutes to the city center... maybe in the early hours of the morning and if you drove it like you stole it!

Yes, we are still very parochial and rural minded here in Ireland.

You see people calling Dublin a town and even the bus association uses the "Dublin Town" branding!

Which is very damaging IMO as lots of people then don't realise that Dublin truly is a medium sized European city. The danger of this is the public underestimating the size of Dublin and thus questioning why it needs Metro, etc.

Not understanding that Dublin is the same size as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. and they all have multiple Metro lines, etc.

This small mindedness is very damaging IMO and as a people I think we really need to get over it.

CarlosHarpic

roadmaster wrote: »

i am starting to think the public are not to bothered about the metro because if they where it would be built by now.

tell them how it will double their property value and they'll be screaming at the gates of Lenister House for it.

CarlosHarpic

bk wrote: »

Yes, we are still very parochial and rural minded here in Ireland.

You see people calling Dublin a town and even the bus association uses the "Dublin Town" branding!

Which is very damaging IMO as lots of people then don't realise that Dublin truly is a medium sized European city. The danger of this is the public underestimating the size of Dublin and thus questioning why it needs Metro, etc.

Not understanding that Dublin is the same size as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. and they all have multiple Metro lines, etc.

This small mindedness is very damaging IMO and as a people I think we really need to get over it.

Legacy of provincial TDs and civil servants who have aunties in New York and London...The 'medoum size cities' is from foreign...

Stephen15

Uriel. wrote: »

There's absolutely no reason you can't have both. The last thing that's needed for anyone's sake is soulless concrete jungles. We're seeing this coming through all the time in research around health and positive Ageing. Given the demographic situation on the horizon I think we'd do very well to be a bit more strategic and careful with our planning. Significant development proposals are on the cards for Swords, some of which are referenced in the article. The "village" is an excellent focal point for activity in Swords, although significant work is required to rejuvenate the main street following the natural creep of footfall towards the pavilion. Recent years {and future plans} have been excellent around the development of the castle environs into a central amenity.

Fingal CoCo have really done a lot to open this up, organise events and reenergise this part of Swords. The plans to develop a caste cultural quarter as well as other proposals with regard to the main street have a lot of potential and fingal need to be commended for that.

The article does point to the issue of local infrastructure though and this is fast becoming an issue. It is also worth mentioning that the proposed route of metro North will not allow easy and timely access to quite a chunk of the current population of Swords. If metro develops there will be a need to invest in or reconfigure local infrastructure and possibly convert some of the 41 bus serves to local shuttle services etc.

But if you look at cities with proper planning like Copenhagen and Amsterdam you get plenty of nice new suburbs which have built in the last fifty which are very pleasant to live and not concrete jungley. Concrete jungles are generally formed as a result of poor planning which the newer areas of these new suburbs such as Swords, Blanchardstown, Lucan, Citywest and Balbriggan have been a victim of.

They are all like mini Milton Keynes style towns with poor public transport and poor infrastructure. Give an area good amenities and quality housing and it'll be a pleasant place to live not a "village atmosphere" or some other outdated nonsense.

FreudianSlippers

bk wrote: »

Yes, we are still very parochial and rural minded here in Ireland.

You see people calling Dublin a town and even the bus association uses the "Dublin Town" branding!

Which is very damaging IMO as lots of people then don't realise that Dublin truly is a medium sized European city. The danger of this is the public underestimating the size of Dublin and thus questioning why it needs Metro, etc.

Not understanding that Dublin is the same size as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. and they all have multiple Metro lines, etc.

This small mindedness is very damaging IMO and as a people I think we really need to get over it.

I think you're right here and it's a major issue when you hear people complain about Ireland being too "Dublin-centric" - it's obviously the only city we have in competition with other European cities and we've seen that success in Dublin leads to overflow to other cities.

Thinking of Dublin as just another "town" in Ireland is woefully misguided and self-defeating for those people living in rural Ireland or secondary cities. Dublin's success as a European city helps Ireland as a whole.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

TII have published a tender for a Stakeholder Management System for New Metro North

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=118384&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

Awarded to Syrenis Ltd

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=118384&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

Idbatterim

I will laugh If our lot of morons still propose going with 60m long trams! After the gridlock varadkar was talking about the other day. The cross city joke. The capacity issues of luas ...

Hugh Jampton

Idbatterim wrote: »

I will laugh If our lot of morons still propose going with 60m long trams! After the gridlock varadkar was talking about the other day. The cross city joke. The capacity issues of luas ...

Well if Varadkar would get out of his Merc and use the train and Luas instead we might have some progress. Instead, our decision makers get driven everywhere.

Hugh Jampton

Stephen15 wrote: »

But if you look at cities with proper planning like Copenhagen and Amsterdam you get plenty of nice new suburbs which have built in the last fifty which are very pleasant to live and not concrete jungley. Concrete jungles are generally formed as a result of poor planning which the newer areas of these new suburbs such as Swords, Blanchardstown, Lucan, Citywest and Balbriggan have been a victim of.

They are all like mini Milton Keynes style towns with poor public transport and poor infrastructure. Give an area good amenities and quality housing and it'll be a pleasant place to live not a "village atmosphere" or some other outdated nonsense.

And the reason for that has been the absolute obsession with roads for so long in Official Ireland. Condensation filled, glacially slow buses on multiple variant routes for those too poor or too young or too old to drive was the fall back position for too long in Dublin.

LeinsterDub

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

Well if Varadkar would get out of his Merc and use the train and Luas instead we might have some progress. Instead, our decision makers get driven everywhere.

I'm pretty sure you'd be equally outraged when he got on to said Luas or train and cleared out the entire carriage due to security reasons

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you'd be equally outraged when he got on to said Luas or train and cleared out the entire carriage due to security reasons

In fairness that doesn't happen in Ireland! Bertie went to his local pub every week, only security was two guys in suits being low key.

I saw Leo walk 1 meter in front of me at the front of the last Gay Pride Parade, I'm sure they were there, but no noticeable security.

My missus couldn't believe that I was pointing out to her our "Prime Minister" on a public street like that, with little or no visible security. In her country politicians literally travel in military cavalcades.

There is a lot to complain about our politicians, but being accessible and mingling with the public or overbearing security certainly isn't one of them.

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

In fairness that doesn't happen in Ireland! Bertie went to his local pub every week, only security was two guys in suits being low key.

I saw Leo walk 1 meter in front of me at the front of the last Gay Pride Parade, I'm sure they were there, but no noticeable security.

My missus couldn't believe that I was pointing out to her our "Prime Minister" on a public street like that, with little or no visible security. In her country politicians literally travel in military cavalcades.

There is a lot to complain about our politicians, but being accessible and mingling with the public or overbearing security certainly isn't one of them.

This is true and I'd considered it but thought as this would be a predictable pattern it might require increased security however as you said Bertie use to go to a packed pub.

LeinsterDub

https://www.facebook.com/NoelRockTD/videos/764754627053871/

NMN from 4.39

1. Public consultation on the emerging preferred route (EPR) to begin in "a few weeks"
2. 10 year capital plan to be publish shortly
3. Construction starting 2021
4. Running 2027
5. Cost estimated at 2.4 BL

marno21

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/NoelRockTD/videos/764754627053871/

NMN from 4.39

1. Public consultation on the emerging preferred route (EPR) to begin in "a few weeks"
2. 10 year capital plan to be publish shortly
3. Construction starting 2021
4. Running 2027
5. Cost estimated at 2.4 BL

Same old spiel but thanks for posting

The project is funded upto 2021 in the present Capital Plan which includes initial construction funding

If the scheme includes the Green Line tie in as expected I'd be very surprised if it comes in at 2.4bn

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

Same old spiel but thanks for posting

The project is funded upto 2021 in the present Capital Plan which includes initial construction funding

If the scheme includes the Green Line tie in as expected I'd be very surprised if it comes in at 2.4bn

First I'm hearing of an ERP being made public soon at least publicly from the Minister

Idbatterim

I emailed Alan Kelly at the time, when they were talking about NMN and he came out with the party line, MN was "goldplated" etc, the usual lies and bull****. Given we can talk straight here, some of you seem to think the OCS station was total overkill, was there anything about the original scheme, that could have been called "goldplated" :rolleyes: I actually hate the word, because "goldplated" here in transport terms means adequate, what we get will be another botch proposal and if I want to use my own spin word, could be deemed "botch job"...

Middle Man

Idbatterim wrote: »

I will laugh If our lot of morons still propose going with 60m long trams! After the gridlock varadkar was talking about the other day. The cross city joke. The capacity issues of luas ...

90m at least if not 120m... The DART platforms are something like 180m I think, so with higher frequency and narrower trains for NMN taken into account, definitely 90m - no less!

LongboardPro

Downsizing on the project just to save a few pennies is incredibly short-sighted. The platforms should be at minimum 90m, not 60m crap. So it will be just be more half built, underperforming, delayed infrastructure. Why can't we ever do anything right the first time in Ireland.