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

lucernarian

AngryLips wrote: »

I dunno about that. Drumcondra Road is wide enough to accomodate both Luas and car. Plus the Port Tunnel makes the argument that Drumcondra Road is a vital access route into the city somewhat redundant.

Now that is madness. You must not have noticed the severe volumes of traffic that use this road at peak times and that bottleneck mentioned above does delay public transport using the road. The port tunnel serves to offer trucks and coaches a safer route towards the docklands. It's not an alternative route for traffic coming in from north of Dublin! Cars, vans and the Dublin Bus routes on it generate enough traffic without adding a luas to it! There would also be problems with the significant number of trees lining the route if catenary wires were to be erected.

DDBarry

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Now that is madness. You must not have noticed the severe volumes of traffic that use this road at peak times and that bottleneck mentioned above does delay public transport using the road. The port tunnel serves to offer trucks and coaches a safer route towards the docklands. It's not an alternative route for traffic coming in from north of Dublin! Cars, vans and the Dublin Bus routes on it generate enough traffic without adding a luas to it! There would also be problems with the significant number of trees lining the route if catenary wires were to be erected.

This is true, however, the point of constructing any public transport system is to reduce the number of cars on the road. So in the medium term, there will be no problem for those who choose to travel by luas. The aim of every transport authority is to maximise this number of people.

PS Hi all, new here, I'm a transport engineer.

lucernarian

There's far more involved with public transport than reducing the use of cars (without going into the philosophical arguments).

Also, the LUAS is affected by traffic to a certain extent too. We can see this on James' st or the crossings on O'Connell St. and Aimens St. for example. Cars and buses will sometimes stray over tram tracks in heavy traffic.

The idea also begs the question of adopting an alternative approach like simply improving the existing bus lanes or allowing for an approach like the Blue Line proposal (http://www.blueline.ie)

carlmango11

T2daK wrote: »

why are ye still talking about this as if we have the money. wasting your fingers time typing

"This cuntry is ih load of ****e I'm mewvin tih Australia we hav no money everytin in this kip is ih joke"

thebman

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There's far more involved with public transport than reducing the use of cars (without going into the philosophical arguments).

Also, the LUAS is affected by traffic to a certain extent too. We can see this on James' st or the crossings on O'Connell St. and Aimens St. for example. Cars and buses will sometimes stray over tram tracks in heavy traffic.

The idea also begs the question of adopting an alternative approach like simply improving the existing bus lanes or allowing for an approach like the Blue Line proposal (http://www.blueline.ie)

Is the blueline proposal electric? It doesn't say on the website.

lucernarian

There are no overhead wires involved as far as I can tell. Whether they use electric-powered vehicles with batteries, I don't know.

dowlingm

Looks like a bendy bus with all door loading/LUAS style proof of payment to me, nothing more than that.

DDBarry

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There's far more involved with public transport than reducing the use of cars (without going into the philosophical arguments).

Also, the LUAS is affected by traffic to a certain extent too. We can see this on James' st or the crossings on O'Connell St. and Aimens St. for example. Cars and buses will sometimes stray over tram tracks in heavy traffic.

The idea also begs the question of adopting an alternative approach like simply improving the existing bus lanes or allowing for an approach like the Blue Line proposal (http://www.blueline.ie)

Indeed, this also happens at St James'. I agree, all types of systems should be investigated. These types of BRT systems are very common in South America, and i've often wondered why they are not adopted here more often, just not cool enough maybe.

Would be good if they could separate the issue of public transport in North Dublin from the connectivity of the airport, but the close proximity of the airport seems to ensure that this wont happen. This rules the dart spur option out for me, although the idea did appeal to me when i first heard of it.

lucernarian

DDBarry wrote: »

Indeed, this also happens at St James'. I agree, all types of systems should be investigated. These types of BRT systems are very common in South America, and i've often wondered why they are not adopted here more often, just not cool enough maybe.

Would be good if they could separate the issue of public transport in North Dublin from the connectivity of the airport, but the close proximity of the airport seems to ensure that this wont happen. This rules the dart spur option out for me, although the idea did appeal to me when i first heard of it.

The luas/traffic congestion around St. James' is on James St.

dubhthach

dowlingm wrote: »

Looks like a bendy bus with all door loading/LUAS style proof of payment to me, nothing more than that.

that and they run it on part of the alignment that was preserved for the fabled "Eastern Bypass"

DDBarry

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The luas/traffic congestion around St. James' is on James St.

Oh, just re-read your post, missed that you said it. Sorry.

Rail-rage on a mass scale. These conflict points occur on the BRTs as well, even more so than light rail from what i've seen.

murphaph

DDBarry wrote: »

This is true, however, the point of constructing any public transport system is to reduce the number of cars on the road

This is factually incorrect. Not all public transport always has the aim of reducing private car use, nor should it.

Reducing road capacity to "force" people onto a single line (note, NOT a comprehensive network) is not acceptable. MN should just be built underground where required, as it would be in a similarly sized city "in Europe".

AngryLips

DDBarry wrote: »

This is true, however, the point of constructing any public transport system is to reduce the number of cars on the road. So in the medium term, there will be no problem for those who choose to travel by luas. The aim of every transport authority is to maximise this number of people.

PS Hi all, new here, I'm a transport engineer.

Also, traffic solutions can be implemented to mitigate congestion. Besides, I doubt the volume of traffic going down Drumcondra Road is all bound for the city centre, which raises the question: why is traffic not bound for the city centre utilising routes that go through the city?

Cathaoirleach

There will be a funeral tomorrow at 18.30 at Stephen's Green for anyone who wants to say their farewells to Metro North.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=179250518808381

This free walking tour will hopefully try and demystify Metro North and give you a clear understanding of how Metro North will serve the city centre and where exactly the underground stops will be located.

Description of the Walking Tour

Starting from Fusilier’s Arch at the top of Grafton Street, your guide will show you the proposed location of the St Stephen’s Green Metro North stop. We will outline what temporary changes will be made to the Green and how the underground stop will be built. From here we will walk down Grafton Street towards Westmoreland Street and show you the proposed location of the O’Connell Bridge Metro North stop and where the entrances will be sited. Here we will point out the statues and monuments which will be temporarily removed during the works and show you some 3D images of the underground stop when built. Our final destination will be on Parnell Square where you will see the location of the proposed Parnell Square Metro North stop.

Duration: 1 hour approx

All welcome!

DWCommuter

Dress in black please.

DDBarry

murphaph wrote: »

This is factually incorrect. Not all public transport always has the aim of reducing private car use, nor should it.

Reducing road capacity to "force" people onto a single line (note, NOT a comprehensive network) is not acceptable. MN should just be built underground where required, as it would be in a similarly sized city "in Europe".

OK, point taken, maybe I was trivialising to make a point.

In my view, reduction in car use in urban centres is a positive thing. It may not be the primary aim, but it is usually a result of a successful transport policy implementation. Trying to avoid getting into the pedantics of it. Less cars, less carbon, less asthma.

MN would be the ideal solution for those who make the journey down the N1 every day, can't disagree with that, but we are all going to have to share the cost of it through taxes. So, cost benefit analyses should be carried out on all the options available, with up to date and accurate (as possible) growth rate predictions, and the best value for money option chosen. until this is done, and done right, it is all speculation and opinions on what should or shouldn't be constructed.

So what european city of similar size to dublin have underground service of the scale of metro north? i cant think of one, but i could be wrong on the size of dublin. Liverpool, bradford, and edinburgh dont have one, these are the same size as dublin in my mind anyway.

dubhthach

DDBarry wrote: »

So what european city of similar size to dublin have underground service of the scale of metro north? i cant think of one, but i could be wrong on the size of dublin. Liverpool, bradford, and edinburgh dont have one, these are the same size as dublin in my mind anyway.

Oslo? The tunnel section is shorter -- 7.3km vs 10km for proposed Metro North thought they have more underground stations.

Helsinki Metro is 21km in length of which about 6.5km is tunnel.

Copenhagen Metro has about 10km in tunnel.

All three cities are fairly comparable to Dublin in population (though not in density).

dubhthach

Of course to be fair here are the densities:
Copenhagen
- City 541,559
- Density 6,136.6/km2 (15,893.8/sq mi)
- Urban 1,199,224
- Urban density 2,632.1/km2 (6,817.2/sq mi) 2,205.02/km2

Oslo
- City 605,005
- Density 1,332.5/km2 (3,451.2/sq mi)
- Urban 912,046
- Urban density 3,197.2/km2 (8,280.8/sq mi) 739.32/km2

Helsinki
- City 588,941
- Density 2,755.28/km2 (7,136.1/sq mi)
- Urban 1,046,355
- Urban density 1,358.44/km2 (3,518.3/sq mi)

Dublin
- City 525,383
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
- Urban 1,045,769
- Urban density 1,135.47/km2

---
Of course there is also: Stockholm
- City 851,155
- Density 4,527.4/km2 (11,726/sq mi)
- Urban 1,372,565
- Urban density 3,596.9/km2 (9,315.8/sq mi) 1106.63/km2 (seems folks at wiki divided by urban population by just the part of Urban area that was outside city boundary -- population figure included city pop)


Stockholm metro is over 100km long of which 62km is underground!

On overall urban density Helsinki is the nearest to Dublin of the three scandinavian capitals. Their metro system is about 5km longer then proposed Metro North (with less in tunnel)

Jack Noble

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course to be fair here are the densities:
Copenhagen
- City 541,559
- Density 6,136.6/km2 (15,893.8/sq mi)
- Urban 1,199,224
- Urban density 2,632.1/km2 (6,817.2/sq mi)

Oslo
- City 605,005
- Density 1,332.5/km2 (3,451.2/sq mi)
- Urban 912,046
- Urban density 3,197.2/km2 (8,280.8/sq mi)

Helsinki
- City 588,941
- Density 2,755.28/km2 (7,136.1/sq mi)
- Urban 1,046,355
- Urban density 1,358.44/km2 (3,518.3/sq mi)

Dublin
- City 525,383
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
- Urban 1,045,769
- Urban density 1,135.47/km2

---
Of course there is also: Stockholm
- City 851,155
- Density 4,527.4/km2 (11,726/sq mi)
- Urban 1,372,565
- Urban density 3,596.9/km2 (9,315.8/sq mi)

Stockholm metro is over 100km long of which 62km is underground!

On overall urban density Helsinki is the nearest to Dublin of the three scandinavian capitals. Their metro system is about 5km longer then proposed Metro North (with less in tunnel)

You beat me to it with the Nordics but we could also list:

Glasgow
Liverpool
Tyne & Wear
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Brussels
Lille
Marseille
Toulouse
Porto
Valencia
Seville
Munich
Nuremburg
Stuttgart
Prague

dubhthach

Jack Noble wrote: »

You beat me to it with the Nordics but we could also list:

Glasgow
Liverpool
Tyne & Wear
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Brussels
Lille
Marseille
Toulouse
Porto
Valencia
Seville
Munich
Nuremburg
Stuttgart
Prague

What's funny is it seems that I found a basic maths error in Wikipedia. They didn't have a population density for Dublin metro area so divided population by size of Metro area. It would seem that for Stockholm (and perhaps other cities) that when they were calculating the "Metro density" that they took the Urban population (covers Stockholm city and surrounding "burbs") but only divided it by the size of the surronding urban area (excluded area within city boundary) -- result Stockholm has a Urban density comparable to Dublin.

Zebra3

And don't forget that there is also a tunnel/bridge built from Copenhagen to Malmo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge

Aard

@Dubhthach:
The density for Dublin's urban area is incorrect. If you divide the population (1,045,769) by the supposed pop density (1,135.47), you end up with an area of 921km2. This is the area of County Dublin. It's evident from any map that the urban area of Dublin is nowhere near that large. I'd estimate that the urban area is only one-third of the entire county, rendering the urban density more like 3,000/km2.


(I know that on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin it says that the "urban area" of Dublin is 921km2, but that's the County area. See here http://www.iro.ie/dublin_region.html for legit info from the state.)


EDIT: Just read your second post! I guess the CSO should really release statistics for this kind of thing. Actually, I'm almost sure they do; I'm gonna go trawling.

Aard

Alright... I have calculated the population density of the urban area of Dublin once and for all. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the CSO does not provide the data. How I went about it was as follows:

1. Find the area and pop of the electoral divisions (ED) concerned. I used Victor's map here https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/34971.GIF and took the EDs that had a density of 1000/km2 or higher. I also included any "white" areas on that map that were fully bounded by higher density areas, such as the Phoenix Park and Newlands Cross.

2. Tot up the figures, and divide!

OK, not quite so simple, but about as accurate as one can get. The total population of my EDs was 996,219. This isn't far off the official urban figure of 1,045,769. The area of my EDs comes to 289 km2. (Incidentally, this confirms my previous post's estimation that the urban area is about one-third of the County area.) So, division time: it looks like the population density of urban Dublin is a respectable 3,447/km2.

The reason my population total comes up a bit short is to do with development in very large EDs. I'm thinking specifically of Ticknock in the Glenculled ED. Since I have no data for the area of that development, it would be a guess at best. At any rate, rest assured that the number of apartment blocks there would actually increase the overall density, rather than have an adverse impact on it. But having said that, with my figures only about 50,000 off, it's still accurate enough.

dubhthach

Aard wrote: »

@Dubhthach:
The density for Dublin's urban area is incorrect. If you divide the population (1,045,769) by the supposed pop density (1,135.47), you end up with an area of 921km2. This is the area of County Dublin. It's evident from any map that the urban area of Dublin is nowhere near that large. I'd estimate that the urban area is only one-third of the entire county, rendering the urban density more like 3,000/km2.


(I know that on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin it says that the "urban area" of Dublin is 921km2, but that's the County area. See here http://www.iro.ie/dublin_region.html for legit info from the state.)

EDIT: Just read your second post! I guess the CSO should really release statistics for this kind of thing. Actually, I'm almost sure they do; I'm gonna go trawling.

Indeed though I was comparing like with like from wiki. The "Urban areas" for Stockholm also includes semi-rural areas with very low densisty. Which as you can see results in "Urban densisty" equivalent of that of all "County Dublin" .Obviously it depends on what terms as a "Urban area". What I would be curious about your calculation is when you add in for example parts of East Kildare (Maynooth, Leixlip, Celbridge) as well as Bray, mainly as they are contigous to the Dublin builtup area (with small amounts of "green-belt"

Either way Dublin is within the density ranges of the Scandinavian capitals which all have Metro systems of comparable or larges size then what is proposed for Dublin.

DDBarry

dubhthach wrote: »

Oslo? The tunnel section is shorter -- 7.3km vs 10km for proposed Metro North thought they have more underground stations.

Helsinki Metro is 21km in length of which about 6.5km is tunnel.

Copenhagen Metro has about 10km in tunnel.

All three cities are fairly comparable to Dublin in population (though not in density).

Cheers, interesting.

How much do you think the option for underground in these nordic cities is influenced by climate? An underground service would be much more sustainable during their long cold winters than a light rail or overground service. Although, our winters seem to be heading in that direction recently.

Jack Noble

Aard wrote: »

@Dubhthach:
The density for Dublin's urban area is incorrect. If you divide the population (1,045,769) by the supposed pop density (1,135.47), you end up with an area of 921km2. This is the area of County Dublin. It's evident from any map that the urban area of Dublin is nowhere near that large. I'd estimate that the urban area is only one-third of the entire county, rendering the urban density more like 3,000/km2.


(I know that on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin it says that the "urban area" of Dublin is 921km2, but that's the County area. See here http://www.iro.ie/dublin_region.html for legit info from the state.)


EDIT: Just read your second post! I guess the CSO should really release statistics for this kind of thing. Actually, I'm almost sure they do; I'm gonna go trawling.

That's exactly it - the Wiki Urban figure is based on the area of Dublin County which obviously contains vast swathers of open fields.

The CSO break all the population data in the census right down to each local authority electoral area (ward) and give the area of each ward so it's quite easy to work out densities in particular localities.

I did it recently for the areas around each stop on Metro North based on the 2006 Census data - it will be interesting to see what changes the 2011 Census brings.

Here's the link to the CSO data from Census 2006:

http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75472

The average density in Swords was just above 3,000 people per km2 but the area between the Mater and Ballymun stops averaged between 5,000 and 6,500 people per km2. From the Mater down to SSG the density is actually well above 10,000 ppkm2 - the north inner city is circa 15,0000 ppkm2. The densities along the Metro North corridor are very similar to those of Copenhagen, for example.

The Dublin density quoted on wiki is for the entire 'Dublin City' area, ie the area of the city council and does not include the northern, western or southern suburbs which lie in the other three local authorities. The 2006 density of Dublin City based on the population of 506,211 and an area of 117.61 km2 is 4,304 ppmkm2.

Based on the preliminary Census 2011 figures published recently, the population of Dublin city is now 525,383, giving a density based on the same area of 4,467 ppkm2.

Breaking it down further, that is an average figure for the entire city council area - the actual average figure for the north city is around 3,940, which is a bit skewed because it includes Phoenix Park in the area. Take out the Park and it's 4,353 ppkm2. There are also other large open space areas in the north city - around Finglas, St Anne's Park and Bull Island - which skew the figures further and would push the density abover 4,500 ppkm2. The south city area has a density of around 4,900 ppkm2.

When you go out into the Fingal, SD and DLR areas, it's quite obvious that there are quite high densities in parts of Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown in the west and areas like Dundrum, Sandyford, DL, etc, in the south county. In the north county, the Census 2011 data will show higher populations and densities in Swords, Balbriggan, Lusk/Rush, etc.

People who say 'Dublin doesn't need a metro' and 'Dublin doesn't have the densities to justify a metro' simply haven't examined the figures - and I'm willing to bet if you asked them 'What densities justify a metro?' they would be stumped and would pluck a figure out of the air. I seem to remember one particular anti-metro poster here consistently dodging that question when asked it many times by many posters, including myself.

Jack Noble

DDBarry wrote: »

Cheers, interesting.

How much do you think the option for underground in these nordic cities is influenced by climate? An underground service would be much more sustainable during their long cold winters than a light rail or overground service. Although, our winters seem to be heading in that direction recently.

The underground option was chosen in these cities - like most other cities that have undergrounds - simply because there was nowhere else to put a high capacity, segregated rapid rail line.

Onstreet is not an option for high-capacity, high-frequency services because of the interaction with other traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. Just look at Luas Red from James's to The Point to see what I'm talking about.

Elevated can be just as expensive as it involves buying up property, tearing down buildings and putting up very expensive viaducts through the heart of the city.

For example, which areas of inner city Dublin and which buildings would you be happy to tear down to run an elevated rail line through the city as an alternative to Metro North? And how much do you think that what cost to buy up, demolish, clear and construct the line?

dubhthach

DDBarry wrote: »

Cheers, interesting.

How much do you think the option for underground in these nordic cities is influenced by climate? An underground service would be much more sustainable during their long cold winters than a light rail or overground service. Although, our winters seem to be heading in that direction recently.

Well Copenhagen and Oslo aren't hugely different then Dublin they have colder winters obviously (better summers). Even still they only have sections of their metro underground. The only city approaching at least 50% underground is Stockholm and this is probably due to island nature etc.

Oslo Metro is 84.2 km long (six lines) of which 7.3km is underground.
Copenhagen Metro is 20.5 km (longer then Metro North) -- 10km in tunnel
Helsinki Metro is 21.1km long of which 6.5km is tuneel

If cold weather was really and issue they surely have alot higher percentage as tunnel?

DDBarry

Jack Noble wrote: »

The underground option was chosen in these cities - like most other cities that have undergrounds - simply because there was nowhere else to put a high capacity, segregated rapid rail line.

Onstreet is not an option for high-capacity, high-frequency services because of the interaction with other traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. Just look at Luas Red from James's to The Point to see what I'm talking about.

Elevated can be just as expensive as it involves buying up property, tearing down buildings and putting up very expensive viaducts through the heart of the city.

For example, which areas of inner city Dublin and which buildings would you be happy to tear down to run an elevated rail line through the city as an alternative to Metro North? And how much do you think that what cost to buy up, demolish, clear and construct the line?

I dont think any building should be knocked. I dont like the idea of elevated rail line at all, the Dart Line is enough of an eye sore.

I have no problem with Metro North as a project it would obviously be the most effective option in terms of passenger movement. It is the rolls royce option though, which is fine when the money is rolling in and the COBAs prove it to yield a positive return. A light rail system will have certain benefits that will outweigh the metro eg cost, frequency of stops, time to construct, ease of extension to the line. Maybe an investigation will prove the Metro North to be the best option, but all options need to be examined before they take the plunge.

I dont use the Luas green line much but as far as i'm aware, Luas Green line does not have as many conflict points as the red line. So maybe better planning could avoid these problems, or maybe better policing.

What do you guys see as the biggest issue, traffic commuter congestion within the north of the city, commuting times from north county dublin/louth/meath or the airports connectivity to the city?

Brian CivilEng

I know with Oslo at least, in addition to the extensive Metro they also have substantial on-street trams. As well as buses and ferries. Now the roll out of their Smart Card integrated ticketing was a bit of a farce which made me feel less disgusted at our own efforts, but it is finally up and running now.

People who say "Dublin is different" and "we don't need it" have obviously never been to a city where there is an efficient metro. Minutes after they open the city could never live without it. We survived alright without phones for years, now plenty of people couldn't live without them. Heck, we survived without cars and people lived without them. We'll survive without a metro too, but is surviving enough. I want Dublin to be better.

If it's a choice between Metro and Dart Underground then it has to be Dart. If it can't be either, then the do nothing situation is preferable. Anyone who looks at a map of Dublin knows that the Clongriffin spur is not a solution. If building Luas BXD means that Metro North will have to be completely redesigned then don't build it. We have 10 year planning permission for Metro North, ever heard of mothballing it? Who knows where we will be in five years. To cheer myself up I have been reading a few newspapers from the late 80's, Ireland was just about to fall into the abyss, things would never recover. Well guess what, they recovered! They will recover again. No need to cut off our noses to spite our face now.