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

strassenwo!f

AngryLips wrote: »

Planning takes so long in this country that by the time most major projects are shovel-ready the Government of the day have an excuse to pull the plug because the requirements have changed during the lengthy time of the planning process.

That's one of the things the Strategic Infrastructure Act was supposed to deal with. It certainly does seem to have fallen short of its objective.

D.L.R.

ah sure who needs mass transit...

http://www.ireland.com/breaking-news/dublin-among-the-most-congested-cities/665811

Dublin is the sixth most congested city in Europe with heavier volumes of traffic than London or Stockholm, according to a survey of 31 major urban centres.

Journey times in Dublin take 30 per cent longer at peak times than when traffic is flowing freely, higher than the European average of 24 per cent, the study found.

A congestion index compiled by navigation device manufacturers Tom Tom used data captured by vehicles across the European road network to compare journey times at different periods of the day.

Warsaw is the most congested, with journeys taking 42 per cent longer than the European average when traffic is flowing freely, and 89 per cent longer during morning rush hour.

Marseille, Rome, Brussels and Paris completed the list of the top five most congested cities. Dublin took sixth place, followed by Bradford-Leeds, London, Stockholm and Hamburg.

Dublin City Council’s draft public realm strategy published in January aims to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and those using public transport in an effort to reduce traffic congestion in the city.

carlmango11

D.L.R. wrote: »

ah sure who needs mass transit...

I find it incredible how many people actually think this way. On these forums I've read posts from people who are convinced that we can have a fine transport system with buses alone. Yeah all those hundreds of other cities are simply misguided with their reliable, punctual, speedy "trains".

AngryLips

At the same time, and as Warsaw demonstrates, having a rapid transit network doesn't necessarily reduce congestion on its own.

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

At the same time, and as Warsaw demonstrates, having a rapid transit network doesn't necessarily reduce congestion on its own.

But imagine how bad it would be if it didn't have one!! :eek:

Actually Warsaws rapid transit network isn't that large or well developed.

They have only one Metro line, only opened in 95.

Yes they have about 30 tram lines, but they aren't like our Luas, they are old and slow, usually slower then the buses!!

So actually quiet similar to Dublin, it is dominated by buses and bus like trams, with one Metro line.

Aard

If the goal is to reduce congestion, then the only thing that really works is a congestion charge. But that's not the point of an underground. Look at Paris - probably one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, yet still has unbelievable congestion. Even if MN did take some cars off the road, sooner or later that road-space would fill right up again.

bk

Aard wrote: »

If the goal is to reduce congestion, then the only thing that really works is a congestion charge. But that's not the point of an underground. Look at Paris - probably one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, yet still has unbelievable congestion. Even if MN did take some cars off the road, sooner or later that road-space would fill right up again.

That is why you need both a well developed public transport network and a congestion charge.

Ideally the congestion charge should be ring fenced to pay for improved public transport, cycling and walking facilities.

The problem we have in Dublin is that we just don't have a good enough public transport network yet.

MN and DU really need to be built before we talk about introducing a congestion charge.

Aard

Oh definitely. Having most people rely on busses post congestion-charge would be mad.

Even MN and DU wouldn't be enough imo.

AngryLips

I'm sure the bus service would improve with congestion charging though...

patrickbrophy18

bk wrote: »

That is why you need both a well developed public transport network and a congestion charge.

Ideally the congestion charge should be ring fenced to pay for improved public transport, cycling and walking facilities.

The problem we have in Dublin is that we just don't have a good enough public transport network yet.

MN and DU really need to be built before we talk about introducing a congestion charge.

I complete agree with you. Before we even consider a congestion charge, the entire suburban fabric also needs to be reconfigured such that it enables public transport such as metros, buses, trams and trains to become attractive alternatives to the car. This is very far from being the case. For example, while I was working for IBM in Damastown, the commute by public transport used to take roughly 2 hours each way. Bear in mind that this distance is only 18 miles. Effectively this was 9 miles per hour which is pathetic. With a car, this journey would take between 30 and 45 minutes thanks to the M50.

On the other hand, the DART is capable of covering 18 miles in less than 50 minutes which makes it an ideal alternative to the car and a good example to follow. Unfortunately, the DART system is confined to the east coast which leaves the vast majority of the remaining Dublin population on the lurch. Moreover, the DART system is not much use to someone wishing to travel from the likes of Dun Laoghaire to City West or Liffey Valley. Similarly, the DART is not much use to someone traveling from Portmarnock to Sandyford Industrial Estate or Cherrywood. In each case, the journey by public transport will more than likely take well over an hour, especially at peak times. The demand for such faster journeys gives cause to the very existence of the M50.

Either-way, the speed of public transport is key in making it an attractive alternative to the car. Unfortunately, decades of bad planning decisions for ground level development has left very little or no room (and money) for strategic, fast-paced transport corridors. As a result, the only way to deliver people from the likes of Swords, Dublin Airport, Ballymun and DCU to the city center at speed is an underground rail system like Metro North. If my memory serves me correctly, the total journey length of Metro North is 27 minutes which is far superior to any bus service with the same purpose. The downside to this is the cost of construction hence the bold type face.

While Aircoach and Swords Express come very near to this, most of the remaining stops inside the M50 are still left out in the cold. DCU and Ballymun are among these. Aside from Dublin Airport and Swords, DCU and Ballymun are two of the other major stops along the Metro North alignment and are consequently integral to its business case. IKEA was a major re-enforcement of this. Drumcondra and St. Stephens Green facilitate connection with the two proposed DART lines making them major interchanges with the former providing interchange with Commuter and Intercity services. Both DART Underground and Metro North were key components for relieving congestion in the city center.

yer man!

How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.

NuMarvel

yer man! wrote: »

How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.

I'm sure someone will have pretty good reasons from a transport infrastructure point of view, but another way to look at it is that, when/if Metro and Dart are built, someone can get from Cork/Galway/Limerick to the airport with only two changes. That's impressive for a journey of at least 200kms.

AngryLips

yer man! wrote: »

How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.

I think this is a valid point. Dublin Airport is the main airport on the island both by passenger numbers and by number of destinations served. No other airport on the island even comes close on both counts. unfortunately, transport policy has been, and continues to be, directed on the assumption that this is a city or municipal airport. If there was any vision there would be a delta spur off the northern line allowing all Enterprise services to serve the airport and all trains terminating at Heuston would serve it through the underground tunnel and a four-tracked section between Connolly and the airport. I don't raise this point as an argument against MN because the areas it serves need the type of service it will provide but I really think the airport is losing with this solution.

By opening up the airport to the national rail network savings can also be made by closing some of the more redundant regional airports around the country.

bk

The problem with Connolly and even more sure Hueston is that they aren't really in the city center. Rather they are in the outskirts of the city and most people have to make two or three changes to get to where they want to go.

Metro North and Dart Underground are designed to resolve this issue, bringing the majority of Dublin region commuters into the heart of the city, where they actually want to go. It would make no sense to have MN wind it's way to and from Connolly and Hueston. Certainly not for the relatively small number of people going to the airport from elsewhere in the country versus inconveniencing the much higher number of Dublin region commuters.

The very long term plan * once Dart Underground is built, the DART spur to the airport and the electrification of the intercity lines is complete is to have intercity trains to run through the Dart Underground tunnel and up out to the airport on the DART spur.

The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.

In the meantime, the new direct bus services like Aircoach from Cork, CityLink/GoBus from Galway, etc. all take you to the front door of Dublin Airport much more quickly and cheaper then by rail and with no transfer needed.

* Given what is involved I'd be surprised to see this actually happen in our lifetimes.

yer man!

bk wrote: »

The problem with Connolly and even more sure Hueston is that they aren't really in the city center. Rather they are in the outskirts of the city and most people have to make two or three changes to get to where they want to go.

Metro North and Dart Underground are designed to resolve this issue, bringing the majority of Dublin region commuters into the heart of the city, where they actually want to go. It would make no sense to have MN wind it's way to and from Connolly and Hueston. Certainly not for the relatively small number of people going to the airport from elsewhere in the country versus inconveniencing the much higher number of Dublin region commuters.

The very long term plan * once Dart Underground is built, the DART spur to the airport and the electrification of the intercity lines is complete is to have intercity trains to run through the Dart Underground tunnel and up out to the airport on the DART spur.

The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.

In the meantime, the new direct bus services like Aircoach from Cork, CityLink/GoBus from Galway, etc. all take you to the front door of Dublin Airport much more quickly and cheaper then by rail and with no transfer needed.

* Given what is involved I'd be surprised to see this actually happen in our lifetimes.

Was just researching there, metro west is designed to take passengers from clondalkin station (Galway, Cork, Limerick, Westport & Tralee passengers) to Dardistown, I don't know if another transfer to metro north would be neccessary for the tiny distance between here and the dublin airport front door.

Victor

bk wrote: »

The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.

All it needs is LA-style bus stops.

yer man! wrote: »

Was just researching there, metro west is designed to take passengers from clondalkin station (Galway, Cork, Limerick, Westport & Tralee passengers) to Dardistown, I don't know if another transfer to metro north would be neccessary for the tiny distance between here and the dublin airport front door.

In operation, Metro West would likely operate as far as the turn-back north of the airport.

markpb

Victor wrote: »

All it needs is LA-style bus stops.

??

xper

markpb wrote: »

Victor wrote:

All it needs is LA-style bus stops.

??

He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh

carlmango11

xper wrote: »

He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh

Pretty nifty idea

Winters

strassenwo!f wrote: »

With the proposed O'Connell Bridge station, you are certainly talking about deeper station sections, doubled (on either side of the river) - Winters said above that there were six levels, but on the diagrams I've seen I've only been able to count four. (Maybe five on a good day:D).

http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/MN_Stop_Pages/O%27Connell%20Bridge%20Stop/O%27Connell_Bridge_Stop_Cross_Section.pdf

I was roughly counting the elevator levels on the Aston Quay side of the above diagram.

Essentially there may be 4 or 5 levels using escalators but using standard floor heights like in stairwells and lift shafts gives a better idea for comparison to office buildings etc.

JupiterKid

xper wrote: »

He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh

Very good idea indeed. But where would you find the space on the M50 post-widening? The stops would have to be at the edges, not on the median.

Victor

JupiterKid wrote: »

Very good idea indeed. But where would you find the space on the M50 post-widening? The stops would have to be at the edges, not on the median.

I imagine the local businesses would love having direct services to the airport, so some co-funding in the form of land may be available.

AngryLips

Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways? You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway. Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.

monument

AngryLips wrote: »

Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways?

How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?

AngryLips wrote: »

You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway.

Where was anything that could mean that said on this thread?

AngryLips wrote: »

Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.

If you read recent posts you'll see people are talking a rail/bus hub where the M50 meets the Kildare Line -- Even besides rail/bus to airport transfers, such a hub could also attract a ton of passengers from the nearby areas, comming to such a hub by foot, car, bus or bicycle.

AngryLips

monument wrote: »

How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?

Well you're not meant to stop on motorways for a start

AngryLips

monument wrote: »

If you read recent posts you'll see people are talking a rail/bus hub where the M50 meets the Kildare Line -- Even besides rail/bus to airport transfers, such a hub could also attract a ton of passengers from the nearby areas, comming to such a hub by foot, car, bus or bicycle.

To be honest I think this has as much potential to be successful as the Aerdart.

L1011

monument wrote: »

How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?

If the access lanes weren't long enough to allow the bus to come up to speed properly, the passenger area wasn't properly secured from the road, etc, etc.

The idea, if done properly, is a good one and there's enough examples elsewhere that we SHOULD be able to copy it properly. Hopefully.

Except for the fact that the junction would make it effectively impossible, one at the Red Cow Luas would have been a decent idea; one for the Kildare Line should be possible though.

xper

AngryLips wrote: »

Well you're not meant to stop on motorways for a start

Don't use the M9 then, you'll only get upset ... http://goo.gl/maps/VvL2v

Victor

AngryLips wrote: »

Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways? You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway. Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.

Did you look at the link above?

None of the pedestrian footfall would be on the motorway mainline.

strassenwo!f

chooochooo wrote: »

Here is a good example of the risks of 2nd guessing anything.

The main geological problem in mining out College Green are the foundations of buildings in that area. Not doable.

Any station at College Green or OCS/Abbey St would still have to be deep because they are close to the Liffey and have to get under it. So not much cheaper.

The present plan of stations at O'Connell Bge and Parnell evolved and was not the original RPA plan. College Green was ruled out for above reasons, cost was a major factor so there was no plan for any station at Parnell (and the plan for above ground at Ballymun) but a lot of political pressure came for an additional CC station so Parnell was added (ditto re Ballymun underground).

The point is the ideal of having stations at College Green, OCS/AbbeySt wasn't a runner so a major station at O'Connell Bge was decided. Parnell was added on in the face of cost issues.

I've been puzzling over this post for some time. Obviously there was political pressure for overground in Ballymun and a Parnell Station.

We will very probably never know whether the political pressure against a potential stop/station at Trinity was severe, strong or considerable.

Or maybe it was just noteworthy, suggestive or nudgeworthy.

The whole O'Connell Bridge fiasco simply does not fit in with the considerable efforts by the RPA to reduce costs elsewhere by cutting down on the number of escalators and other stuff.