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

marno21

https://www.businesspost.ie/metro-north-call-after-strong-airport-figures/

Idbatterim

Aebhric McGibney, director of public and international affairs at Dublin Chamber, said the challenge now was to ensure that Dublin Airport was equipped for further growth in the coming years.

Dublin Airport is planning a new €320m North Runway to cope with future growth. But the Dublin business group says more needs to be done. "The Minister for Transport must now show the same sense of ambition to ensure that the Metro North link between Dublin city centre, Dublin Airport and the rapidly-expanding north county Dublin area is built much quicker than the previously-mooted target of 2027," said McGibney.

Aebhric has obviously missed the far more important work that our transport Mininster is doing, i.e. promoting nimbyism and exacerbating the housing crisis...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ross-fighting-plans-to-build-108-homes-in-his-constituency-34912317.html

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

Bray Head wrote: »

As low as 100m for a brand new alignment, CPO of farmland, bridge over the M50, station, junction at Clongriffin.

Not remotely credible to me.

The 100m would build the rail - it is just 7 km across green fields with a crossing on the M1. That requires less than 70 acres of land.

Can you point to a similar, recent project in a western European country with this kind of cost?

It is not credible unless you include the cost of new rolling stock, interaction with 4 roads before you even get to the M50, station(s) at airport, ancillary works around airport to move existing services, etc.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

Can you point to a similar, recent project in a western European country with this kind of cost?

It is not credible unless you include the cost of new rolling stock, interaction with 4 roads before you even get to the M50, station(s) at airport, ancillary works around airport to move existing services, etc.

In the post, I said cost would be between €100m and €200m. €100m would be a low ball estimate, but €200m is used widely.
This report suggests €200m. If it were built without electrification it would be cheaper. I am not suggesting that it should, but it would be cheaper.

Carawaystick

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the post, I said cost would be between €100m and €200m. €100m would be a low ball estimate, but €200m is used widely.
This report suggests €200m. If it were built without electrification it would be cheaper. I am not suggesting that it should, but it would be cheaper.

If it was built single track it'd be cheaper again... :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation

I fear even seeing these stupid suggestions, because you know that if someone in here can come up with it that someone in DTTAS might go, hey, "that's a good idea".

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

Bray Head wrote: »

Can you point to a similar, recent project in a western European country with this kind of cost?

It is not credible unless you include the cost of new rolling stock, interaction with 4 roads before you even get to the M50, station(s) at airport, ancillary works around airport to move existing services, etc.

In the post, I said cost would be between 100m and 200m. 100m would be a low ball estimate, but 200m is used widely.
This report suggests 200m. If it were built without electrification it would be cheaper. I am not suggesting that it should, but it would be cheaper.

It suggests 200m excluding VAT.

You are using a number which is less than half of what is used in the link.

You are providing no analogous examples either nationally or internationally.

Like I said, this estimate of 100m is simply not credible.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

It suggests 200m excluding VAT.

You are using a number which is less than half of what is used in the link.

You are providing no analogous examples either nationally or internationally.

Like I said, this estimate of 100m is simply not credible.

OK, I accept that €200m is a better figure and it was a range that included €200m, but in defence the post I linked did say that current Dart rolling stock would cover it.

VAT goes to the Gov so it comes out of one pocket into the other.

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

Aebhric has obviously missed the far more important work that our transport Mininster is doing, i.e. promoting nimbyism and exacerbating the housing crisis...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ross-fighting-plans-to-build-108-homes-in-his-constituency-34912317.html

Guess who got a 0 !
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-scorecards-so-which-minister-gets-zero-out-of-10-1.2751910

marno21

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Guess who got a 0 !
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-scorecards-so-which-minister-gets-zero-out-of-10-1.2751910

Policy-driven, he was comfortable in Transport, involved in a big capital spending plan, along with overseeing the Luas upgrade. In his new portfolio, he takes over Brendan Howlin’s responsibilities.

Pascal Donohue's score of 7 along with the above removes any form of credibility from this article.

marno21

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/airport-growth-another-sign-that-metro-must-be-brought-forward-34967161.html

L1011

Pity that's from an INM regional, not their national output - which will still be horrified at spending money in the area that generates it.

Dublin Airport went from being the second fastest growing Cat 2 airport - Istanbul's secondary airport beat it, but it has collapsed along with Turkish tourism - to being the fastest growing Cat 1 when it got in that level of traffic. I believe it was the only Cat 2 with no rail link of any kind and it must be the only Cat 1 without.

Grandeeod

L1011 wrote: »

Pity that's from an INM regional, not their national output - which will still be horrified at spending money in the area that generates it.

Dublin Airport went from being the second fastest growing Cat 2 airport - Istanbul's secondary airport beat it, but it has collapsed along with Turkish tourism - to being the fastest growing Cat 1 when it got in that level of traffic. I believe it was the only Cat 2 with no rail link of any kind and it must be the only Cat 1 without.

If the media treat it like that in such a secondary fashion, the preassure is off the state. Sad to see all the facts stack up and a Government inventing figures to deny it. There was nothing wrong with the original MN route/plan. The only detractors were post cancellation and loaded with crayons in the interest of BS on the internet.

Geuze

murphaph wrote: »

the DART network could be fed with buses that cease running parallel to the existing heavy rail lines

I am curious about this, running buses in parallel with railway lines.

I don't think other cities do it??

Maynooth 66 for example.

Also 46 A to DL??

cgcsb

If there were trains every 5 mins on those lines, there would be no need for many radial bus routes. Even if a Maynooth electrified service had a 10 min frequency and good connections with luas at broombridge the blanchardstown bus routes could be mostly replaced by orbital routes and feeders to Navan Road Parkway. Perhaps retaining the 37 and some of the 39s as a sort of complimentary service connecting all of the estates.

At present we have patchy rail services with big gaps ans slow running even in the rush hour so people will opt for the bus on the doorstep. If things were better they'd opt for the 8 min bus journey to a train station from which you'll wait only 5 mins to be whisked into town in 15.

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

Even if a Maynooth electrified service had a 10 min frequency .

Why would electrification make a difference?

Brian CivilEng

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would electrification make a difference?

The acceleration and deceleration of electric trains is much better than the diesel units, so it allows for more frequent services to be scheduled.

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would electrification make a difference?

The electric trains can speed up and slow down faster to accommodate a frequent stop service. Of course to accommodate such frequency we need a second liffey rail crossing in the City Centre, i.e. DART underground. So until then it's duplication of service with buses all the way.

I'd also point out that the same duplication occurs on intercity routes, especially Galway-Dublin and this is primarily because the journey times by rail and frequency of service are cac. But of course serious investment in rail is a dirty word in Ireland. If you go to Germany or Austria or even France for example there generally won't be buses competing with rail except for some super cheap, super slow connections between the German mega cities aimed at the student/poor market.

Zebra3

Geuze wrote: »

I am curious about this, running buses in parallel with railway lines.

I don't think other cities do it??

Maynooth 66 for example.

Also 46 A to DL??

The 66 only really runs parallel to a railway line between Maynooth and LLB.

Geuze

Zebra3 wrote: »

The 66 only really runs parallel to a railway line between Maynooth and LLB.

Sorry, I didn't mean parallel literally.

I mean if you are in Dublin city centre, people are taking a bus to a place maybe 25km away that is served by rail.

I don't think that happens in Berlin / Paris / Brussels.

Carawaystick

Geuze wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean parallel literally.

I mean if you are in Dublin city centre, people are taking a bus to a place maybe 25km away that is served by rail.

I don't think that happens in Berlin / Paris / Brussels.

You are confusing the start end points with all the different places in between the 2 modes serve. The Bus serves a completely different area to the train from Leixlip to Dublin.

Bray Head

Pretty much the only mention MN gets in the media is the habitual blast from Colm McCarthy.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/economy-is-on-track-but-minimalist-budget-would-still-be-the-wiser-choice-35001123.html

[font=Georgia, serif]The biggest single project on the political wish-list is a second tunnel in north Dublin, this time to house Metro North connecting to the airport and suburbs further out, at the enormous cost of 2.3bn. [/font][font=Georgia, serif]If it goes ahead it will cost, for a single route, an amount equivalent to the entire bill for all of the Dublin Luas lines and the Port Tunnel. There is already a road tunnel delivering frequent and popular bus access on this route, built and paid for. Metro North looks like a solution in search of a problem.[/font]

marno21

Bray Head wrote: »

Pretty much the only mention MN gets in the media is the habitual blast from Colm McCarthy.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/economy-is-on-track-but-minimalist-budget-would-still-be-the-wiser-choice-35001123.html

Yawn.

spacetweek

L1011 wrote: »

I believe it was the only Cat 2 with no rail link of any kind and it must be the only Cat 1 without.

When Helsinki built an airport rail link last year, we could at least say that Luxembourg was another Western European capital with no rail link to the airport. Imagine my shock when I discovered last night that they have planned one (the Findel stop is for the airport).

murphaph

spacetweek wrote: »

When Helsinki built an airport rail link last year, we could at least say that Luxembourg was another Western European capital with no rail link to the airport. Imagine my shock when I discovered last night that they have planned one (the Findel stop is for the airport).

Don't worry. The Hungarians at least when building T2 in Budapest decided to place it far enough away from the rail connected (and now closed) T1 that the airport is not actually rail connected any more and you need to take a 10 minute bus journey to get to the T1 railway station.

D Trent

murphaph wrote: »

Don't worry. The Hungarians at least when building T2 in Budapest decided to place it far enough away from the rail connected (and now closed) T1 that the airport is not actually rail connected any more and you need to take a 10 minute bus journey to get to the T1 railway station.

Phil Hogan probably sanctioned that one ....

strassenwo!f

An interesting feature of Rome, one which doesn't make it into many of the guidebooks to that city, is the use of underpasses along the banks of the Tiber to create a sort of express corridor uncluttered by the likes of me with my camera.

Of course, other cities also do this, but in Rome they seem to have used this feature to facilitate the route of one of its metro lines: it comes up from a station one side of the river Tiber, travels over one of these underpasses and across the bridge, then dips down - as far as I remember also over another underpass - into another station on the other side of the river.

I wonder if such a thing might be possible in Dublin?

The RPA's mammoth O'Connell Bridge proposal is, I feel, unlikely to survive the review currently underway about the route of this line.

The St. Stephen's Green - O'Connell Street - Parnell Square corridor is unquestionably the key corridor in the centre of the city, and a way to get metro trains along that sensibly and more cheaply (than the RPA plan) needs to be found.

Now that articulated trucks have been pretty much removed from the city, thanks to the port tunnel, the only vehicles which might/would be seriously affected by the presence of an underpass in the city would be the buses - because of the gradients involved - and dealing with this would be a priority for any underpass suggestion to proceed.

O'Connell Bridge (8 traffic lanes) is surely wide enough to accomodate a single tram line (currently being built), two lines of metro, and at least two lanes of buses, along with pedestrians and perhaps other traffic.

Burgh Quay, Bachelor's Walk, Aston Quay and Eden Quay are all three to four lanes wide, and two-lane underpasses for vehicular traffic along the north and south quays at that location would not need to achieve anything like the specifications required for an underground metro station, and nor would the metro need to achieve the great depth required to travel under the river.

To summarise, the suggestion is that the revised metro north would travel along the key St. Stephen's Green - Parnell Square corridor, travelling over, repeat over, the river at O'Connell Bridge and that a portion of the width of the Burgh Quay - Aston Quay and Bachelor's Walk - Eden Quay corridors would be converted into underpasses under the Westmoreland Street/D'Olier Street/O'Connell Street junction. The remaining section - and whatever could be cover over, could be used by buses, pedestrians and cars.

It would certainly require a complete rethink of that major junction. I hope it could be to Dublin's benefit.

LeinsterDub

Honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Can you provide some links to the Rome thing, mammoth o Connell bridge?

strassenwo!f

I'm quite busy now, but go to Wikipedia, look for Rome, transport, Metro line A. You'll see a nice picture of a train crossing the river Tiber, having left an underground station and about to go into an underground station.

You really don't need me to explain the 'O'Connell Bridge, mammoth station' bit at this stage, do you?

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

An interesting feature of Rome, one which doesn't make it into many of the guidebooks to that city, is the use of underpasses along the banks of the Tiber to create a sort of express corridor uncluttered by the likes of me with my camera.

Of course, other cities also do this, but in Rome they seem to have used this feature to facilitate the route of one of its metro lines: it comes up from a station one side of the river Tiber, travels over one of these underpasses and across the bridge, then dips down - as far as I remember also over another underpass - into another station on the other side of the river.

I wonder if such a thing might be possible in Dublin?

The RPA's mammoth O'Connell Bridge proposal is, I feel, unlikely to survive the review currently underway about the route of this line.

The St. Stephen's Green - O'Connell Street - Parnell Square corridor is unquestionably the key corridor in the centre of the city, and a way to get metro trains along that sensibly and more cheaply (than the RPA plan) needs to be found.

Now that articulated trucks have been pretty much removed from the city, thanks to the port tunnel, the only vehicles which might/would be seriously affected by the presence of an underpass in the city would be the buses - because of the gradients involved - and dealing with this would be a priority for any underpass suggestion to proceed.

O'Connell Bridge (8 traffic lanes) is surely wide enough to accomodate a single tram line (currently being built), two lines of metro, and at least two lanes of buses, along with pedestrians and perhaps other traffic.

Burgh Quay, Bachelor's Walk, Aston Quay and Eden Quay are all three to four lanes wide, and two-lane underpasses for vehicular traffic along the north and south quays at that location would not need to achieve anything like the specifications required for an underground metro station, and nor would the metro need to achieve the great depth required to travel under the river.

To summarise, the suggestion is that the revised metro north would travel along the key St. Stephen's Green - Parnell Square corridor, travelling over, repeat over, the river at O'Connell Bridge and that a portion of the width of the Burgh Quay - Aston Quay and Bachelor's Walk - Eden Quay corridors would be converted into underpasses under the Westmoreland Street/D'Olier Street/O'Connell Street junction. The remaining section - and whatever could be cover over, could be used by buses, pedestrians and cars.

It would certainly require a complete rethink of that major junction. I hope it could be to Dublin's benefit.

I now know exactly where you're talking about in Rome.

By suggesting the above, we now have another example of you lacking any credibility whatsoever on costings and feasibility of ideas.

The context is complely different -- it works in Rome largely because the cut and cover construction of the design and the hills in the area (the O'Connell Bridge area on the other hand is almost flat as you get), and there was massive squares/streets etc to build under in Rome (many of them making O'Connell St look tiny), and the east bank of the river in Rome had a ton of space (nothing like the central Liffey quays).

There's nothing mammoth about the O'Connell Bridge station. The bean counters who did not see the value in providing access from the north and south of the river and those with an anti-rail or anti-public transport were mainly the only ones to take notice of the station.