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

BonnieSituation

Deedsie wrote: »

It is ridiculous... I am still unsure which is more pressing, Dart Underground or Metro North. With the reports of greater numbers of cyclists than private motoring commutter's in some parts of DCC, perhaps Metro North is more pressing in the immediate term.

Ideally they will do both projects together.

Dart Underground is by far tne the more pressing project. It's not even an argument. It's so plainly obvious that it is.

---

As regards my query to "why is it a joke?"

The OP didn't really give much away. We are aware that we are retarded when it comes to planning but it read like you were dissing the DAA's figures.

yannakis

Deedsie wrote: »

Why? What reasoning makes DART Underground far more pressing than Metro North?

I guess OP said that because it will ease congestion around Connolly which might allow for extra capacity on all routes.

BonnieSituation

Deedsie wrote: »

Why? What reasoning makes DART Underground far more pressing than Metro North?

Come on? You cant honestly think that MN comes close to replicating what DU will do wrt to effect on the whole city and the GDA.
Straightaway it eases congestion at Connolly allowing more frequent services. It also allows the entire south western part oF the city and county and Kildare the ability to get a train straight to the cc with no mandatory changing at Heuston.
Northern líne and Maynooth líne services will be part of a coherent network with Kildare líne and Bray services.

Suddenly parts of the city which aren't viable for housing suddenly become attractive.

The inevitable success of DU if built will ensure that there will be public pressure to expand Dart properly.

MN will link SSG and the airport with (less than heavy) rail. This Lissenhall link is just fanciful. Great idea. But when you think that we couldn't open Hansfield for an age or even Kishogue you have to wonder about Lissenhall. MN will give us another new method of rail that connects arseways to our "network".

I just don't see how anyone could possibly equate the two projects as being on a par never mind thinking MN requires priority.

BonnieSituation

Deedsie wrote: »

Oh I totally accept the benefits of Dart Underground. 100% in favour of it. Just don't see how it is "by far the more pressing project ahead of Metro North"

Both projects should be built simultaneously.

They should be built simultaneously.

But how you rank the importance of a Project is to do a Cost Benefit Analysis.

Even a cursory glance at many people's lives will be improved by DU over MN is plain to see.

MJohnston

To be honest, I'm not sure I see DU as higher priority than MN - DU won't expand the areas of Dublin served by high frequency public transport, it'll just make the existing services higher quality. Phoenix Park Tunnel muddies the waters somewhat on DU's effect on connecting western areas with Docklands too.

MN almost entirely would service parts of the Dublin area not currently served by anything other than (relatively) low quality bus routes.

For MN is the more vital expansion necessary to solve Dublin's housing issues. I am still 100% in favour of DU mind you, just thinking in a hypothetical either/or situation, I'd rather have MN.

FreudianSlippers

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They should be built simultaneously.

But how you rank the importance of a Project is to do a Cost Benefit Analysis.

Even a cursory glance at many people's lives will be improved by DU over MN is plain to see.

I have no disagreement that they should be built simultaneously, but I wouldn't agree that a cost/benefit analysis would necessarily show DU as more vital than MN - particularly not when you factor in the increase in multinationals in the city and the proposed "airport city" as well as increased hotel capacity at the airport.

Dyr

MJohnston wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure I see DU as higher priority than MN - DU won't expand the areas of Dublin served by high frequency public transport, it'll just make the existing services higher quality. Phoenix Park Tunnel muddies the waters somewhat on DU's effect on connecting western areas with Docklands too.

MN almost entirely would service parts of the Dublin area not currently served by anything other than (relatively) low quality bus routes.

For MN is the more vital expansion necessary to solve Dublin's housing issues. I am still 100% in favour of DU mind you, just thinking in a hypothetical either/or situation, I'd rather have MN.

It's fairly obvious that certain areas have gotten the lions share of the goodies over the decades when it comes to transport infrastructure while others have been ignored. All priority should be to redress that imbalance

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure I see DU as higher priority than MN - DU won't expand the areas of Dublin served by high frequency public transport, it'll just make the existing services higher quality.

Won't DU lead to 2 dart lines (albeit with additional works)

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Won't DU lead to 2 dart lines (albeit with additional works)

Right, but they're DART lines that would just upgrade Commuter services, rather than an entirely new line.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Right, but they're DART lines that would just upgrade Commuter services, rather than an entirely new line.

I believe DU is far more important than MN, because it develops a current network that is struggling. It doesn't just improve services for existing customers. It improves the service to allow additional customers and new commutes. When you pit DU against MN (and we shouldn't) MN is the very obvious lower key project. MN is a new build and will indeed (if ever built) embrace a whole load of new journies and no doubt remove cars from the roads. But DU is required fix the existing network that can't possibly take many more bandaids. All that said I was always in favour of both being built together. What a service both would offer to Dublin city and beyond.

BonnieSituation

MJohnston wrote: »

Right, but they're DART lines that would just upgrade Commuter services, rather than an entirely new line.

But they won't "just upgrade" commuter services. They will link the north and south and west of the city and increase the population that will have a useful rail service.

There are parts of Dublin that have no rail services despite railways passing through them. DU opens these parts of the city up. You seem to think it's merely just a link from Inchicore/Heuston to GCDock. It isn't. But if that's how you view it there's little that I can say or have said that will change your mind.

I have threatened all semester to plug some data into a GIS for the last few months but have been swamped but I would be willing to bet that the results would be fairly conclusive that the population served and the new commutes available with DU would dwarf MN. Final project is due on Friday so once that's in I'll give it a bash.

I want MN built. But not at the expense of DU.

BonnieSituation

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have no disagreement that they should be built simultaneously, but I wouldn't agree that a cost/benefit analysis would necessarily show DU as more vital than MN - particularly not when you factor in the increase in multinationals in the city and the proposed "airport city" as well as increased hotel capacity at the airport.

What about instead of serving these ethereal developments we start serving the 100s and 1000s of people who actually live in the GDA who have a sh!te transport system and a ****ter life as a result. Citizens are way more important than tourists. And an hour on the 39A etc is unacceptable as a commute for any human in 2017.

Plus, the increased capacity of hotels is not a reason to build a new railway line if the entire expanse of Lucan and Blanchardstown never warranted anything outside of a couple railway stations (placed in stupid places). Come on man.

MJohnston

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But they won't "just upgrade" commuter services. They will link the north and south and west of the city and increase the population that will have a useful rail service.

To me, that's still just an upgrade of the existing services, it doesn't expand any catchment areas very much for commuters. Maynooth line already connects with Connolly, and the Hazelhatch/Newbridge lines now also have connection with the existing DART network via PPT.

There are parts of Dublin that have no rail services despite railways passing through them. DU opens these parts of the city up. You seem to think it's merely just a link from Inchicore/Heuston to GCDock. It isn't. But if that's how you view it there's little that I can say or have said that will change your mind.

If that's not all it is, then what else is it? Aside from the few new City centre underground stations, I don't see how DU would open up new parts of Dublin to rail services?

I have threatened all semester to plug some data into a GIS for the last few months but have been swamped but I would be willing to bet that the results would be fairly conclusive that the population served and the new commutes available with DU would dwarf MN. Final project is due on Friday so once that's in I'll give it a bash.

I want MN built. But not at the expense of DU.

I would enjoy seeing this to be honest - what I disagreed with originally was your statement that "Even a cursory glance at many people's lives will be improved by DU over MN is plain to see", as I don't believe that is all that plain to see, but with relevant data I'd be happy to accept that it's true.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

I believe DU is far more important than MN, because it develops a current network that is struggling. It doesn't just improve services for existing customers. It improves the service to allow additional customers and new commutes. When you pit DU against MN (and we shouldn't) MN is the very obvious lower key project. MN is a new build and will indeed (if ever built) embrace a whole load of new journies and no doubt remove cars from the roads. But DU is required fix the existing network that can't possibly take many more bandaids. All that said I was always in favour of both being built together. What a service both would offer to Dublin city and beyond.

While I agree very much with the rest of your post, these are the assertions that I don't like - while you might be correct that it is lower key, simply stating that it's "very obvious" isn't all that convincing - gimme something to back that up!

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

While I agree very much with the rest of your post, these are the assertions that I don't like - while you might be correct that it is lower key, simply stating that it's "very obvious" isn't all that convincing - gimme something to back that up!

I will once I have the chance. Its very important that the benefits of DU and MN are discussed, despite the current Governments complete disregard for them.

marno21

We need both. MN and DU have completely different remits and bring massive improvements to different parts of the city. Both should be prioritised - there's no choosing. You can't compare them.

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

there's no choosing. You can't compare them.

Unfortunately the government can and will compare and choose between then

yannakis

Do we know what's the plan in regards to the vehicles of MN? Are they going to use DART trains, LUAS trams, or something completely new? In the beginning it sounds weird to put trams underground, but in Brussels central station for example there's long distance trains on ground level, Metro on -1 and Trams on -2!!

Would it be ideal to have one single line eventually all the way from Bride's Glen to Estuary?

Peregrine

NougatPlease wrote: »

Do we know what's the plan in regards to the vehicles of MN? Are they going to use DART trains, LUAS trams, or something completely new? In the beginning it sounds weird to put trams underground, but in Brussels central station for example there's long distance trains on ground level, Metro on -1 and Trams on -2!!

Would it be ideal to have one single line eventually all the way from Bride's Glen to Estuary?

It's standard gauge light rail so pretty much Luas.

I have always been of the opinion that the project should have capitalised off the Luas brand from the beginning rather than a new 'Metro' name.

LeinsterDub

Peregrine wrote: »

It's standard gauge light rail so pretty much Luas.

I have always been of the opinion that the project should have capitalised off the Luas brand from the beginning rather than a new 'Metro' name.

H-an Luas? Luas mór?

Chivito550

NougatPlease wrote: »

Do we know what's the plan in regards to the vehicles of MN? Are they going to use DART trains, LUAS trams, or something completely new? In the beginning it sounds weird to put trams underground, but in Brussels central station for example there's long distance trains on ground level, Metro on -1 and Trams on -2!!

Would it be ideal to have one single line eventually all the way from Bride's Glen to Estuary?

Trams go underground in Cologne. Many of their lines do in fact. The LUAS should have gone underground in the city centre.

yannakis

Chivito550 wrote: »

Trams go underground in Cologne. Many of their lines do in fact. The LUAS should have gone underground in the city centre.

True! Every time I see the new tracks laid down between Parnell St and Grafton the only thing I can think of is the crawling speed of the trams

FreudianSlippers

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What about instead of serving these ethereal developments we start serving the 100s and 1000s of people who actually live in the GDA who have a sh!te transport system and a ****ter life as a result. Citizens are way more important than tourists. And an hour on the 39A etc is unacceptable as a commute for any human in 2017.

Plus, the increased capacity of hotels is not a reason to build a new railway line if the entire expanse of Lucan and Blanchardstown never warranted anything outside of a couple railway stations (placed in stupid places). Come on man.

I don't understand how DU will impact any of the 39 route commute times?

murphaph

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't understand how DU will impact any of the 39 route commute times?

The 39 would not exist in a post DU-Dublin. In Munich (similar size to Dublin but with its interconnector already built) a route like the 39 does not exist. Buses feed the rail network there. They don't "compete" with it.

If DU was built, there would be a high frequency DART service on the Maynooth line. The 39 buses currently running more or less parallel to the Maynooth line would be redeployed to feed into it. Instead of an awful commute from Ongar to town, you'd take a frequent bus to Clonsilla station (or wherever) and hop on a frequent DART to take you the rest of the way.

FreudianSlippers

murphaph wrote: »

If DU was built, there would be a high frequency DART service on the Maynooth line.

My understanding of the NTA announcement in 2015 was that, effectively, DU is back to the drawing board but the remainder of the "Expansion" project was going ahead at some unknown stage.

So DART to Maynooth and EU don't seem to be that related IMO.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

The 39 would not exist in a post DU-Dublin. In Munich (similar size to Dublin but with its interconnector already built) a route like the 39 does not exist. Buses feed the rail network there. They don't "compete" with it.

If DU was built, there would be a high frequency DART service on the Maynooth line. The 39 buses currently running more or less parallel to the Maynooth line would be redeployed to feed into it. Instead of an awful commute from Ongar to town, you'd take a frequent bus to Clonsilla station (or wherever) and hop on a frequent DART to take you the rest of the way.

What he said.

---

Trams also go underground in Hannover

Dyr

murphaph wrote: »

If DU was built, there would be a high frequency DART service on the Maynooth line. The 39 buses currently running more or less parallel to the Maynooth line would be redeployed to feed into it. Instead of an awful commute from Ongar to town, you'd take a frequent bus to Clonsilla station (or wherever) and hop on a frequent DART to take you the rest of the way.

Because Dublin has a long history of successfully running connection services between different transport modes?

BonnieSituation

So because we did it arseways in the past we shouldn't do it at all?

Ireland has a long history of making a balls of lots of things. But should we just shrug our shoulders and go "oh bejaysus" about every new potential improvement?

Better rail connections takes cars off the road which improves bus times which improves rail connectivity which takes cars off the road...

Dyr

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So because we did it arseways in the past we shouldn't do it at all?

Ireland has a long history of making a balls of lots of things. But should we just shrug our shoulders and go "oh bejaysus" about every new potential improvement?

Better rail connections takes cars off the road which improves bus times which improves rail connectivity which takes cars off the road...

I'm all for rail connections over everything else, its the way to go.

But putting forward plans that failed in the past and expecting them to succeed while the causes of failure are all still in place is naive in the extreme

BonnieSituation

Bambi wrote: »

I'm all for rail connections over everything else, its the way to go.

But putting forward plans that failed in the past and expecting them to succeed while the causes of failure are all still in place is naive in the extreme

But that's not at all what's being said.

The rail feeder idea is that, an idea for when we have proper frequent rail services.

The hope is that "the causes of failure" will have been banished by then.