Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

The case against Metro North - is there one?

145791012

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,202 ✭✭✭markpb


    AngryLips wrote: »
    What's clear to me is that Dublin Underground on its own will result in a far more integrated network than Metro North on its own.

    The Dart extension will join two existing lines and, with the exception of parts of the city centre, serve absolutely no new areas. Metro North serves a whole track of city that has no rail coverage, joins both existing Luas lines, any future Luas lines, the Maynooth suburban line and the airport. How on earth do you define DU are "more integrated"?

    Much as I support both projects, I am very pessimistic that either will happen. DU isn't understood or sexy and MN is very expensive. In particular, people won't understand that we won't be paying much of the cost of MN for several years so politically, killing it would go down well. FF will say it's put on hold until things improve and that they've "saved €5bn" even though that's rubbish of the highest order.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    markpb wrote: »
    The Dart extension will join two existing lines and, with the exception of parts of the city centre, serve absolutely no new areas. Metro North serves a whole track of city that has no rail coverage, joins both existing Luas lines, any future Luas lines, the Maynooth suburban line and the airport. How on earth do you define DU are "more integrated"?

    Much as I support both projects, I am very pessimistic that either will happen. DU isn't understood or sexy and MN is very expensive. In particular, people won't understand that we won't be paying much of the cost of MN for several years so politically, killing it would go down well. FF will say it's put on hold until things improve and that they've "saved €5bn" even though that's rubbish of the highest order.

    Dublin Airport and Swords are well served with public transport atm.

    Dart underground connects all Luas lines and train lines.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    I posted here months ago that this project would not go ahead. Simple economics would see to that. Unfortunately, we don't have the money for 'toy' projects.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    liammur wrote: »
    I posted here months ago that this project would not go ahead. Simple economics would see to that. Unfortunately, we don't have the money for 'toy' projects.

    What are "Simple economics" and "toy" projects?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,562 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Can't agree with you more. It's a shame because I think everyone contributing to this thread shares a keen interest in public transport in Dublin.

    What's clear to me is that Dublin Underground on its own will result in a far more integrated network than Metro North on its own.

    The benefits of Du may out-weigh those of MN but DU is a long way behind in terms of actually getting started. ABP has only just granted permission for MN but the initial application was made back in 2008, whereas DU railway order application was only made in June of this year. Its not as simple as saying go for DU instead of MN, right now the choice is MN or nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Also, Metro North doesn't offer any additional value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground will do


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Also, Metro North doesn't offer any additional value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground will do
    The airport?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Aard wrote: »
    The airport?

    The Green Luas line?

    THe Maynooth Commuter line?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Aard wrote: »
    The airport?

    There is no shortage of buses going to the airport.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    mgmt wrote: »
    There is no shortage of buses going to the airport.


    Correct.

    Economic illiteracy amongst the Irish hasn't gone away I'm afraid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The Green Luas line?

    THe Maynooth Commuter line?
    The reason I didn't include these because he asked about providing "additional value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground [doesn't]".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    BrianD wrote: »
    I have travelled a lot and I'm really at a loss to find cities similar to Dublin that have better transport systems to Dublin. Having said, that I've been in quite a few where what they have works more efficiently than Dublin.

    Bielefeld and Krefeld are much smaller than Dublin and have much better PT than Dublin. Koln is about Dublin's size, much better PT than Dublin.

    I've rarely been to a city Dublin's size that doesn't have considerably better PT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,562 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Aard wrote: »
    The reason I didn't include these because he asked about providing "additional value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground [doesn't]".

    Ridiculous statement. MN absolutely adds value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground doesn't. DU doesnt bring people from Maynooth to the airport with one change or from Stilorgan to the Mater with one change. It opens up more journeys to people on the existing Maynooth line and Luas Green Line, they can go more places while leaving the car at home. Whether or not it brings more value to existing infrastructure than DU is questionable, but to say MN doesnt add value to existing infrastructure is wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    @Pete Cavan:
    Just to clarify, I'm in complete agreement with you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I really don't think a metro to the airport will result in an increase in passenger numbers at Dublin Airport. Luas Green Line isn't under-utilised in the same way Maynooth and Hazelhatch lines are at the moment


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Metro North also doesn't open up a second cross city line to the suburban rail network in the same way Dart Underground does, thus alleviating the pinch point in the ring line between Connolly and Pearse that currently restricts services on the IE network


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Ridiculous statement. MN absolutely adds value to existing infrastructure in the way that Dart Underground doesn't. DU doesnt bring people from Maynooth to the airport with one change or from Stilorgan to the Mater with one change. It opens up more journeys to people on the existing Maynooth line and Luas Green Line, they can go more places while leaving the car at home. Whether or not it brings more value to existing infrastructure than DU is questionable, but to say MN doesnt add value to existing infrastructure is wrong.

    Take the DART from Maynooth to Connolly, bus to airport - 1 change

    Luas Green Line to St Stephans Green, DART to Pearse, DART to Drumcondra - Admittedly 2 changes


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    mgmt wrote: »
    Take the DART from Maynooth to Connolly, bus to airport - 1 change

    Luas Green Line to St Stephans Green, DART to Pearse, DART to Drumcondra - Admittedly 2 changes

    All we need is more buses. Massive emigration on the cards, we are an impoverished state borrowing €20bn a year. Unsustainable.

    Btw - Who are the lunatics giving us this cash, cos they aint getting it back anytime soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Can somebody tell me this for definite: I know that MN will be PPP. Even if the PPP figure was €5bn, how much would the Government actually have to spend per year?


    It seems a lot of people think that we'll be shelling out the full €5bn in one whack. I know this isn't true, but I can't tell them exactly what the figure is.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,071 ✭✭✭rameire


    i think about 200 to 250 million per year based on a 5billion price tag over 25 years from the date the metro comes into operation, this does not include the enabling costs of 100 to 200 next year.

    i think the cost will be 3.12 billion when the contract comes in, and based on this i think it will cost 150 million per year.

    i hope it is constructed.
    it will be great for reducing the traffic at pinch areas like whitehall, drumcondra and phibsboro.
    if was contructed years ago, i probably would never have bought a motobike and probably would have used public transport.
    It has to be done.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Split 2.28S, 1.52E. 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭lods


    rameire wrote: »
    i think about 200 to 250 million per year based on a 5billion price tag over 25 years from the date the metro comes into operation, this does not include the enabling costs of 100 to 200 next year.

    i think the cost will be 3.12 billion when the contract comes in, and based on this i think it will cost 150 million per year.

    i hope it is constructed.
    it will be great for reducing the traffic at pinch areas like whitehall, drumcondra and phibsboro.
    if was contructed years ago, i probably would never have bought a motobike and probably would have used public transport.
    It has to be done.
    I think ABP have killed it off . New railway ordered needed etc. new oral hearing etc . It'll never happen now


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    mgmt wrote: »
    There is no shortage of buses going to the airport.

    If we want there would be no shortage of buses going to any where we wanted. Lets pull up the tram line and just run buses . Sure that worked out so well the first time we did it


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    lods wrote: »
    I think ABP have killed it off . New railway ordered needed etc. new oral hearing etc . It'll never happen now
    What new railways order . I thought the just had to change the current one to comply with some minor changes?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,202 ✭✭✭markpb


    lods wrote: »
    I think ABP have killed it off . New railway ordered needed etc. new oral hearing etc . It'll never happen now

    Rubbish. ABP granted approval for the majority of the project. They removed some stations and told RPA that they had to apply for alternation permission for some aspects of the project like the location of the depot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    I believe technological improvements mean that mass transit systems are a 20th century technology. I think in the 21st century urban transport will be more individual focused.

    Specifically i think that improved automation in cars will make the metro less attractive. Less attractive because driving will be car transport will be cheaper, safer, and more pleasurable than it is now. Because of this metro north will not get the passenger numbers required.



    More on this technology here, here and here. With a video describing the mass transit and environmental effects here. These wont be ready when the metro is due to open in 2016 but the metro has to be popular for decades to make it worth the investment. I do not believe this technology is decades away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    cavedave wrote: »
    I believe technological improvements mean that mass transit systems are a 20th century technology. I think in the 21st century urban transport will be more individual focused.

    Specifically i think that improved automation in cars will make the metro less attractive. Less attractive because driving will be car transport will be cheaper, safer, and more pleasurable than it is now. Because of this metro north will not get the passenger numbers required.



    More on this technology here, here and here. With a video describing the mass transit and environmental effects here. These wont be ready when the metro is due to open in 2016 but the metro has to be popular for decades to make it worth the investment. I do not believe this technology is decades away.

    Sure why bother with that hover cars can't be that far off . That system is decades away and would struggle to beat the time DU can do from st Stephens green to say DCU


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    LeinsterDub
    Sure why bother with that hover cars can't be that far off . That system is decades away and would struggle to beat the time DU can do from st Stephens green to say DCU

    Do you think that video was sent from the future?


    Yes at least initially cars will remain slow. They will also continue not to have people sneezing on you and always have seating unlike mass transit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,071 ✭✭✭rameire


    whats the point in preparing for cars and busses.
    in 200 or so years there will be no oil.
    we need to prepare now for the future
    give every person in ireland a donkey and a cart
    that way we can make an ass out of ourselves now instead of in the future.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Split 2.28S, 1.52E. 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,562 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    cavedave wrote: »
    I believe technological improvements mean that mass transit systems are a 20th century technology. I think in the 21st century urban transport will be more individual focused.

    Specifically i think that improved automation in cars will make the metro less attractive. Less attractive because driving will be car transport will be cheaper, safer, and more pleasurable than it is now. Because of this metro north will not get the passenger numbers required.



    More on this technology here, here and here. With a video describing the mass transit and environmental effects here. These wont be ready when the metro is due to open in 2016 but the metro has to be popular for decades to make it worth the investment. I do not believe this technology is decades away.

    Absolute rubbish. Even if automated cars became fully operational and affordable tomorrow, our streets and roads can only handle and certain number of vehicles, automated or otherwise. If everyone started using automated cars and it did become the most popular form of transport, there is not enough room on our roads for everyone, especially in north Dublin. Public transport, and in particular underground rail which is segregated from traffic, will always be attractive because it avoids the gridlock.

    I also very much doubt purchasing, maintaining, insuring and fuelling an automated car will be cheaper for an individual then using public transport. Similarly, I have doubts over your assertion that automated cars will be safer.


Advertisement