Where would a surface Luas / BRT alternative to Metro North fit?

monument

I used to think a BRT or surface Luas was a runner as an alternative to Metro North, but once you look into it there's problems in every direction.

The people that continue to suggest these as alternative don't seem to understand or care about:

• the large amount of at grade junctions which would be needed, or, in one case, the large amount of driveways it would pass
  
• the traffic volumes on any of the possible routes -- you don't have to like the traffic, but you do have to care about what happens to it. From some, there seems to be a denial that traffic is a problem, but that just shows a blinkered view or lack of knowledge.
  
• the state of the current bus lanes on these routes -- large gaps where bus lanes are 'missing' and very small lanes which can hardly cope with the current never mind growing numbers of cyclists. Never mind that these lanes are congested with taxis, buses and coaches.
  
• the fact any construction of any such surface lines would cause so much disruption it would make Metro North's expected disruption look tiny -- ABP gave Metro North permission for underground as an alternative to the Ballymun Road cut and cover section because cut and cover is so disruptive, surface is nearly as much so

Sure, a lot of the above is fixable or can be sorted, but solutions would likely increase the attractiveness of Metro North because it would attract less attacks than BRT or on surface Luas.

Most attractiveness would also do a far worse job at serving the key locations which the metro is due to serve.

But I'm still open to anybody with a viable alternative to Metro North -- anybody? And viable needs to be viable politically, economically and practically.

dowlingm

What gets my goat when I see people touting "alternatives" is that they never include capacity figures. Metro North's initial capacity is specified at 10k ppdph with scope for 20k. To reach 7k ppdph you'd need a fully segregated route (not gonna happen in the north city) and 120 pax on bendybuses on 2 minute headway.

paulm17781

monument wrote: »

I used to think a BRT or surface Luas was a runner as an alternative to Metro North, but once you look into it there's problems in every direction.

That's been my belief all along. For what MN proposes to do, it is perfect for Dublin. With our narrow bendy roads, you would not be able to replicate the frequency, passenger numbers or speed.

If BRT really was a runner (especially as an alternative) then why can't exising buses be given dedicated routes with no traffic interference?

mgmt

monument wrote: »

I used to think a BRT or surface Luas was a runner as an alternative to Metro North, but once you look into it there's problems in every direction.

The people that continue to suggest these as alternative don't seem to understand or care about:

• the large amount of at grade junctions which would be needed, or, in one case, the large amount of driveways it would pass
  
• the traffic volumes on any of the possible routes -- you don't have to like the traffic, but you do have to care about what happens to it. From some, there seems to be a denial that traffic is a problem, but that just shows a blinkered view or lack of knowledge.
  
• the state of the current bus lanes on these routes -- large gaps where bus lanes are 'missing' and very small lanes which can hardly cope with the current never mind growing numbers of cyclists. Never mind that these lanes are congested with taxis, buses and coaches.
  
• the fact any construction of any such surface lines would cause so much disruption it would make Metro North's expected disruption look tiny -- ABP gave Metro North permission for underground as an alternative to the Ballymun Road cut and cover section because cut and cover is so disruptive, surface is nearly as much so

Sure, a lot of the above is fixable or can be sorted, but solutions would likely increase the attractiveness of Metro North because it would attract less attacks than BRT or on surface Luas.

Most attractiveness would also do a far worse job at serving the key locations which the metro is due to serve.

But I'm still open to anybody with a viable alternative to Metro North -- anybody? And viable needs to be viable politically, economically and practically.

We have BRT already.

Swords Express.
Dublin Bus 748.

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

We have BRT already.

Swords Express.
Dublin Bus 748.

Also we have a decent enough commuter train serving the Drumcondra area.

monument

mgmt wrote: »

We have BRT already.

Swords Express.
Dublin Bus 748.

No, we don't. The Swords Express and the 748 are not BRT -- these don't have the frequency, the capacity, the segregation, only off-bus payment, or BRT quality stops.

They do a good job at what they are designed to do, but that's not BRT.

They also only serve a fraction of the route.

mgmt wrote: »

Also we have a decent enough commuter train serving the Drumcondra area.

Indeed, although Irish Rail should, can and hopefully will be improving their service. Metro North at Drumcondra is important because of how it will improve the network.

mgmt

monument wrote: »

No, we don't. The Swords Express and the 748 are not BRT -- these don't have the frequency, the capacity, the segregation, only off-bus payment, or BRT quality stops.

They do a good job at what they are designed to do, but that's not BRT.

They also only serve a fraction of the route.

The frequency and capacity to Swords and Airport reflect the commercial reality. Buses every couple of minutes from the Airport when combined with 747, 746, aircoach and other buses. Segregated on the M1 and Port Tunnel.

Granted not great options for DCU and Ballymun.

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

The frequency and capacity to Swords and Airport reflect the commercial reality. Buses every couple of minutes from the Airport when combined with 747, 746, aircoach and other buses. Segregated on the M1 and Port Tunnel.

Granted not great options for DCU and Ballymun.

Here is the Dublin Bus 4 route. It follows mostly the Metro North line:

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Examples/Google-Map/?routeNumber=4%20&direction=O&towards=Monkstown+Avenue

From Harristown to City Centre takes 26min. I'm guessing it would add very little to start from the airport.

City Centre to Swords takes 30min on the Swords Express.

You are only saving 5min by taking the Metro North.

runway16

mgmt wrote: »

Here is the Dublin Bus 4 route. It follows mostly the Metro North line:

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Examples/Google-Map/?routeNumber=4%20&direction=O&towards=Monkstown+Avenue

From Harristown to City Centre takes 26min. I'm guessing it would add very little to start from the airport.

City Centre to Swords takes 30min on the Swords Express.

You are only saving 5min by taking the Metro North.

Come on now mgmt.. you know well that 26 minutes is an "outside rush hour" number....

I'll take a metro over a bus any day - and thats also the point, people will switch to rail in greater numbers than will switch from Car to Bus...

mgmt

runway16 wrote: »

Come on now mgmt.. you know well that 26 minutes is an "outside rush hour" number....

I'll take a metro over a bus any day - and thats also the point, people will switch to rail in greater numbers than will switch from Car to Bus...

Yes, that is the off-peak time for the route 4 bus. However, it takes about 25mins max on the 748 at all times of the day by using the port tunnel. I am just referring to the route 4 because it serves DCU, Drumcondra, Ballymun etc.


Granted, rail is a more appealing mode of transport. But if the authorities in this city got off their arse and made bus better we would not need a metro.

• Have more than 1 door on the bus
• European ticket validating machines on the bus rather than paying the driver
• GPS tracking apps (see where your bus is)
• Integrated ticketing
• Private competition
• etc.

runway16

I agree that bus is not as attractive as it could be, although I question if we can survive with just busses.

We simply need a core railway network. We dont yet have one. If BRT was an answer, every city would have adopted it, because it is cheap, but they have not.

Why do transport planners favour rail?

All those advocating this as a cheap solution need to ask themselves that.

Knowing the Northside as I do, I fail to see where exactly this BRT will run without requiring extensive elevated sections that would simply be unpalatable to those living along the route. If you are going to build structures like that, you may as well just put a train on them anyway.

mgmt

runway16 wrote: »

Knowing the Northside as I do, I fail to see where exactly this BRT will run without requiring extensive elevated sections that would simply be unpalatable to those living along the route. If you are going to build structures like that, you may as well just put a train on them anyway.

Yeah you can't build segregated corridors in Drumcondra etc. However, I dont understand why they can't use the old Broadstone line. Even if they just use it before the luas bxd is ready to be worked on. Build a bridge over the railway and tarmac the old railway cutting. Simple. (might have to put in guide rails?)

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=53.386809,-6.2677&spn=0.040747,0.130119&t=h&z=13&msid=200832783753934675596.00049a4033bac397e31f7

Zebra3

mgmt wrote: »

Also we have a decent enough commuter train serving the Drumcondra area.

I disagree.

monument

mgmt wrote: »

The frequency and capacity to Swords and Airport reflect the commercial reality. Buses every couple of minutes from the Airport when combined with 747, 746, aircoach and other buses. Segregated on the M1 and Port Tunnel.

Granted not great options for DCU and Ballymun.

They are express buses, that's the reality here. The gap ridden bus understructure is also the reality here.

Why are you comparing express buses with a metro?

mgmt wrote: »

Here is the Dublin Bus 4 route. It follows mostly the Metro North line:...

From Harristown to City Centre takes 26min. I'm guessing it would add very little to start from the airport.

City Centre to Swords takes 30min on the Swords Express.

You are only saving 5min by taking the Metro North.

...Yes, that is the off-peak time for the route 4 bus. However, it takes about 25mins max on the 748 at all times of the day by using the port tunnel. I am just referring to the route 4 because it serves DCU, Drumcondra, Ballymun etc.

If you want to talk reality, forget about the 4 taking 26mins. Heavy traffic in between the Ballymun Road and the Botanic Road or at Phibsboro or closer to town and it's brought to its knees. Anyway, the no 4 is nowhere to be seen most of the time, the route has been slashed and it does not even seem to be sticking to its Network Direct timetable all the time. And the 4 does not serve Drumcondra btw.

The Swords Express is an express bus, it's not comparable to a Metro. An express only allows people to go from A to B and maybe also C, a metro allows them to go to A, B, C, D, E, F, G etc. I'm guessing the Swords Express can also have problems with congestion?

mgmt wrote: »

Granted, rail is a more appealing mode of transport. But if the authorities in this city got off their arse and made bus better we would not need a metro.

• Have more than 1 door on the bus
• European ticket validating machines on the bus rather than paying the driver
• GPS tracking apps (see where your bus is)
• Integrated ticketing
• Private competition
• etc.

GPS and ticketing are doable and apparently on the way, but most Dublin Bus buses no longer have more than one door and private competition has made things worse elsewhere.

What would be needed is QBCs to be improved.

But in North Dublin this would require taking massive amounts of road space from the traffic lanes -- a non realistic amount of space at key locations. If people think there's congestion in Dublin now, it would be an understatement afterwards. There would be crying of "bloody murder" day and night -- no TD or councillor in their right minds would try to defend it. Any policing of the measure or of junctions buses would have to cross would be a nightmare. Any real improvements would also need taxi numbers to be cut or banned from the improved QBCs. In some places destruction (of boundary walls, trees, footpaths etc) would also be needed to remove pinch points and parking spaces would have to go and the currently popular parking on footpaths would have to be stopped.

Metro North sounds easier, more realistic, and more likely to happen this side of oil running out.

mgmt

Cool Mo D

mgmt wrote: »

So Ballymun to O'Connell street takes 35 - 40 minutes on the bus. Ballymun to the airport would be another 10 minutes, and O'Connell street to Stephen's green is easily 10 minutes at peak., so airport to Stephen's green is an hour on the bus, while Metro North will do it in one third the time. Sounds pretty good to me.

monument

Those times are not impressive.

Anywhere from 22mins to 43mins on one of the routes from Ballymun to O'Connell Street. And from 27mins to 49mins on one of the evening peeks from O'Connell Street to Ballymun. If you need to be somewhere you must always keep the upper amount of time in mind or prepared to be late regularly.

Metro North is due to have travel times of under 30mins from Swords to the city centre, and under 20mins from the city to the airport.

BrianD

People aren't really thinking outside the box here. who says that an alternative to MN has to a direct replication of the route by another form of transport?

There could be implementations of a number of modes and still give us better value that the money that will be spent on the oddity that is MN.

For example, a surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun. Swords is just 5km from an existing rail station. Assuming that upgrades to this line would be included in the DU project, it would make perfect sense for a number of local bus routes to be implemented that would connect more parts of Swords to rail.

There is still opportunities for more express bus services to/from Swords and the airport etc.

These are just a few examples of a number of projects that could be implemented that would yield more utility and options for the MN route corridor and still have change out of the MN budget. The MN project is fundamentally flawed because it will never have available passengers to match it's potential capacity. It's too expensive a proposition for what is required.

Cool Mo D

BrianD wrote: »

For example, a surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun. Swords is just 5km from an existing rail station. Assuming that upgrades to this line would be included in the DU project, it would make perfect sense for a number of local bus routes to be implemented that would connect more parts of Swords to rail.

Creating a good bus connection to Swords from the rail network is difficult due to the road network, and also there is only a half hourly service on the line to stations north of Howth Junction. There are no upgrades planned for the Northern line with DU either, although it is badly congested, and will need a very expensive 4-tracking at some point. Your suggestion is precisely the kind of half measure that would have to later be fixed with something expensive.

Metro North is expensive, but it is a rare chance to do a job right the first time, and it will be done, basically forever. There seems to be a Dublin infrastructure disease of doing the bare minimum, such as the original M50 interchanges, the Luas green line not-connecting to any other rail, the failure to remove many simple pinch points on the QBCs, the unsuitable DART terminus in Malahide, level crossings south of Pearse not closed, etc, etc. Spend the money now, get it right.

Zebra3

BrianD wrote: »

There could be implementations of a number of modes and still give us better value that the money that will be spent on the oddity that is MN.

For example, a surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun. Swords is just 5km from an existing rail station. Assuming that upgrades to this line would be included in the DU project, it would make perfect sense for a number of local bus routes to be implemented that would connect more parts of Swords to rail.

There is still opportunities for more express bus services to/from Swords and the airport etc.

These are just a few examples of a number of projects that could be implemented that would yield more utility and options for the MN route corridor and still have change out of the MN budget. The MN project is fundamentally flawed because it will never have available passengers to match it's potential capacity. It's too expensive a proposition for what is required.

How is MN an 'oddity'?

'A surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun'. From Swords or from the city centre?

mgmt

monument wrote: »

Those times are not impressive.

Anywhere from 22mins to 43mins on one of the routes from Ballymun to O'Connell Street. And from 27mins to 49mins on one of the evening peeks from O'Connell Street to Ballymun. If you need to be somewhere you must always keep the upper amount of time in mind or prepared to be late regularly.

Metro North is due to have travel times of under 30mins from Swords to the city centre, and under 20mins from the city to the airport.

BTW I got those times from the DTO.

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/quality_bus_corridor_2009.pdf

I wonder what affect Network Direct will have on those times? The maximum time on the 4 is 36mins. Average about 30min to Ballymun at peak.

You also have to take into account that this is only 7 stops between O'Connell street and Ballymun. While Dublin Bus offers stops every 200m or so. So, how much extra walking time would you need to add to your journey to get to a Metro North stop over Dublin Bus?

And if Dublin Bus entered the 21st century and improved their service with some of the measures I outlined in this thread these times could decrease further.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

People aren't really thinking outside the box here. who says that an alternative to MN has to a direct replication of the route by another form of transport?

Nobody has said alternatives need to have a direct replication of the route. But your alternatives are not comparable to Metro North and offer very little utility compared to it...

BrianD wrote: »

There could be implementations of a number of modes and still give us better value that the money that will be spent on the oddity that is MN.

What kind of money for Metro North and any alternative are you basing that on? And what is the value of the alternatives?

BrianD wrote: »

For example, a surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun.

And what route would this take???

The reason Metro North is going underground is to increase utility. It removed trams from roads and the affects of having to cross so many road and the affects of congestion. Lower disruption at construction and disruption to traffic flow after construction.

Even ABP requested that tunnelling should be looked at as an option for the Ballymun Road to the M50 as the disruption of cut and cover is large -- surface is nearly as bad and worst post construction.

BrianD wrote: »

Swords is just 5km from an existing rail station. Assuming that upgrades to this line would be included in the DU project, it would make perfect sense for a number of local bus routes to be implemented that would connect more parts of Swords to rail.

From the middle of Swords it is 5km away, but across small and heavily congested roads. And that's only the centre of Swords, other parts are up to and above 7km away, and again most of the same congested small roads. The northern line is congested and will still have problems after Dart upgrades, demand on it will likely continue to grow without adding passengers from Swords to it.

Utility? Very, very low compared to anything. Sticking with direct buses as we have now would be better.

BrianD wrote: »

There is still opportunities for more express bus services to/from Swords and the airport etc.

Great, but what express buses have to do with an urban light railway I don't know. It's like comparing apples and oranges. As I said already, an express only allows people to go from A to B and maybe also C, a metro allows them to go to A, B, C, D, E, F, G etc, and often as quick or quicker. Metros of the type we're talking about are not affected by congestion, express buses can be.

Utility? Very low compared to Metro North.

BrianD wrote: »

These are just a few examples of a number of projects that could be implemented that would yield more utility and options for the MN route corridor and still have change out of the MN budget.

As above, these examples would not yield more utility. Most of your options would not serve the corridor, and the first ones (surface tram to Ballymun and bus to the Dart) is not practical at all.

BrianD wrote: »

The MN project is fundamentally flawed because it will never have available passengers to match it's potential capacity. It's too expensive a proposition for what is required.

Never?

Too expensive based on and compared to what?

mgmt wrote: »

BTW I got those times from the DTO.

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/quality_bus_corridor_2009.pdf

I wonder what affect Network Direct will have on those times? The maximum time on the 4 is 36mins. Average about 30min to Ballymun at peak.

It's still nearly 40mins from O'CS to Ballymun compared to under 20mins from the city to the airport.

What affect Network Direct will have? The 4 has been ripped to bits with Network Direct. Cuts of 33% weekdays and 66% weekends. Fewer and fewer buses, that's the affect it has had.

Average times are no good when the times vary so much, only max is important and the max can get worse on very congested days. The main factor is still congestion and lack of complete bus infrastructure. And what happens when traffic picks up again? What happens when it gets worse? We don't have to have the same kind of growth rates, just more people and over time that will happen.

mgmt wrote: »

You also have to take into account that this is only 7 stops between O'Connell street and Ballymun. While Dublin Bus offers stops every 200m or so. So, how much extra walking time would you need to add to your journey to get to a Metro North stop over Dublin Bus?

Buses will still play a role. Look at Luas, reliability and frequency allows people the confidence to walk further or cycle even further to stops. The same will apply to Metro North, its speed and extra reliability should add to this.

BrianD

Zebra3 wrote: »

How is MN an 'oddity'?

It's an oddity because of the zeal of some people to build a line that can serve so few at so much cost.

'A surface tram route could serve as far as Ballymun'. From Swords or from the city centre?

Well there's food for thought there. However, I was thinking from city centre to Ballymun as continuation of the Green line. On street and the old Broadstone alignment.

Monument - I disagree, some of the alternatives that I have suggested offer great utility at the right price. Certainly, when compared with building and operating a line that will never reach it's potential.

With respect, I suggest you survey the route, buy an OS map and get the last CSO data and predictions. The passengers ain't there nor will they ever be. Not only that the strategies that both the RPA and relevant authorities are bizarre. Imagine levying future development along the line when the one thing it actually needs is those developments to provide passengers to sustain the service.

When the population densities along the MN corridor show any sign of reaching those of, say, Barcelona then start building. In the mean time, let's not waste our money.

Bus still provides the most efficient and cost effective mode of public transport of serving the MN corridor and will remain so for a long time to come. Both the routing and the corridors can be improved.

But hey, if we want to waste our money on MN why not tunnel to every part of the city.

monument

Again what cost are you talking about?

How do you get from Broadstone to Ballymun?

You have yet to address some of the points I have made, so your suggestions in your last post look to be unrealistic.

Again, what on earth do you mean by never? Can we have some forward planning or does ever route have to be overcrowed within a few years

Barcelona? Have you seen the Barcelona metro network? Nothing like metro north.

Buses? As with trams please explain how you'll build improved QBCs or BRT routes. Please do, it's the point of this thread. The detail. Not just saying something can be done when there's no room on the ground.

mgmt

monument wrote: »

Again, what on earth do you mean by never? Can we have some forward planning or does ever route have to be overcrowed within a few years


Buses? As with trams please explain how you'll build improved QBCs or BRT routes. Please do, it's the point of this thread. The detail. Not just saying something can be done when there's no room on the ground.

Here is the passenger numbers as predicted by the Metro North CBA.


http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20Redacted%20Business%20Case/MNDBC_FinalRDCTClean.pdf

This is crazy stupid. These passenger numbers don't warrant a metro. And subtract 666 from that figure due to the 1st two stops being cut in the Bord Planala.

As I pointed out, there is already a more than adequate bus service to Swords and Dublin Airport atm to service these people.

monument

mgmt wrote: »

This is crazy stupid. These passenger numbers don't warrant a metro. And subtract 666 from that figure due to the 1st two stops being cut in the Bord Planala.

What do you mean the numbers don't "warrant a metro" -- the terms 'metro' covers a wide range of different systems. Are you trying to say we should not have segregation full stop?

Anyway, as per one of the other threads, to quote dynamick:

dynamick wrote: »

...Also you are only considering 1 direction (inbound). If you look at both directions and measure total number of people using the line in an hour then you find that there are 8,542 passengers per am peak hour of which 933 would have used the last two stops. This is a loss of 11% of passengers if carried on through the day. Of course it doesn't carry through the day because these stops are meant for commuter p&r whereas stops at the hospital, city centre and airport generate trips more evenly throughout the day.

Anyhow, the moderate growth scenario predicts 36m pax so a loss of 11% implies 32m pax which is still viable.

The numbers from the cut P&R stations above Swords amount to very few passengers overall and across the day. Anyway, as we've seen from Luas, the RPA have a history of underestimating demand. There's also the a good likelihood that some of the passengers who would have used the axed stations will use the new one.

mgmt wrote: »

As I pointed out, there is already a more than adequate bus service to Swords and Dublin Airport atm to service these people.

Metro North last time I looked does not only serve Swords and Dublin Airport. And what does "more than adequate" mean in the context of improving public transport and its usage?

oharach

monument wrote: »

What do you mean the numbers don't "warrant a metro" -- the terms 'metro' covers a wide range of different systems. Are you trying to say we should not have segregation full stop?

Exactly, I think everyone needs to understand we are building a Stadtbahn and not an U-Bahn. Comparisons with Cologne, Frankfurt*, and Stuttgart are appropriate. Comparisons with Berlin, Munich, Paris or London are not.

I don't think anyone is deliberately misinterpreting the project, but it is very difficult to hear metro without associating it with a heavy-rail system for high-density cities. Metro North is more akin to Luas-Underground North.


*Incidentally, before anyone latches onto the fact that Frankfurt is fairly high-density, they regret not building a proper U-Bahn.

Jack Noble

oharach wrote: »

Exactly, I think everyone needs to understand we are building a Stadtbahn and not an U-Bahn. Comparisons with Cologne, Frankfurt*, and Stuttgart are appropriate. Comparisons with Berlin, Munich, Paris or London are not.

I don't think anyone is deliberately misinterpreting the project, but it is very difficult to hear metro without associating it with a heavy-rail system for high-density cities. Metro North is more akin to Luas-Underground North.


*Incidentally, before anyone latches onto the fact that Frankfurt is fairly high-density, they regret not building a proper U-Bahn.

That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to some people.

Metro/Luas is more like the Stuttgart Stadtbahn or the Porto Metro in Portugal. It is going underground simply becuase there is nowhere to put it overground that can provide a segretated line.

Dart is more like the S-Bahn suburban train network in German cities.

And Dublin already has a 'metro' line in the Berlin/Paris/Munich/London sense of the word - it is called Dart.

Aard

It's a myth that Dublin is low-density. Dublin City has a density of ~4,500/km2, and Dublin Urban Area (basically anywhere that actually "touches" the main city -- including Blanchardstown, Tallaght, Lucan, but not Bray or Swords) is ~3,500.

In comparison, Amsterdam "City" is 3,500. Greater London isn't particularly higher at 4,800. Helsinki is quite comparable with Dublin in many aspects, but despite that it only has a city density of 2,700, and an urban density of 1,300. Yet, they continue expanding what is now only a single-line metro.

Also, in terms of maintenance, this would seem to promote metro over Luas: "The Metro is by far the cheapest form of transport in Helsinki to operate, with a cost of only €0.032 per passenger kilometre. The same figure for the second cheapest form - trams - was €0.211." (From Wikipedia.)

The density is there in Dublin. I imagine if you asked any inhabitants of the above cities now whether they would like to substitute trams for their metro networks, they would laugh.

mgmt

Aard wrote: »

It's a myth that Dublin is low-density. Dublin City has a density of ~4,500/km2, and Dublin Urban Area (basically anywhere that actually "touches" the main city -- including Blanchardstown, Tallaght, Lucan, but not Bray or Swords) is ~3,500.

In comparison, Amsterdam "City" is 3,500. Greater London isn't particularly higher at 4,800. Helsinki is quite comparable with Dublin in many aspects, but despite that it only has a city density of 2,700, and an urban density of 1,300. Yet, they continue expanding what is now only a single-line metro.

Also, in terms of maintenance, this would seem to promote metro over Luas: "The Metro is by far the cheapest form of transport in Helsinki to operate, with a cost of only €0.032 per passenger kilometre. The same figure for the second cheapest form - trams - was €0.211." (From Wikipedia.)

The density is there in Dublin. I imagine if you asked any inhabitants of the above cities now whether they would like to substitute trams for their metro networks, they would laugh.

I don't know where you get your figures from, the RPA gives a density figure of 1,300people/km2 for Dublin.

http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence/MN%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence%2001042009/MN%20Oral%20Hearing%20Presentation%20Transport%20Model%20Dave%20King%20030409.pdf

mgmt

monument wrote: »

Metro North last time I looked does not only serve Swords and Dublin Airport. And what does "more than adequate" mean in the context of improving public transport and its usage?

Yes, but more than 2/3 of the passenger numbers on the Metro North come from the Swords and Dublin Airport stops. Why spend 2-3billion on a transport system when these ares are already served well atm?

Jack Noble

mgmt wrote: »

Yes, but more than 2/3 of the passenger numbers on the Metro North come from the Swords and Dublin Airport stops. Why spend 2-3billion on a transport system when these ares are already served well atm?

Because they are creating an integrated NETWORK covering the entire city - not simply link Swords or Dublin Airport with Stephen's Green.

Why do people have such difficulty grasping such a simply concept?

mgmt

Jack Noble wrote: »

Because they are creating an integrated NETWORK covering the entire city - not simply link Swords or Dublin Airport with Stephen's Green.

Why do people have such difficulty grasping such a simply concept?

Yeah, Swords Express and Dublin Bus 747, 748 and Aircoach are currently part of a network that serves the entire city.

Jack Noble

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, Swords Express and Dublin Bus 747, 748 and Aircoach are currently part of a network that serves the entire city.

No, they link Swords and the Airport to the city centre - they do not serve the areas in between or efficiently link to anywhere else in the city.

The whole point of this planned Metro-Luas-Dart system is that by one - or at most two - changes, you can reach your destination by rapid rail.

Airport to Dun Laoghaire - change at Drumcondra.

Airport to Sligo - change at Drumcondra for train at Connolly.

Swords to Tallaght - change at O'Connell/Abbey Street

Blanchardstown to Hueston - change at Pearse

Clondalkin to Airport - change at SSG.

Simple stuff that will make getting around the city easier and much more efficient than it is today by bus, taxi or car where you are often stuck in gridlock.

Your view is the typically short-sighted one that helped kill the Dart in the 1980s and fails to take into account any planning for the future or the effects of daily gridlock on the economy, social fabric and quality of life in the Dublin area.

BrianD

Jack Noble wrote: »

Because they are creating an integrated NETWORK covering the entire city - not simply link Swords or Dublin Airport with Stephen's Green.

Why do people have such difficulty grasping such a simply concept?

Well it's not presented as anything other that a linear route and that's a marketing issue that the RPA haven;t been able to grasp yet. There's also it's failure to link into a mainline station. Any route that serves an international airport should have this as a design criteria.

Leaving that aside, the problem still exists that it's too expensive a solution than what is required. It travels through low density areas that will never provide the passenger numbers that it is capable of carrying at full capacity.

mgmt hits the nail on the head. If 2/3 of the passengers come from area that is already 5km of a rail station then we should be looking at how best we can serve them. As i suggested, a major upgrade of the northern rail line along with an integrated multi route bus network in the Swords area would achieve the same goals of both getting people into the city and opening up more of, say, Swords to the network.

Buses from the Airport can already make it to Ringsend in 18 min and by using the tunnel and the soon to be build North Wall Quay bus lane could get into the city in less than 30 min.

aard wrote:

It's a myth that Dublin is low-density. Dublin City has a density of ~4,500/km2, and Dublin Urban Area (basically anywhere that actually "touches" the main city -- including Blanchardstown, Tallaght, Lucan, but not Bray or Swords) is ~3,500.

It's not. Dublin City has a density of 4,398/km2 which is within the DCC area. The average for Fingal is 433/km2. Swords village hits about 2,500 which puts it in the bottom ranking of the main population centres of the Fingal area.

Even if you look at the planning strategies for both DCC and Fingal. There is an absolute resistance to build up and increase densities. Ideally we need to allow 8 storey developments. It seems that we'll only be allowed 6 stories. High rise in Ballymun has been leveled and unless we start razing semi-D's along the route inside the M50 we won't see any population growth there either.

As regards other cities, if they have the money go for it. Agreed that London is a low density city but most of their tunneled network was sunk along time ago and less than half of the network is underground.

However, the population and the predicted population of the route all point to other modes of transport offering better value for money.

Jack Noble

BrianD wrote: »

Well it's not presented as anything other that a linear route and that's a marketing issue that the RPA haven;t been able to grasp yet. There's also it's failure to link into a mainline station. Any route that serves an international airport should have this as a design criteria.

It is all over the RPA, IE, DoT, T21 and NTA websites. RPA have always stated it is part of an integrated network and point out the integration with Luas, Dart and Bus.

Leaving that aside, the problem still exists that it's too expensive a solution than what is required. It travels through low density areas that will never provide the passenger numbers that it is capable of carrying at full capacity.

We can only judge if it is too expensive when we see the final price later this year. And it travels through quite high density areas. Have you actually looked at the densities for each area on the 2006 Census?

mgmt hits the nail on the head. If 2/3 of the passengers come from area that is already 5km of a rail station then we should be looking at how best we can serve them. As i suggested, a major upgrade of the northern rail line along with an integrated multi route bus network in the Swords area would achieve the same goals of both getting people into the city and opening up more of, say, Swords to the network.

No it wouldn't because it ignore the big gap in the system through north Dublin city. You and mgmt and other opponents are fixated about Swords and the airport and ignore the rest of the areas on the route.

Buses from the Airport can already make it to Ringsend in 18 min and by using the tunnel and the soon to be build North Wall Quay bus lane could get into the city in less than 30 min.

Again, that airport fixation - the airport is just one stop. You ignore the rest.

It's not. Dublin City has a density of 4,398/km2 which is within the DCC area. The average for Fingal is 433/km2. Swords village hits about 2,500 which puts it in the bottom ranking of the main population centres of the Fingal area.

Dublin CC extends to north of Ballymun - there are eight stops in the DCC area which have higher than average densities.

Even if you look at the planning strategies for both DCC and Fingal. There is an absolute resistance to build up and increase densities. Ideally we need to allow 8 storey developments. It seems that we'll only be allowed 6 stories. High rise in Ballymun has been leveled and unless we start razing semi-D's along the route inside the M50 we won't see any population growth there either.

That is now - policy will change in the future. It is already changing in Dublin city and has in South Dublin. Have you seen Tallaght lately?

As regards other cities, if they have the money go for it. Agreed that London is a low density city but most of their tunneled network was sunk along time ago and less than half of the network is underground.

However, the population and the predicted population of the route all point to other modes of transport offering better value for money.

The experts disagree with you. Thanks, but I'll stick with their analysis rather than random internet guy's brainstorms.

Dart seems to work okay considering its catchment area is lower density and half of it is Dublin Bay - in fact, it has had capacity doubled in recent years to cope with demand. Metro opponents alway fail to take this into account. Densities on the Luas lines are also lower and they are at capacity at peak time. Again, a fact you all conveniently ignore.

donvito99

TBH I don't care if it ends up costing €5 billion.

I want a mode of transport that will still be viable in 100 years, and a means of travelling from the North City, deprived of decent public transport, to the City Centre.

I do not want a half arsed, Ryanair, recession, short sighted solution using a few fancily liveried buses and lazy, incomplete 'Q'BCs.

Why not for once have some ambition seriously! This will not be a white elephant, unlike the WRC, this route will be built on in the future, and just because it may not be in your lifetime is not a reason to scrap the project.

I'm tired of the same reasons being brought up again. Dublin Airport is not well connected to the city centre. Waiting for taxis -> Long queues (when they actually show up), slow crowded buses trundling through Phibsborough etc. I'd take the train 1000 times over rather than taking the fecking bus.

Why should we just be satisfied with a glorified shuttle bus? Why not build something fit for purpose and usefull?

Aard

mgmt wrote: »

I don't know where you get your figures from, the RPA gives a density figure of 1,300people/km2 for Dublin.

http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence/MN%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence%2001042009/MN%20Oral%20Hearing%20Presentation%20Transport%20Model%20Dave%20King%20030409.pdf

That's the Dublin Region (aka County Dublin). I'm talking about just the built-up urban area of the city. Dublin Region has huge tracts of completely open spaces all over Fingal, and to a lesser extent the rest of the area. TBH, I have no idea why the RPA would use the County Dublin density figures to try and sell the idea.

Aard

BrianD wrote: »

It's not. Dublin City has a density of 4,398/km2 which is within the DCC area. The average for Fingal is 433/km2. Swords village hits about 2,500 which puts it in the bottom ranking of the main population centres of the Fingal area.

The urban area of Dublin (not County Dublin, which is/was purely an administrative entity) has a density of 3,500. You just said yourself that Swords has 2,500. Using the source that mgmt gave above, this is still above that of Munich. The rest of the route is the Airport stop. So, in all you have a line serving high-density areas, and an airport.

The average density of Fingal has absolutely no bearing on the situation.

etchyed

Jack Noble wrote: »

It is all over the RPA, IE, DoT, T21 and NTA websites. RPA have always stated it is part of an integrated network and point out the integration with Luas, Dart and Bus.

And who in the world other than the likes of us posting on this board actually looks at those websites? Much as I disagree with BrianD about pretty much everything else, he's spot on about this. The RPA do precious little to put across the point that Metro North will be part of a network.

In fact, I'm not sure you're even right about those websites. It's difficult to find a post-T21 network map anywhere.

Jack Noble

etchyed wrote: »

And who in the world other than the likes of us posting on this board actually looks at those websites? Much as I disagree with BrianD about pretty much everything else, he's spot on about this. The RPA do precious little to put across the point that Metro North will be part of a network.

In fact, I'm not sure you're even right about those websites. It's difficult to find a post-T21 network map anywhere.

The RPA have been doing that from day one. But it is not their job to sell the project to people - it is the governments. However, the RPA have been doing a reasonably effective job since last autumn with briefings to the media, the Myths and Facts page on its website, its YouTube site with videos and the Metro North Facebook page.

The problem is with the politicians and the government.

Most politicians don't understand what's going on and are only concerned about what happens in their areas.

And no one trusts or believes the current government on anything.

If Metro North and Dart Underground are to go ahead, the next govt, ie Transport Minister, will have to be clear in explaining how Metro, Dart, Luas and Bus form an integregated network. And they will have to sell it to their party colleagues in the Dail as much as the people.

etchyed

Jack Noble wrote: »

The RPA have been doing that from day one. But it is not their job to sell the project to people - it is the governments. However, the RPA have been doing a reasonably effective job since last autumn with briefings to the media, the Myths and Facts page on its website, its YouTube site with videos and the Metro North Facebook page.

None of these resources do anything to emphasise that Metro North is part of an integrated network.

Trying to find a post-T21 network map on the websites of any of the agencies concerned is an arduous task. There's usually one in DART Underground PDF brochures and leaflets but I don't recall ever seeing on on the RPA site. Indeed the network map on their homepage seems to entirely ignore the existence of Irish Rail.

Integration into the existing network is one of the least emphasised aspects of the Metro North project. I've never heard anyone from the RPA mention it in an interview. It's the obvious answer to the question that's invariably asked by journalists: "Who wants to get from the airport to the city centre anyway?" And yet it's never mentioned.

I don't deny that the government isn't bothering either but your original point was that the RPA are doing a good job. Having had it pointed out to you that they aren't, you've changed your tune to "it's not their job anyway".

It's a major selling point for a project that has much less benefits when it stands alone. However I suspect that the RPA have known all along that they were effectively in competition with Irish Rail for funding. Turns out they were right.

etchyed

BUMP! As posted by jd in the Metro North thread, the Labour party have now joined the chorus, with a manifesto severely playing down (in fact not mentioning at all) Metro North and saying they will "explore the development of Bus Rapid Transit"

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf
(page 32)

BrianD

etchyed wrote: »

BUMP! As posted by jd in the Metro North thread, the Labour party have now joined the chorus, with a manifesto severely playing down (in fact not mentioning at all) Metro North and saying they will "explore the development of Bus Rapid Transit"

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf
(page 32)

Sensible move and in the national interest. Fair play Labour!

Though it's difficult to know whether they know it to be the crock that it is or that they know the funding won't be available for it in the lifetime of the next Dail. Hopefully they see it as bad value for money project.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

Sensible move and in the national interest. Fair play Labour!

Though it's difficult to know whether they know it to be the crock that it is or that they know the funding won't be available for it in the lifetime of the next Dail. Hopefully they see it as bad value for money project.

Metro North may be cancelled, but bus improvements to a BRT level of service is a non-runner for the Metro North route. As I said on the other thread:

Rolling around on the floor laughing is the only response that can be given to anybody who seriously thinks that Labour or FG will introduce proper BRT or on surface Luas along roads which run near Metro North. You're fooling your self.

There's an idealistic part of the Labour Party, there's a lot in-between and then there's a very pro car and/or very pro anybody who shouts a lot (ie motorists and residents along the route of any BRT in north city and county Dublin. It's around the same or worst with FF, FG, and SF, so this is not a dig at Labour.

Jack Noble

BrianD wrote: »

Sensible move and in the national interest. Fair play Labour!

Though it's difficult to know whether they know it to be the crock that it is or that they know the funding won't be available for it in the lifetime of the next Dail. Hopefully they see it as bad value for money project.

Brian, I wouldn't take too much solace from the Labour manifesto and the lack of mention of Metro North, if I were you.

The lack of a clear commitment either way on Metro and the deliberate mention clear cost benefit analysis is a compromise/fudge to cover deep divisions in the party in Dublin over Metro North. This stems from Gilmore's 'shove back' comments last autumn on Marian Finucane's radio show and a few days later in an interview in the Herald. Those comments caught a lot of people in Labour cold and there was a public row back a few days later.

There are a number of very strong supporters of Metro in Labour, the most important of which are Joan Burton, Ruairi Quinn and Tommy Broughan. Roisin Shorthall also supports the project but publicly has taken the Gilmore line. Burton described Metro as a 'no brainer', Broughan is a longtime supporter and the party's former transport spokesman and Quinn told Morning Ireland last October that fact the PPP could be paid back over 25 years made the project affordable. Burton and Broughan have both received detailed briefings on the project from the RPA and are familiar with the figures and the true costs to the State. Burton described the project as 'revenue neutral' for the taxpayer during construction. Obviously, the constituencies of all four are served by Metro North and they are conscious of the job creation prospects associated with the project, both during construction and once the line is operational.

Opponents include Gilmore and transport spokesman Joe Costello. Neither have been briefed on the project to the extent of Burton and Broughan and Costello's comments on Metro have been all over the place. He has shown himself to be clueless on his brief. His NIMBY posturing in opposition to Dart Underground have also shown him up badly.

Pat Rabbitte is neutral - he supports building Metro but is deeply sceptical and suspicious of the PPP approach. He won't commit either way until he see the detailed figures. If there is a high cost to the State, then he favours delaying construction until the State can afford it. However, Rabbitte last summer told his local paper in Tallaght that he favours building Metro West now because he sees it as a more important project than Metro North - go figure!!!

Labour's manifesto is simply recognition of that divide and gives the party a 'get out' clause - detailed cost benefit analysis - either way. If the PPP and CBA costs are favourable, the project goes ahead. If not, it will be 'shoved back', as Gilmore said.

Fine Gael this week gave unequivical support to the project when transport spokesman Simon Coveney backed it on Today FM. He specifically stated the business case was favourable and the PPP made it attractive as it would be paid back over 25 years.

Like Labour, there are powerful supporters within the party - the most prominent being James Reilly and Leo Varadkar, both of whom represent constituencies served by Metro. Reilly has been able to convince Enda Kenny to support the project. He also has received a similar, detailed RPA briefing to Burton and Broughan. That was last summer and he was accompanied by Michael Noonan. They also have the figures on the project. Paschal Donohoe, the FG candidate in Dublin Central also supports the project.

The most prominent opponent/sceptic in FG is Richard Bruton - who is simply not convinced of the need for the project or whether it is affordable, either now or ever. He shares the same view of Metro/Dart as anti-rail economists like Colm McCarthy and Sean Barrett.

When FG and Labour are in government, they will receive detailed briefings on the project from officials in Finance, Transport and the RPA and will be made aware of the costs very early on. They will also be briefed by officials from Enterprise, Trade and Employments, the IDA, and Dublin City and Fingal councils on how important they view the project is to their job creation and growth strategies. And, no doubt they will be lobbied by private sector supporters and opponents of the project.

But any final decision on whether to proceed with or delay or cancel Metro North will be made based on the final cost of the PPP when the BAFOs are submitted this summer and a winning tender selected and whether the updated CBA is favourable. That decision will be based on cold, hard analysis of the figures, probably in consulation with the IMF/EU and nothing else - emotions and passions of supporters and opponents simply won't come into it.

I am a supporter of Metro North, Dart Underground and the various other Metro and Luas projects and I make no bones about it on this site, on P.ie and to people I talk to.

However, the above analysis is based on my discussions in recent months - both before and after the election was called - with politicians of all parties. Sinn Fein also supported proceeding with Metro and Dart - despite Mary Lou's Costello-esque NIMBY antics in Dublin Central. Fianna Fail also support the project but, like SF, will be nowhere near government to be able to make the decision.

In my view, based on those discussions, Metro is very much still alive and still in play and will remain so until a final decision has to be made later this year. And that decision will be based on the numbers alone. If it's a good deal for the State, it will go ahead. If the PPP is too expensive in the short or long-term, then it won't. It's that simple.

It's up to posters here whether they accept my analysis or not.

As for Labour's commitment to examining BRT, that is meaningless. It was rejected for the north Dublin corridor in 1975 (DRRTS) and DTO Platform for Change (2001). The surface Luas line for the same corridor was also rejected more than a decade ago. There is simply nowhere to put either BRT or Luas to segregate from all other traffic. That is why Metro - essentially Luas Mor - is going underground. If BRT or Luas weren't viable then, they certainly is not viable now. That is simply another example of Labour spoofing. It's either Metro or nothing at this stage.

runway16

Ive got to agree with that. It's not as if this hasnt been examined before - several times.

BRT I believe does have a major role to play in transport in Ireland, just not in the case of the Metro North corridor.

In Dublin, there are a few corridors where it would be perfectly feasible, but only after we have completed the basic rail network that the city needs to function.

The Blue line proposal is certainly interesting, and you could transplant that model to some parts of Dublin where the route had access to a wide, quality route, such as for example the N11 or N4. The problem of course is that we dont have all that many such quality routes within the M50 circle.

Dublin isnt one of those cities that was newly built with wide streets after being blown to smithereens in some war or another - its a historic city with generally narrow streets that are not in a grid pattern. That really limits our viable options in many cases to underground rail.

In Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, you may have far more scope to use BRT. I know Limerick quite well and I can think of a few routes which could really benefit.

Only Cork probably has the scale that could justify a Luas type solution, but BRT would be a good solution for the remaining cities. But fo course, Cork also has its topographical issues to contend with... Patrick's hill springs to mind! ;-)

Although San Francisco was able to cope, and believe me no hill in Cork compares to some of the ones in Frisco!