DARE - alternative to Metro North & Dart Underground

lods

The DCBA - Dublin city business association have come out against Metro North and are promoting DARE .
http://www.dcba.ie/static/doclib/Dublin_Airport_Rail_Express_J_Morley.pdf

donvito99

That is a half assed, lousy plan, funded by that n*b from Carrolls gifts.

I'm getting sick and tired of these MN threads, but do continue to laugh at the passionate opponents on this forum. I'd rather see DU proceed before hand myself, but the fact that MN has planning and funding, why shouldn't it go ahead?

There are thousands of posts and multiple threads that have for years now on boards merely flogged a dead horse and provided some individuals to have a few rants once a day.

I haven't seen one good reason yet why MN should not go ahead, and the DCBA is no different.

As has been said since this project was coined, this is a piece of infrastructure that will last a century and benefit future inhabitants of this city and country, not just our current pessimistic public who laugh off any suggestion of building something properly, not a poxy glorified bus lane, not a corridor for CIÉ run and eventually ruin, but a well thought and justified link.

Judgement Day

I dunno, it looks as good or as bad as some of the Transport 21 schemes and probably as well thought out. :rolleyes:

bg07

As an engineer I find it hard to take seriously a plan drawn up in MS Paint. There was obviously no engineer or transport planner was anyway involved in developing it. It's back of the envelope stuff its development time was only restricted by the typing speed of the author.

admiralofthefleet

only because of where it is being built. if it was metro south it would have been built years ago

patneve2

They could have made more of an effort in drawing the maps and making the document look more 'professional'.

lods

Yes , Its much more credible when you spend 250 million on fancy videos and presentations :rolleyes:

Judgement Day

lods wrote: »

Yes , Its much more credible when you spend 250 million on fancy videos and presentations :rolleyes:

No, but a Leaving Cert student could have put together a better document.

jimmycrackcorm

donvito99 wrote: »

but the fact that MN has planning and funding, why shouldn't it go ahead?
I haven't seen one good reason yet why MN should not go ahead, and the DCBA is no different.

As has been said since this project was coined, this is a piece of infrastructure that will last a century and benefit future inhabitants of this city and country, not just our current pessimistic public who laugh off any suggestion of building something properly, not a poxy glorified bus lane, not a corridor for CIÉ run and eventually ruin, but a well thought and justified link.

What funding has it?
The only objection I have is that it's far too expensive to build - put it in the context of build a city wide underground otherwise the cost is only justified against a small section of the population. IMO a quality bus service from the city centre to the airport via the port tunnel would do just as well, well mine and Micheal O'Learys opinion.

lods

Judgement Day wrote: »

No, but a Leaving Cert student could have put together a better document.

It's obvious that he's produced this on his own without any funding , which should be comended . I'd prefer to hear arguments against the scheme rather than the drawings :rolleyes:

lods

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What funding has it?
The only objection I have is that it's far too expensive to build - put it in the context of build a city wide underground otherwise the cost is only justified against a small section of the population. IMO a quality bus service from the city centre to the airport via the port tunnel would do just as well, well mine and Micheal O'Learys opinion.

But functional , low cost public transport is not sexy enough:rolleyes:

DWCommuter

The plan is bonkerish, yet feasible if its just about an airport connection. MN is a different thing altogether. We were here before in the early noughties. Back then it was a connection off the MAYNOOTH LINE OR THE NORTHERN LINE.

But MN is about a public transport corridor that just happens to serve the airport. It has come a long way since its first inception. I'd prefer it to be DART based, but thats another story.

DARE - Nothing wrong with it as an airport proposal. I don't care about the quality of its graphics etc. or its cost and I appreciate that it shouldn't be judged against Government funded sexy reports that cost a fortune.

However I am intrigued as to why the CARROLL lad is so against MN. The construction arguments are weak and the cost arguments have nothing to do with the guy anyway. We probably can't afford MN. but the Dept. of Finance will decide that one.

As an alternative plan, I always favoured using the DART brand from the Green to Swords in combo with DU. But since we created the RPA we ended up with an unnecessary "metro" concept. De-construct CIE and push the greatest rail brand in the history of the state. Uniformity and possibility all in one.

monument

+1 on DWCommuter's comments on the quality of maps or graphics. While it does not look the best it's the value of an idea and not its graphics which something should fall or not.

lods wrote: »

The DCBA - Dublin city business association have come out against Metro North and are promoting DARE .
http://www.dcba.ie/static/doclib/Dublin_Airport_Rail_Express_J_Morley.pdf

Have they? Where does it say that it is DCBA policy to oppose Metro North and support Dare? If it is policy who voted or decided it is? I'm not saying it's not their policy, but quite a difference posting a document and having a policy.

BTW who are the DCBA members? There's no member list, not even a list of board members.

lods wrote: »

But functional , low cost public transport is not sexy enough:rolleyes:

Clearly not, a lot of people ranted about the bus gate. Cheapest public transport improvement which has seen a huge benefit.

sdanseo

bg07 wrote: »

As an engineer I find it hard to take seriously a plan drawn up in MS Paint. There was obviously no engineer or transport planner was anyway involved in developing it. It's back of the envelope stuff its development time was only restricted by the typing speed of the author.

You don't have to be an engineer to come up with clever ideas, or to realise that the plan, while simple would work and has cost NOTHING for him to produce. As opposed to the RPA, who are a quango paid millions upon millions to do the same job, and who have only managed to produce two actual light rail lines from their multitude of half-arsed, stalled attempts at progress in a significantly longer period than this guy took.

He is using initiative and common sense - something rare in modern Ireland. You as an engineer should recognise the importance of schematic type diagrams - visual representation and presentation is not the most important feature. Everything should be in the right place, is all.

I would be visciously editing and pointing out the various flaws in his plan - the gauge difference between the proposed Metro North, the fact that the proposed section of Mentro North which he seems to indicate retaining will simply not work as heavy rail as it integrates at street level, the fact that rolling stock would have to be operated by IÉ and therefore at a fundamental disadvantage :rolleyes: from day one, etc.

At a personal level however this guy should be given an award. Some cop on, and some spunk to release something like this, somethiong so open to criticism, to the public domain even through the DCBA. An mhaith I say.

As a slight aside I reckon the only way to sort the whole docklands mess is to revamp and reconfigure Connolly and the tracks for a mile north of it in their entireity - there is space for a plethora of platforms if designed correctly (sure platforms 1 and 3 are barely if ever used) - a huge task that in my opinion is totally imperative for the proper functioning of that railway towards 2050. It will of course be put off by the small problem of the country being bankrupt five times over. It's another discussion, in any event.

xper

DWCommuter wrote: »

I don't care about the quality of its graphics etc. or its cost and I appreciate that it shouldn't be judged against Government funded sexy reports that cost a fortune.

Ah come on, there is a threshold above which any serious proposal document that supposedly represents the views of a group of businesses in the capital city must rise in order to be taken seriously. It doesn't have to be all-singing, all-dancing websites, brochures and 3D fly-trhough videos but a little professionalism is expected from professionals. This thing is laughable. I've seen better 'crayons-on-maps' drawings and more well thought out arguments (for and against this and other projects) in this forum. If they invested zero money/effort in the presentation, how much was put into researching the proposal? This is just barely above 'crank' standard.

As for the proposal itself...
Though mentioning DART Underground in the intro, it sets out its plan solely in the context of DARTu not being built and fails to acknowledge DARTu's impact on the heavy rail network capacity and how that would integrate with DARE;
None of its stations serve the core city centre;
It doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that opertional issues like traffic crossing, platform capacity and turn-back capacity need to be addressed;
The travel times are wild-ass guesses;
While claiming cost savings and capacity utilisation by using existing rail lines, it still requires major and highly disruptive engineering and construction works at Heuston and East Wall and, to a lesser extent, Broombridge .. oh, and just move Spencer Dock, will you;
It still requires a significant tunnel and underground station at the airport, one capable of handling heavy rail - no saving there;
Using the Metro North alignment at the airport does still require a significant tunnel and underground station. There is no alternative to this indicated;
It claims compatibility with the Metro West and North alignments and any future builds but is a heavy rail solution, so it ain't.
Given the engineering involved, the €500m cost guesstimate seems, eh, optimistic.

The points made in the table comparing DARE and Metro North in the document arguably favours the latter!

However I am intrigued as to why the CARROLL lad is so against MN.

I suspect his opposition starts and ends with the need to construct an entrance for the O'Connell Bridge station outside his shop on Westmoreland Street.

BrianD

donvito99 wrote: »

That is a half assed, lousy plan, funded by that n*b from Carrolls gifts.

I'm getting sick and tired of these MN threads, but do continue to laugh at the passionate opponents on this forum. I'd rather see DU proceed before hand myself, but the fact that MN has planning and funding, why shouldn't it go ahead?

There are thousands of posts and multiple threads that have for years now on boards merely flogged a dead horse and provided some individuals to have a few rants once a day.

I haven't seen one good reason yet why MN should not go ahead, and the DCBA is no different.

As has been said since this project was coined, this is a piece of infrastructure that will last a century and benefit future inhabitants of this city and country, not just our current pessimistic public who laugh off any suggestion of building something properly, not a poxy glorified bus lane, not a corridor for CIÉ run and eventually ruin, but a well thought and justified link.

You obviously have chosen to ignore the strong and valid arguements against MN.

Inefficient use of resources to move a small amount of people through low density population areas that will not change. Too big a solution to what is actually required.

The DARE project is an interesting proposal but I find two things wrong with it:

A) NIMBY approach they don't seem to mind that the digging takes place somewhere else
It assumes that the Airport is the real destination of MN. It;s fair to say that this was the real purpose of MN for years until public pressure got the RPA to see sense.
C) It assumes that there has to be a single direct substitute for MN when in fact there may be multiple solutions to best serve the various areas along the MN route.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

You obviously have chosen to ignore the strong and valid arguements against MN.
Inefficient use of resources to move a small amount of people through low density population areas that will not change. Too big a solution to what is actually required.

What valid arguements against MN? What are you talking about?

The population density of the MN route higher than both Dart lines and it has a wider catchment than the Dart lines. Unlike the Dart lines there is ample room to increase that density -- Ballymun is being increased, Northwood is too and the areas across from it, Swords is expected to grow regardless, Phibsborough is to be redeveloped in the mid to long run, and there is even some development space in and around Drumcondra and smaller pockets around Glasnevin.

It's important to note that Metro North will not just serve these areas but it will start to form a real network -- with links to Luas, Dart, Commuter, the airport and large areas of the city not well served. But it is also due to do even more than that, as it is planned to link in with Metro West to serve Blanch and beyond and into the proposed Luas Green Line upgrade to serve a huge area.

Jack Noble

BrianD wrote: »

You obviously have chosen to ignore the strong and valid arguements against MN.

Inefficient use of resources to move a small amount of people through low density population areas that will not change. Too big a solution to what is actually required.

What densities do you believe should justify a light rail metro?

What are the actual densities along the Metro North corridor?

Jack Noble

lods wrote: »

The DCBA - Dublin city business association have come out against Metro North and are promoting DARE .
http://www.dcba.ie/static/doclib/Dublin_Airport_Rail_Express_J_Morley.pdf

Have a look at the No to Metro North Facebook page set up and run by Colm Carroll of Carroll's gifts.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-to-Metro-North/132969966748869

Coincidence?

Lods, are you the Junkman?

dynamick

Genius. It's amazing that nobody else thought of building a slower route at higher cost that would attract fewer customers. My heart goes out to the retailers of Dublin with all these evil city planners trying to funnel more and more pedestrians into the city centre to clutter up your shops.


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=53.386195,-6.27388&spn=0.115077,0.308647&z=12&msid=206275198403631209933.00049e38226a385c8f3c7

BrianD

monument wrote: »

What valid arguements against MN? What are you talking about?

The population density of the MN route higher than both Dart lines and it has a wider catchment than the Dart lines. Unlike the Dart lines there is ample room to increase that density -- Ballymun is being increased, Northwood is too and the areas across from it, Swords is expected to grow regardless, Phibsborough is to be redeveloped in the mid to long run, and there is even some development space in and around Drumcondra and smaller pockets around Glasnevin.

It's important to note that Metro North will not just serve these areas but it will start to form a real network -- with links to Luas, Dart, Commuter, the airport and large areas of the city not well served. But it is also due to do even more than that, as it is planned to link in with Metro West to serve Blanch and beyond and into the proposed Luas Green Line upgrade to serve a huge area.

Please go visit Ballymun and Northwood. Ballymun is going low rise and Northwood is a couple of nice apartment blocks in quasi parkland.

All of these "redevlopments" you speak off are small fry compared with what is actually needed. Will people walk from Phibsborough to the nearest MN station when they'd be in to town faster on a bus? People are already complaining about "how far" Docklands rail station is from anywhere!

The council has overruled most major multistory developments, we're stuck with a general 6 story limit instead of 8 and most neighbourhoods go bananas when any sort of high density is proposed. Can you realistically see most of MN corridor within the M50 being bulldozed and higher density developments being built?

The route does not and will unlikely ever have the population density to justify the staggering amounts required to construct Metro North.

Need I go on? Or is reality too much?

Jack Noble wrote:

What densities do you believe should justify a light rail metro?

What are the actual densities along the Metro North corridor?

Jack. I take it you live in Dublin? Drive the route, look around - you wouldn't need a census document to tell you the obvious. Visit Barcelona and you can see immediately why it works.

However, you are a supporter of the project so you would already have an idea. Figures have appeared in previous posts by me and I believe one of the mods put up a useful and colourful map showing the relative densities.

I wouldn't support DARE other than it's interesting to see that they have come up with an alternative. It's very much a NIMBY approach. Do the digging somewhere else. Plus the route is equally low density.

If MN was justified I would have no bother with whatever parts of the city they want to dig up.

I would guess that we won't see MN for a long time. IN the mean time, this shiny overpriced project will detract from providing real transport solutions for Dublin.

BTW Metro West is another crock but that's another day.

OurLadyofKnock

patneve2 wrote: »

They could have made more of an effort in drawing the maps and making the document look more 'professional'.

I have seen a lots of professional maps, cgi and perfect-bound documents in the last 10 years and shag all built unless it was NAMA foreplay.

BrianD

Remember LUAS on stilts at the Red Cow?

Thousands spent on the proposal and the rebuttal. Most at our expense.

OurLadyofKnock

Give Carrolls the MN T-Shirt and trinkets fanchise and he'll support it. Fridge Magnets with a leprucaurn driving a train. That kind of thing. He'll not DARE object then.

monument

I'll reply on the Metro North thread in an attempt not to go off topic here too much.

lods

Jack Noble wrote: »

Have a look at the No to Metro North Facebook page set up and run by Colm Carroll of Carroll's gifts.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-to-Metro-North/132969966748869

Coincidence?

Lods, are you the Junkman?

Yeah i'm Carroll and your Frank Allen.

Unlike you Jack i've actually posted on more than one topic. People working in the RPA can spend all day posting about Metro North trying to spin it. I'm just a concerned citizen, like you Jack:p

Jack Noble

lods wrote: »

Yeah i'm Carroll and your Frank Allen.

Unlike you Jack i've actually posted on more than one topic. People working in the RPA can spend all day posting about Metro North trying to spin it. I'm just a concerned citizen, like you Jack:p

Coincidence it is so.

dubhthach

Folks can we get away from discussing people's identity is out in the "big bad real world" and concentrate on the actual pro's/con's of this rail proposal.

donvito99

BrianD wrote: »

Need I go on? Or is reality too much?

No.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

patrickmooney

Had to double check the date wasn't April 1st there. This is a total joke. Reading that proposal, that's 5 mins I'll never get back.

OurLadyofKnock

BrianD wrote: »

Remember LUAS on stilts at the Red Cow?

Thousands spent on the proposal and the rebuttal. Most at our expense.

Remember the constant CIE strikes that brought Rail and Bus to a standstill?

so many many CIE strikes...

many many buses and trains not operating

so many many strikes...

CIE, KILL IT NOW.