Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

AngryLips

only one stop between Broadstone and SSG for a new tunnelled alignment seems kind of meagre, doesn't it?

monument

AngryLips wrote: »

only one stop between Broadstone and SSG for a new tunnelled alignment seems kind of meagre, doesn't it?

The on surface Luas would remain and fill in many gaps.

jd

Victor wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

From Cabra to Swords, tunnel under Glasnevin cemetery/Botanic Gardens

cgcsb

So extending BXD to Swords via a tunnel under Glasnevin would do nothing for the Drumcondra area, offer no journey time improvement for airport and Swords commuters and generally take a quite inderect route for a whopping 700mil. Not to mention that long term capacity enhancement involves another tunnel under the city centre, no doubt pushing the long term cost as high as/higher than metro north

Surely it's better to just build metro north as planned?

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

So extending BXD to Swords via a tunnel under Glasnevin would do nothing for the Drumcondra area, offer no journey time improvement for airport and Swords commuters and generally take a quite inderect route for a whopping 700mil. Not to mention that long term capacity enhancement involves another tunnel under the city centre, no doubt pushing the long term cost as high as/higher than metro north

Surely it's better to just build metro north as planned?

We're getting to the stage where, based on total price alone, we could have build one metro line for the price of the Luas network, post BXD spending at least.

Is it clear cut that one metro line would be better than a light rail network?

cgcsb

monument wrote: »

We're getting to the stage where, based on total price alone, we could have build one metro line for the price of the Luas network, post BXD spending at least.

Is it clear cut that one metro line would be better than a light rail network?

The options aren't luas network or single metro line. The options are:

Convoluted luas service to Swords via Broombridge, with no journey time improvement, later requiring a city centre tunnel to boost capacity, with total costs similar/in excess of metro north.

or Metro North as planned

jd

cgcsb wrote: »

Convoluted luas service to Swords via Broombridge,

Minor point - it tunnels at Cabra

murphaph

Offers no apparent interchange with the Maynooth Line. I do like the idea of tunneling from Broadstone to connect to the Green Line though, but not like this.

The route to the airport and Swords should interchange with the Maynooth DART line.

cgcsb

so no maynooth interchange and avoidance of existing station box at mater, Drumcondra left out

Aard

The penny has finally dropped for me. The RPA are putting froward this "Luas D2" proposal. Irish Rail are putting forward their Clongriffin spur proposal.

NTA have already offered "Option C1" as a possible project. This is clearly supported by both RPA and IR. IR haven't spoken about any of the other heavy rail options. RPA haven't spoken about other LRT/BRT.

We'll end up with the compromise solution that keeps both bickering parents happy in their otherwise unsatisfactory marriage.

murphaph

Any German, Swiss, Spanish etc. transport engineer who proposed tunnelling a premetro under an S Bahn line without providing interchange would be shot. We've been here before!

LeinsterDub

What's the journey time on the Luas proposal , it must be massive sure it's 20 minutes from SSG to Cabra give or take

Aard

And you can be guaranteed that "Luas D2 Phase 2" will never go ahead. What a useless "solution" for Swords.

LeinsterDub

Aard wrote: »

And you can be guaranteed that "Luas D2 Phase 2" will never go ahead. What a useless "solution" for Swords.

Why? I mean who wouldn't want to be a on luas for an hour and a half as it gently trundles towards Stephens Green

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

And you can be guaranteed that "Luas D2 Phase 2" will never go ahead. What a useless "solution" for Swords.

I hope you're wrong. If phase 2 happened, and they sorted out an interchange on the Maynooth line, its not half bad.

I'd still tunnel it under the airport though, and go around Swords, as per metro north. The people mover idea is pants.

murphaph

It seems we are allergic to tunnelling in Ireland...unless it's for a road.

murphaph

D.L.R. wrote: »

I hope you're wrong. If phase 2 happened, and they sorted out an interchange on the Maynooth line, its not half bad.

It's very difficult to provide a decent interchange there as the tunnel is underneath a wide junction. Phase 2 won't happen if they build a surface line first. Imagine the screaming rural politicians fuming about Dublin's largesse when the first guy proposes replacing/upgrading an existing tram route with a "Rolls Royce" version.

I do see huge merit in tunneling south from Broadstone, but not as part of the airport/Swords line.

lucernarian

Not sure on the people mover idea either. Makes a mockery of the public transport integration concept. If we had the second runway for Dublin airport under construction, a simple cut and cover tunnel would work just fine I think... Also I thought the LR3 option was going to use a tunnel under the airport in the first place.

Does anyone have thoughts on how feasible the different tunnelling options from Glasnevin are from a purely technical point of view? I mean, is it easy or even possible to fit TBMs from beside the Sligo line and the cemetery to dig HR8 or HR9? Can a station be constructed on Luas D2 that could interchange with the Maynooth line? There is so little space to work with, between the canal and the graveyard and local housing.

Also, I talked to a friend of mine who is involved with the Glasnevin cemetery trust and he was concerned at the idea of a tunnel because some of the plots in the oldest part of the cemetery are much deeper than 2 or so metres.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

It's very difficult to provide a decent interchange there as the tunnel is underneath a wide junction. Phase 2 won't happen if they build a surface line first. Imagine the screaming rural politicians fuming about Dublin's largesse when the first guy proposes replacing/upgrading an existing tram route with a "Rolls Royce" version.

I do see huge merit in tunneling south from Broadstone, but not as part of the airport/Swords line.

A bit of autonomy for Dublin is needed in the long term, so that every project Dublin proposes isn't dependent on rural TDs with no national perspective.

VeryOwl

Aard wrote: »

And you can be guaranteed that "Luas D2 Phase 2" will never go ahead. What a useless "solution" for Swords.

I think you're completely right. In particular, as lucernarian suggested, the "interchange" at the airport is really poor. We're actually proposing new lines which are disconnected from each other. It's truly embarrassing.

This whole option is feeble. What's wrong with just building a straight forward tunnel rather than this patchwork mess? None of it is going to built any time soon regardless.

Aard

D.L.R. wrote: »

I hope you're wrong. If phase 2 happened, and they sorted out an interchange on the Maynooth line, its not half bad.

I'd still tunnel it under the airport though, and go around Swords, as per metro north. The people mover idea is pants.

Even with the Maynooth line interchange and tunnel to SSG, it's still a poor solution for Swords. And ostensibly the whole point of the recent consultation is to provide the best interconnectivity between Central Dublin, Airport, and Swords. This Option C1 (even with interchange and tunnel) doesn't best achieve that imo.

And you're absolutely right about the "people mover". Yikes. The very idea that a people mover is being considered as a solution (another transport mode to the mix, anybody?) shows that this is purely a people-pleasing exercise by the NTA. Sweeties for everybody.

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

Even with the Maynooth line interchange and tunnel to SSG, it's still a poor solution for Swords. And ostensibly the whole point of the recent consultation is to provide the best interconnectivity between Central Dublin, Airport, and Swords. This Option C1 (even with interchange and tunnel) doesn't best achieve that imo.

And you're absolutely right about the "people mover". Yikes. The very idea that a people mover is being considered as a solution (another transport mode to the mix, anybody?) shows that this is purely a people-pleasing exercise by the NTA. Sweeties for everybody.

I've been at Birmingham International, which has a people mover. But the difference is that is connecting a pre-existing mainline with the terminal.

To build a brand new line far enough away from the terminals that it needs a people mover, is bananas.

Aard

VeryOwl wrote: »

We're actually proposing new lines which are disconnected from each other. It's truly embarrassing.

This merits repeating.

Where Metro North was praised for offering a "one transfer" connection to the airport from the Maynooth line, this option provides no transfer at all! So with "Option C1" you'll have to continue to Connolly from the Maynooth line, then switch to "Dart Airport" (every how many trains per hour was that, David Franks?), and then switch to the "people mover"!

According to this recent presentation by the RPA (here)-- it even looks like a monorail! It glides as softly as a cloud!

LeinsterDub

Aard wrote: »

it even looks like a monorail! It glides as softly as a cloud!

MONO!

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

This merits repeating.

Where Metro North was praised for offering a "one transfer" connection to the airport from the Maynooth line, this option provides no transfer at all! So with "Option C1" you'll have to continue to Connolly from the Maynooth line, then switch to "Dart Airport" (every how many trains per hour was that, David Franks?), and then switch to the "people mover"!

According to this recent presentation by the RPA (here)-- it even looks like a monorail! It glides as softly as a cloud!

Does the Dart spur require the people mover too? Good lord...

Aard

D.L.R. wrote: »

Does the Dart spur require the people mover too? Good lord...

Hmm good question. Well, if the Dart doesn't require the people mover, while the Luas does -- then one can only deduce that the Dart and Luas do not share an interchange. Which is even worse again!

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

Hmm good question. Well, if the Dart doesn't require the people mover, while the Luas does -- then one can only deduce that the Dart and Luas do not share an interchange. Which is even worse again!

Dare I say, they don't know themselves?

Aard

That's what you get when you combine two proposals from two competing/opposing public transport companies, and then try to integrate them into one coherent(!) proposal.

cgcsb

Dear lord what a terrible cluster f**k this is turning into.

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a terrible cluster f**k this is turning into.

Absolutely. But I don't find it shocking at all. I conceeded to all this BS years ago.