Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

jd

Soft copy of presentation

Van.Bosch

cgcsb wrote: »

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

I agree but it seems the RPA have adopted a let's build what we can and have decided 700mln for Luas D2 and 200mln for the Dart spur to a stop "near" the airport is as good as they can get.

From what I can see the below are the pros and cons:

Pros:
Cheaper
Minimal city centre disruption
Utilises BXD
Connectivity with red line and DU
I would suspect better reliable journey times than BRT.


Cons:
Winding route which will add to journey time.
As it is an extension of the green line it deprives us of the option of creating a more diverse network. (Maybe this isn't a big deal but I would prefer to see it as a separate line which shares BXD but splits off somewhere near SSG to Ballsbridge or somewhere).
The second phase looks good but will never happen.
The people mover.
Seems to interact with BXD to far west, if it has to use it there must be a more direct route to it, possibly thru Parnell at (granted the southern section is TBC) to get people to the CC quicker.
Will be 4-5 years before construction starts.

LeinsterDub

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Will be 4-5 years before construction starts.

Wrong c word there. It will be 4-5 before a other round of public consultation starts.
We'll see Eton Musk's tube of magic before we see any of this

monument

I don't think Luas D2 is a great option, but...

There's a lot of focus on the city centre to DCU section being so much of an indirect route compared to Metro North -- it's not. There's only ~0.4km in the diffrence:

Aard

^That assumes that the Luas D2 Phase 2 actually goes ahead (ie the underground bit between Broadstone and SSG). That's not a given, and let's face it -- highly unlikely now that Crosscity is under construction.

Then you have the longer running times to the airport and Swords. I don't think anybody is complaining about the distance/time to DCU specifically.

cgcsb

It doesn't make sense. 700mil for luas to Swords, plus 300mil for airport DART plus god knows what for Swords Swiftway. Plus endless reports for each one. Surely metro north can just be built for a little bit more cost but with tons more benefits.

Van.Bosch

cgcsb wrote: »

It doesn't make sense. 700mil for luas to Swords, plus 300mil for airport DART plus god knows what for Swords Swiftway. Plus endless reports for each one. Surely metro north can just be built for a little bit more cost but with tons more benefits.

I agree but if there is only 700mln available I would take it because the we would be left waiting.

I hate saying that but if DU goes ahead I can see another 1bln plus project happening.

Grandeeod

cgcsb wrote: »

It doesn't make sense. 700mil for luas to Swords, plus 300mil for airport DART plus god knows what for Swords Swiftway. Plus endless reports for each one. Surely metro north can just be built for a little bit more cost but with tons more benefits.

Yup!

But let me put this in perspective. Absolutely everything goes back to the DRRTS in 1975. I don't have the graphic for it at hand, but if you look at it, there isn't a whole lot of difference between it and any routes put forward since the early 90s. The same aspects are there that we saw a lot of in PFC and T21. Tallaght, Airport, Harcourt st line and underground through the city centre ala DU etc. As you know the initial DART project was phase one and was approved in 1979. By 1987 the DRRTS was abandoned on the grounds of cost and eventually CJ Haughey wanted the Temple Bar site for "cultural" reasons. By 1990 CIE reinvented parts of it as a light rail project. This turned into luas and finally opened in 2004 after many years of farting around. A "cheaper" solution.

In the meantime CIE/IE reworked their city underground plan that became DU. At the same time a metro was proposed and became Government policy. 150 million quid later with recession and a change of Government the metro idea is off the table. Now we are back to more studies and proposing "cheaper" solutions. See the cycle? I'm sure you do.

A 40 year merrygoround of BS.

murphaph

jd wrote: »

Soft copy of presentation

Bat sh!t crazy stuff: Not ONE of the three proposed alignments shows even a POSSIBLE interchange with the Maynooth DART. These guys have no shame.

Grandeeod

murphaph wrote: »

Bat sh!t crazy stuff: Not ONE of the three proposed alignments shows even a POSSIBLE interchange with the Maynooth DART. These guys have no shame.

10 years ago they had no shame either (when planning MN) until they were brought to account. The goal then was the empty Smurfit site for "development" reasons. Eventually it was routed up Drumcondra road. Our man Rory was at the helm then too. Must have a short memory.:rolleyes:

murphaph

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I agree but if there is only 700mln available I would take it because the we would be left waiting.

I hate saying that but if DU goes ahead I can see another 1bln plus project happening.

If there is only 700mln available then build MN phase I (SSG to DCU or whatever) and then extend the line gradually out to Swords as funds become available. Extending lines like this is quite common. Better build a quality solution a little slower than a rush cheapo job (that's exactly what is being proposed).

Aard

The idea that there is "only" so much money available is put out there so that people take their eye off the ball -- what is actually the best solution. Money can be raised. In the grand scheme of things, talk of a couple of hundred million is a side-show. There are always ways around money, but there aren't always (rarely?) ways to tidy-up a poor solution. Case in point -- we'll be stuck with BXD for at least a generation. This Luas D2 Phase 2 is another distraction.

Van.Bosch

murphaph wrote: »

If there is only 700mln available then build MN phase I (SSG to DCU or whatever) and then extend the line gradually out to Swords as funds become available. Extending lines like this is quite common. Better build a quality solution a little slower than a rush cheapo job (that's exactly what is being proposed).

Agree 100% but if the core aim is linking swords with city centre I doubt it would be politically acceptable to start at SSG and end at DCU for example.

monument

For the record:I don’t think the Airport Dart branch off the Northern Line is a good idea; the Swords BRT design is compromised even compared to BRT in the Netherlands and France; and Luas D2 isn’t great

Aard wrote: »

The idea that there is "only" so much money available is put out there so that people take their eye off the ball -- what is actually the best solution. Money can be raised. In the grand scheme of things, talk of a couple of hundred million is a side-show. There are always ways around money, but there aren't always (rarely?) ways to tidy-up a poor solution.

It’s not just about securing money but the Realpolitik issues around (1) spending so much money on one project regardless of its merits, and (2) that Metro North is a boom-time project which was seen as too goldplated by some even in the boom times.

Grandeeod wrote: »

...and eventually CJ Haughey wanted the Temple Bar site for "cultural" reasons.

One of the few things Haughey did right. Temple Bar has a bad rep with some people who don’t know it well, but it has been a huge planning success in terms of the tourism, culture and residential successfulness of the district. Even if you're not aware or interest in them, there's quite a lot of non-drinking cultural outlets in Temple Bar.

cgcsb wrote: »

It doesn't make sense. 700mil for luas to Swords, plus 300mil for airport DART plus god knows what for Swords Swiftway. Plus endless reports for each one. Surely metro north can just be built for a little bit more cost but with tons more benefits.

It’s a lot easier to hand out smaller amounts than it is to get political agreements on spending billions in the one location at the one time (things like the cost being spread out goes over most people’s heads).

Take the millions, at least tens of millions, spent on the QBN network -- if anybody said we’re going spend -- say -- €10 or €20 million on bus lanes people would have freaked out because of the cost (and transfer of space too, but that’s another story).

If even after the Luas lines were successful, if the RPA came along and said we’re going spend more that €1.5bn on the Luas network, people would also have freeked. But Luas has cost €1.5bn or more.

Aard wrote: »

^That assumes that the Luas D2 Phase 2 actually goes ahead (ie the underground bit between Broadstone and SSG). That's not a given, and let's face it -- highly unlikely now that Crosscity is under construction.

Then you have the longer running times to the airport and Swords. I don't think anybody is complaining about the distance/time to DCU specifically.

If D2 was chosen, assuming D2 Phase 2 would go ahead would be a safer bet that currently assuming Metro North will go ahead!

As for Luas BXD making Phase 2 highly unlikely -- both are different services which complement each other. BXD is also likely to be in demand from the start. Saying Phase 2 and BXD are incompatible is like the flawed argument that BXD and Metro North overlap too much -- this just is not true -- it’s common for central sections of routes to be shared and MN or Phase 2 are both express-like in distance between stops, while Luas acts as a local service in some of the highest density areas in the country for both jobs and homes.

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!

D.L.R. wrote: »

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

Regardless of where the Dart airport stop or possible interchange would be, all of the projects in the report are based on the same baseline and none of the projects are in the baseline. So none of the projects can plan to interchange with other projects -- expect the very few combined projects at the end.

Grandeeod wrote: »

10 years ago they had no shame either (when planning MN) until they were brought to account. The goal then was the empty Smurfit site for "development" reasons. Eventually it was routed up Drumcondra road. Our man Rory was at the helm then too. Must have a short memory.:rolleyes:

He’s gone from project managing MN to being the acting/CEO of the agency.

murphaph wrote: »

Bat sh!t crazy stuff: Not ONE of the three proposed alignments shows even a POSSIBLE interchange with the Maynooth DART. These guys have no shame.

Yet another reason why Irish Rail planning/infrastructure and the RPA should be merged into the NTA.

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Agree 100% but if the core aim is linking swords with city centre I doubt it would be politically acceptable to start at SSG and end at DCU for example.

Agreed. If Metro North or any light version was to be done in phases, then it would likely have to be split by the M50* to get enough traction and cover enough population.

* = ie phase one to the M50 and phase two to the airport and Swords (or phase 3 to Swords after phase 2 to the airport).

Aard

Just regarding D2 phase 2 versus BXD -- I agree that the two serve different purposes, similar to the distinction between MN and BXD. Casual observers and newspaper headlines will not be so subtle though I fear!

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

If there is only 700mln available then build MN phase I (SSG to DCU or whatever) and then extend the line gradually out to Swords as funds become available. Extending lines like this is quite common. Better build a quality solution a little slower than a rush cheapo job (that's exactly what is being proposed).

This is entirely right. With the income which the country has, and is likely to have in the next couple of decades at least, this is surely the best way to go.

As far as I'm aware, Ireland currently has an income of somewhere between 30 and 40 bilion euro per year. (At the time of the T21 plan, it was somewhere between 50 and 60 billion a year).

It's thus a very hard sell to expect the country to fund in its entirety any big-ticket project in Dublin which would amount to something approaching a double-digit percentage of the country's entire revenue in any one year. (though, of course, it would be built over several years). The metro and interconnector happening together would certainly have been broadly in this bracket.

The roads have pretty much been built, as per the T21 plan. Would it be unreasonable for Ireland now to dedicate one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of its national income to public transport infrastructure? It's possibly important to, say, divide it by two, with half going to infrastructure in the smaller cities and half going to infrastructure in Dublin.

Because of the costs involved, incremental building of large public transport projects is probably the most feasible way to get anything of real value built. The proposals mentioned on the last couple of pages do look to be a short-term solution which will cost a considerable amount of money while not delievering particularly good long-term value.

Godge

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This is entirely right. With the income which the country has, and is likely to have in the next couple of decades at least, this is surely the best way to go.

As far as I'm aware, Ireland currently has an income of somewhere between 30 and 40 bilion euro per year. (At the time of the T21 plan, it was somewhere between 50 and 60 billion a year).

It's thus a very hard sell to expect the country to fund in its entirety any big-ticket project in Dublin which would amount to something approaching a double-digit percentage of the country's entire revenue in any one year. (though, of course, it would be built over several years). The metro and interconnector happening together would certainly have been broadly in this bracket.

The roads have pretty much been built, as per the T21 plan. Would it be unreasonable for Ireland now to dedicate one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of its national income to public transport infrastructure? It's possibly important to, say, divide it by two, with half going to infrastructure in the smaller cities and half going to infrastructure in Dublin.

Because of the costs involved, incremental building of large public transport projects is probably the most feasible way to get anything of real value built. The proposals mentioned on the last couple of pages do look to be a short-term solution which will cost a considerable amount of money while not delievering particularly good long-term value.

It should be at least 80:20 in favour of Dublin as BRT will be sufficient for the smaller cities as the demand is much lower.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

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.

This is the key point.

DART Underground is vital because of the interconnectivity. All future projects have to build on this if we are to have integrated public transport.

The Luas option has a cost advantage, if it connected with the Maynooth line, it would be a no-brainer. A Glasnevin Junction interchange, if technically possible would be the solution.

monument

Aard wrote: »

Just regarding D2 phase 2 versus BXD -- I agree that the two serve different purposes, similar to the distinction between MN and BXD. Casual observers and newspaper headlines will not be so subtle though I fear!

This will be like Dart Underground shadowing the Red Line.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's thus a very hard sell to expect the country to fund in its entirety any big-ticket project in Dublin which would amount to something approaching a double-digit percentage of the country's entire revenue in any one year. (though, of course, it would be built over several years).

With Dart Underground or Metro, the bulk of costs would be mostly paid for across decades!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The roads have pretty much been built, as per the T21 plan. Would it be unreasonable for Ireland now to dedicate one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of its national income to public transport infrastructure? It's possibly important to, say, divide it by two, with half going to infrastructure in the smaller cities and half going to infrastructure in Dublin.

Basically you're saying a motoring-centric country is going to switch its Department of Transport's capital budget from roads to public transport? Is that right?

murphaph

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Agree 100% but if the core aim is linking swords with city centre I doubt it would be politically acceptable to start at SSG and end at DCU for example.

But that isn't or shouldn't be the core aim. MN stands up so well because it hits so many trip generators. Swords is just one of many.

murphaph

Aard wrote: »

Just regarding D2 phase 2 versus BXD -- I agree that the two serve different purposes, similar to the distinction between MN and BXD. Casual observers and newspaper headlines will not be so subtle though I fear!

Exactly. Remember that many many people think DU is superfluous because of the Phoenix park tunnel and or Luas Red Line!

monument

murphaph wrote: »

Exactly. Remember that many many people think DU is superfluous because of the Phoenix park tunnel and or Luas Red Line!

Dart Underground has the best cost benefit ratio of larger projects, very little opposition and the main voices who were saying to use the PPT are no longer doing so.

murphaph

monument wrote: »

Dart Underground has the best cost benefit ratio of larger projects, very little opposition and the main voices who were saying to use the PPT are no longer doing so.

There's no obvious opposition (from rural TDs who will bemoan it as largesse for Dublin) because it's not in imminent "danger" of being built. The reality is that half of the TDs in Dail Eireann don't even know what it is and what it's supposed to do. We elect huge numbers of complete morons to parliament. That should never be forgotten when talking about any of this stuff that needs political will for it to happen.

jd

murphaph wrote: »

There's no obvious opposition (from rural TDs who will bemoan it as largesse for Dublin) because it's not in imminent "danger" of being built. The reality is that half of the TDs in Dail Eireann don't even know what it is and what it's supposed to do. We elect huge numbers of complete morons to parliament. That should never be forgotten when talking about any of this stuff that needs political will for it to happen.

They'll tack on the airport link and talk about direct links to the Dublin Airport and also intercity from say Cork to Belfast..
I'd say the airport link is to help them sell the DU politically!

monument

murphaph wrote: »

There's no obvious opposition (from rural TDs who will bemoan it as largesse for Dublin) because it's not in imminent "danger" of being built. The reality is that half of the TDs in Dail Eireann don't even know what it is and what it's supposed to do. We elect huge numbers of complete morons to parliament. That should never be forgotten when talking about any of this stuff that needs political will for it to happen.

Sometimes the opposition, or even just lack of support, can be closer to home:

Eoghan Murphy TD, Dublin South East, Fine Gael:

"...For example, light rail is the future for Dublin city and I would hate to see our expertise in the area go because there will be less expenditure once the Luas cross-city project is finished. I remain to be convinced by metro north and the DART underground, and light rail is the way to go for a small medieval city like Dublin." (February 2014)

There's a number of rural TDs who use rail regularly who have a better -- even if basic -- grasp of the benefits of DU, and there's an even larger number of rural TDs who know how important the rail network is to their areas. Many of them will understand linking the main intercity station with the city centre is of great benefit for Intercity rail. And some might even see themselves use that connection, at least the odd time.

Fergus O'Dowd TD, Louth, Fine Gael:

"Will the Minister clarify the position regarding a statement issued earlier today by Irish Rail in respect of DART underground? The statement appears to indicate that the completion date for this project has been put back to 2018. While it is obviously expensive to build an underground connector, it would never be less costly to do so than now. Costs, particularly those relating to steel, have never been lower. Should the planning process relating to such a major infrastructural project not be accelerated? What does the Minister know about this decision? Was he consulted or informed about it?"

Timmy Dooley TD, Clare, Fianna Fail:

"To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the options for creating a more effective public transport link from Dublin city centre to Dublin Airport; the status of DART underground and metro north; and if he will make a statement on the matter." (October 2014)

strassenwo!f

Thanks for posting that, Monument.

'A small medieval city'. Like Bruges, perhaps.

Eoghan Murphy represents an area of the city which probably has the best public transport of any constituency in the country. The DART along the coastline, the LUAS green line along the western fringe of his plot. The Aircoarch running at least three lines along corridors in his constituency, before we even get to the 46A on its QBC and the buses which run along the Merrion Road and elsewhere

I'm sure Eoghan Murphy is hearing serious questions about public transport every day in his clinics. I'd like to hear more of his views about the public transport options in, for example, suburbs like Neilstown, Kishogue or Santry.

Dublin was a small, medieval city. It's now trying to be a modern city which needs to compete with cities like Munich, Lyon, Dresden, Copenhagen, Gdansk and Prague, all former medieval cities which now have well-developed transport networks.

strassenwo!f

Eoghan's not going to rush to support any project which might endanger the advantages which his constituents have by enjoying such good transport links into the city.

Much better for Eoghan if the metro doesn't happen, and if the interconnector doesn't happen.

His constituents will then continue to enjoy considerable public transport advantages over anybody anywhere else in the city.

Can't see Eoghan supporting either of these projects anytime soon.

Kermit.de.frog

Luas extension to the airport is front runner according to the indo

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/luas-tunnel-under-glasnevin-is-frontrunner-for-link-to-airport-30963823.html


Some issues here include the fact the route would be time consuming from a passenger view point, wouldn't present the greatest image of Dublin to tourists, may be under spec for a line to the airport and will be very vulnerable to anti social behaviour at certain points.

In other words it's the red line for tourists and workers to the airport.

cgcsb

"The Dart Underground plans that would link Connolly and Hueston stations..."

Credibility gone.

An item which raised my eye brow:
"If the project goes ahead, CIE will permanently acquire the north-west corner of St Stephen's Green and proposes to acquire a significant amount of land below ground level and along King Street South, St Stephen's Green North and down as far as George's Street as part of phase one."

Phase one? is DARTu now to be phased? how does that work? Trains terminating at Stephen's Green would involve the construction of a turn back facility.

Idbatterim

"Metro North was clearly a project of its time. That's why I'm so eager to have a process that will look at all of the options afresh," Mr Donohoe said in December.

a sign of the times like what? ridiculous levels of traffic and high growth figures like we are achieving now? Like good exchequer returns that were released yesterday?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/overall-tax-take-123pc-higher-than-last-january-at-419bn-exchequer-30961521.html