Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

markpb

Sam Russell wrote: »

I accept all of that, but it is cheap enough to be done now.

Being cheap or cheaper than the alternatives isn't a good reason for doing something, especially doing something which has a dubious benefit. WRC was cheaper than building something decent on the west coast and look what happened there.

Idbatterim

lads the more I think about it, the more this is starting to really frustrate / baffle me, hundreds of millions is being proposed to be spent on the joke that is BRT IMO, yet they are talking about saving 70,000,000 on a once off huge project that will be used in 100 years time? and impossible or insanely expensive to rectify down the road!

If saving a few percent on MN is critical due to budgets, someone explain to me how it is ok to waste several hundred million on BRT, to be seen to be doing something?!

Aard

The BRT proposals cover a greater extent of the city and cannot be directly compared with the Airport/Swords corridor.

Idbatterim

The BRT proposals cover a greater extent of the city and cannot be directly compared with the Airport/Swords corridor.

I understand, but if the pot is only so big, then it should be spend on a long term proper solution. If that means shelving BRT for a few years etc, good riddance to it...

Zebra3

murphaph wrote: »

Luckily the alignment would run directly under the flight path, which is protected and nobody with any sense would want to live under it anyway.

Which wouldn't necessarily stop any of the land being rezoned as an industrial estate or business park.

Carawaystick

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which wouldn't necessarily stop any of the land being rezoned as an industrial estate or business park.

Well Fingal Co Co ruled out building a sewage treatment plant under the approach path of the main runway, so I'm not sure much can be built there.

Aard

In fairness to Fingal CoCo, the Public Safety Zones need to be better defined by the Minister for Environment. Fingal's hands are a little tied until clarification is forthcoming from the DoE.

zetalambda

Fingal area rapid transport aka the FART. Sorry, I couldn't resist it!

Aard

Just to avoid any confusion, and trying to remain on topic (ahem), there are no proposals put forward from the document that go through Finglas.

xper

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would take 7 mins to get to Clongriffin and then another 10 mins to get to Connolly non-stop. Obviously, traffic is a problem on the northern line, but a 30 min service with a travel time of less than 20 min would be brilliant. With DU, it of course could be integrated into the service, but until DU is built, it still would provide a useful and vital link.

There's another problem with the DART spur proposal, the service will be at a much lower frequency than MN would. Half the time, from leaving the airport terminal, walking to the DART platform (which would apparently be a significant distance) and waiting for a train, it'll take you an hour to get into town.

Sam Russell

xper wrote: »

There's another problem with the DART spur proposal, the service will be at a much lower frequency than MN would. Half the time, from leaving the airport terminal, walking to the DART platform (which would apparently be a significant distance) and waiting for a train, it'll take you an hour to get into town.

The station can be anywhere they want it to be. I think that a sub-twenty minute journey time is possible, and I think a twenty minute frequency is also possible, but more likely to be 30 mins. It is the certainty and simplicity of Dart that is the attraction compared with buses/coaches.

Compared with MN, the spur could be built a decade before MN is likely to be operational, which is persuasive for me.

Currently, buses (except Aircoach and Dublin Bus and car park buses) operate from the coach park which is quite a distance from the terminals, at least as far as a Dart station would be.

Zebra3

xper wrote: »

There's another problem with the DART spur proposal, the service will be at a much lower frequency than MN would. Half the time, from leaving the airport terminal, walking to the DART platform (which would apparently be a significant distance) and waiting for a train, it'll take you an hour to get into town.

Not everyone would be going to the city centre though.

LXFlyer

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not everyone would be going to the city centre though.

Exactly- this obsession that people have with travelling between the city centre and the Airport is really annoying.

Both Metro North and a DART spur deliver connectivity with all the local areas en route and the airport also, facilitating people who work there as well.

People seem to constantly forget about the thousands of people who work in the airport and have to get to/from work, with most of them living across North Dublin.

xper

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not everyone would be going to the city centre though.

FFS, it's just an example (albeit the obvious example, see below). The low service frequency and station distance would affect all passengers, regardless of destination. I would think that is obvious and did not have to be spelt out.

lxflyer wrote: »

Exactly- this obsession that people have with travelling between the city centre and the Airport is really annoying.

You're stealing my lines! I referenced the airport-city trip as this is the primary purpose that most of those who champion this proposal keep referencing themselves. In doing so, they highlight one of the proposal's main weaknesses and completely misunderstand the purposes of MN.

Both Metro North and a DART spur deliver connectivity with all the local areas en route and the airport also, facilitating people who work there as well.

People seem to constantly forget about the thousands of people who work in the airport and have to get to/from work, with most of them living across North Dublin.

That's disengenious to make the same statement about both proposals. The DART spur doesn't provide anything like the range of possible new rail commuting journeys that MN would. Yes, if you live in the current DART line catchment and work at the airport, it would be great. But that's it. If you are not travelling through or working at the airport, it does nothing except contribute to congestion on the Connolly-Clongriffin line. MN would provide thousands of trips that neither start or finish at the airport.
Or put it another way, the entire DART spur proposal provides the equivalent benefit of one of MN's stations.

Aard

The NTA's document has the Dart spur in question in two of their proposals. The first is part of a spur from Clongriffin to Swords via Dublin Airport. The second is in combination with light rail from Swords to BXD. By the looks of things, the NTA will not consider the spur by itself.

If the object is to make DUB more accessible by public transport from Dublin's Northside (where allegedly a lot of airport staff live), it might be more comprehensively achieved by modifying the bus network. The investment would then be better spread across the entire area from Finglas, Ballymun, Coolock, and Clongriffin, rather than just focussing on the Dart corridor. The spur would cost ~€150m-€230m going by the NTA's costings. If the aim is to improve access for airport workers from the Northside, would that money be better spent on extending key bus routes to DUB? Especially seeing as how the spur has been identified as being a sub-optimal solution for general airport accessibility.

LXFlyer

xper wrote: »

FFS, it's just an example (albeit the obvious example, see below). The low service frequency and station distance would affect all passengers, regardless of destination. I would think that is obvious and did not have to be spelt out.

You're stealing my lines! I referenced the airport-city trip as this is the primary purpose that most of those who champion this proposal keep referencing themselves. In doing so, they highlight one of the proposal's main weaknesses and completely misunderstand the purposes of MN.

That's disengenious to make the same statement about both proposals. The DART spur doesn't provide anything like the range of possible new rail commuting journeys that MN would. Yes, if you live in the current DART line catchment and work at the airport, it would be great. But that's it. If you are not travelling through or working at the airport, it does nothing except contribute to congestion on the Connolly-Clongriffin line. MN would provide thousands of trips that neither start or finish at the airport.
Or put it another way, the entire DART spur proposal provides the equivalent benefit of one of MN's stations.

The point is there is damn all connectivity to the airport from northeast Dublin - the DART spur would deliver that.

By converting the Howth branch into a shuttle to/from Howth Junction you deal with the perceived issue of congestion on the Northern line.

I want both schemes - I don't want one or the other - they are not mutually exclusive and they both deliver improved connectivity. But I'd only view the DART spur as a runner if it were part of the overall DART underground proposal.

Grandeeod

lxflyer wrote: »

The point is there is damn all connectivity to the airport from northeast Dublin - the DART spur would deliver that.

By converting the Howth branch into a shuttle to/from Howth Junction you deal with the perceived issue of congestion on the Northern line.

I want both schemes - I don't want one or the other - they are not mutually exclusive and they both deliver improved connectivity. But I'd only view the DART spur as a runner if it were part of the overall DART underground proposal.

I'm just a little baffled as to how a DART spur can get across the long term carparks, M1 and find an alignment within the airport complex itself. Any more info on that?

LXFlyer

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm just a little baffled as to how a DART spur can get across the long term carparks, M1 and find an alignment within the airport complex itself. Any more info on that?

I haven't seen any detailed plans unfortunately.

Grandeeod

lxflyer wrote: »

I haven't seen any detailed plans unfortunately.

I wonder if IE have any detailed plans or is it still an idea of sorts. A quick look at Google Earth reveals a lot of hurdles to surmount in the airport area.

LXFlyer

Grandeeod wrote: »

I wonder if IE have any detailed plans or is it still an idea of sorts. A quick look at Google Earth reveals a lot of hurdles to surmount in the airport area.

I would assume they have given it's costed.

Grandeeod

lxflyer wrote: »

I would assume they have given it's costed.

More detail below.

https://engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/roads-tranport/Dublin-Airport-DART-Link-November-23rd-2011.pdf?ext=.pdf

LXFlyer

Good find!

xper

lxflyer wrote: »

<snip> ... I want both schemes - I don't want one or the other - they are not mutually exclusive and they both deliver improved connectivity. But I'd only view the DART spur as a runner if it were part of the overall DART underground proposal.

Fair enough but both isn't an option on the table at the moment or the foreseeable future so one has to be picked and for me, MN is far more beneficial to the city. (The shortlisted options involving Luas and BRT are worthless imho)

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm just a little baffled as to how a DART spur can get across the long term carparks, M1 and find an alignment within the airport complex itself. Any more info on that?

The proposal is for an elevated line that would cross above the M1 by bridge - that's relatively trivial. Surface car parks are also easily and cheaply rearranged. The big unknown, as repeatedly stated in the study document, is how to traverse the airport campus itself. It's challenging to find space to arrive at elevated level, provide straight heavy rail length platforms and also turn 90 degrees to accommodate continuing to Swords. There has been no study done on this at all as far as I am aware. The document maps show a station somewhere east of Terminal 2 but they are strictly indicative only. Perhaps a T-juntion out around the Swords Rd with a dead end two platform station in the vicinity of Iolar House might work. Otherwise I really think you are talking about going underground at which point the lower cost advantage of this proposal starts getting erroded.

EDIT: indeed a good find by Grandeeod, posted after I started my response. I don't recall seeing those proposed airport station options before. Note the key word "Indicative" on he map header. That really does indicate that they have done little more than draw those lines on the map, albeit from the point of view of professionals who know what they are talking about. And the proposal at that stage was to terminate at the airport. All those elevated station options would require a T junction outside the airport campus to provide a line to Swords.

Aard

Grandeeod wrote: »

More detail below.

https://engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/roads-tranport/Dublin-Airport-DART-Link-November-23rd-2011.pdf?ext=.pdf

Interesting point made about counterflow travel demand.

ETA: And also, of course, about protecting the alignment.

Carawaystick

This 15 min between darts on the main dart lines over an 18 hour day will be a great leap forward, have see longer gaps at peak time currently...

The rest is pie in the sky stuff.

Sam Russell

Carawaystick wrote: »

This 15 min between darts on the main dart lines over an 18 hour day will be a great leap forward, have see longer gaps at peak time currently...

The rest is pie in the sky stuff.

The 15 min service is there at most times, but it is disrupted during peak times because of the commuter trains forcing larger gaps. A ten minute service would cost little extra and be a massive improvement in the service. If the extra trains ran from Dun Laoghaire to Connolly to add the extra trains, it might mitigate the cost.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The 15 min service is there at most times, but it is disrupted during peak times because of the commuter trains forcing larger gaps. A ten minute service would cost little extra and be a massive improvement in the service. If the extra trains ran from Dun Laoghaire to Connolly to add the extra trains, it might mitigate the cost.

Actually DART is a fixed 15 minute service between Howth Junction and Bray throughout the day even at peak, although there are peak time extras in between.

The timetable was recast several years ago and all the larger gaps eliminated. The only exception is 22:10 to 22:40 southbound from Connolly.

Zebra3

I don't think anyone is suggesting that an airport DART spur is preferable to MN, but the DART spur has got something going for it.

If it's either or, obviously go for MN but make sure land is preserved for the spur.

monument

From the transport study report mentioned in the OP, I'd mix and match the following...

...plus maybe add the orange bit, and also use of the Glasnevin to Heuston link mainly for a Belfast - Dublin Airport - Heuston - Cork service:



Larger image here.

A and B around Swords are options, but A clearly would be better for Intercity. All but the orange bit between Glasnevin and the Docklands portal are part of the report.

Please excuse the rushed and poor Photoshopping!

Dont be at yourself

Are there still plans to run the DART up to Donabate/Rush&Lusk/Skerries/Balbriggan? If so, an airport spur from Clongriffen makes a bit more sense to me, if the line can handle the required frequency. Not sure how having termini at Balbriggan, Airport and Howth willl work in terms of scheduling and so on.

It also doesn't solve anything for Swords, Santry or Ballymun, but that's a bigger issue that requires a bigger pot of money...