Luas BXD to Dublin Airport?

MGWR

Mentioned in the Irish Times. Involves the possible tunnelling under Glasnevin Cemetery.

Minister for Transport Paschal Donohoe has initiated a review of various options for the north Dublin-Fingal area, including connections to Dublin Airport.

While the Department of Transport refused to comment, a number of sources have said Mr Donohoe’s emerging preference is for a light-rail option, understood to be a Luas line that would tunnel under Glasnevin Cemetery before linking to Dublin Airport and Swords. ...

Decades upon decades of procrastinating over a proper Metro (which would be faster through the City Centre and not require restriction of road traffic arteries or interaction with city traffic), and it comes down to early-20th-century solutions.

dublindiehard

Unfortunately the key difference is that during the Celtic Tiger we had more than enough money to build much public transport infrastrucutre, but it never happened.

Now we don't have the money for such vast projects.

the groutch

No doubt it will be held up by lots of complaints by taxi drivers, the same ones who won't take people to Swords.

MrMorooka

MGWR did you make a submission about this during the consultation on future North Dublin transport solutions? This Luas option was LR3 on the report. If you felt Metro was the best option out of those in the report you should have let the powers-to-be know. I know I did.

Jamie2k9

Personally in favor of this (provided an airport loop happens), the DART idea is not fit for purpose and doesn't deliver what is required.

A DART link will happen will into the future but DU is needed for this.

Decades upon decades of procrastinating over a proper Metro (which would be faster through the City Centre and not require restriction of road traffic arteries or interaction with city traffic), and it comes down to early-20th-century solutions.

Metro North was a joke from the start, some good aspects but some not so good. Yes Luas may cause issues but speed is not everything. GIve me a tram any day than taking luggage on DB for the airport!

Stevek101

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Personally in favor of this, the DART idea is not fit for purpose and doesn't deliver what is required.

A DART link will happen will into the future but DU is needed for this.



Metro North was a joke from the start, some good aspects but some not so good. Yes Luas may cause issues but speed is not everything. GIve me a tram any day than taking luggage on DB for the airport!

The option to be selected LR3 doesn't actually serve the airport. There was talk of a "People Mover" between the stop on the R132 and the terminals. Bit mad really.

hytrogen

Just extend the DART from Malahide through Swords to terminate in the airport T1 &T2 & be done with it, they can look to extend it onto Heuston at a later date.
Or even start at the airport, through Swords, onto Malahide stopping at every small station & use the existing lines under the Phoenix park to terminate at Heuston. 30 - 40mins round trip tops.
Similarly run DARTS from Bray & Graystones to terminate at the airport randomly like they do to Howth or Malahide.

cgcsb

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Personally in favor of this (provided an airport loop happens), the DART idea is not fit for purpose and doesn't deliver what is required.

A DART link will happen will into the future but DU is needed for this.



Metro North was a joke from the start, some good aspects but some not so good. Yes Luas may cause issues but speed is not everything. GIve me a tram any day than taking luggage on DB for the airport!

Why was metro north a joke from the start out of curiosity?

monument

I still think Dart and Intercity via Glasnevin and the Ballymun Metro alignment, and onto the Northren Line north of Swords should have been looked at.

This would have followed Dart Underground in using and connecting what we already have to get a network.

Bob24

If it is going to take more than 25 minutes to connect the city center to the actual airport terminal (not a stop that is 5 or 10 minutes away), I think it is pointless.
The AirCoach or AirLink would deliver similar or shorter journey times with better comfort (almost guaranteed seat and no stops all over the city with people getting on and off, which is annoying if you have a lot of luggage). People would keep using these.

Kermit.de.frog

Introducing tourists on a tram through Ballymun, Cabra and Dominick street on the BXD line that will have the exact same social problems as the red line does not seem very appealing.

It's not the right choice but it's what I expected. "What is the least we can get a way it?"

Idbatterim

MGWR did you make a submission about this during the consultation on future North Dublin transport solutions? This Luas option was LR3 on the report. If you felt Metro was the best option out of those in the report you should have let the powers-to-be know. I know I did.

they couldnt give a toss about our opinions, that is the reality...

Bob24

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Introducing tourists on a tram through Ballymun, Cabra and Dominick street on the BXD line that will have the exact same social problems as the red line does not seem very appealing.

It's not the right choice but it's what I expected. "What is the least we can get a way it?"

Unfortunately it seems like what they are after is ticking the airport box with the cheapest project possible that also delivers as many other things as possible.

That works if what you are trying to achieve is to shut up people who are complaining there is no rail link from the city to the airport. But as far as delivering better service than what is currently in place is concerned, it is a different story.

Dr_Bill

A proper Metro system in the Capital makes a lot of sense, there is a requirement still to connect Dublin airport to the city centre, now we can't afford it so our wise Government will go for the cheap option which in time will prove to be inadequate and lack sufficient future proofing, but so long as a couple of school teachers keep getting elected as TD's it will be grand!

Just in case there is any doubt the wise government can commission a report to the consultants and kick the can down the road so a decision doesn't have to be taken its marvellous!

coylemj

Bob24 wrote: »

If it is going to take more than 25 minutes to connect the city center to the actual airport terminal (not a stop that is 5 or 10 minutes away), I think it is pointless.
The AirCoach or AirLink would deliver similar or shorter journey times with better comfort (almost guaranteed seat and no stops all over the city with people getting on and off, which is annoying if you have a lot of luggage). People would keep using these.

+1,000 People on the southside are not going to get a bus to the city centre and then lug their bags onto some new system to go to the airport when a lot of them (myself included) have an Aircoach stop within walking distance (or a short hop on DB) of their houses.

I can walk to the Aircoach stop, shove my bag in the hold, pay the driver and I can then sit back in comfort (with a guarantee of no fare dodgers or unsocial behaviour) until I get dropped outside the terminal. It would take some serious piece of super fast transport which was heavily and effectively policed to persuade me to go via the city centre and some kind of tram or underground railway.

Access to the airport via the Port Tunnel has effectively eliminated most people on the southside as prospective users of any city centre link to the airport.

LXFlyer

coylemj wrote: »

+1,000 People on the southside are not going to get a bus to the city centre and then lug their bags onto some new system to go to the airport when a lot of them (myself included) have an Aircoach stop within walking distance (or a short hop on DB) of their houses.

I can walk to the Aircoach stop, shove my bag in the hold, pay the driver and I can then sit back in comfort (with a guarantee of no fare dodgers or unsocial behaviour) until I get dropped outside the terminal. It would take some serious piece of super fast transport which was heavily and effectively policed to persuade me to go via the city centre and some kind of tram or underground railway.

Access to the airport via the Port Tunnel has effectively eliminated most people on the southside as prospective users of any city centre link to the airport.

That's a very generalised comment.

Aircoach only serve the east coast areas along the N11 and Rock Road and south along the coast.

The only other link is the 16 in the middle which can be very slow.

There is the airport hopper but that really is the western suburbs.

There are large swathes of the southside with no direct link whatsoever who do rely on a change in the city centre if using public transport.

stehyl15

coylemj wrote: »

+1,000 People on the southside are not going to get a bus to the city centre and then lug their bags onto some new system to go to the airport when a lot of them (myself included) have an Aircoach stop within walking distance (or a short hop on DB) of their houses.

I can walk to the Aircoach stop, shove my bag in the hold, pay the driver and I can then sit back in comfort (with a guarantee of no fare dodgers or unsocial behaviour) until I get dropped outside the terminal. It would take some serious piece of super fast transport which was heavily and effectively policed to persuade me to go via the city centre and some kind of tram or underground railway.

Access to the airport via the Port Tunnel has effectively eliminated most people on the southside as prospective users of any city centre link to the airport.

They could always allow a park and ride system but use cheaper rates than the current ones at airport and have certain bays marked as long term park and clamp anyone thats not using the new park and ride system also people who are trying to save a few the aircoach is a rip imo and i would never use it again its actually cheaper and far more convient to park with quickpark than the aircoach

Icepick

MN should be the only contender

hfallada

If we were to the build the metro anytime, its now. The cost of borrowing is next to nothing. Even during the boom our bonds were about 3-4%. Now we can borrow for 10 years at 0.5% and its going to get cheaper. The cost of building the Metro is only supposed to be about 3.5Billion versus 5 billion 10 years ago. Our economy will have a balanced budget in a year or 2, along with the economy growing at 5% pa. If it makes any economic sense to build the Metro, its now and not back in 2005. 10 year Bonds at 0.5% is basically free money.

QE from the ECB is to encourage the likes of the Metro North to built. When its super cheap to borrow, borrow and stimulate the economy. With the multiplier effect(google it), we can probably expect the Metro to contribute 10-15Billion to the Economy.

We arent going to be able to borrow money so cheap again. So we might as well do the City centre to the Airport link the right way and build a Metro.

Van.Bosch

I am warming to the idea of Lias to the airport but think it should be its own line which shares track with BXD in the city. I don't think it should merge where they have suggested but instead follow a more direct route to OCS, where it can share BXD until trinity and then either spur down pearse street to ringsend or else out to ballsbridge via Nassau street.

stehyl15

The metro north just looks like a glamourised version of the luas IMO

road_high

Shocking "solution". Id wager the bus via the port tunnel is far quicker presently than this.

markpb

road_high wrote: »

Shocking "solution". Id wager the bus via the port tunnel is far quicker presently than this.

You can't compare a transit system serving lots of local areas on its way to the airport with an express bus serving the start and finish and nowhere in between. Your bus might be faster but it's of no use if you live or work anywhere in between.

Bob24

markpb wrote: »

You can't compare a transit system serving lots of local areas on its way to the airport with an express bus serving the start and finish and nowhere in between. Your bus might be faster but it's of no use if you live or work anywhere in between.

But that's the thing - either you deliver a transit system serving lots of local areas or a good transport link to the airport which will be useful to a majority of passengers. Thinking they are going to deliver both at the same time is not reasonable.

Once they have chosen the first option, extending it to the airport really is box ticking exercise to be able to say the airport has a rail connection - but as road_high mentioned it is not bringing a better solution for most air travelers than what is already in place (the only few for which it will be useful would be the people who live along the tram line somewhere between the airport and the city centre - a tiny minority of air travellers).

markpb

Bob24 wrote: »

But that's the thing - either you deliver a transit system serving lots of local areas or a good transport link to the airport which will be useful to a majority of passengers. Thinking they are going to deliver both at the same time is not reasonable.

Once they have chosen the first option, extending it to the airport really is box ticking exercise to be able to say the airport has a rail connection - but as road_high mentioned it is not bringing a better solution for most air travelers than what is already in place (the only few for which it will be useful would be the people who live along the tram line somewhere between the airport and the city centre - a tiny minority of air travellers).

Does your argument not lack internal consistency? You're saying the airport already had decent road-based express connections to the city but complaining that they're not building another express service.

The objective of Luas extension is clearly not to provide an express service but instead to provide regular public transport to it for people who don't live on the express corridors or who work at the airport.

You also appear to making the mistake of assuming they only people going to the airport are travellers but that would ignore the trend of thousands of people who work there.

Bob24

markpb wrote: »

Does your argument not lack internal consistency? You're saying the airport already had decent road-based express connections to the city but complaining that they're not building another express service.

Actually I am not complaining that they're not building another express service.

What I am saying is: as far as airport connection is concerned either do something better (which I think is possible) or don't do anything. Delivering better local public transport to North Dublin also is a good thing to do but is a different topic and both cannot be delivered by the same tram.

markpb wrote: »

The objective of Luas extension is clearly not to provide an express service

Donohoe was clearly saying city-centre access for the airport and Swords is what is essential:

Mr Donohoe has said that the main priority is to develop links between the city centre and the airport and the Swords area, which are expected to expand significantly.
“Particularly for Dublin Airport and Swords, for those areas, city-centre access is essential for the development of our city,” he said.

Stoping everywhere along the way is not going to give that much better city centre access than what is already available.

markpb wrote: »

but instead to provide regular public transport to it for people who don't live on the express corridors

As I said in terms of airport access it will only help those who live along that tram line and not too far from the airport. Fairly limited pool of users, and most people who don't live on the express corridors won't benefit from this either.

markpb wrote: »

You also appear to making the mistake of assuming they only people going to the airport are travellers but that would ignore the trend of thousands of people who work there.

Sure I acknowledge that (even though I am pretty sure passengers are a vast majority, and I think they deserve a descent rail link to the city centre). Having said that, I don't know how usual it is but the few people I knew who work at the airport actually have fee/discounted air coach access and are happy with that. True it would give them more options of places to live with good public transport access to the airport.

end of the road

as a simple airport link, luas just doesn't cut it. have it as its own project serving the areas along the route that couldn't be served by the proposed metro system. metro does need to be built, but maybe make it into a dart type system instead and incorporate DU and the running of intercity trains to the airport, have it all as one compatible project. yes it will cost but it will be worth it and will provide the compatibility and capacity that is needed.

markpb

Bob24 wrote: »

Donohoe was clearly saying city-centre access for the airport and Swords is what is essential:

Mr Donohoe has said that the main priority is to develop links between the city centre and the airport and the Swords area, which are expected to expand significantly.
“Particularly for Dublin Airport and Swords, for those areas, city-centre access is essential for the development of our city,” he said.

Stoping everywhere along the way is not going to give that much better city centre access than what is already available.

Nowhere there does he say he wants an express service, just better connections. Many people would view a tram connection as better than than a trust bus service. When the Luas was built, this forum was full of people calling it a while elephant because the bids would be faster along certain parts. That might be true but it turns out that normal people don't care and both Luas lines are doing quite well.

As I said in terms of airport access it will only help those who live along that tram line and not too far from the airport. Fairly limited pool of users, and most people who don't live on the express corridors won't benefit from this either.

The line will start in the south city centre, pass right through the city centre, through Phibsboro, Glasnevin , Finglas and Ballymun and you can that a small pool of users?

It also joins the green line, the red line and just about every bus route (urban and suburban) in the city. Surely that should increase the pool of people who could use it to get to the airport.

The people you know who take the aircoach probably won't be bothered by this but the people who live in the rest of the city not served by Aircoach (the vast majority) might make use of it. Right now everyone I know who works in the airport drives to work because they live in parts of north Dublin not served by aircoach or even a direct DB link.

stehyl15

The luas is a far better idea then MN which just looked a overpriced luas why are people saying that the metro is the best because the luas is more or less the exact same concept just without an expensive tunnel going through the city I do think a heavy rail link is the best option for the airport as it could give other parts of the country an airport connection.

Aard

The most glaring reasons?
- Travel times.
- Shuttle.

Chris_5339762

Manchester has heavy rail AND a tram system from the airport to the city center. Both are doing just fine. We could easily have a BxD extension from Broombridge to the airport, PLUS Metro North. Just get the latter built first and be done with it.

monument

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Manchester has heavy rail AND a tram system from the airport to the city center. Both are doing just fine. We could easily have a BxD extension from Broombridge to the airport, PLUS Metro North. Just get the latter built first and be done with it.

Metro North is light rail, very much so light rail. It was planned to use long Luas trams which are no different but longer and maybe the inside layout.

The BXD extension to the airport would also take up much of the metro route, so I'm not sure how compatable both are.

Aard

If Luas D2 goes ahead, MN will never be considered again.

lucernarian

stehyl15 wrote: »

The luas is a far better idea then MN which just looked a overpriced luas why are people saying that the metro is the best because the luas is more or less the exact same concept just without an expensive tunnel going through the city I do think a heavy rail link is the best option for the airport as it could give other parts of the country an airport connection.

What's being proposed is not a Luas into the airport but a luas to the edge of the airport, beside fecking Kealy's and ALSAA!!

So the report mentions building a "people mover" AKA some kind of shuttle just to bring people from the glorified tram to Terminal 2! And knowing the DAA and Ireland in general, if there was a people mover or shuttle it would only go as far as T2 and people would still have to walk another 5 minutes on a magical mystery tour that is the badly signposted corridor from T2 to T1. What a damn joke.

hfallada

stehyl15 wrote: »

The luas is a far better idea then MN which just looked a overpriced luas why are people saying that the metro is the best because the luas is more or less the exact same concept just without an expensive tunnel going through the city I do think a heavy rail link is the best option for the airport as it could give other parts of the country an airport connection.

Metro North in underground meaning it wouldnt disturb City Centre traffic. The Luas is after disturbing most of Dublin 1 & 2 traffic. This issue is avoided with the MN. Also the Luas extension to the Airport, will have a lot of tunnelling without the full benefits of the Luas.

Its going to sound harsh, but Dublin Airport is for Dublin. The only concern should be for Dublin residents and visitors to the City. There is probably more people living within 10 mins walk of the MN line, than in most Irish cities. Dublin is one of the most visited cities in Europe. I think a fast MN link to the city, is more important than a convenient trip to the airport for a few people from the country. Irish Rail is too expensive and has such short operating hours, that I cant imagine it being popular even if a heavy rail link was built to the airport. People driving from the country/taking the cheap bus to the airport will always be more popular than a €40 Irish rail ticket to Dublin with another trip to the Airport.

MN is about connecting the dense and congested North suburbs to the city.

end of the road

hfallada wrote: »

Metro North in underground meaning it wouldnt disturb City Centre traffic. The Luas is after disturbing most of Dublin 1 & 2 traffic. This issue is avoided with the MN. Also the Luas extension to the Airport, will have a lot of tunnelling without the full benefits of the Luas.

Its going to sound harsh, but Dublin Airport is for Dublin. The only concern should be for Dublin residents and visitors to the City. There is probably more people living within 10 mins walk of the MN line, than in most Irish cities. Dublin is one of the most visited cities in Europe. I think a fast MN link to the city, is more important than a convenient trip to the airport for a few people from the country. Irish Rail is too expensive and has such short operating hours, that I cant imagine it being popular even if a heavy rail link was built to the airport. People driving from the country/taking the cheap bus to the airport will always be more popular than a €40 Irish rail ticket to Dublin with another trip to the Airport.

MN is about connecting the dense and congested North suburbs to the city.

there wouldn't be a change from irish rail to another method with a rail link to the airport. its all about options for people at the end of the day. irish rails operating hours is a problem but unless someone is willing to pay to allow longer hours for regional services then its not going to happen.

stehyl15

hfallada wrote: »

Its going to sound harsh, but Dublin Airport is for Dublin. The only concern should be for Dublin residents and visitors to the City. There is probably more people living within 10 mins walk of the MN line, than in most Irish cities. Dublin is one of the most visited cities in Europe. I think a fast MN link to the city, is more important than a convenient trip to the airport for a few people from the country. Irish Rail is too expensive and has such short operating hours, that I cant imagine it being popular even if a heavy rail link was built to the airport. People driving from the country/taking the cheap bus to the airport will always be more popular than a €40 Irish rail ticket to Dublin with another trip to the Airport.

MN is about connecting the dense and congested North suburbs to the city.

Yeah but a heavy rail link would would also link the dublin city centre aswell as the rest of the country so it would benefit the whole railway network aswell as dublin city centre and swords will also benefit from this if you actually read the proposals.

stehyl15

end of the road wrote: »

as a simple airport link, luas just doesn't cut it.

How

Bob24

stehyl15 wrote: »

How

Too slow. Unpractical for air travellers (no guaranteed seat, no space for suitases, people getting on and off all the time). Higher chances of safety related incidents with tourists.

It can be built - people just won't use it as as link from the city centre to the airport.

lucernarian

end of the road wrote: »

there wouldn't be a change from irish rail to another method with a rail link and triple or quad-tracking as far as Howth Junction to the airport. its all about options for people at the end of the day. irish rails operating hours is a problem but unless someone is willing to pay to allow longer hours for regional services then its not going to happen.

Fixed that one for you. With the exception of Drog/Dundalk/Belfast services I suppose.

At least Irish Rail would provide a station physically within the confines of the airport grounds...

As it stands, I feel C1 is the most likely option. LR3 is inadequate in terms of time from Swords and obviously the people mover aspect.

I love how AECOM never provided costings for such a people mover, or sought out the DAA's views on it.

Muahahaha

Aard wrote: »

If Luas D2 goes ahead, MN will never be considered again.

And by extension Metro West, or any notion of a metro going anywhere. Now is the perfect time to do it, we all know a Luas line to the airport will be handy but we also know it wouldnt be able to handle the loads from Swords and the airport to the city. We need infrastructure that is future proofed and Luas from Swords and the airport will almost certainly not be that.

stehyl15

Muahahaha wrote: »

And by extension Metro West, or any notion of a metro going anywhere. Now is the perfect time to do it, we all know a Luas line to the airport will be handy but we also know it wouldnt be able to handle the loads from Swords and the airport to the city. We need infrastructure that is future proofed and Luas from Swords and the airport will almost certainly not be that.

Perhaps run extra trams from the airport only

end of the road

stehyl15 wrote: »

Perhaps run extra trams from the airport only

luas won't be able to handle the traffic from the airport no matter what. a heavy rail system is the only acceptable project to link the city with the airport

donvito99

end of the road wrote: »

a heavy rail system is the only acceptable project to link the city with the airport

... at 15 to 30 minute intervals.

Aard

end of the road wrote: »

luas won't be able to handle the traffic from the airport no matter what. a heavy rail system is the only acceptable project to link the city with the airport

MN isn't heavy rail.

Tbh the vehicle type isnt really important. What's important is frequency, travel time, and connectivity.

Aard

Muahahaha wrote: »

And by extension Metro West, or any notion of a metro going anywhere.

MW would be compatible with Luas D2.

But I'm really not trying to build a case for the latter.