Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

strassenwo!f

marno21 wrote: »

You are talking approx 1bn extra to do Charlemont-Firhouse. The money isn't there no matter how many times its said Dublin SW needs a Metro line, nor is it policy to build a Metro to SW Dublin before 2035.

No further talk of a SW Dublin line in this thread unless concrete evidence of it being considered comes about. A new thread is the place for this discussion. Anyone with sufficient interest is free to start one.

Thank you, marno21, for your post on p421 of the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread. I would like to do that.

I am from Dublin, and I visit the city regularly, but I live elsewhere. As I have said on other threads, I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to make any submission about this project, as I don't have to pay for the project and I don't have to live with the consequences.

I see some things which may be flawed with this current proposal for a metro line in Dublin.

Firstly, on the northside of the city. I am concerned that this proposed metro, which comes very close to the LUAS Green line at Phibsborough, will cannabilise the catchment of the Green line in that area. after a lot of investment, for no obvious benefit.

Building the interchange at Drumcondra would remove or reduce any cannabilising of the Green LUAS line, and would also give the northside a nice separation of three corridors in/out of the city between the Northside DART, the Metrolink and the LUAS Green line.

I saw this post, in relation to this point:

Dats me wrote:

Strassenwolf, if you care about interchange, which in the light of deprioritisation of DART Underground you really should, then Whitworth is clearly the superior option.

The fact that building a station between the two lines at Drumcondra and having a five minute walk at either end to the two rail lines is possible doesn't mean they're equally good options.

If you think a slightly shorter route would reduce cost, surely having a huge mined station at Drumcondra with tunneled links to both rail lines would massively increase cost? If you don't have these links to the lines, then it's not really a proper interchange.

Not to mention the disruption that would be caused by trying to create Drumcondra as an interchange. The disruption has been the main problem with the Whitworth alignment, surely this massive mined station trying to link two rail lines a kilometre apart would cause absolute uproar.

Whitworth is an incredible idea as regards interchange and it's vital to the whole alignment, from the poster [/Q]Dats me[q]:

Strassenwolf, if you care about interchange, which in the light of deprioritisation of DART Underground you really should, then Whitworth is clearly the superior option.

The fact that building a station between the two lines at Drumcondra and having a five minute walk at either end to the two rail lines is possible doesn't mean they're equally good options.

If you think a slightly shorter route would reduce cost, surely having a huge mined station at Drumcondra with tunneled links to both rail lines would massively increase cost? If you don't have these links to the lines, then it's not really a proper interchange.

Not to mention the disruption that would be caused by trying to create Drumcondra as an interchange. The disruption has been the main problem with the Whitworth alignment, surely this massive mined station trying to link two rail lines a kilometre apart would cause absolute uproar.

Whitworth is an incredible idea as regards interchange and it's vital to the whole alignment.

I looked again at google maps this morning, and it's not 1 kilometre which separates these two lines. It's about 130 metres. It should hardly be difficult to arrange a connection between the underground metro and the overground Maynooth line at one end and the PPT line, in a burrow, at the other.

There are obviously issues with the houses in the area, but I think it would be well worth looking at the costs involved, given the investment which has gone into the Green line on the Northside, and the long-term advantages of a good separation between the northside DART, the Metrolink and the LUAS Green line.

With regard to the city centre we will have to wait for the report from the consultants about the DART Underground project.. It was, as I understood it, supposed to have been delivered last year, but we are still waiting.

On the southside of the city,the proposed upgrade of the LUAS Green line seems to be an upgrade whose time has not yet come, because the city hasn't even tried running trams at a higher frequency. I said on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread, that they should try this first, before expecting people to fork out for an upgrade.

I am broadly in favour of a line towards the southwest of the city because it delivers more to the city.

If there are, say, 16 stations on the LUAS Green Line southside of the river, even building two stations towards the south-west of the city (Harolds's Cross - Walkinstown would be my preference) would add 32 paths for rapid transit between suburbs of Dublin, with one change.

In terms of improving the transport situation for most Dubliners, the upgraded route along the Green line delivers nothing.

I am thus in favour of Dublin building a metro between Swords and the southwest of the city, probably Swords - Walkinstown via Drumcondra, the City Centre, St. Stephen's Green and the Bleeding Horse and Harold's Cross.

(I am also in favour of an eventual route via Rarhmines, Rathgar, Terenure, etc. but most of that can surely be done by cut-and-cover methods.

CatInABox

Seems like you're missing more than a few [/QUOTE] in there somewhere Strassenwo!f, I'm trying to read it, but it's pretty difficult right now.

Dats me

Strassenwolf have you looked at the Metrolink report?

They give 15 pages of detail as to why they chose Whitworth over Drumcondra, starting here at page 344:

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-1/metrolink-volume-1-main-report.pdf

As you can see from the map below, it's really the Mater Hospital stop that brings the Metro close to Luas Broombridge, and you have to have the Mater stop I think. Otherwise you're refocusing the whole alignment around a poor interchange station.



Drumcondra stop's catchment is also swallowed by two other Metro stops. From the report above:

Mater station covers some 32% of the catchment of Whitworth and 12% of the Whitworth catchment is covered by Griffith Park. The remaining 56% is served by the Whitworth Station alone.
(...)
Mater covers some 60% of the catchment of Drumcondra and 20% of the Drumcondra catchment is covered by Griffith Park. The remaining 20% is served by Drumcondra Station alone.

This assessment clearly shows that Whitworth Station serves a larger unique geographic area that is not served by stations up or downstream.

So, the Drumcondra station has some merit, of course. There is a section of North Dublin there that probably warrants a new DART station under the expansion program perhaps, and eventually to be catered for by a SW-NE Metro. But the idea that it hasn't been looked at or considered in detail is false. So is the assertion that it's the superior option.

D.L.R.

They've only been asked to find an alternative to digging up the Fianna site. Not the whole route.

Most likely they'll just launch TBMs elsewhere and only build a station at Fianna, which is much less disruptive. Or find another station site in the area.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

Seems like you're missing more than a few QUOTE marks in there somewhere Strassenwo!f, I'm trying to read it, but it's pretty difficult right now.

Yes, indeed. I didn't preview it:o. Not a good start to a thread.

Dats me wrote: »

Strassenwolf, if you care about interchange, which in the light of deprioritisation of DART Underground you really should, then Whitworth is clearly the superior option.

The fact that building a station between the two lines at Drumcondra and having a five minute walk at either end to the two rail lines is possible doesn't mean they're equally good options.

If you think a slightly shorter route would reduce cost, surely having a huge mined station at Drumcondra with tunneled links to both rail lines would massively increase cost? If you don't have these links to the lines, then it's not really a proper interchange.

Not to mention the disruption that would be caused by trying to create Drumcondra as an interchange. The disruption has been the main problem with the Whitworth alignment, surely this massive mined station trying to link two rail lines a kilometre apart would cause absolute uproar.

Whitworth is an incredible idea as regards interchange and it's vital to the whole alignment.

I hope that this isn't expressing a general view, among those who favour a route via Whitworth Road, that the two lines are so far apart at Drumcondra. Google told me this morning that they are separated by around 125 metres.

That should be a fine separation if you want to build an underground station which allows an underground metro line to connect at one end with an overground line at one end and with a line in a burrow at the other.

I also forgot to put in this bit:

monument wrote: »

You’re wrong about the length— it’s not notably different.

There’s no clear benefits and a lot of downsides to Drumcondra vs Glasnevin.

Could you give us some figures, please, for the distances between the airport and Whitworth/Drumcondra. I can't find them, even looking at current and old versions of Wikipedia, and elsewhere.

There are certainly downsides to building through Drumcondra, and the main upside I can see is its position, as a northside corridor directly between the Connolly DART and the LUAS, and that it thus wouldn't cannabilise the LUAS.

Apologies for the very poor first post.

Other than that, the rest of what I said stands.

With regard to the city centre we will have to wait for the report from the consultants about the DART Underground project.. It was, as I understood it, supposed to have been delivered last year, but we are still waiting.

On the southside of the city,the proposed upgrade of the LUAS Green line seems to be an upgrade whose time has not yet come, because the city hasn't even tried running trams at a higher frequency. I said on the 'Dublin Metrolink' thread, that they should try this first, before expecting people to fork out for an upgrade.

I am broadly in favour of a line towards the southwest of the city because it delivers more to the city.

If there are, say, 16 stations on the LUAS Green Line southside of the river, even building two stations towards the south-west of the city (Harolds's Cross - Walkinstown would be my preference) would add 32 paths for rapid transit between suburbs of Dublin, with one change.

In terms of improving the transport situation for most Dubliners, the upgraded route along the Green line delivers nothing.

I am thus in favour of Dublin building a metro between Swords and the southwest of the city, probably Swords - Walkinstown via Drumcondra, the City Centre, St. Stephen's Green, the Bleeding Horse and Harold's Cross, and beyond. (I would think there are numerous places where you could fish out the TBM in or around Harold's Cross and continue onwards by cut and cover towards Walkinstown).

(I am also in favour of an eventual route via Rarhmines, Rathgar, Terenure, etc., but most of that can surely be done by cut-and-cover methods.

One other thing I forgot to mention, in the original post on this thread, is a reminder that a general plan for a North to South-West line and a South to North-East line seems to be an arrangement that works, especially if you want to introduce a broadly one-change system (I'm thinking Munich and Frankfurt here, anong other cities which have a density similar to Dublin).

Hopefully, also, with some kind of East-West undergrouund rail line.

Zebra3

I think a lot of people would prefer the metro to head southwest but there’s no endless pot of money.

strassenwo!f

Zebra3 wrote: »

I think a lot of people would prefer the metro to head southwest but there’s no endless pot of money.

You're quite right, there isn't limitless money.

However, Ireland has decided to build a metro in Dublin, according to the current plan, and I favour the idea of building a metro in the city. But it does seem to be a very unambitious plan, delivering only one metro line between Swords and Sandyford - half of which has already effectively been built - over a capital spending period of 19 years.

I am in no doubt that if one such line is opened, there will soon thereafter be demand for a second.

(In Munich and Frankfurt, both broadly of a similar size and density to Dublin, neither, in my opinion, has been able to properly use the third metro line which both cities built, though both do also have a heavy rail east-west tunnel, something akin to the earlier DART Underground plan).

But if money is so tight over the next 19 years, it would make sense to me to use the metro to start to deliver a rail service to/from the south-west of the city and, at the same time, to increase the frequency of trams on the Green line and use the siding at St. Stephen's Green.

As I said above (albeit in very poor earlier posts - my apologies to the board), if the metro were to head initially toward, say, the Bleeding Horse and Harold's Cross, this would introduce many extra rapid paths into the system (which upgrading the Green Line would not do). If that's done by, say, 2027, cut-and-cover from Harold's Cross to Walkinstown, and/or from the Bleeding Horse to Rathmines and beyond should be very manageable in a few years.

Those are areas where it has been well established that no overground LUAS line is feasible.

There is no evidence that the LUAS Green line is currently being pushed to anywhere near its capacity. We really need to see a higher throughput of trams, including the use of the St. Stephen's Green siding, and other possibilities, before talk of upgrading the line should be considered.

Sam Russell

According to the published documentation by Metrolink.ie, the Green line carried an average of 5,000 passengers north bound during the busiest hour in 2017. The max capacity usung the long trams (which are coming into service over the next few months) will increase the capacity to 8,000 passengers per hour.

It will be a decade before Mertrolink.ie will be operational, and in the meanwhile housing is due to be in Cherrywood and Bride's Glen. It is inconceivable that the Green Line will not be over capacity long before the Metrolink begins operating.

The current design includes the Dart extension which will provide a decent rail based PT system for much of Dublin. DU would improve it. The missing piece would be Metro II going SW to NE, perhaps interchanging at Whitworth Rd.

I think talking about other possibilities will not quicken or improve the current proposal.

CatInABox

I posted this in the Cross City thread, but it's relevant here too, in particular, one quote around Luas demand.

Whatever we put in place for Luas it seems that will not meet demand

A couple of articles in the Independent today, both around the traffic problems in Dublin (and around the country). Talking about Luas Cross City, TII are saying that all trams on the Green Line will be extended to full length by the end of next year. Travel times through College Green are down by three to four minutes since opening. Bus journeys, however, are up from 10 minute pre cross city, to 23 minutes post cross city.

See here (Bus journey times double in Dublin congestion), and here (The new commuter hour: peak times increase with record traffic volumes).

EDIT: I should note that one of the articles is pretty poor, seems like they copy and pasted some of it from an earlier article, and didn't update the dates; i.e. talking about March being in the future. It was pointed out in the other thread that one of the articles was from February, the date on it was today when I was looking at it, which must be why it was on the front page. They've corrected it now.

CatInABox

Another 850 homes being planned for along the Luas green line. It'll be like a mobile can of sardines soon enough again.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

Another 850 homes being planned for along the Luas green line. It'll be like a mobile can of sardines soon enough again.

I don't see the problem here, if the throughput along the LUAS Green line is increased, as should be very doable.

If the residents of those new homes want to get to and from the major destinations in the city, namely St. Stephen's Green, College Green and O'Connell Street, they will just get on a tram which brings them directly there in the morning and directly back home in the evening.

There will be no need to change at Sandyford onto a metro line which will broadly do what is already being done the LUAS, at least in terms of delivery to/from St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. And which is also a metro line which will not do it noticeably quicker, and, it appears, will not use significantly higher capacity vehicles.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I don't see the problem here, if the throughput along the LUAS Green line is increased, as should be very doable.

If the residents of those new homes want to get to and from the major destinations in the city, namely St. Stephen's Green, College Green and O'Connell Street, they will just get on a tram which brings them directly there in the morning and directly back home in the evening.

There will be no need to change at Sandyford onto a metro line which will broadly do what is already being done the LUAS, at least in terms of delivery to/from St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. And which is also a metro line which will not do it noticeably quicker, and, it appears, will not use significantly higher capacity vehicles.

But they will be higher capacity vehicles.

It will also take them to the Airport, and connect through Tara (Dart) and Whitworth Rd (Commuter).

However, it will be a decade away.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I don't see the problem here, if the throughput along the LUAS Green line is increased, as should be very doable.

If the residents of those new homes want to get to and from the major destinations in the city, namely St. Stephen's Green, College Green and O'Connell Street, they will just get on a tram which brings them directly there in the morning and directly back home in the evening.

There will be no need to change at Sandyford onto a metro line which will broadly do what is already being done the LUAS, at least in terms of delivery to/from St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. And which is also a metro line which will not do it noticeably quicker, and, it appears, will not use significantly higher capacity vehicles.

There's a large number of significant housing developments happening right now along the green line, and there's more entering planning everyday. By the time that they're all finished, the Green Line will have been upgraded to it's maximum, and will once again be struggling.

No other corridor has the same developments going on, or indeed, the same potential. Of course, that's because of the existence of the Green Line in the first place, which goes to show that infrastructure spending produces results, but it does mean that the upgrading the Green Line will be more cost effective than any other route.

I'd love a Metro going out to the South West, but will it have the same benefits as upgrading the Green Line? Not without it being significantly more expensive, and that's really the crux of the matter. We can afford the Green Line upgrade, but we can't afford any other route, at least not to do it right.

webwayz

The Metro North (MetroLink) should link with the Rail Line - so airport traffic can use the rail and metro to get to the airport from drogheda, dundalk, newry and belfast! also Dart users from the extension to balbriggan and lusk can get the metro to the airport, or DCU or mater hospital etc. Connectivity!

webwayz

anyone know how much it cost to rebrand the MetroNorth to MetroLink? (the most common name of a tram/metro service!)

Sam Russell

webwayz wrote: »

The Metro North (MetroLink) should link with the Rail Line - so airport traffic can use the rail and metro to get to the airport from drogheda, dundalk, newry and belfast! also Dart users from the extension to balbriggan and lusk can get the metro to the airport, or DCU or mater hospital etc. Connectivity!

You would think that but flights go at particular times, with the requirement to be there a certain time before departure. The trains from outside the GDA do not go often enough to allow arrival times that suit most flights. Answer, drive to nearest P&R or DAA car park. This would clog the Metrolink P&R facilities.

With proper charge structures, the DAA will get air passengers, and Metrolink will get the commuters.

webwayz

Well you would think that with the DART extension to balbriggan - this would dovetail into a northern line connection to the Metro for commuter traffic.
There are non-car users who want to access the airport.
And access to the metro would be a reason to extend the rail services on the northern line..

Sam Russell

webwayz wrote: »

Well you would think that with the DART extension to balbriggan - this would dovetail into a northern line connection to the Metro for commuter traffic.
There are non-car users who want to access the airport.
And access to the metro would be a reason to extend the rail services on the northern line..

That can be added nearer to construction. It is only 3 or so KM further on, but is best to wait until the first NIMBYs are dealt with.

bk

webwayz wrote: »

The Metro North (MetroLink) should link with the Rail Line - so airport traffic can use the rail and metro to get to the airport from drogheda, dundalk, newry and belfast! also Dart users from the extension to balbriggan and lusk can get the metro to the airport, or DCU or mater hospital etc. Connectivity!

From Drogheda, etc. south, take the train to Tara St and then transfer to Metro there to the airport.

No one will take the train from Belfast to the airport as the non stop coach services from Belfast to the Airport are so fast. But again if you wanted to you transfer at Tara (depending if Belfast trains pass over the loop line).

webwayz wrote: »

anyone know how much it cost to rebrand the MetroNorth to MetroLink? (the most common name of a tram/metro service!)

Most likely nothing as it is just a project name, so no big deal.

Of course restart the whole planning process is a different story, but that was likely unavoidable after the recession.

CatInABox

Eamon Ryan has an article out that talks again about tunneling another 4.5KM out to Rathfarnham, but funnily enough, still doesn't make any mention of cost. I fundamentally disagree with changing the route of the Metrolink, the plan as I see it is the fastest, most economical way to create a transport spine through the city. Adding another 4.5KM of tunnel and stations will balloon the cost, to the point that politicians around the country will clamouring to oppose it.

See his article here.

I've already put his news that there's a solution to the Na Fianna situation in the offing into the main Metrolink thread.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

Eamon Ryan has an article out that talks again about tunneling another 4.5KM out to Rathfarnham, but funnily enough, still doesn't make any mention of cost. I fundamentally disagree with changing the route of the Metrolink, the plan as I see it is the fastest, most economical way to create a transport spine through the city. Adding another 4.5KM of tunnel and stations will balloon the cost, to the point that politicians around the country will clamouring to oppose it.

See his article here.

I've already put his news that there's a solution to the Na Fianna situation in the offing into the main Metrolink thread.

Again, he has a point.

The south central area has the slowest bus speeds of any area in the city by a large margin and no surface solution is going to solve that. The 16 has been taking 90 minutes at times to get from Ballinteer to the city centre, and the 15 suffers similarly.

Yet nothing realistic is proposed to deal with it. Mass CPO activity and demolition of villages is only going to be fought tooth and nail in the courts.

As I posted before - if for example the Green Line has to be raised to cross Dunville Avenue on a bridge then that could mean an extended closure (distance and time) which could have enormous implications for traffic. Until I see a solution to that problem, I’m not convinced.

CatInABox

LXFlyer wrote: »

Again, he has a point.

The south central area has the slowest bus speeds of any area in the city by a large margin and no surface solution is going to solve that. The 16 has been taking 90 minutes at times to get from Ballinteer to the city centre, and the 15 suffers similarly.

Yet nothing realistic is proposed to deal with it. Mass CPO activity and demolition of villages is only going to be fought tooth and nail in the courts.

As I posted before - if for example the Green Line has to be raised to cross Dunville Avenue on a bridge then that could mean an extended closure (distance and time) which could have enormous implications for traffic. Until I see a solution to that problem, I’m not convinced.

Oh, certainly. It's a massive problem, and it definitely needs a Metro to sort it out, I just don't think that it should be this Metro.

In a few years, the Green Line is going to need to be upgraded again, and to increase the frequency, they'll need to sort out the level crossing at Dunville Avenue, which means that they'll need to close it regardless of the Metrolink upgrade.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

Oh, certainly. It's a massive problem, and it definitely needs a Metro to sort it out, I just don't think that it should be this Metro.

In a few years, the Green Line is going to need to be upgraded again, and to increase the frequency, they'll need to sort out the level crossing at Dunville Avenue, which means that they'll need to close it regardless of the Metrolink upgrade.

Of course it will have to be resolved, but what I’m saying is that if the line needs to be raised, there will have to be a much longer closure (both in terms of time and distance), and I think an extended closure of the Green Line may change the dynamics of the situation.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Of course it will have to be resolved, but what I’m saying is that if the line needs to be raised, there will have to be a much longer closure (both in terms of time and distance), and I think an extended closure of the Green Line may change the dynamics of the situation.

There is no reason that the upgrade to the Green line could not go ahead before the Metrolink construction starts.

Dunville Ave and the Stillorgan St Raephaella's Rd need sorting and could be done anyway.

I think the Rathfarnham Metro should be a second Metro line heading for Harold's Cross and onwards through Smithfield and onto Whitehall. The exact route needs proper planning.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no reason that the upgrade to the Green line could not go ahead before the Metrolink construction starts.

Dunville Ave and the Stillorgan St Raephaella's Rd need sorting and could be done anyway.

I think the Rathfarnham Metro should be a second Metro line heading for Harold's Cross and onwards through Smithfield and onto Whitehall. The exact route needs proper planning.

Stillorgan can be resolved relatively easily - re-route the LUAS on temporary tracks around where the Metro bridge would go.

Dunville Avenue is a totally different ball game - there is no space there to realign the tracks if the line is to be raised. That could mean an extended closure from Cowper to Charlemont.

Don’t agree with your metro route as it’s too far west - it needs to serve the city centre and then head north east along the Malahide Road I think.

For the record, I’m not against the Green Line upgrade, but I think the priorities are wrong in that a massive swathe of south Dublin is just being ignored and journey times getting to the point where they are simply unsustainable. 90 mins to get from Ballinteer or Knocklyon to the city and nothing being done about it is crazy. There are no simple surface solutions.

I understand the higher capital outlay - but what about the cost of the time spent sitting on buses going nowhere?

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Stillorgan can be resolved relatively easily - re-route the LUAS on temporary tracks around where the Metro bridge would go.

Dunville Avenue is a totally different ball game - there is no space there to realign the tracks if the line is to be raised. That could mean an extended closure from Cowper to Charlemont.

Don’t agree with your metro route as it’s too far west - it needs to serve the city centre and then head north east along the Malahide Road I think.

For the record, I’m not against the Green Line upgrade, but I think the priorities are wrong in that a massive swathe of south Dublin is just being ignored and journey times getting to the point where they are simply unsustainable. 90 mins to get from Ballinteer or Knocklyon to the city and nothing being done about it is crazy. There are no simple surface solutions.

I understand the higher capital outlay - but what about the cost of the time spent sitting on buses going nowhere?

I agree with much of what you say. St Raephaela's Rd needs doing now, and delay does not help traffic in the area. Dunville Ave could be solved by an underpass or bridge for vehicles, but raising the Luas line is the correct approach. How long would it take to raise the line?

The western routing is OK because it is only a km further west, and connects well with the Red line, DU should it be built, and could interchange at Whitworth Rd. It could follow the N81 (as was). It would also provide a second PT backbone, and serve a large area of the south inner city.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say. St Raephaela's Rd needs doing now, and delay does not help traffic in the area. Dunville Ave could be solved by an underpass or bridge for vehicles, but raising the Luas line is the correct approach. How long would it take to raise the line?

The western routing is OK because it is only a km further west, and connects well with the Red line, DU should it be built, and could interchange at Whitworth Rd. It could follow the N81 (as was). It would also provide a second PT backbone, and serve a large area of the south inner city.

To raise the track bed to facilitate a bridge at Dunville Avenue could require a significant closure - over six months to a year if done in parallel with the Charlemont - Ranelagh closure. It’s not a simple exercise.

I do fundamentally disagree with your proposed westerly skirting of the city centre - looking at where commuters want to go from that area, it isn’t that far west. A simple analysis of where people board and exit the existing bus routes will tell you that much. A SSW to NE route makes much more sense.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

To raise the track bed to facilitate a bridge at Dunville Avenue could require a significant closure - over six months to a year if done in parallel with the Charlemont - Ranelagh closure. It’s not a simple exercise.

I do fundamentally disagree with your proposed westerly skirting of the city centre - looking at where commuters want to go from that area, it isn’t that far west. A simple analysis of where people board and exit the existing bus routes will tell you that much. A SSW to NE route makes much more sense.

People catch buses that suit them. I doubt that bus routes are designed to suit passengers.

The CC is not the Spire, or O'Connell Bridge, or SSG. The purpose of a Metro is to provide a network of PT that gets as many people to their destination in a speedy and convenient PT service. Providing a second Metro is a better solution (in my mind) than branching off the proposed line. Branching reduces potential capacity and reduces coverage.

Now I am not a PT planner, so this is only an opinion for what it is worth. However, the CC will expand, in size, and move either east towards the docks, or west, but it will be a decade before the effect of Metrolink will be felt. The city will change a lot in that time. We should have a children's hospital at James, and a maternity hospital at St Vincent's. These alone will change travel patterns, not to mention the effect of Brexit (depending on how that works out).

Metro II will cost another €3 billion whatever is built.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

People catch buses that suit them. I doubt that bus routes are designed to suit passengers.

The CC is not the Spire, or O'Connell Bridge, or SSG. The purpose of a Metro is to provide a network of PT that gets as many people to their destination in a speedy and convenient PT service. Providing a second Metro is a better solution (in my mind) than branching off the proposed line. Branching reduces potential capacity and reduces coverage.

Now I am not a PT planner, so this is only an opinion for what it is worth. However, the CC will expand, in size, and move either east towards the docks, or west, but it will be a decade before the effect of Metrolink will be felt. The city will change a lot in that time. We should have a children's hospital at James, and a maternity hospital at St Vincent's. These alone will change travel patterns, not to mention the effect of Brexit (depending on how that works out).

Metro II will cost another €3 billion whatever is built.

Sam, do you use those bus routes? They pretty much serve the main destinations.

I suspect you don’t by your ideas. If you did, you’d realise that the vast majority of bus users from those areas are heading to points east of the Camden Street axis. That hasn’t changed in the 30 years I’ve been commuting.

Pushing them further west ain’t the solution. The main CBD and retail areas are all east.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Sam, do you use those bus routes? They pretty much serve the main destinations.

I suspect you don’t by your ideas. If you did, you’d realise that the vast majority of bus users from those areas are heading to points east of the Camden Street axis. That hasn’t changed in the 30 years I’ve been commuting.

Pushing them further west ain’t the solution. The main CBD and retail areas are all east.

You are right in that I live in Dublin 4, so do not use that area for commuting.

However, if Metro II were built, buses would be more a feeder service to the metro than a single route for commuters. Buses in Dublin spend too much of their route wending their way through housing estates. The metro and Bus Connects should change that.

This assumes that a better fare structure is introduced that gives passengers, say, 90 min to complete their journey with multiple transfers.

We have one Dart line that serves the beaches of south east Dublin. We will have one Metro line that will serve the good people of leafy Dublin 6. Let us have one that serves the people of SW Dublin and the south inner city. I think they deserve nice things, as do those living in the NE of Dublin.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are right in that I live in Dublin 4, so do not use that area for commuting.

However, if Metro II were built, buses would be more a feeder service to the metro than a single route for commuters. Buses in Dublin spend too much of their route wending their way through housing estates. The metro and Bus Connects should change that.

This assumes that a better fare structure is introduced that gives passengers, say, 90 min to complete their journey with multiple transfers.

We have one Dart line that serves the beaches of south east Dublin. We will have one Metro line that will serve the good people of leafy Dublin 6. Let us have one that serves the people of SW Dublin and the south inner city. I think they deserve nice things, as do those living in the NE of Dublin.

Sam I was making the point that the bus routes already go where the people want to go, and that’s to Camden St and east. That’s where the metro from Rathfarnham needs to go in my opinion (and not way out west of the city centre as you’re suggesting). A central node makes more sense.

Please tell me which bus routes in south central Dublin spend too much time wending their way around housing estates? This line is trotted out so much yet isn’t valid in the vast majority of cases since the Network Direct rollout. It’s BS frankly at this stage.

The bus routes in the area suffer from severe congestion on the main radial routes due to lack of roadspace. Let’s cut this BS about the principal routes wending around housing estates because with a few exceptions it doesn’t hold water anymore.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Sam I was making the point that the bus routes already go where the people want to go, and that’s to Camden St and east. That’s where the metro from Rathfarnham needs to go in my opinion (and not way out west of the city centre as you’re suggesting). A central node makes more sense.

Please tell me which bus routes in south central Dublin spend too much time wending their way around housing estates? This line is trotted out so much yet isn’t valid in the vast majority of cases since the Network Direct rollout. It’s BS frankly at this stage.

The bus routes in the area suffer from severe congestion on the main radial routes due to lack of roadspace. Let’s cut this BS about the principal routes wending around housing estates because with a few exceptions it doesn’t hold water anymore.

150. Goes around the houses.

16. Ballinteer to the airport through heavy congestion, with a trip around Whitehall.

I am only familiar with the 4 and 7/7a, that appear to only travel in convoy.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

150. Goes around the houses.

16. Ballinteer to the airport through heavy congestion, with a trip around Whitehall.

I am only familiar with the 4 and 7/7a, that appear to only travel in convoy.

The 150 is a local community route. Do you think that those people in the areas it services don’t deserve a service? I’d like to see you try and remove it!

There are plenty of alternatives along the Crumlin Road - 27, 56a, 77a and 151 and the 15a to Whitehall Rd.

The network needs a mix of local and direct routes.

I agree about the 16 (the 1 should serve Beaumont) but that’s one route Sam. Hardly representative of the entire network and certainly not the case in south Dublin which is the area
I am discussing re metro.

Sam Russell

You are better informed over DB than I am. s I said, my experience goes as far as the 4, 7/7a and that is it.

However, I think shifting the Metro II just 1 km west is just a minor re-routing and people will be delighted with it if they live 1 km further west of it, and not affected if they live 1 km east of it. It would still connect with much public transport.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are better informed over DB than I am. s I said, my experience goes as far as the 4, 7/7a and that is it.

However, I think shifting the Metro II just 1 km west is just a minor re-routing and people will be delighted with it if they live 1 km further west of it, and not affected if they live 1 km east of it. It would still connect with much public transport.

Well then why make such a daft throwaway remark about bus routes if you can’t actually back it up?

As someone who has used most of the bus routes from south central Dublin during my commuting life, I think you’re completely barking up the wrong tree with the notion of going 1km west. At the risk of repeating yourself - the principal traffic generators are all to the east - the CBD and retail areas. That is where people want to go, and it’s the bus stops nearest those areas that are the busiest on all the bus routes. Sending people out to the west of the city centre along Patrick St is pointless as there’s far fewer traffic generators and its further away from where the majority wish to travel to.

Frankly Sam, you have already admitted you’ve no idea about traffic patterns in the area, and coming with notions like this without having any understanding of where people are actually going to/from is frankly daft. There’s no substitute for getting out there and watching the flows in reality.

Metro lines in Dublin ideally need a central hub (Tara St is best in my view).

Speaking of a massive expansion in homebuilding in Cherrywood, the N11 remains an option for offering improved high frequency & high capacity public transport to and from the city centre.

For Terenure/Rathfarnham/Templeogue/Knocklyon/Firhouse, there are no options for improving public transport beyond banning private cars from the main routes into and out of the city centre. Traffic is chronic and buses have nowhere to go on congested roads

You can look at Census '11 population density for Dublin here: http://airomaps.nuim.ie/id/Census2011/?mobileBreakPoint=600/ (select the population button & the pop density one). The green line route was significantly lower density than any potential southwest spur, and the proposed home building in Cherrywood will be a long time matching the growth Knocklyon/Firhouse/Ballycullen and Rathfarnham have had.

The green line route was chosen because it followed an existing landbank. Not because it was superior in terms of population demographics or potential passenger journies.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

The green line route was chosen because it followed an existing landbank. Not because it was superior in terms of population demographics or potential passenger journies.

The Green Line followed the old Harcourt Line, closed by FF Todd Andrews. It should have continued onto Bray on the old alignment.

tom1ie

So here’s a crazy idea.....
Bus connects is rumored to cost 2 billion.
Charlemount to firhouse is 8.8km of a tunnel. (Let’s say 9km).
It’s approx 100million per km.
100 million by 9= 900 million.
A metro station costs approximately 80million.
Let’s say 6 stations. ( rathmines, rathfarnham, terenure, rathfarnham, ballyboden, knocklyon)
80 million x6 = 480million (let’s say 500 million.)
900million + 500 million = 1.4 billion.
That means we’d have 600 million, from the original 2 billion to spend on brt, to put in a couple of feeder, to the metro station routes, and orbital brt routes, that would join up pt transport nodes orbitaly.
With the traffic that would be taken off the roads from the capacity and frequency offered by metro2, busses would have a lot more road space and be quicker and more efficient anyway, meaning the entire 2 billion was never needed to upgrade the network.
Discuss.

markpb

tom1ie wrote: »

With the traffic that would be taken off the roads from the capacity and frequency offered by metro2, busses would have a lot more road space and be quicker and more efficient anyway, meaning the entire 2 billion was never needed to upgrade the network.

In my experience, buses in Dublin are not limited by road capacity, they're limited by no physical segregation, poor bus lanes design, poor bus stop design, limited bus lane enforcement by AGS, excessive dwell time caused by limited doors and poor ticketing options and, of course, the biggest one of all: too many taxis (legally) in the bus lanes. None of those will be solved by building a metro anywhere. They'll be solved by investing in the bus system, as is proposed.

tom1ie

markpb wrote: »

In my experience, buses in Dublin are not limited by road capacity, they're limited by no physical segregation, poor bus lanes design, poor bus stop design, limited bus lane enforcement by AGS, excessive dwell time caused by limited doors and poor ticketing options and, of course, the biggest one of all: too many taxis (legally) in the bus lanes. None of those will be solved by building a metro anywhere. They'll be solved by investing in the bus system, as is proposed.

Yeah but in areas that would be served by metro2 there would be no room for physical segregation. There are no continuous bus lanes into the cc in that area as it is!
Db is absolutely limited by road capacity, as if we had wider roads, lanes could be turned into qbc’s.
I completely agree with you regarding taxis ags and dwell time, but none of these will have much of a bearing on overall journey time as the bus will be stuck in traffic as there is no room for a qbc. Hence the only option is to remove the traffic via a metro.

LeinsterDub

tom1ie wrote: »

So here’s a crazy idea.....
Bus connects is rumored to cost 2 billion.
Charlemount to firhouse is 8.8km of a tunnel. (Let’s say 9km).
It’s approx 100million per km.
100 million by 9= 900 million.
A metro station costs approximately 80million.
Let’s say 6 stations. ( rathmines, rathfarnham, terenure, rathfarnham, ballyboden, knocklyon)
80 million x6 = 480million (let’s say 500 million.)
900million + 500 million = 1.4 billion.
That means we’d have 600 million, from the original 2 billion to spend on brt, to put in a couple of feeder, to the metro station routes, and orbital brt routes, that would join up pt transport nodes orbitaly.
With the traffic that would be taken off the roads from the capacity and frequency offered by metro2, busses would have a lot more road space and be quicker and more efficient anyway, meaning the entire 2 billion was never needed to upgrade the network.
Discuss.

Even in London buses are still the back bone the PT.

Over the period there were a total of 4.44 billion bus journeys taken in England, more than half of which (2.4bn) were made in London.

http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/londons-bus-ridership-is-falling-three-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-englands/

Annual passenger numbers 1.37 billion

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/london-underground/facts-and-figures

tom1ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Even in London buses are still the back bone the PT.



http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/londons-bus-ridership-is-falling-three-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-englands/



https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/london-underground/facts-and-figures

Agreed but I’m not saying scrap dB! I’m saying instead of spending 2 billion on bus connects, which let’s face it, is gonna be watered down so much it will be unrecognizable, on cpo’s alone build metro 2 out of that pot and with the money left over, put that into expanding the fleet.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

In my experience, buses in Dublin are not limited by road capacity, they're limited by no physical segregation, poor bus lanes design, poor bus stop design, limited bus lane enforcement by AGS, excessive dwell time caused by limited doors and poor ticketing options and, of course, the biggest one of all: too many taxis (legally) in the bus lanes. None of those will be solved by building a metro anywhere. They'll be solved by investing in the bus system, as is proposed.

Mark - the fundamental problem in south central Dublin is the lack of roadspace. Try taking a 14 or 15 south in the evenings. There’s no space for an outbound bus lane in Rathmines or along Rathgar Road which is now taking an eternity to travel through.

The buses then get stuck in Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure and Templeogue villages due to the confined space.

That’s the fundamental problem.

None of that will be solved by BusConnects.

tom1ie

LXFlyer wrote: »

Mark - the fundamental problem in south central Dublin is the lack of roadspace. Try taking a 14 or 15 south in the evenings. There’s no space for an outbound bus lane in Rathmines or along Rathgar Road which is now taking an eternity to travel through.

The buses then get stuck in Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure and Templeogue villages due to the confined space.

That’s the fundamental problem.

None of that will be solved by BusConnects.

This is the problem summed up in one paragraph.

schemingbohemia

LXFlyer wrote: »

Mark - the fundamental problem in south central Dublin is the lack of roadspace. Try taking a 14 or 15 south in the evenings. There’s no space for an outbound bus lane in Rathmines or along Rathgar Road which is now taking an eternity to travel through.

The buses then get stuck in Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure and Templeogue villages due to the confined space.

That’s the fundamental problem.

None of that will be solved by BusConnects.

I think a bit of magical thinking in Rathmines could work. 3 lanes with 2 bus lanes and 1 one-way car lane that changes direction at 1pm!
Any examples of this mad-cap thinking anywhere?

tom1ie

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I think a bit of magical thinking in Rathmines could work. 3 lanes with 2 bus lanes and 1 one-way car lane that changes direction at 1pm!
Any examples of this mad-cap thinking anywhere?

? So what happens if your in a car and want to go the other direction? Don’t think that’s gonna work in rathmines, plus people don’t give a damn about bus lanes. They park in them to run into costa coffee! I’ve seen this!
Theres just not enough space for bus connects to have any effect on rathfarnham rathmines templeogue terenure Harold’s x green hills kimmage etc etc

bk

First of all, BusConnects is supposed to cost 1 billion over 10 years, not 2 billion!

That is just 100 million per year, which really isn't that much.

At the moment we buy 100 buses a year as replacements for old buses. Each new bus costs about €400,000 so that is €40 million per year alone for normal fleet replacement and they are expecting to increase the umber of buses bought per year. So really your only talking about €50m per year being spent on improving bus infrastructure throughout the city, it really isn't that much.

This thread seems to have turned into just focusing on a narrow corridor in the South West and it's issues! There are similar issues all over the city and BusConnects will be trying to help the entire city, all 16 core bus corridors.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

First of all, BusConnects is supposed to cost 1 billion over 10 years, not 2 billion!

That is just 100 million per year, which really isn't that much.

At the moment we buy 100 buses a year as replacements for old buses. Each new bus costs about €400,000 so that is €40 million per year alone for normal fleet replacement and they are expecting to increase the umber of buses bought per year. So really your only talking about €50m per year being spent on improving bus infrastructure throughout the city, it really isn't that much.

This thread seems to have turned into just focusing on a narrow corridor in the South West and it's issues! There are similar issues all over the city and BusConnects will be trying to help the entire city, all 16 core bus corridors.

Indeed it will be across the city, but the south central part part of Dublin has the slowest bus speeds in the city by a mile, which (in my view) does make the issues facing it that more urgent than others, and frankly there is damn all surface solutions that are going to resolve that.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Indeed it will be across the city, but the south central part part of Dublin has the slowest bus speeds in the city by a mile, which (in my view) does make the issues facing it that more urgent than others, and frankly there is damn all surface solutions that are going to resolve that.

Shrug, we currently have a housing crisis in Dublin. They is little or no space for new housing on this SW corridor, there is lots of space for tens of thousands of new homes along the Green Line, thus it is a higher priority and would have a much better business case. It really is as simple as that.

A SW line needs to happen eventually, I agree, but it simply isn't a priority now.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Shrug, we currently have a housing crisis in Dublin. They is little or no space for new housing on this SW corridor, there is lots of space for tens of thousands of new homes along the Green Line, thus it is a higher priority and would have a much better business case. It really is as simple as that.

A SW line needs to happen eventually, I agree, but it simply isn't a priority now.

Well you will forgive me if I again say that your post is talking tosh and comes across as exceptionally patronising.

What about all the homes that are already built in that area? There have been large developments built in the Knocklyon/Firhouse areas since the 1990s and they have appalling public transport due to the narrow nature of the roads.

Are you saying that a 90 minute commute time (yes it has been that bad regularly) from that area to the city is acceptable?

I’m sorry but I fundamentally disagree with you.

You’re effectively saying sorry, but you thousands of people who bought out in that area during that time are second class citizens.

I’m certainly not going to accept that from anyone.

I make no apology for fighting for better transport in that area as it is appalling and nothing on the surface is going to resolve that unless you plan on demolishing all the villages and decimating every front garden in sight!

I suspect you might change your tune if you had to endure those sort of journey times.

bk

It is always a fundamental question for major infrastructure development.

Do you prioritise development towards areas that already exist and do need better public transport, but have very limited space for new development or do you instead prioritise development towards more green field type sites and help encourage the building of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new homes and business.

I mean the SW is the mess that it is because planners over the decades allowed a massive amount of development in this area without also developing the need public transport infrastructure.

With the Green Line upgrade they are finally doing the right thing, building up the public transport infrastructure in parallel with the tens of thousands of new homes there coming on line. It is fundamentally good planning.

Going with your plan instead would cost WAY more and simply continue the planning mistakes of the past with insufficient capacity on the green line for all those new homes. It would just moves the issues that the SW are having to the new areas along the Green Line and again cost WAY more and likely risk the entire Metrolink project as it becomes too expensive.

To be honest, you are coming at this from a selfish place, you live in the SW corridor and you want better public transport, that is completely understandable. However you aren't looking at the bigger picture of the entire city and what has the best business case and the best alignment with national policy.