Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

strassenwo!f

Unfortunately my memory seems to be failing me.

The connection at the German National Library is with Frankfurt's U5, which connects the suburb Preungesheim with the city centre. The connection of bus route 32 with lines U1 U2, U3 and U8, which link suburbs with the city centre, is a couple of stops later on the orbital bus route. How did I forget that?

bk

As you mention, Frankfurt is one of the richest cities in the world and likely to get richer with Brexit, but it's population is also 5 times higher then Dublin. So it isn't a particularly great comparison to Dublin.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen are probably better comparisons to Dublin. Same population size and density and somewhat similar economy.

They don't have Metros going to every corner of the city, like you'd find in Paris, London, etc. But instead what they have is 4 or 5 core Metro/DART lines which are then feed by extensive bus, tram and cycling networks.

The is more like the model we should be aiming for in the medium term. We need to start somewhere and Metrolink and DART Expansion are solid plans that will give us a high quality core like Amsterdam/Copenhagen to build on. Hopefully BusConnects will also be successful and will help feed buses and bikes into this network too.

We should of course also be planning for Metrolink line 2, etc. But we need to be realistic and aim for Amsterdam/Copenhagen type transport, rather then Paris/London/Frankfurt.

The reason I mention this, is that it is important that we learn the lessons from Amsterdam/Copenhagen, what they do to solve the last mile problem. Good, well integrated bus services, lots of good quality cycling infrastructure, etc.

Paris/London/Frankfurt don't have as much to teach us as they are such big and rich cities, they can have very extensive Metro networks that service most of the city and few people are more then 5 minutes walk from a station. That of course is brilliant, but it is also unrealistic for a city of the size and population density of Dublin/Amsterdam/Copenhagen.

Sam Russell

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II. All engineering decisions will have been made and just the route needs to be chosen.

The Metro II could be built much quicker than the near decade for this one.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II.  

I would start long before that.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

I would start long before that.

Well, yes. It will take about three years to tunnel, and if they get the act together, they could keep the TBM boring on Metro II. They would be ready to do that if ABP approve their plans in time.

bk

Bray Head wrote: »

I would start long before that.

Well pretty much every person in the country with rail planning and engineering experience is currently working on Metrolink, so until that work is finished and the Metrolink is near to starting, you realistically won't have the resources to work on anything else.

And then their is DART Expansion, DART Underground and Luas extensions to do too. Oh and BusConnects.

Of course you can start coming up with a rough idea of where a second line might go. But I'm talking about detailed planning.

It is the same problem we are having in the construction sector and frankly all infrastructure. We don't have the human resources due to the recession and it will take time to gear up.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once they have finalised the Metrolink project are are stating to build, it would make sense to begin work on the planning for Metro II. All engineering decisions will have been made and just the route needs to be chosen.

The Metro II could be built much quicker than the near decade for this one.

From reading the docs on the metrolink website, they've prepared them for "Metrolink/Dart Underground", so it's clear that they've been planning for the future.

marno21

The only rail projects currently on the NTA's radar are the Metrolink, DART Expansion, then following from that the 4 Luas lines and the DART interconnector tunnel.

Any further Metros are not in their 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy so until that is amended, their resources will be fully concentrated on the above rail projects,

Consonata

marno21 wrote: »

The only rail projects currently on the NTA's radar are the Metrolink, DART Expansion, then following from that the 4 Luas lines and the DART interconnector tunnel.

Any further Metros are not in their 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy so until that is amended, their resources will be fully concentrated on the above rail projects,

I didn't know DU was approved under project 2040?

marno21

Consonata wrote: »

I didn't know DU was approved under project 2040?

The funding plan for Project 2040 (National Development Plan 2018-2027) invisages that the DART Underground route will be finalised and protected during this period. The tunnel will then be advanced to construction after 2027 (perhaps before it depending on timelines for other projects). It's in the NTA 2016-2035 GDA transport policy so will likely be implemented between 2027-2035

(I realise that's very idealistic and likely to change but that's current situation)

Consonata

marno21 wrote: »

The funding plan for Project 2040 (National Development Plan 2018-2027) invisages that the DART Underground route will be finalised and protected during this period. The tunnel will then be advanced to construction after 2027 (perhaps before it depending on timelines for other projects). It's in the NTA 2016-2035 GDA transport policy so will likely be implemented between 2027-2035

(I realise that's very idealistic and likely to change but that's current situation)

If, in the ideal situation, that a Cork-Belfast HSR route becomes viable, would they route it through a hypothetical Dart Underground, or through upgrading the already existing PPT

bk

Consonata wrote: »

If, in the ideal situation, that a Cork-Belfast HSR route becomes viable, would they route it through a hypothetical Dart Underground, or through upgrading the already existing PPT

No and no.

First of all, we are unlikely to ever see a Cork to Belfast HSR. It would likely cost 12 billion. We just don't have the population size and densities to support that.

Second, the DART Underground tunnel will likely be built in a way that it can only support DART's and nothing else. Perhaps even only 4 carriage DARTs to save money (which would be fine with a high enough frequency). BTW the clue is in the project name.

Trying to route other types of trains through what is supposed to be a tunnel for mass transit with very high frequencies would simply be a recipe for disaster. It is this type of low quality solution of mixing DART with heavy rail that already makes DART less reliable and frequent then it should be.

Ideally you want to completely separate out your commuter and long distance rail from your mass transit. That is how it is done all over Europe.

Look at the example of Crossrail in London. It is completely it's own tunnel, it doesn't try and share a London Underground tunnel, that would be crazy.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Well pretty much every person in the country with rail planning and engineering experience is currently working on Metrolink, so until that work is finished and the Metrolink is near to starting, you realistically won't have the resources to work on anything else.

And then their is DART Expansion, DART Underground and Luas extensions to do too. Oh and BusConnects.

Of course you can start coming up with a rough idea of where a second line might go. But I'm talking about detailed planning.

It is the same problem we are having in the construction sector and frankly all infrastructure. We don't have the human resources due to the recession and it will take time to gear up.

Would it not just be a case of copy and paste though? Metrolink would be the standard that metro 2 would be built and the engineers would design the exact same stations and tunnel system, even use the same methods for working out station catchment areas and hopefully if the timings right use the same tbm.
I know local geology would be different but that’s hardly going to take up a lot of time to figure out.

strassenwo!f

bk, where are you getting the idea that Frankfurt is much denser than Dublin?

Frankfurt is bigger in area than Dublin, as defined by wikipedia (248 sq.km vs 114.9 sq. km), and in population (736,000 vs 553,000), but Dublin has a vastly higher population density (4,800 per sq. km vs 3,000 per sq. km).

Now, Dublin, as most of us understand it, has a different meaning to Wikipedia's Dublin, because that Dublin includes areas in three other local councils. Most people would consider Dundrum, for example, to be part of 'Dublin'.

To make a fairer comparison between the two, you might take wikipedia's 'Dublin' and add bits of the surrounding councils to bring the total area up to 248 sq.km (Frankfurt's size) and see what the density is. As the other three councils have lower densities, you would get a lower density figure for the whole - I'd guess somewhere close to 3,000 per sq.km.

The metropolitan area around Frankfurt also has a much larger population than Dublin's, but you need to remember that the other cities in that area have their own bus and tram services covering their cities, so it's not particularly useful to make comparisons of population. In any case, I wasn't intending to make these comparisons, and just wanted to point out that there is very good distribution of rail-based transport in that city. (It's probably almost as good as Dublin's was, back in the day).

bk

Frankfurt's Metro population is 5.6 million people.
Dublins Metro population 1.3 million people.

Even if you want to stretch Dublin out to the greater Dublin region, it still is only 1.9 million.

Frankfurt is on a very different scale in terms of both wealth and population. It would be a foolish comparison.

marno21

Dublin is increasingly hard to define given the amount of sprawl right across North Leinster these days, and which is continuing and will do so until proper transport links are built and more development centred around the city rather than "3 and 4 bedroomed semi detached houses only 5 minutes from the M3" out in County Meath.

Having one local authority to manage Dublin rather than the lunatic situation at present would be useful too. Seeing a "Welcome to Dun Laoighre Rathdown" at the UCD Flyover before driving through another 8-9km of suburbia makes no sense.

bk

bk wrote: »

Frankfurt's Metro population is 5.6 million people.
Dublins Metro population 1.3 million people.

Even if you want to stretch Dublin out to the greater Dublin region, it still is only 1.9 million.

Frankfurt is on a very different scale in terms of both wealth and population. It would be a foolish comparison.

How much of Frankfurt's metro population does it's combination of rail systems serve? Because looking at maps, it's a very small fraction.

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

How much of Frankfurt's metro population does it's combination of rail systems serve? Because looking at maps, it's a very small fraction.

Well it has 9 "Metro lines" and 9 "DART" lines and 9 tram lines. So pretty extensive. Though obviously it is unlikely to cover everywhere.



Interestingly looking at that map, you can easily see how their are large areas of housing radiating out along the rail lines near the stations, but then a lot of green fields in between. Not exclusively of course, but still a very noticeable pattern.

strassenwo!f

So, I guess at this stage, bk, you're not going to acknowledge your error about the densities of the two cities?

Frankfurt is very much the centre of the Rhein-Main metropolitan area, but the other cities on the S-Bahn network which links them all have lots of their own stuff going on too. For example, two of the other cities served by the S-Bahn network are state capitals.

The original point I was making was that Frankfurt's tram network (which is entirely within the city limits) and U-bahn network (which almost totally is) serve pretty much all the corners of Frankfurt.

This is of great benefit to the residents of the city, as they can get anywhere in the city pretty rapidly, often (or mostly) with just one change. It's also of great benefit for S-bahn travellers from other outlying cities, who undoubtedly make up a significant portion of peak-time travellers, as they can get to most areas of Frankfurt, the most important city in the area, also often (or mostly) with just one change.

In my opinion Dublin is getting things broadly right with the plans for the Northside bit of the metro, opening up new areas to rapid transport with the centre. Places like Swords and Ballymun don't currently have this, and it is very much to be welcomed. But, also in my opinion, it's getting it very wrong on the Southside by deciding to pile more investment into one particular corridor which is already well served and squandering the chance to use the metro to open up one or two other corridors in the city to areas which are not currently well served. It is very short-sighted.

salmocab

The cost of the Southside bit is the driving factor, there isn’t money available to do the Southside metro that everyone wants. If money wasn’t an issue I would think that nearly everyone would agree that the SW would be better served than the Green LUAS.

bk

salmocab wrote: »

The cost of the Southside bit is the driving factor, there isn’t money available to do the Southside metro that everyone wants. If money wasn’t an issue I would think that nearly everyone would agree that the SW would be better served than the Green LUAS.

If we had billions extra then we would do both. Both Metrolink 2 and the Green line upgrade.

In fact Metrolink would still be exactly as planned, with Metrolink 2 being ideally a completely separate tunnel (obviously with integration points) from NE to SW.

It is important to remember, upgrading the Green line isn't just cheap, it is completely necessary. The Green line will be overcapacity and needing to be upgraded either way in 10 years time (if not sooner).

Consonata

If we had billions extra then we would do both.

See this is the thing. Billions extra are there, either through borrowing from the EIB or elsewhere. Which makes me really wonder what is the case being made against a vital expansion of infrastructure that is guaranteed to be giving a return on investment

Amirani

Consonata wrote: »

See this is the thing. Billions extra are there, either through borrowing from the EIB or elsewhere. Which makes me really wonder what is the case being made against a vital expansion of infrastructure that is guaranteed to be giving a return on investment

Above all else is the fact that it's not feasible politically. If you increase the cost of Metrolink by another few billion then it won't get over the line.

CatInABox

Amirani wrote: »

Above all else is the fact that it's not feasible politically. If you increase the cost of Metrolink by another few billion then it won't get over the line.

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

Sam Russell

CatInABox wrote: »

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

The EIB would not be able to finance the health service.

They would finance Metrolink, and possibly Metro II.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EIB would not be able to finance the health service.

They would finance Metrolink, and possibly Metro II.

Oh yeah, I know that, but people and politicians would look for a corresponding drop in infrastructure spending, and that would be what they want put into the health service.

I do have to wonder though, why isn't the EIB being used? What's stopping them from asking?

salmocab

bk wrote: »

If we had billions extra then we would do both. Both Metrolink 2 and the Green line upgrade.

In fact Metrolink would still be exactly as planned, with Metrolink 2 being ideally a completely separate tunnel (obviously with integration points) from NE to SW.

It is important to remember, upgrading the Green line isn't just cheap, it is completely necessary. The Green line will be overcapacity and needing to be upgraded either way in 10 years time (if not sooner).

I suppose what I meant was if it was a straight choice between upgrading the Green LUAS and another tunnel going SW then the other tunnel would be the better option.
I fully agree the green line needs upgrading, as an occasional user I’ve seen it in action.

bk

Or more to the point, the Dart Underground would be up to get such funding is available. After all DU is actually part of the Ireland 2040 plan.

As far as I know, this Metrolink 2 that we are discussing here has never been mentioned in any Dublin area development plan. It is purely an idea that has developed on this forum.

I do think it is important and should be considered, be in reality it doesn't seem to be even on agenda amongst planners for the moment.

What is on the radar at the moment is:

- Metrolink - 3bn - Currently active and a priority over next 10 year plan.
- BusConnects - 1 to 2 bn - Currently active and part of the 10 year plan.
- Dart Expansion - 2bn - Seemingly currently active and part of the 10 year plan.
- Dart Underground Tunnel - 2bn - Seems to be on hold, but marked down for post 2027
- Various Luas Extensions, Finglas, Bray, etc. Seem to be on hold, but marked down for post 2027

If more money is available, then the DU tunnel and Luas extensions are what would go ahead sooner.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

Indeed, even if we could totally finance Metro 2 through the EIB, people would be asking why aren't spending more on the health service while it's essentially broken.

It doesn’t matter how much you put into the health service, the money will not be spent where it’s needed while the governments emphasis is pushing private medical insurance for all.
Anyway that’s beside the point.
Metro2 should be marketed as a completely different project that won’t increase the cost on metrolink.
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.
It sorts out the multiple cpo issues at charlemount.
It sorts out the main sewage line at charlemount.
It provides immediate readily accessible affordable housing on a pt route.
It removes a lot of traffic from the sw via the bus connects corridor straight to rathmines.
It provides people on the sw a pt link to the airport.
It is not a massive amount of money in the context of things whereas a metro 2 line would cost billions.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

It doesn’t matter how much you put into the health service, the money will not be spent where it’s needed while the governments emphasis is pushing private medical insurance for all.
Anyway that’s beside the point.
Metro2 should be marketed as a completely different project that won’t increase the cost on metrolink.
I think the real crux of the problem is the tie in with charlemount and how the nta plan to get around this. As I’ve said before on this forum I think the extra money it would cost to do the tie in at windy Arbour and running the tunnel via rathmines, with a station located there, would improve the cba, especially when you add in the cpoing of milltown gc which could be used for mid density AFFORDABLE (not social, before anyone objects, there’s a distinct difference between the two) housing.
The station at rathmines can then be the starting point for metro 2 which would head out towards firhouse. But you would go a long way to improving traffic on the sw side of the city if a station was located in rathmines with a bus connects qbc feeding into that station coming from rathfarnham and firhouse.
It just makes sense.
The distance from charlemount via rathmines is approx 3.5km. So 100million per km is the stated tunneling cost. Therefore that’s 350 million. ( I know the tunnel will be coming from a different arc from ssg but I took charlemount as the reference.)
It’s 80 mill per station, therefore 80x 3= 240 mill. (Rathmines, windy arbour and possibly one other, Dartry?)
240+350 =590 mill.
That sorts out the at grade problems on the green line.
It sorts out the multiple cpo issues at charlemount.
It sorts out the main sewage line at charlemount.
It provides immediate readily accessible affordable housing on a pt route.
It removes a lot of traffic from the sw via the bus connects corridor straight to rathmines.
It provides people on the sw a pt link to the airport.
It is not a massive amount of money in the context of things whereas a metro 2 line would cost billions.

There is no way the whole of Milltown gc would be cpo’d it would cost millions and then to build houses with those roads around it already gridlocked, coupled with I’d imagine the members and locals are well heeled and well able to mount legal battles that run for years.