Rail Interconnector

Bill McH

I've been on the P11 message board for the last couple of days with some queries about the interconnector project. And very helpful they have been.

I wish to pursue the following question on this board, as it seems more appropriate than on P11's, given that they are committed to the interconnector project as it currently stands, and I wish them well.

My question is not should it be built, as I think it is an excellent project. It is, is the current route for the interconnector the best one? I think the current arrangement will be detrimental to the northside of the city centre.

There may well be a lot of people passing through Tara Street if the current proposal to create a DART line from Bray to Maynooth via Tara Street comes to pass. Nevertheless, if the proposal for a link between Heuston and Spencer Dock comes to pass, anybody who travels from the Northern DART line will be inconvenienced if they wish to travel to the north city centre, as they will no longer find it easy to travel to Tara Street and will instead find that Pearse Station or St. Stephen's Green will be their nearest stop. Needless to say, anyone travelling from Kildare to the north city centre will have the same problem.

By my reckoning, it takes about 7 minutes to walk from Tara Street Station to the GPO (tested on two weekdays at 11 am), while it takes 13 minutes to walk from St Stephen's Green to the GPO (tested under the same conditions)

Any views?

murphaph

It is roughly equidistant from High Street (station on the Interconnector) or Tara Street to the Jervis Centre. I know it's not the GPO but if I'm shopping on the northside Ill be going to Mary Street, Liffey Street and Henry Street.

Metrobest

I agree with you, Bill. Also, to connect with Connolly, passengers would have to change at Pearse, which was never designed to cope with the passenger volumes interconnector supporters are touting. Connolly should be the transport hub station in the city - it has connections with Intercities, Inter-regional buses, the Luas, city buses and the key footfall areas of the North city centre. And, unlike Pearse, it can cope with more passengers.

If I had to choose between the Interconnector tunnel route and the proposed Airport metro route, I'd go for the metro, simply because it delivers more people to where they really want to go. Spencer Dock and Pearse might suit IE, but there's an awful lot of passengers who'll be stranded. If I had my way - which is unlikely! - I'd build a circle line metro around the canal-side suburbs, linking Heuston underground with Connolly, stopping at Harold's Cross, Ranelagh etc. This would have the added advantage that, the tunnel boring machine could slip underground with very little disruption to city life...

Re: High Street interconnector stop. I thought it's supposed to be outside the Digital Hub - a lot of a way further from the GPO than Tara or Connolly!

MarkoP11

The direct route underneath Connolly was considered by Iarnrod Eireann. They got Ove Arup consulting engineers one of the most respected engineering consultancy firms in the world in to evaluate the various options and the opinion was the Spencer Dock route was the best option

The direct route under or near Connolly is fraught with major technical and operational issues. You can either connect with the Maynooth (Drumcondra line) or the Northern line both would not be possible to have both. Ove Arup's study presented the Connolly option only for the Maynooth line. Running the Maynooth line through the interconnector tunnel would not be able to provide the conflict free high performance system IE want to build nor would it provide the integration and direct journey opportunities.

The gradients of such a scheme would be just too steep to be practical to provide an efficient reliable service. Also the location of an underground station at Connolly would have to be well east of the current station thus making connections to the suburban platforms on the west side of Connolly a significant walk, its bad enough as it stands, to go west of Connolly would be impossible since it would make it impossible to serve Pearse indeed even Stephen's Green would be tricky

The route via Spencer Dock offers the best integration with the rail network since trains on the Midland, Drumcondara and Northern lines all can gain direct access to both the surface and underground stations. There is a need to ensure the surface station is fully integrated as well. Fact is Sligo services could easily move to Spencer Dock leaving only Belfast services from Connolly. To do Kildare Belfast, board Dart Kildare Change Drogheda, equally it would be possible to run Cork Belfast via the Park Tunnel at which point the importance of Connolly as a terminus is massively reduced. If you want to do Kildare to Henry street, you get the Luas at Heuston. Dublin is a small city walking from Grafton Street to Henry Street is nothing really and thousands of shoppers do it every day.

We should remember that the DTO studies show the south city centre to be the most popular destination at peak hours. You can argue about some passengers being inconvenienced but what of the huge numbers who will be facilitated by the provision of a decent public transport system. IE are looking at a 4 fold increase in passenger numbers to something in the region of 100 million pa from 25 million, after all the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Being one of the very few who have taken the time to go down to the Spencer Dock site on foot I can tell you its going to be huge, everything is going to be medium rise buildings. Its not some figment of someone's imagination planning permission has been granted and the builders are on site right now. The plans are detailed and the sheer number of large tall buildings going on the site clearly demonstrate the scale of the project. Standing on Sheriff Street bridge you can see a huge expanse of a site of which every square foot possible is being built on

Spencer Dock deserves a proper rail service, considering the rather small in comparison development at Grand Canal Dock justified provision of a station surely a development many many times greater deserves a proper rail service also ? Proper joined up thinking is what we need provide the public transport in parallel not 10-15 years down the line

Once again Metrobest show his ignorance for the aims of Irish Rails plans myself and many other on various board have continuously hammered home the massive benefits of the DRP, the proposed metro is a complete disaster its poor integration and shocking cost we have shown that. IE already have planned how to get a TBM in and out (on there own land away from the public) unless the RPA have teleportation device Stephens Green is going to look like a crater for 3 years while the RPA struggle to build there metro. If the metro is motivated purely by a need to serve Dublin Airport it never should be built. People won't appear from thin air in St. Stephens Green to go to the airport they will start there journey in the suburbs of Dublin. Irish Rails single change system favours these very people and still provides a city centre link. Irish Rails plans have a catchment area of a little over 1 million people than means 50% of the population of the greater Dublin region would have access to a modern efficient high capacity integrated rail network, the catchment area for the Dublin Airport metro would be at best 250,000

BuffyBot

Dublin is a small city walking from Grafton Street to Henry Street is nothing really and thousands of shoppers do it every day.

Isn't it proposed to connect the two Luas lines, which may even negate this part of the issue?

atheist

<rant>
Run the arrow on a Sunday so students etc can get back to town.

Like most cities that were not bombed flat, Dublin's street plan and transport infrastructure looks like a shattered windscreen. With low density and the commuter belt covering much of Leinster, a huge number of cars come into the city every day. You can get caught in traffic jams at the oddest times.

Spenser dock should get a station. Dublin Airport needs a link to town now. While we are used to parking our car at the airport, to go on a business trip to the UK, we should build new car parks and stations to lessen the requirement to drive a car into the city.

While this may encourage more urban sprawl, it is said that a city can't grow larger than it takes to cross in an hour, so should be self limiting.

Technology should provide some answers. The insurance companies should incentivise digital tacographs in cars, with additional technology with gps, co-ordination with traffic signals and route planning, to create road-trains (follow the leader for cars) increasing road usage density and reducing the stop-go ripple effect of what should be free flowing traffic. Should not be a problem when city traffic only moves at a few miles an hour. Facilitate using camera phones to submit pictures of moronic drivers blocking the road etc which add up to points on their licence. Have road signs at every junction nationwide. Have signs telling you what lane to be in for filtering hanging above the road, not painted underneath the cars in front of you where you can't see them.

Bus services of all shapes and sizes should be increased in frequency and new routes introduced. A txt message system should allow you to know from any pub when's the last bus home. Bus shelters should have walls on three sides and a larger roof. What climate do they think we have?

For any particular street, upgrade the utilities and surfaces every fixed number of years, with the different utilities co-ordinated, with one JCB digging and one resurfacing, rather than the current potholed scarfaced roads, putting in ducts to reduce the necessity for re-visits and moving the current cables tacked to the sides of buildings underground. Install sensors to nip problems in the bud.

Traffic cops should attend traffic accidents. Dart announcements should be more honest - some muppet's thrown a shopping trolley onto the overhead lines. Heads should roll over putting in a tunnel to take traffic off the east wall road where high lorries regularly run into the bridge with a tunnel where the roof is too low. Sort out the traffic lights maintenance. Look at what can be done in other countries and stop the not invented here syndrome.
</rant>

Victor

This sounds precariously like a northside-southside argument.

The O'Connell Street area has Luas and existing rail services. The central business core around St. Stephen's Green / Baggot Street has nothing but the odd edd of the Luas Green line.

Victor

atheist wrote:

Run the arrow on a Sunday so students etc can get back to town.

Or ban student fares from peak demand (18:00 Friday etc.) :eek:

to create road-trains (follow the leader for cars)

Oh man, don't even go their.

A txt message system should allow you to know from any pub when's the last bus home.

All city centre busses leave the city terminus at 11:30 every night. Some long distance routes (65) leave at 11. Simple?

http://www.dublinbus.ie/home/bus_text.asp

Bus shelters should have walls on three sides and a larger roof.

You have to be care with this so as to allow driver and propective passenger to see each other.

Heads should roll over putting in a tunnel to take traffic off the east wall road where high lorries regularly run into the bridge with a tunnel where the roof is too low.

Care to explain?

aliveandkicking

Bill McH wrote:

There may well be a lot of people passing through Tara Street if the current proposal to create a DART line from Bray to Maynooth via Tara Street comes to pass. Nevertheless, if the proposal for a link between Heuston and Spencer Dock comes to pass, anybody who travels from the Northern DART line will be inconvenienced if they wish to travel to the north city centre, as they will no longer find it easy to travel to Tara Street and will instead find that Pearse Station or St. Stephen's Green will be their nearest stop. Needless to say, anyone travelling from Kildare to the north city centre will have the same problem.

To get back on topic and answer your original question Bill, yes I do think the Interconnector route is spot on.

Dont forget the Luas is going to be extended to the Point Depot with an interchange stop in Spencer Dock so passengers on the northern Dart line who wish to travel to the north city centre area just have to get a tram from Spencer Dock to Abbey or Jervis. Likewise passengers from Kildare simply need to get the Luas at Heuston and Maynooth/Bray passengers can get the Luas at Connolly in order to access the north city centre area. Passengers will not have a 15 min walk to get to Henry Street.

Metrobest

Marko, are you the person who wrote the "Technical Briefing". Sorry but there's so many Platform 11 people on this forum I get mixed up with who's who. Anyway, to respond to your point about tunnelling from Heuston to Connolly, I would have thought that Irish Rail’s brief, under the Strategic Rail Review, was to find a way to bring trains terminating in Heuston into central Dublin. Apart from the conflicts at Connolly, that is the key feature of the Interconnector plans. Am I right to assume Ove Arup looked at linking Heuston to the existing lines via Connolly? Did the consultants at all consider the option of continuing the tunnel underground from Connolly to link up with Drumcondra, Phibsborough, Cabra, Heuston, Harold’s Cross, Rathmines, Ranelagh, Stephen’s Green Pearse, Spencer Dock, forming a cental loop metro? My opinion is that optimum use of the TBM would be served by using it to complete a full circle in such a loop, with minimum disruption to city life and maximum benefit to the city’s population.

*Spencer Dock* - I’ve seen the plans and I’ve been down there too. The plans do not mention the Interconnector. Granted, by Dublin standards it’s quite exciting - so hopefully it will happen. Don't bet the house on it though. It’s in the developer’s interest to hype up the plans; whether or not the finished product resembles them is another matter, and whether or not Spencer Dock will stimulate the passenger volumes neccessary for rail outside of the peak is another point of debate. I noticed that the ‘changing shape of Dublin’ in the Architecture centre in Merrion Square does not mention Spencer Dock. Make of that what you will.

From my initial scepticism, I have gone to great lengths to understand the Dublin Rail Plan, and understand it I fully do. I want to support the plan, I want to believe it will be the magic transport solution for Dublin, but I just can't rationalise that viewpoint. I attended the IEI presentation and saw that there is by no means a consensus out there that this is the best plan. My opinion is that the DRP would bring benefits to some people who, by an accident of colonial geography, live along an existing rail line. When you say “catchment area” of 1m+, what are you basing that figure on? And where’s the 250,000 figure for the metro coming out of? The words thin and air spring to mind.

I want to be clear about this. Platform 11 has played a positive role in highlighting what you see are as the benefits of the DRP, but I cannot understand your negative and hysterical attitude to the Airport Metro. It is not the overpriced, root-of-all-evil project you seem to be portraying it as. As for “people won’t appear out of thin air” to get the airport Metro – hmm, well let’s see: it will connect with the Luas and buses at Stephen’s Green, the Red line at O’Connell Street, suburban rail at some point along its line and the Interconnector, if that gets the go-ahead. Your charges against the metro just don’t stand up – and could equally be levelled against the Dublin Rail Plan.

MarkoP11

The full copy of Platform for Change (not the web version) has the numbers it indentifed 5 transport corridors into Dublin.

The total rail catchment area which does which do not include Navan is 1,078,930 by 2016. Add Navan in and the figures go up yet again. The DTO put the greater Dublin region population in 2016 as 1.75 million.

These figures where presented to the IEI (slide 22) and have been presented by Mr Tom Finn of IE in other presentations http://www.bmwassembly.ie/news/conferences/TFinn_I arnrodEireann.ppt (slide 17), all you have to do is sum them up


RAILWAY CATCHMENT POPULATION DUBLIN AREA
Corridor 1 Bray/Arklow
2002 182,423
2016 239,423 (+31.2%)

Corridor 2 Malahide/Drogheda
2002 209,215
2016 306,215 (+46.3%)

Corridor 3 Maynooth/Mullingar
2002 189,912
2016 253,912 (+33.6%)

Corridor 4 Kildare and beyond
2002 185,380
2016 279,380 (+50.7%)

Corridor 5 Navan Dunboyne
No figures available

Overall (Corridor 5 excluded)
2002 766,930
2016 1,078,930 (+40.6%)

Thanks to the RPA we don't know the Dublin Airport Metro numbers but clearly for a 12km line it would have massive difficulty in even making the 250,000 I mentioned, all the other corridors are in the region of 50-75km in length.

The assumption is that if Metro is built first the Interconnector will be put back by several years, money is and always will be tight. The current proposal from the RPA does not include a connection to the existing rail network in any shape or form, no connection at Tara Street, no connection at Glasnevin Junc. There is no connection with the Red luas line either (and I have seen that in writing), it involves a walk half the length of O'Connell Street. The connection with the green line Luas is suspect at best, in fact the original metro plans had the terminus at the other side of Stephens Green. My point concerning the TBM at Stephens Green is 100% valid

Ove Arup's brief was to investigate options to both solve the current capacity constraints and also to integrate the rail network of Dublin providing the capacity required for the future. Since the RPA showed up IE no longer have responsiblity for any kind of metro projects so any circle line fails into the remit of the RPA. Regardless such a line does not exist in the Platform for Change Document or the Strategic Planning Guidlines.

IE haven't released a list of the options they looked at but we know that they looked at Drumcondra to a tunnel under Connolly (I've seen the diagram), with onward to Heuston via Pearse or just terminating at Connolly, we know they looked at East Wall to under Connolly since that was in CIE's DRRTS plan of 1975.

going off the point slightly,

You can say what you like about the P11 report but we know its not value for money even the cheapest option, with 0 integration with suburban rail was at least 3.6 billion at 2002 prices (say 4.1 billion at 2005 prices) the original semi fully integrated option was 4.881 billion at 2002 prices (say 5.4 bilion at 2005 price). Both suffer from the capacity issues raised in the report. If we actually build a metro the cost lies somewhere in between depending on how integrated it is and what is done to provide the capacity to meet demand. So 12km metro no matter which way you look at it is poor value compared to what IE are talking about

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

From my initial scepticism, I have gone to great lengths to understand the Dublin Rail Plan, and understand it I fully do.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Metrobest wrote:

FMy opinion is that the DRP would bring benefits to some people who, by an accident of colonial geography, live along an existing rail line.

You're proving the point. The existing rail lines are serving only a fraction of the people that live alongside them. This is beacause of an infrequent, oversubscribed service which doesn't drop people where they want to go. Interconnector solves that very neatly.

Metrobest wrote:

FI cannot understand your negative and hysterical attitude to the Airport Metro. It is not the overpriced, root-of-all-evil project you seem to be portraying it as

If you paid taxes here you might be more careful about what the tax revenue was spent on. I'd love a metro system for Dublin, but living in the real world gives one an appreciation of such annoyances as co$t. It doesn't provide anywhere near as much bang for buck as the DRP and stating that you'd prefer to see it built before the DRP illustrates that you don't understand Dublin's traffic problems-the tens of thousands of cars spilling into Dublin everyday. (N7, N4, N3, N1 and N11 are all addressed by the DRP).

Victor

MarkoP11 wrote:

The full copy of Platform for Change (not the web version) has the numbers it indentifed 5 transport corridors into Dublin.

O_o

How much is missing?

MarkoP11

Victor wrote:

O_o

How much is missing?

I don't know I can only find the 28 page copy myself but there is a pile of information which goes with platform for change not in the actual document or which is derived from it. Platform for Change is nothing more than a summary document. The strategic planning guidelines are heavily linked to the transportation infrastructure proposed by the DTO in the document

I've seen reference to information I can't find in Platform for Change which leads me to believe there is a much larger document or set of documents containing the details exist and where produced to assist city planners, CIE etc.

It would be hard to imagine that 28 pages is it, CIE's DRRTS study of 1975 came in 2 volumes consiting of several hundred pages

Metrobest

*Passenger numbers* - I believe the Aiport Metro would handle 21m journeys annually, as the plan currently stands. That’s a lot more than any DART line. The Metro will generate more passengers than any DART line, because an airport stimulates all-day demand. DART is quiet outside rush hours and will continue to be with the nature of commuting patterns in Ireland. Much of the catchment area of the DART is the Irish Sea and it runs through the wealthiest parts of Dublin where there is reluctance to use public transport.

*Platform for Change figures* - Those figures are for 2016, and seem to be from way beyond the Dublin area - "Kildare and Beyond", "Mullingar" etc - so it's hard to give an accurate estimate of what each post-Interconnector corridor would achive. In theory, double decker trains (IE says a train every 10 minutes) would offer large capacity through the Interconnector tunnel, but they will be constrained by level crossings, acceleration speeds, diesel loco conflicts, ‘leaves on the line’ etc. The metro, with the tunnels to itself, can deliver the real passenger volumes. At the moment we the DTO "reviewing" the Platform for Change (what was wrong with the original one?), which might make Page 28 redundant.

*Costs for metro* - I'll use the example of the Amsterdam metro because it's the one I'm most familiar with. The Amsterdam Metro is to cost €1.4bn for a 9km line with single bore tunnels and a mixture of cut and cover and 30ft below ground station construction. It has to deal with tricky terrain: a harbour; the interchange with the Central Station, and sections where the street allignment which are narrow (the tunnel tubes will have to be stacked one over the other). Dutch planning laws are, if anything, more stringent than Ireland's, so Critical Infrastructure Bill or none, I struggle to see why/how the Dublin Metro could cost over €5bn. Professor Melis has also been over, telling us how Madrid constructed its metro with efficiency. If planned properly, using international best practice, there is no reason why Ireland cannot do the same as Spain and Holland.

*Consultants at Connolly* - It's interesting that other options were considered. But not a circle line, because the DTO did not think of/recommend it. I think this is a problem, this lack of joined-up thinking. Too many advisors advising advisors, and consultants advising consultants. We need one agency to take charge and be empowered to get things done.

Zaph0d

Metrobest wrote:

*Passenger numbers* - I believe the Aiport Metro would handle 21m journeys annually, as the plan currently stands. That’s a lot more than any DART line. The Metro will generate more passengers than any DART line...

That sounds like a very high estimate of passengers for an airport metro. Do you have a source for the figure of 21m journeys?

Airport metros in other cities typically have ridership levels of 20-25% of the annual airport passenger numbers. This would suggest 4-5m journeys for Dublin Airport that handled 20m passengers in 2003.

Despite its catchment area being 50% marine for a lot of the line, the DART still managed to carry 23m passengers in 2002, according to CIE's annual report for that year. Meanwhile, IE is adding 30% further capacity this year with longer trains and a further 30% capacity after that with improved signalling. From this data I can't see how the metro 'would carry more than any DART line'.

MarkoP11

The catchment area figures for 2002 are real numbers they are not something dreamt up they most likely come from census data or from the central statistics office. The figures for 2002 at 766,930 are significant. The projections the DTO have made in the past have been exceeded by a wide margin so the figures for 2016 are likely to be exceeded as well.

If you believe that a circle line metro will form a key part of Dublin's transport needs I would advise you to write to Mr John Henry at the DTO. He gives everyone a fair hearing. He will listen and he will respond. The DTO are preparing an update to Platform for Change to reflect the progress and lack thereof in projects. They will update there demand forecasts and add a fuller description of Iarnrod Eireann's plans which where only partially shown in the 2000 edition so now if your chance. The DTO already have a orbital metro in there plans

There is not a single level crossing between Kildare and Drogheda. When running outside a tunnel metro trains have to put with with the same hassles as other trains in terms of leaves and rain. On the capacity front IE have talked about the use of 12 car trains and 20tph would be possible through the interconnector tunnel if demand grew to such a level. 12 coaches @ 175 a coach 20 tph 42,000 in each direction. On the metro front 6 cars @ 156 a car @ 40 tph 37,440 not much in the difference until except IE have the trump card of double decker trains and of course the RPA are obsessed with using only 3 car metro trains with stations to match so you are back to 18,720. IE plan to go the airport so they will pick up the constant flow of passenger you talk of, that said no time of day is quiet it can be standing room only on 6 coach Darts almost anytime of day right now, there are peaks and troughs thats the nature of public transport

The projections for Metro talk of 18 million in the first year rising to 24 million in 2016, the Dart is currently moving 20+million, 30-40% capacity increase is due late 2005 and that figure will climb. IE are talking of the ability of moving 100 million post DRP

If the wealthiest parts of Dublin have reluctance to use public transport why is every single Dart coming in both Northside and Southside packed in the rush hour ? No shortage of demand its a shortage of capacity

This is not Madrid nor is it Amsterdam, regulations and the safety area are a lot more strict and the legal position is quite different. If you own a patch of land Irish Law states you own it to the centre of the Earth that is pretty unique to Ireland and a big problem if you are in the tunnelling business. The cut down proposal cost reflects the advice and experience from Madrid yet its 3.6 billion

IE did evaluate at least 4 routes at Connolly
1) Church Rd Spencer Dock Pearse Heuston
2) Drumcondra under Connolly to a underground terminus east of Connolly
3) As 2 but continuing to Heuston via Pearse
4) East Wall under Connolly to a underground station east of Connolly then on Heuston via Pearse

Circle line metros and metros in general are not IE's domain thats the RPA. IE did there job they got guidance in from a world class firm and combined that advice with there own experience and knowledge to produce a plan, which fits with the aims of Platform for Change

Platform for change is a great document it is an example of fully joined up thinking across all modes of transport. The DTO have a simply massive computer model for Dublin, one of the largest such models in the world I believe. They use it view the impact of various options they have tried a lot of ideas at this stage.

Once again the numbers say DRP no matter which way you try to argue it DRP will deliver the most people for a much lower cost, it is integrated and it fits perfect with the planning guidelines for the greater Dublin region. You can't argue the catchment area figures for 2002 since they are a reality

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

where’s the 250,000 figure for the metro coming out of? The words thin and air spring to mind.

But....

Metrobest wrote:

*Passenger numbers* - I believe the Aiport Metro would handle 21m journeys annually...

The words out and arse spring to mind.

atheist

Hi Victor
Fair cop.

Metrobest

To Marko...

* Catchment areas * - The CSO, AFAIK, don’t have statistics on catchment areas for rail lines. Here’s the figure I would like to see. How many people live within a 10-minute walk of a station on the Kildare, Drogheda, Bray and Howth corridors? That, to me, is the key figure we need to know. I think the DTO define “catchment” as being within a 15-minute walk of the station, their maps place “circles” of catchment beside each station, but the reality of human behaviour is that use of rail is proximity-dependent, varying by concentric circles of distance from each station: the further away you are from the train, the higher the incentive to use the bus or car. As you go further away from the station, rail needs to have a greater comparative advantage over competing transport alternatives. Capacity is a factor, so I agree that the DRP rates highly in that regard. However, a key pull factor is frequency, and here is where Metro wins hands down. A train every 10 minutes, say from Coolmine, sounds great in theory but in practice it is far from the optimum level needed to attract mass passenger numbers. Every ten minutes is still “I-need-a-timetable” frequency. Metro is “turn-up-and-go” frequency: and that’s what gets people out of their cars.

* Frequency issues * - There are seven DARTs from Howth Junction to town between 8-9am. Aside from the capacity issue, however, you will hear complaints that the service is infrequent. You point out the DRP could allow for 20tph through the Interconnector. Perhaps it could, but what a tight squeeze that would be. I just can’t see there being a train from Howth Junction-Drogheda every three minutes, bearing in mind the distance between the start and endpoints of each line, the problem of the two tracks north of Clontarf, conflicts with diesel trains on the line, dwell times in stations, signalling, acceleration speeds, weather factors, human-error factors, passenger demand flows etc. The RER in Paris and Schipol-Amsterdam CS line in Holland, two comparable double-decker train systems, do not achieve that kind of frequency, even though they are comparatively conflict-free. Nor could they, judging by the delays that infect the entire Dutch railway system when something goes wrong!

* Demand * - The laws of economics specify that demand reaches a point where it becomes inelastic. It should not be assumed that just because the DRP has a theoretical capacity to handle 100m journeys, that it will actually achieve that. Without a large expansion of the route network, it is unlikely to reach such a volume.

* Metro capacity Vs DRP capacity * - The Metro and the DRP DART would, in my opinion, achieve similar passenger volume during the peak. Outside of the peak, however, the DART will (as presently) experience a sharp dip; the metro, while experiencing ‘troughs’, will hold up at a high level throughout the day, if the experience in other airports equipped with metro stations holds true.

* Land laws * - The legal position with regard to land ownership is exactly the same in Holland as in Ireland. Dutch property owners own to the core of the earth. If anything, the law is tighter than Ireland’s. The Amsterdam metro has avoided legal quagmire by aligning the tunnel under existing streets and canals (in some cases ‘stacking’ the tunnels one over the other). The number of properties affected by the line is less than ten. The €1.4bn budget includes funds set aside to compensate property owners affected by its path. The project team send regular updates to residents living near each station; a strategy, they say, of “communication and compensation”. The same thing can be done in Dublin – we have canals too, along which the alignment for a circle line metro could follow, thus avoiding property compensations.
* Metro costs * - The post-O’Reilly figure for the Stephen’s Green-Airport Metro is €1.2bn, roughly in line with the costs for the Amsterdam Metro. Earlier estimates belong to the history books and have no place in a current debate. In any event, estimates are estimates. And it could be even less if a single bore tunnel is allowed. The cost for the Interconnector tunnel is €1.3bn (twin bore or single bore?), but it only provides three new stations, so benefits primarily those who, by an accident of colonial geography, happen to live along an existing rail line. Airport Metro does have the advantage in that it opens up a whole new corridor for high-density development, and does integrate with the Luas and suburban rail.

Finally, the Platform for Change reads like a great screenplay for the Dublin Transport Movie. Like all blockbusters, though, the budget needed to implement it is of Titanic proportions. There are things in it like an orbital metro from Dublin 24 to Blanchardstown, a Luas for Lucan, which are highly unlikely to be produced, even if Platform 11 called the shots. Sometimes, what works best is a low-budget, independent production, backed up by a talented team, and not Hollywood grandeur.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

To Marko...

Can't the other good members of this board debate this too?

Metrobest wrote:

A train every 10 minutes, say from Coolmine, sounds great in theory but in practice it is far from the optimum level needed to attract mass passenger numbers. Every ten minutes is still “I-need-a-timetable” frequency. Metro is “turn-up-and-go” frequency: and that’s what gets people out of their cars.

You've been told 100 times the frequency on the Maynooth line will start off at 7.5 minute intervals, 8 tph. The loop line will be the bottleneck but it'll be good for 16 tph (3.75 min. intervals) post DASH II. No other services will share the loop line so at peak times the system could be pushed to the 16 tph. In any case, how many folks out there have turned up for the bus and had to wait more than 7.5 minutes? I'd say quite a few. Munich's U-Bahn system runs on a 10 minute headway. People still turn up without timetables!!

Metrobest wrote:

* Demand * - The laws of economics specify that demand reaches a point where it becomes inelastic. It should not be assumed that just because the DRP has a theoretical capacity to handle 100m journeys, that it will actually achieve that.

So let's go with the RPA/NRA philosophy and make sure we don't future proof Dublin's transport infrastructure.

Metrobest wrote:

* Metro capacity Vs DRP capacity * - The Metro and the DRP DART would, in my opinion, achieve similar passenger volume during the peak. Outside of the peak, however, the DART will (as presently) experience a sharp dip; the metro, while experiencing ‘troughs’, will hold up at a high level throughout the day, if the experience in other airports equipped with metro stations holds true.

Eh, the DRP includes a connection to the airport and in any case, the DART is busy all day.

Metrobest wrote:

* Land laws * - The legal position with regard to land ownership is exactly the same in Holland as in Ireland. Dutch property owners own to the core of the earth.

I'm not sure where this came from (I know metrobest didn't bring it up). On the land registry entry for my house in Dublin, it clearly states that I do NOT own the "MINES OR MINERALS" beneath my property. I would have assumed a mine would be legally the same as a tunnel for transportation. No?

Metrobest wrote:

The cost for the Interconnector tunnel is €1.3bn (twin bore or single bore?), but it only provides three new stations, so benefits primarily those who, by an accident of colonial geography, happen to live along an existing rail line. Airport Metro does have the advantage in that it opens up a whole new corridor for high-density development, and does integrate with the Luas and suburban rail.

You really think that it only opens up 3 new stations for commuting? So if I live in Kilmainham or Parkgate street and I work in Leixlip (1 change) or the airport or Malahide (0 changes), then the new underground Heuston station along the interconnector would be no use to me? You're missing the beauty of the interconnector. It allows people living right beside the existing network to actually derive some benefit from it. It does this by JUST building 5 new underground stations. It's because it only needs 5 new underground stations to connect the current disintegrated network that it's such incredible value for money. Already along the Maynooth, Northern and Kildare lines massive high density housing is under construction. It is going to be heavily dependent on the existing rail network for it's transportation needs. IE have stated quite openly that without the Interconnector the network will not be capable of any further expansion beyond 2009 and that it will collapse under the strain. The interconnector is not an option, certainly not before the airport metro.

Metrobest wrote:

Sometimes, what works best is a low-budget (Interconnector*), independent production, backed up by a talented team (Iarnrod Eireann PW Dept.*), and not Hollywood grandeur (Flashy RPA bit of an oul metro*).

*added by philip for emphasis.

dowlingm

While I don't agree with metrobest on a lot of things I will go along with his point on alignment - here the subway runs under the street mostly also. The problem with Dublin is finding an even vaguely straight street :rolleyes:

MarkoP11

The RPA use the total construction cost as a smokescreen to bury the actual total cost. The total construction cost is not the total cost by any stretch of the imagination the total construction cost before the Madrid experience was applied was 1.72 billion which gave a total all in cost of 4.881 billion, the cut down total cost is 1.224 billion, the actual total cost has been buried by the RPA but I understand it to be 3.6 billion at 2002 prices approx. 4.1 billion 2005, the actual figure has now become commercially sensitive or as I call it too big to stomach for the public

If you insist the catchment area figures are flawed the same applies to the figures applied to any metro lines as well. What of people who park and ride ? The basic fact is the day the Metro opens the capacity will be 7,020 per hour moving to an absolute of 9,360 on each line if we build the orbital metro, IE are talking of 63,000+, Irish Rail will move a lot more people, the annual figure is secondary to how many you can move during the rush hour 100 million is a goal at least IE have planned to cope with increasing demand where as the RPA look like building themselves a system that will saturate within 5-10 years of opening

There are 5 underground stations on the interconnector route not 3.

Metrobest wrote:

and does integrate with the Luas and suburban rail.

No it doesn't

There is no station at Tara Street
There is no station at Glasnevin
There is no connection with the Luas at O'Connell Street

If you want any or all of these a few hundred million to the cost

There are in fact 9 services arriving into Connolly off the northern line between 8am and 9am a further 3 arrive from the Maynooth line thus making 12 the lines capacity. There are 11 outbound between 5pm and 6pm and 2 Maynooth line services (3 on Friday), total 14 since outbound there are less conflicts. The bottleneck is Connolly and the loop line, when you separate Maynooth and Drogheda/Northern line you release a huge amount of capacity, the flat junction at Howth junction which is a major constraint will be no more since there will be a grade separated junction at Grange Rd with 4 tracks from just north of Howth Junction

You claim 20tph to be impractical yet you have no difficulty in imagining a metro doing 40tph, 34-36 tph is the common limit 40tph would require almost total automation (read expensive), 20tph / 3 minute intervals are very much achievable have a look at London where sub 3 minute intervals are common without the assistance of proper cab signalling and ATP safety equipment. IE are looking at only 12 tph through the interconnector initially leaving them plenty of capacity in the future. The constraint is the East Wall Grand Rd section, though there is nothing to stop running a shuttle between Spencer Dock and Heuston since both Heuston and Spencer Dock will be terminus stations for outer suburban services as well as intercity

The basic fact is Dublin needs both the DRP and a proper metro (not what the RPA currently propose), That was always the P11 line its in the mission statement and its what is now coming from government not to mention IE who agree it was never an either or fact is the DRP will carry more people that the metro for a lower capital cost. Given the choice between the two its a no brainer which should go first

Build the DRP first and you actually can build the metro for less cost since you don't need to go via Tara Street, the RPA actual ignore the fact the DRP exist in there plans (I have seen that in writting from the RPA). There is a feeling that if the metro went first the costs could over run not to mention be completed late thus making any further investment in Dublin difficult to justify and afford. The staged nature of the DRP means it can be done bit by bit small projects are easier to manage and control, spend a few hundred million you get a big return with metro its going to be 5 billion before you get anything

Metrobest

I should point out, there are certain aspects of the Dublin Rail Plan I support. The €1.3bn tunnel between Heuston and Spencer Dock, however, is the aspect with which I have the most problem. Of the five stations, two (Heuston, Pearse) are already suburban rail stations, so that leaves three unique new stations – at Digital Hub, Stephen’s Green, and Spencer Dock. There is no breakdown of projected passenger usage levels for these stations (or if there is IE has kept them quiet), so without that important information we are left to guesswork. My guess is that Stephen’s Green would be a very busy station throughout the day; Spencer Dock and The Digital Hub would be quite busy during the rush hour.

To bring a tunnel boring machine under central Dublin, at a cost of €1.3bn, without creating many more than the proposed three unique new stations, and choosing not to serve with metro the densely-populated inner suburbs, is an act of unforgivable folly, and may be remembered for decades as one of the worst examples of inept Irish planning.

Looking at the €1.2bn Metro proposal, I see the logic of it offering a whole new rail corridor for Dublin. The Stephen’s Green, College Green, O’Connell Street, Mater, DCU, Metropark and Airport Stations are all virtually certain to stimulate demand (there are figures in O’Reilly’s report which detail projected passenger volumes, and it’s impressive stuff indeed). Strong demand, naturally, means revenue for the transport provider, so the crucial “bang for buck” gets delivered.
Marko, you believe the metro will reach saturation point “within five years” (any data to prove that assertion?). You believe that the metro being proposed is the “wrong route” (nobody is sure of the exact route yet). You believe the metro is “too expensive” (it’s been brought into line with international best practice).
I’m afraid here we have catch-22 situation. The metro is being designed the way it is to save costs because of the cost-based criticisms from Platform 11, and certain right-wing economists who are ideologically anti-rail and want more roads, roads, roads. I’m trying to understand the Platform 11 position on metro, but will you forgive me for saying it appears quite schizophrenic? If the platform 11 “mission statement” argues for a metro system but against the current, low-cost metro proposal on an “it-will-cost-€5bn” basis, then how could platform 11 ever be in a position to support a metro system for Dublin, because the type of “gold-plated” metro system you want built (integration at Glasnevin, tonnes of escalators, turnstiles, longer cars etc) will never be politically acceptable on the grounds of cost? The current proposal strikes a fair balance between value for money to the public and serving a need for high-density transport. And from the corner of Abbey Street (Luas) to the Savoy cinema (metro) is not a huge walk in anyone’s book. I just also want to point out that it will not cost €5bn to build a metro. Almost every other European capital has a metro; many have built metro systems in the last decades, and life went on, people didn’t starve, the money was found, budgets were stuck to.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by “€4.881bn all-in”? I think that figure refers to operating costs over a 20/30-year period. If so, it’s a misleading figure to quote. And let’s place any previous estimates firmly into the history books. The consultants have been in: they’ve looked at the ways to save costs, to bring the project into line with Madrid and Amsterdam, so I’m confident the true cost will come in at a country mile below the kind of figure you’re talking about. The figure that matters is the latest, consultant-approved estimate, which is €1.2bn.

The Interconnector is a tunnel to accommodate 12-carraige, double-decker heavy rail; the metro tunnel accommodates far shorter, lighter trains, smaller stations. I think €1.3bn is fair enough estimate for the Interconnector tunnel, and given the differences between the two proposals’ specifications I think that €1-€1.2bn is a fair estimate for the metro line. I’m not sure of specifications for the Interconnector UG stations (escalators, platform alignment etc) but my guess is that each interconnector station would be flashier and have more “frills”. Maybe you have information on that? Or perhaps we’ll have to wait and see when IE come out with a more detailed plan? In the meantime, I’m not going to quibble with costs of the Interconnector tunnel; I’ll take IE’s word for it. By the same token, Platform 11 would do well to bite its tongue when it comes to questioning the costs of the metro.

Capacity * - Realistically, I can’t imagine the metro doing 40tph, in the same way as I can’t see the DRP doing 20tph. The calculation for metro, based on 20 three-car metros in the peak would be an hourly point-to-point capacity of 9,360 in each direction. That figure can increase further still, when you consider that not everyone is travelling endpoint to endpoint, and there will be pick-ups and drop-offs in between. The Kildare–Pearse section of the DRP will have 6 eight-car trains per rush hour, offering a theoretical point-to-point capacity of 8,400; or 11,200 from Maynooth to Pearse.

There are lots of different ways to crunch the numbers, so how they’d pan out in practice is open to individual interpretation, not forgetting that it is also in IE’s interest to quote the highest possible theoretical figure which is arguably based on every train being packed like a can of sardines, all day every day. As you said, however, public transport experiences peaks in the rush hour and troughs outside of it. My guess is that a metro would be very busy in both directions during the peak, and for most of the day, whereas, before 4pm, outbound to Kildare and Drogheda via the Interconnector tunnel would be fairly quiet, save intercity passengers changing at Heuston.

Another factor to consider is the spatial nature of an 8-carriage double decker train, which is the backbone of the Dutch intercity network. The trains have a fairly long dwell time at stations, because of steps from carriage to platform level and passengers with luggage etc. Another thing worth noting is that these trains do not tend to reach their theoretical capacity, as the process of walking up and down each floor, along the entire train, is cumbersome. You might do it if you’re travelling non-stop Schipol-Amsterdam CS, but you wouldn’t do it if you’re going from Coolmine to Pearse with loads of stops in between and people getting on and off. A 3-car metro, being smaller in size and level, would tend to fill all its available space, operate with optimum load/offload efficiency, and be more likely to achieve capacity targets, so that’s a bonus point for the metro proposal that should not be forgotten.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

.....choosing not to serve with metro the densely-populated inner suburbs, is an act of unforgivable folly, and may be remembered for decades as one of the worst examples of inept Irish planning.

Do you mean the thousands of houses with back gardens around Drumcondra, Cabra, Kilmainham, Harold's X and the especially big ones around Ranelagh? Name one high density inner suburb and I'll send you a tenner mate. Fact is most of Dublin's high density housing is either right in the city centre (especially Docklands) or in the outer suburbs, like Tallaght around the Square, Porterstown, Pelletstown, Adamstown, Grange Road.....and so on (what's the connection? rail access!)

Metrobest wrote:

Looking at the €1.2bn Metro proposal

It's not 1.2 billion. The Interconnector will cost roughly that and it's shorter with fewer stations.

Metrobest wrote:

....And from the corner of Abbey Street (Luas) to the Savoy cinema (metro) is not a huge walk in anyone’s book.

Tell that to the pensioners (or anybody for that matter) from Tallaght who take the Luas to Abbey and then have to lug their belongings down O'Connell Street before they get to the staircase at the metro stop. That's not integration. I can't believe you think that's proper integration.

Metrobest wrote:

so I’m confident the true cost will come in at a country mile below the kind of figure you’re talking about.

I'm glad you have confidence in the RPA's ability to come in on or under budget. Luas anyone?

Metrobest wrote:

Another factor to consider is the spatial nature of an 8-carriage double decker train, which is the backbone of the Dutch intercity network. The trains have a fairly long dwell time at stations, because of steps from carriage to platform level and passengers with luggage etc.

I've used double deck trains with platform level doors. The double deck trains will not serve the airport route in any case so passengers with luggage will be in the minority.

Just to be clear. I'm pro quality, good value for money, future proofed metro. I'm in favour of the DRP being funded before any such metro. Dublin will need DART/outer suburban/metro and Luas. Of course buses will always be needed to complete the picture.

MarkoP11

So Metrobest could you please show everyone here in writing from the RPA or the DoT where its says the total all in cost to provide the Metro from St Stephen's Green to Dublin Airport will be 1.2 billion. You can't. in fact do us all a favour and don't bother criticising the DRP until you accept the metro is too expensive and will carry less people than the DRP. The Metro has a smaller catchment area too. You can stop using the word guess too it does nothing for the credibility of arguments.

The metro will have massive capacity problems if it is built as a 3 car setup as the RPA are planning its in the P11 report of last week, the figures it uses are in O'Reilly of course the RPA have buried most of the figures which make it difficult get a 100% accurate view but considering the RPA don't allow for passenger growth owing to any development alongside the metro route or any extensions they are in big trouble, they seems to have ignored the fact the oribital metro project would cut the theoretical capacity of the Airport metro in half thats the real issue.

I've never claimed the metro went the wrong route, it passes under the Maynooth line no matter which was it goes, a station at Glasnevin if perfereable since it offers the best connecion options, route 3B passes awfully close, we don't need a diversion to Tara Street anyway if the DRP is built first. Quite a number of people favour the orignal route via Broadstone, Liffey junction and Finglas it would serve more people and also matches the DTOs plans but that disappeared since it would cost too much

I can produce written evidence from the RPA which says otherwise on cost issues. We all remember that the initial total cost was quoted at 4.881 billion from a construction cost of 1.72 billion (again I have that in writing see page 77/8/9 O'Reilly), the reduced proposal is quoted somewhere in the region of 3.6 billion which the RPA have chosen in the wisdom to hide from the public. The construction cost may now be 1.224 billion (down from 1.72) but the actual cost in real terms to provide the metro (as per RPA plans) is somewhere in excess of 4 billion at todays prices. There is no mention of the 4.881 billion including anything more than construction costs to claim it does is utter rubbish, anyway the metro would run without subvention so it would cover it running costs from the fare box. A quick look are O'Reilly shows no provision for heavy maintence or renewals in the running costs which themselves are under estimated (page 14 O'Reilly)

To say Madrid got a full metro for 1.2 billion is wrong since

Another significant difference is that RPA had included items other than direct construction costs whereas Madrid is referring to direct construction costs.

To be comparable, one must refer to RPA's direct construction costs only.

page 78 O'Reilly. Everyone uses the numbers that suit there case to make the look good. What we are interested in is the bottom line what is the total outlay to design, build, finance, commission, test, certify and open for passenger services, thats the only figure the public care about, direct construction costs are a smokescreen.

So are the figures coming out of Amsterdam total all in costs or just the construction costs ? To claim the Airport Metro would cost a total of 1.2 billion is completely untrue and misleading, basing your arguments on that figure completely undermines any credibility you may have had in arguing the metros case on cost.

On more practical matters IE have no plans currently to operate double decker trains but retain the option to do so in the future should they be required to meet demand, thats forward thinking. IE have no plans to run more than 14 tph anywhere on there network and so have a significant margin for growth. They are very much aware of the dwell time issue and are reluctant to use double decker trains instead 12 coach trains seem to be preferred for outer suburban services. No matter which way you look at it the DRP will move a lot more people per hour than the metro proposal, IE hold the trump card of being able to expand beyond the DRP if so needed, whereas the metro would be very difficult and costly to expand in capacity terms.

Metrobest wrote:

arguably based on every train being packed like a can of sardines, all day every day.

The figures quoted by P11 are not for sardine can operation we stated that, 175 a coach is comfortably achievable and exceeded day in day out. I've done the head count a few times and got 190+ in the smaller capacity front coach. The manufacturer puts the operating limit (not the crush limit) at an average of 237 per coach in a 4 coach set, what the RPA mean by 156 comfortably is also open to the same question. All the figures are point to point maxima and don't allow for turnover enroute which would arguably be higher for a longer distance travelled

Once again it would be real nice to get both the DRP and the Metro but its unlikely we can have both at the same time, its a case of value for money and what will make a diference to Dublin, Metro does zero for those stuck on the M50 or those stuck on the N7, N4, N3, it might help does on the M1 but that would be contingent on the Metro being built to Swords which is not on the RPA's agenda from what I can see

weehamster

People. Please Don’t bother responding to Metrobest. I think it just encourages him more.

P11 are genuinely trying to inform people of the reality of actual proposed projects and they take care of getting the facts right.

Metrobest is trying to inform people of his ‘dream’ public transport system and trying to compare to real projects and stating that his is better and that is that.

If any Mods are watching, I think the Users Reputation system should be restored. It does help people to separate genuine posting which are to help to inform people and others which are simply to be disruptive, which is clear in the case of Metrobest. And as memory serves me, his rep wasn’t good when the system was running.

If a system cant be put in his place, then anybody responding to him should just say one word. 'Troll' :mad:

murphaph

I know it can be frustrating weehamster, but if I see a blatant misrepresentation of the facts then I have to point it out. People reading the boards can then make up their own minds. When the Interconnector & DRP are eventually built, people will marvel and wonder why it wasn't done 20 years ago. It will spur further development in rail based transit for Dublin because it will be so successful.

MarkoP11

weehamster wrote:

People. Please Don’t bother responding to Metrobest. I think it just encourages him more.

Got to agree with you there, that said people have to respond to ensure the other members less knowledgeable on the actual hard facts are not mislead.

Without hard facts on paper Metrobest has little or nothing to stand on. I've lost count the number of times false, misleading and unsupported data has been presented. while myself and members in P11 have spent many long hours in research tracking down documents and verifiying facts. I now have a sizable stack of paper with real verifiable data on my desk. The fact I live and work in Dublin and pay taxes I have an interest in getting the best deal for Dublin and Ireland as a whole.

I welcome anyone to discuss the metro on the hard facts we know and to present a reasoned argument there are plenty of good things about the metro, cost and specification unfortunately not being among them. Equally if anyone has any useful (and verifiable) information about the Metro project or indeed the DRP please tell Dublin and introduce it into the discussion

Bill McH

Marko says that there were at least four tunnel options which were investigated by Ove Arup at the request of IE. None of these appears to have been a link between the Northern Line and Heuston travelling WEST from Connolly.

If something like that could be built it would be likely to include stations along the way which would give better access to the city centre, including those areas that I am concerned about.

In other words, what's wrong with (i) Kildare line to Northern Line via tunnel through the relevant parts of the city centre with underground station at Connolly, (ii) Bray-Maynooth via overground station at Connolly and (iii) Sligo and Belfast mainline at Connolly.


I mean, I would refute comments like the following:

aliveandkicking wrote:

Dont forget the Luas is going to be extended to the Point Depot with an interchange stop in Spencer Dock so passengers on the northern Dart line who wish to travel to the north city centre area just have to get a tram from Spencer Dock to Abbey or Jervis. Likewise passengers from Kildare simply need to get the Luas at Heuston and Maynooth/Bray passengers can get the Luas at Connolly in order to access the north city centre area. Passengers will not have a 15 min walk to get to Henry Street.

by saying:

There are lots of people on the Kildare Line and the Northern Line who want to go the North City Centre. If a tunnel could be built heading broadly WEST from Connolly, these passengers might be able to get directly to the areas that they want to go to. Passengers who wished to be able to go to Spencer Dock could do so by taking the LUAS from Connolly. (2-4 minutes?)

Any time I'm on O'Connell Street or Henry Street it is clear to me that there is huge demand to get there. Lots of people work around the area, loads of people shop there and there's generally a lot more to draw people there than there ever will be in Spencer Dock.

So haven't we got it backwards if we are suggesting that all of those people could take the tram from Spencer Dock, while those who wish to go to Spencer Dock, which obviously has no proven record (but I'd be very interested to see the projections) get delivered to their door.

I'd suggest that once passengers on the Northern Line have taken the train to Spencer Dock and taken the LUAS to Abbey Street or Jervis a couple of times they'll get a bit tired of it. Obviously if they are going to those areas for work, they will continue to do so, but if they're going there for any other reason they'll bypass it and stay on the line for another four minutes until they get to St. Stephen's Green and Grafton Street.

And as for suggestions that people might use High Street as a way of getting to the North City Centre, well, it might be fun heading down that hill, but people would get pretty tired of climbing back up it.

Northern Line to Connolly, then west to Heuston. Worth a look.

murphaph

....but then somebody else would come on here saying "what about Stephen's Green/Baggot Street etc.?" You can't please everyone in one fell swoop. People will walk between northside and southside as they have done for decades. The likes of Stephen's Green can't compete with the 5 large department stores on the Northside (Roches, Arnotts, M&S, Debenhams and Clery's). Dublin CC is small!!! It's not a 10 mile trek between these places.

MarkoP11

There where at least 4 route the evaluation was done they picked one, they picked the best one based on what would be a long list of criteria. There may be serious engineering reasons which prevented a route from being choosen we don't know all we do know is the route was chosen by engineers and transport planners not politicians

Any underground station would have to be east of Connolly since you can't reach Pearse or possibly even Stephen's Green from the west side these stations are key to provide the integration required. It would be extremely difficult to get the Maynooth options to go west of Connolly since would be too sharp a curve off the Maynooth line. If you stay on the northside you won't connect with Pearse or the Luas at Stephens Green.

In terms of public transport Henry Street is very well severed by Luas, we need to get away from the mentality of the train must take me direct go to any capital city Paris London etc and who have to make at least one if not 2 changes to get to where you want to go. At least in Dublin the plans from IE are for a one change system

Remember forgot about the small number that will be 'inconvenienced' on there shopping trip what of the many tens of thousands that will be facilitated day in day out? The number one destination in Dublin city is the south city centre effectively Dame Street, TCD, Stephen's Green, Merrion Square, Baggot Street

Passenger numbers passing through Connolly and Tara Street will actually increase, the service on the Maynooth line will increase massively thus facilitating those in the area who travel that route. There are a huge number of people in North Kildare who would never consider shopping in Dublin since the public transport is not there, the DRP will bring them in. Its second nature for shoppers to lug bags from Stephen's Green to Henry Street and back again, everyone has done it.

The "I don't believe that Spencer Dock is going to be what people claim it to be" attitude reeks of the outdated planning attitude where public transport was never considered by planners which has brought us to the mess we are in now, Spencer Dock is an example of joined up planning I've seen the plans the scale is beyond anything yet attempted in Dublin or indeed Ireland

aliveandkicking

Bill,

In my opinion any public transport solutions should be geared towards those who commuting to and from work rather than those who are simply going on a shopping spree.

Aside from the technical reasons outlined by Marko, there are three reasons why I think the current interconnector route is the correct one.

1. 32% of office space for the whole of Dublin is located in Dublin 2. This compares with just 13% in Dublin 1.

2. The Grafton St area is currently the busiest retail area in Dublin.

3. The north City Centre already has a Luas line running through the heart of it.

Metrobest

As you know well, Marko P11, I can’t give you a written pledge on cost. The RPA is not going to put in writing that the metro will absolutely cost “amount X” and neither is Irish Rail. And I’ll continue to use the word ‘guess’ because I don’t know all the facts – like you, I only know what’s in the public domain.

You haven’t revealed any insider’s information, expect referring to existing documents already in the public domain, which I, for one, have also read thoroughly. The outer orbital metro hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of being built. It looks nice and shiny and glossy in Platform for Change but that’s a close as it’ll get to reality. You know that as well as I do, so to bring it up in the context of the Airport Metro is simply disingenuous.

As it stands the choice is: Airport Metro, The Interconnector Tunnel, or both. I support neither. Yet I accept that both plans have merits. And both plans have flaws, too, and I have pointed out the flaws of the Dublin Rail Plan, and even if you’re not prepared to accept them, that plan does have flaws. Your postings have just made me more certain of that: the fact that only four, unsatisfactory options were evaluated for linking Heuston with Connolly shows the poverty of imagination rotting at the heart of Irish Rail.

All said and done, the Dublin Rail Plan is an Irish Rail solution to an Irish Rail problem. No matter what way the facts and figures are spun, the bottom line is the Dublin Rail plan benefits only those for whom the existing rail network is already an option (ie. they live within a connectable distance of a station). Three unique new metropolitan stations do not an integrated transport solution for Dublin make. It may be nice for passengers on the Kildare and Drogeda lines but it cannot make life easier for the hundreds of thousands of Dubliners, northside and Southside, who, by an accident of colonial geography, have no access to a rail line.

I agree 100% that Spencer Dock does have merit; whether or not it actually takes shape is another matter. The fact that Irish Rail is buying a stake in Spencer Dock would indicate that there may be a conflict of interest here. Or maybe not - maybe Irish Rail has its customers’ best interests at heart. Placing customers at the top of the agenda is not a quality one readily associates with semi-state monopolies.

From your postings I’m getting the impression you think the Dublin Rail Plan is the magic solution and that once it’s built we’ll all live happily ever after, and we don’t need a metro, because it will run over cost. Well sorry, but I cannot subscribe to that viewpoint, and I’m sure I’m not the only one; indeed, at the IEI presentation many people spoke out against aspects of the plan you seem to think are watertight.

I want to point out that you do not have a monopoly on research. Produce written evidence from the RPA if you have it; I’d like to see it and I’m sure the rest of the forum would. The RPA has no obligation to disclose data to Platform 11, a group which seems to be doing its best to sabotage its project.

I repeat. The O’Reilly report costs the metro at €1.2bn construction. That’s a fact. The report goes into impressive detail. The same cannot be said for the Dublin Rail Plan.

The Heuston-Spencer Dock tunnel is costed at €1.3bn. That is also a direct construction cost. Therefore, can you please tell me what the Metro will suddenly inflate to “€5bn”, while the Dublin Rail Plan (which includes electrification of the Maynooth and Kildare lines, new rolling stock, the construction of an new spur to the airport, and the expansion of most of the Kildare line to four tracks) will supposedly come in at €3.4bn?

Please. Explain that to me. You’re saying that one single line will massively inflate its construction cost to an “all-in” cost of €5bn, whilst the entire Dublin Rail Plan will come in at €3.4bn? That defies logic, even to the most casual observer. If the “all-in” cost of the single, low-cost metro line is €5bn, then what, pray tell, will the “all-in” cost of the Dublin Rail Plan be? Since you seem to be so good at reading into your crystal ball and predicting costs for a metro whose route hasn’t even been finalised, then I’m sure you can provide a similar estimate for the Dublin Rail Plan, can you?

The figures from Amsterdam, €1.4bn, are AFAIK construction costs, but as I said already, it includes provision for compensating properties/residents along the line. www.noordzuidlijn.nl has the details on the project. In Dutch and English.

A message to murphyaph and weehamster: I don’t want to debate with you two, either, so please, by all means, ignore my posts, do not post replies to any of my messages. I have NO DESIRE to trade insults with you. I'm not asking you to agree with me; just accept that I'm entitled to my opinion on such an important project, and have some manners. Go back to the Platform 11 message board and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful the Dublin Rail Plan is, and pat each other on the back, and don’t listen to anyone who has something different to say. Your only strategy of defending the Dublin Rail Plan is to attack me, and that’s clearly obvious to anyone scrolling through this thread. I assure the non-platform11-supporting members of boards.ie that I am not a troll. I have a genuine interest in and love of the city of Dublin, and that’s why I want to see built a system, for Dublin, that will stand the test of time. I do not believe the “Dublin” Rail Plan is that system.

P11 Comms

Then Metrobest why don't you show your love for Dublin in a meaningful way and move back to Ireland and lobby for this perfect metro you want. Nobody is stopping you. Anybody can be an internet pudit.

aliveandkicking

Metrobest, you have every right to have a different opinion and by all means keep posting but I believe you have an anti Irish Rail and anti Platform 11 mentality and it is affecting your evaluation of the DRP.

You stated in your last post that the orbital metro has no chance of being built yet you continue to argue about a fantasy circle line idea as a way of arguing against the interconnector.

I am pro metro, but I think it is absolutely essential that the DRP gets built first or at least at the same time. It doesn't bother me what the metro is going to cost 1bn or 5bn, what does concern me is that the RPA are proposing at the moment is an underground Luas its not a proper metro. 3 car trains - ffs have they not learned anything, no integration with current Dart or Luas and not going to Swords. I want a good quality six car metro line with escalators, integration with Dart and Luas, a proper route taking in the northsides highest population centres and most importantly of all goes to Swords. If all that costs 5bn then so be it.

Finally a question for Metrobest. I believe that provision of public transport is about solving traffic congestion in the Greater Dublin Region, so in your opinion Metrobest which plan will take more cars off the road - the DRP or the currently proposed RPA Metro?

MarkoP11

I've the breakdown of the costs for the DRP and they all look 100% reasonable in fact the rolling stock costs are over estimated by about 100 million in my opinion. IE talk in terms of total cost to deliver each element no bull**** hard facts none of the construction cost rubbish, and since IE have been on time and on or under budget in recent projects going back as far as DART it gives great confidence in the figures presented. The RPA on the other went about 200 million over budget on Luas and a year late, the smart card system is late and over budget too, hardly instils you confidence

Since IE actually have an in house engineering team and there own plant they will always be able to do something cheaper than the RPA who have to subcontract absolutely everything out. Fact IE are adding to the network instead of building a new separate network brings economies of scale in operation and maintenance. Fact is why the metro is costed at 4-5 odd billion on a trimmed spec is causing a lot of us serious concern.

I have a heap of paper in front of me from various sources who do not wish to be identified some of it looks like stuff from the CIA with blacked out lines. Even if I had the information to release it would leave me open to the solicitors of the RPA whom I'd guess are a damn sight more efficient that the RPA in responding to correspondence.

Start with O'Reilly which is based on RPA data page 77/78/79
Then there is the magical correspondence between the RPA and O'Reilly

I can sit here and type all day about direct construction and total costs everyone else seems to get it, Metrobest somehow can't grasp the concept that 1.2 billion gets us a hole in the ground 4-5 billion gets us a functional Metro.

I've never said nor has anyone else said the DRP was the be all and end all solution for Dublin, its a massive contribution to solving the problem. I'd love a proper metro too but face it unless the cost comes down to a reasonable level and the spec is sorted out its not a realistic option. Fact is value for money, bums on seats and integration all say DRP

I've had enough of this every post is really a rewrite of the previous one I've made

BrianD

DRP is not a magic solution but one that can be delivered in a relatively short space of time and will have real benefits. Nobody says that we should stop once this is complete - the construction of additional lines whether overground, underground or a mix of both can be added to the system. The one thing about the metro plan is that it seems to be nothing more than a stand alone line to the airport and is just too much for too little. If there are other lines proposed, tell us where they go.

dowlingm

To answer Bill McH - if I was going to North City Centre from Kildare, why wouldn't I change at Heuston for the shuttle to Connolly/Point, hopefully by the time the interconnector is built this will be done by 40m trams at least in the zone mentioned. Why would I go all the way to Connolly to get to O'Connell St. when I could just get off 4 stops earlier.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

A message to murphyaph and weehamster: I don’t want to debate with you two, either, so please, by all means, ignore my posts, do not post replies to any of my messages.

Ok. I think it's pretty clear to everyone who has contributed that you will completely ignore what everyone is saying to you anyway and just continue on your diatribe. You seem determined to paint P11 as anti-metro and Pro IE. P11 is not black and white like that (it's also a democratic organisation with differing views within it but with broadly the same agenda-quality rail transport for our citizens). It can separate good and bad points from prospective projects. P11 is pro quality metro. You seem quite happy with a cheap and cheerful version of metro that provides little integration, capacity or the ability to expand. I really don't get that. If you're going to build a metro, then build it properly. It will cost multiple billions for a quality first metro line. The DRP is better value and will provide far more so it should be built first. That's pretty much what everyone here (except your good self) is saying.

You gonna name any of those densely populated inner suburbs not currently served by rail? I don't know how long it's been since you lived here but Dublin has changed mate.

Metrobest

Okay. we’re going round in circles here (or should I say circle lines? Ha ha ha!). Look. We’re never going to agree on this issue. That’s the one thing we can agree on! I haven’t “ignored” everything that’s been said about the Greater DRP. I’ve come round to the idea of electrification, four-tracking etc.

A final point. I’m not trying to have a go at Marko, I’m sure he wrote the report in good faith etc etc etc, but unless he is prepared to produce real, hard evidence, these claims that the metro will cost €5bn should be ceased. Run a positive campaign by all means, pointing out all the excellent things in the Greater DRP, that’s what lobby groups are supposed to do, but halt this campaign against the RPA metro proposal.

Some of the campaigning has already had an effect – Aliveandkicking says he wants an “integrated metro with escalators”. Be assured, there will be escalators to platform level. There will be integration with the Luas – at Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Street. There could, quite easily, be integration with the DART; or at least there is scope for doing that in the future. So to just claim that the metro is a “Luas in a tunnel” is not accurate. A “no frills” metro is better than no metro and tens of thousands of Northsiders stuck in their traffic jams. We can have cheap metro and mimimum specifications, or we can have "frills" metro that will never see the light of day. Which do you think the politicians are going to go for?

Zaph0d

People. Please Don’t bother responding to Metrobest. I think it just encourages him more.

He has every right to express his opinion. If you disagree you should argue each point rather than giving up.

In the past we have underestimated the costs of major Irish infrastructure projects. So, it is hard to say what either the metro or interconnector tunnel will eventually cost. However we can use arbitrage to say that the metro and interconnector tunnels are similar in most respects apart from their lengths. One is twice the length of the other. I guess this means that one will cost roughly twice what the other costs and should bring twice the benefits to make it worthwhile.

I suppose that there are some project costs (getting the tbm underground etc) that are independent of the length of the tunnel, so if anyone could estimate what these are, that would be interesting.

It does seem myopic to build a metro with short platforms that limit scope for future capacity increases as the city densifies overhead.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Run a positive campaign by all means, pointing out all the excellent things in the Greater DRP, that’s what lobby groups are supposed to do, but halt this campaign against the RPA metro proposal.

If the proposed metro was to cost 10bn, or 15bn, would you then advocate a campaign against it? At what point do you think the madness should stop? The RPA have failed to deliver anything on time or under budget. It's alright for you, you don't pay income tax here! The campaign is not anti-metro, it's for a proper metro with proper integration and room to expand, to be built after or in parallel with the DRP, but not before!

Metrobest wrote:

Some of the campaigning has already had an effect – Aliveandkicking says he wants an “integrated metro with escalators”. Be assured, there will be escalators to platform level.

Do you have access to the plans? In any case "escalators to the platforms" isn't much use if you've to lug your suitcase down a flight of stairs to the ticket hall.

Metrobest wrote:

There will be integration with the Luas – at Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Street.

Again, complete misrepresentation. O'Connell Street is long. The metro and Luas stops would not be in the same place under the RPA proposal. One on Upper O'Connel Street, one on Lower O'Connell Street. That's sh!te and it's not integrated transport.

Metrobest wrote:

There could, quite easily, be integration with the DART; or at least there is scope for doing that in the future.

Then why do the RPA completely ignore the fact that the metro will pass metres under the Maynooth line?

Metrobest wrote:

So to just claim that the metro is a “Luas in a tunnel” is not accurate.

It's much closer to that than what most people will think of when they're asked to describe a metro.

Metrobest wrote:

A “no frills” metro is better than no metro and tens of thousands of Northsiders stuck in their traffic jams.

Tens of thousands of Northsiders who live in areas of the city with the lowest car ownership rates in Ireland. This is not grounds for denying people quality rail transport but it is a fact that the areas the metro will pass through do not contribute greatly to congestion. It's the people coming in from Ashbourne/Drogheda/Balbriggan/Swords etc. that have roads entering the northside of the city in a clogged state.

Metrobest wrote:

We can have cheap metro and mimimum specifications, or we can have "frills" metro that will never see the light of day. Which do you think the politicians are going to go for?

We lobby them to do the right thing and build a quality metro that gives good value for money. It's not a frills metro, it's a basic standard that other cities take for granted; 6 car platforms, escalators from street level, proper integration with other modes etc. You seem quite content for Dublin to make it's first attempt at metro building to be one of the worst metros the world has ever seen. I've used 3 car metros. They're sh!te. We need to ditch the 'poor Ireland can't afford that' BS and build quality. There's PPPs and governent shouldn't be afraid to borrow for large capital infrastructure. We have a hysterical fear of borrowing in government. It's not like the 80's when we borrowed to pay civil servants wages! It's completely different.

MarkoP11

First sorry about the images
Once again it's claimed I'm making up the 5 billion price tag, I have figures and references to the information I use, so in O'Reilly pages 77/78/79


But only the RPA talk in terms of total costs




The construction cost of the revised proposal not the total cost


Doesn't look so good for station finishes and escalators, ticket machines and barrier gates does it ?. 496 million refers to construction costs not total costs

And of course these are all 2002 prices so we must add at least 10 to 15 %. We haven't got a total cost for the revised proposal but we think and it has been rumoured in the media to be 3.6 billion. Of course the cut down proposal sucks so we have to reverse some of these cuts which forces the price back up again

Metrobest continues to talk of integration yet has shown no proof of such while those of us in Dublin are well aware that there will be no integration with the Red Luas line at O'Connell Street, I in fact have seen it in writing (but thats marked private and confidential so I can't tell from whom). I've seen correspondance which suggests the reason why the station at Glasnevin is not being provided becasue the current service level on the Maynooth line does not warrant a station of course the RPA completely miss the fact the DRP is going to happen sometime. The indicative route the RPA put forward has no integration this led to the Platform11 submission to the O'Reilly report concerning Glasnevin. it appears they had no clue about Glasnevin Junction till the day P11 showed up to make there case

murphaph

Mark, You've just thrown cold water on the raging fire that was this debate.

Victor

It Maeks Teh Brane Hurt!


















:d

aliveandkicking

aliveandkicking wrote:

Finally a question for Metrobest. I believe that provision of public transport is about solving traffic congestion in the Greater Dublin Region, so in your opinion Metrobest which plan will take more cars off the road - the DRP or the currently proposed RPA Metro?

You never answered this question Metrobest

murphaph

aliveandkicking wrote:

You never answered this question Metrobest

.....don't hold your breath. I placed numerous questions to him and he'll just ignore them and talk about something else. It's like watching a SF press conference.

weehamster

It's like watching a SF press conference.

Metrobest

Was that the smoking gun? Phew!!! Marko P11 “forgot” to quote, from the same page, Appendix 6, Reasons for Differences, no. 1? Funny how that was not quoted. Maybe it didn’t suit the argument. I don’t know how to make the sections of the report I am about to quote look so big and flashy; readers will have to make do with a copy & paste job. Appendix 6, Reasons for Difference, 1. reads:

“The first basic and fundamental [my italics] difference between these estimated figures is that Madrid and Dublin Metro Group are discussing price levels at an unidentified moment in time. The RPA estimate is based upon the emerging value of money expected to be spent over the lifespan of the project [my italics], expressed in nominal 2009 terms.”

Now, how I read this, and I have it on good authority that this is the case, the €4.8bn original estimate was to cover operating costs over a thirty year period. Incidentally, if anyone likes to scour the internet for stuff, there was a Sunday Independent interview with Frank Allen of the RPA towards the end of in which he explained that there are “dark forces” out there trying to sabotage the metro project by consistently, misleadingly referring to this estimate of €4.8bn, which, as I [and O’Reilly] said, relates to the operating costs for the “lifespan of the project”.

As far as escalators go, the report says:
“Using the RPA second revised estimate [of €1-1.2bn], it is apparent that the reductions in cost are due to a shorter alignment, fewer stations, 24 hour tunnelling, reduced specifications (esclatators etc) and monotube tunnels. It should be noted that the draft Irish Railway Safety guidelines specify that railway tunnels longer than 1km must be twin tube.”

“It is important to review the level of reduced costs proposed by RPA to meet Government requests, as they remove some important features that bring a customer focus and benefit e.g. two stations taken out, removal of street to subway escalators, reduction in automatic ticketing machines and barrier gates.”

I urge anyone with an interest in this matter to read the report, in full, on http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jct/metro-report/Report.doc
Make up your own minds, guys.

Victor

You will ALL be civil.