Fine Geals 10 year plan includes talk of infrastrucure

murphaph · 23-09-2017 8:24pm

There's significantly more development land available in West Dublin than along the North Fringe. The airport safety zones prohibit much development along an East West axis running through the airport and when the second parallel runway opens it'll make this area much wider.

Adamstown and Clonburris alone have huge potential to house masses of people adjacent to a 4 track railway.

To my mind DU remains the linchpin with MN fulfilling an essential role.

bk · 25-09-2017 11:22am

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm sorry that you don't find anything convincing in what I wrote. Looking at the amount of available land between Ballymun and the airport (intended for office/business use currently), plus the amount of land available between the airport and Swords (even less here), there's just not the amount of land available all the way from Kishoge, the potential of Adamstown, and further out all the way to Sallins.

And those proposed offices/business are just as important if not more important. We badly need more office space to capture as much of the Brexit business as possible.

That is why I say Metro North is nationally more important. DU is important locally for Dublin, but MN is nationally important. Linking the airport to Dublin and building thousands of more offices near the Airport really are national priorities.

Honestly no matter how many times I look over the proposed DU plans, I just don't see why a lot of the development along the lines can't already be done without the tunnel. The stations are already there, the commuter trains are already there. After all Adamstown has been a big failure, it doesn't really show that their is actually much demand along this axis, at least not for the moment.

lucernarian · 25-09-2017 1:28pm

bk wrote: »

And those proposed offices/business are just as important if not more important. We badly need more office space to capture as much of the Brexit business as possible.

That is why I say Metro North is nationally more important. DU is important locally for Dublin, but MN is nationally important. Linking the airport to Dublin and building thousands of more offices near the Airport really are national priorities.

Honestly no matter how many times I look over the proposed DU plans, I just don't see why a lot of the development along the lines can't already be done without the tunnel. The stations are already there, the commuter trains are already there. After all Adamstown has been a big failure, it doesn't really show that their is actually much demand along this axis, at least not for the moment.

This shouldn't be a complicated sell though - Adamstown is essentially underdeveloped and not near the train station. It is not a "big failure". People aren't so fond of bring dumped at Heuston station right now. There is basically no impediment to significant planned development, both residential and business-related. I see where you're coming from, but not enough to say that Metro North, especially the stupid Aecom-designed variant, is clearly more important than DU.

murphaph · 25-09-2017 2:56pm

The current Kildare route offering is simply too poor to draw any valid conclusions about what usage patterns would be like if DU existed and DARTs were able to take you every 10 minutes off peak into and out of the CBD.

We still don't have integrated fares, so the change at Heuston incurs a penalty which discourages interchange straight away.

Frequency is far too low to attract turn up and go passengers.

Frequency is far too low to allow bus feeder routes to sweat the asset that exists.

bk · 25-09-2017 4:15pm

murphaph wrote: »

We still don't have integrated fares, so the change at Heuston incurs a penalty which discourages interchange straight away.

Agree 100%, ridiculous. We really should have an amsterdam style system, pay per km travelled, irrespective of bus/tram/metro.

But that should be fixable, at least as a first step at a fraction of the cost of DU. Also add a free Luas trip to intercity trips as you are at it.

murphaph wrote: »

Frequency is far too low to attract turn up and go passengers.

Frequency is far too low to allow bus feeder routes to sweat the asset that exists.

Though you could increase frequency by converting it to DART operations, even without the tunnel, as a cheap alternative, to see if it leads to increased demand.

Part of the problem, is that we aren't all that certain people actually want and are willing to moving out to West Dublin. We know for certain that people are very enthusiastic about living in South Dublin, given the success of the Green Luas line and upgrading it to Metro will give it the capacity to handle a lot more people living there. Likewise Swords has been a success and has very firm plans for 40,000 extra homes. And the DAA has big, firm plans for offices near the Airport.

West Dublin on the other hand seems a bit of a mess. Not much in the way of firm plans. Most people their seem to just want to live in the typical three bed semi with a car out front and drive. Adamstown has failed as a more some what high density apartment type commuter town.

West Dublin seems to be where people who really want a house but can't afford one in the city now go. I'm not sure the demand for apartments out their is really their yet.

I think that the focus over the next 10 years will be more the South-North axis, building lots of apartments in South of Dublin, around Swords and really probably redeveloping Dublin Port as apartments. Basically densification to areas close to the city.

Once that is tapped out, then the focus will need to turn to West Dublin. But I don't think we really are their yet.

marno21 · 25-09-2017 6:17pm

bk wrote: »

Agree 100%, ridiculous. We really should have an amsterdam style system, pay per km travelled, irrespective of bus/tram/metro.

But that should be fixable, at least as a first step at a fraction of the cost of DU. Also add a free Luas trip to intercity trips as you are at it.

Though you could increase frequency by converting it to DART operations, even without the tunnel, as a cheap alternative, to see if it leads to increased demand.

Part of the problem, is that we aren't all that certain people actually want and are willing to moving out to West Dublin. We know for certain that people are very enthusiastic about living in South Dublin, given the success of the Green Luas line and upgrading it to Metro will give it the capacity to handle a lot more people living there. Likewise Swords has been a success and has very firm plans for 40,000 extra homes. And the DAA has big, firm plans for offices near the Airport.

West Dublin on the other hand seems a bit of a mess. Not much in the way of firm plans. Most people their seem to just want to live in the typical three bed semi with a car out front and drive. Adamstown has failed as a more some what high density apartment type commuter town.

West Dublin seems to be where people who really want a house but can't afford one in the city now go. I'm not sure the demand for apartments out their is really their yet.

I think that the focus over the next 10 years will be more the South-North axis, building lots of apartments in South of Dublin, around Swords and really probably redeveloping Dublin Port as apartments. Basically densification to areas close to the city.

Once that is tapped out, then the focus will need to turn to West Dublin. But I don't think we really are their yet.

West Dublin would be more successful if you had a rail line that took people where they wanted to go and didn't dump them outside the city centre only for them to hop on a crushed full tram.

If you were able to get off in the city centre without hassle it would be used a lot more.

bk · 26-09-2017 12:00pm

marno21 wrote: »

West Dublin would be more successful if you had a rail line that took people where they wanted to go and didn't dump them outside the city centre only for them to hop on a crushed full tram.

If you were able to get off in the city centre without hassle it would be used a lot more.

Of course, you are absolutely correct, but at what cost?

DU was going to cost 4 billion, twice as much as Metro North. Would it have actually brought in the same increase in passengers as Dublin Metro will?

And another thing to consider. For that 4 Billion, you could build the North - South Dublin Metro, but also an East - West Metro line, from say deep in Dublin Port, out towards Lucan. That seems to give you a lot more bang for your buck IMO. You could then still DARTify the lines.

marno21 · 26-09-2017 12:07pm

bk wrote: »

Of course, you are absolutely correct, but at what cost?

DU was going to cost 4 billion, twice as much as Metro North. Would it have actually brought in the same increase in passengers as Dublin Metro will?

And another thing to consider. For that 4 Billion, you could build the North - South Dublin Metro, but also an East - West Metro line, from say deep in Dublin Port, out towards Lucan. That seems to give you a lot more bang for your buck IMO. You could then still DARTify the lines.

What's the cost difference between DART Underground and an east west Metro?

The 4bn also includes line electrification. To maynooth, hazelhatch and drogheda

bk · 26-09-2017 1:12pm

marno21 wrote: »

What's the cost difference between DART Underground and an east west Metro?

The 4bn also includes line electrification. To maynooth, hazelhatch and drogheda

I think the electrification element is only about 300 million out of that 4 billion.

The two big differences would be dual bore tunnel versus single bore and much longer underground station boxes (due to longer trains), plus all the extra complexities and signalling of heavy rail.

Now they are talking about making DU single bore, though you would still have the issue of much longer station boxes, etc. Also if you water DU down enough, it ends up not being much more then a Metro anyway.

Based on the original plans, Metro North was to cost 2.4 Billion, 16km long, 10km underground.

DU was to cost €4 Billion for just 7.6km of tunnel.

Dublin Port to Lucan is about 16km too, so you would roughly be looking at the same cost as Metro North.

murphaph · 26-09-2017 2:35pm

marno21 wrote: »

What's the cost difference between DART Underground and an east west Metro?

The 4bn also includes line electrification. To maynooth, hazelhatch and drogheda

And level crossing closures and the rolling stock for the extended DART network!

I cannot accept that we should build a parallel metro to an existing 4 track railway that is currently underutilised because it stops short of where people need to go.

lucernarian · 26-09-2017 11:31pm

bk wrote: »

I think the electrification element is only about 300 million out of that 4 billion.

The two big differences would be dual bore tunnel versus single bore and much longer underground station boxes (due to longer trains), plus all the extra complexities and signalling of heavy rail.

Now they are talking about making DU single bore, though you would still have the issue of much longer station boxes, etc. Also if you water DU down enough, it ends up not being much more then a Metro anyway.

Based on the original plans, Metro North was to cost 2.4 Billion, 16km long, 10km underground.

DU was to cost €4 Billion for just 7.6km of tunnel.

Dublin Port to Lucan is about 16km too, so you would roughly be looking at the same cost as Metro North.

The savings from making 5 underground stations on Metro North, plus the 8-10 stations above ground, 60 metres instead of 90 metres, was 78 million.

If we assume that 70 million of the savings was from the shorter underground platforms, that's something like 500k per metre of platform for a twin bore underground setup, for a smaller loading gague than Dart. 300 metres of underground platform for Metro North vs 800 metres of dart underground platform. 250 million euro extra cost. And 5 X 160 metre platforms would cost more than 4 X 200 metre platforms.

It's rather crude, but I can't imagine the platform lengths are a significant part of DU, any more than they were for Metro North.

But this bit:

DU was to cost €4 Billion for just 7.6km of tunnel.

This is completely inaccurate. It's not even just a slip of the finger, it's a complete distortion of facts and reality. I don't know who you're trying to convince, here of all places, with spurious commentary like that.

bk · 27-09-2017 12:50pm

lucernarian wrote: »

But this bit:

This is completely inaccurate. It's not even just a slip of the finger, it's a complete distortion of facts and reality. I don't know who you're trying to convince, here of all places, with spurious commentary like that.

No distortion! Building a full, dual bore, heavy rail tunnel is simply much more expensive then a standard Metro.

I've no problem with DU as such, as the point is to integrate with the rest of the heavy rail network, so the increased cost is justified.

But MN doesn't need to directly integrate with the heavy rail network ,it needs to integrate with the Luas network, so the idea of spending lots of extra money to make it heavy rail simply has no justification.

Muahahaha · 27-09-2017 2:36pm

bk wrote: »

I've seen one or two people say this but I've never understood why?

Obviously DU is very important, but I don't see it being more important then Dublin Metro.

DU doesn't bring rail to anywhere that doesn't already have rail. It just potentially improve services for areas that already have rail. Of course great for folks on those lines, but not really a major change.

Dublin Metro on the other hand looks to be far more important imo.

First of all it brings rail to Dublin Airport and connects it speedily to the city. Being a small island on the edge of Europe with a mostly service based economy with lots of international companies here, makes Dublin Airport the single most important piece of infrastructure we have. So connecting DA to the city by Metro is not only a priority for Dublin, but a national priority (along with the second runway) IMO.

Then you have Swords, the 5th largest urban area in Ireland, yet the only one without rail, all while being a commuter town of Dublin. Madness! They plan on building 40,000 new homes in Sowrds once DM is built, which directly ties in with the other current national priority of solving the housing crises

Then you have upgrading the Green line to Metro which should allow 10' of thousands more apartments in South Dublin. Again helping with the housing crisis.

And finally you have the fact that North Dublin inside the M50 is actually the most densely populated area of Ireland, yet has no rail.

I really don't see how just bringing DART to some areas that already have rail is going to be more important then all of the above.

I dont disagree that Metro North is important but I would place a higher value on Dart Underground because of the overall network effect it will deliver for heavy rail. Not only will it connect the two main train stations but it will also be running an east to west spine along the south of the city from SSG to Inchicore. By connecting Connolly & Hueston via Dart it will then open up tons of possibilities for new routes. Once the Maynooth line and north of Malahide is electrified it suddenly becomes possible to run tons of extra routes through the city centre going north, south or west. Right now all we have is north to south but Dart Underground would finally make a network out of heavy rail in Dublin.

With Metro North I see the benefits mainly being for people who live along the line rather than Dublin Airport itself. I realise the airport is one of the few in Europe without a rail connection but I would also hazard a guess that it is one of the closest to the city centre anywhere in Europe. When Metro North is built I cannot forsee any major advantages in journey times via the metro vs. by Aircoach and other buses through the tunnels. It is still going to take 25-35 minutes no matter what. The main benefit will be for people living in Swords who already have two good options in the M1 and port tunnel for getting into town.

Whereas with Dart underground far more people will benefit. Both MN and DU are important proects, I just see DU as the one that will deliver more utility to more people whereas MN wont really improve journey times by much relative to the services and infrastructure that is already there.

All that said if I had my way Id build both at the same time, starting yesterday

bk · 27-09-2017 3:42pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

With Metro North I see the benefits mainly being for people who live along the line rather than Dublin Airport itself. I realise the airport is one of the few in Europe without a rail connection but I would also hazard a guess that it is one of the closest to the city centre anywhere in Europe. When Metro North is built I cannot forsee any major advantages in journey times via the metro vs. by Aircoach and other buses through the tunnels. It is still going to take 25-35 minutes no matter what. The main benefit will be for people living in Swords who already have two good options in the M1 and port tunnel for getting into town.

25 minutes.

But you can say that for pretty much almost all types of rail. Buses given ideal circumstances can be the same or faster then Luas/Metro/DART/Intercity Rail. To be honest if you are going to make this agrument, then you might as well close down every rail line in Ireland!

The problem is the "ideal conditions" bit. Try taking the Aircoach at peak times and you will see how long it can take.

The 90 can often by much faster then the Luas, yet people squeeze onto the Luas. Why? because the advantage of rail is consistency and reliability.

Because the Metro to the airport will take 25 minutes no matter what time of the day. While Aircoach can take 25 minutes to 60 minutes.

And remember, the new plan for Dublin Metro will be to extend it to South of Dublin. For people along the Green line, the time to the airport will be vastly faster then taking Aircoach through the center of the city, pretty much any time of the day.

And the story is the same for folks coming from Swords into the city. Sometimes the Swords Express is nice and fast, other times it will hit traffic and be horribly slow. Now add 40,000 extra people living in Swords and lots of infill development currently sprouting up all over North of Dublin and just watch what happens to those bus journey times!

Idbatterim · 27-09-2017 3:54pm

And the story is the same for folks coming from Swords into the city. Sometimes the Swords Express is nice and fast, other times it will hit traffic and be horribly slow. Now add 40,000 extra people living in Swords and lots of infill development currently sprouting up all over North of Dublin and just watch what happens to those bus journey times!

getting down the quays is an absolute joke. The public transport bridge over the liffey at SJRQ could hopefully make a big difference!

lucernarian · 28-09-2017 7:02am

bk wrote: »

No distortion! Building a full, dual bore, heavy rail tunnel is simply much more expensive then a standard Metro.

I've no problem with DU as such, as the point is to integrate with the rest of the heavy rail network, so the increased cost is justified.

But MN doesn't need to directly integrate with the heavy rail network ,it needs to integrate with the Luas network, so the idea of spending lots of extra money to make it heavy rail simply has no justification.

What was it then? A joke? A random opinion? It seems you have a huge (and arguably irrational) problem with it when you glibly summed up as

DU was to cost €4 Billion for just 7.6km of tunnel.

7.6km of tunnel indeed... I mean, have you actually read the proposal docs or the Railway Order, the extensive prior surveying and reports or indeed took part in consultations beforehand?

bk · 28-09-2017 10:46am

lucernarian wrote: »

7.6km of tunnel indeed... I mean, have you actually read the proposal docs or the Railway Order, the extensive prior surveying and reports or indeed took part in consultations beforehand?

Yes I have!

I'm honestly not sure what point you are making here! DU was going to be much more expensive then MN due to it's heavy rail nature and that is fine, it is what it is. But it's higher cost will also mean it is harder to get the go ahead from government.

murphaph · 28-09-2017 11:02am

You have to bite the bullet. We have a disjointed but existing heavy rail network. It needs linking up to fully exploit its potential.

We all know the real reason DU is stalled is because government is worried about IE controlling it.

The solution is not to build a parallel metro, it's to grab Irish Rail by the scruff of the neck and reform/privatise day to day operations. The IE unions have held our infrastructure to ransom long enough.

marno21 · 28-09-2017 11:13am

Time for some proper investment in the second city.

Galway now has no national primary artery entering the city that's not motorway standard for 25km (bar the obvious N6 Bothar na dTreabh but that's not a radial route). The investment in Cork needs to happen now after years and years of neglect

CatInABox · 28-09-2017 12:28pm

bk wrote: »

Yes I have!

I'm honestly not sure what point you are making here! DU was going to be much more expensive then MN due to it's heavy rail nature and that is fine, it is what it is. But it's higher cost will also mean it is harder to get the go ahead from government.

Honestly, by the time that DU is built, the price will be a fair bit lower, as they're currently building (or talking about building) projects that were once considered part of the overall project, but are now just separate projects. The Merrion Gates project is the prime example of this, but even the talk in Leo's plan there of further electrification is a further example.

I'd guess that all these projects will be completed first, the grade separation of the lines, the electrification of those lines, services up and running, before the interconnector is proposed again. It'll be an easier sell to politicians as well, as it'll be cheaper, and the results will be instantly clearer, i.e. "We've already got the dart lines, let's connect them up now, etc"

bk · 28-09-2017 1:23pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I'd guess that all these projects will be completed first, the grade separation of the lines, the electrification of those lines, services up and running, before the interconnector is proposed again. It'll be an easier sell to politicians as well, as it'll be cheaper, and the results will be instantly clearer, i.e. "We've already got the dart lines, let's connect them up now, etc"

Yes, I agree completely, it will make the tunnel much easier to swallow.

If you think about it, it is a bit like how they built the intercity motorway network. Had anyone said up front that it would all cost 8 billion, it would never have gotten off the ground. But instead they broke it down into lots of smaller projects and phases that were easier to sneak under the radar.

Also by then Dublin Metro should be built and I expect a big success, which should also make the idea of another tunnel much easier. Just like Luas Cross City was accepted once the two original Luas lines proved themselves.

riddlinrussell · 28-09-2017 2:06pm

In terms of the metro and its tunnel is there some way to save money by 'storing' the TBM for it at a handy spot to get to work on the Dart Underground? I assume you'd want to have the DU route fully planned by then but is it reasonable to plan it that way? Then you'd surely save at least the cost of one of the machines, instead of saying 'Yeah we had one of those but we just buried it in a little side tunnel and we cant get it back, have to buy two more then!'

bk · 28-09-2017 3:20pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

In terms of the metro and its tunnel is there some way to save money by 'storing' the TBM for it at a handy spot to get to work on the Dart Underground? I assume you'd want to have the DU route fully planned by then but is it reasonable to plan it that way? Then you'd surely save at least the cost of one of the machines, instead of saying 'Yeah we had one of those but we just buried it in a little side tunnel and we cant get it back, have to buy two more then!'

TBM's are very expensive piece of equipment. They aren't left there after the tunnel is built, they are removed and shipped to the next project (around the world). Also require major maintenance between jobs.

lucernarian · 28-09-2017 3:32pm

bk wrote: »

Yes I have!

I'm honestly not sure what point you are making here! DU was going to be much more expensive then MN due to it's heavy rail nature and that is fine, it is what it is. But it's higher cost will also mean it is harder to get the go ahead from government.

My point there was: the 4 billion cost is for FAR, FAR more than a twin-bore heavy rail tunnel of 7km. Well over a billion is towards the work described here, that electrifies the Dublin commuter network and gets rid of most level crossings. I appreciate your contributions in general, but you're way off the mark with the facts surrounding Dart future plans.

Electrification to Maynooth and tackling level crossings and figuring out quad-tracking to Inchicore would go a very long way to helping the scheme, and helping sustainable commuting to Dublin in the meantime. Though I wouldn't electrify the northern line any further until triple-tracking can be achieved from Connolly to Clongriffin first.

Idbatterim · 28-09-2017 3:41pm

My point there was: the 4 billion cost is for FAR, FAR more than a twin-bore heavy rail tunnel of 7km. Well over a billion is towards the work described here, that electrifies the Dublin commuter network and gets rid of most level crossings.

the issue with level crossings is trains have to slow down approaching them I assume?

marno21 · 28-09-2017 3:44pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

the issue with level crossings is trains have to slow down approaching them I assume?

And level crossings reduce the number of trains per hour using that particular length of track

lucernarian · 28-09-2017 3:45pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

the issue with level crossings is trains have to slow down approaching them I assume?

I suspect there are different reasons given depending on who you ask, but they offer significant safety improvements, (often) speed improvements for both road users and trains, one less part of the rail network to break down, less congestion and delays for all road users including pedestrians, lower maintenance costs for the railway (typically) and the combination of all this improves reliability and therefore timeliness.

Edit: I understood Irish Rail could close level crossings as they saw fit to allow whatever schedule they ran, but if they were constrained in how often they closed, then that is another huge advantage for crossing removal.

murphaph · 28-09-2017 7:18pm

marno21 wrote: »

And level crossings reduce the number of trains per hour using that particular length of track

This is the reason. At a certain number of trains per hour the gates are just going to be permanently closed as there's a safety margin to observe.

Sam Russell · 28-09-2017 7:31pm

murphaph wrote: »

This is the reason. At a certain number of trains per hour the gates are just going to be permanently closed as there's a safety margin to observe.

At Sydney Parade the gates close 2 minutes before a south bound train and 3 minutes before a north bound train - and longer for diesels. So a 10 minute frequency could result in the gates closed fr up to 50% of the time - but at least 30% of the time. A 5 minute service would mean the gates may not open at all.

There is no possibility of building an overpass or tunnel without huge cpo activity.

The planned Merrion Gates project might render the Sydney Parade gates hardly needed, but the other gates in Sandymount and Landsdowne would have a similar problem.

LXFlyer · 29-09-2017 1:02pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

the issue with level crossings is trains have to slow down approaching them I assume?

That's far from the main reason on a suburban railway.

The main reason is the more trains you add to a schedule, the longer the gates will be closed to traffic - there is a limit to how long they can be shut.

Where the gates are at a station they have to close when the train is approaching the station and is at the platform lest the train overshoots - that adds extra time.

Fine Geals 10 year plan includes talk of infrastrucure

Comments