The future of the Bray-Greystones line

marno21 · 29-04-2019 7:44pm #1

This came up in the Luas for Bray line and I thought it merited its own topic.

The single track constraint south of Bray is clear at present and is only going to get worse as Greystones seems to be expanding unabated, the M11/N11 is at breaking point and the single track nature of the line severely constrains services along the route.

Here's a thread for discussing this as it's not covered by the proposed DART Expansion project.

CatInABox · 29-04-2019 7:51pm

Don't know how it can be fixed without a major project to provide a second tunnel/double tracking, and I just can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever. There was talk of them looking into putting a passing loop just after the tunnel, but I can't see much space there myself.

Getting the most out of what is there though, that's something that could happen. Having the commuter trains stop at Bray, the passengers get off and walk across the platform to a waiting Dart would allow the train to return south, more than doubling the frequency of the trains to the south. Wouldn't even increase the journey time for most commuters really, as they get stuck behind the Dart anyway, particularly now that it's gone to a ten minute service.

Ireland trains · 29-04-2019 7:57pm

The only way with current infrastructure would be to have a dart in greystones that leaves when another one comes in.
Frequency would be 3tph.

Or just run some darts to greystones really early and run them back later in morning peak and then in evening peak run a few trains to greystones and have them immediately follow behind a dart as far as bray sidings

recedite · 29-04-2019 8:24pm

Ireland trains wrote: »

have a dart in greystones that leaves when another one comes in.
Frequency would be 3tph.

Indeed. Its not exactly rocket science.

LXFlyer · 29-04-2019 8:53pm

Ireland trains wrote: »

The only way with current infrastructure would be to have a dart in greystones that leaves when another one comes in.
Frequency would be 3tph.

Or just run some darts to greystones really early and run them back later in morning peak and then in evening peak run a few trains to greystones and have them immediately follow behind a dart as far as bray sidings

recedite wrote: »

Indeed. Its not exactly rocket science.

Running a single track railway at 100% occupancy leaves no resilience for delays and is completely impractical.

Scheduling for a railway is far more complicated than you might think.

There is already a split signal mid-route which does allow for a train to follow another in the same direction, and it does see use with the Rosslare & Gorey services following the DART services in either direction, but that's really the only scope for the operation.

prunudo · 29-04-2019 9:31pm

The other far more worrying aspect of the route is the coastal erosion just north of Wicklow at the Murrough, every easterly storm erodes more and more of the shoreline. The cynic in me would say that it suits IE not to invest a huge amount in the line as it's only a matter of time before nature claims the track.

recedite · 29-04-2019 9:33pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Running a single track railway at 100% occupancy leaves no resilience for delays and is completely impractical.

There's no reason (excuse) for delays if one is waiting there to leave whenever another one comes in.

LXFlyer · 29-04-2019 9:39pm

recedite wrote: »

There's no reason (excuse) for delays if one is waiting there to leave whenever another one comes in.

OK I'll make this simple for you.

If a DART is scheduled to leave Bray at xx:00 and then arrives in Greystones at xx:09, and then another DART is scheduled to leave Greystones immediately at xx:10 and arrive at Bray at xx:19, and then a southbound DART scheduled to leave Bray at xx:20 and arrive in Greystones at xx29, and so on for a full 60 minutes, what do you do at any point if the southbound DART is late arriving into Bray, as inevitably will happen?

There is no resilience built into that kind of schedule and it would be impossible to operate without cancelling trains, as delays can and do happen.

You simply cannot operate on a single track railway without having some inbuilt recovery. That's basic in rail operations planning. You can't work on 100% occupancy.

recedite · 29-04-2019 9:46pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

If a DART is scheduled to leave Bray at xx:00 and then arrives in Greystones at xx:09, and then another DART is scheduled to leave Greystones immediately at xx:10 and arrive at Bray at xx:19, and then a southbound DART scheduled to leave Bray at xx:20 and arrive in Greystones at xx29, and so on for a full 60 minutes, what do you do at any point if the southbound DART is late arriving into Bray, as inevitably will happen?

That (late) train waits for the next 10 minute slot, or else the passengers disembark and wait for the Greystones train to arrive, while the empty train returns northbound.
Not a big deal for passengers who are already well used to getting off and waiting 30 minutes.

LeinsterDub · 29-04-2019 9:46pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

OK I'll make this simple for you.

If a DART is scheduled to leave Bray at xx:00 and then arrives in Greystones at xx:09, and then another DART is scheduled to leave Greystones immediately at xx:10 and arrive at Bray at xx:19, and then a southbound DART scheduled to leave Bray at xx:20 and arrive in Greystones at xx29, and so on for a full 60 minutes, what do you do at any point if the southbound DART is late arriving into Bray, as inevitably will happen?

There is no resilience built into that kind of schedule and it would be impossible to operate without cancelling trains, as delays can and do happen.

You simply cannot operate on a single track railway without having some inbuilt recovery. That's basic in rail operations planning. You can't work on 100% occupancy.

And that allows no time for intercity units either

LXFlyer · 29-04-2019 9:52pm

recedite wrote: »

That (late) train waits for the next 10 minute slot, or else the passengers disembark and wait for the Greystones train to arrive, while the empty train returns northbound.
Not a big deal for passengers who are already well used to getting off and waiting 30 minutes.

Sorry, but that kind of approach to scheduling flies in the face of all good practice and guidelines.

You don't design a service that is going to inevitably have mass cancellations as your approach would have.

specialbyte · 30-04-2019 3:33am

There are some potential changes that could be made to the Bray to Greystones line that would allow for increased frequency. There is roughly 7km of single track between Bray and Greystones.

One small option is to double track the bridge over Putland Road in Bray. Now you've added 400m of double track to your system (look where the points for the single track start). A small change for a small improvement but and improvement none the less.

The biggest possible improvement would come from double tracking from Greystones to south of the tunnel. It's roughly 2.3km. Even if you didn't double track all it but you just added a passing loop in the green fields you'd be able to get more out of the line.

There's potentially 2.7km of the 7km, or ~40% of the line that is potentially double trackable without going near the tunnel or the cliff. You'd get significant improvements with that. You'll never be able to run a high frequency service but if you were able to get every 15-20 minutes that would be a game changer for Greystones.

LXFlyer · 30-04-2019 7:47am

specialbyte wrote: »

There are some potential changes that could be made to the Bray to Greystones line that would allow for increased frequency. There is roughly 7km of single track between Bray and Greystones.

One small option is to double track the bridge over Putland Road in Bray. Now you've added 400m of double track to your system (look where the points for the single track start). A small change for a small improvement but and improvement none the less.

The biggest possible improvement would come from double tracking from Greystones to south of the tunnel. It's roughly 2.3km. Even if you didn't double track all it but you just added a passing loop in the green fields you'd be able to get more out of the line.

There's potentially 2.7km of the 7km, or ~40% of the line that is potentially double trackable without going near the tunnel or the cliff. You'd get significant improvements with that. You'll never be able to run a high frequency service but if you were able to get every 15-20 minutes that would be a game changer for Greystones.

You’re quite correct.

The only practical method of increasing the DART frequency between Bray and Greystones throughout the day is to install additional track work; and a passing loop south of the tunnels is the most likely option.

Vic_08 · 30-04-2019 12:40pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

You’re quite correct.

The only practical method of increasing the DART frequency between Bray and Greystones throughout the day is to install additional track work; and a passing loop south of the tunnels is the most likely option.

I don't think a passing loop would be good enough, a full double track from Greystones to the first tunnel portal and a re configuring of the lines south of Bray as far as the Putland Road single track bridge to make them double running lines might just be enough for a workable 20 min frequency.

This would reduce the siding space south of Bray which would create operational/stabling challenges.

Doubling Putland Rd bridge and extending double track onto Bray head would make a 20 min frequency more resilient but how far along the head is possible without major engineering is an issue. There is no way to do more than 20 min frequency without a full double tracking and the only practical way to do that is a separate full bored tunnel away from the sea which would be very expensive.

LXFlyer · 30-04-2019 2:06pm

It’ll all boil down to funding.

There has already been a study on this by IE some time ago and a plan for a passing loop but funding was never forthcoming. That did propose a 20 min frequency if I recall correctly.

Now the NTA are reinventing that wheel so we will see what happens.

loyatemu · 30-04-2019 3:19pm

BusConnects says there will be a 20 minute frequency; the NTA are currently looking into how to provide it. There is space for a loop between the long tunnel and the minor level-crossing at the Grove but that would require fairly tight scheduling (not something IÉ are renowned for).

Doubling all the way to the station is a much bigger job but they're going to have to spend some money, Greystones is rapidly expanding, so are Kilcoole and NewtownMK and the road options are poor. In the medium term a second tunnel is going to be necessary, they could look at the engineering requirements for that now (possibly this is included in the current NTA study)

LXFlyer · 30-04-2019 3:50pm

loyatemu wrote: »

BusConnects says there will be a 20 minute frequency; the NTA are currently looking into how to provide it. There is space for a loop between the long tunnel and the minor level-crossing at the Grove but that would require fairly tight scheduling (not something Iare renowned for).

Doubling all the way to the station is a much bigger job but they're going to have to spend some money, Greystones is rapidly expanding, so are Kilcoole and NewtownMK and the road options are poor. In the medium term a second tunnel is going to be necessary, they could look at the engineering requirements for that now (possibly this is included in the current NTA study)

The original BusConnects network plan said a lot of things that frankly were off the wall, and will have to change, not least due to the recent frequency increases on many routes.

I wouldn’t be relying on that at all at this stage, and specifically in this case given that it will involve significant work to provide the infrastructure to enable such a frequency to operate - that won’t happen in 12-18 months.

Rashers72 · 01-05-2019 6:46am

Would not rely on IE/NTA to progress installing a passing loop. 7-8 years ago a developer built an entire station for IE at Clongriffin. They installed full platforms for 2 passing loop yet by now only 1 was installed. And then in Sept they went and deployed 10 min DARTS which killed punctuality and reliability on Northern suburban line, especially in morning peak. Would have allowed much greater contingency etc. But 7 years later we are still waiting. I gather IR never even applied to NTA to fund it, despite being 1/2 built.

Sam Russell · 01-05-2019 10:37am

Rashers72 wrote: »

Would not rely on IE/NTA to progress installing a passing loop. 7-8 years ago a developer built an entire station for IE at Clongriffin. They installed full platforms for 2 passing loop yet by now only 1 was installed. And then in Sept they went and deployed 10 min DARTS which killed punctuality and reliability on Northern suburban line, especially in morning peak. Would have allowed much greater contingency etc. But 7 years later we are still waiting. I gather IR never even applied to NTA to fund it, despite being 1/2 built.

I thought Clongriffin was part of the plan for IR to extend Dart to the airport. When that was knocked on the head, Clongriffin was left as is.

Likewise, there was some work at Pearse anticipating the DU. Same story.

LeinsterDub · 01-05-2019 12:03pm

Rashers72 wrote: »

Would not rely on IE/NTA to progress installing a passing loop. 7-8 years ago a developer built an entire station for IE at Clongriffin. They installed full platforms for 2 passing loop yet by now only 1 was installed. And then in Sept they went and deployed 10 min DARTS which killed punctuality and reliability on Northern suburban line, especially in morning peak. Would have allowed much greater contingency etc. But 7 years later we are still waiting. I gather IR never even applied to NTA to fund it, despite being 1/2 built.

IE's issue is the loop line bridge. They are quite frankly running out of capacity

Ireland trains · 01-05-2019 1:08pm

A DART branch to the airport is a no-brainer especially with dublin airport now having over 30 million passenger a year.
Also would have a more even flow of traffic throught the day

Sam Russell · 01-05-2019 1:20pm

Ireland trains wrote: »

A DART branch to the airport is a no-brainer especially with dublin airport now having over 30 million passenger a year.
Also would have a more even flow of traffic throught the day

It is also relatively cheap. 7 km across open countryside, with a few bridges - I think €100 million to €200 million was . If it was done before Metrolink, it would be in service quickly, and could be planned to fit in with Metrolink at the airport.

As for Bray Greystones, they could reposition the TBM after it finished the ML tunnel, to do its bit for Bray to Greystones.

marno21 · 01-05-2019 1:45pm

A DART branch to the airport would be a colossal waste of money. Metrolink will serve the airport, the Northern Line is constrained enough and so is the Connolly area without blowing €300m on a second airport link with no capacity additions south of Howth Junction

Sam Russell · 01-05-2019 2:42pm

marno21 wrote: »

A DART branch to the airport would be a colossal waste of money. Metrolink will serve the airport, the Northern Line is constrained enough and so is the Connolly area without blowing €300m on a second airport link with no capacity additions south of Howth Junction

Where did the €300 million figure come from?

The Dart extension was on the assumption that DU would go ahead. Also Howth Junction to Howth would become a shuttle service which could become driverless. Current schedule is 9 minutes Howth to Howth Junction. If a 10 min service could be achieved, that would make it more useful.

The Dart Airport link could be built quite quickly, and in service long before ML, by maybe 4 or 5 years. If ML was extended to Donabate, then Dart/Airport would not serve those coming from north of Malahide, and but the Dart/Airport would serve those north of Connolly going to the airport.

There are 50,000 workers at the airport, many living in north Dublin, and they need to get to work. Train is the most appropriate way.

marno21 · 01-05-2019 3:02pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Where did the €300 million figure come from?

The Dart extension was on the assumption that DU would go ahead. Also Howth Junction to Howth would become a shuttle service which could become driverless. Current schedule is 9 minutes Howth to Howth Junction. If a 10 min service could be achieved, that would make it more useful.

The Dart Airport link could be built quite quickly, and in service long before ML, by maybe 4 or 5 years. If ML was extended to Donabate, then Dart/Airport would not serve those coming from north of Malahide, and but the Dart/Airport would serve those north of Connolly going to the airport.

There are 50,000 workers at the airport, many living in north Dublin, and they need to get to work. Train is the most appropriate way.

Apologies, it's actually €200m it was costed at in 2011 but you can add a bit onto that for increases since.

I'd be in favour of this being left off the table until at least Metro North/South + DART Underground are complete. A second airport rail link is to me down the priority list until those three are complete.

It's also not in the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy so is officially off the table for the near future anyway.

loyatemu · 01-05-2019 3:40pm

maybe a thread for the Dart airport link?

LeinsterDub · 01-05-2019 4:41pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is also relatively cheap. 7 km across open countryside, with a few bridges - I think €100 million to €200 million was . If it was done before Metrolink, it would be in service quickly, and could be planned to fit in with Metrolink at the airport.

As for Bray Greystones, they could reposition the TBM after it finished the ML tunnel, to do its bit for Bray to Greystones.

2 trains per hour would be a pretty poor service and add a long delay to those not going to the airport or would you propose just running a shuttle service?

Sam Russell · 01-05-2019 4:49pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2 trains per hour would be a pretty poor service and add a long delay to those not going to the airport or would you propose just running a shuttle service?

Why would it be a 30 min service? If there is the traffic, then the trains will run it. The traffic to and from he airport is more evenly spread throughout the day, and the Howth service becoming a shuttle would allow at least a 20 min service. It would be possible to make the Malahide service a 30 min service and the airport to be a 15 min service. It could also have an express non stop service into the CC.

Build it and it will be a success.

bk · 01-05-2019 8:23pm

We are much more likely to see MetroLink extended to meet the Northern Rail line then the other way around.

LeinsterDub · 02-05-2019 2:37pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would it be a 30 min service? If there is the traffic, then the trains will run it. The traffic to and from he airport is more evenly spread throughout the day, and the Howth service becoming a shuttle would allow at least a 20 min service. It would be possible to make the Malahide service a 30 min service and the airport to be a 15 min service. It could also have an express non stop service into the CC.

Build it and it will be a success.

Capacity issues . A shuttle service would work .

loyatemu · 02-05-2019 3:22pm

bk wrote: »

We are much more likely to see MetroLink extended to meet the Northern Rail line then the other way around.

they should be planning that already (at Donabate) - it's a no-brainer IMO

The dart spur was a bad plan - it wouldn't have been any quicker than existing bus services, only serves the airport and connects into an already congested line.

If the northern line could be upgraded then there might be a case to run some/all services via an airport spur (with a grade separated triangular junction), but a Metrolink extension could serve the same purpose if they added Donabate as a stop for the Enterprise.

bk · 02-05-2019 4:05pm

loyatemu wrote: »

they should be planning that already (at Donabate) - it's a no-brainer IMO

Might I suggest something a little more radical. Connect it at Rush & Lusk Station rather then Donabate.

It would be 8km of extra track, rather then 4km to Donabate, but so much potential.

Basically run the Metro through the empty fields North of Swords and West of the M1, until you are roughly parallel with Lusk and then swing across the M1 to Lusk, Rush and Lusk station and onto Lusk.

A station at 1km along the length of that track, turn each into a SDZ, a new town at each station. You could easily house 100,000k extra people in this area if planned right. Hell it could be where we house the next 500k people.

This is really the main reason they are building Metrolink, to eventually open up this land to development.

Also a stop in Rush and Lusk and at the train station, linking those two towns to the actual train station.

Also you take advantage of the station location out in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of space to build that station into an interchange with multiple platforms, passing platforms, etc. where intercity trains could stop, etc.

Rush and Lusk are only 25km from Dublin, that whole area is very close to the city, well within easy commuting distance (by comparison, Greystones is 27km).

loyatemu · 02-05-2019 5:00pm

bk wrote: »

Might I suggest something a little more radical. Connect it at Rush & Lusk Station rather then Donabate.

It would be 8km of extra track, rather then 4km to Donabate, but so much potential.

Basically run the Metro through the empty fields North of Swords and West of the M1, until you are roughly parallel with Lusk and then swing across the M1 to Lusk, Rush and Lusk station and onto Lusk.

A station at 1km along the length of that track, turn each into a SDZ, a new town at each station. You could easily house 100,000k extra people in this area if planned right. Hell it could be where we house the next 500k people.

This is really the main reason they are building Metrolink, to eventually open up this land to development.

Also a stop in Rush and Lusk and at the train station, linking those two towns to the actual train station.

Also you take advantage of the station location out in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of space to build that station into an interchange with multiple platforms, passing platforms, etc. where intercity trains could stop, etc.

Rush and Lusk are only 25km from Dublin, that whole area is very close to the city, well within easy commuting distance (by comparison, Greystones is 27km).

Is it really necessary to have green-field development that far out, there's no shortage of land much closer to the city (Greystones is an existing town).

For every commuter who uses the Metro, there'll be another 2 who drive, better to develop within and around the the M50 IMO (also Swords could be greatly expanded).

bk · 02-05-2019 7:47pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Is it really necessary to have green-field development that far out, there's no shortage of land much closer to the city (Greystones is an existing town).

For every commuter who uses the Metro, there'll be another 2 who drive, better to develop within and around the the M50 IMO (also Swords could be greatly expanded).

In the near future yes. They are predicting the population will grow in the Dublin region by 150,000 in just the next three years! Over the next 20 years it will easily me another 500,000, probably more.

Really it isn't that far out, that area is roughly the same distance out as where the proposed Luas extension to Bray is proposed to go. And much closer then places like Maynooth and Naas (roughly half the distance) that many people are already commuting from.

Also the fact that there are no towns there is the advantage. It allows new, modern, high density commuter towns to be built there, close to the Metro stops, rather then old fashioned spread out, low density towns. Correct the mistakes of the past.

It will be much easier to expand North, then to expand the Luas to Bray, given the issues with Metro south, etc. The Northern end of Metrolink will have plenty of capacity.

Plus the issue with extending south is that it is constrained to a narrow corridor by the Dublin and Wicklow mountains, there is no such constraints going north.

Just look on Google Maps, turn it to earth view and zoom out a bit. You can easily see when Dublin is already pretty dense (south) and where there is lots of green fields close to the city to the north. Looking at Google maps, it is blindingly obvious where most future development is going to be.

I agree with you that Swords will be expanded, it will grow north along the extended Metro line, that is basically what I'm saying.

As for cars on the M50, that is why we need to plan for this upfront now. Why these new towns I'm suggesting need to be built in a highly planned manner, as SDZ's, built around the Metro stations, within walking distance of the Metro, in tall apartment buildings.

Separately we will likely need to also put in place congestion charging, to help reduce traffic.

BTW I'm not suggesting building these new towns straight off. Instead extend the Metro to Rush & Lusk now and build the interchange now, when the land is available and clear. Only open the stations closest to Swords for now, but plan for stations further up the line as the future demand increases.

It is about putting in place a solid long term plan for the growth of Dublin, rather then the chaotic, unplanned growth we have had until now.

loyatemu · 23-05-2019 10:03am

the Jacobs Engineering report on increasing capacity is now available, courtesy of local councillor Derek Mitchell:

Doesn't really tell us anything new - it is feasible to double track from Greystones station to the start of the tunnels, and also from Bray station to the bridge over Putland Road, this would allow a 20 minute frequency.

However, this is also dependent on speed limits being increased on the single track section, which they seem to think is not a problem but there are mixed responses from Irish Rail. It also requires additional rolling stock which as discussed elsewhere, we won't see until 2023.

There's no mention in the report of adding any new tunnel(s).

bk · 23-05-2019 12:21pm

Well that is good news, looks like they could hit a 20 minute frequency, for a reasonable capital expense (comparatively for rail).

The massive expense (probably greater then a billion) of a new tunnel would never be justified for the relatively small numbers boarding at Greystones and beyond.

prunudo · 23-05-2019 12:33pm

bk wrote: »

Well that is good news, looks like they could hit a 20 minute frequency, for a reasonable capital expense (comparatively for rail).

The massive expense (probably greater then a billion) of a new tunnel would never be justified for the relatively small numbers boarding at Greystones and beyond.

Thing is, with the expansion of the towns and villages south of Greystones and along the n11 corridor these new residents will continue to add to the grid lock on the roads.
The park and ride in Greystones is full most mornings before 8.30 so there obviously is demand for a better train service.
I think if they get to 20 min service it will be a case of 'build it and they will come'.

bk · 23-05-2019 12:48pm

jvan wrote: »

Thing is, with the expansion of the towns and villages south of Greystones and along the n11 corridor these new residents will continue to add to the grid lock on the roads.

I knew someone was going to come along and say this.

Greystones, at an hour from Dublin, is already at the edge of where you want to be encouraging regular commuting from. Towns beyond that you would be talking 1 and a half hours and that is definitely outside international best practice for commuting.

We have plenty of space closer to the city and much easier to develop first. Northern Dublin along the Northern line and Metrolink. The massive areas to the West of Dublin along the two rail lines there. There is even plenty of infill, much closer to the city, for instance along a future Luas extension to Bray.

Do we really want to be encouraging people to be commuting 3 hours a day and sprawling Dublin low density over the entire Eastern seaboard!!

Densification of everything that is within an hour of Dublin is what we want to be encouraging.

I'm not saying it will never happen, 50, 100 years from now if our population continues to grow, we maybe left with no option. But for now we have lots of better options for growth that would take precedence.

loyatemu · 23-05-2019 1:01pm

bk wrote: »

Well that is good news, looks like they could hit a 20 minute frequency, for a reasonable capital expense (comparatively for rail).

The massive expense (probably greater then a billion) of a new tunnel would never be justified for the relatively small numbers boarding at Greystones and beyond.

I don't expect a new tunnel to be considered until at least the 2030s but at some point will need to be assessed. I've no idea of the cost, I looked at a few references but it's a "how long is a piece of string" question. A 3km single track tunnel with no stations is not complex to build and would be a lot cheaper than a metro tunnel, but you'd be going straight through rock. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive to build a single-bore double-track tunnel and abandon the existing alignment (shame someone didn't give Brunel a bit more money back in the day).

Mitch Connor · 23-05-2019 1:02pm

bk wrote: »

I knew someone was going to come along and say this.

Greystones, at an hour from Dublin, is already at the edge of where you want to be encouraging regular commuting from. Towns beyond that you would be talking 1 and a half hours and that is definitely outside international best practice for commuting.

We have plenty of space closer to the city and much easier to develop first. Northern Dublin along the Northern line and Metrolink. The massive areas to the West of Dublin along the two rail lines there. There is even plenty of infill, much closer to the city, for instance along a future Luas extension to Bray.

Do we really want to be encouraging people to be commuting 3 hours a day and sprawling Dublin low density over the entire Eastern seaboard!!

Densification of everything that is within an hour of Dublin is what we want to be encouraging.

I'm not saying it will never happen, 50, 100 years from now if our population continues to grow, we maybe left with no option. But for now we have lots of better options for growth that would take precedence.

But Greystones is already expanding, as is Kilkoole, Ashford, Newtown etc.... you obviously have a point, but this is the reality of the situation.

Obrieski · 23-05-2019 1:03pm

bk wrote: »

In the near future yes. They are predicting the population will grow in the Dublin region by 150,000 in just the next three years! Over the next 20 years it will easily me another 500,000, probably more.

Really it isn't that far out, that area is roughly the same distance out as where the proposed Luas extension to Bray is proposed to go. And much closer then places like Maynooth and Naas (roughly half the distance) that many people are already commuting from.

Also the fact that there are no towns there is the advantage. It allows new, modern, high density commuter towns to be built there, close to the Metro stops, rather then old fashioned spread out, low density towns. Correct the mistakes of the past.

It will be much easier to expand North, then to expand the Luas to Bray, given the issues with Metro south, etc. The Northern end of Metrolink will have plenty of capacity.

Plus the issue with extending south is that it is constrained to a narrow corridor by the Dublin and Wicklow mountains, there is no such constraints going north.

Just look on Google Maps, turn it to earth view and zoom out a bit. You can easily see when Dublin is already pretty dense (south) and where there is lots of green fields close to the city to the north. Looking at Google maps, it is blindingly obvious where most future development is going to be.

I agree with you that Swords will be expanded, it will grow north along the extended Metro line, that is basically what I'm saying.

As for cars on the M50, that is why we need to plan for this upfront now. Why these new towns I'm suggesting need to be built in a highly planned manner, as SDZ's, built around the Metro stations, within walking distance of the Metro, in tall apartment buildings.

Separately we will likely need to also put in place congestion charging, to help reduce traffic.

BTW I'm not suggesting building these new towns straight off. Instead extend the Metro to Rush & Lusk now and build the interchange now, when the land is available and clear. Only open the stations closest to Swords for now, but plan for stations further up the line as the future demand increases.

It is about putting in place a solid long term plan for the growth of Dublin, rather then the chaotic, unplanned growth we have had until now.

Any chance you would run for election bk?

Actually, never mind, you would never get voted in...your ideas are too well thought out and make far too much sense to ever become reality!

prunudo · 23-05-2019 1:04pm

Its happening already, estate agents describing new developments in Ashford as 20 mins from m50 and 5 mins to Wicklow train station. There are very few big employment opportunities in Wicklow so majority of people are commuting to Dublin. Some cases 2 cars from same house commuting separately each day.
The dart may be an hour from Greystones but distance wise its not that far to commute.
I'm not saying your wrong with what you're saying but the current model of just building houses everywhere with no thought for where people will work or how they'll get there has to stop.

bk · 23-05-2019 2:18pm

jvan wrote: »

Its happening already, estate agents describing new developments in Ashford as 20 mins from m50 and 5 mins to Wicklow train station. There are very few big employment opportunities in Wicklow so majority of people are commuting to Dublin. Some cases 2 cars from same house commuting separately each day.
The dart may be an hour from Greystones but distance wise its not that far to commute.
I'm not saying your wrong with what you're saying but the current model of just building houses everywhere with no thought for where people will work or how they'll get there has to stop.

Very simple, they shouldn't be getting planning permission to build in these towns. This is just a continuation of our disasters planning.

marno21 · 23-05-2019 2:24pm

bk wrote: »

Very simple, they shouldn't be getting planning permission to build in these towns. This is just a continuation of our disasters planning.

I agree with this, but Greystones has expanded massively in the last number of years, and the N11/M11 is already absolutely jammed. The damage is already done.

The North Wicklow area from Bray south is in serious trouble should there be any further issues with the Bray Head line. I shudder to think of what would happen should that line have to permanently close. There should really be a long term ambition to build a new tunnel further inland, if not to solve the capacity issues anyway. "We'll wait for the line to become unusable and then shut it permanently" is not really an option no matter how much weight its getting at the minute.

prunudo · 23-05-2019 2:34pm

bk wrote: »

Very simple, they shouldn't be getting planning permission to build in these towns. This is just a continuation of our disasters planning.

I know, its not sustainable. In a lot of cases this isn't newly rezoned land though. Its land that was rezoned back during the boom and has been lying idle since, sometimes with planning just waiting to go once the price per unit rose. Technically once they aren't contravening the area development plan there is no reason planning won't be granted. And in a 'housing crisis' the council won't want to be seen to be thwarting new homes.
I think in Newtown alone there about 1000 units which haven't been built yet that either with planning or in the process of being applied for.

bk · 23-05-2019 2:42pm

marno21 I'd argue, tough.

You don't get to buy a house knowing that there is feck all public transport available and no plans to improve it and then complain because you are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

Hard for those who have lived there all their lives. But I'd have little sympathy for those who have bought here over the last 20 years. They knew what they are getting into.

I'd see it as much the same as folks who buy a home near the airport and then complain about the noise.

I'm not saying that it won't ever happen. But it would go against international best practice to encourage commuting from so far out. The government have an easy way to do nothing here and I'd expect that they will just ignore that area.

The stations south of Greystones carry just 600 people a day. It would be laughable to suggest spending a billion or even hundreds of millions for so few users.

loyatemu · 23-05-2019 3:01pm

bk wrote: »

The stations south of Greystones carry just 600 people a day. It would be laughable to suggest spending a billion or even hundreds of millions for so few users.

part of the reason usage is so low from those stations is the poor low-frequency service. The 133 bus is well used and the N11 is rammed.

But you also have a point, if they spent a lot of money on the line the quid-pro-quo would be more commuter development which is not desirable so far from the city (I've made the same point on the thread about the Youghal line - you open/improve the train service, more houses are built but only half of those new commuters use the train and the rest drive, so traffic actually gets worse).

gjim · 23-05-2019 7:56pm

bk wrote: »

Really it isn't that far out, that area is roughly the same distance out as where the proposed Luas extension to Bray is proposed to go. And much closer then places like Maynooth and Naas (roughly half the distance) that many people are already commuting from.

Also the fact that there are no towns there is the advantage. It allows new, modern, high density commuter towns to be built there, close to the Metro stops, rather then old fashioned spread out, low density towns. Correct the mistakes of the past.

This development model shouldn't need to be considered until development potential closer to the city centre is exhausted. There's easily room for an additional half a million people in Dublin if we developed all the brownfield sites and replaced some of the single storied cottages that lie within 5km of O'Connell bridge. We need to start building density in the core.

Investment in expensive PT infrastructure should reduce average commuting times. Building lines to distant fields and building homes there doesn't necessarily achieve this. It might be more comfortable sitting on a shiney new (expensive) metro for 40 minutes than it is to sit on a bus crawling through the streets for 40 minutes but at the end of the day, it's still a 40 minute commute.

marno21 · 24-05-2019 1:11am

Has a costing ever been done for an inland twin track single bore tunnel? Surely it wouldn't be that expensive in light of the fact that it's quite short and has no intermediate stations (even though it is through solid rock).

Would put this to bed for once and for all.

L1011 · 24-05-2019 8:15am

Still easily 8 to 9 figures I'd imagine - by we may have little choice but to do it for coastal erosion reasons

loyatemu · 24-05-2019 12:12pm

marno21 wrote: »

Has a costing ever been done for an inland twin track single bore tunnel? Surely it wouldn't be that expensive in light of the fact that it's quite short and has no intermediate stations (even though it is through solid rock).

Would put this to bed for once and for all.

my comment up the page discusses this - I looked at tunnelling costs online, most are for metro systems so not applicable. The 40km rail tunnel under the alps cost about €250m per km. It's apparently not much more expensive to bore a twin-track tunnel than a single-track.

The future of the Bray-Greystones line

Comments