My first thought was that he wrote it specifically to defend McDonald, while dressing it up, very poorly, as a summary of 3 other articles.
He doesn't actually add anything beyond the headline.
Wonder does he still have interest in the property along the Luas in Ranelagh? The one that would have been effected by the continuation of Metrolink to Sandyford, a vital bit of infrastructure that he used his influence to lobby against in the media.
Brian, I'm not changing the subject. You brought up Cabra A, and I thought it was respectful to respond to your comments on it.
Drumcondra has a higher population density. The census figures show that. I'm not making them up. They're from the CSO.
They'll be able To spend the billions on welfare instead...
Perhaps. I do hope you're right. We've just had so many false dawns before
@strassenwo!f , you brought up Cabra East A. I am simply pointing out, that the western part of this townland (which is unpopulated and outside the catchment for Glasnevin Jc) is skewing your density numbers.
You also continue to ignore the fact that Botanic A (a park and graveyard) has huge tourist numbers.
Therefore, the 40% number you keep referring to is a very poor metric in this instance.
Who cares at this stage. Decisions have been made. Let's see if this version is actually built...
I've said it before here - if SF lead the next govt. and ML hasn't started construction by then, it will probably be cancelled. It's a FG project and not something that SF voters give much of a damn about - they'll say it's being cancelled to prioritise housing, health etc.
In fairness, brianc89, I couldn't realistically have omitted Cabra East A from the figures, because that's the ward in which the proposed Glasnevin metrolink station is planned to be built.
Most of the southern border of this ward is 50 metres from the LUAS, and the western border of the ward is a road along which the LUAS extension to Finglas will run. Your work above on the map of the ward is helpful, because it shows what might be achieved in that ward if the light industrial section were to be redeveloped into a high density residential zone served by the adjacent LUAS Green line. Or do you think that area should be served by the metro? Which is it?
The figures are the figures, and I can do nothing to skew them. Overall, I'm not getting a picture of joined-up public transport and housing planning in Dublin.
With regard to Botanic A, you really have to remember that these 700,000 visitors are mostly one-off visitors, whether they are visitors to the Republican plot, the Botanic Gardens, are unfortunate enough to have to go to a family funeral, or are visiting the grave of a dear deceased relative. I, for example, try to visit my aunt's grave in Glasnevin every year - I'm afraid it now seems to be every two years that I do it - and I would be one of those 700,000 visitors to that ward.
No more than one would expect a metro to Dublin Zoo, the visitor numbers to Botanic A are not any justification. The critical thing, for a rail line, is everyday use by commuters.
Your view of this stuff is hilarious 😂
Daily repeat commuters are the only important thing... 100s of 1000s of tourists are irrelevant because they don't visit Dublin every day (in other words, live here)?...
100s of 1000s of tourists coming to Dublin through Dublin Airport, with luggage 🙄😂, are also irrelevant? Sure no jobs in Ireland are supported by tourists. Pesky once-off tourists.
I think you should develop public transport in your city for the everyday user.
The commuter is the key person.
I think it is a very sensible proposal to build a metro between the city and Swords. Apart from the big population nodes like Ballymun, it makes sense to have a rapid rail connection between the city and the airport on the way to Swords. The airport is a huge employer so it seems sensible, to me to have a rapid rail connection between the airport and the city centre. Obviously almost everyone in Swords works in the airport, so that would be good for them, but this would make it much easier for a person in, say, Chapelizod, to work there. A bus into town from Chapelizod, then a metro to the airport. Or a bus into town from Chapelizod and a metro ride to a job in DCU, or Ballymun.
What could be easier?
Tourists are not in any way irrelevant, and I don't know how you have managed to glean that from what I have posted. They will benefit from a metro designed for the everyday commuter: alongside the everyday commuter going to or from work in the airport, they can get on the metro with their luggage, and head into the city. They'll do it twice on their visit to Dublin Airport, and will probably be very happy, but the system needs to be set up for the 5-times-a-week user.
Yes, it is a worrying possibility. There is still a chance of shovels in the ground before that time.
I would hope it is highlighted as an election issue and all parties commit to it though - it is of vital importance to Dublin.
"Obviously almost everyone in Swords works in the airport"
This gave me good giggle. Thanks strassenwolf.
@strassenwo!f
The Plans for Metrolink are at ABP and will not change prior to their decision, and if they give the OK and a RO is approved, then they will not be changed.
Please drop this nonsense about population densities. If the metro is built it will affect population density so people will be close to it, and whether that happens matters not a jot - because it will be built and cannot be moved.
Luas was a white elephant until it opened and then suddenly the trams were not long enough. There are so many traffic generators covered by the current plan it cannot but be oversubscribed from day one. Dart was opened in 1982 with two carriage trains with 15 or was it 30 min frequency. They are now 8 carriage trains with 10 minute frequency.
Build it and they will come.
Where have costings for over abillion euro per kilometre come from ? Even for this banana republic, it doesn't seem credible...
It's 530m per km.
I've no idea for the "unknown unknowns" nonsense came from, but it's nonsense. The expected cost is 9.5B for 18.8km of Metro.
It's worth reading the executive summary of the MetroLink perliminary business case: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-and-investment/transport-investment/projects/metrolink/metrolink-preliminary-business-case/
Direct costs are: €5.8B
Risks costs range from €0.41 billion in the P30 case to €3.03 billion in the P80 case. With any project there are risks. Things you don't know until you start digging. They have done trial pits for ground conditions but you only really know for sure when you start tunnel boring. The other risks would be things like settlement causing damage to buildings above. The engineers spend lots of time analysing the ground conditions, trying to keep the alignment under public roads but there are risks MetroLink would need to pay for repairs to homes and businesses.
The last major element is inflation. The ranges from €0.96 billion in the P30 case low inflation case to €3.42 billing in the high P80 case.
Add all that up and you get:
To get to the €23Bn case you'd need find the worst possible case buried deep in the appendix, which requires hyper inflation, every possible risk to the project to come true and the world to basically catch fire.
Estimating the costs of a mega project, particularly one with a construction timeline of close to a decade there is a lot of uncertainty about the future.
These estimates are just that estimates. They don't do one estimate but multiple for different scenarios to help us figure out when does the project stop being worth the money we'd spend on it.
We'll have more clarity on costs after the ABP grant of permission and after TII have gone to tender for contractors to finish the design and build contract. Even then risk and inflation costs will not be fully known. This isn't a MetroLink specific issue. All projects, big or small, have these issues.
That raised an eyebrow here as well. While the airport is a significant employer, it'd be very far from 'almost everyone'. Worth pointing out as well, there are a lot of big employers in Swords itself. Pharma plants like MSD and GSK (or whatever they are now), Siemens Diagnostics, Ryanair's HQ. Hertz employs over 700. Pavilions shopping centre. All these are within shouting distance of the metro line and the people who work there don't all live in Swords so are potential users of Metrolink too.
A huge huge amount of the spend must go back to government coffers during construction?
I'd say a decent wedge.
09 was a relatively unique storm in that we had no access to money. There is zero reason to not borrow to build the metro.
Sam, if the people at ABP are fully on their game, and of course with the recent changes there, in ABP, there is no guarantee that they will be, the key questions they should be asking should be:
(i) We approved an order for a metro between the city and Swords, via Drumcondra, back in 2010. Why are there changes to that approved route, and how do those changes make the route better? and
(ii) Have you looked fully at improving our earlier approved route, via Drumcondra, before coming back to us?
I certainly expect that ABP will wave the current metrolink proposals through, with minimal scrutiny, just as the earlier ABP did bck in 2010.
Neither of those questions are remotely relevant for ABP to look at and not even slightly in their remit.
I would agree with you on this one. The major selling point of ML being built in Dublin is that it is meant to add into the reduction of our emissions in public transport right across the country.
If SF were to say that they wanted ABP to cancel ML within their manifesto in the lead up to the next GE; nearly every member of the electorate that would vote for the 3 main parties in Govt would not see them as a credible party in trying to fight the impacts of climate change.
The only people who would vote for SF in that instance are those who probably don't care a jot about the environment at all from an Irish context or from a worldwide one either.
In summary what I am trying to say here is that if voters want to fight a weapon in trying to destroy ML within our fight in reducing our transport emissions. Don't vote for SF in the next GE.
Vote for another party that keeps ML maintained and on track for it to be built for the people of Dublin.
Actually both of those questions are in the remit of ABP. ABP as the competent authority in adjudicating on an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) (a planning process defined in EU directive and written into Irish law) must see that alternatives were considered by the applicant. Those alternatives were considered at length for MetroLink. In the EIAR that is all summed up in Chapter 7: Alternatives Considered. This report is 139 pages ignoring the multiple appendices.
There are two major decisions along the way up to the EAIR.
The two major decisions were:
A7.1 Fosterstown Options Report
A7.2 Tara St Report
A7.3 St Stephens Green Report
A7.4 Charlemont Shafts Options Report
A7.5 St Stephen's Green Station - Mined Options Report
A7.6 Depot Location Options Report
A7.7 St Stephen’s Green Station Study - Alternative Station Location within St Stephen’s Green East Carriageway
A7.8 St Stephen's Green Station Options Assessment Summary
A7.9 Terminus Station at Charlemont compared to St. Stephens Green
A7.10 Trinity College - Alignment Options Assessment
So yes, ABP does need to consider the alternatives. It was actually the main topic of the first pre-planning consultation meeting that ABP had with TII on MetroLink on 6th December 2018. Many of the follow-up meetings between ABP and TII were both alternatives that might reduce environmental impacts. IMHO, ABP have all of the evidence prepared by the suitably qualified experts to say that the best possible option has been submitted for approval.
So yes, ABP does need to consider the alternatives.
That is not the same as asking why they aren't going ahead with expired planning permission from a previous metro development. That they approved a previous railway order a decade ago is not relevant to discussing this one and they certainly have no right to ask why the previous order was not implemented.
Again I have to disagree. Read any planning report from one done a council planner about a single house to one done by ABP inspector on a major infrastructure project, they all start with a section called 'planning history'. It lists the previous applications for that site. It also lists other developments that have been granted nearby.
Chapter 3 of the EIAR for MetroLink is called "Need and Background for the Proposed Project". It explains the history of this project from 2001 to now. Including Metro North, the multiple planning applications for Metro North. The financial difficulties. The change in transport strategy etc. All of that planning history is relevant context when determining a planning application. For example, ABP will consider that on the first MetroNorth Railway Order they refused to grant permission for the depot north of Swords. They granted the second Metro North Railway Order with the depot between the M50 and Dublin Airport. That planning history is one of the many reasons the depot for MetroLink is between the M50 and the airport.
Lastly, ABP have a lot of power to ask for whatever information they think necessary to perform their job.
This is from the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006
41.— (1) Where the Board is of the opinion that an environmental impact statement furnished under section 37 does not comply with the provisions of section 39 or where it otherwise considers it necessary so to do, it shall require the applicant to furnish to it a document containing such further information in relation to the proposed railway works as it may specify [...]
42.— (1) The Board may, at its absolute discretion, hold an oral hearing into an application for a railway order.
Their "absolute discretion" is a rare thing to find in legislation. ABP can ask for whatever documented information they think they need. They can appoint experts to examine elements in more detail. They can hold Oral hearings to gather more evidence.
I think that the most important things to note from this exchange is that ABP and TII/NTA have already engaged at length on this subject, and that Strassenwolf is, once again, wrong.
McDowall called Luas 'the silent killer' he is a particularly insidious form of Irish elitist idiot who cares only for himself and his fellow establishment cronies in the land of organic yaks cheese and retro cases of Cote Du Rhone. People who think public transport is the ski lift at Aspen or some other resort.
Mod: Luas is off topic, but McDowell's comments are not.
If I can divert the topic for a second and coming into all this late in the game. Can anyone explain to me why the Metro is not designed to continue north to Belfast line as this would seem a no brainer considering the number of people from Northern Ireland who use Dublin airport? Or am I off the ball here?
