Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

245678

Comments

  • #32
    JHMEG
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭JHMEG


    patmar wrote: »
    We have come a long way since and the Ireland today is transformed.
    And much of it has been the wrong way, not just in context of public transport but also in the provision of services.

    One third of the population live in rural one-off housing. Provision of services is difficult and expensive and requires the other two thirds of the population to unfairly subsidise the one third.

    Dublin has the most idiotic planning policies in the western world. No high rise because of the mystical Dublin skyline (cranes?), but it's ok to move 100,000 people into low density housing off out in Dublin 15.


  • #33
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Different cities do different things with their underground systems. In Paris, the Metro is largely within Paris 75 (the RER is like our Dart, extending to the urban area limits). In London, however, the Tube goes all the way out to towns outside the urban area limits.

    There's a lot of scope in how to implement a system. I think that when people hear "Dublin Metro", they think about long lines going as far out as Swords, and apply it to other areas outside the urban limits too. Yes, this is one option, but there are others too. What about having one line going N-S from Drumcondra to Ranelagh, and another going W-E from Heuston to Docklands? These would be short lines, capable of funnelling all suburban traffic straight into the CBD. No more lines of busses going down O'Connell St, and no more Luas stopping at every corner on its way to Connolly.

    Such a system would would keep happy those who say that Dublin isn't dense enough for underground rail, as well as those who don't want sprawling lines into the suburbs.




    (For another option, check out the Premetro systems in Brussels and Antwerp. Basically a Luas that goes underground in the CBD.)


  • #34
    irishguy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,310 ✭✭✭irishguy


    Dublin defiantly needs an underground, but only within the canals. Outside of that then it should be road level or grade separated to improve reliability/speed. If you compare Vancouver to Dublin
    Vancouver city
    Area: 114.67 km2
    Population: 578,041
    Density: 5,335/km2

    Dublin City
    Area:114.99 km2
    Population: 505,739
    Density: 4,398/km2

    (Taken from WikiPedia)

    They are nearly the same size and Vancouver has a excellent public transport system , only 3 lines with the city centre underground and the rest of the network grade separated. All the buses then feed the rail stations that are further out and there are only a few buses that enter the city. There is no reason why we couldn't do this in 6/7 years.


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bugnug wrote: »
    This would cost a fraction of an underground that would not make a blind bit of difference to our economy or quality of lives a bit like the port tunnel, what a waste of money but it did provide some great media shots for Bertie et al.

    While the DPT did cost an insane amount of money, looking at the Malahide Road in Fairview last Thursday proved to me that the tunnel is necessary. Absolute gridlock and I'd say it was dangerous too. I certainly wouldn't have liked to be driving through Fairview with those HGVs around.


  • #36
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    When I was in DCU the Tunnel was closed once and I had to cross the road at Whitehall. Very strange suddenly being surrounded by Lorries.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    There has been too much political interference with public transport.

    There have been many proposals for rail in the city.

    Dublin Metropolitan Railway between Pearse (Then Westland Row) and Heuston (Kingsbridge)

    That was overground

    then there was a proposal for two underground lines going from
    Heuston to Connolly

    and

    Broadstone to Harcourt Street.

    they would have intersected around O'Connell Street.

    Then there was in the 70's a plan for a Transport Centre in present Temple Bar


  • #38
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    Of course there is the brand thing

    do we need so many "brands" for transport in dublin

    DART
    Luas
    Metro (underground tram)

    The DART name is supposed to mean "Dublin Area Rapid Transit"


  • #39
    Metrostar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭Metrostar


    Bugnug wrote: »
    I think there a far more important issues on the agenda than a metro that we dont need or cant afford. I live in Dublin and I can walk from one end of the city to the other in around an hour. Try doing that in Paris, London, NY etc. We dont need an underground. We need to sort out our health service, our unemployment. We need to invest in indigenous industry to create a real and substanial export indusrty. We need to put people back in jobs. A little bit of imagination from the department of transport is what is needed to improve our public transport system, more bus corridors, extended luas and dart lines, more train services. This would cost a fraction of an underground that would not make a blind bit of difference to our economy or quality of lives a bit like the port tunnel, what a waste of money but it did provide some great media shots for Bertie et al.

    We need a metro to get Dublin mobile for the 21st century and we need the jobs stimulus that a metro project provides. Buses and tram lines are inferior short term solutions, they are not as environmentally efficient and from the end user perspective they are less reliable, have less capacity and offer inferior journey times.

    Be ambitious for Ireland. Strategically positioned on the global map, English-speaking, a good education system, and with a flexible economy that can grow as quickly as it can slip into recession, the time is right for Ireland to step up a gear. But to attract interational talent (and retain domestic talent) Dublin must offer a world class quality of life to her citizens.

    Bus corridors and a few decent hospitals are all ok, but without a functioning metro system, the city just stays a backwater, a symbol of a broader malaise.


  • #40
    Metrostar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭Metrostar


    Empire o de Sun wrote: »
    Of course there is the brand thing

    do we need so many "brands" for transport in dublin

    DART
    Luas
    Metro (underground tram)

    The DART name is supposed to mean "Dublin Area Rapid Transit"

    Every city has its brands. That's what distinguishes one service from another. You cannot pretend that the DART, originally designed as a seaside pleasure railway, is in any way comparable to a fully segregated underground strategic urban metro line.


  • #41
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    Johnny Utah wrote: »
    I think the Luas should really have been put underground to allow it to move faster in the city centre.

    Anyone else agree?

    Why we don't need it.

    At the rate the economy is shrinking and people are leaving the country there'll be nobody left to use it;)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    cable842
    Closed Accounts Posts: 745 ✭✭✭cable842


    I think that it should be blocked off from public walking across and running in front of the luas.

    The amount of people ever year that get injured by it.
    Johnny Utah wrote: »
    I think the Luas should really have been put underground to allow it to move faster in the city centre.

    Anyone else agree?


  • #43
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    Also, if the port was moved to north of Balbriggan a heavy rail line could be built from the Belfast main line to the central reservation of the M1 north of Swords, follow the M1 to the Tunnel, use the tunnel (now closed to vehicles) and then build a new terminal for intercity rail near the Docklands Station.

    The existing line through north dublin could be dedicated to a frequent high capacity line that would connect through the interconnector to Hazelhatch.


  • #44
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,775 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Johnny Utah wrote: »
    Dublin has a population of more than a million and it is expected to have a poulation of 2 million by 2020.

    ...covering a land area most cities would have 5 million in.

    The UK only has two and two halfs of underground system in its cities (Liverpool and Newcastle contribute the halfs). Birmingham, a massive conurbation that dwarves Dublin, has 1 tram line and lots of buses, thats all.


  • #45
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,775 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Empire o de Sun wrote: »
    Also, if the port was moved to north of Balbriggan a heavy rail line could be built from the Belfast main line to the central reservation of the M1 north of Swords, follow the M1 to the Tunnel, use the tunnel (now closed to vehicles) and then build a new terminal for intercity rail near the Docklands Station.

    The existing line through north dublin could be dedicated to a frequent high capacity line that would connect through the interconnector to Hazelhatch.

    What part of "the tunnel is too steep for a rail alignment" don't you get? It can't be used for rail, heavy or light. Its a ROAD tunnel, thats all it was designed for.

    There is also no central reservation worth speaking of from the Airport RAB, certainly not enough for two Irish gauge railway lines to go in. Quit dreaming.


  • #46
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Bugnug wrote: »
    What benefit would an underground system be to a city the size of Dublin?

    Uh.. More trade. More money. More population. Bigger city. Bigger economy. Better competitiveness. More jobs. Wealthier Ireland.

    This country will not progress without proper investment in infrastructure. That includes fixing public transport in the capital as an absolute priority.


  • #47
    DingChavez
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 647 ✭✭✭DingChavez


    Dublin doesn't have an underground because the country is run by imbeciles.


  • #48
    FlameoftheWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 309 ✭✭FlameoftheWest


    Empire o de Sun wrote: »
    Also, if the port was moved to north of Balbriggan a heavy rail line could be built from the Belfast main line to the central reservation of the M1 north of Swords, follow the M1 to the Tunnel, use the tunnel (now closed to vehicles) and then build a new terminal for intercity rail near the Docklands Station.

    The existing line through north dublin could be dedicated to a frequent high capacity line that would connect through the interconnector to Hazelhatch.


    Just when you think you have reached the limits of the "Oirish" mentality this comes along...


  • #49
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    Nobody seems to have addressed the question about why an underground would be better or necessarily considered better? Especially in relation to cost.

    Personally, I've loathed every underground network I've traveled on and think they should only exist where absolutely necessary. It might be justifiable in the city centre if the objective is to construct an entirely segregated rail network but otherwise where is the justification?

    Even in the case of Metro North I really hope they don't put it underground in Ballymun when there's plenty of space at much less cost to put it above ground.


  • #50
    FlameoftheWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 309 ✭✭FlameoftheWest


    DingChavez wrote: »
    Dublin doesn't have an underground because the country is run by imbeciles.

    True, but the real issue is that Dublin is not represented by people who do not come form an urban background. The majority of TDs and Ministers who oversee the city's development have grown up in rural townlands were urban life is as alien to them as life on Mars. Dublin has no metro because they can't envision how a 9 year old farmer's son can drive a tractor and slurry speader through it.


  • #51
    FlameoftheWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 309 ✭✭FlameoftheWest


    Slice wrote: »
    Nobody seems to have addressed the question about why an underground would be better or necessarily considered better? Especially in relation to cost.

    Personally, I've loathed every underground network I've traveled on and think they should only exist where absolutely necessary. It might be justifiable in the city centre if the objective is to construct an entirely segregated rail network but otherwise where is the justification?

    Even in the case of Metro North I really hope they don't put it underground in Ballymun when there's plenty of space at much less cost to put it above ground.

    So let me see if I am reading this correctly? You do not like undergrounds perrsonally, so Dublin should not have one...:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    Bugnug wrote: »
    Thats the estimated cost. I my eyes huge infrastructural spend like that should show real benefit to the country. Remember this is mine and your tax money. What benefit would an underground system be to a city the size of Dublin?

    What a lot of other people on this thread are trying to stress is that putting a rail line underground completely seperates it from the traffic of cars, buses and trucks. As a result, the punctuality of the service can't be jeopardized. The community of Swords badly needs a line such as the Metro to make the journey length as short as possible. The city and indeed the suburbs need a far superior transport system than the one which currently exists. You were also mentioning that taxi drivers need a living. I think you are forgetting that they are very expensive. For example, the taxi fare from Dalkey to Dublin City is €30 at least. Personally, I think taxi fares are daylight/midnight robbery. Not to mention the fact that some taxi drivers have deliberately taken detours or longer routes to up their profits. That is essentially stealing. You must be taking the absolute piss when saying that Dublin City doesn't need an underground when it clearly does!!!!


  • #53
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Slice wrote:
    Even in the case of Metro North I really hope they don't put it underground in Ballymun when there's plenty of space at much less cost to put it above ground.

    While my preferred (medium-term) solution would've been to quad-track the northern line and provide an airport spur, going with the Metro North alignment...

    Would you rather a decent-speed, segregated light rail line that directly links the airport with the city centre and has reliable frequencies and good journey time (20 minutes).

    OR

    A slow, shuffling tramway that meanders around corners and squeezes itself down already highly-trafficked streets (thus drastically increasing congestion, thus increasing our emissions and hence increasing our carbon penalties) and takes 2-4 times longer to reach its destination.

    DART Underground, an airport spur (and Metro North) are the only major underground rail we'll probably ever need. Expensive yes, but to try and use cheap and messy short-termist overground solutions would be far worse.

    Luas is appropiate for some situations, but not this one.


  • #54
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    FlameoftheWest wrote: »
    True, but the real issue is that Dublin is not represented by people who do not come form an urban background. The majority of TDs and Ministers who oversee the city's development have grown up in rural townlands were urban life is as alien to them as life on Mars. Dublin has no metro because they can't envision how a 9 year old farmer's son can drive a tractor and slurry speader through it.

    Glad my opinions on this forum rub off on others.;)

    This is one of the most important points in relation to the poor development of public transport in Dublin. That said, I'm still not convinced that a Metro is necessary. I believe that the FF lead Governments have used this project as a method of grandstanding and not in the interests of genuinely addressing the citys public transport problems.

    And remember that the luas came about as a cheaper alternative to the 1970s Dublin rail plan, which was DART based. People seem to either forget that or simply don't know about it.


  • #55
    Ham'nd'egger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,025 ✭✭✭Ham'nd'egger


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    And remember that the luas came about as a cheaper alternative to the 1970s Dublin rail plan, which was DART based. People seem to either forget that or simply don't know about it.

    It's more likely that they don't know about it. It's one that does warrant a chapter of a book, if not a book of it's own.


  • #56
    RachPie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 244 ✭✭RachPie


    London has about 15 times the amount of people Dublin does. Paris and New York, even more. I think a city of Dublin's size doesn't need a metro - look at other cities equal in size to Dublin - Bristol in the UK. No metro, and still they manage to keep their traffic system working with no flaws...?


  • #57
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Hamndegger wrote: »
    It's more likely that they don't know about it. It's one that does warrant a chapter of a book, if not a book of it's own.

    Ah, but publishers are very tough bosses.;)


  • #58
    bg07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 250 ✭✭bg07


    Hamndegger wrote: »
    It's more likely that they don't know about it. It's one that does warrant a chapter of a book, if not a book of it's own.
    How advanced were the plans for it? I know that property was bought in Temple bar and routes were chosen but had detailed engineering work been done such as geo surveys structural design, and station designs?


  • #59
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    CIE owned a lot of property in Temple Bar, but the plan itself never really got beyond concept stage. Around this time one CJ Haughey was spending dirty weekends in Paris' Left Bank and it inspired him. Hence what we have in Temple Bar now.


  • #60
    Ham'nd'egger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,025 ✭✭✭Ham'nd'egger


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    CIE owned a lot of property in Temple Bar, but the plan itself never really got beyond concept stage. Around this time one CJ Haughey was spending dirty weekends in Paris' Left Bank and it inspired him. Hence what we have in Temple Bar now.

    The Temple Bar story is one that arguably was both the making of the weekend tourism and entertainment market for Dublin (A good thing in general) and the stalling of a central bus depot/terminus in the city (A bad thing). CIE at the time was in a very weak financial state and was easy pickpocketed of it's large land bank for a song; once it was seen to work it in time led to the large scale "cashing in" of it's impressive property portfolio. Once CIE was seen to be able to self fund from some of it's sites, it was a hard habit to break.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Ham'nd'egger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,025 ✭✭✭Ham'nd'egger


    bg07 wrote: »
    How advanced were the plans for it? I know that property was bought in Temple bar and routes were chosen but had detailed engineering work been done such as geo surveys structural design, and station designs?

    The Tallaght line got as far as having had private cabinet approval in the mid 70's before financial crisis say that it went no further.

    I understand it was to have followed the LUAS line to Belgard before trailing the Belgard Road towards Nangor Road. The junction AFAIK was just beyond Centrepoint with a new station for Clondalkin to have been built a little down line.


Advertisement