Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

Cool Mo D · 28-02-2010 11:32PM

RachPie wrote: »

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...?

Greater London has 7 times the population of Dublin, and New York City has 8. Paris proper, the part served by the metro, has a population of 2 million. County Dublin has a population of 1 million, and Bristol has 400,000. Hardly what you are pointing out.

There are very few cities of Dublin's size in Europe without one, and the ones that do are mostly in the UK and have much better heavy rail networks - look at Glasgow, Liverpool, and Birmingham for examples.

28-02-2010 11:41PM

RachPie wrote: »

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...?

A lot of UK cities were "prepaired for redevelopment" in the early 1940s, during reconstruction & 1950s modernisation, many feeder roads were improved so it was possible to drive to the city centre via flyovers etc.

Birmingham city centre for example, has an urban "freeway" going directly to the city centre from the M6.

With the exception of the port tunnel, Dublin is severly lacking in decent feeder roads and an inner ring road.

DWCommuter · 28-02-2010 11:45PM

Hamndegger wrote: »

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.

Im not in a position to scan the map in at the moment, but it is worth a look to see how it actually forms much of the basis of the interconnector, metro north/west and the luas routes and the Platform for change document. But intervening years have changed the routes to a degree.

I have no official record of the private cabinet approval of the Tallaght line. The existing DART line between Bray and Howth only received approval in 1979.

But it is safe to say that the same plan for Dublin has been kicked around for nearly 40 years in some shape or form.

DWCommuter · 28-02-2010 11:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of UK cities were "prepaired for redevelopment" in the early 1940s, during reconstruction & 1950s modernisation, many feeder roads were improved so it was possible to drive to the city centre via flyovers etc.

Birmingham city centre for example, has an urban "freeway" going directly to the city centre from the M6.

With the exception of the port tunnel, Dublin is severly lacking in decent feeder roads and an inner ring road.

Very good point. Dublin never explored the capability of proper road infrastructure to aid its transport. The M50 was planned as a bypass and eventually built in an era where the city had already expanded out. and now weve effectively built it twice to cope with its new role. If we look at other roads in Dublin such as the N11 dualer from Donnybrook to Shankill, it isn't hard to see that it was built on the cheap when similar roads in the UK were built on a grade seperated basis. The Naas road from Bluebell to the red cow is another example. Both are key pinch points that could be solved by proper road design.

Obviously we didn't have the traffic volume back then, but we didn't forward plan either and allowed development to compromise future solutions. I'll put this to the forum. After years of traffic gridlock and moaning and groaning about public transport projects, I believe that if Dublin had a fraction of the road design seen in bigger European cities, then it would never have had the gridlock it witnessed in the Celtic Tiger years.

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 12:28AM

RachPie wrote: »

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...?

That's because Bristol was bombed to bits in the war and they could design any road system they wanted.

A metro would be hard to build there as the geology is all over the place and the water table is VERY high.

Oh and the Greater Dublin Region has about 900,000 more people that Bristol.

Dublin badly needs some kind of undergroud railway of SOME kind (hopefully DART UNderground for starters). The population is still soaring and the traffic is as bad as ever.

Cities Around the Size of Dublin Metro Systems

Amsterdam
Barcelona
Copenhagen
Koln
Boston
San Francisco
Vancouver
Vienna
Porto

I am sure there are more. How many from this list are around Dublin's size?

Metro (Subway)/ Lightrail networks

LR=Light Rail
M= Metro(Subway)
M+LR = either Metro/light Rail combination, or seperate metro and Light Rail lines

Armenia
Yerevan (1981) 13.4km M

Austria
Gmunden-Vorchdorf (1912) 14.7km LR
Vorchdorf-Lambach (1903) 15.5km LR
Lambach-Haag (1901) 26.3km LR
Linz-Postlingberg (1898) 2.9km LR
Linz-Waizenkirchen (1912) 58.9km LR
Salzburg (1886) 34km LR
Serfaus (1985) 1.28km M
Vocklamarkt-Attersee (1913) 13.4km LR
Vienna (1865) 67km M+LR
Wien-Baden (1873) 30.4km LR

Azerbaijan
Baku (1967) 30.5km M

Belarus
Minsk (1984) 16.4km M

Belgium
Bruxelles (1976) 40.5km M
De Panne-Knokke (1885) 55km LR

Bulgaria
Sofia (1998) 5km M

Czech Republic
Prague (1974) 59.3km M

Denmark
Copenhagen (2002) 21km M

Finland
Helsinki (1982) 21.1kmM

France
Lille (1983) 45km M
Lyon (1862-1978) 30km M
Marseille (1977) 19km M
Paris (1900) 243km M+LR
Toulouse (1993) 12.5km LR
Rennes (1997) 9.4km

Georgia
Tbilisi (1966) 26.3km M

Germany
Berlin (1902) 143km M
Bochum-Gelsenkirchen (1989) 14.9km LR
Bonn (1911) 26km LR
Brannenburg (1912) 8km LR
Essen (1977) 35.2km LR
Frankfurt/Main (1968) 58km M+LR
Garmisch-Partenkirchen (1929) 20km LR
Hamburg (1912) 100km M
Hannover (1872) 116.6km M+LR
Königswinter (1883) 1.5km LR
Lichtenhain-Cursdorf (1923) 2.5km LR
Mannheim-Bad Dürkheim (1913) 16.3km LR
Mannheim-Heidelberg (1868) 61km LR
Munich (1971) 98.4km M
Nürnberg (1972) 26.4kmM
Strausberg (1893) 6.2km LR
Stuttgart (1975) 84.2km M+LR
Trossingen (1898) 4km LR
Wuppertal (1903) 13.3km LR

Greece
Athens (1904) 25.8km M

Hungary
Budapest (1896) 206.8km M+LR

Ireland
Dublin (200?) ??km M+LR

Italy
Catania (1999) 3.8km M
Genova (1929-2000) 5.5km M
Milano (1964) 84.2km M
Napoli (1993) 28km M
Roma (1916-1955) 33.5km M
Torino (2005) 9.6km M

Netherlands
Amsterdam (1977-1990) 60.5km M+LR
Rotterdam (1968) 75.9km M
Utrecht-Nieuwegein (1983) 21.5km LR

Norway
Oslo (1909-1966) 123.4km M+LR

Poland
Warszawa (1929-1995) 49.5kmM+LR

Portugal
Lisboa (1959) 30km M
Oporto (200?) ??km LR

Romania
Bucuresti (1959) 59.2km M

Russia
Kazan (2005) 7.7km M
Moscow (1935) 282.52 M+LR
Nizhni Novgorod (1985) 13km M
Novosibirsk (1986) 13km M
Sankt Peterburg (1955) 107km M
Samara (1987) 12.5km M
Ust-Ilimsk (1988) 14.6km LR
Volgograd (1972) 12.8km LR
Yekaterinburg (1991) 12km LR

Slovakia
Poprad-Strbské Pleso (1912) 35.0km LR
Strba-Strbské Pleso (1970) 5km LR

Spain
Alicante (2003) 95km M+LR
Barcelona (1892/1924) 106.4km M
Bilbao (1995-2002) 60km M+LR
Donostia (San Sebastian) (1882) 156km LR
Gijón-Pravia (1909) 64km LR
Madrid (1919) 281.58km M
Palma-Sóller (1912) 23km LR
Santander (1892) 153km LR
Valencia (1988) 127km LR

Sweden
Lidingö (1907) 9.2km LR
Nockebybanan (??) 5.6km LR
Saltsjöbanan (??) 18.6km LR
Stockholm (1877-1950) 113.3km M+LR
Tvärbanan (??) 11.5km LR

01-03-2010 12:41AM

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

Dublin badly needs some kind of undergroud railway of SOME kind (hopefully DART UNderground for starters). The population is still soaring and the traffic is as bad as ever.

It dosen't need an underground! It just needs a decent "intraurban" road network, one that allows traffic (of all types) fast and efficient flow around the city. This may mean demolishing a few buildings and with over-streached gamblers investors looking to sell out, now may be an opportunety to acquire land to build a decent feeder road system.

A proper feeder road system mind! not one that has access to every shopping street in the town!

Edit: A properly designed light rail would also benefit the city greatly, as mentioned earlier the Brussels Pre-metro is a good example - I remember using one of the lines that was being converted to being a pre-metro before the changeover and the traffic killed it's timetable!

Cookie_Monster · 01-03-2010 12:46AM

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and say NOT getting bombed flat in WW2 is a partial reason why Dublin has no underground. I'm sure many cities after the war took "advantage" of the rebuilding to put a metro in at the same time. - valid at all?

That and masssive political incompetnace, lazness and corruption

BluntGuy · 01-03-2010 12:46AM

Deleted User wrote: »

...and with over-streached gamblers investors looking to sell out, now may be an opportunety to acquire land to build a decent feeder road system.

Sure, don't we aquire those "assets" under NAMA?

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 12:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It dosen't need an underground! It just needs a decent "intraurban" road network, one that allows traffic (of all types) fast and efficient flow around the city. This may mean demolishing a few buildings and with over-streached gamblers investors looking to sell out, now may be an opportunety to acquire land to build a decent feeder road system.

A proper feeder road system mind! not one that has access to every shopping street in the town!

This is 1970's mentality which has the city a mess in the first place.

Dublin is the capital city of Ireland with a metro population of close to 2 million and not some rural parish were the only transport objective is an R road between the Catholic Church, the pub, the GAA grounds, the Farmers Co-op and no footpaths so drunk drivers can slaughter predestrians with impunity.

Go away.

01-03-2010 12:54AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and say NOT getting bombed flat in WW2 is a partial reason why Dublin has no underground. I'm sure many cities after the war took "advantage" of the rebuilding to put a metro in at the same time. - valid at all?

That and masssive political incompetnace, lazness and corruption

That may be true of mainland Europe, but not UK their tramways were left to die! Many did take advantage when rebuilding to include better road layouts where possible.

01-03-2010 01:00AM

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

This is 1970's mentality which has the city a mess in the first place.

Dublin is the capital city of Ireland with a metro population of close to 2 million and not some rural parish were the only transport objective is an R road between the Catholic Church, the pub, the GAA grounds, the Farmers Co-op and no footpaths so drunk drivers can slaughter predestrians with impunity.

Go away.

You've completely lost me there!

Where do the majority of commuters to Dublin actually come from and where do they go to! Dublin isn't big enough for a London or Paris type Underground system. A decent feeder road system will not need buslanes as the traffic will be flowing at such speeds that busses are not impeded and can operat efficiently.

01-03-2010 01:03AM

BluntGuy wrote: »

Sure, don't we aquire those "assets" under NAMA?

Unfortunately we do and at top price as well! :mad:

monument · 01-03-2010 01:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It dosen't need an underground! It just needs a decent "intraurban" road network, one that allows traffic (of all types) fast and efficient flow around the city. This may mean demolishing a few buildings and with over-streached gamblers investors looking to sell out, now may be an opportunety to acquire land to build a decent feeder road system.

A proper feeder road system mind! not one that has access to every shopping street in the town!

Edit: A properly designed light rail would also benefit the city greatly, as mentioned earlier the Brussels Pre-metro is a good example - I remember using one of the lines that was being converted to being a pre-metro before the changeover and the traffic killed it's timetable!

Before I reply -- are you joking?

Lifelike · 01-03-2010 01:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You've completely lost me there!

Where do the majority of commuters to Dublin actually come from and where do they go to! Dublin isn't big enough for a London or Paris type Underground system. A decent feeder road system will not need buslanes as the traffic will be flowing at such speeds that busses are not impeded and can operat efficiently.

Just to tell you Nuremberg, Germany has a population of only 500,000, but it has an underground with three lines (including a line out to the airport), an extensive S-Bahn (suburban rail) system, and an extensive tram system.

Of course Dublin should have a metro. In most European cities you don't need a car to commute into work because of the high quality transport network. In Dublin we have a tram system with two lines which don't intersect!

Victor · 01-03-2010 01:44AM

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"

Metro may operate under the Luas brand, but that has yet to be decided. Of course, there may be some further rationalisation under the NTA.

01-03-2010 01:45AM

monument wrote: »

Before I reply -- are you joking?

No! Dublin is a sprawling city that has a high percentage of it's workers living outside the city in places that are not served by public transport.

BluntGuy · 01-03-2010 01:47AM

DART Lite, LUAS, whatever they want to call it, we just don't need another brand lumped on top of those.

Victor · 01-03-2010 01:47AM

cable842 wrote: »

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.

Isn't all that many. For more than 100 million passenger trips, there have been two fatalities, neither among staff nor passengers. One incident with a pedestrian at Tallaght and the other a construction accident on the Saggart line. a similar number of car journeys would result in 10-15 deaths.

01-03-2010 01:49AM

Lifelike wrote: »

Just to tell you Nuremberg, Germany has a population of only 500,000, but it has an underground with three lines (including a line out to the airport), an extensive S-Bahn (suburban rail) system, and an extensive tram system.

WWII had a major part to play in the development of such a modern transport system!

The other thing is of course it that the housing structure is different as in many people in Europe live in (decent sized) apartments within the city boundaries and work within the same city. That doesn't apply to Ireland.

Lifelike · 01-03-2010 02:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

WWII had a major part to play in the development of such a modern transport system!

The other thing is of course it that the housing structure is different as in many people in Europe live in (decent sized) apartments within the city boundaries and work within the same city. That doesn't apply to Ireland.

But Nuremberg's underground was opened well after World War 2, in 1972. The city was well rebuilt at that stage.

Anyway if our housing structure is different, we can build a system which actually does serve the residential areas.

Dublin really should have a decent public transport system. And there really is no excuse. 15 years of boom...

Aard · 01-03-2010 02:35AM

RachPie wrote: »

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...?

London isn't that big, and neither is Paris. Imo the best calculation of city-population in Europe is using the NUTS-5 densities. If you want a list, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population and sort by ESPON. As you can see, there are cities with a similar or lower population than Dublin that have metros and/or other underground rail. Here's a list:

Zurich
Turin
Marseille
Nuremberg
Antwerp
Valencia
Glasgow
Helsinki
Sofia
Lille
Oslo

Deleted User wrote: »

The other thing is of course it that the housing structure is different as in many people in Europe live in (decent sized) apartments within the city boundaries and work within the same city. That doesn't apply to Ireland.

How would you feel about extending underground rail only to areas with sufficient density? For example, just within the canals, or at most a little further beyond?

I completely agree that many areas in Dublin don't have the density to warrant a metro line, but that doesn't apply to the entire city. Other European cities have similar or lower densities (Helsinki, Marseille, Oslo) yet they have many underground lines. It's a common thought that Dublin is particularly sprawling. It's not really - just places like Blanchardstown, where its location and physical detachment from the rest of the city would/should proclude it from having an underground line anyway.

01-03-2010 03:01AM

Aard wrote: »

How would you feel about extending underground rail only to areas with sufficient density? For example, just within the canals, or at most a little further beyond?

I completely agree that many areas in Dublin don't have the density to warrant a metro line, but that doesn't apply to the entire city.

I agree completely with that comment, in the city area It should go underground. As I have already mentioned when comparing with the system used in Brussel as in the Pre-metro system. But I still stand by the argument that a decent feeder road system is essential, alll cities with successful transport systems have them.

Don't get hung up on the idea that it has to be underground, it just has to be separated from the other means of movement in the city.

It can be at grade, but in a separate "corridor" while passing through the city centre, there are many back streets that run parallel to main streets that could carry a light rail solution without having to fight with other traffic with stratigic underpasses where needed!

Aard · 01-03-2010 03:19AM

How else, other than underground, would a tram/train pass every perpendicular street every couple of hundred yards in the city centre? Have you travelled the Red Luas? It doesn't work very well in my experience. Even a half-minute delay has knock-on effects on the traffic signalling in the city. The problem with on-street trams in Dublin is the road layout. Just look at the future Luas BX. Many 90-degree turns, which really slows the system down. If there was a gridiron pattern, then it wouldn't be as big an issue. I am hung up on underground, because I think it's the only good solution.

If cost is the issue, then a cut-and-cover method under roads could be used where appropriate (like the Red Line through town).

Victor · 01-03-2010 03:26AM

Realise that underground isn't everything, a practical level of separation is just as good. As it is, removing the level crossings from Landsdowne Road to Merrion Gates gets you something just as good - its just elevated in the city centre.

Deleted User wrote: »

It dosen't need an underground! It just needs a decent "intraurban" road network, one that allows traffic (of all types) fast and efficient flow around the city. This may mean demolishing a few buildings and with over-streached gamblers investors looking to sell out, now may be an opportunety to acquire land to build a decent feeder road system.

You mean like the complete and utter FAIL! they did with Clanbrassil Street or Parnell Street?

Deleted User wrote: »

A decent feeder road system will not need buslanes as the traffic will be flowing at such speeds that busses are not impeded and can operat efficiently.

Traffic expands to occupy available road space. Dedicated public transport space is needed.

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 12:22PM

monument wrote: »

Before I reply -- are you joking?

Sadly I think he is 100% serious.

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 12:28PM

Found some more smaller cities than Dublin with underground railways: Linz and Hanover.

I have no idea were this notion that Dublin is too small for a metro is coming from.

Yet two of the newly opened stations on the bizarre Western Rail "Corridor" literally sit in fields full of cows and sheep - but yet Dublin is too small for a metro... You could not make this up.

I mean, doesn't this brand of "Oirish logic" just say it all really as to why we are in the mess we are.

Ardrahan = "vital public transport infrastructure"/"Dublin underground railway" = a waste...

Beam me up Scottie...

DWCommuter · 01-03-2010 12:33PM

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

Sadly I think he is 100% serious.

Dublin lacks a proper road and public transport infrastructure. Both are required to keep the city moving. The road system has uncessary pinch points that contribute to congestion.

Public transport will not alleviate road congestion on its own. A metro system is not the panacea to Dublins problems. It is only a part of the solution. The anti car/road lobby attitude plays into the hands of the road lobby. The either/or stance holds back the development of public transport. The bigger picture needs to be addressed.

DWCommuter · 01-03-2010 12:37PM

Victor wrote: »

You mean like the complete and utter FAIL! they did with Clanbrassil Street or Parnell Street?
Traffic expands to occupy available road space. Dedicated public transport space is needed.

Clanbrassil street is a watered down version of what was originally planned. Mary Mooney (the crusading councillor in the Liberties) fought tooth and nail to give us the road we have today. Hence the problems with it.

As I said above. Proper road infrastructure and public transport are needed. Dublin lacks both.

Son of Stupido · 01-03-2010 12:57PM

The dublin metro will not be conventional metro a la Paris & London. It will be a hybrid, just like the trams on the Luas but with longer carraiges, so in effect it will be an underground Luas. The ends of the line will run at grade, just like an ordinary tram and the green line will eventually become an extension of it.

markpb · 01-03-2010 01:21PM

Victor wrote: »

You mean like the complete and utter FAIL! they did with Clanbrassil Street or Parnell Street?

Care to elaborate for people (like me) who don't get that reference?

Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

Comments