Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

monument · 01-03-2010 01:31PM

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.

As Victor has said traffic fills the space it is given. Provide more and larger roads and they will fill up. Congestion will be as bad if not worse.

There's also a whole host of practical reason why it's a bad idea:

It's a living city, not an empty field you can build a motorway in. People live, work, shop, and play in the city. Large scale roads break this up, road can divides communities and shopping districts.

Most people in the city don't drive. If anything what should be happening is more space being given to pedestrians. More ped crossing or even zebra crossings, wider crossings etc.

It's local and national policy to promote more sustainable forms of transport. Public transport, cycling, walking.

To implement your idea at any meaningful level it's very, very unlikely that only "demolishing a few buildings" would work.

The cost would be high.

Level of objection would also be high, so legal action is likely and thus so is delay.

Victor wrote: »

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.

Metro operating under the Luas brand isn't a good idea. There's connotations of slowness with Luas.

If anything all rail -- Dart, Luas, Metro, and maybe even Commuter -- and bus too should be under the same umbrella brand. Whatever that may be -- Dublin Metro, Dublin Transport, or whatever. Same as in London, in US cities etc.

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 01:33PM

DWCommuter wrote: »

Dublin lacks a proper road and public transport infrastructure.

I agree with you on a technical, logistical and logical level that Dublin needs both.

However, there is one vital aspect in all this which goes fundementally straight to the reason why Dublin has Docklands station were it is, why the original DART was never completed and why we have two unconnected tram lines. It has nothing to do with transport planning - the issue is two things CULTUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL.

With respects DWC, you know well yourself from me having read your posts that when the concept of road and rail in Ireland comes up rail always loses.

Examples:

"We need a mosherway for the city and an Underground railway!!

Result: they build a M50 with too little capacity and the DART ends at Maladide in a couple of pointless sidings

and it goes on and on and on...

In a normal country when a govenment says "we need to develop road and rail" they do just that. In Ireland we get rubbish roads and even more rubbish railways. If we even get any rail solution at all. The more I look into CIE I am now completely convinced that CIE is being kept alive in order to kill off railways in Ireland. Once the DART Underground is completed I expect to see 70% of the Inter-City network will be closed. This is the Endgame for CIE and why they are indulged by all Irish governments. They are the termination switch for railways in Ireland. Hence why we on the rail side have to keep pushing and pushing for rail.

People like me who push for a metro first and foremost (and the DART Underground of course) know well that the road side has 95% of the political power, Irish psychological mandate and thanks to the rural nature of our eh, "leaders" we get a Boreen + solution everything.

In a normal country DWC I would support your assertion completely, in Ireland I know the deck is stacked heavily against any kind of rail based mass transit project and our side will always be the second class citizen.

Ham'nd'egger · 01-03-2010 01:44PM

markpb wrote: »

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

The plan was for a few roads to feed into and out of central Dublin that met up at key points at Bolton Street, St. Patricks Cathedral and Stoneybatter so traffic could move into and out of central Dublin quickly.

A 4 lane road from Patrick Street feeding Clanbrassil Street, Harolds Cross Hospice and Mount Argus lands, past Sundrive Superquinn over the Poddle and onwards to Templeogue and the N 81 into Tallaght.
Leeson Street, Cuffe and Kevin Street, Cork Street, Dolphins Barn, Crumlin Road and onwards to the Long Mile Road. Part of what scuppered it was a preservation order put on a public toilet at New Street of all things!
Fairview, Ballybough, Summerhill, Parnell Street, Bolton Street and across King Street and Smithfield to come out around Arbour Hill/Heuston to meet the N 1 and the roads south and west. The N 3 would be met at the bottom of Stonybatter and head up Prussia Street.

What screwed it up was a lot of local apathy, lack of cash and the fuel crises of the 70's that gave public transport a new lease of life for town planning.

KevR · 01-03-2010 02:29PM

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...?

You can't really compare Bristol to Dublin. Both cities might have similar populations but Dublin is the capital of Ireland and Ireland is very Dublin orientated.

For example, I live on the West Coast but use Dublin Airport more than Galway Airport, Shannon Airport or Knock Airport combined because Dublin is usually the only place which has the flights I need. I really doubt that Bristol Airport has 22 million passengers every year. There's also Dublin Port and Dun Laoghaire. You can only get certain operations in Dublin hospitals. There are loads of example, people from all over the country have to travel to Dublin everyday for various different reasons. That wouldn't be the case for Bristol - in fact people from the likes of Bristol might need to travel to London or Birmingham in the same way people from around Ireland have to travel to Dublin.

Economically Dublin is massively more important to Ireland than Bristol is to England.

I don't always agree with how 'Dublin-Centric' Ireland is but sometimes it is the most practical approach.

shyhawk · 01-03-2010 03:04PM

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...?

You're obviously a born eejit.

Approaching 200 world cities have metros. Most of these cities are about the size of Dublin, many are smaller.

Ham'nd'egger · 01-03-2010 03:42PM

shyhawk wrote: »

You're obviously a born eejit.

Approaching 200 world cities have metros. Most of these cities are about the size of Dublin, many are smaller.

Helpful comment and full of fact based logic I see:rolleyes:

ofjames · 01-03-2010 03:52PM

just to row back a bit. i think it needs to be pointed out that the 10billion figure mentioned in one of the posts as the cost of metro north is off the wall.

estimates have ranged from 3 to 5 billion, and those were made at the height of the boom (havent released official estimates of cost as they are waiting to see what the bidding consortiums cost it at to try achieve best price). given general deflation in the economy, collapsed land prices and the glut of labour supply in the construction market, the price of the project will probably be at the low end of the estimated range.

it will also be developed under a PPP which means the state wont actually pay a penny until the line is built and operational.

the fact they are planned as PPP's is the only reason the metro and interconnector are still on the agenda at all. If the money had to come from the exchequer immediately these projects would already be in the FF white elephant scrapheap with Stadium Ireland.

shyhawk · 01-03-2010 04:50PM

Metro North tenders have come in below 2 billion.

In fact, as only the interest has to be paid during construction - and as it is estimated that the 5 years + construction will employ approx 9,000 people - the exchequer will gain roughly 350 million a year in tax, VAT and social welfare savings during construction.
The estimated annual passenger numbers are 30 million on opening but given that the MN line will be a prime development corridor it is reasonable to expect that by 2025 the annual passenger numbers will be in the region of 50 million.
That will more than cover for all repayments maintenence etc.
There is no financial argument against MN.
Except from the peasants of Bristol who are vehemently opposed to Dubliners being allowed to travel on a modern transport system.

FlameoftheWest · 01-03-2010 04:54PM

ofjames wrote: »

just to row back a bit. i think it needs to be pointed out that the 10billion figure mentioned in one of the posts as the cost of metro north is off the wall.

estimates have ranged from 3 to 5 billion,

The current tender are coming in closer to 1 billion euros. All indications are the RPA are going to score the bargin of the century for getting a metro constructed.

Aard · 01-03-2010 05:37PM

Where are you guys getting your figures for MN cost? I hope it's true!

monument · 01-03-2010 05:38PM

Any source on those amounts?

Cookie_Monster · 01-03-2010 08:17PM

+1 on source

call me cynical if you wantbut even if they are predicting a 2bn price tag this will inflate to about 5 like everything else in Ireland does. What was the original cost of the two Luas lines vs actual anyone?

markpb · 01-03-2010 08:20PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

call me cynical if you wantbut even if they are predicting a 2bn price tag this will inflate to about 5 like everything else in Ireland does. What was the original cost of the two Luas lines vs actual anyone?

I'm not disputing it but I understand the two are being built using different schemes. The Luas was built under contract from the RPA so they were ultimately responsible for any cost overruns. Metro North will be built *and operated* under a single contract so any overrun would fall to the construction company and not the taxpayer.

Cookie_Monster · 01-03-2010 08:23PM

markpb wrote: »

I'm not disputing it but I understand the two are being built using different schemes. The Luas was built under contract from the RPA so they were ultimately responsible for any cost overruns. Metro North will be built *and operated* under a single contract so any overrun would fall to the construction company and not the taxpayer.

well that makes sense. hopefully thats what will happen

dubhthach · 01-03-2010 09:07PM

markpb wrote: »

I'm not disputing it but I understand the two are being built using different schemes. The Luas was built under contract from the RPA so they were ultimately responsible for any cost overruns. Metro North will be built *and operated* under a single contract so any overrun would fall to the construction company and not the taxpayer.

So basically the same approach that saw us saving money with Motorways (fixed tendering). Remember back in the 90's ye get 10miles of dual carraigeway and it would cost 3times what it had been budgeted for, once they brought in fixed tendering prices on the road schemes the roads ended up been delivered 6months early and under-budget. If it can work for Motorways no reason why it can't work for Metro north/Dart underground.

Personally I think an underground system within the canals will make a huge difference. If anything it would have a "positive feedback" loop. Underground takes people off the roads (be it cars or bums on seats in buses) this thus frees up more road space which would hopefully make bus service quicker. Which then encourages more people to use the bus.

Empire o de Sun · 01-03-2010 10:08PM

Somone mentioned a road network in the city.

As far as I remember, there was a proposal to have an internal dual ring, or more box shape. Sections of this were built, parnell street west and Summer Hill. Parnell Street east was derelict for years waiting to be widened at the Summer Hill End (It's wider at the O'Connell Street End). But this plan was abandoned and the the buildings were demolished to be replaced with apartments.

Parnell Street West was a bit of bomb site before the road was built. Large open carparks.

There was also Motorway proposals for the Royal Canal, to have it replaced with a 3x3 motorway to Grand Canal Dock on the south side from Blanchardstown, with the a bridge to be 4x4 over the Liffey in the docks, and then go out to the current motorway reserve near booterstown through ringsend. The M1 was to have come all the way in to meet it. With a dual carriageway along the Grand Canal to meet it.

Planning needs to change in regard to Dart/Metro/Luas lines. For example, anywhere with 200 m of a station could (or should) be 4 stories. And within 1 km 3 stories without the council refusing planning based on the height of the building.

KevR · 01-03-2010 10:16PM

Empire o de Sun, Dublin City Council have a new high rise policy which deals maximum permitted building heights (specifically near train stations). Unfortunately it doesn't mention anything about minimum building heights near stations. I agree with what you said, certain buildings near stations should be refused planning permission unless they meet minimum height requirements.

KevR wrote: »

Dublin City Council approved a new high rise policy last December. It's a good idea, and similar should be implemented in other Irish cities (especially ones which are serious about light rail).

Dublin High Rise Policy:
Future developments in excess of 16 stories in three city centre locations at Heuston and Connolly railway stations and in the Docklands.

Mid-rise buildings of up to 16 residential stories would be allowed in Phibsboro and residential developments of up to eight stories would be allowed across the inner city.

In the outer city, residential developments would be up to six stories for residential or four stories for offices.

However, developments within 1km of a mainline, DART or Metro station could have an extra two stories in office height.

Buildings of up to 16 stories would also be allowed in the north fringe, Ballymun, Pelletstown, Cherry Orchard and the Naas Road.

Galway is low-rise sprawled mess. Any future developments in the City Centre should be required to have a minimum number of stories. I think the Ceannt Station development will have 2 buildings at 17 stories each and some other medium rise buildings also. It's a step in the right direction anyway.

dowlingm · 01-03-2010 10:46PM

Just back from Vancouver folks, a cracking place to visit (if the Olympics are in town and Canada is winning medals, at any rate)

Skytrain was mentioned up-thread, it's an automatic operation light metro, 2-4 cars with occasional use of 6-car trains but the first thing to note is that outside of downtown core almost all of it is elevated. That saves a lot of money over tunnelling but the concrete spans aren't much to look at and the stations don't often integrate well with the neighbourhood underneath.

The newest "Canada Line" was built in part by cutting and covering a main street (Cambie) to save money which drove many businesses under, and one of those has just won a court case. That line which links the airport with downtown got built for the Olympics and probably wouldn't have otherwise.

However there is a push on to build tram lines because the fully segregated metros are so expensive (especially stations)

Integration is key. With an Olympic event ticket (even for an event in Whistler) I was able to jump on a diesel bus, electric trolleybus, a Skytrain or a Seabus and go anywhere in the system until 4am on the day after the event. The only excluded bit was West Coast Express (heavy rail commuter train). A demonstration tramline was also in operation by Bombardier using two 28m Flexity cars borrowed from STIB Brussels.

Edit: one other thing - the agency that runs transit (Translink) also maintains roads, cycling infrastructure and bridges.

Hungerford · 01-03-2010 10:55PM

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

It has nothing to do with transport planning - the issue is two things CULTUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL.

I agree. Just look at the process by which we wound up with the Loop Line Bridge. The original plan was for some form of underground if I recall but it was scrapped due to public opposition. And this was in the late 1880s!!

Cookie_Monster · 01-03-2010 11:18PM

Hungerford wrote: »

I agree. Just look at the process by which we wound up with the Loop Line Bridge. The original plan was for some form of underground if I recall but it was scrapped due to public opposition. And this was in the late 1880s!!

and now we have a great landmark and engineering structure

Lifelike · 02-03-2010 12:08AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and now we have a great landmark and engineering structure

London has the Tower Bridge, New York has the Brooklyn Bridge, San Francisco has the Golden Gate Bridge. Dublin, however, has the Loop Line Bridge.

I cringe...

Aard · 02-03-2010 05:21PM

The new Calatrava bridge is more iconic.

dynamick · 02-03-2010 06:19PM

Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

The government has not built a metro in Dublin because everything else we spent money on was judged more important. This may be because most of those who decide spending priorities never use public transport so they can't imagine what benefit it could bring.

Another reason is that the planning and public consultation phases for public transport projects are typically measured in decades in Ireland. Underground rail was proposed for Dublin in 1975 in the Dublin rapid rail transport study, The 1991 Dublin Transport Initiative, DTO "A Platform For Change", 1999, and finally the RPA came up with proposals in the early 2000s. We are still at least a decade away.

shyhawk · 02-03-2010 10:19PM

dynamick wrote: »

The government has not built a metro in Dublin because everything else we spent money on was judged more important. This may be because most of those who decide spending priorities never use public transport so they can't imagine what benefit it could bring.

Another reason is that the planning and public consultation phases for public transport projects are typically measured in decades in Ireland. Underground rail was proposed for Dublin in 1975 in the Dublin rapid rail transport study, The 1991 Dublin Transport Initiative, DTO "A Platform For Change", 1999, and finally the RPA came up with proposals in the early 2000s. We are still at least a decade away.

you haven't a clue what's going on have you?

while you're up there on Mars, can you pop over to the Mars Rover and seen why it's got stuck?

Cookie_Monster · 02-03-2010 11:14PM

shyhawk wrote: »

you haven't a clue what's going on have you?

while you're up there on Mars, can you pop over to the Mars Rover and seen why it's got stuck?

i think that dynamick's was a fairly logical and well though out arguement tbh.

what do you find wrong with it?

02-03-2010 11:39PM

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

I think he is 100% serious.

A decent road network is vital for any sprawling city like Dublin to function efficiently, so many of the recent developments in the city are car dependant. Any decent tramway that would link up most of these developments would be very long winded and inefficient.

A couple of key routes would benefit from lightrail - Airport to the city centre and linking up with the Luas lines with a park and ride near the airport would be viable. For the majority of routes in Dublin, busses on an improved road network would be the most cost effective way.

shyhawk · 03-03-2010 10:30AM

we're about 12 months away from construction on MN.

decades? me arse.

robd · 03-03-2010 10:46AM

shyhawk wrote: »

we're about 12 months away from construction on MN.

decades? me arse.

In fairness we're about 12 months away from a go/postpone decision. Could easily go either way. And that's on both the Metro North and Dart Underground/Interconnector.

I wouldn't be getting my hopes up with the government running up a 2.5 billion deficit (18% yoy increase) in the first 2 months of the years. 1 billion of capital savings already earmarked for 2011. Road projects winding down alright but how much of that yearly budget will transfer across?

shyhawk · 03-03-2010 10:54AM

the 1 billion infrastructure cut has been factored in since 2008

will cost the gov nothing until built

any more made up facts to enlighten us with?

dynamick · 03-03-2010 11:31AM

We may get a railway order for metro north this year. Then we need to select a winning bidder (2011) Then we need to negotiate and sign a final contract for construction (2012). Construction will take 6-7 years. So I think we could be looking at services starting in 2019 and that's if everything goes to plan. We may well have a change of government during contract negotiations which represents further risk and delay for the project. So I think it is fair to say we are at least a decade away from an operational Metro North. The interconnector is not as advanced as Metro North and will take longer to complete.

So we have been in design and planning phase for underground rail in Dublin since 1975 (35 years) and we have at least another 10 years to go. 45 years is a long timeline for any project.

Why doesn't Dublin have an underground metro?

Comments