The case against Metro North - is there one?

Amtmann · 09-10-2010 8:38pm #1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Metro North should be consigned to the dustbin of history like the Bertie Bowl, Thornton Hall Prison, e-voting - a grandeoise project dreamt up by people living in la-la land.

What makes it a fantasist's project? Genuine question.

GizAGoOfYerGee · 09-10-2010 8:58pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Metro North should be consigned to the dustbin of history like the Bertie Bowl, Thornton Hall Prison, e-voting - a grandeoise project dreamt up by people living in la-la land.

No doubt you said the same about Luas and DART. :rolleyes:

Judgement Day · 09-10-2010 9:02pm

On cost grounds alone - €5/6 billion - and forget all the public/private tosh you read so much about. It has all the hallmarks of an FF back of the envelope job in terms of planning and the money - if it were there - could be much better spent on other things.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/dublin-metro/

Amtmann · 09-10-2010 9:10pm

It was announced today that the bill would be €2.5 billion.

rameire · 09-10-2010 9:12pm

the only real reason i see people going against metro north, is the fact its on the northside and not going through all the well to do areas of the south side of the city.

Judgement Day · 09-10-2010 9:24pm

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

No doubt you said the same about Luas and DART. :rolleyes:

Friend how little you know me. I was advocating trams on the Harcourt Street line as far back as 1982 and calling for the DART project to be implemented from when it was first mooted.

Judgement Day · 09-10-2010 9:26pm

Furet wrote: »

It was announced today that the bill would be €2.5 billion.

And you believe that? Even if that were the cost there are other more important items to be spend money on.

LeinsterDub · 09-10-2010 9:33pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

And you believe that? Even if that were the cost there are other more important items to be spend money on.

Such as ?

Amtmann · 09-10-2010 9:37pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

And you believe that? Even if that were the cost there are other more important items to be spend money on.

I think that if you look at the management of infrastructural projects over the past five years, generally they have been managed pretty well. The prices quoted amount to 2.5 billion. I don't see how they could be underestimated by 100% or more, quite frankly. Do you favour a re-worked version of MN or targeting other transport areas, or do you just favour a halt on transport spending? I don't know what is more important than this project and DART underground in terms of preparing the capital's transport infrastructure the remainder of the century.

By the way: Kevin Myers used to write like that? He has seriously degenerated.

Judgement Day · 09-10-2010 9:39pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Such as ?

Wow, you managed two words in this post! If I really have to spell out to you all the things that money could be better spent on there is no point. Sorry, I have better things to do with my time.

Amtmann · 09-10-2010 9:43pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Wow, you managed two words in this post! If I really have to spell out to you all the things that money could be better spent on there is no point. Sorry, I have better things to do with my time.

To be honest I think it's a fair question JD. You asserted that MN is basically a delusional project and beyond saying it'll cost 5 or 6 billion (figures 100% in excess of our latest information) you don't seem to be elaborating. You don't have to of course, but I for one admire your knowledge of rail systems and would appreciate a more thorough explanation from you, if you'd be willing to offer it.

Judgement Day · 09-10-2010 9:44pm

Furet wrote: »

I think that if you look at the management of infrastructural projects over the past five years, generally they have been managed pretty well. The prices quoted amount to 2.5 billion. I don't see how they could be underestimated by 100% or more, quite frankly. Do you favour a re-worked version of MN or targeting other transport areas, or do you just favour a halt on transport spending? I don't know what is more important than this project and DART underground in terms of preparing the capital's transport infrastructure the remainder of the century.

By the way: Kevin Myers used to write like that? He has seriously degenerated.

I will agree with you about Kevin Myers, he is a seriously intelligent person and a good writer who is wasted at the chip wrapper but now that the 'paper of record' has dumbed down what is he left to do?

As regards spending on transport, I'm against any project that involves CIE/IE and so the Inter-connector gets the thumbs down too. The Metro North project is like something that Brian Guckian would design with his marker set and will gobble up money in a way that will make the original Luas lines cost overruns look like a drop in the ocean.

loyatemu · 09-10-2010 10:58pm

its insanely expensive for a project that will serve only a small corridor and the airport (which seems to be getting along alright with private bus competition at the moment thanks to the billions we've already sunk into the Port Tunnel).

You could do a hell of a lot for transport throughout the city with that money - and I don't mean by giving it to Dublin Bus (who have demonstrated their incompetence with the network direct project), but rather by redesigning the bus network from the ground up, re-engineering the road infrastructure to accomodate and prioritise this new network and franchising out the routes.

The proposed "Blueline" discussed in the Times today is the sort of thing we should be looking at, alongside Luas, for a fraction of the price of MN and serving the entire city and complementing the Interconnector. (I have my qualms about that too based largely on my distrust of Irish Rail - the idea itself is sound though). Swords Express also demonstrates what can be achieved without the need to invest billions.

Propellerhead · 09-10-2010 11:01pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

I will agree with you about Kevin Myers, he is a seriously intelligent person and a good writer who is wasted at the chip wrapper but now that the 'paper of record' has dumbed down what is he left to do?

As regards spending on transport, I'm against any project that involves CIE/IE and so the Inter-connector gets the thumbs down too. The Metro North project is like something that Brian Guckian would design with his marker set and will gobble up money in a way that will make the original Luas lines cost overruns look like a drop in the ocean.

But is it? Unless I'm much mistaken there is a very detailed EIS and detailed line design drawings at www.dublinmetronorth.ie. Hardly crayonism, and abandoning the DART-U because it connects two CIE rail lines is balls.

Propellerhead · 09-10-2010 11:04pm

loyatemu wrote: »

its insanely expensive for a project that will serve only a small corridor and the airport (which seems to be getting along alright with private bus competition at the moment thanks to the billions we've already sunk into the Port Tunnel).

You could do a hell of a lot for transport throughout the city with that money - and I don't mean by giving it to Dublin Bus (who have demonstrated their incompetence with the network direct project), but rather by redesigning the bus network from the ground up, re-engineering the road infrastructure to accomodate and prioritise this new network and franchising out the routes.

The proposed "Blueline" discussed in the Times today is the sort of thing we should be looking at, alongside Luas, for a fraction of the price of MN and serving the entire city and complementing the Interconnector. (I have my qualms about that too based largely on my distrust of Irish Rail - the idea itself is sound though). Swords Express also demonstrates what can be achieved without the need to invest billions.

The so called blue line is balls. A reheated version of route 52 and it doesn't even get to Sydney Parade

coolperson05 · 10-10-2010 1:02am

My only opinion against MN is because its another form of transport to confuse people. Goin from DARTS to buses to metros to luas etc. I think that the luas should have been underground from the beginning, but we have it now, so my personal feeling is join the lines (OBVIOUSLY). Expand the luas to perhaps places like UCD/Swords if possible, get the interconnector built and build a rail spur off to the airport. Thats the single biggest missing link, the airport. But I think a heavy rail link/DART link would better serve it to the many transport links already in place. MN is a fantastic idea, but its about 8 years too late!

monument · 10-10-2010 1:11am

loyatemu wrote: »

its insanely expensive for a project that will serve only a small corridor and the airport (which seems to be getting along alright with private bus competition at the moment thanks to the billions we've already sunk into the Port Tunnel).

€2.5 billion is insanely expensive for an 18km route which uses cut and cover and bore tunnelling?

With respect, what do you mean by a small corridor?

It covers:

Areas north of Swords: Served by a park and ride
Swords: One of the largest Dublin commuter towns
Dublin Airport -- is an employment centre as well as a transport hub
Northwood: Fairly high density and currently not served very well
Ballymun
DCU: 1,000 plus students, plus staff, plus the Helix
Glasnevin: Different parts are covered
Santry: Is also near to the DCU stop
Drumcondra has Croke Park, St Pats and an interchange to what is planned to be a Dart line
Mater: The hospital and it covers parts of Phibsboro and other near by north inner city areas
Parnell Square: Close to a fair bit of housing, tourist attractions, shopping areas, the Rotunda Hospital etc
O'Connell Bridge: Red Line Luas, shops, offices... Need I go on?
St Stephen's Green: Shopping, offices, tourist attractions etc and with the Luas Green line and the planned Dart underground.

loyatemu wrote: »

You could do a hell of a lot for transport throughout the city with that money - and I don't mean by giving it to Dublin Bus (who have demonstrated their incompetence with the network direct project), but rather by redesigning the bus network from the ground up, re-engineering the road infrastructure to accomodate and prioritise this new network and franchising out the routes.

What you're talking about here is miracle work. It's a lovely idea, but the politics of Dublin streets and roads isn't that simple.

Try getting more than a hand full of politicians to support real bus priority. You'd need a lot more bus gates. The mass removal of parking and loading bays. Bus lanes that don't turn into left turning lanes, which in turn slows the main private traffic lanes.

Look at what happened with the College Green bus gate, and look at the opposition to some of the QBCs which have gotten them watered down or cancelled.

loyatemu wrote: »

The proposed "Blueline" discussed in the Times today is the sort of thing we should be looking at, alongside Luas, for a fraction of the price of MN and serving the entire city and complementing the Interconnector. (I have my qualms about that too based largely on my distrust of Irish Rail - the idea itself is sound though). Swords Express also demonstrates what can be achieved without the need to invest billions.

Comparing a 6km busway in suburbia using green space with an 18km partly underground light railway which goes under much of the city centre isn't really valid is it?

The proposed Blue Line works (or at least is planned to) at that price because the roads around Sandyford Industrial Estate have enough space for it, the Drummartin Road has enough space or can be expanded without too much trouble, it it apparently rips across a lot of green land (parks allotments etc), there's a good deal of space for it in UCD, and the N11 isn't too much of a problem (not sure what is planned for Nutley Lane).

There's no room in much of the city without a massive displacement of cars or massive land-take and destruction.

AngryLips · 10-10-2010 8:24am

coolperson05 wrote: »

My only opinion against MN is because its another form of transport to confuse people. Goin from DARTS to buses to metros to luas etc.

How many Luas lines could we get for the price of Metro North?

Propellerhead · 10-10-2010 9:28am

AngryLips wrote: »

How many Luas lines could we get for the price of Metro North?

Can you show us where a Luas serving Drumcondra, DCU, Ballymun, the Airport and Swords would go with proper priority over all traffic could go?

You will notice that there is no reserved corridor equivalent to the Harcourt Street line or the old CIE reserved lands from Red Cow to Tallaght. There would have been a route from Liffey Junction via Glasnevin and Ballymun under the 1970s Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study which very nearly happened, but was killed by the FitzGerald and Haughey governments.

The only alternative would be to run trams to the airport onstreet using par t of the BXD route up Dorset Street, past the Cat and Cage to Collins Avenue and Ballymun to the Airport. Giving proper priority to trams on that route would get the car lobby into the trenches and after killing Metro North, that would be killed too.

The war on Metro North is just another phase of the war against rail based public transport. I remember all the guff against DART and Luas when they were moving from the drawing board to construction. They were white elephants, the country couldn't afford them and there were cheaper alternatives. In the meantime, the reserved routes set aside for the airport and the Tallaght busway from Mount Argus were quietly built on. More lolly for some and poxy transport for the rest of us for years.

As Frank McDonald said at the time about the Luas bashers in 1996, the real agenda was to get Luas cancelled and divert the moneys into the road building programme.

Hootanany · 10-10-2010 9:39am

Get the people that are on the dole to build it
It would be very cheap then

etchyed · 10-10-2010 11:07am

Saw this on Archiseek:

RPA - Metro North Myths and Facts

Most people here already know that the myths listed are nonsense but nonetheless it's a nice summary of things that can not be used in the case against Metro North.

Pete_Cavan · 10-10-2010 11:24am

Just wanted to add a few things to Monument's list.

It covers:

Areas north of Swords: Served by a park and ride for 2,600 cars
Swords: One of the largest Dublin commuter towns
Dublin Airport -- is an employment centre as well as a transport hub with capacity for 35m passengers p.a. when T2 opens
Northwood: Fairly high density and currently not served very well
Regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development)
DCU: 10,000 students, plus staff, plus the Helix
Glasnevin: Different parts are covered
Santry: Is also near to the DCU stop
Drumcondra has Croke Park, St Pats and an interchange to what is planned to be a Dart line
Mater Hospital and future National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment). It also covers parts of Phibsboro and other near by north inner city areas
Parnell Square: Close to a fair bit of housing, tourist attractions, shopping areas, the Rotunda Hospital etc
O'Connell Bridge: Red Line Luas, shops, offices (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future)
St Stephen's Green: Shopping, offices, tourist attractions etc and with the Luas Green line and the planned Dart underground (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future).

There are no other projects in this country that are ready to go that serve as many hopitals, universities, employment centres, shopping and leisure facilities, transport interchanges, tourist attractions and medium density residential areas. There is absolutely no case for scrapping MN in favour of any other projects as it will benefit the whole country more than any other combination of projects. Dublin is the driving force of our economy whether people like it or not and investing in Dublin will provide the biggest return for the country and offers value for money in terms of the number of people to benefit for the scheme.

DWCommuter · 10-10-2010 7:36pm

What are we supposed to be getting for 2.5 billion?

Does it include rolling stock, station fit outs, further CPOs, insurance, associated admin fees, cost over run figures? The list goes on.

This latest figure is no more concrete that any other figure. The details are sketchy and "sources" unconfirmed.

As for a case against metro north....I fear, if it is built, some Irish Government in the future, will find yet another "concept", talk and talk, build a "bit" of it and then rush off to further investigate the standards our European neighbours have reached while we languished in a sea of inertia and metro north was left as an isolated example of what could have been.

So the case against it is the political culture itself. I have no faith in it and its the soul reason this country's public transport system is dire. We define success as over crowded luas trams, when they are just an example of how few efficient modes of public transport exist.

L1011 · 10-10-2010 7:50pm

The 2.5Bn should get us a fully operational Metro transferred to the state in 30/40/50 years time (whatever the contract is for).

The PPP fees (and the fare revenue? dunno...) would go to the concessionaire who would have to build, kit out and operate it.

Judgement Day · 10-10-2010 8:17pm

MYOB wrote: »

The 2.5Bn should get us a fully operational Metro transferred to the state in 30/40/50 years time (whatever the contract is for).

The PPP fees (and the fare revenue? dunno...) would go to the concessionaire who would have to build, kit out and operate it.

OK - just supposing that €2.5 billion is the price, just how much is the taxpayer forking out?

murphaph · 10-10-2010 8:22pm

Something else that I don't think has been said:
MN should be just the first part of a comprehensive network, like everywhere else, we have to start somewhere.

L1011 · 10-10-2010 8:26pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

OK - just supposing that €2.5 billion is the price, just how much is the taxpayer forking out?

2.5Bn over the period of the contract. I thought that'd be fairly obvious from it being "the price".

AngryLips · 10-10-2010 8:43pm

Propellerhead wrote: »

Can you show us where a Luas serving Drumcondra, DCU, Ballymun, the Airport and Swords would go with proper priority over all traffic could go?

You will notice that there is no reserved corridor equivalent to the Harcourt Street line or the old CIE reserved lands from Red Cow to Tallaght. There would have been a route from Liffey Junction via Glasnevin and Ballymun under the 1970s Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study which very nearly happened, but was killed by the FitzGerald and Haughey governments.

The only alternative would be to run trams to the airport onstreet using par t of the BXD route up Dorset Street, past the Cat and Cage to Collins Avenue and Ballymun to the Airport. Giving proper priority to trams on that route would get the car lobby into the trenches and after killing Metro North, that would be killed too.

The war on Metro North is just another phase of the war against rail based public transport. I remember all the guff against DART and Luas when they were moving from the drawing board to construction. They were white elephants, the country couldn't afford them and there were cheaper alternatives. In the meantime, the reserved routes set aside for the airport and the Tallaght busway from Mount Argus were quietly built on. More lolly for some and poxy transport for the rest of us for years.

As Frank McDonald said at the time about the Luas bashers in 1996, the real agenda was to get Luas cancelled and divert the moneys into the road building programme.

Thanks. To answer my own question, and going about it with some naive assumptions, where the cost of the Luas Cherrywood extension at €300m for 7.5km the price of Metro North could get us 112km of extra Luas where Metro North cost €2.5b. In other words the network would be three times as large as it is now.

edit: estimate cost of MN

Godge · 10-10-2010 10:09pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Just wanted to add a few things to Monument's list.

It covers:
Areas north of Swords: Served by a park and ride for 2,600 cars

Swords: One of the largest Dublin commuter towns

Dublin Airport -- is an employment centre as well as a transport hub with capacity for 35m passengers p.a. when T2 opens

Northwood: Fairly high density and currently not served very well

Regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development)

DCU: 10,000 students, plus staff, plus the Helix

Glasnevin: Different parts are covered

Santry: Is also near to the DCU stop

Drumcondra has Croke Park, St Pats and an interchange to what is planned to be a Dart line

Mater Hospital and future National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment). It also covers parts of Phibsboro and other near by north inner city areas

Parnell Square: Close to a fair bit of housing, tourist attractions, shopping areas, the Rotunda Hospital etc

O'Connell Bridge: Red Line Luas, shops, offices (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future)

St Stephen's Green: Shopping, offices, tourist attractions etc and with the Luas Green line and the planned Dart underground (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future).

There are no other projects in this country that are ready to go that serve as many hopitals, universities, employment centres, shopping and leisure facilities, transport interchanges, tourist attractions and medium density residential areas. There is absolutely no case for scrapping MN in favour of any other projects as it will benefit the whole country more than any other combination of projects. Dublin is the driving force of our economy whether people like it or not and investing in Dublin will provide the biggest return for the country and offers value for money in terms of the number of people to benefit for the scheme.

DART Interconnector - no need to list it all - but more than Metro North.

monument · 10-10-2010 11:01pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Thanks. To answer my own question, and going about it with some naive assumptions, where the cost of the Luas Cherrywood extension at €300m for 7.5km the price of Metro North could get us 112km of extra Luas where Metro North cost €2.5b. In other words the network would be three times as large as it is now.

edit: estimate cost of MN

Luas Cherrywood is at the cheaper end of the scale. It is mostly via new development and green fields.

Metro North on the other hand is mostly via urban built up areas. The first section of the Green Line on an old railway. Even the Red Line was mostly where there was space already -- ie along a canal, there was enough room on the Naas Road, and along other green space.

Besides costly diversion of utilities, there has been very little displacement of cars. But where there is displacement for cars for public transport-- ie the Green Line and Hardcore Street, the bus gate etc -- there has been outrage.

DWCommuter · 11-10-2010 1:19am

MYOB wrote: »

The 2.5Bn should get us a fully operational Metro transferred to the state in 30/40/50 years time (whatever the contract is for).

The PPP fees (and the fare revenue? dunno...) would go to the concessionaire who would have to build, kit out and operate it.

But isn't 2.5 billion just the direct construction cost? What about the associated costs? Do those who build it, operate it? What about rolling stock? What about the minute details of the project? Who funds that?

After so many posts, personal insults (across this forum) the REAL cost has not been verified. Apparently the RPA have spent 126 million on property already. I still fail to accept a figure of just 2.5 billion to deliver an operational metro.

Can anybody stand up here and verify the figure via a detailed breakdown?

Amtmann · 11-10-2010 1:27am

DWCommuter wrote: »

After so many posts, personal insults (across this forum) the REAL cost has not been verified.

Link me to the personal insults in this forum and I'll deal with them. I haven't noticed any.

DWCommuter · 11-10-2010 1:42am

Furet wrote: »

Link me to the personal insults in this forum and I'll deal with them. I haven't noticed any.

You already handled it Furet. Or at least it was handled by a mod from here anyway. Im referring to the posts directed at me when I discussed the costs of metro north in another thread. Offender was banned.

"dc confuser" - but was obviously meant to be "dw confuser" as said poster referred to me as "dc commuter" in posts.

We are done and dusted on that so far.;)

monument · 11-10-2010 2:09am

DWCommuter wrote: »

But isn't 2.5 billion just the direct construction cost? What about the associated costs? Do those who build it, operate it? What about rolling stock? What about the minute details of the project? Who funds that?

After so many posts, personal insults (across this forum) the REAL cost has not been verified. Apparently the RPA have spent 126 million on property already. I still fail to accept a figure of just 2.5 billion to deliver an operational metro.

Can anybody stand up here and verify the figure via a detailed breakdown?

Nearly everybody here I'm guessing will agree that transparency is a major issue with Metro North so-far. But to be fair, your posts seem to be questioning the lower price a lot more than the higher price tags.

No it's not just the direct construction costs. Metro North is a build and operate PPP, unlike Dart Underground rolling stock is a part of the PPP cost (ie why CAF and Bombardier are part of the tender bidders) and operating the line is included in the deal (Transdev RATP and MTR Corporation on the bidding groups).

And the "REAL cost" of any project cannot be verified until its finished. You can only come up with estimates before something is built.

brandodub · 11-10-2010 2:58am

monument wrote: »

Luas Cherrywood is at the cheaper end of the scale. It is mostly via new development and green fields.

Luas Cherrywood/ Brides Glen goes through 50% undeveloped land (as yet-NAMA central!).

MN corridor as has been explained earlier is perhaps the most densely populated mid northside area to the northern suburbs. This whole route uses bus transport only and is heavily oversubscribed at peak. The roads are all jammed even now. Cost benefit analysis according to an independent survey is in excess of 2/1 (RPA website). It is not a 'vanity project' linking the Airport to the city centre it is a whole new transport corridor for North Dublin offering the scope to change a modal shift in public transport use.

Frankly the roads are done for now it needs to be priority public transport all the way. Get digging please.

LeinsterDub · 11-10-2010 9:48am

coolperson05 wrote: »

My only opinion against MN is because its another form of transport to confuse people.

People in worlds other major cities don't seem to be confused by several transport options

AngryLips · 11-10-2010 1:49pm

brandodub wrote: »

Luas Cherrywood/ Brides Glen goes through 50% undeveloped land (as yet-NAMA central!).

Okay, to use the costing for Luas Line C (Red line extension to Docklands) where the cost of the project was €90m for the 1.5km extension, and assuming Metro North would cost a modest €2.5b to build (which is way less than previous estimates), we would still get at least 41km worth of Luas for the same price as Metro North. In other words, the city would get enough Luas to nearly triple the size of the network. Where is the CBA for that?

Similar arguments about traffic gridlock were used against Luas Red and Green lines in their planning and construction phase but, as both lines have since proved, the gridlock never materialised.

If one of the main arguments in favour of Metro North is that it will serve Dublin Airport then that could be achieved with a spur to the newly completed Dunboyne line. Because such a spur would be mostly through greenfield the cost would be a fraction of MN while maximising underutilised infrastructure in place on the Maynooth/Docklands lines.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 11-10-2010 1:55pm

Been living in Netherlands for a month and I wish even 10% the amount being spent was put into making Dublin a cycling city. I cycle 7km every morning to work and it feels like nothing on a cyclepath

Anyway'I'm just worried Kevin Myers is gonna suicide bomb metro north if its ever built

11-10-2010 4:04pm

Personally I dont buy the new price tag. Seems convient that the price should suddenly drop as soon as it looks like the MN is on the chopping block ..."but looks, we're getting it at half the price now!!" :rolleyes:

Rather, I would like to see the 2.5bil used to finish the motorway network, especially the Atlantic corridor which would result in a lot more westward investment and job prospects

I know I'm talking a losing battle here but there's my 2 cents

Judgement Day · 11-10-2010 5:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I dont buy the new price tag. Seems convient that the price should suddenly drop as soon as it looks like the MN is on the chopping block ..."but looks, we're getting it at half the price now!!" :rolleyes:

Rather, I would like to see the 2.5bil used to finish the motorway network, especially the Atlantic corridor which would result in a lot more westward investment and job prospects

I know I'm talking a losing battle here but there's my 2 cents

Yes, let's take all the money that's saved from cancelling MN and piss it away building more roads. Do the words Peak Oil mean nothing to you? Any future that the country has must be based on sustainability and not the outdated road based policies of 1970s type thinking. And don't tell me that we will all be driving electric cars as the building of a car (whether petroleum or electric powered) in terms of the energy needed and the plastic (from oil) for many of the components still makes it an extremely wasteful use of a scarce resource - comparable with burning peat in a power station. Sorry for the rant - I need feeding.

road_high · 11-10-2010 6:01pm

Could we not run very frequent direct buses to/from the Airport to city centre via the Port Tunnel? Seems the obvious solution to me. Use what we already have.

L1011 · 11-10-2010 6:32pm

mfitzy wrote: »

Could we not run very frequent direct buses to/from the Airport to city centre via the Port Tunnel? Seems the obvious solution to me. Use what we already have.

Doesn't serve Swords, Ballymun, DCU, the Mater (and future NCH); doesn't deal with the rather heavy traffic congestion getting *to* the Port Tunnel around ferry times, doesn't interconnect with any other form of transport, doesn't get the journey time from the airport down to acceptable levels (even if its a fraction of what the Airlink can take).

Very, very badly researched letter in the Indo today, sent in a rebuttal but its probably a bit late to get printed.

Amtmann · 11-10-2010 6:36pm

So are the objectors here objecting on the basis of cost, or because they don't like the MN concept?

If it's a cost issue, I presume you are in favour of construction at a future date. Yes or No?

Or are there shades of grey?

Empire o de Sun · 11-10-2010 7:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I dont buy the new price tag. Seems convient that the price should suddenly drop as soon as it looks like the MN is on the chopping block ..."but looks, we're getting it at half the price now!!" :rolleyes:

Rather, I would like to see the 2.5bil used to finish the motorway network, especially the Atlantic corridor which would result in a lot more westward investment and job prospects

I know I'm talking a losing battle here but there's my 2 cents

I'd say the economy of north dublin is larger, and needs this more than a motorway for road with less than 10000 AADT

zootroid · 11-10-2010 11:37pm

I really cannot get over the opposition to this project. But it seems to me that any time there is a project such as this, there are always objectors. People were against the motorway network as it would "carve up the countryside". People were against the luas saying it would lead to traffic chaos if trams had to share the streets with cars. These fears have been (in the main) proven wrong. MN will do the same.

Given the traffic problems Dublin has, an underground system is essential. You could spend the money on more buses, or additional luas lines, but they still compete with cars for space on the streets.

2.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will be worth it. The oldest underground line in London is almost 150 years old. So MN will have plenty of time to pay back the investment. How would London survive had they decided not to build an underground network? It certainly wouldn't have enjoyed the growth it has. And I think it will be the same with Dublin

Amtmann · 12-10-2010 12:20am

zootroid wrote: »

2.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will be worth it. The oldest underground line in London is almost 150 years old. So MN will have plenty of time to pay back the investment.

This is the absolutely key point for me. 2.5 billion for MN is not like putting 2.5 billion into Anglo. Look what you get for it, and for how long you get it.

Build it now at the cheaper rate.
Create the thousands of construction jobs.
Eliminate millions of car journeys per annum from the streets.
Prepare Dublin for the rest of the century.

I have heard no serious objections here, only vague ones with no alternatives posited.

DWCommuter wrote: »

As for a case against metro north....I fear, if it is built, some Irish Government in the future, will find yet another "concept", talk and talk, build a "bit" of it and then rush off to further investigate the standards our European neighbours have reached while we languished in a sea of inertia and metro north was left as an isolated example of what could have been.

So the case against it is the political culture itself. I have no faith in it and its the soul reason this country's public transport system is dire. We define success as over crowded luas trams, when they are just an example of how few efficient modes of public transport exist.

I do not understand this post. I've read and re-read it, but I'm not sure what you're saying. I think you're saying that if it's built, it is all that will ever be built, so we shouldn't build it. Is that right?

Zebra3 · 12-10-2010 2:22am

The case against it is purely political.

Is there votes in it for those that sign off the project and ensure it goes ahead?

Or worse, is it a vote loser for those with the vision to proceed with the project?

L1011 · 12-10-2010 8:41am

MYOB wrote: »

Very, very badly researched letter in the Indo today, sent in a rebuttal but its probably a bit late to get printed.

They published someone elses, longer and less ranty pro-Metro letter today:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/metrorsquos-pros-far-outweigh-cons-2374964.html

senordingdong · 12-10-2010 8:52am

I'm just against all the political back patting that's involved with it, but that's all.

Think this country needed a metro a long time ago.

EDIT - I'm also against the routes planned but that's not really a big issue.

AngryLips · 12-10-2010 10:32am

zootroid wrote: »

I really cannot get over the opposition to this project. But it seems to me that any time there is a project such as this, there are always objectors. People were against the motorway network as it would "carve up the countryside". People were against the luas saying it would lead to traffic chaos if trams had to share the streets with cars. These fears have been (in the main) proven wrong. MN will do the same.

Given the traffic problems Dublin has, an underground system is essential. You could spend the money on more buses, or additional luas lines, but they still compete with cars for space on the streets.

2.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will be worth it. The oldest underground line in London is almost 150 years old. So MN will have plenty of time to pay back the investment. How would London survive had they decided not to build an underground network? It certainly wouldn't have enjoyed the growth it has. And I think it will be the same with Dublin

On the one hand you're acknowledging that Luas didn't create gridlock on our streets and on the other you're implying that additional Luas lines will lead to gridlock because it is competing for road space. I think both of the existing Luas lines prove that, with adequate traffic management, traffic will not be affected.

Another point is that you're comparing apples with oranges here; there is a population difference between Dublin and London of over twelve million, that's several times the population of the entire island of Ireland. This is the difference between future-proofing and gold-plating. Plenty of other European cities with similar populations sizes to Dublin rely quite successfully on overground light rail and for the price of Metro North we'd get a whole lot more Luas than just one line to Swords. Even if you look at Copenhagen, Helsinki and Lisbon, similar cities that all have underground networks, you'll see that these cities are all at least nearly one and a half times the size of Dublin. If the suggestion is that Dublin is somehow 'different' to its European peers here then that just smacks of the typical Irish need to come up with a uniquely Irish solution to a common and not particularly Irish problem.

Metro North is a relic of the Celtic Tiger, it's time to put it to sleep along with Anglo and everything else exorbitant about that era.

senordingdong · 12-10-2010 11:04am

I think the metro would be good for forward planning.
Especially to give deciated lines to current and future satellite towns.

The case against Metro North - is there one?

Comments