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

The case against Metro North - is there one?

Options
1…678911

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    runway16 wrote: »
    Well, clearly thats exactly the sort of rationale and logical thinking we should be applying to developing our transport system..:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Well, jokes aside, it has already been stated that FF and a couple of their dodgy developer buddies have vested interests in the project.


  • Options
    #303
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Of course this goes back to a reality that the LUAS extension was developer driven rather strategically planned. The planning application that wins will also show that the proposed development is sustainable because of road and public transport links.

    There are a lot or arguements for and against levies and how they should be applied. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish them from respectable graft.


  • Options
    #304
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    If someone builds a metro stop near your land then that's a windfall gain, so why not levy tax when you decide to profit from that gain by developing the land? It seems only fair.


  • Options
    #305
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    I think they should do the opposite.

    Incentivise development in the area where the stations are to be.

    Does anyone think the metro would be better if it was routed through existing devlopments, instead of comparitivly empty land?


  • Options
    #306
    Imbolc57
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭Imbolc57


    Is spending billions on a future means of transport while cutting back on the bus service which people now need not a bit Irish?
    Oh; and wrecking our most famous and badly needed park while doing so!
    More busses please and trees and sustainability and sense and.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    This discussion shows some of the problems with paying for infrastructure - who pays?

    This is the one advantage of having a system of property tax - i.e. a site value tax. The benefits to local land-owners of having better transport links will be slowly recouped by all of society.

    Although there is a deep resistance to taxing property in Ireland, it is better in many ways than taxing wages - it keeps the price of property more affordable, it takes people with a lot of wealth, who may not be earning money from wages, and hence not paying so much tax, into the tax net, and is a more stable source of income than stamp duty, or VAT.


  • Options
    #308
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    dynamick wrote: »
    If someone builds a metro stop near your land then that's a windfall gain, so why not levy tax when you decide to profit from that gain by developing the land? It seems only fair.


    It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Certainly it makes sense that if developers benefit from publicly funded infrastructure then the private developer should contribute.

    On the other hand if we have a sustainable development plan and build the transport links that are a part of it should the developer pay for building where we want to them.

    Perhaps there needs to be a hybrid levy that covers a number of infrastructure projects including transport.

    What's done internationally?

    However, looking at the LUAS green line extension routing you can only draw the conclusion that it is developer driven. This is not really the way that we want to planning and building our infrastructure.


  • Options
    #309
    rocktavern
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭rocktavern


    Of course there is a case against Metro North. Why couldn't we run a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit System, above ground with dedicated corridor, high ferquency and quality bus and associated infrastructure.

    Where are the alternatives and comparator assessments of the various options? None!

    It is a farce.


  • Options
    #310
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    rocktavern wrote: »
    Of course there is a case against Metro North. Why couldn't we run a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit System, above ground with dedicated corridor, high ferquency and quality bus and associated infrastructure.

    Where are the alternatives and comparator assessments of the various options? None!

    It is a farce.

    We can't do it because there is no space for a dedicated above-ground corridor without demolishing a swath of North Dublin, costing billions, and causing massive congestion. If there was space for an above ground dedicated bus corridor, there would be space for a dedicated above ground Metro, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.


  • Options
    #311
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    senordingdong wrote: »
    I think they should do the opposite.

    Incentivise development in the area where the stations are to be.
    You pay development levies no matter where you build. These are determined by the local authority. I agree that levies for building near a good public transport system should be lower than for building elsewhere.
    Does anyone think the metro would be better if it was routed through existing devlopments, instead of comparitivly empty land?
    It goes through both. The problem with going through existing low density developments is that you limit your scope for increasing the number of passengers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,262 ✭✭✭markpb


    rocktavern wrote: »
    Of course there is a case against Metro North. Why couldn't we run a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit System, above ground with dedicated corridor, high ferquency and quality bus and associated infrastructure.

    Crayon time. Draw a line from SSG to Swords through the airport and show me how you could build a "dedicated corridor" along that line. Show me how you get through road junctions, cross train lines, get under the M50 and through the airport.

    People think that we can build everything like the Green line and it will be a success. They forget that the green line was mostly built on an existing train line so it has a "dedicated corridor". Very few other such corridors exist in the city. In fact, Broadstone to near Finglas is the only one left that I know of.


  • Options
    #313
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    markpb

    People think that we can build everything like the Green line and it will be a success. They forget that the green line was mostly built on an existing train line so it has a "dedicated corridor". Very few other such corridors exist in the city. In fact, Broadstone to near Finglas is the only one left that I know of.

    The canals also kind of count as a dedicated corridor. Not that they would be much use for the airport.


  • Options
    #314
    rocktavern
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭rocktavern


    You are assuming that car still dominates the road corridors...why can't we reconfigure the road network and traffic management of the city.....there also needs to be a big push to achieve Smarter Travel policy objectives.....


  • Options
    #315
    etchyed
    Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭etchyed


    rocktavern wrote: »
    Of course there is a case against Metro North. Why couldn't we run a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit System, above ground with dedicated corridor, high ferquency and quality bus and associated infrastructure.

    Where are the alternatives and comparator assessments of the various options? None!

    It is a farce.
    This point has already been made and discussed twice in this thread, which is over a month old. I know it's 20 pages but could you not have at least skimmed through it before posting? At this stage it's a bit too late to be responding directly to the original post. Not reading or engaging with any of the posts before yours gives the impression that you're only concerned with your own opinion.
    rocktavern wrote: »
    You are assuming that car still dominates the road corridors...why can't we reconfigure the road network and traffic management of the city.....there also needs to be a big push to achieve Smarter Travel policy objectives.....
    The car does still dominate the road corridors. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. Your response is wooly to say the least. You need only look at the start-again-stop-again bus lanes all over Dublin to understand how immensely difficult it would be from an engineering, traffic management and most importantly political standpoint to build a BRT corridor in Dublin. The best example we have of on-street tram/BRT running is Luas red line from Heuston to Connolly and that is very, very slow.


  • Options
    #316
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    markpb wrote: »
    Crayon time. Draw a line from SSG to Swords through the airport and show me how you could build a "dedicated corridor" along that line. Show me how you get through road junctions, cross train lines, get under the M50 and through the airport.

    People think that we can build everything like the Green line and it will be a success. They forget that the green line was mostly built on an existing train line so it has a "dedicated corridor". Very few other such corridors exist in the city. In fact, Broadstone to near Finglas is the only one left that I know of.

    Simple:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Merrion+Row%2FN11&daddr=53.33835,-6.25442+to:53.34805,-6.25498+to:53.366258,-6.234318+to:swords&hl=en&geocode=FUziLQMdUoug_w%3BFe7gLQMdrJCg_ykXj7e5mQ5nSDFBdfr7pscAEw%3BFdIGLgMdfI6g_ymXTNNihQ5nSDFRta39pscAEw%3BFfJNLgMdMt-g_ykB2x44Ww5nSDHAzNf8pscAEw%3BFcCxLwMdlxmh_yk1PM1D5BBnSDFgcDGXqccACg&mra=mrv&mrcr=0&via=1,2,3&sll=53.342558,-6.245213&sspn=0.027876,0.084543&ie=UTF8&ll=53.366943,-6.249161&spn=0.111442,0.338173&t=h&z=12

    http://www.swordsexpress.com/index.php

    or:

    Use the N1 and O'Connell St:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Merrion+Row%2FN11&daddr=53.3487131,-6.2599256+to:53.36678,-6.25549+to:swords&hl=en&geocode=FUziLQMdUoug_w%3BFWkJLgMdK3ug_ynTDPVchA5nSDEx2gZUCNjszQ%3BFfxPLgMdfoyg_ylbfRN2ZQ5nSDEwZqf7pscAEw%3BFcCxLwMdlxmh_yk1PM1D5BBnSDFgcDGXqccACg&mra=dvme&mrcr=0&mrsp=2&sz=14&via=1,2&sll=53.360643,-6.250277&sspn=0.027865,0.084543&ie=UTF8&ll=53.347375,-6.259718&spn=0.028078,0.084543&t=h&z=14
    • Using ticket only buses (no payment to the driver, validate your ticket on the bus as they do on the continent)
    • More than one door to enter/exit
    • Limited number of bus stops
    • Segregated corridor in the center of the road.


    A good BRT system:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmI0t1VDc1A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLsccQ-JeI


  • Options
    #317
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    The QBC on the New Nagor Road is excellent, and since I've been commuting on it I've been examining every other bus lane I see, to see how they could be upgraded.

    It seems very pheasable to me to implement traffic light bypasses throughout the city.


  • Options
    #318
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,262 ✭✭✭markpb


    mgmt wrote: »
    • Using ticket only buses (no payment to the driver, validate your ticket on the bus as they do on the continent)
    • More than one door to enter/exit
    • Limited number of bus stops
    • Segregated corridor in the center of the road.

    I'll ignore your Swords Express suggestion because I know you're taking the piss with it. The idea of upgrading the bus routes along the N1 is a good one and they should definitely do it independent of the Metro but there are several pinch-points such as the canal bridge, St Pats / Cat & Cage and Shantalla Flyover where there isn't space to build a dedicated bus lane. If you ignore those problems, there isn't space along the rest of the road to build centre lane bus stops.


  • Options
    #319
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    markpb wrote: »
    I'll ignore your Swords Express suggestion.

    Why??


  • Options
    #320
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,325 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Metro North initial capacity is planned at 8-10,000 per direction per hour. That's a lot of buses even if they are in rights of way. As I noted 11 months ago LUAS only manages that between Busaras and Heuston.

    The model for BRT is usually cited as Curitiba. The US Federal Transportation Administration wrote a report on that system which noted several characteristics which allowed that system to perform as it does:
    • integrated planning
    • exclusive bus lanes
    • signal priority for buses
    • pre-boarding fare collection
    • level bus boarding from raised platforms in tube stations
    • free transfers between lines (single entry)
    • large capacity articulated and bi-articulated wide-door buses[/B]
    • overlapping system of bus services
    None of those are optional if you want to ape Metro, and you've just given up the portion of the potential catchment who will drive rather than get on a bus (and I'm sure there are some of those even in Curitiba).


  • Options
    #321
    Metrostar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭Metrostar


    Curritiba is a planned city with a grid system of wide roads (6-8 lanes) complimented by smaller parallel streets. Curritiba being Brazil, most of the population is poor and cannot afford to drive. Rich Brazialians would not be seen dead on a bus. In short, everything about Curritiba is completely different to Dublin and an indication of why busways would never work in Dublin's narrow, winding streets. The only place QBC really works in Dublin is on the N11, and that's because it has the roadspace to accomodate QBC. Only metro can solve Dublin's congestion problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Metrostar wrote: »
    Only metro can solve Dublin's congestion problems.

    Your statement is false. Metro is not the answer. Proper planning and development is the answer and will take years to achieve.

    Metro North will not address the thousands of people who drive into the city from the "sprawl" beyond Swords (this is ignoring the similar numbers to the west and south of the city).

    There is no incentive for them to use Metro North no matter how big the car parks or how frequent the service. Why bother change transport for the last 10K.

    Metro North is a premium service for those people living in low density 2 story houses along it's route. Good news for them.

    They say that the building of a railway line changes an area for 100 years. The concern I have that when you look at the existing rail infrastructure, there has been no real increase in densities along the routes. The same will apply along the Metro North route.

    Anyway, the RPA are busily spending the €80m (reported) planning fund. I saw them out on the Ballymun Rd. outside DCU surveying away.


  • Options
    #323
    lods
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭lods


    BrianD wrote: »
    Your statement is false. Metro is not the answer. Proper planning and development is the answer and will take years to achieve.

    Metro North will not address the thousands of people who drive into the city from the "sprawl" beyond Swords (this is ignoring the similar numbers to the west and south of the city).

    There is no incentive for them to use Metro North no matter how big the car parks or how frequent the service. Why bother change transport for the last 10K.

    Metro North is a premium service for those people living in low density 2 story houses along it's route. Good news for them.

    They say that the building of a railway line changes an area for 100 years. The concern I have that when you look at the existing rail infrastructure, there has been no real increase in densities along the routes. The same will apply along the Metro North route.

    Anyway, the RPA are busily spending the €80m (reported) planning fund. I saw them out on the Ballymun Rd. outside DCU surveying away.

    The figures are 140million so far and 94,6million up-to next November.


  • Options
    #324
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    BrianD wrote: »
    Metro North will not address the thousands of people who drive into the city from the "sprawl" beyond Swords (this is ignoring the similar numbers to the west and south of the city).
    fund. .

    I always thought that buses should be diverted away from areas that are served by Luas and Dart, and re-deployed elsewhere.

    Or would that be lunacy?


  • Options
    #325
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    senordingdong wrote: »
    I always thought that buses should be diverted away from areas that are served by Luas and Dart, and re-deployed elsewhere.

    Or would that be lunacy?

    I'm referring to car transport and not busses. The car-borne people will still becoming from beyong Swords.

    In any case, because an area is served by tram or rail doesn't mean you get rid of bus routes. Obviously there needs to be some sort of reassessment and integration of bus routes to provide the best public transport coverage useing all available modes of transport.


  • Options
    #326
    runway16
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭runway16


    BrianD wrote: »
    Your statement is false. Metro is not the answer. Proper planning and development is the answer and will take years to achieve.

    Metro North will not address the thousands of people who drive into the city from the "sprawl" beyond Swords (this is ignoring the similar numbers to the west and south of the city).

    There is no incentive for them to use Metro North no matter how big the car parks or how frequent the service. Why bother change transport for the last 10K.

    Metro North is a premium service for those people living in low density 2 story houses along it's route. Good news for them.

    They say that the building of a railway line changes an area for 100 years. The concern I have that when you look at the existing rail infrastructure, there has been no real increase in densities along the routes. The same will apply along the Metro North route.

    Anyway, the RPA are busily spending the €80m (reported) planning fund. I saw them out on the Ballymun Rd. outside DCU surveying away.

    I'm sorry, but have you ever actually seen the traffic on that "last 10k"??? That is more than enough incentive to hop on a metro, be in town in 30 mins and not have to worry about parking once you are in there....


  • Options
    #327
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    BrianD wrote: »
    I'm referring to car transport and not busses. The car-borne people will still becoming from beyong Swords.

    In any case, because an area is served by tram or rail doesn't mean you get rid of bus routes. Obviously there needs to be some sort of reassessment and integration of bus routes to provide the best public transport coverage useing all available modes of transport.

    Sorry, I meant that these other buses should be redeployed to other areas like the south and the west.


  • Options
    #328
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    runway16 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but have you ever actually seen the traffic on that "last 10k"??? That is more than enough incentive to hop on a metro, be in town in 30 mins and not have to worry about parking once you are in there....

    I am very aware of the traffic on the M1 and familiar with the area.

    People won't do that. Pure and simple. It's proven elsewhere. You only have to look at the big empty car park out at the M3. If you've already done half your journey by car and with 17 stops from Swords the comfort of your own car is going to very appealing. People right now have to "worry" about car parking when they get into the city centre now so nothing new there.


  • Options
    #329
    runway16
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭runway16


    BrianD wrote: »
    I am very aware of the traffic on the M1 and familiar with the area.

    People won't do that. Pure and simple. It's proven elsewhere. You only have to look at the big empty car park out at the M3. If you've already done half your journey by car and with 17 stops from Swords the comfort of your own car is going to very appealing. People right now have to "worry" about car parking when they get into the city centre now so nothing new there.

    I'm sorry, but where is it proven exactly? The Dutch transferium system works very well, and I have not once seen an empty car park at the Transferium (P+R) serving Amsterdam, Leiden or The Hague.

    I live in the area too - and if the choice is that god awful traffic jam that is the M1 in the mornings, or a 30 min hop on a metro that will bring me right where I need to go, then I will gladly take metro!

    The M3 parkway system is awful, and i've been in touch myself with IE on how they can improve it. For one, its barely even obvious from the M3....


  • Options
    #330
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Main problem with the M3 Parkway is that the train line only skirts the city centre. To get there would require another ticket, which of course is not integrated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    chooochooo
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭chooochooo


    lods wrote: »
    I think ABP have killed it off . New railway ordered needed etc. new oral hearing etc . It'll never happen now

    So what happened to your new 'railway order' logs?
    This another one of your facts/assumptions/lies?
    Are all your posts fantasy?


Advertisement