Metro North

Trebor · 28-06-2011 01:40PM

I would prefer them to do a proper metro covering the entire city. start with the MN and then keep digging.

aim for the really long term. as the stations are built and brought into operation it will then effect housing and public services around each station as commuters will flock to those areas. the government could have incentives for higher density apartments in those areas. they could look to use existing rail lines as part of the system but the focus should be on building a system to expand dublins capacity not just to service existing population centers. as these locations may not be ideal for a metro system due to high levels of low density housing thus making them inefficient.

this would give dublin councils a clear plan for several decades showing where population is likely to spike so they can then plan infrastructure such as schools and support services.

keep ownership of the system with the government with profits going to fund later stage developments

BluntGuy · 28-06-2011 02:44PM

bk wrote: »

Here is what I would do in Cork:

- Introduce RTPI Real Time Passenger Information signs, like currently being introduced in Dublin.

This is being done, there are poles up everywhere.

- End the practice of terminating and parking buses in the city center like is currently done. i.e. buses should stop, pick up passengers and immediately leave, not like the current practice of sitting there for 30 minutes, very frustrating for passengers.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

- Replace buses with high capacity double deckers where appropriate.

This is being done.

Only once all of this is done, should a Luas be considered for Cork, Galway, etc.

Very much agreed.

djpbarry · 28-06-2011 03:56PM

rumour wrote: »

I think the relatively cheap 'yellow pack version' should be discounted. That is exactly what happened with the M50. A proper motorway was planned then subjected to political engineering resulting in chaos. The metro is required and is required to be built properly or not at all until we can afford it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It was suggested that the focus should be placed on upgrading Dublin’s bus service. I was merely pointing out that doing so is relatively cheap and easy compared to building underground rail lines. I was not suggesting that one should take precedence over the other.

rumour wrote: »

As for DART the business case is curious, apparently you have to electrify all the suburban lines and double the amount of passengers coming into Dublin every day, then and only then is a tunnel merited.

So what do Iarnrod Eireann do? Advocate building the tunnel first???

I doubt the capacity currently exists to allow for a doubling of rail users, so I’m not entirely sure what you’re arguing?

rumour wrote: »

MN business case stands on its own merit and is not reliant on other very expensive works to make it worthwhile.

Actually, the underground interconnector enhances Metro North as it provides a link at St Stephens Green.

Trebor wrote: »

I would prefer them to do a proper metro covering the entire city.

I’m not really convinced that Dublin needs an extensive underground rail network, but anyway, it’s not the sort of thing that’s going to spring up overnight.

Trebor · 28-06-2011 04:17PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not really convinced that Dublin needs an extensive underground rail network, but anyway, it’s not the sort of thing that’s going to spring up overnight.

That's the idea.. construction should be cheap at the moment as a lot of builders are looking for work. perfect time for the government to get good deals on infrastructure problems. also this would be a multi-decade plan to support dublin for the next 100 years. we are going to need a subway at some point why not start now while it's cheap to build? this type of project is going to take decades to build even assuming it's managed correctly (what's the changes of that in this country?!) but it's more efficient to build for the future than just keep trying to fix the current inefficient systems and focus on roads.

djpbarry · 28-06-2011 06:45PM

bk wrote: »

As new private bus companies are licensed for new direct non stop routes along the new motorways to Cork, Limerick, etc. Intercity rail is going to be absolutely crucified, so little point in investing more money in that.

I think that’s pretty short-sighted – is relying on petroleum-based vehicles (versus electric) for inter-city transport a smart long-term move?

Trebor wrote: »

That's the idea.. construction should be cheap at the moment as a lot of builders are looking for work. perfect time for the government to get good deals on infrastructure problems. also this would be a multi-decade plan to support dublin for the next 100 years. we are going to need a subway at some point why not start now while it's cheap to build?

Well, I don’t think that, relatively speaking, a subway is ever going to be “cheap” to build, but I’m not arguing that Dublin’s infrastructure shouldn’t be upgraded – I think the underground interconnector, in particular, is a great idea. All I’m saying is I don’t really see the need to go planning a vast network of tunnels right now – let’s get the current plans implemented and see where that leaves us.

Trebor · 28-06-2011 07:53PM

djpbarry wrote: »

All I’m saying is I don’t really see the need to go planning a vast network of tunnels right now – let’s get the current plans implemented and see where that leaves us.

but that's part of the problem.. we are constantly dealing with one issue after another depending on who screams the most. if we had a long term plan that people can see being constantly worked on they can plan around it.

true it will never be something that is cheap but infrastructure (properly planned and assessed) is always a good use of public funds, it will reduce unemployment in the industry with the highest unemployment rate, reduce congestion on the roads and also lots of other benefits that a good transport system brings.

then after all this is built we can then build super fast trains to each major city in ireland and then maybe reduce some of the roads we have in favour of more farm land or other such green things... (can you tell i'm a big fan of cities yet? )

bk · 29-06-2011 01:05AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I think that’s pretty short-sighted – is relying on petroleum-based vehicles (versus electric) for inter-city transport a smart long-term move?

Only DART's are electric, Intercity and Commuter trains run on diesel.

Trains are only slightly more fuel efficient then bus coaches and arguably less efficient (I won't go into it here, but due to running trains half empty at off-peak times).

Future bus coaches maybe fully electric or use hydrogen, so there isn't much of an environmental argument in favour of intercity rail, not for the short distances of Ireland.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, I don’t think that, relatively speaking, a subway is ever going to be “cheap” to build, but I’m not arguing that Dublin’s infrastructure shouldn’t be upgraded – I think the underground interconnector, in particular, is a great idea. All I’m saying is I don’t really see the need to go planning a vast network of tunnels right now – let’s get the current plans implemented and see where that leaves us.

We don't really require a massive underground network. Dart Underground and Metro North are actually almost all we need for the next 50 years or so.

DU and MN give you your basic North/South (MN) and East/West (DU) underground network. Other then the core city served by these, we have plenty of existing railway lines to server most locations.

The only additions is to continue MN a little further south to merge with the LUAS green line which would then be converted to Metro level.

djpbarry · 29-06-2011 09:20AM

bk wrote: »

Only DART's are electric, Intercity and Commuter trains run on diesel.

Yeah, I know. But it would seem to make sense to me to at least consider the long-term economic benefit of electrifying the network, rather than simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

bk wrote: »

Future bus coaches maybe fully electric or use hydrogen...

They might be, but electric trains are a proven, tried and trusted technology.

bk · 29-06-2011 10:29AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, I know. But it would seem to make sense to me to at least consider the long-term economic benefit of electrifying the network, rather than simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
They might be, but electric trains are a proven, tried and trusted technology.

No, very unlikely. It would cost billions to do and the trains would still end up slower and 4 times more expensive then the buses.

We have far more important things to be spending billions on if we had it, like MN, DU, fibre to every home in Ireland, etc.

djpbarry · 29-06-2011 12:10PM

bk wrote: »

No, very unlikely. It would cost billions to do and the trains would still end up slower and 4 times more expensive then the buses.

Slower than buses? I don’t think so. Take Dublin-Cork as an example – a bus will do that (non-stop) journey in 2.5 hours, best case scenario. Even allowing for a few stops along the way, a modern train can comfortably beat that time. For example, London-Bristol takes about 1 hour 20 minutes (and that’s not even non-stop). Put the same service on the Dublin-Cork route and you have a journey time of about 1 hour 45 minutes – no bus is going to come close to that.

It’s obviously going to be expensive to upgrade the service, but I’m really not at all convinced that Ireland should leave itself totally reliant on road-based transit outside of towns and cities.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 01:13PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Slower than buses? I don’t think so. Take Dublin-Cork as an example – a bus will do that (non-stop) journey in 2.5 hours, best case scenario. Even allowing for a few stops along the way, a modern train can comfortably beat that time. For example, London-Bristol takes about 1 hour 20 minutes (and that’s not even non-stop). Put the same service on the Dublin-Cork route and you have a journey time of about 1 hour 45 minutes – no bus is going to come close to that.

It’s obviously going to be expensive to upgrade the service, but I’m really not at all convinced that Ireland should leave itself totally reliant on road-based transit outside of towns and cities.

You can fly Dublin to Cork in 50min atm, without having to ask your fellow taxpayer to subsidise your ticket.

Fattes · 29-06-2011 01:23PM

How about a BusLane the length of the quays and then from the exit of the Port Tunnell to the airport? Airport to City in 20 Minutes problem solved!!!!!

Then focus on putting proper bus based infastructure in place and sorting Dublin bus out.

Net cost would be about a quarter of the proposed metro and the benifit would be significatnly higher!

People talk about Job Generation from the lines exsistence the Luas has actually taken jobs form Tallaght as most people use it to go into town to shop rather than to Tallaght.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 01:24PM

Fattes wrote: »

How about a BusLane the length of the quays and then from the exit of the Port Tunnell to the airport? Airport to City in 20 Minutes problem solved!!!!!

Then focus on putting proper bus based infastructure in place and sorting Dublin bus out.

Net cost would be about a quarter of the proposed metro and the benifit would be significatnly higher!

People talk about Job Generation from the lines exsistence the Luas has actually taken jobs form Tallaght as most people use it to go into town to shop rather than to Tallaght.

The bus takes 20min currently to the airport from BusAras, 35min to Swords.

Cool Mo D · 29-06-2011 01:28PM

mgmt wrote: »

The bus takes 20min currently to the airport from BusAras, 35min to Swords.

It certaintly does not. The 41 takes 35 minutes to the airport, and the 16A 40 minutes from O'Connell street, those times being about 3pm on a weekday. Longer at peak.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 01:37PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It certaintly does not. The 41 takes 35 minutes to the airport, and the 16A 40 minutes from O'Connell street, those times being about 3pm on a weekday. Longer at peak.

Yes it does. They are the local buses to the airport. The 747 bus and the Swords Express use the Port Tunnel.

bk · 29-06-2011 02:32PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Slower than buses? I don’t think so. Take Dublin-Cork as an example – a bus will do that (non-stop) journey in 2.5 hours, best case scenario. Even allowing for a few stops along the way, a modern train can comfortably beat that time. For example, London-Bristol takes about 1 hour 20 minutes (and that’s not even non-stop). Put the same service on the Dublin-Cork route and you have a journey time of about 1 hour 45 minutes – no bus is going to come close to that.

Here is the reality today:

Dublin to Galway, 2 hours 30 by bus for €20 versus 2 hours 45 minutes via train for €47

Dublin to Cork, average train speed, 2 hours 47 minutes for €74

While no direct bus service to Cork has been licensed yet, it would take about 2 hours 50 minutes and would cost about €25.

London to Bristol is only 100 miles, Dublin to Cork is 158 miles and the route taken by the train is even longer.

Potentially you could get the train down to about 2 hours, but it would cost about 1 billion to upgrade the tracks and remove speed restrictions along the line to achieve that.

Of course in an ideal world we should do that, but we just don't have the money and we need to prioritise.

For those who want to travel Cork to Dublin as quick as possible you have the plane which can do it in 50 minutes, at no cost to the taxpayer.

For those who want a cheaper option, 2 hours 50 minutes by bus for €25 seems perfectly reasonable and again at no cost to the taxpayer.

Investing 1 billion to get the train down to 2 hours, saving just 50 minutes over the bus, at an expensive price of €74 return, seems like madness to me.

We have an fast but expensive option (flying), a slower but cheap option (bus), we really don't need a third option that is expensive, only a little faster and at great expense to the taxpayer.

This is the reality and even everyone at IR knows this.

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s obviously going to be expensive to upgrade the service, but I’m really not at all convinced that Ireland should leave itself totally reliant on road-based transit outside of towns and cities.

I'm not suggesting we close intercity rail today. What I'm suggesting is that we don't spend billions trying to make it faster, for little benefit, that we don't spend more on it other then what is required for safety.

I also suggest that we stop subsidising train passengers, when there are perfectly good, much cheaper alternatives. Let the trains continue to operate, but let people pay the full, unsubsidised price.

Cap the free pass holders at €25 per intercity journey. Therefore free pass holders can decide to take the bus for free or pay the extra for the pleasure of taking the train. It is madness that we are subsidising people to take the train when a much cheaper alternative exists.

If the trains can't continue to compete under these circumstances and have to close, then we should maintain all the rail lines, in case we need to re-open them again in future.

Fattes wrote: »

How about a BusLane the length of the quays and then from the exit of the Port Tunnell to the airport? Airport to City in 20 Minutes problem solved!!!!!

Then focus on putting proper bus based infastructure in place and sorting Dublin bus out.

Net cost would be about a quarter of the proposed metro and the benifit would be significatnly higher!

While a bus lane allow the quays is a very good idea, the Aircoach and 747 can already get to the airport in about 25 minutes. The airport is already well serviced by these services and therefore the crazy idea of a Dart spur is just that, crazy.

However the mistake you are making is thinking that the Metro North is just going to the airport.

Rather it has 14 stops, through some of the most densly populated areas of Dublin, including our two main shopping streets, three hospitals, our largest stadium, a university, a massive park and ride, the airport and several very large urban areas (Swords, Finglas, Ballymun, etc.). It is to be the back bone of public transport in Dublin for the next 50 years.

Of course we should continue to heavily invest in bus. But Dublin is just getting to large and congested to continue this way. Even the most pessimistic projections show Dublins population growing by 11% in the next 20 years. Under these circumstances, Dublin will grind to a halt again if this and DU aren't built.

djpbarry · 29-06-2011 04:38PM

mgmt wrote: »

You can fly Dublin to Cork in 50min atm...

You might be in the air for 50 minutes, but the total journey time (including waiting) is far longer.

mgmt wrote: »

...without having to ask your fellow taxpayer to subsidise your ticket.

Well, jet fuel is tax-free, so effectively you are being subsidised. Further, certain RyanAir and Aer Arann internal flights are subsidised through the Public Service Obligation.

djpbarry · 29-06-2011 04:40PM

bk wrote: »

London to Bristol is only 100 miles, Dublin to Cork is 158 miles and the route taken by the train is even longer.

I’m quite aware of that. The point I was making is that the London-Bristol train covers this relatively short distance at approximately 140 km/hr – show me a bus that can get even close to that.

bk wrote: »

Investing 1 billion to get the train down to 2 hours, saving just 50 minutes over the bus, at an expensive price of €74 return, seems like madness to me.

Sorry, but it looks like you’re plucking all of this from thin air.

bk wrote: »

We have an fast but expensive option (flying), a slower but cheap option (bus), we really don't need a third option that is expensive, only a little faster and at great expense to the taxpayer.

When you factor in the time it takes to get to/from the airport, coupled with the amount of time spent waiting in airport(s), flying is unlikely to come in at under 3 hours.

bk wrote: »

I also suggest that we stop subsidising train passengers, when there are perfectly good, much cheaper alternatives. Let the trains continue to operate, but let people pay the full, unsubsidised price.

Well let’s get rid of flight subsidies and start taxing jet fuel to really level the playing field. However, I think we should be factoring in the knock-on effect of all the additional road traffic that will result from rail services being scrapped (or at least scaled down).

bk wrote: »

While a bus lane allow the quays is a very good idea, the Aircoach and 747 can already get to the airport in about 25 minutes.

Traffic permitting.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 05:18PM

djpbarry wrote: »

When you factor in the time it takes to get to/from the airport, coupled with the amount of time spent waiting in airport(s), flying is unlikely to come in at under 3 hours.

Prime Time did an investigation last week . They left at 7.30am from RTE studios and made a 8.40am flight with plenty of time to spare.

So that would make it 2hrs to leave RTE or anywhere else in Dublin really and be be in Cork Airport. Giving ample time to get anywhere in Cork in well under 3hrs.

See here at around 18min
http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0623/primetime.html#

And AFAIK the Dublin to Cork route is not on the PSO.

djpbarry · 29-06-2011 05:37PM

mgmt wrote: »

Prime Time did an investigation last week . They left at 7.30am from RTE studios and made a 8.40am flight with plenty of time to spare.

Check-in closes about 45 minutes before departure, so that’s nonsense. No sane person is only going to allow themselves 25 minutes to make their flight from South Dublin.

mgmt wrote: »

And AFAIK the Dublin to Cork route is not on the PSO.

No, it isn’t – I wasn’t referring specifically to that route.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 06:04PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Check-in closes about 45 minutes before departure, so that’s nonsense. No sane person is only going to allow themselves 25 minutes to make their flight from South Dublin.
No, it isn’t – I wasn’t referring specifically to that route.

From Ryanair
6.7 You should be at the boarding gate at least thirty (30) minutes prior to scheduled departure. Boarding closes twenty (20) minutes prior to departure. If you arrive later than this at the boarding gate you will not be accepted for travel. For travel on a later flight, you will be required to make and pay for a new reservation.

Dosn't most people check in online nowadays and print out their own boarding card? The time frame of the Prime Time flight still stands. Also if you want to compare properly you'll have to add on journey time to and waiting time at Hueston Station for your train to Cork. All in all, the non subsidised plane trumps the high speed rail line.

clusk007 · 29-06-2011 06:49PM

getting back to the Metro North idea. I think we need to look long-term and this is a time of great opportunity. money is hard to come by for the government but if they could find the finance it makes total economic sense.

The construction industry is decimated at the moment as we all know so you are creating jobs in this industry, getting people off the dole and therefore reducing that cost. This should allow many more consumers to spend in the economy boosting the general shopkeepers etc.

Eventually the metro North will create a substantial amount more of jobs along these new lines. Dublin is not going to be the same city in 20, 30, 40 years time and the very people here giving out about this project will be saying when there are grey and withered 'why didn't the government build a metro when so many people were unemployed?'. most great cities in this world have an underground and why not dream to make Dublin one of these and a model for how society should function.

Oasis_Dublin · 29-06-2011 08:44PM

Drumpot wrote: »

The DART does have to slum it in the Northside though and the Luas has to spend a few minutes from its Connolly starting point!

Although we did get a port tunnel (that wasnt built big enough for all trucks), although they do charge northsiders an arm and a leg to use it at times when they would most want to avail of its convenience!

Come on mon, he was clearly referring to the green line loike. We don't include the knackbag Tallaght line in Dublin South. It's totally Dublin west!

Oasis_Dublin · 29-06-2011 08:52PM

mistermouse wrote: »

I hope its scrapped, there are far more deserving Road and Rail Projects need starting throughout the country at a fraction of the cost of this political whim

But any project in Dublin is automatically more important than any other project in the state. I'd far rather see a metro in Dublin than a hospital somewhere else in the state. It's on fair; Dublin people are better.

mgmt · 29-06-2011 09:08PM

Oh Look! West-On-Track has arrived.

djpbarry · 30-06-2011 09:10AM

mgmt wrote: »

Dosn't most people check in online nowadays and print out their own boarding card?

Ok, but you still have to get through security and walk to the gate.

mgmt wrote: »

Also if you want to compare properly you'll have to add on journey time to and waiting time at Hueston Station for your train to Cork.

True.

mgmt wrote: »

All in all, the non subsidised plane trumps the high speed rail line.

Does it? Let’s take your starting point of Donnybrook and an end-point of St Patricks St in Cork. Let’s also take the best case scenario – no traffic, no delays. For the flight, we allow 25 minutes to get to the airport, 15 minutes to clear security and get to the gate 30 minutes before departure, 50 minutes for the flight time and then 10 minutes to get into Cork at the other end. That’s a (very optimistic) best-case scenario of 2.1 hours – a non-stop mid-speed train (never mind high-speed) will comfortably beat that time, even allowing for the journey to Heuston and from Kent Station.

bk · 30-06-2011 12:59PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m quite aware of that. The point I was making is that the London-Bristol train covers this relatively short distance at approximately 140 km/hr – show me a bus that can get even close to that.

They can't, but neither can Irish Rail trains (max speed 120km/h), not without a massive and expensive upgrade of the train tracks.

And you still haven't given a single good reason why we should make that investment, over investing in MN or DU or some other much more important project?

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry, but it looks like you’re plucking all of this from thin air.

Nope, it is based on the maximum speed of our trains and the distance. It would also require a massive investment in track renewal and straightening to allow it to happen.

djpbarry wrote: »

When you factor in the time it takes to get to/from the airport, coupled with the amount of time spent waiting in airport(s), flying is unlikely to come in at under 3 hours.

As a Corkonian living in Dublin, I have certainly done it.

Just need to check in online and print your boarding pass.

BTW you also have to factor in the same with the train, it typically takes me 4 and a half hours door to door to get from D9 to Cork North city.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well let’s get rid of flight subsidies and start taxing jet fuel to really level the playing field. However, I think we should be factoring in the knock-on effect of all the additional road traffic that will result from rail services being scrapped (or at least scaled down).
Traffic permitting.

No subsidies on the Cork to Dublin route, completely commercial and jet fuel is taxed.

Increased traffic on the roads isn't an issue as the interurban motorways were built way over spec and can easily handle the extra capacity.

Anyway it is already happening, as a regular user of the Cork to Dublin train for the past 10 years, I can tell you it is losing customers at a frightening rate. Even peak trains like the 5pm to Cork on Friday are much, much quieter. All of my friends from Cork who use to get the train now drive, it is cheaper and faster (easily doable in 2h30m).

Again you haven't given a justification why billions should be spent upgrading the intercity rail to make it faster?

bk · 30-06-2011 01:03PM

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a (very optimistic) best-case scenario of 2.1 hours – a non-stop mid-speed train (never mind high-speed) will comfortably beat that time, even allowing for the journey to Heuston and from Kent Station.

Again not possible without spending 1 billion to upgrade the Cork to Dublin line.

A true high speed train like ice could do the journey in one hour. But would cost 5 billion to do between Cork and Dublin.

Again you haven't given a justification for these expenditures?

Why spend all this money to save only an hours journey time (or 30 minutes versus car)?

djpbarry · 30-06-2011 03:15PM

bk wrote: »

No subsidies on the Cork to Dublin route, completely commercial and jet fuel is taxed.

Jet kerosene for commercial use is exempt of tax.

bk wrote: »

Again you haven't given a justification why billions should be spent upgrading the intercity rail to make it faster?

Because not everyone can afford a car? Not to mention the fact that large numbers of people travelling inter-city by private car is grossly inefficient. Bear in mind that the Cork-Dublin line alone carries millions of passengers every year (over 3 million last I knew, but that’s probably a bit out of date) – that’s a lot of extra road traffic if the service is removed.

bk wrote: »

Again not possible without spending 1 billion to upgrade the Cork to Dublin line.
A true high speed train like ice could do the journey in one hour. But would cost 5 billion to do between Cork and Dublin.

ICE is not necessary in Ireland – the routes are too short. But again I’d ask what your source for those figures is?

bk wrote: »

Again you haven't given a justification for these expenditures?

You haven’t given a source for them.

bk wrote: »

Why spend all this money to save only an hours journey time (or 30 minutes versus car)?

You don’t think a saving of 1 hour is significant? I don’t know about you, but I would suggest that a means of reducing travel times between Dublin and Cork by 40% is worthy of investigation, no?

Batsy · 30-06-2011 04:52PM

bk wrote: »

.

Here are some cities that actually have a lower population density then Dublin, note many have highly developed Metro systems:

Rome
Milan
Stockholm
Lisbon
Rotterdam
San Francisco
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Brussels
Helsinki
New York (yes really 2050 versus 2950 people per sq/km in Dublin!!)
Copenhagen

Dublin has a population density of 4,398 people per sq km. I prefer using miles, though.

Metro North

Comments