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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

1…3031333536…189

Comments

  • #1602
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Rules like 1km do not apply in central areas.

    The city centre on the northside is seen as a growth area for retail and population density is also expected to grow -- on top of already high pop density.


  • #1603
    Winters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    monument wrote: »
    Rules like 1km do not apply in central areas.

    The city centre on the northside is seen as a growth area for retail and population density is also expected to grow -- on top of already high pop density.

    Where, in a catchment area of less that 1km around the O'Connell Bridge or Parnell Square stops, can you see population density increasing?

    We do not have the density, and will not, to justify €500m a pop metro stations every 500m to 750m in what is a very small city center here in Dublin.


  • #1604
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    it's less about changes in population density, when it comes to city centre stops it's about getting people to where they want to go and two stops will do that better than one.


  • #1605
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Winters wrote: »
    Where, in a catchment area of less that 1km around the O'Connell Bridge or Parnell Square stops, can you see population density increasing?

    We do not have the density, and will not, to justify €500m a pop metro stations every 500m to 750m in what is a very small city center here in Dublin.

    Blue areas are potential site or conversion sites and yellow lines are 1km... and I tried not going too close to the Mater or O'CS Bridge:

    211757.JPG

    Link to map. And there could be more sites, these are just from memory and what's obvious from maps:


  • #1606
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    I would agree with a lot of what you are saying. I was never in favour of the mined O'Connell stop. I would build it under O'Connell Street between Abbey Street and Henry Street with the Line BX/D O'Connell Street Luas stop directly above it (Both directions). I would also scrap the Parnell stop and am not an advocate of an extra stop between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street i.e. Trinity Stop. BX/D can fill in the gaps in between.

    I would most certainly not remove the Mater stop but completey agree with the Drumcondra location you suggested.

    From there northwards the line is pretty much as logical as engineeringly possible (sic).

    Sadly, the RPA had/have to adhere to more stakeholders and agendas than we do. For instance DCC would not allow any disruption to the Swords route in Drumcondra and O'Connell Street.

    Could you talk us through your logic in relation to the Mater Hospital stop? It seems to be very important to you that it remain on the metro route.

    Your preferred arrangement of stations (St. Stephen's Green, O'Connell Street, Mater Hospital and Drumcondra (between the railway lines)) would leave gaps of around or over 1km between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street and between O'Connell Street and the Mater, while there would be just a gap of around 500-600 metres between the Mater and your preferred Drumcondra station location.

    I would have thought that there was, overall, bigger demand for proximate stations along the Dorset Street-St. Stephen's Green axis.


  • #1607
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    What ever about his other ideas:

    The Mater stop is under construction. It's not going to be passanger-ready any time soon, but the bulk of the heavy work will be finished in the near future.

    That's the only reason you need to keep in on the route -- there are others, but that one is enough.


  • #1608
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,542 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Winters wrote: »
    We do not have the density, and will not, to justify €500m a pop metro stations every 500m to 750m in what is a very small city center here in Dublin.
    Just as well we're only going to spend a fraction of that then. :D


  • #1609
    Winters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    AngryLips wrote: »
    it's less about changes in population density, when it comes to city centre stops it's about getting people to where they want to go and two stops will do that better than one.

    I agree, I was just responding to monument's comment that "The city center on the northside is seen as a growth area for retail and population density is also expected to grow -- on top of already high pop density."

    The demand is based on trip generators (trip origins and trip destinations) in AM and PM peak. Henry Street is the highest trip generator in Dublin City so if the O'Connell Bridge stop was moved to under O'Connell Street north of Abbey Street as I suggested it would actually be closer to where most people want to go.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Could you talk us through your logic in relation to the Mater Hospital stop? It seems to be very important to you that it remain on the metro route.

    Your preferred arrangement of stations (St. Stephen's Green, O'Connell Street, Mater Hospital and Drumcondra (between the railway lines)) would leave gaps of around or over 1km between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street and between O'Connell Street and the Mater, while there would be just a gap of around 500-600 metres between the Mater and your preferred Drumcondra station location.

    I would have thought that there was, overall, bigger demand for proximate stations along the Dorset Street-St. Stephen's Green axis.

    Do you disagree with the Mater stop's location itself or it's inclusion altogether?

    I am not speaking on behalf of the RPA and PB engineers who spent a great deal of time planning the alignment and stop locations but there are many factors that came to be considered. The Mater is seen as a large trip generator for one thus once the general alignment was decided, the vicinity of the Mater/Dorset Street was chosen for a stop. So when it came down to it, there were only a number of feasible locations for a structure of that size: Option 1 - Cut and cover stop under the Mater Hospital car park; Option 2 - Cut and cover stop to the west of Dorset Street; and Option 3 - Mined stop under Dorset Street. As the RPA put it "Option 1 was identified as the preferred option as it minimises construction risk and the potential for disruption".

    Yes it is not ideal that there is only a gap of 700m between the RPA Drumcondra Stop and the Mater stop (Reduced to 600m if the Drumcondra stop is located further south under the Lower Drumcondra Road) but engineering, geological and cost are also major factors in decisions on where to construct underground stations.
    Victor wrote: »
    Just as well we're only going to spend a fraction of that then. :D
    Ha! apologies that was a typo, I think I meant €200m.

    One other criticism of the RPA design was that the units should be 2.65m width and not 2.4m which I think is too small. Luas is 2.4m and DART is 2.9m for comparison. Standard metros around the world start from 2.65m upwards.


  • #1610
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    Do you disagree with the Mater stop's location itself or it's inclusion altogether?

    I am not speaking on behalf of the RPA and PB engineers who spent a great deal of time planning the alignment and stop locations but there are many factors that came to be considered. The Mater is seen as a large trip generator for one thus once the general alignment was decided, the vicinity of the Mater/Dorset Street was chosen for a stop. So when it came down to it, there were only a number of feasible locations for a structure of that size: Option 1 - Cut and cover stop under the Mater Hospital car park; Option 2 - Cut and cover stop to the west of Dorset Street; and Option 3 - Mined stop under Dorset Street. As the RPA put it "Option 1 was identified as the preferred option as it minimises construction risk and the potential for disruption".

    Yes it is not ideal that there is only a gap of 700m between the RPA Drumcondra Stop and the Mater stop (Reduced to 600m if the Drumcondra stop is located further south under the Lower Drumcondra Road) but engineering, geological and cost are also major factors in decisions on where to construct underground stations.

    I wouldn't say I disagree with the Mater stop location, and I certainly don't disagree with inclusion of a station which serves the Mater.

    A major factor in relation to the location of stations between St. Stephen's Green and Drumcondra on the metronorth was the RPA's erroneous belief that they would save money by combining the Trinity and O'Connell Street stations into just one station at O'Connell Bridge.

    This left quite a large gap between O'Connell Bridge and the next station northwards, the Mater. Quite rightly, in my opinion, residents and business owners in and around Parnell Street/Square lobbied, ultimately successfully, for a station which would adequately fill that gap.

    Had the stations remained at Trinity and O'Connell Street (basically at the location you were talking about), there would not have been such a large gap, and those residents and business owners would not have been so far removed from a metro station.

    One of the problems now is that the longest gap between stations, in the St. Stephen's Green to Drumcondra section of metronorth, will be between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Bridge. And like it or not, that is the area which requires the most efficient processing of passengers in the morning and evening peak - not like Henry Street where people are dribbling in and out all day. This is a mistake, in my opinion.

    I think an arrangement like St. Stephen's Green, Trinity, O'Connell Street (around Abbey Street/Henry Street), Temple Street, Drumcondra would be perfect. Temple Street is very close to the Mater, but also a good central location for people living or working on Dorset Street, Mountjoy Square, Gardiner Street, parts of Parnell Square, etc. And even though some work has been done up at the Mater, it would have the advantage that tunnelling costs could be saved.


  • #1611
    Winters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    You are certainly right about their decision for the O'Connell Bridge stop. Where would you propose constructing a station for Trinity though? I remember talking to Rob Leech at the RPA about a stop at "Trinity" and he said a station box or indeed a mined station in College Green wasn't feasible in terms of construction access, disruption and geology cost. They came to the conclusion that Westmoreland Street was the only possible location and that was too close to the then proposed O'Connell Street stop (300m). D'Olier was another option but the alignment meant a deviation under Trinity College which was ruled out. Remember also that a "Trinity" stop at College Green would be just 500m from the St. Stephen's Green stop.

    In my opinion a 1000m distance between St. Stephen's Green and a O'Connell Street stop is just about acceptable for the reasons that the Luas Line BX/D runs above the line with intermittent stops at Dawson, Westmoreland, O'Connell Upper, Parnell and Dominic Street and also that Dublin itself is not high rise and actually lends itself quite well to walking and also we're all well used to walking through town..


  • Advertisement
  • #1612
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Winters wrote: »
    You are certainly right about their decision for the O'Connell Bridge stop. Where would you propose constructing a station for Trinity though? I remember talking to Rob Leech at the RPA about a stop at "Trinity" and he said a station box or indeed a mined station in College Green wasn't feasible in terms of construction access, disruption and geology cost. They came to the conclusion that Westmoreland Street was the only possible location and that was too close to the then proposed O'Connell Street stop (300m). D'Olier was another option but the alignment meant a deviation under Trinity College which was ruled out. Remember also that a "Trinity" stop at College Green would be just 500m from the St. Stephen's Green stop.

    I can see that there are obvious problems - the specific ones you mention - with stations at Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, which would seem to rule them out.

    I would obviously not wish to question in any way the bona fides of Mr Leech, but I would be interested to know how closely the RPA looked at the feasibility of a station in College Green. They may indeed have had the idea of the O'Connell Bridge station in formation at the time of the metro consultations. It's certainly hard to square a few things.

    (Am I right in thinking that you intended to put a comma between geology and cost?)

    A station at College Green would need to be much shallower than the proposed station at O'Connell Bridge, as would any potential station at O'Connell Street (around Abbey Street/Henry Street)

    In relation to geology, it's hard to see how the geology of College Green could be so very different to that of the adjacent Westmoreland street, where it doesn't seem to be a negative factor.

    On costs, the RPA have not really covered themselves in glory in relation to their estimation of the costs of station construction in the central area, have they? It's certainly hard to see how this would be a deciding factor, given the scale of the station which they are actually proposing to build at O'Connell Bridge.

    Construction access is obviously a problem in a central area, but surely not a reason to abandon a potential site in favour of building a much more expensive station at a nearby site where construction access would also be a problem.

    Similarly with disruption. College Green is a central location, ergo there will be disruption. But, as above, hardly a good reason to build a much more expensive station at a nearby site where there will also be considerable disruption to businesses and traffic flows.

    The RPA made an error believing that the O'Connell Bridge station would cut costs. I think they should look again at College Green, in order to reduce the enormous costs which would be associated with the O'Connell Bridge station, and also to provide better access to the metro.

    In relation to the 500 metre gap between St. Stephen's Green and a potential station at College Green, I really wouldn't see this as a negative. As I mentioned above, the area between Henry Street and St. Stephen's Green is the area on this line which will need to be most efficient in the uptake and discharge of passengers. An extra station between O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green will help this, while (as noted above by AngryLips) a 1 km gap in this central area would reduce the attractiveness of the line.


  • #1613
    chooochooo
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭chooochooo


    strassenwo!f wrote: »

    A station at College Green would need to be much shallower than the proposed station at O'Connell Bridge, as would any potential station at O'Connell Street (around Abbey Street/Henry Street)

    In relation to geology, it's hard to see how the geology of College Green could be so very different to that of the adjacent Westmoreland street, where it doesn't seem to be a negative factor.

    On costs, the RPA have not really covered themselves in glory in relation to their estimation of the costs of station construction in the central area, have they? It's certainly hard to see how this would be a deciding factor, given the scale of the station which they are actually proposing to build at O'Connell Bridge.

    Construction access is obviously a problem in a central area, but surely not a reason to abandon a potential site in favour of building a much more expensive station at a nearby site where construction access would also be a problem.
    Here is a good example of the risks of 2nd guessing anything.
    The main geological problem in mining out College Green are the foundations of buildings in that area. Not doable.

    Any station at College Green or OCS/Abbey St would still have to be deep because they are close to the Liffey and have to get under it. So not much cheaper.

    The present plan of stations at O'Connell Bge and Parnell evolved and was not the original RPA plan. College Green was ruled out for above reasons, cost was a major factor so there was no plan for any station at Parnell (and the plan for above ground at Ballymun) but a lot of political pressure came for an additional CC station so Parnell was added (ditto re Ballymun underground).
    The point is the ideal of having stations at College Green, OCS/AbbeySt wasn't a runner so a major station at O'Connell Bge was decided. Parnell was added on in the face of cost issues.


  • #1614
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,542 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Is there space for a College Green stop without encroaching on the footprint of buildings that have dubious foundations?

    Would it have to be built completely by tunnelling as you can't close College Green for an extended period?


  • #1615
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    chooochooo wrote: »
    Here is a good example of the risks of 2nd guessing anything.
    The main geological problem in mining out College Green are the foundations of buildings in that area. Not doable.

    Any station at College Green or OCS/Abbey St would still have to be deep because they are close to the Liffey and have to get under it. So not much cheaper.

    The present plan of stations at O'Connell Bge and Parnell evolved and was not the original RPA plan. College Green was ruled out for above reasons, cost was a major factor so there was no plan for any station at Parnell (and the plan for above ground at Ballymun) but a lot of political pressure came for an additional CC station so Parnell was added (ditto re Ballymun underground).
    The point is the ideal of having stations at College Green, OCS/AbbeySt wasn't a runner so a major station at O'Connell Bge was decided. Parnell was added on in the face of cost issues.

    I have to query the middle bit of your post, which I have emboldened.

    There is no obvious reason why potential stations at O'Connell Street or College Green would need to be nearly as deep as the proposed O'Connell Bridge station.

    Because of their remove from the river, three-level stations at both of College Green and O'Connell Street would allow the metro line to dip down under the river, in straightforward tunnels, easily within the gradient limitations of these trains, and would have the added advantage that metro trains would be going downhill on departure from each of the stations and uphill on their entry to the stations. On top of that, the platforms in each of those stations could be incorporated directly into the station.

    With the proposed O'Connell Bridge station, you are certainly talking about deeper station sections, doubled (on either side of the river) - Winters said above that there were six levels, but on the diagrams I've seen I've only been able to count four. (Maybe five on a good day:D).

    Then on top of that you've got the whole mined section under the river, for the platforms. As has been discussed before on this thread, this mined section is very definitely a significant feature of the proposed O'Connell Bridge station.

    Far from being "not much cheaper", the cost differences would surely be considerable.


  • #1616
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Winters wrote: »
    I would agree with a lot of what you are saying. I was never in favour of the mined O'Connell stop. I would build it under O'Connell Street between Abbey Street and Henry Street with the Line BX/D O'Connell Street Luas stop directly above it (Both directions). I would also scrap the Parnell stop and am not an advocate of an extra stop between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street i.e. Trinity Stop. BX/D can fill in the gaps in between.

    I would most certainly not remove the Mater stop but completey agree with the Drumcondra location you suggested.

    From there northwards the line is pretty much as logical as engineeringly possible (sic).

    Sadly, the RPA had/have to adhere to more stakeholders and agendas than we do. For instance DCC would not allow any disruption to the Swords route in Drumcondra and O'Connell Street.
    Agreed, I'd suggest the Drumcondra stop previously mooted, Mater, OCS and Trinity. The North Frederick/Parnell Square stop is really unnecessary as it is smack in the middle of OCS and the Mater.


  • #1617
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Victor wrote: »
    Is there space for a College Green stop without encroaching on the footprint of buildings that have dubious foundations?

    Would it have to be built completely by tunnelling as you can't close College Green for an extended period?
    Perhaps it could be done alongside the mooted pedestrianisation of College Green by 2016.


  • #1618
    carlmango11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭carlmango11


    Sorry to interrupt the conversation here but could anyone tell me what the official status of Metro North is?

    Is it dead-dead as in noap?

    Or is it more a case of "not right now because we're broke" with a possibility of it progressing a few years down the line?


  • #1619
    zootroid
    Registered Users Posts: 784 ✭✭✭zootroid


    As far as I'm aware the official line is "it'll be built in a few years when we have the cash". But the cynic in me says it will never be built


  • #1620
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Planning takes so long in this country that by the time most major projects are shovel-ready the Government of the day have an excuse to pull the plug because the requirements have changed during the lengthy time of the planning process.


  • Advertisement
  • #1621
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    carlmango11 wrote: »
    Sorry to interrupt the conversation here but could anyone tell me what the official status of Metro North is?

    Is it dead-dead as in noap?

    Or is it more a case of "not right now because we're broke" with a possibility of it progressing a few years down the line?

    The official status is that the project has been deferred.


  • #1622
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Planning takes so long in this country that by the time most major projects are shovel-ready the Government of the day have an excuse to pull the plug because the requirements have changed during the lengthy time of the planning process.

    That's one of the things the Strategic Infrastructure Act was supposed to deal with. It certainly does seem to have fallen short of its objective.


  • #1623
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    ah sure who needs mass transit...

    http://www.ireland.com/breaking-news/dublin-among-the-most-congested-cities/665811

    Dublin is the sixth most congested city in Europe with heavier volumes of traffic than London or Stockholm, according to a survey of 31 major urban centres.

    Journey times in Dublin take 30 per cent longer at peak times than when traffic is flowing freely, higher than the European average of 24 per cent, the study found.

    A congestion index compiled by navigation device manufacturers Tom Tom used data captured by vehicles across the European road network to compare journey times at different periods of the day.

    Warsaw is the most congested, with journeys taking 42 per cent longer than the European average when traffic is flowing freely, and 89 per cent longer during morning rush hour.

    Marseille, Rome, Brussels and Paris completed the list of the top five most congested cities. Dublin took sixth place, followed by Bradford-Leeds, London, Stockholm and Hamburg.

    Dublin City Council’s draft public realm strategy published in January aims to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and those using public transport in an effort to reduce traffic congestion in the city.


  • #1624
    carlmango11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭carlmango11


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    ah sure who needs mass transit...

    I find it incredible how many people actually think this way. On these forums I've read posts from people who are convinced that we can have a fine transport system with buses alone. Yeah all those hundreds of other cities are simply misguided with their reliable, punctual, speedy "trains".


  • #1625
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    At the same time, and as Warsaw demonstrates, having a rapid transit network doesn't necessarily reduce congestion on its own.


  • #1626
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,201 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    AngryLips wrote: »
    At the same time, and as Warsaw demonstrates, having a rapid transit network doesn't necessarily reduce congestion on its own.

    But imagine how bad it would be if it didn't have one!! :eek:

    Actually Warsaws rapid transit network isn't that large or well developed.

    They have only one Metro line, only opened in 95.

    Yes they have about 30 tram lines, but they aren't like our Luas, they are old and slow, usually slower then the buses!!

    So actually quiet similar to Dublin, it is dominated by buses and bus like trams, with one Metro line.


  • Advertisement
  • #1627
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    If the goal is to reduce congestion, then the only thing that really works is a congestion charge. But that's not the point of an underground. Look at Paris - probably one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, yet still has unbelievable congestion. Even if MN did take some cars off the road, sooner or later that road-space would fill right up again.


  • #1628
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,201 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Aard wrote: »
    If the goal is to reduce congestion, then the only thing that really works is a congestion charge. But that's not the point of an underground. Look at Paris - probably one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, yet still has unbelievable congestion. Even if MN did take some cars off the road, sooner or later that road-space would fill right up again.

    That is why you need both a well developed public transport network and a congestion charge.

    Ideally the congestion charge should be ring fenced to pay for improved public transport, cycling and walking facilities.

    The problem we have in Dublin is that we just don't have a good enough public transport network yet.

    MN and DU really need to be built before we talk about introducing a congestion charge.


  • #1629
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Oh definitely. Having most people rely on busses post congestion-charge would be mad.

    Even MN and DU wouldn't be enough imo.


  • #1630
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I'm sure the bus service would improve with congestion charging though...


  • #1631
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    bk wrote: »
    That is why you need both a well developed public transport network and a congestion charge.

    Ideally the congestion charge should be ring fenced to pay for improved public transport, cycling and walking facilities.

    The problem we have in Dublin is that we just don't have a good enough public transport network yet.

    MN and DU really need to be built before we talk about introducing a congestion charge.

    I complete agree with you. Before we even consider a congestion charge, the entire suburban fabric also needs to be reconfigured such that it enables public transport such as metros, buses, trams and trains to become attractive alternatives to the car. This is very far from being the case. For example, while I was working for IBM in Damastown, the commute by public transport used to take roughly 2 hours each way. Bear in mind that this distance is only 18 miles. Effectively this was 9 miles per hour which is pathetic. With a car, this journey would take between 30 and 45 minutes thanks to the M50.

    On the other hand, the DART is capable of covering 18 miles in less than 50 minutes which makes it an ideal alternative to the car and a good example to follow. Unfortunately, the DART system is confined to the east coast which leaves the vast majority of the remaining Dublin population on the lurch. Moreover, the DART system is not much use to someone wishing to travel from the likes of Dun Laoghaire to City West or Liffey Valley. Similarly, the DART is not much use to someone traveling from Portmarnock to Sandyford Industrial Estate or Cherrywood. In each case, the journey by public transport will more than likely take well over an hour, especially at peak times. The demand for such faster journeys gives cause to the very existence of the M50.

    Either-way, the speed of public transport is key in making it an attractive alternative to the car. Unfortunately, decades of bad planning decisions for ground level development has left very little or no room (and money) for strategic, fast-paced transport corridors. As a result, the only way to deliver people from the likes of Swords, Dublin Airport, Ballymun and DCU to the city center at speed is an underground rail system like Metro North. If my memory serves me correctly, the total journey length of Metro North is 27 minutes which is far superior to any bus service with the same purpose. The downside to this is the cost of construction hence the bold type face.

    While Aircoach and Swords Express come very near to this, most of the remaining stops inside the M50 are still left out in the cold. DCU and Ballymun are among these. Aside from Dublin Airport and Swords, DCU and Ballymun are two of the other major stops along the Metro North alignment and are consequently integral to its business case. IKEA was a major re-enforcement of this. Drumcondra and St. Stephens Green facilitate connection with the two proposed DART lines making them major interchanges with the former providing interchange with Commuter and Intercity services. Both DART Underground and Metro North were key components for relieving congestion in the city center.


  • Advertisement
  • #1632
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.


  • #1633
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    yer man! wrote: »
    How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.

    I'm sure someone will have pretty good reasons from a transport infrastructure point of view, but another way to look at it is that, when/if Metro and Dart are built, someone can get from Cork/Galway/Limerick to the airport with only two changes. That's impressive for a journey of at least 200kms.


  • #1634
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    yer man! wrote: »
    How come metro north doesn't make dublin airport easily accessible from Heuston or Connolly, just seem kinda annoying that if you get a train from Galway, limerick, cork, you'd have to make 2 changes to get to the airport , intercity - dart underground - metro north. I'm just wondering really, just seems strange not to have a airport train not feed into a main station.

    I think this is a valid point. Dublin Airport is the main airport on the island both by passenger numbers and by number of destinations served. No other airport on the island even comes close on both counts. unfortunately, transport policy has been, and continues to be, directed on the assumption that this is a city or municipal airport. If there was any vision there would be a delta spur off the northern line allowing all Enterprise services to serve the airport and all trains terminating at Heuston would serve it through the underground tunnel and a four-tracked section between Connolly and the airport. I don't raise this point as an argument against MN because the areas it serves need the type of service it will provide but I really think the airport is losing with this solution.

    By opening up the airport to the national rail network savings can also be made by closing some of the more redundant regional airports around the country.


  • #1635
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,201 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    The problem with Connolly and even more sure Hueston is that they aren't really in the city center. Rather they are in the outskirts of the city and most people have to make two or three changes to get to where they want to go.

    Metro North and Dart Underground are designed to resolve this issue, bringing the majority of Dublin region commuters into the heart of the city, where they actually want to go. It would make no sense to have MN wind it's way to and from Connolly and Hueston. Certainly not for the relatively small number of people going to the airport from elsewhere in the country versus inconveniencing the much higher number of Dublin region commuters.

    The very long term plan * once Dart Underground is built, the DART spur to the airport and the electrification of the intercity lines is complete is to have intercity trains to run through the Dart Underground tunnel and up out to the airport on the DART spur.

    The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.

    In the meantime, the new direct bus services like Aircoach from Cork, CityLink/GoBus from Galway, etc. all take you to the front door of Dublin Airport much more quickly and cheaper then by rail and with no transfer needed.

    * Given what is involved I'd be surprised to see this actually happen in our lifetimes.


  • #1636
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    bk wrote: »
    The problem with Connolly and even more sure Hueston is that they aren't really in the city center. Rather they are in the outskirts of the city and most people have to make two or three changes to get to where they want to go.

    Metro North and Dart Underground are designed to resolve this issue, bringing the majority of Dublin region commuters into the heart of the city, where they actually want to go. It would make no sense to have MN wind it's way to and from Connolly and Hueston. Certainly not for the relatively small number of people going to the airport from elsewhere in the country versus inconveniencing the much higher number of Dublin region commuters.

    The very long term plan * once Dart Underground is built, the DART spur to the airport and the electrification of the intercity lines is complete is to have intercity trains to run through the Dart Underground tunnel and up out to the airport on the DART spur.

    The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.

    In the meantime, the new direct bus services like Aircoach from Cork, CityLink/GoBus from Galway, etc. all take you to the front door of Dublin Airport much more quickly and cheaper then by rail and with no transfer needed.

    * Given what is involved I'd be surprised to see this actually happen in our lifetimes.
    Was just researching there, metro west is designed to take passengers from clondalkin station (Galway, Cork, Limerick, Westport & Tralee passengers) to Dardistown, I don't know if another transfer to metro north would be neccessary for the tiny distance between here and the dublin airport front door.


  • #1637
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,542 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    bk wrote: »
    The short term plan is to build a new station on the Kildare line by the M50 where the intercity trains will stop and people heading to the airport can transfer onto buses to the airport. To be honest this solution would probably be just as fast as the above long term plan.
    All it needs is LA-style bus stops.
    yer man! wrote: »
    Was just researching there, metro west is designed to take passengers from clondalkin station (Galway, Cork, Limerick, Westport & Tralee passengers) to Dardistown, I don't know if another transfer to metro north would be neccessary for the tiny distance between here and the dublin airport front door.
    In operation, Metro West would likely operate as far as the turn-back north of the airport.


  • #1638
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭markpb


    Victor wrote: »
    All it needs is LA-style bus stops.

    ??


  • #1639
    xper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭xper


    markpb wrote: »
    Victor wrote:
    All it needs is LA-style bus stops.
    ??
    He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
    For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh


  • #1640
    carlmango11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭carlmango11


    xper wrote: »
    He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
    For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh

    Pretty nifty idea


  • #1641
    Winters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    With the proposed O'Connell Bridge station, you are certainly talking about deeper station sections, doubled (on either side of the river) - Winters said above that there were six levels, but on the diagrams I've seen I've only been able to count four. (Maybe five on a good day:D).

    http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/MN_Stop_Pages/O%27Connell%20Bridge%20Stop/O%27Connell_Bridge_Stop_Cross_Section.pdf

    I was roughly counting the elevator levels on the Aston Quay side of the above diagram.

    Essentially there may be 4 or 5 levels using escalators but using standard floor heights like in stairwells and lift shafts gives a better idea for comparison to office buildings etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #1642
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 13,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    xper wrote: »
    He's referring to bus stops on freeways/motorways.
    For example: http://goo.gl/maps/vtgYh


    Very good idea indeed. But where would you find the space on the M50 post-widening? The stops would have to be at the edges, not on the median.


  • #1643
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,542 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    Very good idea indeed. But where would you find the space on the M50 post-widening? The stops would have to be at the edges, not on the median.
    I imagine the local businesses would love having direct services to the airport, so some co-funding in the form of land may be available.


  • #1644
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways? You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway. Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.


  • #1645
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways?

    How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?
    AngryLips wrote: »
    You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway.

    Where was anything that could mean that said on this thread?
    AngryLips wrote: »
    Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.

    If you read recent posts you'll see people are talking a rail/bus hub where the M50 meets the Kildare Line -- Even besides rail/bus to airport transfers, such a hub could also attract a ton of passengers from the nearby areas, comming to such a hub by foot, car, bus or bicycle.


  • #1646
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    monument wrote: »
    How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?

    Well you're not meant to stop on motorways for a start


  • #1647
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    monument wrote: »
    If you read recent posts you'll see people are talking a rail/bus hub where the M50 meets the Kildare Line -- Even besides rail/bus to airport transfers, such a hub could also attract a ton of passengers from the nearby areas, comming to such a hub by foot, car, bus or bicycle.

    To be honest I think this has as much potential to be successful as the Aerdart.


  • #1648
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,278 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    monument wrote: »
    How would LA-style or to the sides of motorways bus stops undermine the motorway?

    If the access lanes weren't long enough to allow the bus to come up to speed properly, the passenger area wasn't properly secured from the road, etc, etc.

    The idea, if done properly, is a good one and there's enough examples elsewhere that we SHOULD be able to copy it properly. Hopefully.

    Except for the fact that the junction would make it effectively impossible, one at the Red Cow Luas would have been a decent idea; one for the Kildare Line should be possible though.


  • #1649
    xper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭xper


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Well you're not meant to stop on motorways for a start
    Don't use the M9 then, you'll only get upset ... http://goo.gl/maps/VvL2v


  • #1650
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,542 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Doesn't the idea of bus stops on the motorway undermine the whole concept of motorways? You're talking about downgrading the M50 into a dual-carraigeway. Besides, it's not as though motorways see much in the way of pedestrian footfall as to justify it.
    Did you look at the link above?

    None of the pedestrian footfall would be on the motorway mainline.


  • Advertisement
  • #1651
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    chooochooo wrote: »
    Here is a good example of the risks of 2nd guessing anything.

    The main geological problem in mining out College Green are the foundations of buildings in that area. Not doable.

    Any station at College Green or OCS/Abbey St would still have to be deep because they are close to the Liffey and have to get under it. So not much cheaper.

    The present plan of stations at O'Connell Bge and Parnell evolved and was not the original RPA plan. College Green was ruled out for above reasons, cost was a major factor so there was no plan for any station at Parnell (and the plan for above ground at Ballymun) but a lot of political pressure came for an additional CC station so Parnell was added (ditto re Ballymun underground).

    The point is the ideal of having stations at College Green, OCS/AbbeySt wasn't a runner so a major station at O'Connell Bge was decided. Parnell was added on in the face of cost issues.

    I've been puzzling over this post for some time. Obviously there was political pressure for overground in Ballymun and a Parnell Station.

    We will very probably never know whether the political pressure against a potential stop/station at Trinity was severe, strong or considerable.

    Or maybe it was just noteworthy, suggestive or nudgeworthy.

    The whole O'Connell Bridge fiasco simply does not fit in with the considerable efforts by the RPA to reduce costs elsewhere by cutting down on the number of escalators and other stuff.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement