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

Maximizing the current Rail Infrastructure

145791015

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    The distinction really becomes high and low floors

    For speed you really want a high floor solution so you can have larger wheels and better suspension as well as a clean interior without the humps and the equipment hidden above floor level

    You are correct, though if you look at the interior pictures of the Barcelona trains, you will see that it has a completely clean interior, similar to DART, rather then Luas.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Metro_9000_Series#/media/File:Metro_barcelona.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    bk wrote: »
    To really get a good idea of what our Metro will look like, you should check out the Barcelona Metro. In particular the 9000 series trains:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Metro_9000_Series

    These are 86m long and built by Alstom, the same company who builds Luas. It operates on standard gauge and the overhead wires, the same overall systems as Luas, but obviously much higher capacity like our Metro will too.

    This really is how new Metros all around Europe are being built.

    In fairness I wouldn't mind something like that they look good.

    What was being tooted here in Dublin was something similar to the Porto Metro or the Malaga which look very tramy to me.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Málaga_Metro

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Metro

    I do think that DU should be done away with and encorporated into the Metro project and that the two should be built as one rather than separetely.

    However another problem I have with both projects is that the Connolly/Bus Arás area is not served by either which is the main transport hub for Dublin at the moment.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    In fairness I wouldn't mind something like that they look good.

    What was being tooted here in Dublin was something similar to the Porto Metro or the Malaga which look very tramy to me.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Málaga_Metro

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Metro

    They do use the same track gauge and overhead power system, but they are quite a bit shorter. 43m in Malaga, 37m in Porto.

    They are actually smaller then Luas, 54m to come over the next few months. Which shows more how high spec Luas is then anything else, though the above obviously benefit from underground running and full segregation.

    No what was originally proposed for Metro North were much bigger, 90m long and wider, similar to the Barcelona ones above.

    What we will get after the redesign is yet to be seen. Even the rumoured 60m trains would still be a good bit longer and higher capacity then the above.

    We will have to wait and see.
    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I do think that DU should be done away with and encorporated into the Metro project and that the two should be built as one rather than separetely.

    Well at least is sounds like the separate Metro North and Metro South projects will be delivered as one. I think we will have to wait and see about DU.
    Stephen15 wrote: »
    However another problem I have with both projects is that the Connolly/Bus Arás area is not served by either which is the main transport hub for Dublin at the moment.

    To be honest, I'm not sure it really is. I think O'Connell St is more the main transport hub.

    - Pretty much every Dublin Bus route runs up it or past it.
    - Luas Green line will soon run down it.
    - Luas Red line runs past it.
    - Tara St is only 5 minutes walk away.
    - Most private coach services stop on or near it.
    - DCC/NTA seem to have a plan to turn Westmoreland St and D'Olier St into a sort of major bus/coach on-street station.

    Dropping MN smack bang in the middle of all that and near Henry St seems very sensible IMO.

    Busaras and Connolly are a little out of the way of all that. Though not far either at about 10 minute walk, but I certainly think the walk connecting them could be greatly improved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    bk wrote: »
    They do use the same track gauge and overhead power system, but they are quite a bit shorter. 43m in Malaga, 37m in Porto.

    They are actually smaller then Luas, 54m to come over the next few months. Which shows more how high spec Luas is then anything else, though the above obviously benefit from underground running and full segregation.

    No what was originally proposed for Metro North were much bigger, 90m long and wider, similar to the Barcelona ones above.

    What we will get after the redesign is yet to be seen. Even the rumoured 60m trains would still be a good bit longer and higher capacity then the above.

    As the OP mentioned its more a case of platform height. I do personally think it should be the height of an IE patform or close to it rather than the height of a luas platform.

    I looked at some the mockups of MN and the platforms look very similar to Luas platforms and also the trains have some very tram like characteristics such as single doors, press button doors and seats that aren't sideways a better metro would have dual doors at every door, sideways seats and door that open all together at every stop.
    To be honest, I'm not sure it really is. I think O'Connell St is more the main transport hub.

    - Pretty much every Dublin Bus route runs up it or past it.
    - Luas Green line will soon run down it.
    - Luas Red line runs past it.
    - Tara St is only 5 minutes walk away.
    - Most private coach services stop on or near it.
    - DCC/NTA seem to have a plan to turn Westmoreland St and D'Olier St into a sort of major bus/coach on-street station.

    Dropping MN smack bang in the middle of all that and near Henry St seems very sensible IMO.

    Busaras and Connolly are a little out of the way of all that. Though not far either at about 10 minute walk, but I certainly think the walk connecting them could be greatly improved.

    I'm saying that O'Connell isin't a main transport hub and shouldn't it most definitely should served by metro north but if you are leaving are leaving Dublin to go somewhere else in the country you are more than likely going to be going to the Connolly/Busaras area rather than the OCS area. Its like comapring Oxford Circus to Victoria.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I'm saying that O'Connell isin't a main transport hub and shouldn't it most definitely should served by metro north but if you are leaving are leaving Dublin to go somewhere else in the country you are more than likely going to be going to the Connolly/Busaras area rather than the OCS area. Its like comapring Oxford Circus to Victoria.

    If you are leaving Dublin, you would mostly be doing it out of Heuston (Cork, Limerick, Galway), only Belfast operates out of Connolly. Most of the intercity Coach services also operate around O'Connell St. Most Dart and Commuter services also stop at Tara, so not a big deal IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Metro North is Luas! It runs fully segregated, and partially underground and as such can have longer vehicles, potentially driverless (a big no no in this forum, I should think). It is Luas+.

    given the population of swords i think more then luas+ would be needed. best to get it done now then having to come back later on.
    donvito99 wrote: »
    Such an alignment is proven to stand on its own merits, it doesn't require 'integration' as you put it, Dart underground is about integration.

    yes it could, however for it to be an even more flexible offering, and to give greater journey opportunities, it actually does require integration.
    donvito99 wrote: »
    If we were building from scratch, it would make sense for there to be one design ('integration') - and it would be a 'metro' (Luas+ to you and me).

    yes if you want to come back and have to fix it later, because the capacity of luas+ doesn't sound like it will be enough. luas is perfect for areas where there is a frequent bus service but which couldn't support heavy rail. swords doesn't fit that type of area in my view.
    donvito99 wrote: »
    The present network is a sunk cost. 'Integration' is an excuse for handicapping the best solutions.

    it's not an excuse for handicapping the best solutions. it's a necessary reason for implementing the best solutions that give more for the money. i'm not convinced luas+ is the best solution for the corridor being discussed.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    bk wrote: »
    If you are leaving Dublin, you would mostly be doing it out of Heuston (Cork, Limerick, Galway), only Belfast operates out of Connolly. Most of the intercity Coach services also operate around O'Connell St. Most Dart and Commuter services also stop at Tara, so not a big deal IMO.

    1. Only if going by rail

    2. Only if going by private bus most journeys leaving the GDA are still BE and not private buses. I'm saying Connolly/Bus Aras should be central to the MN/DU plans what I am saying they should be served by either/or.

    3. Only if travelling Intercity. Connolly is currently the busiest railway station in the country both in terms of passenger numbers and traffic, Pearse or Tara Street stations do not have the same capacity that Connolly has. If MN/DU were to serve Connolly it could mean that Western and Northern commuter trains wouldn't have to venture south of the river avoiding the loopline bridge currently the bigbest bottleneck on the IE netwotk as there would be a good link in place to allow the passengers travel further south.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99



    it's not an excuse for handicapping the best solutions. it's a necessary reason for implementing the best solutions that give more for the money. i'm not convinced luas+ is the best solution for the corridor being discussed.

    As has been discussed elsewhere, this will be, as near as makes no difference, Metro i.e. 1,435mm Metro as found elsewhere. It will certainly not have the capacity of Dart per vehicle, but that is negated by frequency and, as always when it comes to Irish Rail, reliability. Metro by design allows more stations and more kilometres of track and tunneling simply because it isn't as large or as heavy.

    You keep saying otherwise, but there really isn't anything that surpasses Metro as planned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    donvito99 wrote: »
    As has been discussed elsewhere, this will be, as near as makes no difference, Metro i.e. 1,435mm Metro as found elsewhere. It will certainly not have the capacity of Dart per vehicle, but that is negated by frequency and, as always when it comes to Irish Rail, reliability. Metro by design allows more stations and more kilometres of track and tunneling simply because it isn't as large or as heavy.

    You keep saying otherwise, but there really isn't anything that surpasses Metro as planned.

    Yes there is build the metro as planned withe tunnels but build as heavy rail with heavy rail characteristics like most metros on the continent. Rather than a longer Luas that runs underground. Build it like the Paris metro because that is best practice as to how a metro should be built.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    donvito99 wrote: »
    As has been discussed elsewhere, this will be, as near as makes no difference, Metro i.e. 1,435mm Metro as found elsewhere. It will certainly not have the capacity of Dart per vehicle, but that is negated by frequency and, as always when it comes to Irish Rail, reliability. Metro by design allows more stations and more kilometres of track and tunneling simply because it isn't as large or as heavy.

    You keep saying otherwise, but there really isn't anything that surpasses Metro as planned.

    Yes there is build the metro as planned withe tunnels but build as heavy rail with heavy rail characteristics like most metros on the continent. Rather than a longer Luas that runs underground. Build it like the Paris metro because that is best practice as to how a metro should be built.

    The Paris Metro is also Luas gauge.... 1435mm. So I guess we're following best practice with Dublin Metro.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    donvito99 wrote: »
    As has been discussed elsewhere, this will be, as near as makes no difference, Metro i.e. 1,435mm Metro as found elsewhere. It will certainly not have the capacity of Dart per vehicle, but that is negated by frequency and, as always when it comes to Irish Rail, reliability. Metro by design allows more stations and more kilometres of track and tunneling simply because it isn't as large or as heavy.

    heavy rail can offer more stations and more track as long as there is a will to build it. irish rail's reliability is an issue but that's not a reason against a heavy rail solution for this corridor which can integrate with the rest of that network, giving more journey opportunities and flexibility.
    donvito99 wrote: »
    You keep saying otherwise, but there really isn't anything that surpasses Metro as planned.

    building it as dart can do so in my opinion. modern signalling systems can allow for high frequencies these days, and when built chances are frequencies and train spacing will be hugely improved again.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭thomasj


    Stephen15 wrote:
    3. Only if travelling Intercity. Connolly is currently the busiest railway station in the country both in terms of passenger numbers and traffic, Pearse or Tara Street stations do not have the same capacity that Connolly has. If MN/DU were to serve Connolly it could mean that Western and Northern commuter trains wouldn't have to venture south of the river avoiding the loopline bridge currently the bigbest bottleneck on the IE netwotk as there would be a good link in place to allow the passengers travel further south.

    I think you forgot about the bottleneck coming into connolly .


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    That paragraph scares the crap out of me.. It only costs me 9.60 to go Cork Midleton..(i know including my 6 euros is fare) and that's reasonable, I'm assuming that doesn't include the capital expenditure for the rolling stock or the reinstatement of the line...
    . . . I'm going off the idea of trains except maybe Dublin city...

    Edited the above.. Thanks bk. 😀

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Yes there is build the metro as planned withe tunnels but build as heavy rail with heavy rail characteristics like most metros on the continent. Rather than a longer Luas that runs underground. Build it like the Paris metro because that is best practice as to how a metro should be built.

    Errr.. You do realise that what was originally proposed for Metro North, is pretty much the same as the Paris Metro!

    The Paris Metro runs on standard gauge 1,435 mm and uses 750v DC, exactly the same as Luas and proposed Metro North. The only difference being that Paris Metro uses third rail, while our systems use overhead power. Which is considered better for modern systems due to safety concerns around third rail systems.

    The point is our Metro is absolutely using the same characteristics of modern Metro systems around the world.

    There is absolutely no point in building it to heavy rail specs unless you actually plan on running intercity and freight services through the tunnel too, which we certainly don't want to do that! Doing so just increases the cost for little or no gain (see DU costing 4 billion versus 2 billion for MN).

    If your concern is DART's being longer and wanting the same for MN, then fair enough, I agree completely. But you don't need heavy rail or DART to do that. Just build longer stations and put longer trains on it, it can still use the same track gauge, power systems and signalling systems as Luas or Metros like in Paris, Barcelona, etc.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Markcheese wrote: »
    That paragraph scares the crap out of me.. It only costs me 9.60 to go Cork Midleton..(i know including my 6 euros is fare) and that's reasonable, I'm assuming that doesn't include the capital expenditure for the rolling stock or the reinstatement of the line...
    . . . I'm going off the idea of trains except maybe Dublin city...

    Actually, it costs €15.60, as the 9.60 is the extra amount on top of your fare!

    And that is actually quiet decent compared to many of the other lines!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    bk wrote: »

    The point is our Metro is absolutely using the same characteristics of modern Metro systems around the world.

    If it isn't painted two shades of green, running on 5' 3'', it'll never satisfy some on here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    bk wrote: »
    Errr.. You do realise that what was originally proposed for Metro North, is pretty much the same as the Paris Metro!

    The Paris Metro runs on standard gauge 1,435 mm and uses 750v DC, exactly the same as Luas and proposed Metro North. The only difference being that Paris Metro uses third rail, while our systems use overhead power. Which is considered better for modern systems due to safety concerns around third rail systems.
    The Paris Metro has suffered from buy French with its strange rubber wheel setup on ~50% of the system

    The point is our Metro is absolutely using the same characteristics of modern Metro systems around the world.
    Apart from the low floor element which is going to cost us more on the trains themselves. Plus you can share infrastructure if you go heavier, its done in Newcastle in the UK


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Plus you can share infrastructure if you go heavier, its done in Newcastle in the UK

    True, but DM isn't really planned to interact with the heavy rail network, with the exception of an underground station/interchange with Tara. So their isn't really any justification for the extra cost.

    Plus the downside of making Metro South upgrade WAY more difficult.

    On the other hand, if you were to scrap DU and go with an East-West Metro, then yes that would be a very valid point and worth discussing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99



    The point is our Metro is absolutely using the same characteristics of modern Metro systems around the world.
    Apart from the low floor element which is going to cost us more on the trains themselves. Plus you can share infrastructure if you go heavier, its done in Newcastle in the UK

    A large benefit of MN is the green line tie in. Modifications to platforms is a straightforward task. So a different vehicle to the current Luas is absolutely achievable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    We have been sold the whole Green Line thing for years but

    Green line is stuffed with level crossings once you get to Sandyford and the extension to Brides Glen in no way meets Metro standards. The RPA are on record at the public hearing basically saying there will not be no Metro


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    We have been sold the whole Green Line thing for years but

    Green line is stuffed with level crossings once you get to Sandyford and the extension to Brides Glen in no way meets Metro standards. The RPA are on record at the public hearing basically saying there will not be no Metro

    This has already been covered in detail on another thread, there aren't actually that many level crossings on the Green Line. Some work to be done of course, but nothing particularly difficult in the scheme of these sort of projects.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Green line is stuffed with level crossings once you get to Sandyford and the extension to Brides Glen in no way meets Metro standards. The RPA are on record at the public hearing basically saying there will not be no Metro

    Proof that extension isn't up to the original standard?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    So yes, just looked on Google Maps.

    Between Ranelagh and Sandyford you can see very clearly how it was designed for Metro. It really is very well segregated. Just 4 junctions would need to be dealt with, doesn't look to be anything difficult.

    Yes the extension to Brides Glen is less clean. Another 12 junctions. However that raises the question, would the extension even need to operate to full Metro standard?

    You could of course upgrade the stations along the extension to take the longer Metros, but those Metros could operate to slower speed along that stretch, only increasing speed and frequency from where they join at Sandyford.

    So you would have true Metro standard till Sandyford, operating at high speed and high frequency. Bridesglen extension would be slower speeds, but would still benefit from longer, bigger, Metro trams.

    Later as the Bridesglen extension gets busier, you could also start upgrading the 12 junctions to eliminate them.

    No need to necessarily do everything at the same time. It all looks like a very reasonable upgrade path.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Proof that extension isn't up to the original standard?

    I believe it was built with Metro standard distance between trains, like the rest of the Green line. So it will be compatible with Metro.

    But it does have a lot more street level junctions. So will be more work to upgrade, but certainly doable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    bk wrote: »
    I believe it was built with Metro standard distance between trains, like the rest of the Green line. So it will be compatible with Metro.

    But it does have a lot more street level junctions. So will be more work to upgrade, but certainly doable.

    In the grand scheme of MN, it's no reason to torpedo MN.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    donvito99 wrote: »
    In the grand scheme of MN, it's no reason to torpedo MN.

    But it does drive a conversation as to how MN should be specified.

    Basically what we are getting is a German Stadtbahn system. Now this is great in Dusseldorf a relatively small and dense city, but will it have the capacity we need?

    Watch this to see the underground to overground transition, https://youtu.be/uK86zXnVui8?t=369 bonus marks if you can figure out what is a little strange about the tram


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    But it does drive a conversation as to how MN should be specified.

    Basically what we are getting is a German Stadtbahn system. Now this is great in Dusseldorf a relatively small and dense city, but will it have the capacity we need?

    Watch this to see the underground to overground transition, https://youtu.be/uK86zXnVui8?t=369 bonus marks if you can figure out what is a little strange about the tram

    To be honest, that looks like a pretty awesome system!

    You can see in that video, even the above ground sections it has a great deal of segregation, with awesome center street running and pretty high speeds!

    It sort of shows that when you get into the details of this stuff, the whole "light rail" versus "heavy rail" thing starts to blur together and largely becomes irrelevant to just using what is needed to get the job done.

    S-Bahn is commuter rail like the DART, but in Berlin it is almost indistinguishable from U-Bahn as it has it's own dedicated tracks, separate from the heavy rail network. Many Stadtbahn's are also almost indistinguishable from U-Bahn, the reason this term is now used, because some cities Stadtbahn's don't go underground, so the U in U-Bahn wouldn't fit.

    BTW to your comment to Dusseldorf being a small, dense city. It's city and urban population are almost exactly the same as Dublin! Interestingly though, Dublins density is almost twice as high as Dusseldorf!! So you would think that a system like this would also be well suited to Dublin.

    BBTW Strange about the trams? They have doors to both left and right. The left doors are raised high for Metro style platforms, the right doors are lower for tram like platforms and yup pretty cool. But must involve steps, so bad for accessibility.

    But bringing all this back to your first point. I don't see how this would bring the specification of MN into question.

    Are you suggesting that MN should be built to Irish gauge, 1500V, with the track coming to an end at Stephens Green and then going nowhere!

    That doesn't seem sensible to me at all!

    The sensible thing to me is to build MN to standard gauge and to continue it along the green line south of Ranelagh. Close to 4 crossings, easy to do and fully segregate the line as far as Sandyford, with high speed running and high frequency as far as Sandyford, the most congested part of the tracks.

    For the Bridesglen extension, also upgrade it to partial Metro. Same trains as the rest of the Metro, but slower running speed and frequency. Basically have only every 2nd or 3rd Metro train go to Bridesglen, the rest stopping at Sandyford.

    Folks on the Bridesglen extension would still benefit from longer, bigger trains and the higher speed running from Sandyford to the Airport/Swords.

    Eventually as the numbers living along the Bridesglen section increase, you could also eventually close the 12 junctions and upgrade it to full high frequency Metro too.

    To be honest, this all sounds like a very reasonable plan, with good future upgrade-ability built in as demand increases. And don't forget about the eventual extension to Bray too.

    I honestly can't see any benefit in having the MN tunnel being heavy rail and terminating at Stephens Green. It just adds lots of extra cost and poorer integration.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    but will it have the capacity we need?

    What capacity do we need? 60 metre trams at 2 min frequencies is said to give 9,900 passengers per hour. 90 metre trams bumps that by a third.

    The tie in with the Green Line can't happen if we build on the MN alignment to an expensive heavy rail metro (whatever that is) unless you dig the damn thing up again.

    Again, the cost of remediating the route south of Sandyford is likely to be a fraction of the overall project cost whilst reaping huge rewards. What, other than ~90m long high floor vehicles could be done to address the capacity issue you raise?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    donvito99 wrote: »
    What capacity do we need? 60 metre trams at 2 min frequencies is said to give 9,900 passengers per hour. 90 metre trams bumps that by a third.

    Actually even 9900 phpd is low balling it.

    The new 54m Luas trams have a capacity 369, at a 2 minute frequency, that is 11,000. 60m trains, assuming they aren't wider (as was originally planned) would be 12,000 phpd. 90m trams would be 19,000 phpd or so.

    And even 90 seconds is possible in future. Just FYI.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    The central question/debate dealt with in this thread seems to me to be: do we spend less money, for more of a network (including the tie in with the Green Line) on MN for about 20,000 pph, or, do we spend more money for less of a network (the theory of more tunnel bores, less stations) but get capacity twice or three times that of MN pph.

    What I believe others are saying is if you spurred to Swords, the Airport etc, and if you built DU, you would have a far greater capacity - potentially 20 trains per hour thru DU as was originally advertised (although I'd like to see how they arrived at that figure given the existing Dart can only manage 4, and DU will still be dealing with capacity issues north of Connolly without even more expense on quad tracking).

    As a hypothetical, if you spent the ~€4/5bn cost of DU on another Metro alignment (South West Dublin, Lucan, N11 corridor, etc) you could potentially be doing much more for the city. The benefits of DU and heavy rail are clear, and the enormous costs equally so.


Advertisement