Metro Link to Airport [Merged Thread]

dmeehan

see today's indo:

how come this crowd can do it for so much less...
lookks like the tax payer was being ripped off, again

AN underground metro network for Dublin could be built for a fraction of the €4.6bn cost currently estimated by the Railway Procurement Agency, TDs were told yesterday.

The Dublin Metro Group (DMG) told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport it could provide an underground system here for the €600m it cost to extend Madrid's system - or just 13pc of the price currently being touted.

The committee was so impressed that it is to make a written recommendation that the group be allowed to present its plans directly to the special Cabinet subcommittee on infrastructure.

The DMG syndicate also pledges that it could complete the Dublin underground by the end of 2007, instead of the estimated 2016 at present, using the expertise of its partners in extending the Madrid system - a bigger project than envisaged in Dublin.

One of the Spanish lines has four stations with underground carparks and another with two bus stations. Ten metres below ground, line 7 is the most heavily used rail line in Spain and carries 485 trains a day.

Part of the suggested solution is to use smaller metro tunnels in Dublin. The port tunnels in Dublin will each be 60pc greater in cross-section than the underground ones. This would cut down on costs - yet still allow two sets of tracks per tunnel.

"Madrid proves that in the normal world, metros get built quickly for reasonable cost," said Cormac Rabbitt, spokesman for the DMG and a former local authority civil engineer in Dublin.

The DMG says it would build the metro if it was allowed to operate the system for 30 years. "The metro should be approached as a business opportunity which requires a State grant to get off the ground, and not just as provision of infrastructure by the State," said Mr Rabbitt.

Dublin Metro could include lines to the Airport, Tallaght/Templeogue, and a central circular line to link with the Bray, Howth, Blanchardstown and Sandyford lines to form a web of integrated public transport, DMG says.

Chairman of the committee, Eoin Ryan told the presentation team: "We would really like you to be right." He later said the Madrid stations were exemplary, but it was possible the Dublin Metro Group were being slightly naive in relation to the planning process.

"I think it is increasingly obvious that we need a 'common good' law whereby some developments, particularly in the case of an underground rail system, can be built without large scale planning delays," Mr Ryan said.

DMG claimed the times cale for route selection, environmental impact statement and compulsory purchase orders could be done for the underground in a fraction of the time needed for a surface road or rail scheme since it was more straightforward.

mike65

Another piece on the Metro in todays Tribune, which states pretty much the same points. Prog Manuel Melis who oversaw the Madrid Metro says it can be done in 3 and half years for 600 million.

I'd love to know how the figures quoted for the Dublin metro
were arrived at. The gaps so big as to suggest incompetence..surely not?!

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I'd love to know how the figures quoted for the Dublin metro
were arrived at. The gaps so big as to suggest incompetence..surely not?!

No, I think it suggests 2 different accounting methods. One is for the infrastrycture only, the other including everything + some unknown factor.

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
....+ some unknown factor.

Thats the bit that worries me! Its always the unknown factors that cause projects here to cost 2 oe 3 times the orgininal estimate. Its like money that slips down the back of the sofa writ very large.

Mike.

dmeehan

why cant the government go with fixed price contracts

i mean the whole point of a tendering process id for the govt. to decide which is the best deal, but the the price multiplies during the project, doesnt that make the whole tendering process a joke?

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
Thats the bit that worries me! Its always the unknown factors that cause projects here to cost 2 oe 3 times the orgininal estimate. Its like money that slips down the back of the sofa writ very large.

Actually, I recollect somethinga bout the entire system costing close to €20bn - but that included 20-30 years running costs, without allowing for income. So yes, they are 2 very different figures.

dmeehan, the problem with the tendering are:

(a) no one has a crystal ball that can tell what will happen at the end of the project.

(b) handing all risk to a tenderer can be dangerous, if none of them likes the project for whatever reason, you can end up paying an extortionate amount of money. They will add for any risk they foresee.

(c) politicians and civil servants want to keep their fingers in as many pies as possible

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/900491?view=Eircomnet

Brennan aims to save €1.4bn on airport metro
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 19th June, 2003

An underground metro for Dublin could be built in less than a year for €3.4 billion or less, if 24-hour tunnelling, shorter consultation periods and a new Dublin Metro Bill were introduced, the Minister for Transport, Mr Brennan, said last night. Sorcha Crowley reports.

The original Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) estimate of €4.8 billion for a 12 km metro from Dublin Airport to the city centre has been revised down to €3.4 billion, a saving of €1.4 billion, after pressure from the Minister.

The revised figure includes a construction cost of €1. 5 billion, a saving of €700 million on the original construction cost.

"The Dublin metro is back on the horizon and agenda," said Mr Brennan. "The Government will now consider this fresh information and decide how to proceed," he said. The Minister received advice on the project from the president of the Madrid metro, Prof Manuel Melis Maynar.

"The Government asked me to look at the Madrid situation and I was very impressed with what I saw," said Mr Brennan.

He warned however that if Dublin was going to build the metro Spanish style, it would come at a cost. "This won't be done without some pain and that pain is the loss of the luxury of a consultation period. We want the two and a half years period to be brought down to eight months," he said.

"Issues of Environmental Impact Studies, Rights of Appeal, Compulsory Purchase Orders, house ownership and 24-hour tunnelling will be addressed in a Dublin Metro Bill," said Mr Brennan.

The Minister admitted the Bill would entail a massive legal and political battle but said that if they won, it would open up new possibilities for other infrastructure projects around Ireland.

The RPA analysed the Madrid metro and applied the same savings to the Dublin metro project.

They revised the line to take a shorter route and used the Spanish idea of having all stations the same to save money.

Mr Brennan also said that if the Spanish government could have a metro built nine months after their decision was made, Ireland could do the same. "From the decision date to the sod turning, took the Spaniards nine months but would take two and a half years here. The RPA have been asked if they can crunch that down to one year or less," he said.

Supporting Mr Brennan's view that the metro can be built faster and cheaper, Prof Maynar said Dublin had excellent soil, wide streets and excellent engineers for a metro. But Dublin did have a problem with property ownership, he said.

"If you own a house here, you own down to the centre of the earth. In Spain, after a gap of 10 metres deep, we give 20 metres for public facilities such as metros and then you own the rest below that," said Prof Maynar.

The Irish system of tunnelling for 8-9 hours and then stopping was also an obstacle, he said.

sceptre

Part of the suggested solution is to use smaller metro tunnels in Dublin. The port tunnels in Dublin will each be 60pc greater in cross-section than the underground ones. This would cut down on costs - yet still allow two sets of tracks per tunnel.

I'm going to assume the above means they'll be using a two-track system (like in London) rather than a four-track system like in New York (someone please tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly).

News flash then before people complain in a few years time: it won't ever be a 24-hour service.

flav0rflav

Why can't it be a one-track in a circle that goes one direction with a single train the same length as the circle and it stops and starts every 2 mins?

huh? cheap no?

sligoliner

:Why can't it be a one-track in a circle that goes one direction :with a single train the same length as the circle and it :stops and starts every 2 mins?

What happens if one of the trains breaks down and you need to get the rescue locomotive to tow it out of the way?

The double tracks are not only for running trains in both directions. They also allow for cross-overs to connect each running line to the other. If a train on the UP line breaks down a rescue locomotive goes along the DOWN line until it comes to the next cross-over, then it reverses onto the UP track to reach the broken train. It couples with it and pulls it in the wrng direction on the UP line and then via the cross-over onto the DOWN line and out of the way and the systems is up and running in no time.

The locomotives used in metros are little electic powered shunters. I used to see them late at night in the subways when I lived in New York.

Isn't learning about railways and how they work in coutries where they actually work interesting? You don't have have

No disrepect flav0rflav, but what you suggested is Irish Rail type "logic" and what they have done on the Sligo and Galway route they have taken out the passing loops at stations so when one train breaks down on the single track there is no way to rescue it for two reasons: the train has to be repaired, on the spot if no loco is ahead of it and Irish Rail are scapping most of the locomotives just beacuse they want to get out of freight.

But at least you can be forgiven for not calling yourself a 'railway professional'

Victor

My experience in New York (mostly Manhattan and Queens) was suburban lines had 3 tracks (the central line would operate as a semi-express with the rush hour traffic) and city ones 4. By using semi-express trains it cut journey time in half and massively utilised capacity. I would prefer the Airport line to have at least 3 tracks to enable a lot of airport trains to operate at least semi-express, if not express (fully express has interchange disadvantages), cutting journey time from perhaps 20 minutes to perhaps under 10 minutes.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/904826?view=Eircomnet

Dublin metro could be built by 2006 for Euro 1.5bn
From:ireland.com
Friday, 20th June, 2003

Dublin's underground metro system could be built by 2006 for as little as €1.5 billion, the president of the Madrid metro system has claimed. The figure is less than half the revised €3.4 billion costing revealed by the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) on Wednesday.

Addressing the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport yesterday, Prof Manuel Melis Maynar urged Ireland to fast-track infrastructure planning and construction.

He said there were five times more people than needed working on major projects in the Republic.

He added that plans for the new metro in Dublin could be ready by February. A two-month public consultation period could take place, with "authorities" given three months. Any changes arising from the consultation process should be finalised within two weeks.

The State should be less willing to pay substantial fees to "consultants who consultant with consultants and advisers who advise advisers".

"It is up to legislators to clear the way," he said.

Speed and dedication by those with a passion for engineering where the key to building a major metro system as quickly and as cost-effective as possible.

"Most consultants will tell you you need years to design (a metro) but this is not the case. Any more than a year and it cost more money and more time. When they built the channel tunnel it took them two years to design the carriages, that was why it was such a financial disaster.

"In the next three years you could have a metro. But it would be tunnelling 24 hours a day, 365 days a week, no holidays. But as engineers this is our life; if you want to build a metro it is a serious business."

He said the carriages for the system could be ordered by November 2004, and tendering for tunnelling and other work should take no more than two months. If that schedule was adhered to there was no reason why Dublin could not have a metro system by 2006.

"In Paris at the beginning of the century they built the metro from foundations to opening in 20 months. They had no plant and machinery. Why do consultants tell us that now, 100 years later, it should take five or six years?"

Prof Melis Maynar added it was estimated the Madrid system had saved commuters 12 million hours in travel time per year. Each hour was worth between €10 and €12.

"The system paid for itself within six years. And then you have to take into account all of the environmental improvements and easing of congestion because there are fewer cars on the roads."

Stations should be built overground and then "cut and shut" into the earth. Each station should be ready when cutting gear beneath the surface arrives.

The Irish should keep the project simple. "You should avoid exhibition-type stations. You are in a tunnel, why do you need beauty? Nobody cares."

Irish laws should be changed which would allow the State acquire the land beneath houses for a set price.

Health and safety officials were generally negative people "telling you you can't do this and that", and so they should be included in the planning process and "not point out problems later".

Because the Dublin metro would not be high-speed, two tracks should run in the one tunnel. In that way if a crash occurred a support train could arrive quickly on the free track.

If the Dublin system operated on speeds no more than 80 kilometres per hour even if a train crashed it is possible there would be few fatalities or perhaps even none at all.

sceptre

"In Paris at the beginning of the century they built the metro from foundations to opening in 20 months. They had no plant and machinery. Why do consultants tell us that now, 100 years later, it should take five or six years?"

Wasn't much of the Paris metro built using a cut and cover method? Like the bulk of the Metropolitan line in London (i.e. no drilling at all)?

sligoliner

Yes Victor, I remember the three tracks of the No7 line in Queens was excellent. The peak time only Express centre line was a brilliant solution.

When you really think about it the Metro should run from Swords, Airport, Ballymun, Drumcondra (IE Interchange if the Phoenix Park route is opened for Hueston), O'Connell Street (LUAS interchange), Pearse (IE), Stpehen’s Green (LUAS) that would be enough for a fairly well integrated network of a single line.

The airport should also be heavy rail line and I was listening to Platform11 talking about a high-speed line from Dunboyne to Clonsilla based on the Oslo airport line. At first the distance seem too long but this was to be compensated by speed, which is how the problem was sloved in Oslo. The journey time from Clonsilla to the airport would be about 10 mins as the train would be travelling at 125mph after Clonsilla. This would allow a Manchester airport style service not only connecting the airport with Dublin and its western suburbs but with the Galway, Mayo and Sligo lines and if the Navan route is reopened (it would be mental if it didn't) the whole thing would form an inland relife line for the Northen line using exsisting alingments.

sligoliner

:Wasn't much of the Paris metro built using a cut and cover :method? Like the bulk of the Metropolitan line in London :(i.e. no drilling at all)?


Yes. Only drilling under the river.

jd

Originally posted by sligoliner
[BWhen you really think about it the Metro should run from Swords, Airport, Ballymun, Drumcondra (IE Interchange if the Phoenix Park route is opened for Hueston), O'Connell Street (LUAS interchange), Pearse (IE), Stpehen’s Green (LUAS) that would be enough for a fairly well integrated network of a single line.

[/B]

Wouldnt Santry, rather than Ballymun, be a more direct route if they wanted to shave a few more million off-I think Ballymun would be served by the Luas anyway

sligoliner

>Wouldnt Santry, rather than Ballymun, be a more direct route if >they wanted to shave a few more million off-I think Ballymun >would be served by the Luas anyway

Yes you are correct, probably the best location would be on the border of the two neighbourhoods. Near the Swiss Cottege?

flav0rflav

Trains breakdown?!

What century are we in? Maintenance means never breaking.

If you'd said crash I wouldn't have had a single leg to stand on.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/915974?view=Eircomnet

Key metro links are axed to save €700m
From:The Irish Independent
Monday, 23rd June, 2003
Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent

THE revised metro from Dublin Airport is to go straight into O'Connell Street, by-passing key city centre rail stations to save €700m, it was learned last night.

Planned interchanges at two of the country's business junctions, Connolly and Pearse rail stations, have been scrapped.

Instead the new cost-cutting plan - drawn up by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) - involves the metro taking a totally new route running into "the heart of the city".

There will now be stops at O'Connell Street and D'Olier Street. The plan, seen by this newspaper, involves an underground moving escalator to link the D'Olier Street stop with Tara Street rail station.

This shorter, more direct link between Dublin Airport and O'Connell Street is now to get the green light.

That is instead of a route looping north-east over to Connolly and Pearse stations.

The revised plan explains the cuts in the construction cost of the project from €2.2bn to €1.5bn.

That was designed to bring it into line with the Madrid metro, delivered at a fraction of the cost of metro systems in other European cities.

The RPA report says: "This means the metro will not interchange with Connolly and Pearse Dart stations as previously proposed, but instead will serve the heart of the city with stops in O'Connell Street and D'Olier Street where there will be a good interchange with Tara Street via an underground escalator.

"More savings come from adopting station designs that are more functional as in Madrid, without elaborate architecture. Some of the cost savings are dependent on contractors being allowed to tunnel 24-hours a day.

And the report added: "RPA is also investigating the benefits of adopting a single twin track tunnel as opposed to two single-track tunnels."

It is understood the success of the project will depend on fast-tracking the planning and consultation process which would otherwise last at least three years. In Madrid it was eight months.

RPA sources insisted last night its proposals have been developed following extensive consultation with industry players worldwide but that it was now clear that early commentaries were not comparing like with like.

Transport Minister, Seamus Brennan is to bring a Critical Infrastructure Bill before the Cabinet as a matter or urgency to shorten the normal statutory process.

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport Chairman, Eoin Ryan TD has written to the RPA asking for full details of the costs involved in all of its main projects including the metro and Luas.

The move follows the shock disclosure that the agency had revised the estimated cost of the metro project from €4.8bn to €3.4bn after investigating the metro system in Madrid.

Construction costs have been cut from €2.2bn to €1.5bn while insurance, financing, design, VAT and inflation are included in the overall €3.4bn cost.

maxheadroom

This seems idiotic - what if you want to get a train to the airport from Cork. Or Sligo? You'd have to get off in Pearse or Connolly and walk to the metro. The last thing this city needs is more unintegrated rail transport.

Winters

In Germany the DB ICE trains have rail terminals in virtually all of the country's international airports. This makes it possible to travel from the airport onwards without having to double back via the city centre.

An airport express line is by far the wiser and more economical answer to Dublins lack of integration between the busiest passenger treminal in the country and the city centre.

Either a spur from the Consilla line or even from the Ashtown station up adjacent to Dunsink Tiphead and over the M50 at the N2 interchange and through into the centre of the Collinstown plot to feed both the existing terminal and the proposed Terminal 2. (T2)

Unfortunately the best route has been ignored for too long. A spur from the Northern line would have been the shortest distance but with the capacity issues on that stretch all the traffic would be even slower.

Heres an idea, once the Spencer Dock is open with its planned underground platforms then running the Airport express down the Midland line hence seperating it from other traffic would make it reach the city centre faster than on any other track. Spencer Dock could then be classified as an international station and run accordingly. Hopefully..

Any ideas?

sligoliner

:Heres an idea, once the Spencer Dock is open with its planned :underground platforms then running the Airport express :down the Midland line hence seperating it from other :traffic would make it reach the city centre faster than on :any other track. Spencer Dock could then be classified as an :international station and run accordingly.

Nothing further to add. There ya go.

seamus

Originally posted by maxheadroom
This seems idiotic - what if you want to get a train to the airport from Cork. Or Sligo? You'd have to get off in Pearse or Connolly and walk to the metro. The last thing this city needs is more unintegrated rail transport.

God forbid you had to walk 5 minutes to get another train :rolleyes:

No, I hear what you're saying, but to spend ridiculous amounts of money just so we can link some stations, that are too close together anyway is complete nonsense.
I assume there'll be some sort of link to Heuston St, or at least a shuttle bus service. I'd be strongly in favour of getting the thing built now, quickly and cheaply, and worrying about seamless integration later.

The DMG says it would build the metro if it was allowed to operate the system for 30 years. "The metro should be approached as a business opportunity which requires a State grant to get off the ground, and not just as provision of infrastructure by the State," said Mr Rabbitt.

That's the icing on the cake. Removing the service from the public sector. The company will be interested in good service and good conditions to maximise profits. If the privatisation of the bus services go ahead, they'll also have to compete, which is even better.

dmeehan

the new planned route for the metro thru o'connel st will have a interchange with the luas which in turn has an interchange with BOTH connolly and hueston stations (this would be even better with integrated ticketing!!)

big deal if you have to change:rolleyes: get over it.

we cant all have a direct connection from where we live to where we want to go

maxheadroom

Can I point out that people usually go to the airport with bags. Sometimes lots of bags. Sometimes heavy bags. Sometimes lots of heavy bags. By not having a link with main-line rail, this will force people to get off the train, drag their luggage to the metro, then get on the airport train.

Do any main line services terminate in pearse?

And nobody's asking for a "direct connection from where we live to where we want to go" - all I'm saying is that they should aim to reduce the amount of hassle when changing trains. Look at barcelona for a good example of this.

dmeehan

if the "metro" finished in connolly, people for the city centre could get a luas

any takers?

dmeehan

or is it *EVENTUALLY* supposed to connect with the (upgraded-)luas line from the green to sandyford

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
God forbid you had to walk 5 minutes to get another train :rolleyes:

Try it with two large pieces of luggage and a screaming toddler in a buggy

Victor

Date: Tuesday 24th June 2003 Time: 13:30
From: Denis Naughten TD, spokesperson for Transport
Issued by: Fine Gael National Press Office, Leinster House, Dublin 2. Tel: 01- 618 3379
Contact: Nick Miller 01 6183379/086 6992080
FG metro plan would solve airport link problem - Naughten

A Fine Gael-backed plan to re-open the Phoenix Park underground rail line would also solve the problem of providing a link between Connolly Station and Dublin Airport at a stroke, Fine Gael transport spokesperson Denis Naughten TD said today (Monday).

"It emerged today that the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has proposed running the new Dublin Airport metro straight into the city centre, bypassing Connolly and Pearse Street Stations.

"The RPA apparently believes this would shave €700 million off the cost of building the metro. Yet it clearly makes little sense to passengers, who would have to make their own way to Connolly and Heuston Stations.

"However, proposals put forward by Fine Gael and the Platform 11 pressure group to re-open the disused Phoenix Park line would provide a cheap and effective solution to this problem.

"Not only would the underground Phoenix Park line provide a link between Connolly and Heuston stations, it could also provide a link to the new airport metro.

"The Phoenix Park line could be re-opened at a cost of €75 million, which is €925 million less than proposals by the Transport Minister, Seamus Brennan, to build a new dedicated underground line between Heuston and Connolly Stations."

dmeehan

The Phoenix Park line could be re-opened at a cost of €75 million

where are they getting this from? isnt it able to take trains at present?

Winters

Im not denying that its a brilliant idea but Yes, i would love to know where the €75 million is coming from. As far as i know trains can travel through it as we speak. Perhaps some maintenence on the line but it shouldnt cost that much.

Ill find out tonight at the Phibsboro meeting.

As far as the connector is concerned, i feel CIE will balk at the idea of allocating, purchasing or leasing new carriages to shuttle to and from Heuston and the idea of such a short journey.

The Kildare arrow should be rerouted to Pearse through the Phoenix Park Tunnel stopping at Heuston - Platform 10 (there is bus servise to and from the main station) and stopping at Drumcondra, Connolly and Pearse.

I know the loop is already at capacity ( no doubt due to old signalisation) but by stopping the crazy overlapping of the Arklow and Dundalk commuters then there should be room to terminate the Kildare arrow in Pearse.

We all know that the majority of the Kildare passengers would perfer...nay..love to be dropped closer to the city/shops and workplaces than Heuston. The Kirdare arrow would then also serve as a connector ala Platform11 serving all of Dublins major stations.

Heuston could then be seen as more of an Intercity/long distance station rather than entertaining commuters who, during the week, only wish to go to their workplace and home.

I mean common sense is seriously lacking somewhere in the heirarchy of CIE.

Regards

Mark Bishop

flav0rflav

Eh, I may be arriving here a bit late, but looking at from here, it appears we are paying 4 billion for a train from the airport to O'Connell Street, and nothing more.

I go to the airport once a year. I travel to work everyday. I'm not that unusual. Madrid's project was merely an extension of an existing city system to the airport. Is this value for money? Is a metro not supposed to be for moving around a city?

Winters

Thats a very good point and should be brought up in the meeting tonight.

The reasons why some large European airports such as London Heathrow, Berlin Brandenburg International and Madrid Barajas have metro and light rail links is mainly due to the large numbers of people that work there and short hop flights.

Eventually Dublin Airport should have a link to the city centre via metro or LRT but a heavy rail link is by far the best and cheapest option now. It can be achieved in a shorter time frame too. All of the above airports have heavy rail links working alongside the other forms of transport.

The government and the LRPA are trying desperately to kill two birds with the same stone, namely a public transport system through the northside of the city and an airport link.
Mark

Victor

Originally posted by dmeehan
where are they getting this from? isnt it able to take trains at present?

Mostly on new stations and some junction work + setup costs.

mike65

Minister Brennan has uped the ante again by demanding that the scheme be bought in at no more than 2 billion, whatsmore Prof
Manuel Melis who oversaw the Madrid metro is being installed on the commitee thingy that overses the project...

Mike.

sligoliner

An alternative to the metro based on international proven sucess (and it cost a lot less)

http://www.platform11.org/airrailxp.html

Borzoi

Originally posted by sligoliner
An alternative to the metro based on international proven sucess (and it cost a lot less)

http://www.platform11.org/airrailxp.html

from the site

City Centre to Airport travel times will be approximately 30-40 mins

At those times why bother? The aircoach service is as quick. There is no point in building a great rail network that does not improve the time to travel from A to B.

sligoliner

>At those times why bother? The aircoach service is as quick.

Now it is. Wait until the 50 miles of M1 traffic is trying to force itself into the eye of a needle at Whitehall.

>There is no point in building a great rail network that does not >improve the time to travel from A to B.

"Great"! It's a few miles long and serves the entire country, not just Dublin.

maxheadroom

Originally posted by Borzoi
There is no point in building a great rail network that does not improve the time to travel from A to B.

I tend to disagree - convenience and comfort is more important than speed.

sligoliner

>convenience and comfort is more important than speed.

You are right and most people in Europe agree. You can also discharge 200 passengers and their luggage out of the AirRail trains at one time through 8 doors - the doors close and 200 more and their luggae board within a couple of minutes and it shoots back to the airport and you can double that figure if you couple two train sets together - try doing that on an bus. You can't. The bus is great for local service from the airport. Not ideal for the laptop crowd is it?

Also, what bus can travel at 200kms per hour? If you were to arrive in a foreign city for the first time what would you chose?

sligoliner

I think the Platform11 idea makes good sense. But I have to wonder if they are just creating one more thing for irish Rail to make a mess of? I think both the Metro and this idea could work together - lets be honest Dublin airport is only going to get bigger and the regional airports will always be small. Dublin Airport is really the national airport and it makes sense to feed the national rail system into it regardless of Metro.


from Irish Examiner July 8, 2003


Group claims airport rail link will save billions

By Seán McCárthaigh
A TRANSPORT campaign group claims it could provide an alternative rail system to the proposed metro link to Dublin Airport that would save the Exchequer billions of euro.


Platform 11 estimates that its proposal for an over-ground link to the airport, incorporating existing railway track, could be built for just €350m.

The group points out that its AirRail Express option would provide a link cheaper and sooner than the revised €2.5 billion cost of the Government’s metro plans.

“In addition, it will not cause any disruption to the commercial life of Dublin city during construction as well as integrating fully into the DART, Luas and Inter-City rail,” said spokesperson Thomas Sheridan.

He said the proposal was based on proven international practice of having a heavy rail line serve a major airport. Mr Sheridan said such a line in Dublin would not just help link the airport to Dublin city centre but to entire regions of the country.

He pointed out that similar system already operated successfully at airports in Frankfurt, London Stansted, Manchester, Amsterdam and Milan.

The group vehemently opposes the Government’s preferred option of a metro link from the city centre to the airport because it would not integrate with the existing main rail network.

“The proposed airport metro concept is based on getting people out of Dublin Airport into central Dublin and is not a transport solution. It is just sending the problem 10km south,” said Mr Sheridan.

He pointed out that AirRail Express would involve track being built almost entirely on open, flat countryside, compared to the Government’s metro option which would see the line cut through heavily-developed urban areas. For this reason, the group claims its proposal could be delivered in a shorter timeframe and at a lower cost.

“The real strength of Platform 11’s AirRail Express Network is that it delivers an integrated rail transport solution to a vast area of the nation with economic, tourism and social gains to anywhere in Ireland where a rail line exists,” said Mr Sheridan

Borzoi

In all honesty sligoliner, you seem to missing the point.

the Europeans that have rail links to airports, have direct ones.

For instance Frankfurt connection is a spur line that goes directly to the airport (takes about 10mins). Any train that starts in the airport goes into F'furt then onto further destinations (like Hamburg, Berlin etc)

Building a line that will result in a 30-40 min journey to a city cente destination is, IMO, pointless.

If you want to copy what others have done, don't just copy the outline, do it right. What you have propoed is I feel a half assed measure - somewhat like our Luas system, but that's another debate.

(BTW sorry Vistor for the thread split - can you merge 'em back to follow. Ta)

Victor

Originally posted by maxheadroom
I tend to disagree - convenience and comfort is more important than speed.

Not necessarily - people are willing to stand on a ten minute train ride (after sitting on a plane for 3 hours), but not on a 20-30 minute one. An airport route should balance the needs of business travellers (probably willing to pay for a better service, even on a short trip), other airport travellers and local journeys.

Victor

Threads merged and renamed.

Victor

Originally posted by sligoliner
Now it is. Wait until the 50 miles of M1 traffic is trying to force itself into the eye of a needle at Whitehall.

Hence the Port Tunnel. I imagine Whitehall / Drumcondra being reworked when the tunnel removes most of the traffic, especially where it is down to 2 lanes.

antoinolachtnai

By my reckoning, you will be able to get from the IFSC to the airport in around 22 minutes by bus when the Port Tunnel opens.

Remember that a train will not pick you up from pavement level and leave you at the centre of the terminal in the way that a bus can.

If the bus is that fast, why bother with the rail link at all?

Many major cities depend on road transport for their links with the airports. This includes cities where the airport is far more distant from the city than is the case in Dublin.

For example, to travel to Narita airport from Tokyo, you take the metro and connect at T-CAT (Tokyo City Air Terminal) to get the bus to the airport. It's a great service and they carry 6m passengers a year, even though there is an alternative train service.

Kuala Lumpur is also linked with KLIA mainly by road.

Remember too that a train or metro service to Dublin Airport would not be non-stop, because we don't have the express lines we need.

a.

Winters

The majority of currently operating Airport Expresses have not more than 3 stops. Hence the name "express". Stopping the train 5 times before even arriving in the city centre is madness.

By routing the Airport Express through either Dunsink or Dunboyne as previously posted and only stopping at the Airport, Phibsboro* and Spencer Dock/Connolly would mean an approx travel time of 25 mins. That's kinda average compared to Stansted, Heathrow, Manchester et al.

Up the midland line and some of your track is already existing and only in need of upgrade to cwr.

* Phibsboro ala P11 being an intersection with regional trains on the Drumcondra line.

Ps. i sincerely doubt the Aircoach buses will use the DPT as they have pick up points up along the N1 in town.

sligoliner

This seems idiotic - what if you want to get a train to the airport from Cork. Or Sligo? You'd have to get off in Pearse or Connolly and walk to the metro. The last thing this city needs is more unintegrated rail transport.

spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...spencer dock...

Victor

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
Remember that a train will not pick you up from pavement level and leave you at the centre of the terminal in the way that a bus can.

But not everyone will seek a "pavement level" connection - most will want an interchange to other transport services, to get much closer to their destination.

While Dublin has a high rate of public transport usage for passengers (among airports without rail services), it has a low rate for staff (it is the staff that cause peak usage) and it has a lower rate than airports with multi-mode public transport. Imagine being able to get a train direct from Belfast or Drogheda (and many other places) direct to Dublin Airport. It would massively improve access to the regions and empower them. Non-Dublin originating travellers account for a huge amount of road traffic to the airport.

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
If the bus is that fast, why bother with the rail link at all?.

Capacity and more reliable journey times.

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
Many major cities depend on road transport for their links with the airports. This includes cities where the airport is far more distant from the city than is the case in Dublin.

Quite a few do, however new main airports are invariably built with rail links.

silverside

IMO:

A direct route via dunsink / phibsboro / drumcondra might be cheaper to build. It might also save a few minutes off the journey time direct to the city centre, even though its taking a big sweep through green fields.

However it does nothing towards an integrated transport solution for Dublin, which is the key thing. Never mind the people who are just going to the airport, as has been said, with the port tunnel they will be able get to the city centre quite quickly by bus. The DART has a lot of stops but it's still reasonably quick and very popular.

The key thing is to provide proper transport to the people of the northside (Ballymun, Santry, Drumcondra) and link in with the rest of the Metro whenever it finally gets built (the Sandyford line, and in time, the Tallaght line and the westside loop).

Liking in with the Maynooth line at drumcondra and the Dart in either connolly/tara st/pearse would seem an obvious advantage : - I think we can ignore the Tallaght Luas line as it will be just a glorified bus lane.

Has anyone got details on how the figure of 4 billion odd was got down to 2 billion odd (e.g. Change from twin-track to single track : Save X; Drop the Dart interchange save Y; fewer stations save Z). I know some of the figures are not directly comparable as they use different accounting methods. Surely if a half dozen big international rail construction companies come up with a quote, the best one can't be too far off the mark?

I don't believe that the railway planners are the incompetents that some commentators are making them out to be - I think Seamus Brennan may be going a bit overboard with the cost cutting.

I'd also be interested to see what John Henry and the DTO are making of all this - I get the impression he's seen as a dreamer, and he sees Seamus Brennan as a smooth-talking politician.

I try to keep up with this in the newspapers, but a lot of the articles are simply rehashing soundbites. Some of ye seem quite well informed - where do you hear about it all?

antoinolachtnai

i get the impression they got most of the change in price by:

moving from twin-tunnel to single-tunnel

having simpler stations

not trying to link with the busiest stations

cutting the consulting fees

tunnelling 24-hours-a-day

You are quite right that the exact source of the savings is very unclear.

Cuts in property cost (as distinct from construction cost) also come from changing the law about who owns the ground between 10m and 60m below the surface.

Also, changes in the way public enquiries around the project are carried out are proposed. This would make the whole thing a lot more streamlined.

The finance cost (interest, bankers fees, legal fees relating to the mortgage/bond/loan/whatever) is also being played down.

There was also a provision in the original costing for a contingency. This is now being talked down.

You don't get a 'quote' from a building company for this type of work. You get an estimate. Because it is impossible to change builder half-way through the project, you have to be sure you trust the builder before you start, and you have to be convinced that the estimates are realistic.

Putting in a low-ball estimate at the beginning of the project and then jacking it up by adding on for unforeseen 'extras'is a well-established tradition in all parts of the building industry. Tunnel-digging is particularly prone to it.

Also remember: there is no way to know how much it will cost to build something that involves deep tunneling. Anyone who tells you they can accurately predict the cost of a tunneling project before it begins is a liar.

Basically, the way contracting for tunnelling works is that you decide you really really really need the tunnel, then you dig a hole, and then you pour money into the hole until you come out at the other end. There is no point in starting if you are not willing to accept this principle.

So it is up to the developer (i.e., the State) to fully evaluate, understand and take responsibility for the costings. You can't leave it to the developers.

The railway planner guy is Frank Allen. Allen is considered an absolutely excellent banker, and I agree that the work he has done on making the pricing as up-front and transparent as possible has been excellent. Notwithstanding the above, it is the first time the Irish taxpayer has ever been given a proper realistic estimate for a major public works project.

However, he is not an engineer or urban planner by profession. So it is quite plausible that the Spanish suggestions are adding some real value to the work he has already done.

The biggest problem with transport in Dublin, in my opinion, is not lack of planning or lack of integration. The problem is that we talk too much and too long and never actually do anything. There are so many projects on the long finger.

Look at the following list of projects: The northside Luas, the sandymount tunnel for the M50, the metro, the switching upgrade on the loop line, ordering new carriages, lengthening platforms, having an integrated ticketing system, the airport link. All these good ideas have been on the drawing-board for at least 10 years, but are happening very slowly indeed. I could give loads of other examples. The Luas has been in planning since at least 1972, and is only now coming to fruition.

We have to start making decisions and doing things faster to get this problem solved.

flav0rflav

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
Also remember: there is no way to know how much it will cost to build something that involves deep tunneling. Anyone who tells you they can accurately predict the cost of a tunneling project before it begins is a liar.

Why do you say this?

Now I don't know alot about tunnelling, but it surely isn't rocket science, and if it is, then they would develop significant up front abilities to estimate and cost projects, using surveying, testing drilling etc. No?

I am continually appalled at the lack of inclination to plan projects correctly, never mind the actually ability to plan it.