Metro North open days

antoinolachtnai

I agree. Is there really no way to bring the station in overground to the space where the surface car park currently is? The building density at Dublin Airport just isn't that high, something can be moved if necessary.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have used Manchester rail link quite a few times and it is absolutely fantastic. Much much better than the previous public transport options to the airport. As John R has stated, Manchester Airport is bigger than Dublin airport and the station is located between the terminals rather than positioned quite a distance from a terminal like the proposal for Dublin.

It should also be noted that the connectivity to Manchester Airport from the surrounding railway routes is far superior to anything that is proposed for Dublin Airport

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

....It's not true that a bus service can't provide the capacity of rail. There's a bus lane in NYC that carries 10,000 people/hour in one direction (that's a bus every twenty seconds, which is very feasible). The peaks of transport demand at the airport aren't that big anyway (see below).

Comparing the cost of rolling stock + rails to buses + share of road depreciation is always great fun. Let's not go there too much. But suffice to say, buses are a lot cheaper to buy, and even though a train lasts 30 years, it is an expensive capital item and requires significant capital investment over the years to sustain it. The Port Tunnel is a sunk cost (literally and figuratively) so you wouldn't factor it in. Also, bus drivers are a lot easier to train, cheaper to employ, and there is a readily available labour pool.

There is something interesting about airport traffic that makes a difference to the argument. The demand is much more evenly spread out through the day compared to a commuter line. By my quick reckoning, the maximum number of people who can arrive at the the airport is around 5000 per hour (because of runway constraints). Only 20 percent of those are expected to take the metro. So that will be 1000 people per hour, which is not really a tremendous amount for a train system with a capacity of over 6000 people per hour, and that level of demand will only happen 15 years or so from now, and only a few times per year.

That, plus the fact that we still have to find a public transport alternative for the other 80 percent of trips that almost certainly won't go to the metro, is why I think we have to take bus services at the airport a lot more seriously. Also, we could have a comprehensive bus system at the airport and for Swords within 12 months, which would be worth having while we wait until 2013 for the Metro.

Wasn't one of the big lessons from the Madrid experience that single-bore was cheaper than twin-bore? I read in the O'Reilly report (which I admit is not my idea of a well-argued document) that this would result in a saving of over EUR 100m.

I just think that this mezzanine-free arrangement is going to be too expensive. I agree that it would be nice to have, but the only way to deal with antisocial behaviour on an underground train system is through policing.

I worry that some of the features in the metro proposal are gold-plating (and I include in that the airport link). It is important to focus on the core of what will make a really good transport system. We have to be wary of investing in expensive extras that would be nice to have, but which aren't really essential.

I don't get why people don't realise that we need to plan FOR THE FURURE. That's why public transport is in such a bad state at the moment. There is little or no intergration to start off. Also, the reason Metro was chosen is because it will be completely segregated from traffic unlike a Luas and definitely a bus! About New York and their 10,000 an hour bus - I'm sure New York has much better road infrastructure than Dublin. If you have a 20 second frequency bus in Dublin Airport they will back up all over the place! I also think that people would rather take rail than bus. Rail is far more efficient than buses.

The DART and Luas are two brilliant examples of that and they carry millions of journeys a year. Don't forget that the Metro is not only for Dublin Airport...its for a much wider area, and don't forget about Metro West and suburban rail linking in, which will have a huge impact with loads of people connecting from large suburbs and satellite towns of Dublin if there are proper interchanges...

Talk about waste of public money, but when we need something we have to spend it - whether its roads or public transport, both of which we need more of in this country.

---

Also as a side note... Dublin Airport is very comparable to Manchester in terms of passenger figures and numbers of airlines and routes. Dublin and Manchester are both to have over 20 million passengers this year - Manchester slightly more than Dublin.

Winters

For any IEI members out there that attended in Feb:

http://www.iei.ie/sectorpapers/GetSectorPaperDetails.pasp?SectorPaperId=88&MenuID=7

antoinolachtnai

The figures I gave above are based on future capacity, not current demand.

First, you don't need anything like a bus every 20 seconds to service Dublin Airport. The demand level is much lower than that. Even if everyone took the bus, you wouldn't need that.

Most of the road between the airport and the city is free-flowing motorway (but it won't stay that way if some decent public transport isn't implemented).

Second, if you have forty bus stops with an overflow area, and you keep things moving, even that volume of buses will not back up. Forty bus stops is not really very many. I think there are that many coach parking spaces in the surface parking at the airport already.

Rail is sometimes more efficient than bus. Not always. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. It would obviously be nice to have a railway. But we should be realistic here. We have to put the most expensive infrastructure in the places where it will be used the most.

A very large proportion of journeys to the airport don't go through the city centre. That is why buses are critical (in the airport and elsewhere) whether there is a metro or not.

The current day-to-day public transport problem is less to do with failure to plan and more to do with failure to set realistic goals and then actually achieve them. Instead we come up with these gargantuan long-term plans which haven't really been added up.

aliveandkicking

antoinolachtnai, you seem to come from the same school of thought as the likes of Sean Barrett and Colm McCarthy who say rail is inefficient and buses are better. If the government actually listened to that argument we wouldnt have DART or Luas now and we would not even be thinking about building a metro.

People have got to stop thinking about this metro as "the airport metro". The airport is only 1 stop on the metro line. 80% of the passengers using metro north will have nothing to do with the airport. What is getting built here is an entire integrated system of metro, DART and Luas not just one line with a stop in O'Connell Street and the other stop at the airport.

Hopefully when all is finished anyone on the Metro North corridoor (including airport passengers) with will be able travel with no more than one change to north city centre or south city centre via Metro North, Western Suburbs e.g. Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Tallaght via Metro West, DART to Maynooth, Bray or Drogheda at Drumcondra or Stephen's Green and anywhere on the existing Red and Green Luas lines. No bus will be able to compete with this

bryanw

Rail is sometimes more efficient than bus. Not always...

Rail is DEFINITELY more efficient than the bus in Dublin...who agrees? There are several factors that have lead to an in efficient bus service. The biggest problem being traffic. Lets not forget that metro won't cross through traffic!!! until something is done about traffic in Dublin buses will remain inefficient.

But we should be realistic here. We have to put the most expensive infrastructure in the places where it will be used the most.

A very large proportion of journeys to the airport don't go through the city centre. That is why buses are critical (in the airport and elsewhere) whether there is a metro or not.

It will be one of the most used pieces of infrastructure and I'm aware that a lot of Airport journeys don't pass through the city centre (...not forgetting that there will be 30 MILLION passengers when Metro is finished). That's why I said:

"Metro is not only for Dublin Airport...its for a much wider area, and don't forget about Metro West and suburban rail linking in, which will have a huge impact with loads of people connecting from large suburbs and satellite towns of Dublin if there are proper interchanges..."

And what about all the people that use the Luas Green line. They will be able to get onto the metro without even leaving a station in town. And also what about when Luas is extended all the way to Bray. They can then all go to the Airport by rail. The DART goes to Bray, but not the Airport - Metro/Luas will.

Instead we come up with these gargantuan long-term plans which haven't really been added up.

Maybe if we had more "gargantuan long-term plans" then we might be in a better state now...

antoinolachtnai

30 million passengers at the airport isn't actually a lot for a metro system. It's a maximum of a few thousand an hour, fairly evenly spread. It's no big deal, you're talking like it's Charles de Gaulle or Heathrow. Put your 30 million in the context of dublin transport as a whole. There are in the order of 730 million journeys per year in the Dublin area as it is and that will most likely rise above 1 billion trips in the next 10 or 20 years.

I read what you said, I am glad you are comfortable quoting your own words. I wasn't talking about the whole metro proposal. I was talking about the direct-to-platform idea and the link to the airport (which may not even go to the actual airport without requiring an extra piece of massive investment).

You might think rail is more efficient, but is that just your subjective view as a user, or do you have any facts or logic to back it up as a strategy for the city's transport as a whole? You need to take into account the context - we have a lot of low-density housing.

All those people that you are talking about in all those places, could you quantify them? Do you have an estimate of what proportion of airport users live near the lines you mention?

How many times a year do these people actually go to the airport on average? Three times maybe? Why not save some money on the airport run and run the metro out to an area of Dublin that hasn't already had a massive transport infrastructure investment over the last 10 years?

I hope those people in Bray aren't in a rush to get to their plane.

paulm17781

Right. It's not an "Airport Metro" it's a metro to swords with a stop at the airport.

Have you used buses in Dublin? They are considerably slower than any rail alternative.

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote:

30 million passengers at the airport isn't actually a lot for a metro system. It's a maximum of a few thousand an hour, fairly evenly spread. It's no big deal, you're talking like it's Charles de Gaulle or Heathrow. Put your 30 million in the context of dublin transport as a whole. There are in the order of 730 million journeys per year in the Dublin area as it is and that will most likely rise above 1 billion trips in the next 10 or 20 years.

LHR and CDG are hub airports, so many people fly in and fly out, yet they still have rail connections!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I read what you said, I am glad you are comfortable quoting your own words. I wasn't talking about the whole metro proposal. I was talking about the direct-to-platform idea and the link to the airport (which may not even go to the actual airport without requiring an extra piece of massive investment).

The direct-to-platform proposal is a cost saving measure though! I happen to think it's better for passengers too, but that's incidental.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You might think rail is more efficient, but is that just your subjective view as a user, or do you have any facts or logic to back it up as a strategy for the city's transport as a whole? You need to take into account the context - we have a lot of low-density housing.

Ah, but take a look around. Look at the infill and reevelopment taking place along any rail line and away from many too! No developer in his right mind would build anything other than apartments if he can. Dublin can densify. Even on a small-scale it can happen. It'll take time but t can be accelerated by providing high frequency high speed metro lines within the city. Ballymun will all be high density, much of the accomodation units in Swords to the east of the line will be too, as will the future development of Mountjoy Prison and of course the city centre is densifying daily with apartments replacing run down buildings.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

How many times a year do these people actually go to the airport on average? Three times maybe? Why not save some money on the airport run and run the metro out to an area of Dublin that hasn't already had a massive transport infrastructure investment over the last 10 years?

Like Swords? Swords along with Balbriggan and Blanchardstown are to be (and indeed are presently) developed to high density Fingal 'towns' purely because they lie (or will lie) on railway lines. Look what's happening around the Square because of Luas. Where would you suggest spending the money saved on dropping the Airport station though? T21 is to see a lot of money spent right across the city.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I hope those people in Bray aren't in a rush to get to their plane.

You need to look more closely at T21. The DART will run from Bray to Maynooth/Dunboyne at 7.5 min frequency (with the potential to go higher) through Drumcondra (interchange with metroNorth). This is what high quality rail transport is all about. People can turn up at Bray and have an average wait of 3.75 mins for a DART with fixed running time to Drumcondra and then zip down an escalator to the metroNorth platform to a potential average wait of just 45 secs (90 sec headway to be allowed for) for a metro that will take app. 10 mins to get to the airport. People in Bray can be in a hurry if they like-it'll be the fastest way to DUB regardless!

antoinolachtnai

Everything you say could happen as you say it. And it's great. However, you are focusing on the megaprojects rather than the simple coordination and capacity-utilization which are needed to provide transport to the majority of Dubliners who will never live within walking distance of a railway.

Swords is building up around the M1 motorway, not the putative railway station. That's no surprise either. The capacity of the M1 is enormous. All I am saying is that it should be fully utilized rather than building further infrastructure to the same destination.

It's great to see Tallaght developing the way it is. However, that apartment development was stimulated as much by tax incentives as the luas.

I never said that putting a metro out to Ballymun was a bad idea. Why not do that, then extend it the rest of the way later?

I thought it had been established that twin-bore was more expensive than single-bore. Is this wrong? If you don't have mezzanines, it appears to me that you have to have twin-bore, for safety reasons. Perhaps you can tell me I am wrong.

8 trains per hour from Bray? 4000 people an hour? Are they going to go high-rise? To make that level of frequency happen, the Wexford train would basically have to be abandoned or an awful lot of new track put down.

None of this is going to happen until 2021 at the earliest. What are people in Bray supposed to do do in the meantime?

It won't be the fastest way to the airport from Bray in any case. You'll be able to go round the eastern ring road to the airport by that time and that will be faster.

If you want to know what to do with the money that is saved, I'd suggest passing it back to passengers in the form of lower fares. Lower fares increase the differential with car use and encourage modal change. Alternatively, you could provide some basic services to people in Lucan and Clondalkin who have terrible public transport at the moment. Even somewhere relatively near the city like Ballyfermot now has a bus service which really isn't any better than it was in 1980.

Winters

Its interesting that you talk about fares and their perceived impact on use. Micheal Sheedy from the RPA recently noted that fares have very little effect on ridership. Comfort, journey time, image, safety and location (Integration would come under that) would have more of an influence than fare prices. It surprised me but according to studies its true.

Metrobest

The current road infrastructure between the aiport and city is not sufficient to support the high-frequency bus service Anton suggests. The Aircoach from Stephen's Green takes at least one hour in the peak and 45 minutes outside peak hours. More buses are not a viable option due to congestion in the city centre and beyond.

In just 17 minutes, the metro will zoom from Stephen's Green to the airport and Swords, stopping at universities, hospitals and residential centres along its corridor. It will serve suburban areas of Dublin which "enjoy" some of the most awful traffic jams and worst public transport in the city. Sorry, but could the case for a metro along this corridor be any stronger?

As for the location of the airport stop. The Great Southern Hotel is not ideal, everyone agrees on that. I'd rather the metro serviced the new terminal with an underground platform leading up into a airy plaza like at Schipol. That's my personal preference: I think that would generate the highest possible numbers of passengers. But provided the travelator is in place, the distance from the metro stops to the departure hall of is not so excessive that it would render the metro ineffective. The travelator will deposit passengers directly into the departure hall of T1 while an underground station beneath T1would require passengers to ascend two levels.

And before we get carried away with propecies of doom about the hotel/travelator option, let's just remember that Dublin is not a large airport by international standards. At many major airports the walking time from metro station to check-in desks is lengthy. I missed a flight at CDG because I misjudged the time needed to walk to the desks. At Singapore's palatial Chiangi airport a long walk to the metro beckons. The point is, it's unrealistic to expect an escalator leading from Area 4 of the existing terminal straight down to the metro platform. But as it's a project being built from scratch the metro should stop as close as possible to the two terminals; and it's worth the extra 200m to make this happen.

murphaph wrote:

The Green Line extension from the Green to O'Connell St wil be quite different from The Red Line from Heuston to Connolly as there will be far fewer junctions with streets carrying vehicular traffic. The entirety of O'Connell St, Bridge, Westmoreland St, College Green and lower Grafton St are to be rid of cars as par of DCC's plans for a 'walking city'. The tram fits in well with this. Much of this is dependent on the Port Tunnel/M50 upgrade, Macken St bridge etc. You have to imagine the scene 10 years from now, not looking at a choked College Green today. The tram isn't a substitute for metro but whenever I'm in Munich I use surface trams rather than U Bahn for short hops in town. It's just easier I find.

I'd love to think this will happen, Philip. It should happen. But Dublin Bus will want to run its routes through the central axis, taxis will want to pick up passengers, shoppers will want to access the multistorey car parks, Bertie and his cabiner will demand access for their mercs and civil servants will riot if their free car parking spaces are pulled.

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

...you are focusing on the megaprojects rather than the simple coordination and capacity-utilization which are needed to provide transport to the majority of Dubliners who will never live within walking distance of a railway.

That's why they provide park and ride services in the less-dense suburbs.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Swords is building up around the M1 motorway, not the putative railway station. That's no surprise either. The capacity of the M1 is enormous. All I am saying is that it should be fully utilized rather than building further infrastructure to the same destination.

There will be probably two stations in Swords, one in the centre and the other in the far north with a park and ride (Lissenhall). I think Metro will serve Swords very well as there is no current rail link. I think it will be a much quicker journey to town on the Metro. This will be say 6 years from now... what happens when oil runs out??? Then everyone will have to use an electric train...(or whatever other alternatives).

To be honest I much prefer rail and its much better in my opinion. But also there is a evidence to back it up. Dublin doesn't have a huge expansive rail network but what it does have is very popular. In other cities they are spoiled for choice with rail systems. Even in smaller countries with capitals of similar size to Dublin. Fine examples are Scandanavian capitals as well as several French cities (ex. Paris). There is a bus stop right across the road from my house and the DART station is about 15mins away. I'd rather take the DART into town. I'd say it would be quicker too - including walking. The train just seems more "worth" the price.

I also think, on the issue of the Airport station location, a good idea would be if they were to located the station underground at the location of the new terminal 2 and integrate it with the building work of the terminal. Then link it to T1 with a travelator. The underground part could be payed for, as was said before, by a better alignment in the city centre and the dropping of the Tara/Trinity stop.

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Everything you say could happen as you say it. And it's great. However, you are focusing on the megaprojects rather than the simple coordination and capacity-utilization which are needed to provide transport to the majority of Dubliners who will never live within walking distance of a railway.

You're contradicting yourself now! You correctly point out that integration is key and then speak of rail lines as isolated alignments whih only benefit those who live along them, which is utter nonsense. You understand that post T21 the bus network (certainly on the northside) will need another review (as is mentioned in the current review) to form many more orbital routes feeding into DART, mertoNorth, metroWest and suburban rail and far fewer radial routes running into an lar! The rail lines have a much greater potential catchment area than the 15 mins either side of them.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Swords is building up around the M1 motorway, not the putative railway station. That's no surprise either. The capacity of the M1 is enormous. All I am saying is that it should be fully utilized rather than building further infrastructure to the same destination.

An airport link should be reliable first and foremost as people wll be time limited when using it. Roads, even motorways can become congested and even close which is a rarity for a metro system.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

It's great to see Tallaght developing the way it is. However, that apartment development was stimulated as much by tax incentives as the luas.

Many areas have section 23 breaks, but not all of them have sprung up like the area around the square!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I never said that putting a metro out to Ballymun was a bad idea. Why not do that, then extend it the rest of the way later?

Why wait?

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I thought it had been established that twin-bore was more expensive than single-bore. Is this wrong? If you don't have mezzanines, it appears to me that you have to have twin-bore, for safety reasons. Perhaps you can tell me I am wrong.

It depends on the cost of a TBM. A used TBM (what the RPA guy told me they were after) is app. 8m quid. They'll need 2 of them and they can bore faster than a single bore monster and so the labour cost can be lower for the overall job. It's not as straightforward as one might think. Remember too that even if twin-bore was more expensive, you are saving money by eliminating mezzanines and escalators etc.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

8 trains per hour from Bray? 4000 people an hour? Are they going to go high-rise? To make that level of frequency happen, the Wexford train would basically have to be abandoned or an awful lot of new track put down.

An 8 car DART has a capacity of something in the region of 1500, so that'd be 12,000 per hour and as I said the system could go to 16tph (the bottleneck over the Liffey, the Loop Line will be signalled for 16tph when works are complete) which is a monstrous amount of people. In theory too, platforms could be extended (costly, but doable) to 12 car operation.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

None of this is going to happen until 2021 at the earliest. What are people in Bray supposed to do do in the meantime?

2015 is the timeframe given under T21 for all works to be completed. In the mean time, Dublin Bus just released i's network review which called for greater cross city bus routes and less city centre termination, coupled with enhanced bus priority measures to be provided by the LA's.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

It won't be the fastest way to the airport from Bray in any case. You'll be able to go round the eastern ring road to the airport by that time and that will be faster.

You're joking, right? Even when it's fully freeflowing and with barrierless tolling it could still snarl up on the M50. Look at a freeflowing (in some places 10+ lane wide) M25 and tell me it's a fast way to get about!

Do you not think megaprojects are sometimes required? People thought the Metropolitan Railway Company were off their heads in 1863 when they opened the first, erm, metro. Odd that-it's still open today and London would never hae grown to the world city it is without it

antoinolachtnai

No, megaprojects are definitely required.

It's just that once we kick off doing megaprojects, there is a risk that we add extras that really aren't that critical. I'm not saying it wouldn't be good to have a train to Swords and the airport, but is it as worthwhile a project to spend 100 million extra on it as, say, putting 200 extra buses on the road?

There aren't going to be any cross-city bus routes. Bus journeys aren't going to get any shorter because of prioritization measures. The reason is that the government won't capitalize buses. You need to capitalize the bus system to get it to work (the same way you need to capitalize the train system).

If there is a cost-effective way of getting rail to the airport and Swords, and the stations can be located in such a way as to genuinely and substantially reduce travel times, it should be done. If it is going to cost crazy money, or isn't really going to make a big difference, it shouldn't. It's as simple as that. This section of the railway should make sense in its own right. Otherwise, make a reservation and build it later.

I agree with integration. Why not integrate the Luas and the Metro, thereby simplifying everything? (Maybe I have missed something obvious here - wasn't this the original plan?

To be fair, the eastern bypass won't have the problem of the M25 or the current M50 'cause no one will be able to build housing estates and office parks around the outside of it. :-) (I am certainly not saying that the eastern tunnel is the solution to all our problems, because obviously it's not.)

There are constituency political issues here too. North Dublin is perceived as electorally volatile (read: might go wrong for the government next year because of Aer Lingus) and that's the reason that so much expenditure (well, actually, projected expenditure) is being projected at this area. There is no point fooling ourselves that this is all happening just because it's such a brilliant idea and can be justified from census data.

The problem with Transport 21 is that it seems to be something for everyone. There are no financial constraints in Transport 21. In an election year, that makes me a little suspicious.

The story of the MRC was not simply one of noble vision. It was basically a campaign by the promoters to increase the value of their agricultural land outside London by suburbanizing it. That's why it's so long, and how such a speculative railway was built with private funds.

I find it hard to believe that there will be the demand for 16 tph from Bray, but maybe I missed something the last time I was there! It's also hard to see how increasing the signalling capacity would do anything to help the Wexford train get past the eight or so DARTs that would be in its way as it approached the city.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The story of the MRC was not simply one of noble vision. It was basically a campaign by the promoters to increase the value of their agricultural land outside London by suburbanizing it. That's why it's so long, and how such a speculative railway was built with private funds.

I think the reference here was to the original "Metropolitan Railway", the one that now forms part of the circle line. (Though the first stretch is also on the modern Metropolitan line, which was indeed built with the motivation you suggest). The circle line, of course, is the one that joined up all the mainline termini at what was at the time the edge of the city - a spirit of integration entirely absent from any of the published plans for Metro North.

Dermot

Metrobest

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The problem with Transport 21 is that it seems to be something for everyone. There are no financial constraints in Transport 21. In an election year, that makes me a little suspicious.
.

With respect, there are - EUR34bn to be exact. And even when that's done, Ireland will continue to have a severe infrastructure deficit. We will still be playing catch-up with the rest of Europe.

I don't care if the government is doing it to win votes. Fact is, forget 1916 or the EU, T21 is the best thing to happen in the history of the Irish state.

paulm17781

antoinolachtnai, have you actually read anything about T21 or are you just making all these assumptions based on your own opinions?

The DART is being re-routed Bray - Maynooth / Pace. That is why they will need 16 tph. Perhaps you should read up on what is planned in Dublin for 2015 and then tell us why we actually need buses instead.

Winters

Metrobest wrote:

With respect, there are - EUR34bn to be exact. And even when that's done, Ireland will continue to have a severe infrastructure deficit. We will still be playing catch-up with the rest of Europe.

I don't care if the government is doing it to win votes. Fact is, forget 1916 or the EU, T21 is the best thing to happen in the history of the Irish state.

Couldnt agree more. Platform For Change was a brilliant plan, expensive and eyecatching but was never going to get off the ground without proper ringfenced funding, brave lobbying and courageous politicians. Transport 21 is the ring fenced part and thats the most important step made. Its given the respective agencies clear remits, budgets and timeframes.

Before Transport 21 everything was 'proposed' not its 'planned'.

One of the only flaws with Transport 21 is that its 10 years too late.

antoinolachtnai

paulm17781 wrote:

The DART is being re-routed Bray - Maynooth / Pace. That is why they will need 16 tph. Perhaps you should read up on what is planned in Dublin for 2015 and then tell us why we actually need buses instead.

I never said we needed buses instead. I said we needed buses as well.

I don't doubt that it is a good idea to upgrade the DART line to 20 tph or more the tracks are there so they should definitely be used. But it is a reality that commuter use of the bray line has a negative impact on the service to Wexford (which is already slower than driving, I think - 2 hours 38 minutes for a 141km road journey). So people from Wexford will be forced to take the car or the bus.

What's the deal with joining the luas to the metro? Why is this not being done? (I am sure there is a good reason). Similarly, why is it cheaper to build single-bore metros in Madrid, but cheaper to build twin-bore metros in Ireland?

And still, I come back to the point: Is it worth having a metro station at the airport that will actually result in slower overall journey times than a far less expensive coach service?

Is it worth spending in the order of EUR 100m in order to put an underground train station at the airport, which will only be used for 6 or 7 million journeys a year (compared to a city centre station, which would probaby be used for twice that).

And not building now doesn't mean it can't be built later on. This is not a once-only opportunity.

MarkoP11

The airport to Stephens Green metro time is quoted as 17 minutes, the only time you can match that by road is in a taxi early in the morning. Try Stephens Green to Parrnell Square at 5:30pm and it an take almost as long. Dublin Bus quote 30 minutes. Metro will be operating at up to 90 kph, a double decker is limited to 65 kph. Without any question metro will be faster to the airport.

You can pay Dublin Bus €5 single for the dedicated service or you can take the slower regular bus at normal price. This pay more for a slower service line is total utter rubbish, pay less for faster is the reality. Now it is true if you buy a single Airport Dublin you may pay a premium but those of us with weekly, monthly etc won't get stung

2015 you are looking at 200 million DART/Luas/Metro passengers per annum thats whole lot more than Dublin Bus currently manage

Airport station would accommodate roughly 6-7 million air passengers per year that doesn't include those working in the airport which could double that number, that would make it busier than any existing station in the country

Its a whole lot easier do stations with twin bore as you simple excavate the gap between the tunnels to give an island platform

Unless it is built right in the first place you won't be able to add bits on

antoinolachtnai

I am talking about capital costs, not ticket costs. The ticket cost is completely irrelevant at this stage of planning.

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

The relationship between the traffic at the airport station and any existing station is not really relevant that I can see. An underground station is a completely different financial proposition (if it is indeed put underground).

The current volume that Dublin Bus carries is not really relevant to anything either.

aliveandkicking

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I am talking about capital costs, not ticket costs. The ticket cost is completely irrelevant at this stage of planning.

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

The relationship between the traffic at the airport station and any existing station is not really relevant that I can see. An underground station is a completely different financial proposition (if it is indeed put underground).

The current volume that Dublin Bus carries is not really relevant to anything either.

The 32 minute coach service you advocate goes via the port tunnel so it won't serve O'Connell Street, won't interchange with the thousands of passengers coming off the train at Drumcondra, won't interchange with the thousands of passengers coming from western suburbs on Metro West and won't serve Swords or the thousands of people using the M1 park and ride at Lissenhall.

Earlier on in this thread I said you should stop thinking of Metro North as just the airport line but to think of it in its context as an overall integrated transport corridoor. Your entire rationale of favouring a coach service from Stephen's Green to the airport is based on the assumption that people only want to travel directly from St Stephen's Green to the airport. This is a totally flawed assumption. As I said before according to the RPA 80% of the passengers using Metro North will be ordinary commuters whose destination will NOT be the airport. How will your coach service serve these commuters better?

paulm17781

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

Once again, please actually read up on this stuff before criticising it. 40m down, that may take a minute possibly 2 :eek: :rolleyes: If it isn't put underground it will be linked by a travellator that will take less than 5 minutes. You will be level with the metro if this is the case.

MarkoP11

Exactly very few journeys originate in the city, the airport will be a sizable destination but in reality there are plenty of major demand centres such as Swords, Ballymun and DCU on the route which are equal to the airport in demand terms. The capacity required to cope with all this is in excess of 10k per hour

If the airport wasn't there the metro would still make a whole lot of sense. There is far too much emphasis on the airport with respect to metro partly due to the fact the RPA had stuck with it as a terminus. What you have to remember is the bulk of people visit the airport only a handful of times in a year

A frequent service with a reliable journey time with good connections is what public transport is about

antoinolachtnai

I completely agree that too much emphasis is put on the airport. I agree that the metro (or most of it) makes good sense without the airport. The needs of commuters need to come ahead of the needs of airport users.

I am just staying that the airport link needs to be able to stand on its own two feet. We should do it if the numbers and the price justify it. We shouldn't do it just because it sounds like a good idea.

If the bus service to the airport is just level with the metro, then we have to look hard at whether the whole thing is worthwhile, or whether the idea of a train to the airport has become too diluted.

I agree that there is a better customer experience on a quality rail service than on a bus service, even a good one. However, we have to look at the whole picture - the frequent changes in mode (from walking to escalator to train to escalator to travelator) make a big difference to the customer's experience when they are carrying a load of luggage to the airport. So the road and rail options turn out to be better-matched than you'd expect when you evaluate them thoroughly.

paulm17781

So the road and rail options turn out to be better-matched than you'd expect when you evaluate them thoroughly

Right. You get the bus as it is clearly the better option. We'll be on the metro.

markpb

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If the bus service to the airport is just level with the metro, then we have to look hard at whether the whole thing is worthwhile, or whether the idea of a train to the airport has become too diluted.

But they're not level, they're nowhere near level.

A metro service to the airport is reliable. A bus service to the airport simply is not. Breakdowns, traffic jams, road works, protests and parades are just a few of the things that can make a bus service unreliable and the last thing an airport link needs is to be unreliable.

Dublin has a really poor set of bus lanes and almost no bus priority junctions and there's no sign of it improving any time soon so I wonder how you could suggest that a bus service to the airport could be anywhere near as fast as a segregated train service.

bryanw

paulm17781 wrote:

Right. You get the bus as it is clearly the better option. We'll be on the metro.

Right on!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I agree that there is a better customer experience on a quality rail service than on a bus service, even a good one. However, we have to look at the whole picture - the frequent changes in mode (from walking to escalator to train to escalator to travelator) make a big difference to the customer's experience when they are carrying a load of luggage to the airport.

Firstly, the whole purpose of a travelator is that you don't have to walk and drag luggage around.

I think that the best idea, of course, for the RPA would be to do the underground link at the airport. We have been told that with modifying the plans in the city centre, the money can be redistributed. T2 at the Airport is due to be open in 2009. This is when construction is also due to begin on the Metro. I think that the Metro should be completely integrated into the T2 plans so that it can be built with ease if construction hasn't started when T2 is finished. If the metro were to be in the vicinity of T2 then a much shorter distance can be achieved to T1 by a travelator. This would all be within the airport and be a relatively short distance.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I am talking about total journey times, including walking time to travel from the street to the platform, and walking time from the airport platform to the departures hall. Coach journey time from Stephen's Green to the airport via the port tunnel will only be 32 minutes or so, even allowing for 15 minutes in traffic in the city (which you would not need, because it it will be bus lanes a lot of the way). It would leave you at the arrivals hall of either terminal.

The metro is certainly a shorter travel time, but you do have to get down 40 metres to the platform, which takes at least some period of time, and then you need to walk for 5 minutes or take an extra bus at the far end to reach the departures halls in the two terminals (if the train isn't put underground).

I would be very surprised if you could make it to the Airport in 32 minutes by bus. There would have to be little or no stops - stops are not possible on the motorway at all, which is most of the route. The Port Tunnel is
1) Situated at the port, not the city centre, so its a bit of a diversion.
2) Is not intended for bus use - why would it be? There are also no toll charges specified for buses. What do they do?

The period of time taken to get to the platform of an underground station is miniscule. There will also be lifts in the stations - further reducing time to platform. Also, don't forget that only densly populated areas will have underground stations.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Is it worth spending in the order of EUR 100m in order to put an underground train station at the airport....And not building now doesn't mean it can't be built later on. This is not a once-only opportunity.

I agree that it's not a once-only oppurtunity and such a situation is not impossible - but if it were done it would the most stupid mistake in the entire history of the state :mad: . If we wait, further development at the airport could make an even worse situation of the stop location.
The Airport stop will be on of the most important on the line. If somebody in the RPA were to even think about carrying out the above situation - they should be fired on the spot.

John R

bryanw wrote:

I would be very surprised if you could make it to the Airport in 32 minutes by bus.

25-30mns is currently the average off-peak time from O'Connell street to the airport for Aircoach and Airlink.

bryanw wrote:

There would have to be little or no stops - stops are not possible on the motorway at all, which is most of the route. The Port Tunnel is

Stops are not wanted anyway.

bryanw wrote:

1) Situated at the port, not the city centre, so its a bit of a diversion.
2) Is not intended for bus use - why would it be? There are also no toll charges specified for buses. What do they do?

Not pay anything.
It is intended for road vehicles, a bus is a road vehicle. Using the Port Tunnel is only an option if it proves faster than the current route although an express Airport-Blackrock/DunLaoghaire via PT would be a good idea.

Service buses should get free passage through all tolls but that is another discussion.

bryanw wrote:

The period of time taken to get to the platform of an underground station is miniscule. There will also be lifts in the stations - further reducing time to platform. Also, don't forget that only densly populated areas will have underground stations.

True, an underground station is by far the best option. Building a line that goes right past the Airport without efficiently serving it is lunacy. It is a huge hub for passenger journies and a big cause of car use, a good rail link is essential.

bryanw wrote:

I agree that it's not a once-only oppurtunity and such a situation is not impossible - but if it were done it would the most stupid mistake in the entire history of the state :mad: . If we wait, further development at the airport could make an even worse situation of the stop location.

It will also add considerably to the overall cost as there will be the original cost of the overland line. If it is built on the cheap the likelihood is that a retrofit underground link will never be done.

Victor

bryanw wrote:

This will be say 6 years from now... what happens when oil runs out??? Then everyone will have to use an electric train...(or whatever other alternatives).

Well everyone in Swords will be out of a job because the airport will close. :eek:

antoinolachtnai

Well, just think of the route. Stephen's Green -> Merrion Square (uncongested) -> Grand Canal St (uncongested) -> Macken St (bus lane) -> Macken St. Bridge (bus lane) -> North Quays (no traffic to/from port) -> Port Tunnel (tolled, free-flowing) -> M1 (free-flowing) -> airport.

It's not that congested a route. From the entrance to the tunnel at the Port to the airport is only 14 minutes at most. Granted, you have to allow some time, to get through the city. But 18 minutes is more than enough. (80 percent of the time you will be able to make it in 5 or 6 minutes)

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Granted, you have to allow some time, to get through the city. But 18 minutes is more than enough. (80 percent of the time you will be able to make it in 5 or 6 minutes)

Ahh...what a dream...if only we could make it that quickly. The M1/M50 (soon to be south of J3) is pretty congested, and it will be more so with HGVs as they will all be diverted onto this route when the port tunnel is finished.

The reason there wouldn't be much traffic is because there wouldn't be that many people around. So you'll only have one real stop at Stephen's Green. And what toll can a private bus operator like AirCoach expect to pay at the tunnel? I'm sure they won't be able to avail of an amnesty like Dublin Bus could...(btw - I'm not aware of any other tolls apart from car/light commercials.)

antoinolachtnai

You would have stops in Stephen's Green, near the IFSC, South Docklands and Spencer Dock handy enough. These are densely populated areas. Since you have saved EUR 100m+ in tunneling fees, you could splurge on another bus and use it to serve Parnell Square, O'Connell St, Busaras/Connolly and maybe part of Dublin 7 as well.

Because the infrastructure is more lightweight, you don't need tens of thousands of people per day to justify a stop.

What real difference does the toll make to anything? Why not just subsidize it out of the exchequer (the same way the metro and its interest bill will be subsidized)? Private bus operators are entitled to the same benefits that Dublin Bus is. And who said anything about it having to be a private operator?

I'm not saying it's perfect, because it's not, but there's a good opportunity there to use existing infrastructure to provide a very good service. And this isn't something that would take seven years and two billion euros to do - this could be done in August.

murphaph

Sorry, I'm all for cost benefit analyses etc. but this is our national airport with major growth predicted. Dublin's population is growing and as much as 20% of our population will be foreign born in a couple of decades, further enhancing the demand for air travel. Skimping on a quality station at Dublin Airport on a metro that will be fit for purpose for at least a century is shortsightedness of the highest order.

Running the metro to Swords and ignoring Dublin airport in favour of a bus alternative through Dublin port is crazy. Nobody would be able to board once you reach the docks! The metro on the other hand will actually stop along the route and interchange with all modes and crucially above all else, will provide a reliable journey time, independent of weather and traffic conditions.

As Paul said, you take the bus, I'll take the metro!

antoinolachtnai

Well, don't bother running the metro to Swords, unless it stands up as a destination in the short term. All of the above about Airport applies to Swords too, it's only six or seven minutes further up the road. Build the western phase now to serve the real traffic blackspots.

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

paulm17781

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

Oh sweet Jesus! Have you been to Swords ever? It's huge already, maybe, just maybe the people of Swords deserve public transport. Don't mention the bus it takes ages to get to Swords and no 'if we do this' as fact is we don't and won't 'do this'.

Do you even live in Dublin? Have you tried to go to Swords or the airport by bus? It is a nightmare and takes ages and this metro will be of huge benefit to the population of Swords and air travellers alike. Before you ask I live in Dublin cc, not Swords.

antoinolachtnai

There were 27,000 people living in Swords at the last census. It will certainly grow, but it is not 'massive'. A better word would be 'sprawling'. Most of the Swords population is quite spread out.

The people of Swords richly deserve public transport. It is nothing short of a scandal that the service is so poor. There is no reason why they shouldn't get a better service, especially when the port tunnel opens. They shouldn't have to wait another 5 or 6 years.

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, don't bother running the metro to Swords, unless it stands up as a destination in the short term. All of the above about Airport applies to Swords too, it's only six or seven minutes further up the road. Build the western phase now to serve the real traffic blackspots.

Swords is a bit of a traffic blackspot itself remember!

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The main people who will benefit from a metro to Swords are property-owners and developers. If they are prepared to pay for it by means of a levy, by all means, it definitely should be built.

FCC are applying (section 29?) development levies to new properties all along the route of metroNorth as it passes through Swords. So that's that answered.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

Ach, come off it. Dublin is only starting to develop now ffs. The city has the LOWEST population density of ANY capital city in Europe! Building the metro will help spur high-density redevelopment in places like Glasnevin/Drumcondra and even Swords (my uncle has a small bungalow and now that metroNorth is heading his way he's investigating developing the site into an apartment block, as will happen all along such routes).

bryanw

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If we are planning for a century forward as you suggest, we should be thinking more about whether the continued growth in Dublin is a good idea, or whether another city should be developed as a major population centre. How big do we want the population of Dublin to grow?

In my opinion, I hope the population of Dublin does grow a lot bigger...and don't worry - most other counties are seeing considerable growth. (e.g. Cork is getting pretty developed now). Maybe if Dublin grows quite a lot bigger maybe many more big infrastructure projects will have to be provided. More metro - yay!

But if Dublin is going to grow considerably - which it most likely will, don't vote for the Green Party in 2007. They are completely opposed to the sprawl of Dublin...but wait, they're also completely opposed to high density, high-rise development, not to mention them hindering growth with their carbon taxes and the like.

...back to Metro!

adk1

just my take on things
-the fundamental idea of the metro to connect the airport right?????


had a look at fingal cocos airport action plan
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/Services/Planning/PlanningItemsOnDisplay/DublinAirportMasterplan/FileDownload,3256,en.pdf
showing a "western campus" my opinion is that a variation of the green line should be used that swings around to a terminal 3 station (which connects to the western spur to tallaght) and then on to an underground terminal 1+2 station then onto swords- to me this would cause the least disruption to the airport-although I am no expert.

my idea is longer line however it would mean a shorter western spur and takes account of the planned expansion of the airport which the blue and red routes dont account for--any thoughts???

MarkoP11

The aim of metro north is to provide a high capacity public transport system on the northern transport corridor identified by the DTO

The continued obsession with Dublin Airport is completely unproductive, there is no point in building the metro if Swords is not on the system.

The problem at Dublin Airport is quite simple, is the station explicitly for air passengers or for those working at the airport. The Great Southern site would serve the airport staff better while the underground option is more focused on people using the terminal. The classic point to note is that most people visit the airport only a handful of times a year while the staff do so 50 weeks a year.

The underground route would come closer to any new terminals than the overground route, plus an underground route makes life a lot simpler on the surface for further development

A Dub in Glasgo

MarkoP11 wrote:

The continued obsession with Dublin Airport is completely unproductive, there is no point in building the metro if Swords is not on the system.

Totally agree

The problem at Dublin Airport is quite simple, is the station explicitly for air passengers or for those working at the airport. The Great Southern site would serve the airport staff better while the underground option is more focused on people using the terminal. The classic point to note is that most people visit the airport only a handful of times a year while the staff do so 50 weeks a year.

Every capital city I have travelled to that has a rail link to the airport does it mainly for the visitors to the Airport. The workers will not have far to go if the station is closer to the terminal. I think it is a travesty if a new rail link that services the airport is penny pinched insofar that the station is located a distance from the terminal.

antoinolachtnai

Is there not some way to route the Metro through above-ground or with selective cut-and-covering? It would certainly be messy, but surely some of those buildings are getting old anyway? And putting the metro under the apron and buildings is going to be messy whatever way it's done.

There are 13000 people working at the airport. That's about 3.25 million trips per year, 8,000 or 9000 a day. If one-third of those trips moved to Metro, it would still only be 1 million trips a year, or 3000 a day. It's less trips than passengers make (4 million initially, growing to maybe 6 or 8 million).

When you're investing that sort of dough, you really need to come up with something that caters fairly well for both groups.

murphaph

It should be built with passenger comfort in mind as they are the ones hauling the luggage. The staff's sandwiches aren't such a burden!

Selective C&C always seemed the likely method to me but they're talking bored tunnels. It must be down to the Team building.

jd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

. I think it is a travesty if a new rail link that services the airport is penny pinched insofar that the station is located a distance from the terminal.

Repeat to the Civil Servitude (Department of Finance) ad nauseam
Mad Cow Roundabout.
Most Interchanges on the Irish "Motorway" System.
In other words-
Do something properly for once.
jd

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I find it hard to believe that there will be the demand for 16 tph from Bray

Not all of those trains need necessarily operate all the way from Bray, some could start at say Dalkey or Dun Laoghaire.

Metrobest

From ireland.com:

RPA prefers central Ballymun route for Dublin's metro line north

The proposed metro line linking Swords and Dublin airport with St Stephen's Green is now likely to run via Ballymun and Glasnevin rather than taking a route to the east or west of this central alignment, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
There is now a strong preference within the Railway Procurement Agency for the central route after positive feedback about it from the public during a round of consultations that started in February.


However, the RPA will be reviewing proposals to run the line on an elevated structure in the middle of Ballymun Road after this emerged as the most contentious issue with the public.

The RPA distributed 100,000 flyers to people in the potential catchment areas, held six "open days" on the three principal route options and received more than 1,000 written submissions from members of the public. An RPA spokesman said all of these responses will be assessed before a final decision is made on the route in July by the project team, after which there will be another round of public consultations on its detailed design.

However, not even ballpark estimates of the cost of Metro North are being released. The RPA's revised "business case" for the line was submitted to Minister for Transport Martin Cullen last year, but it is being kept strictly confidential.

"The Minister is not giving out information, so we can't either," RPA project leader Rory O'Connor said. This includes a cost-benefit analysis which was audited by Goodbody Consultants for the Department of Finance.

Mr O'Connor said there was "massive support" for the metro and "most people see it as the beginning of a commuter network linking up with other services".

However, although the metro line would cross two existing railway lines at the southern end of Glasnevin, he conceded that there would be no direct connection between them - unless the east route, via Drumcondra, was chosen.

The proposed Botanic station on the central alignment would be located at the Smurfit site on Botanic Road. This would be at least 400m from a new Prospect station planned by Iarnród Éireann on the Maynooth commuter line.

Dublin City University would be served by Metro North, with a station south of Collins Avenue. But there is a very long gap - 1.8km - between it and Botanic station. This is more than three times longer than the optimum distance of 500m.

The west route, via Liffey Junction and Broadstone, is likely to be ruled out because it would be 5km longer. However, it would serve the proposed Dublin Institute of Technology's new campus at Broadstone, where there is major development potential.

The most likely location for the airport metro station would be close to the existing main terminal, Mr O'Connor said. An alternative option of locating it at the Great Southern Hotel - remote from the terminal - was put forward to save money. "The Great Southern option avoids having to go underground. It would also be closer to the centre of gravity of where people work at the airport, which we estimate would account for half of the people using the airport metro station."

Metro North's capacity to carry is critically dependent on a huge increase in the density of development along the route it will serve, especially north of the airport.Studies by Fingal County Council suggest the population of Swords could grow from 34,000 to 120,000 over 10 years, developing along the metro corridor.

Mr O'Connor said Metro North will have the same gauge as Luas, although its vehicles would be wider-bodied - 2.65m, as against 2.4m. It would also be "much more like light rail than heavy rail", such as Dart and most metro systems elsewhere.

The big difference is that it would run on segregated track, without crossing road junctions. For example, assuming the central alignment is chosen, it would run either over or under the busy junction of Ballymun Road and Collins Avenue.

Mr O'Connor conceded that Ballymun Road is wide enough to accommodate Metro North on the surface, running along the middle of it. However, it is likely to run on an elevated structure along the main street of Ballymun, now being intensively developed.

The RPA is working closely with Iarnród Éireann on the design of St Stephen's Green underground metro station, to ensure there is no clash with the proposed €1.2 billion rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock.

The centre of Upper O'Connell Street would have to be excavated to create an underground metro station, which would have entrances near the Spire and the Parnell monument.

Metrobest

Frank McDonald wrote:

The proposed metro line linking Swords and Dublin airport with St Stephen's Green is now likely to run via Ballymun and Glasnevin rather than taking a route to the east or west of this central alignment, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

There is now a strong preference within the Railway Procurement Agency for the central route after positive feedback about it from the public during a round of consultations that started in February..

Looks like it is Tara Street for the interchange.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, the RPA will be reviewing proposals to run the line on an elevated structure in the middle of Ballymun Road after this emerged as the most contentious issue with the public..

..Thanks in no small part to media scaremongering and ill-informed politicians. Elevated metros, when set against a backdrop of tall buildings, look futuristic and fantastic. Think the metro line 50 in Amsterdam as it approaches Sloterdijk station.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, not even ballpark estimates of the cost of Metro North are being released. The RPA's revised "business case" for the line was submitted to Minister for Transport Martin Cullen last year, but it is being kept strictly confidential..

Note the loaded language, "not even ballpark" estimates. They're not being released for good reasons. Frank seems to view it as a personal affront.

Frank McDonald wrote:

Mr O'Connor said there was "massive support" for the metro and "most people see it as the beginning of a commuter network linking up with other services"..

Again, note the inverted commas at "massive support". Inverted commas are the verbal equivilent of a raised eyebrow and were insterted by Frank to add doubt to the metro's support level.

Frank McDonald wrote:

However, although the metro line would cross two existing railway lines at the southern end of Glasnevin, he conceded that there would be no direct connection between them - unless the east route, via Drumcondra, was chosen..

Again, conceded is a loaded term. To concede is to acknowledge reluctantly.

Frank McDonald wrote:

Dublin City University would be served by Metro North, with a station south of Collins Avenue. But there is a very long gap - 1.8km - between it and Botanic station. This is more than three times longer than the optimum distance of 500m..

There will be a station at DCU. What's Frank's point here?

Frank McDonald wrote:

Mr O'Connor said Metro North will have the same gauge as Luas, although its vehicles would be wider-bodied - 2.65m, as against 2.4m. It would also be "much more like light rail than heavy rail", such as Dart and most metro systems elsewhere..

Again the metro is being subtly and overtly criticised here. The aim is to turn the readers against metro.

The RPA is working closely with Iarnród Éireann on the design of St Stephen's Green underground metro station, to ensure there is no clash with the proposed €1.2 billion rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock.

Frank McDonald wrote:

The centre of Upper O'Connell Street would have to be excavated to create an underground metro station, which would have entrances near the Spire and the Parnell monument.

Well at least we know the Trinity stop is back on track. Phew! Or is Frank wrong again?

On a side issue, I don't know why the Irish Times gives FMcD free reign to litter his would-be reportage with barely concealed opinions presented as fact.

He's got every right to question and oppose the metro, so long as he does it transparently and the readers know this bias exists.