DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not pandering to anything, I'm attempting to understand the reasoning behind the political failure of DU to be taken on as a project compared to Metro. The sad reality is that the only current examination of DU that can be done is on a political level.

That all said, to say that no land is unlocked by Metro is very inaccurate.

I wouldn't say either project has been warmly embraced by our rural leaning Dáil. It's always about not being seen to be too pro-Dublin remember.

MJohnston

murphaph wrote: »

I wouldn't say either project has been warmly embraced by our rural leaning Dáil. It's always about not being seen to be too pro-Dublin remember.

Naturally. I'd say that's the bar any infrastructure project has to clear, and why the PR weight of anything is so important (sadly). Things have to be sold not just on merit but on that merit outweighing the rural sway. You look at how quickly Metro Link is being positioned as a relief to housing supply problems, and it seems like the government have figured that out finally. I'm guessing the rebrand goes hand in hand with that, it packages the whole thing as something new, a fresh approach or whatever.

DU unfortunately doesn't seem to have enough of those easily marketed selling points, or at least has too much baggage dragging it down - for example I'd imagine it's hard to sell the public on a CIE project providing high frequency, high quality transport when the reputation of even DART is quite negative.

This is all why I'm quite interested in the idea that a few others have mentioned where we end up with future Metro projects beyond the North and South lines that would bypass the need for DU. I do wonder if that's the only way forward for the problems DU is trying to solve.

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not pandering to anything, I'm attempting to understand the reasoning behind the political failure of DU to be taken on as a project compared to Metro. The sad reality is that the only current examination of DU that can be done is on a political level.

That all said, to say that no land is unlocked by Metro is very inaccurate.

Who said that no land would be unlocked by the proposed Metro?

And why is it that the flaws of the current metro proposal cannot be discussed in the same way as the "flaws" of Dart Underground? It's not even allowed by the mods to discuss the original Metro North, in the original Metro North thread. the crayon-drawing that the current proposal amounts to is ok however.

Dart Underground will be cheaper than the new Metro proposal, at least if (unfortunately) the Christchurch station is dropped. DU gets far more and with less tunnelling, especially if Alexandra College is the site of a southern tunnel portal. And there has to be one if they intend using the green line luas infrastructure.

if the metro should be going anywhere on the south side, it should be in the direction of Terenure and then Rathfarnham with a station e.g. in Kenilworth Square.

KOR101

lucernarian wrote: »

if the metro should be going anywhere on the south side, it should be in the direction of Terenure and then Rathfarnham with a station e.g. in Kenilworth Square.

Yes, a no brainer really.

MJohnston

lucernarian wrote: »

Who said that no land would be unlocked by the proposed Metro?

You essentially did - "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north, barring the airport environs *as things stand*". There's lots of land that isn't "airport environs" to be unlocked here, there's huge areas of Ballymun where development had stalled in 2008 that remain either greenfield or ready for redevelopment. There's huge areas around the IKEA site along St Margaret's Road too. And then there's Swords which is ripe for large scale developments.

And why is it that the flaws of the current metro proposal cannot be discussed in the same way as the "flaws" of Dart Underground?

Who said they can't? The only thing mods have banned is "typical Ireland" style posts.

sdanseo

There is simply no comparison between the amount of housing land which could be "unlocked" by a properly-contruscted DU vs. Metro

Metro will unlock lands around Balllymun and Swords, as well as some of the undeveloped land left near Sandyford. And it's not even quite that simple as Swords now has 68,000 people (the size of Galway) and it spilt in two by the Ward River - the Metro will route east of the town and so people will rely on a road network already at breaking point to get them to the park and ride facilities. A new orbital/distributor route around Swords must accompany the Metro to properly make it attractive.

DU on the other hand has the potential to open up lands as far away as Drogheda/Maynooth/Celbridge. Just because these areas are already served by commuter services doesn't mean they are already maxed-out in terms of development potential. Services on these lines are already at capacity. It will be far easier for developers to market new houses in Rush, Lusk, Skerries, Adamstown, Dunboyne, Leixlip - if there are high speed, high frequency rail routes to the city (with interchange ability to all of the other modes) than with the current setup. The density of development along these corridors would naturally increase if you also increased the transport capacity.

If anything, the DART should go further than Celbridge on the SW line. Bring it to Naas and build 2-3 new stations along the route where there is ample room for massive development rather thancontinuing to push housing estates out to the likes of Portlaoise. Yes, we'd prefer to see development within the city maximised first, but the market in Ireland will always be biased towards the 3 bed semi and they will always be built, so better to build them closer.

hmmm

sdanseo wrote: »

There is simply no comparison between the amount of housing land which could be "unlocked" by a properly-contruscted DU vs. Metro

I can't understand the resistance to DU - like you say it unlocks massive potential capacity.

West Dublin has seen much of the building in recent years, it has a creaking infrastructure, there are plans for massive new areas (Clonburris for one) and there is potential for lots of high density development along the line - with much cheaper housing costs. There seems to be a real blind spot amongst planners, possibly because much of the area falls outside the city environs proper?

BonnieSituation

There's a station near Clonburris at Kishoge that isn't even being opened (completed in ca. 2009) despite the creaking infrastructure. The argument against it is that development that was to transpire in the area never did. Which is true. But there's a whole heap of people in Griffeen, Moy Glas and Foxborough who I'm sure wouldn't mind taking the 151 bus from Foxborough to the station in 2min or even walk the 10/15min it would take to get there and enjoying a nice amble to Heuston Stn in 10min on a train. I know I would!

It's a small microcosm of the backward nature of Ireland's approach to PT.

LXFlyer

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There's a station near Clonburris at Kishoge that isn't even being opened (completed in ca. 2009) despite the creaking infrastructure. The argument against it is that development that was to transpire in the area never did. Which is true. But there's a whole heap of people in Griffeen, Moy Glas and Foxborough who I'm sure wouldn't mind taking the 151 bus from Foxborough to the station in 2min or even walk the 10/15min it would take to get there and enjoying a nice amble to Heuston Stn in 10min on a train. I know I would!

It's a small microcosm of the backward nature of Ireland's approach to PT.

Agreed re Kishoge. Nuts.

Out of curiosity, have you noticed if Clondalkin/Fonthill seen any increase in use since the PPT services started? While it's not served by any bus routes, it does have free parking which should mean that it would be handy enough for south Lucan.

LXFlyer

hmmm wrote: »

I can't understand the resistance to DU - like you say it unlocks massive potential capacity.

West Dublin has seen much of the building in recent years, it has a creaking infrastructure, there are plans for massive new areas (Clonburris for one) and there is potential for lots of high density development along the line - with much cheaper housing costs. There seems to be a real blind spot amongst planners, possibly because much of the area falls outside the city environs proper?

Agreed but that's politics for you. Half-empty motorways are great, but a high capacity rail service across the city centre that could make serious inroads into the use of private cars in the city gets knocked down.

Our politicians (and especially the civil servants in the Department of Finance) seem to be blind to the obvious benefits that DU would deliver to the city as a whole and the fact that it unlocks the potential of the rail network by minimising the conflicts at junctions.

markpb

sdanseo wrote: »

Metro will unlock lands around Balllymun and Swords, as well as some of the undeveloped land left near Sandyford.

DU on the other hand has the potential to open up lands as far away as Drogheda/Maynooth/Celbridge. It will be far easier for developers to market new houses in Rush, Lusk, Skerries, Adamstown, Dunboyne, Leixlip

If anything, the DART should go further than Celbridge on the SW line. Bring it to Naas

I’ve edited your post to highlight why I think Metro North is better for Dublin (although I’d definitely have preferred to see both). MN will provide a high quality rail service for Dublin and will hopefully encourage the densification of those areas. DU does the same but for areas much further from Dublin (the areas you mention). This means that Dublin will sprawl slightly (or a lot) further. It would be foolish to believe that DU will attract only public transport users to those areas so you should expect further pressure on the roads between there and the major employment centres in Dublin.

I also think the densification you’d get in Clonburris, Naas or Lusk will not be the same as you could in Ballymun or Swords (notwithstanding the bizarre approach to height that DCC currently have). You said it yourself, they’d build houses in Rush but they could easily build apartment blocks in Ballymun (but call the Northwood for PR).

If DU had been built in preference to MN, you’d have the silly situation where someone living in a house in Kildare could get to the south city centre more quickly and more reliably than someone living in Swords.

sdanseo

markpb wrote: »

I’ve edited your post to highlight why I think Metro North is better for Dublin (although I’d definitely have preferred to see both). MN will provide a high quality rail service for Dublin and will hopefully encourage the densification of those areas. DU does the same but for areas much further from Dublin (the areas you mention). This means that Dublin will sprawl slightly (or a lot) further. It would be foolish to believe that DU will attract only public transport users to those areas so you should expect further pressure on the roads between there and the major employment centres in Dublin.

I also think the densification you’d get in Clonburris, Naas or Lusk will not be the same as you could in Ballymun or Swords (notwithstanding the bizarre approach to height that DCC currently have). You said it yourself, they’d build houses in Rush but they could easily build apartment blocks in Ballymun (but call the Northwood for PR).

If DU had been built in preference to MN, you’d have the silly situation where someone living in a house in Kildare could get to the south city centre more quickly and more reliably than someone living in Swords.

I'm not by any means a detractor from MN, I think the project and the recent change in thought towards including an upgrade of part of the green line are of great merit and should proceed as soon as possible.

Given the choice MN would be second fiddle to DU however in my view.

That said, if we are faced with more people like us pontificating over DU vs. building MN now, I say let's go get the shovels. Put something in motion now. Because doing nothing is not an option.

Grandeeod

markpb wrote: »

I’ve edited your post to highlight why I think Metro North is better for Dublin (although I’d definitely have preferred to see both). MN will provide a high quality rail service for Dublin and will hopefully encourage the densification of those areas. DU does the same but for areas much further from Dublin (the areas you mention). This means that Dublin will sprawl slightly (or a lot) further. It would be foolish to believe that DU will attract only public transport users to those areas so you should expect further pressure on the roads between there and the major employment centres in Dublin.

I also think the densification you’d get in Clonburris, Naas or Lusk will not be the same as you could in Ballymun or Swords (notwithstanding the bizarre approach to height that DCC currently have). You said it yourself, they’d build houses in Rush but they could easily build apartment blocks in Ballymun (but call the Northwood for PR).

If DU had been built in preference to MN, you’d have the silly situation where someone living in a house in Kildare could get to the south city centre more quickly and more reliably than someone living in Swords.

Mark my dear boy. It is already possible to get to the south city centre by train from Kildare quicker and more reliably than it is from Swords.

BonnieSituation

markpb wrote: »

I’ve edited your post to highlight why I think Metro North is better for Dublin (although I’d definitely have preferred to see both). MN will provide a high quality rail service for Dublin and will hopefully encourage the densification of those areas. DU does the same but for areas much further from Dublin (the areas you mention). This means that Dublin will sprawl slightly (or a lot) further. It would be foolish to believe that DU will attract only public transport users to those areas so you should expect further pressure on the roads between there and the major employment centres in Dublin.

I also think the densification you’d get in Clonburris, Naas or Lusk will not be the same as you could in Ballymun or Swords (notwithstanding the bizarre approach to height that DCC currently have). You said it yourself, they’d build houses in Rush but they could easily build apartment blocks in Ballymun (but call the Northwood for PR).

If DU had been built in preference to MN, you’d have the silly situation where someone living in a house in Kildare could get to the south city centre more quickly and more reliably than someone living in Swords.

There is absolute merit in what you say to an extent. But there are people who live in West Dublin that take as long to get to the city as people in Bray and Greystones if we are to take your assertion we people in Kildare.

If DU gets the go-ahead you get serious densification on lands all along the two lines. There is land aching to get developed and if there;s a 30min journey in the offing to the CC via train then people would have no qualms with living out there thus removing pressure on housing in the CC.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Agreed re Kishoge. Nuts.

Out of curiosity, have you noticed if Clondalkin/Fonthill seen any increase in use since the PPT services started? While it's not served by any bus routes, it does have free parking which should mean that it would be handy enough for south Lucan.

Absolutely no idea. As it stands you would want your head examined to traipse through the insane traffic in South Lucan in the morning to then battle to Fonthill and then park up to get a train to Heuston and assuming a lot of people have a follow on journey after that.

The traffic at Moy Glas leading to the Outer ring Road coupled with recent traffic influxes at the Penny Hill at Abbeywood has meant that it can take about 30min to get from Griffeen Avenue to Woodies. It's madness!

Different story of it was straight in from Kishoge.

I took the train a lot from Naas/Sallins last summer and I was shocked at the volume of people who got on in ParkWest. So it shows how service led demand could work in the case of Kishoge.

marno21

IMO there's no point in comparing DART Underground and Metro North. They both have very different benefits for very different parts of the city. They also don't realise their true potential until they are in operation side by side.

In line with how this spending plan was put together, funds allocated to projects on a priority basis based on appraisal, I'm not surprised Metro made it before DART Underground as Metro has a higher cost benefit ratio. Thankfully the bulk of DART Underground was included bar the tunnel, which will be the only thing left to do after 2027 and by then will be priority as everything else will be done

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

IMO there's no point in comparing DART Underground and Metro North. They both have very different benefits for very different parts of the city. They also don't realise their true potential until they are in operation side by side.

In line with how this spending plan was put together, funds allocated to projects on a priority basis based on appraisal, I'm not surprised Metro made it before DART Underground as Metro has a higher cost benefit ratio. Thankfully the bulk of DART Underground was included bar the tunnel, which will be the only thing left to do after 2027 and by then will be priority as everything else will be done

Nice Utopian view Marno! I'll go out on a limb here and predict things. Metro won't happen. DART expansion as they call it, will happen and Maynooth will be electrified first. DU will be promised over and over. So will some kind of Metro. Neither will happen in the next 10 years or even come close.

bk

Grandeeod wrote: »

Nice Utopian view Marno! I'll go out on a limb here and predict things. Metro won't happen. DART expansion as they call it, will happen and Maynooth will be electrified first. DU will be promised over and over. So will some kind of Metro. Neither will happen in the next 10 years or even come close.

I think you are very wrong on that. Bar another recession hitting, there is far too much political pressure behind the Metro not too go ahead with it at this stage.

It is quite clearly been positioned as the next big project, much like the Luas Cross City was and being tied closely to helping solve the housing crisis. Any political party that tried stopping it now will get crucified in Dublin.

orangerhyme

Grandeeod wrote: »

Nice Utopian view Marno! I'll go out on a limb here and predict things. Metro won't happen. DART expansion as they call it, will happen and Maynooth will be electrified first. DU will be promised over and over. So will some kind of Metro. Neither will happen in the next 10 years or even come close.

I know the Metro has been promised by various politicians for decades, but it looks like it just needs to happen.
It will stimulate a development boom in places at either end of it such as Santry, Ballymun, Swords and also Sandyford, Carrickmines, Cherrywood.
It also supports other public transport as they can all feed into it.

The fact it links to the airport is a relatively minor detail.

I find it interesting how it connects up the middle and upper middle class parts of the city, except for Ballymun.

murphaph

bk wrote: »

I think you are very wrong on that. Bar another recession hitting, there is far too much political pressure behind the Metro not too go ahead with it at this stage.

It is quite clearly been positioned as the next big project, much like the Luas Cross City was and being tied closely to helping solve the housing crisis. Any political party that tried stopping it now will get crucified in Dublin.

I really don't think they would. Sad truth IMO.

Grandeeod

bk wrote: »

I think you are very wrong on that. Bar another recession hitting, there is far too much political pressure behind the Metro not too go ahead with it at this stage.

It is quite clearly been positioned as the next big project, much like the Luas Cross City was and being tied closely to helping solve the housing crisis. Any political party that tried stopping it now will get crucified in Dublin.

We'll agree to differ. Within a year or two from now we'll have a clear idea if I'm right and it won't take Brexit or recession either.

MaccaTacca

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There is absolute merit in what you say to an extent. But there are people who live in West Dublin that take as long to get to the city as people in Bray and Greystones if we are to take your assertion we people in Kildare.

If DU gets the go-ahead you get serious densification on lands all along the two lines. There is land aching to get developed and if there;s a 30min journey in the offing to the CC via train then people would have no qualms with living out there thus removing pressure on housing in the CC.





Absolutely no idea. As it stands you would want your head examined to traipse through the insane traffic in South Lucan in the morning to then battle to Fonthill and then park up to get a train to Heuston and assuming a lot of people have a follow on journey after that.

The traffic at Moy Glas leading to the Outer ring Road coupled with recent traffic influxes at the Penny Hill at Abbeywood has meant that it can take about 30min to get from Griffeen Avenue to Woodies. It's madness!

Different story of it was straight in from Kishoge.

I took the train a lot from Naas/Sallins last summer and I was shocked at the volume of people who got on in ParkWest. So it shows how service led demand could work in the case of Kishoge.

Of course there are some people living in West-Dublin taking as long if not longer than people who live in bray to get into the city center.

Ongar, Clonee, Lucan etc are about 15-20km from the city center, the same as Bray and parts of Kildare. An imaginary county line does not change the fact that many of these commuter towns are now parts of the continuous built up area of Dublin.

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

You essentially did - "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north, barring the airport environs *as things stand*". There's lots of land that isn't "airport environs" to be unlocked here, there's huge areas of Ballymun where development had stalled in 2008 that remain either greenfield or ready for redevelopment. There's huge areas around the IKEA site along St Margaret's Road too. And then there's Swords which is ripe for large scale developments.



Who said they can't? The only thing mods have banned is "typical Ireland" style posts.

I essentially didn't

There's a lot of land around the airport, sure. I don't want to see a city where we hamstring our only airport from future growth *and* consign people to live closer to an airport than either they OR the DAA would want.

There's scant room for development otherwise. Heck, a quick look on Google maps and Fingal's existing development plan would tell you that.

Edit: the mods said in the then-Metro North there was to be no further dragging up of the original scheme and its merits, now that times had moved on. I'm not a mod so don't take my word for it

MJohnston

lucernarian wrote: »

I essentially didn't

There's a lot of land around the airport, sure. I don't want to see a city where we hamstring our only airport from future growth *and* consign people to live closer to an airport than either they OR the DAA would want.

There's scant room for development otherwise. Heck, a quick look on Google maps and Fingal's existing development plan would tell you that.

A quick look at Google Maps shows me a lot of room and that's even without going 'near' (ie. within 1km of the outer bounds north and south) the airport. Either way, "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north" is just not close to correct.

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

A quick look at Google Maps shows me a lot of room and that's even without going 'near' (ie. within 1km of the outer bounds north and south) the airport. Either way, "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north" is just not close to correct.

And where exactly would this be? Or are we expecting ABP to reverse their judgement in 2010 and say it's fine to go past Lissenhall? There's some land in Ballymun, near IKEA for example, and it's not zoned for Residential new builds for the most part. After that, there's Albert College Park, a bit near Griffith Avenue (I'm sure that will go down well with the locals) and then SFA all the way to Sandyford. If our own Taoiseach speaks out against 4-storey apartments within 5 mins of the Western Commuter railway, how could densification happen? And I'm ignoring the potential for densification along the far more extensive railway network at that.

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

And where exactly would this be? Or are we expecting ABP to reverse their judgement in 2010 and say it's fine to go past Lissenhall? There's some land in Ballymun, near IKEA for example, and it's not zoned for Residential new builds for the most part. After that, there's Albert College Park, a bit near Griffith Avenue (I'm sure that will go down well with the locals) and then SFA all the way to Sandyford. If our own Taoiseach speaks out against 4-storey apartments within 5 mins of the Western Commuter railway, how could densification happen? And I'm ignoring the potential for densification along the far more extensive railway network at that.

Another major benefit of the Metro is that it'll allow sustainable and favourable commuting compared to before.

The predominant flow that blocks the M50 in the morning is the flow from the M1 down to Sandyford. A hefty chunk of that can be removed by the Metro.

MJohnston

lucernarian wrote: »

And where exactly would this be? Or are we expecting ABP to reverse their judgement in 2010 and say it's fine to go past Lissenhall? There's some land in Ballymun, near IKEA for example, and it's not zoned for Residential new builds for the most part. After that, there's Albert College Park, a bit near Griffith Avenue (I'm sure that will go down well with the locals) and then SFA all the way to Sandyford. If our own Taoiseach speaks out against 4-storey apartments within 5 mins of the Western Commuter railway, how could densification happen? And I'm ignoring the potential for densification along the far more extensive railway network at that.

I'll remind you that you specifically said "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north" but this is demonstrably false. You've already highlighted some parcels of land falsifying your own statement. Don't start moving the goalposts.

MJohnston

marno21 wrote: »

Another major benefit of the Metro is that it'll allow sustainable and favourable commuting compared to before.

The predominant flow that blocks the M50 in the morning is the flow from the M1 down to Sandyford. A hefty chunk of that can be removed by the Metro.

Yep, Swords turns from a slog of a commute into a real commuter town option, instantly.

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

I'll remind you that you specifically said "There is no land to be unlocked by metro north" but this is demonstrably false. You've already highlighted some parcels of land falsifying your own statement. Don't start moving the goalposts.

Let's have a look again.

There is no land to be unlocked by metro north, barring the airport environs *as things stand*

Don't want to have an auld flaming session here, but we'd have great craic altogether if we made unconstructive replies consisting of snippets of sentences in random posts.

I thought the purpose of this thread was to examine and indeed defend the need for Dart Underground, not have a red herring discussion about what my opinion is on Metro North. Call that moving the goalposts if you want, but I stand by my (complete) point. The glorified Luas would need to be extended northwards (against the previous ABP recommendation) for there to be land freed up away from the Airport environs.

MJohnston

lucernarian wrote: »

Let's have a look again.

Don't want to have an auld flaming session here, but we'd have great craic altogether if we made unconstructive replies consisting of snippets of sentences in random posts.

I thought the purpose of this thread was to examine and indeed defend the need for Dart Underground, not have a red herring discussion about what my opinion is on Metro North. Call that moving the goalposts if you want, but I stand by my (complete) point. The glorified Luas would need to be extended northwards (against the previous ABP recommendation) for there to be land freed up away from the Airport environs.

Your longer quote doesn't add anything that makes it any less false - you yourself have demonstrably listed lands that are not the airport environs that Metro would unlock for development. I don't know why you're worried about this being true?

I'll go back to my original point and simplify it: Metro can unlock lands by adding a new corridor of high quality transport provision, DU can unlock lands by adding capacity and frequency to existing corridors of transport provision to upgrade them a high quality standard. My assertion was simply that the former looks better as a newspaper headline than the latter.

You seem to have assumed I was attacking the utility of the DU project, when I've done no such thing.

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

Your longer quote doesn't add anything that makes it any less false - you yourself have demonstrably listed lands that are not the airport environs that Metro would unlock for development. I don't know why you're worried about this being true?

I'll go back to my original point and simplify it: Metro can unlock lands by adding a new corridor of high quality transport provision, DU can unlock lands by adding capacity and frequency to existing corridors of transport provision to upgrade them a high quality standard. My assertion was simply that the former looks better as a newspaper headline than the latter.

You seem to have assumed I was attacking the utility of the DU project, when I've done no such thing.

I listed out the "empty land" that was in the vicinity of Metro North beyond the Airport environs, which consists of parkland, is developed already or is otherwise not zoned residential. I think you're being more than liberal with the truth now, about what I said for one, something about being worried for another and then that straw man about "attacking the utility of DU".

And that still doesn't change the realities around Metro North and its capability to stimulate development along the route (as opposed to house prices), and how there is nowhere for that to happen away from the airport environs. BTW I say this as a supporter of the original project, as this brings hundreds of thousands of people and workers into contact with reliable and high-capacity public transport, but certainly not for fantastical notions of freeing up land for development.