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

monument

Grandeeod wrote: »

Everything I said went right over your head Monument. I may have time soon to decode your response because many of your quoted responses had no relevance to much of what I said.

That’s another post which doesn’t back up what you are saying.

For clarity, my main point was:

Your post said: "You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job."

The documents show that MetroLink has been thought out in a huge amount of detail and that you are wrong.

You have provided nothing which allows you to claim that “Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much“. It’s a really unfair claim to make given that there is clearly a lot of work gone into solutions and options.

It’s a separate issue to say no firm option is chosen for some elements of the project— and not having everything set in stone is good practice at the stage of a project.

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is hard to forecast the costs of doing a project 5 years in advance. But even if the cost is 6 billion rather than 3 billion, which would be 350 million a kilometre for the new line) the CBA looks OK.

Morgenroth's point is still a good one. Can we really justify the cost of the underground tunnel?

We can argue about that, but it is fairly certain that a 26km metro is more likely to be justifiable than a 17km metro at the same sort of cost.

Again, you can't take a single point of the methodology failings and say e.g. this alone doesn't change much. The benefits were calculated over a 60 year period, which is extreme. The estimations used, for the overall capital costs, the relative gains of each option chosen vs those costs, and especially the annual operating costs, these are serious deficiencies.

I can only call it an estimate when I say the capex plus tram/train acquisition would cost about €4 billion, but we already have fully costed proposals for the previous scheme and it's not hard to extrapolate from those. I can only hope that the 90 metre driverless option is going to be picked but we all accept this raises the capex cost (and presumably lowers operational expenses - I don't have numbers for this)

My point all along is that by undertaking the green line also as one large scheme, it magnifies the risk of successful delivery. It is NOT going to be a similar cost to Metro North, that myth has to be put to sleep. The point is made by many here, that we need to just get on board with this plan - but the inevitably higher price tag well north of €3 billion is going to jeapordise this and to me sounds like a Bertie-era promise which will rear its ugly head when the D6 NIMBYs and more accurate costings come through.

The €3 billion option seems to involve the cheapest possible tie-in, the portal at Na Fianna, no station at Dardistown and most horrifyingly, a specification of running a glorified luas instead of 90 metre or more trainsets.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Your post said: "You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job."

The documents show that MetroLink has been thought out in a huge amount of detail and that you are wrong.

In fairness, the CBA provided with Metrolink is sorely lacking on critical details with "high-level estimates" sounding like a euphemism for guesses. They picked for instance a value of 50% of the expected underground running costs for the overground sections - why?

The published story linked earlier described two other redacted CBAs that allegedly showed they did not show a net benefit to the project as outlined so far. The one that did used a 60-year evaluation period! And "high-level estimates" of annual running costs - which would be completely changed one way or another by automatic train operation for instance.

Edit: you've disagreed with posts saying they lack evidence, but I've offered that evidence in this thread - the CBA and the story surrounding redacted CBAs are a serious issue that can't be swept under the carpet.

antoinolachtnai

What period was taken for MN? Because the CBA doesn’t state where the residual number came from.

Why do you think they have not based their costing on the fully costed proposals, or at least taken them into account?

Why would the price tag jeopardize it? If the benefits are strong enough?

How does cutting out the Green line linkup save a single cent? The capacity deficit on the Green Line needs to be addressed in the next 15 years no matter what happens. The demand will go gaga as the land toward Cherrywood is developed. It is hard to see how this capacity deficit can be addressed without the Green line going underground somehow.

A sufficiently big station at Charlemont or St Stephens Green to allow everyone to change between tram and train and allow rolling stock to turn quickly will not be cheap either.

Surely integrating the green line will reduce operating costs on that section, on a passenger-km basis? Particularly if there are driverless trains?

It is not a perfect design by any means but there are a lot of swings and roundabouts here. I think the current people (who are realistically working with the remnants of what was done before) have done a decent enough job at it. They are laying out their work before it is finalized and getting feedback and that is a good thing.

marno21

The Metrolink cost benefit analysis is indicative only. A full one will be published when the route and operational characteristics of the project have been finalised.

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What period was taken for MN? Because the CBA doesn’t state where the residual number came from.

30

Why do you think they have not based their costing on the fully costed proposals, or at least taken them into account?

As often outlined, there are significant options and choices on the table - the CBA has only offered one analysis, based on an option or options that were not explored.

Why would the price tag jeopardize it? If the benefits are strong enough?

This is what happened to Metro North, which despite its failings had at least fully made it through the planning system and had widespread support in the affected communities.

How does cutting out the Green line linkup save a single cent? The capacity deficit on the Green Line needs to be addressed in the next 15 years no matter what happens. The demand will go gaga as the land toward Cherrywood is developed. It is hard to see how this capacity deficit can be addressed without the Green line going underground somehow.

There is the possibility for further platform extensions for Sandyford to SSG for instance. Also, there is a large number of offices etc. out in Cherrywood - it wouldnt' be reasonable to assume new residents are mainly going to commute to the city centre

A sufficiently big station at Charlemont or St Stephens Green to allow everyone to change between tram and train and allow rolling stock to turn quickly will not be cheap either.

Why not at SSG? But really my point goes into the realm of an alternative to Metrolink, which isn't for this thread. All I will say here is that Metrolink doesn't *require* some Green line upgrade in tandem, any more than e.g. Metro North did to be a costed and approved proposal.

Surely integrating the green line will reduce operating costs on that section, on a passenger-km basis? Particularly if there are driverless trains?

On the green line section? Hard to say with the available information, if the NTA themselves are using "high-level estimates" for this Heavier sets (from the wider loading gague), perhaps longer ones, higher frequency, all takes their toll on UIC 43 rails. Note that absolute operating costs were used, so they should be nearly linear with increases in capacity. Driverless savings are hard to quantify with the info I have.

It is not a perfect design by any means but there are a lot of swings and roundabouts here. I think the current people (who are realistically working with the remnants of what was done before) have done a decent enough job at it. They are laying out their work before it is finalized and getting feedback and that is a good thing.

I think the designs themselves are intricate and have a lot of info dedicated to options and so forth. The costing and budgeting part is a shambles. I believe for political reasons, the cost of this project is being understated and there is the lingering idea that the plug can be pulled on this one if the wind blows differently in the next couple of years. Objections, cost overruns, impact of Brexit on the economy, an election where FF want to get revenge on FG for upstaging Metro North, any number of unforseeable events. .

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

The Metrolink cost benefit analysis is indicative only. A full one will be published when the route and operational characteristics of the project have been finalised.

Indicative? Is that how "high-level estimates" are translated now?

The public were asked for consultation on a route with a lot of options, which had some indicative costs attached. Then we're given a CBA which doesn't even give any of the design assumptions for the expected plan (of which there are MANY).

Why the hell are decisions being made on the pros and cons of design options, if there is apparently little info on the costs/benefits of each? And if that information IS available, why has it been hidden from the public? As the academic in the Indo article alleges?

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

Indicative? Is that how "high-level estimates" are translated now?

The public were asked for consultation on a route with a lot of options, which had some indicative costs attached. Then we're given a CBA which doesn't even give any of the design assumptions for the expected plan (of which there are MANY).

Why the hell are decisions being made on the pros and cons of design options, if there is apparently little info on the costs/benefits of each? And if that information IS available, why has it been hidden from the public? As the academic in the Indo article alleges?

That's the word I put on it. The Metrolink CBA was released to show that the NTA have looked at the scheme in economic terms to prove there will be a benefit

There is little point in wasting money on a full CBA for a scheme which still has a number of variables. A full CBA will be published when the final scheme is sent to DPER for approval of the business case

antoinolachtnai

lucernarian wrote: »

30

This is untrue. The CBA is over 30 years for both projects. For ML it is stated that the residual value was calculated on the basis of a further 30 years life. The question I am asking is on what basis the residual value was calculated for MN. I have no idea. Maybe you can tell me.

As often outlined, there are significant options and choices on the table - the CBA has only offered one analysis, based on an option or options that were not explored.

They could explore all the options they wanted but the fundamental truth is that the longer the length of the suburban overground section in proportion to the underground section, the better the CBA will turn out.

I agree with you that this should have been better illustrated and explained with alternative examples.

This is what happened to Metro North, which despite its failings had at least fully made it through the planning system and had widespread support in the affected communities.

It is a matter of opinion, but I think FF effectively cancelled it because the funders just wouldn't fund it. It just wasn't that great a project. But it is an opinion, I can't prove it, we will undoubtedly differ on it.

I actually think the community objections to Metrolink are quite narrowly focused and these issues can be dealt with. That is an opinion of course, I have not conducted a poll!

There is the possibility for further platform extensions for Sandyford to SSG for instance. Also, there is a large number of offices etc. out in Cherrywood - it wouldnt' be reasonable to assume new residents are mainly going to commute to the city centre

The idea that you could solve the problem by running long trains along only part of the route seems very hopeful. Turning these trains around at SSG would slow things down by blocking paths and platforms. You would realistically need to put in extra track at St Stephen's Green and this would really entail cutting considerably into the park. Even with that I don't think the trains would load evenly and this would cause problems with the schedule. Maybe it could be done but it would be more of a stopgap than a solution.

Why not at SSG? But really my point goes into the realm of an alternative to Metrolink, which isn't for this thread. All I will say here is that Metrolink doesn't *require* some Green line upgrade in tandem, any more than e.g. Metro North did to be a costed and approved proposal.

So when the disconnected Metro stimulates extra journeys on the Green Line, how will the extra pax be dealt with? It would require another project anyway.

On the green line section? Hard to say with the available information, if the NTA themselves are using "high-level estimates" for this Heavier sets (from the wider loading gague), perhaps longer ones, higher frequency, all takes their toll on UIC 43 rails.

As you say, you still have a degree of extra wear, whether you increase the number of passes (making trains longer) or put a bit more weight on each wheel (making trains wider).

Aren't the rails a bit heavier than UIC43? I have 49 and 59 in my mind.

Note that absolute operating costs were used, so they should be nearly linear with increases in capacity. Driverless savings are hard to quantify with the info I have.

The operating costs are going to be sort of the same no matter what route you go (subject to there being a difference between above ground and below ground, and it is proportional to the demand and/or capacity.

I think the designs themselves are intricate and have a lot of info dedicated to options and so forth. The costing and budgeting part is a shambles. I believe for political reasons, the cost of this project is being understated and there is the lingering idea that the plug can be pulled on this one if the wind blows differently in the next couple of years. Objections, cost overruns, impact of Brexit on the economy, an election where FF want to get revenge on FG for upstaging Metro North, any number of unforseeable events. .

At least we are getting some insight into the costing and budgeting process this time. Last time around it was treated like the third secret of Fatima. (The reality is that it is very hard to gauge what costs will be in 2022.)

At the end of the day, for me, this is Metro North with knobs on. It is basically the same idea. (Don't get me wrong, I like it better with the knobs.) I don't see FF cancelling it for that sort of reason.

I share your cynicism about the whole process. If you ask me the whole concept is really predicated around the idea that a Metro line had to serve the environs of Drumcondra, even though that (fine) suburb is no longer the political powerhouse it once was. But what can I do really?

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

I got the impression that twin bore was favoured as it would make station building easier as the station would be a simple platform between the two tunnels, and access would be from either end. .

Island platforms in tunnels are disliked for safety reasons. Overcrowding is far more likely to result in people on the tracks. A tad less dangerous with OHLE than with third rail but still not really acceptable.

Stephen15

L1011 wrote: »

Island platforms in tunnels are disliked for safety reasons. Overcrowding is far more likely to result in people on the tracks. A tad less dangerous with OHLE than with third rail but still not really acceptable.

You could regular style double track platforms like what can be seen on the DART. The Rome and Paris Metro have regular double track which is not overly common in Metro systems with a much wider tunnel to fit double track side by side.

sdanseo

L1011 wrote: »

Island platforms in tunnels are disliked for safety reasons. Overcrowding is far more likely to result in people on the tracks. A tad less dangerous with OHLE than with third rail but still not really acceptable.

Platform edge doors should be a no brainer.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

Island platforms in tunnels are disliked for safety reasons. Overcrowding is far more likely to result in people on the tracks. A tad less dangerous with OHLE than with third rail but still not really acceptable.

Overcrowding can be solved by:

1. Platform Passenger doors - these would be essential for a driverless solution.

2. Doors that restrict entrance onto the platform if overcrowding is likely. These are used on the Paris Metro and I think the NY Subway. Door giving access to platform closes as train enter platform, and opens after it leaves.

Overcrowding is not currently seen as a problem on Dart or Luas.

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

That's the word I put on it. The Metrolink CBA was released to show that the NTA have looked at the scheme in economic terms to prove there will be a benefit

There is little point in wasting money on a full CBA for a scheme which still has a number of variables. A full CBA will be published when the final scheme is sent to DPER for approval of the business case

Wasting money how exactly? Maybe that DCU Prof. of economics (not a Colm McCarthy type from what I've found so far) giving a conference talk on this has more insight into this than either of us have, and claims:

1) That THREE CBAs were carried out
2) Only one of those has been published with MetroLink consultation (Or they carried out a 4th one for that )
3) That two of them showed the CBA was unfavourable.

(https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/academic-casts-doubt-on-costs-of-wonderful-metro-north-36617529.html)

You don't need to be an economics professor to be highly skeptical of the worth of the single modelling scenario they published in the MetroLink consultation CBA. Also, that the cost of commissioning other CBAs was hardly an issue in the scheme of things.

How are the NTA themselves going to avail of guidance which doesn't give insights into the benefits of each alternative vs their costs? Can you try to explain the waste in carrying out the same modelling technique except with more permutations and an ensemble chart of the different outcomes? Even the work(!) that went into the North Dublin Transport Study was somewhat highly detailed, though the population and expected ppdph numbers were underestimated (as Luas Green Line already shows us today).

It's one thing to be wrong about estimates or predictions, but to conceal basic and rudimentary calculations that materially affect the decisions in a nearly €4 billion project is on another order of magnitude.

HatchSt

lucernarian wrote: »

Maybe that DCU Prof. of economics (not a Colm McCarthy type from what I've found so far) giving a conference talk on this has more insight into this than either of us have.

I think you’re being unfair to Prof Morgenroth. He made those comments in February BEFORE Metrolink was launched and before CBA or any other documentation was published.

lucernarian

HatchSt wrote: »

I think you’re being unfair to Prof Morgenroth. He made those comments in February BEFORE Metrolink was launched and before CBA or any other documentation was published.

How am I being unfair by saying he's probably had more insight into this? Can't see how you got to that conclusion.

If he's got access to two unpublished CBAs then he's in an envious position compared to us armchair commentators. And he's skeptical about the costings too.

yer man!

Was in Kyoto on the Karasuma line recently, which is the older of their two lines and opened in 1981. I can see they have created huge stations boxes in anticipation of increased demand. They have just blocked off the areas of the platforms they don't need with railings. They did this over 30 years ago, some foresight!
Really hoping they go similar in Dublin and don't pigeonhole the metro for decades.
 

yer man!

Wasn't able to upload from earlier.

marno21

yer man! wrote: »

Was in Kyoto on the Karasuma line recently, which is the older of their two lines and opened in 1981. I can see they have created huge stations boxes in anticipation of increased demand. They have just blocked off the areas of the platforms they don't need with railings. They did this over 30 years ago, some foresight!
Really hoping they go similar in Dublin and don't pigeonhole the metro for decades.
 

The current mess involving the Green Line upgrade including the lack of space for a tie-in and the issue with Dunville Avenue and the road near the Stillorgan stop is enough of a reason to ensure that one of the first priorities for the Metrolink scheme is future proofed. The Luas is only 13 years old and look.

Of course, the order of the day will be "cost optimisation", e.g. "cost cutting" which generates multiples in "value cutting"

yer man!

Finally a bit of realism from an Irish newspaper on the building of Metrolink and the Irish attitude to it.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-needs-to-become-a-nation-where-things-get-done-instead-of-procrastination-36962552.html

Would like more of this.

CatInABox

It's weird seeing how reporters twist some of the Metro stuff, check out this headline: "Metro could be derailed by ‘location of airport stop’", even the article itself is weird.

You'd have to read half the article before you'd realise that Dublin Chamber are fully behind Metrolink, and are in fact disappointed that Dart Underground isn't being built at the same time.

The lobby group, which expressed disappointment that the Dart Underground project would not take place at the same time as MetroLink, also voiced concerns over possible disruption in the city during construction of the new line.

Their main worries are basically that the Dublin Airport station may be too far away, and that the disruption caused by construction may cause delays. It comes across to me as a full throated endorsement for underground rail in the city, but it really seems that the author of the article went out of their way to put as negative a slant on it as possible.

specialbyte

CatInABox wrote: »

It's weird seeing how reporters twist some of the Metro stuff, check out this headline: "Metro could be derailed by ‘location of airport stop’", even the article itself is weird.

You'd have to read half the article before you'd realise that Dublin Chamber are fully behind Metrolink, and are in fact disappointed that Dart Underground isn't being built at the same time.



Their main worries are basically that the Dublin Airport station may be too far away, and that the disruption caused by construction may cause delays. It comes across to me as a full throated endorsement for underground rail in the city, but it really seems that the author of the article went out of their way to put as negative a slant on it as possible.

Yeah the author is trying hard aren't they? All the Chamber want to see is better integration between the metro station and the two terminals. By international standards the metro station isn't that far away from the two terminals. It's about 200m from the front of both terminals, which is a 2-3 minute walk. Right now from the engineering drawings the pedestrian route from the station box to the airport terminals isn't great. But that is not the job of the MetroLink project. That's the job of DAA. I suspect that DAA will build an above ground walkway similar to what is outside T2 to link both terminals to the metro station.

If there was a high quality segregated walkway either above ground or below ground from the metro station to the terminals I suspect the Chamber would be very happy.

specialbyte

More than 7,000 submissions were received during the public consultation process on the Metro, which is now closed. A preferred route is expected to be chosen by the NTA and TII in the third quarter of this year, with this also being put out to public consultation.

-- From the Irish Times article.

That is a hell of a lot of submissions. It is going to take them months to read them all and then classify each point of every submission into feedback buckets.

The NTA's largest ever public consultation was the Merrion Gates scheme, which attracted 700 submissions. It really puts 7,000 into perspective.

Sam Russell

specialbyte wrote: »

-- From the Irish Times article.

That is a hell of a lot of submissions. It is going to take them months to read them all and then classify each point of every submission into feedback buckets.

The NTA's largest ever public consultation was the Merrion Gates scheme, which attracted 700 submissions. It really puts 7,000 into perspective.

If it is any consolation, they have shelved the Merrion Gates scheme due to the large number of submissions that were against it.

Of the 7,000 submissions, how many were cut and paste duplicates?

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of the 7,000 submissions, how many were cut and paste duplicates?

I would imagine a substantial amount, especially relating to the Na Fianna situation

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I would imagine a substantial amount, especially relating to the Na Fianna situation

Not just Na Fianna, I think the Beechwood Rd and Dunville Ave has a quite a few out cutting and pasting as well. Plus a few who would like it to go via Rathfarnum, Terenure and other places SW.

Big project, big reaction, and most media reaction has been negative, and not well informed, nor informative.

Typical.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not just Na Fianna, I think the Beechwood Rd and Dunville Ave has a quite a few out cutting and pasting as well.

This will shorten it so assuming a workabke solution is being thought about for the Dunville Road issue.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Plus a few who would like it to go via Rathfarnum, Terenure and other places SW.

These will be easily dealt with as that is outside the scope of the Metrolink project.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Big project, big reaction, and most media reaction has been negative, and not well informed, nor informative.

Typical.

Standard Ireland. The next time there's a report on traffic congestion they'll be quick to print that too.

Imagine how much progress we could make in Ireland if the media didn't carry on the way they do.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

Imagine how much progress we could make in Ireland if the media didn't carry on the way they do.

Imagine how much progress we could make in Ireland if the media Politicians didn't carry on the way they do.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Imagine how much progress we could make in Ireland if the media Politicians didn't carry on the way they do.

Whatever about the politicans, which is a whole other story, it would be nice if the media called out the politicians for the lack of progress on infrastructure projects rather than trying to portray the NTA and TII as evil, GAA club destroying, CPO loving organisations hell bent on interfering with peoples lives for no societal benefit.

We've had the same with the M28 in Cork, as if the M28 was a conspiracy to ruin peoples lives, when in fact the lack of M28 is causing congestion along the route, leaving large volumes of traffic running through villages, and holding up the release of vast landbanks of much needed land in Cork City centre.

Bray Head

Sean O'Rourke had a 19-minute discussion on traffic congestion on the M50 yesterday. 

Busconnects and cycle lanes did get a mention, but not one contributor said anything about the biggest planned public transport project in Dublin: Metrolink!