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

antoinolachtnai

murphaph wrote: »

If the economics of metro North were hairy I'd like to see how any of several European cities ever justified anything. It starts at a decent sized suburb with perfect park and ride possibilities directly beside a motorway, passes under an international airport, on through more suburbs with Sweden's favourite flat pack furniture store, before serving a university, interchanging with heavy rail, passing by a major teaching hospital and 80k seat sports stadium, passing through the city centre interconnecting with one tram line (and almost connecting again with heavy rail) and connecting with a massively over subscribed tram line at its terminus in the central business district.

All this in a city where we know rail transport is flocked to when provided.

Well, for one thing, construction cost was very high because of the design. A giant end-of-line city centre station and a station under a river don't build themselves.

Another issue was the nature of the route. It was largely an expensive-per-km underground city section and a relatively short overground (cheap-per-km) section.

The new route has the advantage of having an overground section at both ends. This means that the expensive underground section benefits at least twice as many people.

I would say that in general European cities build tunnels that are 'pendular' (go through the city, rather than terminating in the city centre) and continue as above ground lines at either end.

MN also didn't link particularly well with rail routes. It assumed that Dart Underground would come along. I would say that in general these types of linkages are central to the design you see in other European cities. The lack of a direct link with DART has to have had an impact on the modelling for MN.

All these things together seem to add up to serious economic problems for Metro North.

murphaph

Don't mind me too much. I'm just home for Xmas for a couple of weeks to depress myself at the glacial pace of change in Irish public transport. But I had a couple of winners at Leopardstown today so it's not all bad ;-)

antoinolachtnai

Hopefully Dublin will have a winner soon.

1huge1

Don't hold your breath...

Further delays, possible pay wall alert

Dublin Metrolink application unlikely before 2020 (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-metrolink-application-unlikely-before-2020-1.3741804

CatInABox

1huge1 wrote: »

Don't hold your breath...

Further delays, possible pay wall alert

Dublin Metrolink application unlikely before 2020 (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-metrolink-application-unlikely-before-2020-1.3741804

Always going to happen, as soon as they announced the delay to the next consultation I mentally pushed the project back by several months.

D.L.R.

Just in time for the election.

Busman Paddy Lasty

1huge1 wrote: »

Don't hold your breath...

Further delays, possible pay wall alert

Dublin Metrolink application unlikely before 2020 (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-metrolink-application-unlikely-before-2020-1.3741804

Would be great if the Swords to Charlemont section could be applied for and started separate from the redesign mentioned in the article.

Force government to commit and quickly sort out any redesign issues.

antoinolachtnai

It would be very difficult to either get planning or go for tender on a project where you did not know where the railway was going to end or how it was going to terminate.

Sam Russell

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

Would be great if the Swords to Charlemont section could be applied for and started separate from the redesign mentioned in the article.

Force government to commit and quickly sort out any redesign issues.

Why not devide into three sections? Swords to Homefarm, Homefarm to SSG, SSG to Sandyford. Also plan to do the overbridge at St Raephaela's Rd as a separate project (as it needs doing anyway). Once the railway order is in place, begin that project. There is a depot planned at each end. Whitworth Road might be another alternative to Homefarm.

Not sure how the project would be costed or controlled, but that would be easier once it is started - afterall, most motorways were built in stages.

It might be better done in stages, as it would sound less money.

antoinolachtnai

I do think you might have a good point about St Raphaelas Road. Maybe even elevate a longer section of track and merge the two stations.

The problem with splitting up the rest is that these might be separate ‘work packages’ but are not really separate projects. One doesn’t really work without the other in terms of either engineering or cost benefit or environmental impact.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I do think you might have a good point about St Raphaelas Road. Maybe even elevate a longer section of track and merge the two stations.

The problem with splitting up the rest is that these might be separate ‘work packages’ but are not really separate projects. One doesn’t really work without the other in terms of either engineering or cost benefit or environmental impact.

Well, the reason to divide the project would be to get it through ABP, the project terms could be designed to cope with the division by pricing the first one to allow extension to the second and third elements. For example, the tunnel could be charged at so much per Km.

antoinolachtnai

I don’t know if you would save that much time. As I understand it ABP will put a team on the project far in advance of the application and hearing and this should deal with most problems that arise. Separate applications and hearings for each section would be likely to result in a refusal, because no clear environmental benefit could be demonstrated for the part-projects. You need to see the project as a whole to see the benefit. They won’t issue a railway order unless there is a benefit.

road_high

Depressing. No doubt it’ll coincide with the next downturn. The whole thing will be binned again. Then resurrected. Rinse and repeat. Why can’t we do infrastructure here? Beyond a joke now

Rulmeq

road_high wrote: »

Depressing. No doubt it’ll coincide with the next downturn. The whole thing will be binned again. Then resurrected. Rinse and repeat. Why can’t we do infrastructure here? Beyond a joke now

Given the size and importance of this project, there should have been a junior minister appointed for it (because Ross certainly doesn't care)

Lord Glentoran

road_high wrote: »

Depressing. No doubt it’ll coincide with the next downturn. The whole thing will be binned again. Then resurrected. Rinse and repeat. Why can’t we do infrastructure here? Beyond a joke now

Unless its a road project, forget it. Rail projects can be pushed out beyond the electoral cycle until they can be reannounced every ten years or so.

CatInABox

How long does a railway order last for?

Busman Paddy Lasty

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don’t know if you would save that much time. As I understand it ABP will put a team on the project far in advance of the application and hearing and this should deal with most problems that arise. Separate applications and hearings for each section would be likely to result in a refusal, because no clear environmental benefit could be demonstrated for the part-projects. You need to see the project as a whole to see the benefit. They won’t issue a railway order unless there is a benefit.

Is this unique to railways? It's common for other projects to be split into a series of contracts.

I fear a one year delay for redesign could end up much longer resulting in project going back on ice.

Could the application be completed in 2019 by any means?

prunudo

While i understand the urgency, building in sections would be a disaster. Just look at the mess the m50 became.
Build it right from the start. It needs political will power to get it through and at present there are too many nay sayers and conflicted interests.
I've said it before but a project this size will always have collateral damage and the politicians are too afraid of losing their seats to fight for the greater good.

Busman Paddy Lasty

jvan wrote: »

While i understand the urgency, building in sections would be a disaster. Just look at the mess the m50 became.
Build it right from the start. It needs political will power to get it through and at present there are too many nay sayers and conflicted interests.
I've said it before but a project this size will always have collateral damage and the politicians are too afraid of losing their seats to fight for the greater good.

I agree and was only querying could the single build be applied for in phases. The length of time to tunnel from Swords would be greater than second application process, allowing for an early start and complete build.

Fwiw I'd get Northside to Charlemont (temp terminus) operational, continue tunnel to Sandyford and open Charlemont to Sandyford as soon as built. Leave Luas in place permanently as I believe the demand will be there long term especially Cherrywood, Central Park and Sandyford. Metro could have less stations and operate a semi express service south of Charlemont.

I'd never recommend building in sections with decade between. Dig the Metro in one go while opening in stages and being ahead of demand for once. One can always dream.....

salmocab

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

I agree and was only querying could the single build be applied for in phases. The length of time to tunnel from Swords would be greater than second application process, allowing for an early start and complete build.

Fwiw I'd get Northside to Charlemont (temp terminus) operational, continue tunnel to Sandyford and open Charlemont to Sandyford as soon as built. Leave Luas in place permanently as I believe the demand will be there long term especially Cherrywood, Central Park and Sandyford. Metro could have less stations and operate a semi express service south of Charlemont.

I'd never recommend building in sections with decade between. Dig the Metro in one go while opening in stages and being ahead of demand for once. One can always dream.....

Do it in sections and it will have to be tendered in sections that would be a mess

antoinolachtnai

You can’t economically build a temporary terminus at Charlemont.

For starters you can’t do much until the TBM is finished. The TBM needs the tunnel to extract the stone that it is breaking. If you got round this problem (which you could, at some expense) you would have to build a very big station at Charlemont to accommodate the massive crowds who would want to change between metro and Luas in both directions at once. You would probably want to build a third luas platform to allow the Luas to be turned around quickly.

Busman Paddy Lasty

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can’t economically build a temporary terminus at Charlemont.

For starters you can’t do much until the TBM is finished. The TBM needs the tunnel to extract the stone that it is breaking. If you got round this problem (which you could, at some expense) you would have to build a very big station at Charlemont to accommodate the massive crowds who would want to change between metro and Luas in both directions at once. You would probably want to build a third luas platform to allow the Luas to be turned around quickly.

Yes it's not possible to apply for planning while building, tendering for multiple contracts on the same line would be messy. If somehow could be done would cost a fortune anyway.

I'm eager to see it started soon is all. Working back from that is not the solution.

AngryLips

I thought the CBA showed a 4 times return on MN? That was what was being bandied about at the time I think. Agree that terminating a metro line in the city centre is a stupid concept though, metro lines usually thread the city core

antoinolachtnai

Alas, no, nothing like 4x. 1.5, or 2 if you took wider benefits into account.

murphaph

This report mentions an underground railway to swords via the airport..

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2018/1211/1016570-underground-transport-for-dublin/

cgcsb

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

Fwiw I'd get Northside to Charlemont (temp terminus) operational, continue tunnel to Sandyford and open Charlemont to Sandyford as soon as built. Leave Luas in place permanently as I believe the demand will be there long term especially Cherrywood, Central Park and Sandyford. Metro could have less stations and operate a semi express service south of Charlemont.

seriously? you're talking about duplicating service in a city with extremely poor rail coverage.

riddlinrussell

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

Leave Luas in place permanently as I believe the demand will be there long term especially Cherrywood, Central Park and Sandyford. Metro could have less stations and operate a semi express service south of Charlemont.

You've managed to combine the extra cost of the Metro to Rathfarnham with the complaints of overserving a single route into one truly atrocious proposal.

Luas to Metro conversion is happening because its cheap to do and any alternative sensible (not just... stopping in the city centre) metro will have an extra few billion tacked on to the cost.

I'm behind the current idea as it gets a functional metro built, wedging the door for future lines by (hopefully) showing it to be a good model of PT in Dublin.

Metro 2 - Rathfarnahm/Knocklyon to [Insert underserved northside area here] should be planned to start essentially as soon as this is completed so the expertise gathered for this one is kept around (Although probably vanishingly unlikely that will actually happen)

salmocab

riddlinrussell wrote: »

You've managed to combine the extra cost of the Metro to Ranelagh with the complaints of overserving a single route into one truly atrocious proposal.

Luas to Metro conversion is happening because its cheap to do and any alternative sensible (not just... stopping in the city centre) metro will have an extra few billion tacked on to the cost.

I'm behind the current idea as it gets a functional metro built, wedging the door for future lines by (hopefully) showing it to be a good model of PT in Dublin.

Metro 2 - Ranelagh/Knocklyon to [Insert underserved northside area here] should be planned to start essentially as soon as this is completed so the expertise gathered for this one is kept around (Although probably vanishingly unlikely that will actually happen)

Ranelagh? Do you mean Rathfarnham?

Busman Paddy Lasty

cgcsb wrote: »

seriously? you're talking about duplicating service in a city with extremely poor rail coverage.

Yes and No. I understand now this would not be done due to costs and objections. Spur of the moment offered idea that I would consider. Thankfully we're in a democracy and sh1te like this won't happen.

What should have been written on the day was to raise a question about future population and will we be looking at an overloaded MetroLink in 25 years time?

marno21

Forget cheap - the main reason Metro South is being built, that is SSG-Ranelagh-Sandyford, is because demand forecasts for the future show that it's a paramount scheme to keep up with demand on the Luas Green Line

The Irish Times coverage on the Luas Green Line congestion in December is anecdotal evidence of this - reports of passengers having to take a Luas out to get a Luas back in to town already - and it's only 2019 now before Cherrywood is fully operational and whatever other minor distributed growth there is along the line.