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

strassenwo!f

Monument, I will now try to deal with your earlier points. I really didn't have time yesterday or earlier today to go through everything.

monument wrote: »

Just like how you're never going to get commuters working or living in on all the squares and pitches of TCD which combined are not that much smaller that SSG.

An interconnector station at College Green would have an uninterrupted catchment area on both north and south sides of the line, as far as the eye can see (with the exception of the river). Between Christchurch and College Green there would also be a wide catchment area, and around Parliament Street, The Castle, or so, people would have a tricky decision as to which interconnector station to go to.

As regards TCD I would think that the cricket and rugby pitches are more of a problem for the Pearse Station catchment, i.e., not an issue in the College Green/St. Stephen's Green debate. The squares at the front end are probably not home to as much employment as either of us would like, but there are still an enormous number of people who commute to and from that area, whether they be academic, technical or administrative staff, quite apart from all the students who commute there on a daily basis.

(Thinking about this today, it occurred to me that TCD is probably the biggest employer in D2. I can't think of any government department or private company which would employ more people in D2 than TCD. Can you?)

So, on all sides of a station at College Green there is a serious catchment area, with no barriers to efficient uptake and delivery.

monument wrote: »

The low employment density of the park is offset by the high employment density around it. But if you want to keep being silly about this please keep going -- you're fooling nobody but your self!

I don't think I'm being silly about it. As your map showed, D2 is basically all high density employment, with the bits in red being very high density employment.

As I have repeatedly said on this thread the interconnector cannot directly serve all the areas of D2 (or D1). Whatever way it goes across the city it will hit areas of high employment.

My basic question is why a route was chosen which will go through high employment areas but will have uptake and delivery of questionable efficiency, partly because of the rather big park right beside the station, rather than choosing a route which would also go through high employment areas but should have uptake and delivery of the highest quality.

I know that it would be easier to build the interconnector-metro interchange in St. Stephen's Green than in College Green. I know that there would be greater disruption involved in building this through College Green. That is all obvious to everybody.

Once the thing is built, though, a central station with a very good catchment area on all sides, everyday of the week and all hours of the day, has got to be better than building a longer, more expensive route through an area where the efficiency of uptake and delivery is not, certainly, what is desirable for the highest capacity line ever built in Ireland, and where, I believe, there are questions to be answered about the demand from the southside of the proposed St. Stephen's Green line outside the peak weekday hours and the weekend. Certainly relative to the demand from both sides of any line through College Green.

As I have said many times, the interconnector can't cover everywhere on its route across the city, but I really am puzzled that a DART/Metro interchange at St. Stephen's Green managed to become a "national transport priority".

monument wrote: »

This has been proven to be untrue already. Please stop repeating your baseless ideas which has already been replied to at length.

I don't think it has been, monument. I said that there is little demand to get to the southside of the proposed interconnector through St. Stephen's Green outside of peak time. Who's trying to get to the POD or Copper's, or the Sugar Club, before 10 at night, that isn't already in the area? Who's trying to get to a lunchtime concert at the NCH, mostly people who are already working in the area. Who's trying to buy clothes in any of those areas south of the of the proposed interconnector through St. Stephen's Green?

Of course there are some who are doing these things. But compared to the numbers who are doing all of these things both south and north or an interconnector line through College Green, it is small.

monument wrote: »

You have already been proven to be clueless about the -- this was backed up by a long list of venues etc which attract people counter-peak and off-peak, and the amount of residents near to both areas is comparable.

Monument, I don't know how long this discussion is going to on for, but I can tell you now that we shouldn't entertain any discussion about the residential component of D2. It is totally irrelevant.

The interconnector is a high-capacity line which is capable of bringing very large numbers of people rapidly into and out of the city. There are vast residential areas in the west (paricularly) which have difficulty getting even a proper connection with the city. I am not going to spend any time thinking or writing about people who, if they're like the rest of Dublin (and I'm pretty sure they are), mostly work in D1 or D2. Although some may have to travel to the suburbs, these are mostly not people who have to endure an arduous journey (even if the interconnector were in place) into or out of the city before figuring out the best way to change to get to their place of work. The D2 residential thing is a total red herring in relation to the interconnector.

The interconnector will encounter high-employment areas in D2 whatever route it takes across the city. Since it's the highest capacity line, I think there's a lot of sense in making sure that it will forever pass through those high-employment areas with the greatest efficiency of uptake and delivery.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

...The squares at the front end are probably not home to as much employment as either of us would like, but there are still an enormous number of people who commute to and from that area, whether they be academic, technical or administrative staff, quite apart from all the students who commute there on a daily basis.

"not home to as much employment as either of us would like" -- I don't agree. I think squares and parks are a vital make-up of cities.

"but there are still an enormous number of people who commute to and from that area" -- same thing applies to the area around SSG.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(Thinking about this today, it occurred to me that TCD is probably the biggest employer in D2. I can't think of any government department or private company which would employ more people in D2 than TCD. Can you?)

So, on all sides of a station at College Green there is a serious catchment area, with no barriers to efficient uptake and delivery.

You have a great point there:

Most of TCD is closer to Pearse. There's even a TCD department over the new Pearse entrance!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

My basic question is why a route was chosen which will go through high employment areas but will have uptake and delivery of questionable efficiency, partly because of the rather big park right beside the station, rather than choosing a route which would also go through high employment areas but should have uptake and delivery of the highest quality.

Your question is flawed. My last response already covers why:

The low employment density of the park is offset by the high employment density around it. But if you want to keep being silly about this please keep going -- you're fooling nobody but your self!

The catchment area is massive regardless of the park.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I don't think it has been, monument. I said that there is little demand to get to the southside of the proposed interconnector through St. Stephen's Green outside of peak time. Who's trying to get to the POD or Copper's, or the Sugar Club, before 10 at night, that isn't already in the area? Who's trying to get to a lunchtime concert at the NCH, mostly people who are already working in the area. Who's trying to buy clothes in any of those areas south of the of the proposed interconnector through St. Stephen's Green?

Of course there are some who are doing these things. But compared to the numbers who are doing all of these things both south and north or an interconnector line through College Green, it is small.

Wow, just wow!

Funny how you're counting what's "south and north" of College Green but only what's south of SSG!!!

You want off-peak trips but then you are dismissive of trips which are at "10 at night". And apparently the NCH only does lunchtime concerts and only office workers go to them!

As already stated: There's ton things which generate off-peak movement into and out of the area including the offices (yes, offices generate off-peak trips too!), restaurants, shops, venues, hotels, pubs, members clubs, galleries, auction houses, nightclubs etc etc etc. There's the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin Business School, The Little Museum of Dublin, and there'll soon be a 10 screen at the St Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, I don't know how long this discussion is going to on for, but I can tell you now that we shouldn't entertain any discussion about the residential component of D2. It is totally irrelevant.

The interconnector is a high-capacity line which is capable of bringing very large numbers of people rapidly into and out of the city. There are vast residential areas in the west (paricularly) which have difficulty getting even a proper connection with the city. I am not going to spend any time thinking or writing about people who, if they're like the rest of Dublin (and I'm pretty sure they are), mostly work in D1 or D2. Although some may have to travel to the suburbs, these are mostly not people who have to endure an arduous journey (even if the interconnector were in place) into or out of the city before figuring out the best way to change to get to their place of work. The D2 residential thing is a total red herring in relation to the interconnector.

Drop the indignant tone.

Firstly, I said: "and the amount of residents near to both areas is comparable", so I was not playing up the amount of residents in the SSG area (it's quite low compared to a lot of the area within the canals).

You're the one who brought up the issue off-peak movements, the amount of commuters on peak in the peak direction is irrelevant -- as others have already told you peak commuters will overshadow other.

Generally speaking: When we're talking about off-peak or counter-peak, the amount of residents of the city centre commuting to work or at other times traveling out of the city centre cannot be dismissed as easily as you are trying.

Lots of people live in the city and commute out of it -- it's a preference for many younger people. The fact that you're unaware or are discounting these people in the context of off/counter-peak trips shows yet another insight into how little you know about the city. If Dart Underground and Metro North were in place, "endure an arduous journey" would not apply to traveling to a large amount of places directly along railway lines.

monument

monument wrote: »

Your question is flawed. My last response already covers why:

The low employment density of the park is offset by the high employment density around it. But if you want to keep being silly about this please keep going -- you're fooling nobody but your self!

The catchment area is massive regardless of the park.

strassenwo!f, I have to ask this again:

Why do you keep ignoring what has been posted and than just repeat what you already said?

murphaph

monument wrote: »

There's ton things which generate off-peak movement into and out of the area including the offices (yes, offices generate off-peak trips too!)

Yep. Offices don't clean themselves.

leshamry

strassenwo!f wrote: »

That's probably true, especially if you look at the map given below, but I suppose what we're talking here is mostly about the most efficient way to get people to and from employment. As the interconnector will be the highest capacity line ever built in Ireland (and I hope that its high theoretical capacity will one day become real high capacity use of this tunnel), I think long-term the most efficient way to build it would be right through the centre of the area of highest employment in Dublin, i.e., right through the centre of Dublin, pretty much College Green.

I agree it should be built via the centre!!!!

strassenwo!f

Sorry, I was looking at this tonight, and I saw that I had said that ABP said a station at St. Stephen's Green was a "national transport priority". My bad. They said it was a "national transport requirement."

strassenwo!f

I'm actually going to be in Dublin next week (mainly to visit the parents) and, as always, I am very much looking forward to it.

I will certainly be trying to look carefully at the stuff which has been discussed on the last few pages of this thread.

strassenwo!f

I know that College Green wouldn't be easy, but really, with the 22 empty acres in St. Stephen's Green right beside the proposed station, is there actually a worse location in Dublin which could be picked for a major city interchange?

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I know that College Green wouldn't be easy, but really, with the 22 empty acres in St. Stephen's Green right beside the proposed station, is there actually a worse location in Dublin which could be picked for a major city interchange?

You've really taken the wind out of this thread.

Aard

Seeing as this thread has quietened down somewhat over the past few days, this might be a good time to encourage Dart Underground discussion to be directed here, and for this thread to remain for the discussion of Metro North. I understand that the two topics tend to overlap, especially when it comes to discussion about an interchange station between the two lines. The discussion has veered more towards DU, however, and might be more appropriate for the other thread.

strassenwo!f

cgcsb wrote: »

You've really taken the wind out of this thread.

Sorry if I have.

With the interconnector, there never was any time for discussion of the route. The initial consulation for the interconnector, which took place after the LUAS link-up route had been chosen, involved only interconnector routes going through St. Stephen's Green.

There really was never any opportunity for anybody to talk seriously about alternatives.

OssianSmyth

strassenwo!f

That looks like a lovely park. Where is it?

Are there many people commuting to that park?

murphaph

Most of those don't live near there so yes they are commuting to it.

LeinsterDub

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-bus-almost-as-fast-as-metro-north-says-nta-1.1676924

Commuters could be brought from Swords to Dublin city centre in 35 minutes – only five minutes more than proposed for Metro North – on a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

mackerski

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-bus-almost-as-fast-as-metro-north-says-nta-1.1676924

Commuters could be brought from Swords to Dublin city centre in 35 minutes – only five minutes more than proposed for Metro North – on a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

"Priority at traffic lights"? Genius! Why didn't we think of that one before?

markpb

Apparently a BRT only lane in the city centre would be impossible. It's funny how they found the space for a Luas lane through the city centre in that case! This is where BRT falls down, people see it as bus so theres no problem treating it like one and making compromises like that. It doesn't matter that it's only five minutes slower than train if it's not reliable because it's stuck in traffic outside Busaras.

Jack Noble

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-bus-almost-as-fast-as-metro-north-says-nta-1.1676924

Commuters could be brought from Swords to Dublin city centre in 35 minutes – only five minutes more than proposed for Metro North – on a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

Here's what the NTA had to say about BRT in its Draft Integrated Implementation plan for Dublin 2013-2018.

6.7.2 Analysis
The Authority published areport in October 2012, “Bus Rapid Transit - Core
Dublin Network”, setting out two cross city routes for development as BRT schemes.

These are:
Blanchardstown to N11 (UCD);
and
Clongriffin to Tallaght.

The report recommended the progression of these two routes with further work being required to establish the exact routes and terminal points. In addition, that report also examined the potential for BRT to serve the Swords/ Airport to City Centre corridor. It identified that while BRT does not have sufficient capacity to serve this link over the longer term, it would provide
an interim transport solution in the shorter term, pending the development of
a higher capacity rail solution, such as a metro, on this corridor. It would complement any rail-based solution in the long term, and continue to perform strongly in terms of passenger usage. Further work carried out since the publication of that report has confirmed the feasibility and likely usage of a BRT from Swords/Airport to City Centre.

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Intergrated-Implemation-Plan-2013-2018.pdf

Page 30

When you examine the 2012 study Bus Rapid Transit - Core Dublin Network document from the NTA, it has this to say about demand on the Swords-Airport-City Centre line:

The AM peak passenger loads on the Swords to Tallaght BRT service are given in Figure 37 and Figure 38.
From Figure 37, it can be seen that demand in the Base Year AM peak will likely be strong in this direction, with a peak lineflow of approximately 3,500 passengers at Drumcondra. This far exceeds the capacity of a 15vph service and is also very close to the ultimate capacity of 3,600 ppdph. In the absence of Metro North, the 2030 Current Infrastructure scenario shows a peak
lineflow of approximately 5,900 at St. Patricks College. This far exceeds the ultimate capacity of 3,600ppdph.
The 2030 draft NTA Strategy scenario shows a lower level of demand for the service, which is due primarily to the presence of Metro North in this scenario. In this case the peak lineflow is approximately 4,000, again at St. Patricks College. This also exceeds the ultimate capacity of 3,600ppdph.

In the opposite direction (Figure 38), all scenarios show a demand for BRT that will again exceed the service capacity of 15 vph and 20 vph. In both the Base Year and 2030 NTA Strategy scenarios the peak lineflow exceeds 3,000 ppdph at approximately 3,100ppdph and 3,300ppdph respectively but are below the ultimate capacity of the BRT system, while the 2030 Current Infrastructure scenario has a peak lineflow of approximately 4,200 at St. Stephen’s Green.
It is on the northern section of this corridor – between Swords and the City Centre – that the high levels of demand arise. The southern section – Tallaght to City Centre – is within BRT capacity. This section of the corridor is common to the Clongriffin to Tallaght proposal which is dealt with in subsequent paragraphs. Overall, the link between the city centre and Swords
has demand levels that exceed the capacity of a moderate capacity BRT system, in the longer term. While BRT may provide an interim partial transport solution in the shorter term, a higher capacity rail solution, such as a metro system, will ultimately be required on this corridor. In light of this, the Swords to City Centre BRT section has not been progressed to the later costing and appraisal sections of this feasibility study report.


http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Bus-Rapid-Transit-Core-Network-Report.pdf

Pages 53 and 54

So, according to the NTA's own study in 2012, A Swords-City Centre BRT does not have the capacity to cope with peak demand from day one - and thus it was not progressed to more detail study.

The NTA also tells us that such a Swords-CC BRT would only be an 'interim' solution pending the construction in the longer-term of Metro North.

Yet now the Irish Times tells us the NTA is going to proceed to planning with a BRT line it only two years ago deemed not capable of meeting demand.

So why has something that did not meet projected demand and deemed not feasible to proceed to planning in 2012 suddenly become feasible in 2014?

And why has the Irish Times failed to point out these rather important points?

It took me a few minutes to find and read the relevant documents on the NTA website - could the IT reporter not have done the same?

monument

If anybody is interisted, there's a thread on C&T about BRT:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057010435/3/#post88811807

OssianSmyth

So it shares traffic with other vehicles in the city centre because a dedicated lane would not be feasible. And it waits at traffic lights elsewhere. So how reliably can it get to Swords in 35 mins?

Its capacity is one fifth of Metro North.

Is it meant to fit within the current capital budget up to 2016 or is it planned for the next round after 2016?

What about the blue line BRT (St Vincents - UCD-Goatstown-Sandyford) That made more sense as it had available land reservations for much of the route and no city centre streets.

It's worth noting that construction tender prices are now around one third below peak values in 2006/2007, according to the Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland

I don't know to what extent this translates into cheaper tender prices for rail and road infrastructure projects.

Lastly Ireland is now paying 3.3% for 10yr debt. http://www.boerse-frankfurt.de/en/bonds/ireld+14+24+IE00B6X95T99

OssianSmyth

This was published last year by the NTA
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Intergrated-Implemation-Plan-2013-2018.pdf
and suggests that BRT would be an interim measure that would complement a Metro. Of course it might make a Metro less feasible in future!

6.7.2 Analysis

The Authority published a report in October 2012,
“Bus Rapid Transit - Core Dublin Network”, setting
out two cross city routes for development as BRT
schemes. These are:
c Blanchardstown to N11 (UCD); and
c Clongriffin to Tallaght.

The report recommended the progression of these
two routes with further work being required to
establish the exact routes and terminal points.

In addition, that report also examined the potential
for BRT to serve the Swords / Airport to City Centre
corridor. It identified that while BRT does not have
sufficient capacity to serve this link over the longer
term, it would provide an interim transport solution
in the shorter term, pending the development of
a higher capacity rail solution, such as a metro, on
this corridor. It would complement any rail based
solution in the long term, and continue to perform
strongly in terms of passenger usage. Further work
carried out since the publication of that report has
confirmed the feasibility and likely usage of a BRT
from Swords / Airport to City Centre.

6.7.3 Proposals

It is proposed to progress the development of three
BRT routes as part of this Plan. These are:
c Swords / Airport to City Centre;
c Blanchardstown to N11 (UCD); and
c Clongriffin to Tallaght.

It is envisaged that planning consent will be
achieved for each of these projects in the early
years of the Plan.

Subsequent implementation of these schemes
will be progressed on an incremental basis in
accordance with available funding

aindriu80

I don't think an improved bus lane can match a proper Metro. Of course I understand the price argument in this age of austerity but bus lanes are only a help not a solution. You can beat higher density living with a proper metro to boot.

The €1.95 Billion Metro on the cheap sound like nonsense.

Sam Russell

BRT services are expected to run every 4 minutes in traffic (15 vehicles per hour) and they cannot run Darts more than 8 per hour!

Who are they kidding?

xper

Meanwhile...
Cormac Rabbitt's "Dublin Metro" crayon-fest has been given the deserved assessment by the NTA:

Alternative to Dublin metro ‘a fantasy’, says transport body - Irish Times:
"A plan for a Dublin rail system which would be cheaper and more extensive than Metro North was 'completely unreal and fantastical', the National Transport Authority (NTA) has said.
Dublin city councillors will tomorrow be presented with the authority’s report on the Metro Dublin plan proposed by transport engineer Cormac Rabbitt.
..."

The only problem I have with this is that the NTA actually had to spend any time dealing with this one-man fantasy. That said, it probably took a job bridger half an hour to tear it apart.

Carawaystick

OssianSmyth wrote: »

So it shares traffic with other vehicles in the city centre because a dedicated lane would not be feasible. And it waits at traffic lights elsewhere. So how reliably can it get to Swords in 35 mins?

The 33x can get from Lusk to City centre (Grafton St)in 35 mins in rush hour.
A 33 can get back to Lusk in the evening in about the same time, or maybe 40 mins.

Getting rid of the Cat & Cage/St Patricks College bottleneck and routing Coolock Lane/N1/Shantalla Bridge to avoid the Santry Bottleneck; and ramping up frequency from Swords could get very cheap performance, for feic all capex. The cat and cage pinchpoint is being done away with as we type.

maninasia

aindriu80 wrote: »

I don't think an improved bus lane can match a proper Metro. Of course I understand the price argument in this age of austerity but bus lanes are only a help not a solution. You can beat higher density living with a proper metro to boot.

The €1.95 Billion Metro on the cheap sound like nonsense.

You are right. It would actually be a very expensive half arsed solution if used to replace the Metro North line.

It would be better to finance the Metro North line with low interest debt over the long-term, and maybe to contemplate BRT for the other two routes, or an extended LUAS, or just to use the money to subidise a better dublin bus service for key routes.

aindriu80

Metro North is back on track with cheaper plan - Varadkar.

36 months and €2bn. Sounds like peanuts & you really get what you pay for. They have to build it.

monument

aindriu80 wrote: »

Metro North is back on track with cheaper plan - Varadkar.

36 months and €2bn. Sounds like peanuts & you really get what you pay for. They have to build it.

Wow -- that's a very muddled article. From paragraph to paragraph it switches to talking about the non-official "Metro Dublin" and the plans the RPA or NTA are looking at.

Interweaving both with out any clarity or any understanding about what is being officially looked at.

Daftness.

Luas to the airport via Finglas is likely in the mix and maybe variants of Metro North, but I'd be surprised if the "Dublin Metro" plan was looked at in any detail.

Peregrine

That proposal surfaced last year, did it not?

aindriu80

It sounds like a lot of the original design has been cut. There was a lot of tunnelling but it seems as though they intend to go all overground for most of it. The tabloid article is a bit tabloid like but they can't build a second rate Metro for Dublin.