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

Reuben1210

Grandeeod wrote: »

If I may and it pains me to say it but....

With MN and DU in place, Dublin Airport is easily linked to main railway stations. After many many years of BS, the original T21 plan for Dublin solved three major problems.

1. It provided a link to Dublin Airport AND served a busy corridor for commuters.

2. It released capacity on the DART network and opened up new rail commuting options.

3. Both DU and MN were integrated allowing changeability and flexibility like the city of Dublin has never seen before.

Like I have said before, if both were operating now we would be arguing the toss about extensions to both while Dublin was up there with any modern European city looking ahead.

No matter what way we look at this, MN and DU would have been simply fantastic for Dublin and its ability to start addressing its car dependence.

+1. The public needs to be better informed about the benefits to really drive a change in thinking.

xper

Reuben1210 wrote: »

+1. The public needs to be better informed about the benefits to really drive a change in thinking.

It's not going to happen with our lazy and disingenuous media. I listened in resigned depression to Newstalk this morning as Colm McCarthy and Shane Coleman displayed complete and utter ignorance of the purpose, need and detail of Metro North and Dart Underground. MN inevitably was discussed almost entirely in the context of a rail link to the airport, as has been the universal pattern this week in the media and, alas, on this forum, taking the lead of the bloody government press releases. McCarthy dismissed both projects, proffering the Port Tunnel and Phoenix Park Tunnel as adequate alternatives. Coleman didnt correct or question any of this nonsense. I don't know which is worse, the possibility that the man who chaired "An Bord Snip Nua" in 2008 is so ignorant of the basics of the two biggest infrastructure projects that were before him then and now or that he'll abuse the privilege of being on national radio to pursue some weird personal agenda. You'd think Coleman would do some minimal research about the show's topics before coming on air - even the first couple of paragraphs of the Wikipedia entries would have left him less clueless today

plodder

liam24 wrote: »

I think his point is that DU plus a spur solves far more problems than MN, so it seems ridiculous to build the latter first. In fact, the spur solves the major problems which MN solves, namely a link to the airport and Swords. Ballymun could easily be serviced by Luas in the future.

It also solves major problems which exist with MN alone, namely that the airport is not linked to either of the main railway stations, which is pretty ludicrous.

All of these things - DU, MN and maybe the DART spur to airport make sense.

MN on its own makes sense. So, it's wrong to complain that DU wasn't done first. Irish Rail didn't do a good enough job selling DU. Metro North will help to make that argument in future.

Art(h)ur

markpb wrote: »

You're assuming that serving the airport from the city centre is the main aim of Metro North. Linking the suburbs to the city centre is an aim. Living the northern suburbs (including Swords) to the airport is an aim. Connecting all those places to the red and green luas lines is an aim. If DU is built, connecting them to the dart is also an aim. Why do people think that metro north is nothing more than Aircoach on rails?

The suburbs in question are Swords and Ballymun and MN would be indeed very beneficial for them. My point was that DU as per original plans would be beneficial to more areas (most of the city, in fact) and a spur could easily serve Swords as well.

DU also offers good links to both luas lines and existing dart (by definition), in terms of integration MN suffers from:
- no connection to Drogheda line north of Airport, despite both running parallel to each other (best way to get from Swords to Malahide would still be by car/bus)
- no direct connection to any railway termini, meaning it offers nothing to people living outside of Dublin, who happen to be a large part of Airport users (leaving M50 as busy as it is now)
- overlap with Luas Cross City between SSG and Parnell Sq (I actually believe the fact that LCC went ahead is the ultimate prove that MN will not, e.g. another lengthy disruption to the same streets would be heavilly contested)

It seems to me that it is possible to get more benefits at a lower cost, which should be a big selling point for the politicians, making it a more realistic plan than DU + MN. Especially in the context of the recent blurb, which says NOTHING AT ALL about DU and makes a vague promise of MN. In reality, we are told that none of the existing projects will happen any time soon. Hence, is it worth still making a case in favour of the original bundle of both DU and MN?

Lenton Lane

xper wrote: »

It's not going to happen with our lazy and disingenuous media. I listened in resigned depression to Newstalk this morning as Colm McCarthy and Shane Coleman displayed complete and utter ignorance of the purpose, need and detail of Metro North and Dart Underground. MN inevitably was discussed almost entirely in the context of a rail link to the airport, as has been the universal pattern this week in the media and, alas, on this forum, taking the lead of the bloody government press releases. McCarthy dismissed both projects, proffering the Port Tunnel and Phoenix Park Tunnel as adequate alternatives. Coleman didnt correct or question any of this nonsense. I don't know which is worse, the possibility that the man who chaired "An Bord Snip Nua" in 2008 is so ignorant of the basics of the two biggest infrastructure projects that were before him then and now or that he'll abuse the privilege of being on national radio to pursue some weird personal agenda. You'd think Coleman would do some minimal research about the show's topics before coming on air - even the first couple of paragraphs of the Wikipedia entries would have left him less clueless today

When he worked for the Sunday Tribune Shane Coleman was one of the leading critics of Luas while it was being built. Coleman is a former CRH employee and last week was interviewed by George Hook on Newstalk where he compared Dublin to an American sunbelt city that would have more Motorways to the airport than rail.

Colm McCarthy is as anti-rail as they get, remember he opposed the Dart and opposed the Luas when they were being built. He would be happy also to see lots of roads and no railways. Why he is wheeled out by the Irish media as an "expert" when he is in reality a campaigner I do not know.

strassenwo!f

I'm afraid I'm still not getting the twelve years bit. Why is it going to take twelve years to build a line which has already largely been designed, has planning permission and was supposed to already have opened if the original timeframe had been even reasonably well adhered to?

Okay, there are minor changes to be made, because they are taking out three stations and replacing them with one, but that can surely not take six years. Why the delay?

Lenton Lane

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm still not getting the twelve years bit. Why is it going to take twelve years to build a line which has already largely been designed, has planning permission and was supposed to already have opened if the original timeframe had been even reasonably well adhered to?

Okay, there are minor changes to be made, because they are taking out three stations and replacing them with one, but that can surely not take six years. Why the delay?

Because they don't have the money to build it and it can become the responsibility of not the next government but the one after that.

In reality it will never be built as currently proposed, anyone who has observed the behaviour of successive Irish governments regarding transport projects will tell you that.

The likely outcome is that the incoming government will review the plan in 2017 and either scale it down further or scrap it. This project has the same status as the Navan line, announced to great ballyhoo ("Dempsey Delivers" anyone?) and will never actually be built.

Winters

Grandeeod wrote: »

For the record, Rory O'Connor presided over an initial MN design that ignored the Maynooth line entirely, despite passing under it. The MN route at the time passed under the old Smurfit complex towards Botanic Road. The original design was more about serving existing and potential development rather than existing PT and integration. That changed after public intervention and media coverage.

That is 100% correct. The Smurfit idea was the cheapest option at the start. Terrible idea.

Idbatterim

In reality it will never be built as currently proposed, anyone who has observed the behaviour of successive Irish governments regarding transport projects will tell you that.

do you mean the New Metro North wont be built? I received this reply to an email I sent to Alan Farrell FG TD, last week. I think we will get it, when is the question. If they were so hell bent on cost only or thought they could get away with it, why wasnt the mickey mouse Luas option chosen last week?

what I emailed

Dear Alan, I wished to attend your meeting on Monday, but got delayed in work and then in town at 7:15pm, trying to get from Ranelagh to swords by driving (via the port tunnel), which is ironic, because with Metro North I could get from Ranelagh to Swords in a reasonable and consistent time without a car!

I have to register my disbelief at the current scenario we find ourselves in, great that we didn't get the Luas option out to the airport, that was a complete joke, but from a country that wrote the book on none or inadequate planning and get away with it jobs, nothing would have surprised me!

As usual, things here will grind to a halt, before things get into action. I have just taken a look at the figures, the Aecom report said revised metro north, would "save" €461,000,000. Now we have to go through consultation, design, appeals, court etc again, what will that cost? then bare in mind that a significant amount of any spent, flows back to the government anyway & that New metro north is an inferior solution. So we have planning permission for a great scheme, that is good to go and Dublin will be left with the current sham scenario for half a decade minimum before construction allegedly commences, when we have planning NOW for a fit for purpose scheme, to save what, the pocket change that has been mentioned?! This is totally insane! If they don't think numbers will be as high as expected when the first report was completed, which is total spin and just a get out option by the way. Simply purchase less rolling stock for day 1, at least that can be rectified quickly and would cut the headline cost, because all they care about is the headline cost (and how sellable this is to the various interests), not value...

This isn't some new revised fit for purpose scheme, where the "savings" actually make sense, i.e. something like that which has been proposed New metro north, for a minimum billion euro saving. This is an inferior option with mickey mouse savings., with no planning permission!

I look forward to your response.

Shane (FG voter in 2011)

the response...

The newly proposed scheme for the North Dublin Transport Corridor is suitable for the future demand of Swords, Dublin Airport and beyond for as many years. The revised scheme is €1.4 billion cheaper than that proposed in 2008.

The new scheme will require a Railway Order which is envisaged to take in the region of 3-4 years to complete, based on the experience from 2008 and the LUAS cross city project. Thereafter, the tendering process is expected to take one year. On this basis, construction will commence in late 2020 or early 2021 with a six year construction phase. The vast majority of the monies expended in the planning of the original proposal has not gone to waste and will be reused by the NTA & RPA in the current plan.

I do not agree that population predictions from 2008 are relevant today. We have seen migration of up to 400,000 Irish people in this period and while the flow has now reduced significantly, population growth predictions in the North County have been revised significantly. Swords will gain city status in the very near future and will require significant investment in terms of social & transport infrastructure. Metro & BRT form the main part of this additional infrastructure with the Council playing their role in ensuring that an orbital road network forms part of this strategy.

Metro will be capable of handling 30 million passengers per year when fully functional. I am very confident this will meet the needs of several generations of users of the service.

Unlike the previous proposal, New Metro North has been costed and the figures published. The capital plan has been announced and the project will commence within weeks.

Winters

Swords City - Ha!

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

do you mean the New Metro North wont be built? I received this reply to an email I sent to Alan Farrell FG TD, last week. I think we will get it, when is the question. If they were so hell bent on cost only or thought they could get away with it, why wasnt the mickey mouse Luas option chosen last week?

what I emailed




the response...

He's a liar. But because he is a politician, he doesn't realise he's a liar. Simple.

Zubeneschamali

Idbatterim wrote: »

If they were so hell bent on cost only or thought they could get away with it, why wasnt the mickey mouse Luas option chosen last week?

You have to read the press release in context: it isn't about Metro North at all, it's about votes in the next election. It has nothing to do with what might or might not be built in 10 years.

If they announced a Mickey Mouse option, people would be angry and vote against. If they announced a Rolls Royce wonderful option, then some people would be angry at spending a squillion euros, while cynical people would think they were lying, and vote against.

So instead they announce something which is less then they announced before, but more than nothing, and kind of believable.

But no-one will ever build it. It's just for votes.

plodder

I don't agree with the cynicism here. While 3-4 years to redesign something that is already substantially designed seems unambitious, a new railway order is needed and that process is not a walk in the park. They could help by publishing some slightly more detailed plans I think.

Alan Farrell seems to have associated himself with the project, which I think means he would be in trouble politically if it doesn't go ahead. Maybe, it can be seen to help him for the next election, but it would be a serious liability in the following one, if it doesn't happen.

BTW I think it's disappointing that a supposedly 'progressive' newspaper like the IT has been arguing against it. If their point was simply that the DART underground should have come first, I'd understand that, but it reminds me so much of Dr. Sean Barrett of TCD arguing against the original DART project in the 1970's. Short sighted to say the least.

Lenton Lane

plodder wrote: »

I don't agree with the cynicism here. While 3-4 years to redesign something that is already substantially designed seems unambitious, a new railway order is needed and that process is not a walk in the park. They could help by publishing some slightly more detailed plans I think.

Alan Farrell seems to have associated himself with the project, which I think means he would be in trouble politically if it doesn't go ahead. Maybe, it can be seen to help him for the next election, but it would be a serious liability in the following one, if it doesn't happen.

BTW I think it's disappointing that a supposedly 'progressive' newspaper like the IT has been arguing against it. If their point was simply that the DART underground should have come first, I'd understand that, but it reminds me so much of Dr. Sean Barrett of TCD arguing against the original DART project in the 1970's. Short sighted to say the least.

The cynicism is well founded. Since 1975 we have heard proposal after proposal that have been watered down, beefed up, planned, announced, deferred and cancelled. Only to be promised jam tomorrow. Always jam tomorrow! Meanwhile Dublin continues to be a car dependent city and will grind to a halt.

plodder

Lenton Lane wrote: »

The cynicism is well founded. Since 1975 we have heard proposal after proposal that have been watered down, beefed up, planned, announced, deferred and cancelled. Only to be promised jam tomorrow. Always jam tomorrow! Meanwhile Dublin continues to be a car dependent city and will grind to a halt.

Look at Crossrail. That's been mooted since 1941. It's just the nature of big infrastructure projects to go through iterations like this. This isn't China where all that's needed is a decree from a central committee. One thing is sure though, if enough people believe that it won't happen, then it probably won't happen. Like the port tunnel, we are in for years of negative media coverage. There will be leaky tunnels, and all kind of setbacks until the day it opens. I'm happy that Farrell has put his name behind it. He'll get a vote off me next time, and then we'll see how it's going after that.

markpb

plodder wrote: »

Look at Crossrail. That's been mooted since 1941. It's just the nature of big infrastructure projects to go through iterations like this.

How many other rail lines have been built in London since 1941? It's not like they sat around doing nothing between 1941 and the start of Crossrail construction.

plodder

markpb wrote: »

How many other rail lines have been built in London since 1941? It's not like they sat around doing nothing between 1941 and the start of Crossrail construction.

True, but relatively speaking, the projects seem to be of a similar scale. The bigger the project, the harder it is to get approved.

murphaph

plodder wrote: »

This isn't China where all that's needed is a decree from a central committee.

Actually the situation in Dublin is closer to that of China than it is to London. London can build large infrastructure projects on its own, without the sanction or gift of Westminster. Dublin needs the Dail to approve and fund (with Dublin's own money) everything bigger than a bus lane.

Idbatterim

If they announced a Mickey Mouse option, people would be angry and vote against. If they announced a Rolls Royce wonderful option, then some people would be angry at spending a squillion euros, while cynical people would think they were lying, and vote against.

ok, so how long do people reckon they can actually keep kicking the can down the road? bar some other financial crisis, which is what stopped MN and DU being built... I cant see how they can worm their way out of this one. There is no way another "redesign" will be tolerated. We have gotten the middle ground option, which politicians seem to love here...

Dardania

Idbatterim wrote: »

ok, so how long do people reckon they can actually keep kicking the can down the road? bar some other financial crisis, which is what stopped MN and DU being built... I cant see how they can worm their way out of this one. There is no way another "redesign" will be tolerated. We have gotten the middle ground option, which politicians seem to love here...

When the country clearly loses out internationally because of this. Imagine a Facebook or Google said they were pulling out of Dublin due to poor infrastructure limiting their growth?

Web Summit will be one of the first to watch this narrative...

Zebra3

Dardania wrote: »

When the country clearly loses out internationally because of this. Imagine a Facebook or Google said they were pulling out of Dublin due to poor infrastructure limiting their growth?

Web Summit will be one of the first to watch this narrative...

We're already facing this situation. PayPal are begging their staff to help other staff find spare rooms to live in.

FG/Labour betraying Dublin with knocking back both DartU and MN will have serious repercussions for the city and the state.

But who cares if that's what gets most of them re-elected.

Idbatterim

When the country clearly loses out internationally because of this. Imagine a Facebook or Google said they were pulling out of Dublin due to poor infrastructure limiting their growth?

yeah the housing crisis in Dublin has already drawn comments from PayPal. How do we live in a nation so incapable. 1. Build a proper transport infrastructure for the dublin region 2) allow higher density housing and smaller one bed units! Ok better building checks when being built etc! But what in gods name is so difficult about this?!

Also I would like to try seem them wriggle out of anything semi decent like NMR or MNR when the airport figures alone are 30,000,000 plus and the place is at a standstill again, which isnt too far off. If they couldnt get out of it now and during the recession, good luck to them doing it when there is no financial crisis and chaos returns on a number of fronts, it has already started...

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah the housing crisis in Dublin has already drawn comments from PayPal. How do we live in a nation so incapable. 1. Build a proper transport infrastructure for the dublin region 2) allow higher density housing and smaller one bed units! Ok better building checks when being built etc! But what in gods name is so difficult about this?!

Also I would like to try seem them wriggle out of anything semi decent like NMR or MNR when the airport figures alone are 30,000,000 plus and the place is at a standstill again, which isnt too far off. If they couldnt get out of it now and during the recession, good luck to them doing it when there is no financial crisis and chaos returns on a number of fronts, it has already started...

They have simply guessed that building infrastructure in Dublin will cost them more votes outside Dublin than it'll gain them inside Dublin.

It's all about getting re-elected. Keep on the gravy train. The good of the country is very much an afterthought with these people.

liam24

Dardania wrote: »

When the country clearly loses out internationally because of this. Imagine a Facebook or Google said they were pulling out of Dublin due to poor infrastructure limiting their growth?

Web Summit will be one of the first to watch this narrative...

It would probably be the best thing that could happen.

Grandeeod

Dardania wrote: »

When the country clearly loses out internationally because of this. Imagine a Facebook or Google said they were pulling out of Dublin due to poor infrastructure limiting their growth?

Web Summit will be one of the first to watch this narrative...

A very interesting point. Irish politicians seem to be stuck in a mindset of providing tax incentives and thinking that's enough. It probably was in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but the entire global economy is moving along at a rapid pace. Considering that we like to set Ireland up as a leading Tech base, issues like housing and PT infrastructure will start to over ride any tax advantages.

I remember one particular example of the Irish political approach back in the 1980s. An American company was looking at Ireland for a set up in a provincial town. The Americans were flown in by Helicopter so they wouldn't notice the dire transport infrastructure around the site. I think it was the Haughey era.

Ultimately in a world were countries are competing for FDI's, the lack of forward thinking infrastructure and it provision will be a distinct disadvantage. Ireland and Dublin in particular is setting itself up for a potential timebomb.

MJohnston

I'm as annoyed at this project being setback as anyone, but I have to laugh at the idea of US tech companies pulling out of a country because of poor infrastructure - have any of you ever been in Silicon Valley? Worst. Infrastructure. Ever.

spuddy

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm as annoyed at this project being setback as anyone, but I have to laugh at the idea of US tech companies pulling out of a country because of poor infrastructure - have any of you ever been in Silicon Valley? Worst. Infrastructure. Ever.

But Dublin isn't competing with Silicon Valley, our competitors are other EU cities, who are all vying for a piece of the direct inward investment pie. Thankfully efficient public transport isn't their sole criteria, but we would be foolish to think it isn't a factor & while we may not lose one of the existing players just yet, we may miss out on the next Google/Facebook/LinkedIn European HQ.

MJohnston

Possibly - I think public transport is something they care not at all about - what IS an issue is affordable housing, and a forward looking public transport plan would be one good part of a multi-pronged approach to solving that crisis.

Dardania

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm as annoyed at this project being setback as anyone, but I have to laugh at the idea of US tech companies pulling out of a country because of poor infrastructure - have any of you ever been in Silicon Valley? Worst. Infrastructure. Ever.

I've heard about the bus services alright - never been but I understand it's poor.

Even aside from Silicon Valley being poor infrastructurally, if you had the choice of where to base yourself, wouldn't that mean good infrastructure would be on your shopping list?

MJohnston

I think there are things higher on any base shopping list:
+ Pool of hiring talent
+ Internet infrastructure
+ Safety
+ Tax considerations
+ Housing affordability

But I think the first in the list really outbalances everything else in it - I doubt London would be high on many companies' lists otherwise!