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

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

So would metro west come after the interconnector ..and before metro south ? Where'd any new luas lines come in that mix ...4 tracking mainline rail.

Sure we'll have the best public transport planning system in the world so we will :-) :-) :-)
Say 1 project every 20 years (optimistic I know) ,there plans out there to take us into the next century ...

I think you mean the last century.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just think - they could build the Clongriffin spur in very little time for very little money if they wanted to as the Clongriffin station already has some of the requirements to handle it. Also the signal improvement from Clontarf to Sandymount are complete (I believe) and will allow 20 trains per hour in each direction so no problem there.

€200 million would do it. 7 km over open countryside with just a few property owners to deal with.

If only.

then you'd have a rail route that only serves the airport and is no quicker to the City Centre than the existing bus services (which are by no means over-subscribed in my experience).

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

then you'd have a rail route that only serves the airport and is no quicker to the City Centre than the existing bus services (which are by no means over-subscribed in my experience).

They are not oversubscribed because they are not as reliable as a rail solution and they are not co-ordinated. There is no proper bus station at the airport which is much needed.

I would see the first type of service on the Clongriffin spur as a non stop express service to Connolly ( or perhaps stopping at Clongriffin) - travel time should be 15 mins or so and frequency 4 or 3 per hour. This should be possible with the new signal arrangement at Connolly (Clontarf to Sandymount allowing 20 movements per hour). Off peak service (off peak for the airport) would be Dart service stopping at all stations.

Howth - Howth Junction would become a shuttle service off peak (Dart off peak).

LeinsterDub

The Dart is a terrible service as it is. I'm not sure how adding a other spur and more stop and trains will help that.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Dart is a terrible service as it is. I'm not sure how adding a other spur and more stop and trains will help that.

The airport had 25 million passengers last year, with many more predicted this year and next. Apart from rail, how can you move that many passengers in and out of the airport?

An 8 coach train service running a 15 min service has capacity to move 4,000 passengers in each direction per hour. To do that with coaches would require a coach every minute each way. The roadway will not support that - it takes an Aircoach 5 mins to get from terminal one to terminal two and out to the roundabout.

All that is before you consider the staff (9,600 DAA and 9,600 other) and then include pilots and cabin crew. All these have to go there every day (well every day they work - over 200 days per year). That is a lot of transport demand that a rail link would do a lot to satisfy.

The Clongriffin link could be built quickly and cheaply. DAA are already talking about a third runway and a third terminal, and 30 million passengers. The link could continue to Swords which also does not have a rail link and houses a lot of people who work at the airport.

MJohnston

I would absolutely disagree that the DART is a terrible service - I think it's a great service running close to (or sometimes above) the limits of its current capacity. But, DART to the airport would be a band-aid on a gaping neck wound, and the kind of band-aid that many years of politicians would use to excuse not funding any further Dublin area transport.

It should be an edict that you have to repeat 10 times before posting about Metro North (or DU, or even hypothetical additional Luas lines) that it isn't primarily about the airport.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

I would absolutely disagree that the DART is a terrible service - I think it's a great service running close to (or sometimes above) the limits of its current capacity. But, DART to the airport would be a band-aid on a gaping neck wound, and the kind of band-aid that many years of politicians would use to excuse not funding any further Dublin area transport.

It should be an edict that you have to repeat 10 times before posting about Metro North (or DU, or even hypothetical additional Luas lines) that it isn't primarily about the airport.

I agree it could be considered a band-aid but it could be built quickly at at a low cost.

With DU built the Clongriffin would be an asset allowing fast travel to the city centre and onward to Heuston and the inter city trains that operate from there. It would take a couple of years extra to build MN and it is under an unrequired redesign. The Clongriffin Spur is simple across open countyside - not many choices there to redesign - even the station at Clongriffin is built.



It would not conflict with Metro North either because that would serve a different customer base of which the airport would be a subset.

It is a bit like saying building the M17/M18 absolves them from not building the M20. Building a motorway from Gort to Tuam instead of Cork to Limerick is just plain nuts.

MJohnston

I'd say this - I'd absolutely take the Clongriffin spur in a second if there were cast-iron guarantees that it wouldn't affect Metro North (such as it can be affected anyway). But the problem is I don't think that's the case at all.

It might not conflict with MN in most ways, but it absolutely would do politically.

theskeptic

I agree that Clongriffin spur would be worth doing provided it is not used as an excuse to not do MN.

Another advantage of this would be the possibility of trains from Belfast/Dundalk/Drogheda being able to run directly to Dublin Airport. If the Dublin Airport train station was a bit more than 2 platforms then lots of train services could run via the spurand terminate at airport.

At the risk of irking some people, some existing northern line services could then terminate at the airport freeing up some capacity on the Connolly line for airport services. It would mean that some people from existing Dundalk/Drogheda services would have to change at Portmarnock or Malahide to get DART to Connolly and beyond. From a quick look at Google maps the spur would presumably be between Clongriffin and Portmarnock (parallel to R123) hence the northern services going to Dublin Airport would not actually go through Clongriffin station.

SUMMARY ROUTES:

* Belfast - Dundalk - Drogheda <--> Dublin Airport
* Connolly <--> Dublin Airport
* Malahide <--> Greystones / Bray (no change)

Not perfect I know; slower commute for Dundalk/Drogheda to Dublin and no direct benefit to airport workers in Swords and Santry. And definitely not an alternative to MN.

Carawaystick

Sam Russell wrote: »

All that is before you consider the staff (9,600 DAA and 9,600 other) and then include pilots and cabin crew. All these have to go there every day (well every day they work - over 200 days per year). That is a lot of transport demand that a rail link would do a lot to satisfy.

its about 12 million trips for staff per annum.

Sam Russell

theskeptic wrote: »

I agree that Clongriffin spur would be worth doing provided it is not used as an excuse to not do MN.

Another advantage of this would be the possibility of trains from Belfast/Dundalk/Drogheda being able to run directly to Dublin Airport. If the Dublin Airport train station was a bit more than 2 platforms then lots of train services could run via the spurand terminate at airport.

At the risk of irking some people, some existing northern line services could then terminate at the airport freeing up some capacity on the Connolly line for airport services. It would mean that some people from existing Dundalk/Drogheda services would have to change at Portmarnock or Malahide to get DART to Connolly and beyond. From a quick look at Google maps the spur would presumably be between Clongriffin and Portmarnock (parallel to R123) hence the northern services going to Dublin Airport would not actually go through Clongriffin station.

SUMMARY ROUTES:

* Belfast - Dundalk - Drogheda <--> Dublin Airport
* Connolly <--> Dublin Airport
* Malahide <--> Greystones / Bray (no change)

Not perfect I know; slower commute for Dundalk/Drogheda to Dublin and no direct benefit to airport workers in Swords and Santry. And definitely not an alternative to MN.

That would suggest two spurs to DA. That is not going to happen.

An alternative is a Donabate <> Swords <> Airport <> Clongriffin <> Connolly.

That might make sense but not sure about the cost. Would it be Dart or Inter City? Would it be Dart Connolly <> Clongriffin <> Airport <> Swords, and separately Belfast <> Airport.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

This should be possible with the new signal arrangement at Connolly (Clontarf to Sandymount allowing 20 movements per hour). Off peak service (off peak for the airport) would be Dart service stopping at all stations.

Is there anything in the public domain supporting your claim?

I find it very hard to believe that they will manage 20 movements per hour given that:
a) Pearse is both a stop on the DART and a terminus for Maynooth
b) All the level crossings south of Pearse introduce frictions into the system.

I am not a fan of the Clongriffin spur approach but I think it should not even be contemplated before DU is built.

Zebra3

If the Clongriffin spur was to be built, would making Howth-HJ a shuttle ease adding the extra airport services on to the northern line?

theskeptic

Re: "That would suggest two spurs to DA. That is not going to happen."


Not sure of exact definition of 'spur', but what I meant was 1 (dual) line from airport to a point on the existing line between Portmarnock and Clongriffin. BUT trains could also access this line from Portmarnock (heading south) as well as Clongriffin (heading north).

From looking at Google maps, this spur (if built) would have to connect at this point anyway, so why not allow the spur to be accessed from both north and south? - I image it would be only a small part of overall cost and create more options.

THIS:

Portmarnock
|
/
Dublin Airport *

---

<
\
|
Clongriffin

NOT:


Portmarnock
|
|
Dublin Airport *

---

\ /
V
|
Clongriffin


And yes as you say, Donate --> Swords --> Airport --> Clongriffin also viable; but might be more expensive than above. Key part of my proposal was that Dublin Airport become a termination point for many existing northern services to free up capacity on Connolly line for new airport services. So if applied to the Donate --> Swords --> Airport --> Clongriffin, these northern services could still terminate at Airport or at Clongriffin (to switch over to DART).

Anyway, cost-benefit analysis needed for these suggestions - another report, anyone???

Brian CivilEng

No need for a new report, been analysed to hell. Fully expect it to happen though* (and I'd love to work on at least one of the feasibility reports and benefit costs ratios for the spur that will be carried out over the next 15years)

*EDIT:Fully expect demands for more reports I mean

Good presentation on the Clongriffin spur here:

https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/roads-tranport/Dublin-Airport-DART-Link-November-23rd-2011.pdf

Interesting to note the public transport mode share comparison with other airports, At 34% for buses (2014 figure), Dublin is already quite high in the league tables for overall pt usages, despite the lack of rail connection. Parking space numbers are restricted by planning at Dublin so that forces it a bit. I think taxis are about 20 - 25% of all journeys.

I doubt the €200million figure in that presentation is accurate though. Not unless the station is built out on the R132, tunnelling will definitely be required. Will search later, but I remember seeing a statistic somewhere about how quick rail usage falls off as it is moved further from the terminal building. Oslo which has the highest rail mode share has the station as part of the terminal, very convenient.

Personally I don't think the spur is a long term solution, although living in Raheny it would benefit me greatly! It would be a proper connection from the North East of the city, but travel times to the rest of the city would not benefit. The 747 can get from T2 to the Point Depot in as little as 12mins (I've timed it). An express shuttle bus from Connolly car park to the airport could be done with 20min travel time with some minor priority works in the docklands.

Sam Russell

Zebra3 wrote: »

If the Clongriffin spur was to be built, would making Howth-HJ a shuttle ease adding the extra airport services on to the northern line?

I believe that is the plan.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

Is there anything in the public domain supporting your claim?

http://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/city-centre-resignalling

strassenwo!f

Originally Posted by strassenwo!f
Well that's obviously how you remember it.

But the first item in my google search on this issue throws up this post, in which the communications officer of P11 writes with apparent satisfaction that P11 had 'already taken the RPA's Airport Metro out of the equation (thanks to Irish Times supporting our campaign)...'

Grandeeod wrote: »

No its not how I remember it. Its fact.

Your evidence is based on a post on boards that you have decided to take out of context.

How can it be something taken out of context!?

That was not a post from someone deeply embroiled in a boards.ie discussion, answering questions left, right and centre, unfortunately omitting something here, not having the time to answer everything there, etc.

He started the thread, he provided context for any subsequent posts. And, in his starting post, he clearly stated that the undoing of the original metro plans were down to P11's work.

(And that was just the first thing that came up on Google). Lots more.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

How on earth are you getting 300 metres?



But the Metro North drawings show that the station boxes fall short of each street, with the eastern one falling a good deal short of Fleet Street.

Good. So we now know it's not 300 metres. It's only 267 metres. My bad.

Still three times as long as the platforms it is/was to accomodate.

monument wrote: »

SHOCKER! STOP THE PRESSES! Station boxes on each side of a platform is longer than the platform!

In general, it would be unusual for a station box on a single line to have a longer or wider footprint in a city than the line it serves. It is much more usual, in my experience, for such a station box to be around the same length, or shorter, than the platforms of the lines that it serves.

monument wrote: »

Where do you want the station boxes? In the Liffey? Or maybe you want them built in more limited space on the quays just so the station boxes don't stretch so far north to east?

We've been through this before, Monument, several times, though this time it's probably best if we just concentrate on the possible plans for the 'new' metro.

The plan with the old metro north was to build an underground line between St. Stephen's Green and the O'Connell Bridge stations, entailing a pretty regular station at St. Stephen's Green and 2 (two) station boxes at O'Connell Bridge which would each be around 4 (four) levels deep and around 80 metres long. In terms of construction manpower and materials, this would have effectively involved construction of an 8(eight)-level station to serve a single 90-metre tram service.

If the metro is to be built between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street, as is also sensibly being suggested as an option for the 'new metro north' plan, an option is to build the metro between St. Stephen's Green station and a station at O'Connell Street, somewhere around the spire. This should be very doable.

The only flaw I can see is that it would, at around 1 kilometre, be quite long, for such a central area, in a busy city.

The advantages, in terms of passenger uptake, of the original crazy O'Connell Bridge idea, were that they would deliver considerable passenger uptake on both the north- and the southside.

In my opinion, the passenger uptake which was envisaged for the metro station at O'Connell Bridge could be improved by a 2- or 3-level metro station at College Green - which the city is talking about pedestrianising, and a 2- or 3-level metro station on O'Connell Street.

This would be around 300-400 metres between the three stations on the metro in that key central area between St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street, and should involve easier access for more people - a key issue in this busy area.

It wouldn't be as cheap as going for the two-station strategy of just O'Connell Street and St. Stephen's Green, but it would certainly be cheaper than the earlier O'Connell Bridge plan, with its enormous depth and length, on both sides of the river. And I'm sure it would involve easier and greater passenger uptake.

richardmoyes

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnd..................why-ill they're a tit shure dey can ficks dat weird bend in DU and interchange it with die neue U-Bahn-Norden.
Jus sayin.

BonnieSituation

Does anyone actually know what Strassenwolf is arguing with Monument about?

I just don't get what the issues are and why every bloody page needs to be full of it!

lucernarian

Basic summary, and correct me if I'm wrong:

strassenwolf appears to be arguing for the merits of a Metro North station in the immediate vicinity of College Green, as an alternative idea to either scrapping the O'Connell Bridge station or building it as planned - it has a comparatively high price tag if I could quote e.g. the Aecom study on the North Dublin/Airport "alternatives".

Monument seems to believe that at the least, the station under O'Connell Bridge is ultimately not a bad idea, and that in comparison a station at College Green is infeasible (much like putting a Dart Underground station there was infeasible when discussed)

BonnieSituation

lucernarian wrote: »

Basic summary, and correct me if I'm wrong:

strassenwolf appears to be arguing for the merits of a Metro North station in the immediate vicinity of College Green, as an alternative idea to either scrapping the O'Connell Bridge station or building it as planned - it has a comparatively high price tag if I could quote e.g. the Aecom study on the North Dublin/Airport "alternatives".

Monument seems to believe that at the least, the station under O'Connell Bridge is ultimately not a bad idea, and that in comparison a station at College Green is infeasible (much like putting a Dart Underground station there was infeasible when discussed)

So Mr Wolf as I suspected is talking through his hoop.

lucernarian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So Mr Wolf as I suspected is talking through his hoop.

Based on what I said alone, that's a stretch...


I think the O'Connell Bridge station is the best option and (probably) worth it - I'm not going to shoot someone down for preferring something different, even if it's ultimately an inferior option.

I'm not sure there's TBMs that can drill through the combined legal counsel Trinity would bring to that party...

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

How can it be something taken out of context!?

That was not a post from someone deeply embroiled in a boards.ie discussion, answering questions left, right and centre, unfortunately omitting something here, not having the time to answer everything there, etc.

He started the thread, he provided context for any subsequent posts. And, in his starting post, he clearly stated that the undoing of the original metro plans were down to P11's work.

(And that was just the first thing that came up on Google). Lots more.

It was out of context. The poster was not an official spokesperson for P11 at the time. The point the poster made about MN was based on the original proposal. Please feel free to post more links from Google if you so wish. But I fail to see why you are pursuing the stance of an organisation that hasn't existed for many years, despite its good work.

ClovenHoof

Grandeeod wrote: »

It was out of context. The poster was not an official spokesperson for P11 at the time. The point the poster made about MN was based on the original proposal. Please feel free to post more links from Google if you so wish. But I fail to see why you are pursuing the stance of an organisation that hasn't existed for many years, despite its good work.

Sour grapes that P11 got the Midland Line relayed and the Dockland's station built, brought four tracking into the discussion, the Phoenix Park Tunnel open to commuter services and quite rightly killed the WRC north of Athenry perhaps?

strassenwo!f

lucernarian wrote: »

Based on what I said alone, that's a stretch...


I think the O'Connell Bridge station is the best option and (probably) worth it - I'm not going to shoot someone down for preferring something different, even if it's ultimately an inferior option.

I'm not sure there's TBMs that can drill through the combined legal counsel Trinity would bring to that party...

I think TCD were quite correct to voice concerns over various plans suggested in the past by public bodies like the DTO and the RPA.

If you remember, the DTO's outline plan around 2001 envisaged metro stations, in the area being discussed, at Nassau Street and at Tara Street. The RPA also had an idea to build directly across the campus under the most modern of TCD's libraries, whose name temporarily escapes me. (It's the big - and also very deep - one overlooking the cricket pitch).

It's hard to see how either of those plans would not have been of the utmost concern to TCD's authorities, given that they would have been going directly under or close to buildings which are either very deep (the new library) or very precious (and not just to TCD), particularly the Long Room Library.

The RPA's final metro plan did not go under TCD at all, so as a result we did not hear - as far as I am aware - of any major issues TCD had with the finally approved route.

Introducing a station at a location like College Green, on a route broadly similar to the RPA's approved route, which would not encroach on the campus at all, should have no major impact on TCD's architecture.

There is no obvious reason why they would be vigorously opposed, or why they should need a big or particularly strong legal team.

richardmoyes

And just tink of all de money a nice shorter line for DU would save. Why, maybe they could make an interchange station there?
TCD foundations? ppffffff!!

Idbatterim

ilots appeal Dublin Airport plans over Metro North link

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...link-1.2811950

I dont know if Ialpa are right or wrong, but I am glad if potential issues have been raised one way or another...

ncounties

I'm glad they've appealed it - a strange use of land that could restrict future growth. Was land not sold off long ago for the development of Airport Business Park which has taken up vast swaths of land that would have been suitable for long term parking now. I wouldn't be surprised if during the course of this development, they built difficult to pass office complexes in the path of a would be "airport" stop.