The case against Metro North - is there one?

LeinsterDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

When I see some serious attempt to use existing assets like the Phoenix Park tunnel then I will have more faith in these 'grand' projects.

I'm not sure what grinds my gears more on these forums. The PPT being the cure all for every transport problem in Dublin or the Whest

DWCommuter

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm not sure what grinds my gears more on these forums. The PPT being the cure all for every transport problem in Dublin or the Whest

I think you are misrepresenting what JD said. The PPT is not the cure all, but it is an asset that CIE resolutely refuse to develop, despite its route through car dominated areas and the reasons are very far from sound.

I suppose when one looks at a huge spend for a metro, Kildare route project and the interconnector, it does look a little incompetent to not develop an urban stretch of railway for passenger use.

Judgement Day

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm not sure what grinds my gears more on these forums. The PPT being the cure all for every transport problem in Dublin or the Whest

Pity about you. Why don't you try contributing more than your usual one liner?

AngryLips

etchyed wrote: »

They prove nothing of the sort. Why do you continue to ignore the fact, which was put to you after your first post in this thread, that both the green and red lines are exceptions not easily replicated?

What fact are you talking about? The only response I got to my first post was that it was unreasonable to use cost per km for the Cherrywood extension because it mostly ran on undeveloped land so in my second post I used cost per km for the Docklands extension to see what kind of equivalent we would get for Luas for the same price as Metro North.

etchyed wrote: »

Where in God's name do you propose to build 6 (or whatever figure you've come up with) more Luas lines with the requisite separation from traffic to ensure they can run at anything close to green line speeds?

I don't need to propose anything, if you look on the RPA website you'll see there are proposals for Luas lines BXD, B2 and F. Personally, I'm not saying I'm in favour of all of these, I'm just saying we could save some money and get better value by spending it on Luas instead. I don't have all the answers as to where it will run but to say that there is no space on the roads is ignoring the many other modern on-street LRTs in operation elsewhere.

bazzer06

I don't need to propose anything, if you look on the RPA website you'll see there are proposals for Luas lines BXD, B2 and F. Personally, I'm not saying I'm in favour of all of these, I'm just saying we could save some money and get better value by spending it on Luas instead. I don't have all the answers as to where it will run but to say that there is no space on the roads is ignoring the many other modern on-street LRTs in operation elsewhere.

Saving money and getting better value are very different things though... first of all, a high capacity link like Metro North can become - as many have pointed out - a backbone for orbital transport in North Dublin.

Secondly, you will find that very few cities build modern LRT systems predominantly on-street - something you would have to do in Dublin, as the land reserves aren't there, and also, the streets aren't wide enough to run in central reservations, which tends to be the most common compromise (take Berlin as an example).

Most extensive on-street systems are relics of systems over 100 years old - that might be a realistic development focus in Dublin had we not ripped up the massive system that did exist, but there's no point in building a predominantly on street system from scratch. That would indeed be a waste of money.

BluntGuy

bazzer06 wrote: »

Saving money and getting better value are very different things though... first of all, a high capacity link like Metro North can become - as many have pointed out - a backbone for orbital transport in North Dublin.

It won't though.

Metro West is pretty much in the bin for the next 10 years at least - having been quietly shafted (though I think the line alignment was flawed anyway). A link to either of the existing Luas lines (or indeed any of the proposed ones) is highly impractical and the extension of Metro to meet the Dart line doesn't look like it's going to be considered any time soon. While I would argue MN does indeed have merits in its own right, sadly those are the only merits on which there is a basis to argue, as there is no evidence that any of the mooted Luas interoperability, orbital routes etc. will come to pass.

The only current proposed transport project that I believe actually ties loose, seperate elements together in some sort of cohesive manner, and actually integrates them is the Dart Underground project. Though it seems the physical integration of the Hazelhatch line to the D.U line has been left out of the project for some reason, which is worrying.

Back to MN however, it's sad to think what we could've had, if we did have a North-South metro line, broadly following Luas Green to the south, ending at the Dart line and then broadly following MN to Swords and then ending on the northern line, with perhaps spurs to finglas, blanch etc. We would of course had the underground portion in the city centre, but we'd milk every last penny out of it, which is what you want to be doing when you're spending 2/3/4 (whatever the figure may be) billion. MN now has to justify itself purely on the basis of itself as a standalone line, and that's at much more difficult task. Many of the areas it goes through are medium-density at absolute best, the airport is shedding passengers, it travels through undeveloped fields for a good chunk north of Swords, the cost is unrevealed, there's no available up-to-date C.B.A, so I think it's only natural there are going to be doubts.

I'm still on the fence about this project and until we get the hard-cold cash figures, I'm going to be staying on the fence. I can't make an informed judgement otherwise.

etchyed

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'll explain in more detail Furet.

Historically speaking, Ireland has a poor record of developing and implementing rail based public transport projects in full and in accordance with the original plans. This is due to political interference and the use of such projects as vote enhancing tools. Furthermore in recent times its getting dictated by the Governments reluctance to overhaul or shut down CIE. That is why we now have the RPA. It is never or at least rarely in the greater interests of the public which these projects will assist.

Example one - The DART

Conceived in the 70s. Only part of it built in the 80s. Financed by loans after the Government redirected EEC funding. It put a financial strait jacket on CIE that had a negative impact on rail services. Generally accepted as a hugely successful system, but due to political interference over the years, it has been constrained by the introduction of other commuter services rendering it less effective. While politicians "campaigned" for these other services, they provided no funding to make sure the DART network could sustain its original timings and effectiveness. Extended to Greystones, purely and simply on the basis of a bye election. Now relying on the interconnector to claw back its potential. The interconnector is effectively a reworking of the original Dublin Rail plan of the 1970s. Still not built.

Example two - The Luas

Originally conceived in the early 1990s as a cheaper alternative to further develop CIEs 1970s rail plan for Dublin. Taken out of CIE hands when the RPA was created. Delayed by an incoming Government in 1997. Recently extended at the whims of property developers and soon to be operating through green fields, empty office blocks and a derelict dockside that may never have any development/tenants near them. At the same time key areas of the city still suffer from heavy traffic congestion and woeful public transport.

Then we have Metro. Conceived in the mid 90s by the DTO if I'm not mistaken, greenlit in 2002 and phase one (Airport to Shanganagh with branch to Blanchardstown) promised by 2007. The second phase promised by 2016 was a line from Blanch to the city centre via clondalkin and Tallaght.

Eight years later, nothing is built and the plan is down to just one line. Therefore I'm putting forward the view that if its built, it will never be extended and the tradition of having a bit of a tram system, a bit of a DART system and a bit of a metro system will continue. Thats why I conclude that the biggest case against the metro is in fact those entrusted to deliver it - The Government.

For the record, Im not against MN. But Im not convinced it will be built and I genuinely believe it will never be extended. The points above should go some way to confirming why I believe that. Finally and slightly OT, I not happy about the developer links to MN and this probably stems from my dislike for Fianna Fail. While the RPA claim the route was arrived at after public consultation, there is evidence that the route runs through lands owned by discredited developers and Fianna Fail supporters. Here's just one example.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/mar/01/bailey-brothers-sitting-on-a-pot-of-metro-gold-in-/

Derek, thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion so eloquently. Without wishing to be sycophantic, I think it's fair to say that of anyone on boards, and quite probably anyone in Ireland, you are the most well versed on the depressing history of rail projects in Ireland. It's a shame your writings don't get a wider airing. I suspect that at this stage you're worn out writing about this stuff, and that's the reason I haven't seen a post like this (well argued and with detailed history to back up your point) from you in quite a while.

Disheartening as the whole story is, I still think it's worthwhile maintaining a pragmatic, "best we can hope for" attitude towards Metro North. It's the only scheme that has even a wild chance of proceeding. Although the transport network that would result from a combination of Metro North and Interconnector will likely never materialise, Metro North alone is still better than nothing. Do you not agree?

etchyed

AngryLips wrote: »

What fact are you talking about? The only response I got to my first post was that it was unreasonable to use cost per km for the Cherrywood extension because it mostly ran on undeveloped land so in my second post I used cost per km for the Docklands extension to see what kind of equivalent we would get for Luas for the same price as Metro North.

Apologies. You may not have got a response before, but I think I explained to you in my post (admittedly not particularly well, but look at a map to see for yourself) why the existing Luas lines are unique cases.

I don't need to propose anything, if you look on the RPA website you'll see there are proposals for Luas lines BXD, B2 and F.

What's your point?

Personally, I'm not saying I'm in favour of all of these, I'm just saying we could save some money and get better value by spending it on Luas instead. I don't have all the answers as to where it will run but to say that there is no space on the roads is ignoring the many other modern on-street LRTs in operation elsewhere.

You don't have all the answers and nor does anyone else. Utilising existing streets in Dublin to run Luas lines all over the place is simply not feasible. Think about this logically. Apart from running on tracks, using overhead power lines and looking shiny and silver, what differentiates Luas trams from buses? Priority at traffic lights, perhaps, but buses can do that too. There is practically nowhere else in Dublin where the speed and efficiency of the Green Line can be matched. Luas lines anywhere else would be marginally faster glorified buses.

The "you could build x number of Luas lines for that money" argument is tiresome and illogical. Please stop.

bazzer06

BluntGuy wrote: »

It won't though.

Metro West is pretty much in the bin for the next 10 years at least - having been quietly shafted (though I think the line alignment was flawed anyway). A link to either of the existing Luas lines (or indeed any of the proposed ones) is highly impractical and the extension of Metro to meet the Dart line doesn't look like it's going to be considered any time soon. While I would argue MN does indeed have merits in its own right, sadly those are the only merits on which there is a basis to argue, as there is no evidence that any of the mooted Luas interoperability, orbital routes etc. will come to pass.

The only current proposed transport project that I believe actually ties loose, seperate elements together in some sort of cohesive manner, and actually integrates them is the Dart Underground project. Though it seems the physical integration of the Hazelhatch line to the D.U line has been left out of the project for some reason, which is worrying.

Back to MN however, it's sad to think what we could've had, if we did have a North-South metro line, broadly following Luas Green to the south, ending at the Dart line and then broadly following MN to Swords and then ending on the northern line, with perhaps spurs to finglas, blanch etc. We would of course had the underground portion in the city centre, but we'd milk every last penny out of it, which is what you want to be doing when you're spending 2/3/4 (whatever the figure may be) billion. MN now has to justify itself purely on the basis of itself as a standalone line, and that's at much more difficult task. Many of the areas it goes through are medium-density at absolute best, the airport is shedding passengers, it travels through undeveloped fields for a good chunk north of Swords, the cost is unrevealed, there's no available up-to-date C.B.A, so I think it's only natural there are going to be doubts.

I'm still on the fence about this project and until we get the hard-cold cash figures, I'm going to be staying on the fence. I can't make an informed judgement otherwise.

Okay just to clarify what i meant by a about a couple of the things you've brought up here - when i referred to Metro North as a backbone, I wasn't thinking interoperability so much as interchangeability - there's no question that this would occur at SSG and O'Connell Street, even if DU isn't in question, and if the latter is also taken into account, then again, not having interchange possibilities is impossible... maybe i've misunderstood? I don't see interoperability between systems as necessary to MN becoming a "backbone" in North Dublin.

I also see no reason why orbital bus routes along axes such as Collins Ave and Griffith Ave couldn't happen? I know orbitals have failed in the past, but the presence of MN would make orbital routes going from, say, a DART station to an MN station much more attractive IMO. Because yes, the bus may be a couple of minutes late, but shorten the routes and that is less likely, and people also don't have to fret too much because of the high frequency of Metro (and post DU DART of course). Generally speaking, call me naive but I think DU and MN will both be built in the short to medium term, and therefore should be considered together.

As regards the possibilties for milking MN for all its worth, I see no reason that this wouldn't happen in the future (the recession won't last forever) and based on extensions to Luas, I see no reason the same couldn't happen with MN? I think with MN and DU completed, Dubliners will finally see the benefit of a transport network, and the political will to expand it will increase.

As for MetroWest, I don't see it's long fingering as a problem in the context of a Metro network being established, as IMO it should be called Luas anyway! Yes, interoperability should be provided, but I would be slightly afraid of too much of this affecting time efficiencies on MN, as MW would be prone to missing slots due to its lack of full grade separation....

zootroid

AngryLips wrote: »

On the one hand you're acknowledging that Luas didn't create gridlock on our streets and on the other you're implying that additional Luas lines will lead to gridlock because it is competing for road space. I think both of the existing Luas lines prove that, with adequate traffic management, traffic will not be affected.

The point I was making is that the Luas was an improvement, rather than leading to traffic chaos, as had been feared.
And in parts the luas has to compete with cars and buses for space on the roads, because our roads are narrow and windy due to the fact that Dublin is an old city. Having an underground system frees up the streets for cars and buses. An underground system would also be much faster than a luas line. As a simple example, how long would it take the luas to go from Stephens green to O'Connell street? It would have to go down Dawson street and through College Green, both of which are heavily congested areas. The Metro would do it in a fraction of the time.

Another point is that you're comparing apples with oranges here; there is a population difference between Dublin and London of over twelve million, that's several times the population of the entire island of Ireland. This is the difference between future-proofing and gold-plating. Plenty of other European cities with similar populations sizes to Dublin rely quite successfully on overground light rail and for the price of Metro North we'd get a whole lot more Luas than just one line to Swords. Even if you look at Copenhagen, Helsinki and Lisbon, similar cities that all have underground networks, you'll see that these cities are all at least nearly one and a half times the size of Dublin. If the suggestion is that Dublin is somehow 'different' to its European peers here then that just smacks of the typical Irish need to come up with a uniquely Irish solution to a common and not particularly Irish problem.

I picked London as an illustration of how long the piece of infrastructure would exist for. If you want to compare cities of similar size, how big does a city need to be before it meets your criteria for an underground? Does the fact that Dublin's streets are too narrow come into the equation?

Metro North is a relic of the Celtic Tiger, it's time to put it to sleep along with Anglo and everything else exorbitant about that era.

Quite the opposite I think. Projects like the Metro North are some of the few good things to come out of the Celtic Tiger, the fact that we recognised we need to invest in infrastructure to achieve growth (the inter-urban motorways, port tunnel, and luas lines being other examples).

There is less debate about the 30 odd billion being poured into Anglo which will never be seen again, than there is about an infrastructural project that will bring that will ease traffic congestion in the city, provide thousands of jobs, and stimulate economic growth for years to come. 30 billion wasted, and people still give out about 2.5 billion that will provide real benefits.

bazzer06

AngryLips wrote: »

. Plenty of other European cities with similar populations sizes to Dublin rely quite successfully on overground light rail and for the price of Metro North we'd get a whole lot more Luas than just one line to Swords. Even if you look at Copenhagen, Helsinki and Lisbon, similar cities that all have underground networks, you'll see that these cities are all at least nearly one and a half times the size of Dublin. If the suggestion is that Dublin is somehow 'different' to its European peers here then that just smacks of the typical Irish need to come up with a uniquely Irish solution to a common and not particularly Irish problem.

.

Whatever about Lisbon or Copenhagen, Helsinki is absolutely comparable to Dublin in terms of size and density, as well as in it's role in its respective country....

Also, there are plenty of cities of a similar size to - or smaller than - Dublin that feel the need to rely on underground networks - Brussels, Toulouse, Hannover, Bilbao, Rotterdam, Rennes... the list goes on. Your assertion that plenty of European cities of Dublin's size rely on LRT is only relevant to this discussion if they rely on as the main mass transit system. The only relevant example I can think of offhand is Bordeaux. though I'm sure there are a couple more. If you can tell me where the plethora of European cities with similar populations, densities and urban structure of Dublin are that rely so heavily on LRT i'll stand corrected.

The fact of the matter is that Dublin is "different" to it's European peers in some ways, and it's the unique challenges of providing an efficient transport system for a city of Dublin's nature that should determine what is built, not comparing it to other cities in Europe or anywhere else. But if comparisons are really necessary, then you're dead in saying compare like with like, and there are plenty of cities that are absolutely comparable to Dublin.

Zebra3

AngryLips wrote: »

Even if you look at Copenhagen, Helsinki and Lisbon, similar cities that all have underground networks, you'll see that these cities are all at least nearly one and a half times the size of Dublin.

I seriously doubt Cph is anyway bigger than Dublin.

Higher population? Yes.

Higher density? Yes.

Better planned? Totally. (See the Finger Plan).

monument

Furet wrote: »

Just on this whole point of crayons and drawing lines on a map, whether it be for roads or metros: surely, at some point, this is exactly what happens when designers, you know, design.
They draw a line on a map of roughly where they think something needs to be placed and go from there. I'm not sure why people comment on the phrase "draw a line on a map" so contemptuously. I don't make this remark on foot of Judgement Day's post above; it's just something I've noticed a lot on this forum and on C&T and Roads.

Agreed. Here's my crayons attempt: Alternative endings to Metro North, even if it's too late

senordingdong

Yes but many European cities had the luxury of being put back to the drawing board, after a couple of air strikes.

L1011

And we had DCC deciding to blast dual carriageways (with traffic lights ever few metres, making them pointless...) through the city centre and a collection of self-incendary and self-demolishing-over-bank-holiday buildings whenever certain developers wanted to build stuff.

Enough of Dublin was destroyed in the '70s and '80ss to allow proper planning.

NFD100

monument wrote: »

Agreed. Here's my crayons attempt: Alternative endings to Metro North, even if it's too late

Monument, in the real world, your plan would be adopted. It makes perfect sense, when built with the Interconnector. However, this is Ireland and common sense doesn't prevail

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

Agreed. Here's my crayons attempt: Alternative endings to Metro North, even if it's too late

Not sure of the lay of the land there . How would you expand to Donabate in the future ? Is there room beside the train line?

oharach

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Not sure of the lay of the land there . How would you expand to Donabate in the future ? Is there room beside the train line?

I think monument's argument is that this should have happened instead of the current route to north of Swords/future extension to Donabate. Malahide makes a much more logical terminus imo but the infrastructure really isn't there to handle a large increase in passenger numbers. Also, the depot would need to be relocated as it is planned for Belinstown.

senordingdong

I think that is a succesful Metro, that will be just as reliable in a hundred years to be built, we should look at the lines in London and Moscow.

They have a circular line running within the city, and many other lines that connect to this circle line, shooting off in different directions.

LeinsterDub

oharach wrote: »

I think monument's argument is that this should have happened instead of the current route to north of Swords/future extension to Donabate. Malahide makes a much more logical terminus imo but the infrastructure really isn't there to handle a large increase in passenger numbers. Also, the depot would need to be relocated as it is planned for Belinstown.

Yes I understand this is a alternative route . I was just wondering if monument had considered the possibility of extension to Donabate or else where.

monument

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yes I understand this is a alternative route . I was just wondering if monument had considered the possibility of extension to Donabate or else where.

With my idea you don't need to extend to Donabate, if you want to get to Donabate or else where you switch to the Dart at Malahide.

oharach wrote: »

I think monument's argument is that this should have happened instead of the current route to north of Swords/future extension to Donabate.

Exactly. And the joy of my route is that it's only a bit longer than the route to north of Swords. Compared to the route to Donabate, it's shorter, a better location for an interchange, and while it goes via mostly farmland it it's closer to far more housing.

The downsides of my route is that more non-farmland property take would be needed (as far as I can see: a carpark or two and two or three houses at most), and more road bridges / underpasses would need to be built. EDIT: Also one or two small parts of the routes are via a currently wooded area.

oharach wrote: »

Malahide makes a much more logical terminus imo but the infrastructure really isn't there to handle a large increase in passenger numbers. Also, the depot would need to be relocated as it is planned for Belinstown.

The land is there directly south of the current Malahide station -- the other side of the road bridge. There could be a Dart turnback build on the green land along with a Metro station.

If that is not possible, than an interchange could be built further south of Malahide. Somewhere around where Google maps has 'Broomfield' -- I've put in a marker into the map.

EDIT ALSO: Before anybody says it the depot does not have to be at the end of the line. It could be, for example, between the airport and the M50 (not my idea).

DWCommuter

etchyed wrote: »

Derek, thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion so eloquently. Without wishing to be sycophantic, I think it's fair to say that of anyone on boards, and quite probably anyone in Ireland, you are the most well versed on the depressing history of rail projects in Ireland. It's a shame your writings don't get a wider airing. I suspect that at this stage you're worn out writing about this stuff, and that's the reason I haven't seen a post like this (well argued and with detailed history to back up your point) from you in quite a while.

Disheartening as the whole story is, I still think it's worthwhile maintaining a pragmatic, "best we can hope for" attitude towards Metro North. It's the only scheme that has even a wild chance of proceeding. Although the transport network that would result from a combination of Metro North and Interconnector will likely never materialise, Metro North alone is still better than nothing. Do you not agree?

Cheers.

Indeed MN is better than nothing. But its this eternal "better than nothing" mentality that all of us (myself included) are forced to acquire when taking an interest in and discussing rail projects. I'm both worn out and disheartened by it all.

As for my writings, well there's a book ready to go that articulates matters in a far better manner than I could ever have the time to do on boards. But it hasn't been published yet due to legal issues.

oharach

monument wrote: »

The land is there directly south of the current Malahide station -- the other side of the road bridge. There could be a Dart turnback build on the green land along with a Metro station.

Wasn't the Dart turnback/new station proposed before? It would have much better chances of getting public/government approval coupled with Metro though. Expect them to demand tunnelling around the castle however.

Incidentally, this plan would also stop people from Malahide complaining about losing most of their connections to Connolly when the Interconnector is finally built.

I really think any new station should have four platforms with provision for an hourly Enterprise to make taking the train to the airport from Belfast/Drogheda/Dundalk a serious option.

But this is all hypothetical...

senordingdong

oharach wrote: »

Wasn't the Dart turnback/new station proposed before? It would have much better chances of getting public/government approval coupled with Metro though. Expect them to demand tunnelling around the castle however.

Incidentally, this plan would also stop people from Malahide complaining about losing most of their connections to Connolly when the Interconnector is finally built.

I really think any new station should have four platforms with provision for an hourly Enterprise to make taking the train to the airport from Belfast/Drogheda/Dundalk a serious option.

But this is all hypothetical...

I think that underground lines should be built along the North DART line and have the commuter trains placed on them...the congestion on the n/side DART line is ridiculous, and most of it is from trains that don't service half of the stations they pass.

oharach

senordingdong wrote: »

I think that underground lines should be built along the North DART line and have the commuter trains placed on them...the congestion on the n/side DART line is ridiculous, and most of it is from trains that don't service half of the stations they pass.

You might like to read this thread

senordingdong

oharach wrote: »

You might like to read this thread

Haha, right up my alley, thanks.
Except for the longer platform thing.

I think higher frequency instead of longer carriages would be a better improvment.

AngryLips

We should also consider building walkalators anywhere we install additional cycle lanes to facilitate better interconnectivity. It would also improve safety by providing appropriate segregation of cyclists from pedestrians :pac:

spacetweek

NFD100 wrote: »

However, this is Ireland and common sense doesn't prevail

I really don't like this attitude. Fatalism is the enemy of us all.

It's no wonder Ireland always fails when people like you keep on saying things like this. Every time people say things like that, politicians don't bother delivering projects because why would they, when the public has already expected them not to on the grounds that "This is Ireland so we always fail."

But then I am an eternal optimist.

Monument, your idea to join MN to Malahide runs through the Demesne (impossible, you'd never be allowed) and is far, far too bendy (too slow). Fuggedaboudit.

senordingdong

spacetweek wrote: »

Monument, your idea to join MN to Malahide runs through the Demesne (impossible, you'd never be allowed) and is far, far too bendy (too slow). Fuggedaboudit.

I agree about the bendy thing.

The metro lines are far more practical and cost efficient the straighter they are.

Cormac Rabbitt

Originally Posted by monument
Agreed. Here's my crayons attempt: Alternative endings to Metro North, even if it's too late

Big Dig ending to Metro North at St. Stephens' Green:(