Which affordable transport projects should go ahead in 2011-2014?

antoobrien

salonfire wrote: »

How many of those using cars live in one-off housing?

That would depend on the definition of one off housing you use - i.e. are they clustered together, part of an organised development (i.e. estate) or in an urban area. I think the whole one off thing is a bit of a smoke screen for people with axes to grind and begrudgers (read anyone that says mcmansion, or complains about the size of a house). What I worry about wrt to one off is that the people building them may not have had the money to afford them. then again the same is true of all the urban dwellers who bought at silly prices.

The census data indicates that there's a strong switch from rural to urban living over the past 50 years in Galway. In the 1956 census there was about 45K people living in towns, with 155,000 in the county. In 2006 that stands at about 115,000 out of 230,000. Over that timeframe the population of Galway city went from 21,000 to 72,000 (about 67% of the overall population growth of the county).

salonfire wrote: »

Do you think we should provide Public transport to one-off house?

No, but there's no reason why there can't be a reasonable PT service to most of the towns mentioned either. Like I said, they had a golden opportunity to make a proper commuter service out of WRC, instead the earliest train gets into Galway at 8.30am, which is too late for the factories that start at 8 or earlier, and the lack of frequency makes it unsuitable for general use. I'm not saying it needs as dart service, but 4/6 trains a day that doesn't server the working population is asking for failure.

Back to justification for the N17/N18 project.

Despite the fact that this road will serve traffic going to Galway City (it will replace two of the main roads into Galway from the east) I'll ignore it for now because the junction is going to be about 10 km from the east side of Galway. In 10 years the urban population served by the proposed road has grown by 79.5%. The numbers will likely be higher in this years census.

Breakdown:
N18 - Gort, Clarinbridge, Oranmore,
N17 - Claregalway, Corofin, Tuam (urban and environs),
N63 - (there is a junction in the plans) Lackagh, Mounbellew & Moylough
Add in Athenry, which is 2/3 km from the M6 junction
Total Populations
1996 - 10,589
2002 - 13,254 (+25%),
2006 - 19,007 (+43% more).

Those are just the local reasons, there's also access to the south for airports & ports, other industry & tourism and opening up areas for industrial development that would not otherwise be able to compete due to lack of transport infrastructure.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

I read somewhere that the land (no link, sorry) has already been bought for the N17/18 project at a cost of about 150m. If this is true, it makes it a no brainer to spend the extra couple of hundred million to build it or it's a bigger waste than the consulting money spent on the bertie bowl.

There's an article about this today in one of the Galway papers. The actual figure for land costs (already spent) is about €120m.

BrianD

antoobrien wrote: »

That would depend on the definition of one off housing you use - i.e. are they clustered together, part of an organised development (i.e. estate) or in an urban area.

By definition "one off housing" won't be in an estate or an urban area.

I think the whole one off thing is a bit of a smoke screen for people with axes to grind and begrudgers (read anyone that says mcmansion, or complains about the size of a house). What I worry about wrt to one off is that the people building them may not have had the money to afford them. then again the same is true of all the urban dwellers who bought at silly prices.

It's irrelevant if they can personally afford the mortgage on the house. That's a by the way - the same applies to urban dwellers as you point out. t

The fact of the matter is that one off houses are a cost to society at large. People living in sustainable developments subsidise one off home owners through higher service and utility charges. We pay for the inefficiency.

The census data indicates that there's a strong switch from rural to urban living over the past 50 years in Galway. In the 1956 census there was about 45K people living in towns, with 155,000 in the county. In 2006 that stands at about 115,000 out of 230,000. Over that timeframe the population of Galway city went from 21,000 to 72,000 (about 67% of the overall population growth of the county).

Just because the population of Galway city has increased relative to other parts of the county does not imply a switch from rural to urban dwelling. It simply means more people are living in Galway city. That's all. The fact of the matter if that even a small percentage increase in one off housing in rural areas is unsustainable, inefficient and a cost to society at large.

No, but there's no reason why there can't be a reasonable PT service to most of the towns mentioned either. Like I said, they had a golden opportunity to make a proper commuter service out of WRC, instead the earliest train gets into Galway at 8.30am, which is too late for the factories that start at 8 or earlier, and the lack of frequency makes it unsuitable for general use. I'm not saying it needs as dart service, but 4/6 trains a day that doesn't server the working population is asking for failure.

Don't delude yourself. There is no sustainable business model for the WRC. It doesn't matter how many trains you put on a day. There are no commuters for it. It's badly spent government money to win votes.

Back to justification for the N17/N18 project.

Despite the fact that this road will serve traffic going to Galway City (it will replace two of the main roads into Galway from the east) I'll ignore it for now because the junction is going to be about 10 km from the east side of Galway. In 10 years the urban population served by the proposed road has grown by 79.5%. The numbers will likely be higher in this years census.

Breakdown:
N18 - Gort, Clarinbridge, Oranmore,
N17 - Claregalway, Corofin, Tuam (urban and environs),
N63 - (there is a junction in the plans) Lackagh, Mounbellew & Moylough
Add in Athenry, which is 2/3 km from the M6 junction
Total Populations
1996 - 10,589
2002 - 13,254 (+25%),
2006 - 19,007 (+43% more).

Those are just the local reasons, there's also access to the south for airports & ports, other industry & tourism and opening up areas for industrial development that would not otherwise be able to compete due to lack of transport infrastructure.

No problem with inter-urban motorways - though the less local junctions the better - and it probably offers more realistic value than the WRC will.

antoobrien

BrianD wrote: »

By definition "one off housing" won't be in an estate or an urban area.

But one off houses do exist in urban areas as well. I know because I see so many of them every day in Clontarf.

BrianD wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that one off houses are a cost to society at large. People living in sustainable developments subsidise one off home owners through higher service and utility charges. We pay for the inefficiency.

So we're all paying for a one off house that has its own well or is connected to a water scheme (mostly requiring fees of some sort I might add, something urban dwellers are up in arms over) & septic tank, which doesn't have state subsidised service costs? Or is the fact that their taxes pay for large scale (and in many cases unsuitable ) water mains & sewage systems in urban area fair to them? It cuts both ways. But take another arguments on this to the one off thread.

BrianD wrote: »

Just because the population of Galway city has increased relative to other parts of the county does not imply a switch from rural to urban dwelling. It simply means more people are living in Galway city.

I suggest you read that again. The population of towns in Galway increased to 115k (out of 230k). the population of the city is 72k (which as I pointed out does comprise most of the increase). A reduction from 70% rural to 50% rural does imly a switch from rural to urban

BrianD wrote: »

Don't delude yourself. There is no sustainable business model for the WRC. It doesn't matter how many trains you put on a day. There are no commuters for it.

There are >35k vehicles entering the east of Galway (from N17 & the M6) on a daily basis - are you seriously suggesting that they can't make a business out of that? Or maybe the real question (but not for this thread) is do they want to?

BrianD

antoobrien wrote: »

But one off houses do exist in urban areas as well. I know because I see so many of them every day in Clontarf.

That is not the definition of a "one-off housing". The houses that you see in Clontarf are not "one off housing".

So a one off house that has its own well or is connected to a water scheme & septic tank is unsustainable? Or is the fact that their taxes pay for large scale (and in many cases unsuitable ) water mains & sewage systems in urban area fair to them? It cuts both ways.

Without a shadow of a doubt they are not sustainable. We already have evidence the level of water table pollution that one-off housing is creating. It is also inefficient for the type of water extraction that happens with one off housing. It is not unusual to strips of one off housing or clusters all extracting drinking water and putting their sewage into the same area.

it is perfectly fair for taxes to pay for water and sewage services in sustainable developments. If the one-off dwellers were to live in these developments it would be cheaper for everybody.

I suggest you read that again. The population of towns in Galway increased to 115k (out of 230k). the population of the city is 72k (which as I pointed out does comprise most of the increase). A reduction from 70% rural to 50% rural does imly a switch from rural to urban

But it doesn't imply a decrease in one off housing. It only implies that urban populations are growing relatively faster and not that people are switching from rural to urban living.

There are >35k vehicles entering the east of Galway (from N17 & the M6) on a daily basis - are you seriously suggesting that they can't make a business out of that? Or maybe the real question (but not for this thread) is do they want to?

Yes I am! Even the provision of a high frequency super attractive, even free rail service along the route will only attract a small percentage of those people out of their cars.

BrianD

Back to the projects...

Just unsure if one of the projects that is the "LUAS linkup" includes just a link up or an extension of the green line onwards through Grangegorman etc.

Heroditas

Was anyone listening to Newstalk this morning? Varadkar was on and seemed (in my mind anyway) to indicate that the Metro was as good as dead and the main focus is on linking up the LUAS lines and DART Underground and deciding which one is viable.
They also mentioned building a spur from the DART line out to the airport.
I know it's all been discussed quite a bit here but it was interesting to hear the minister himself talk quite frankly about various infrastructure projects.
He also mentioned the bus version of the LUAS.... e.g. the one they use in Eindhoven as an alternative link to the airport.

BrianD

Heroditas wrote: »

Was anyone listening to Newstalk this morning? Varadkar was on and seemed (in my mind anyway) to indicate that the Metro was as good as dead and the main focus is on linking up the LUAS lines and DART Underground and deciding which one is viable.
They also mentioned building a spur from the DART line out to the airport.
I know it's all been discussed quite a bit here but it was interesting to hear the minister himself talk quite frankly about various infrastructure projects.
He also mentioned the bus version of the LUAS.... e.g. the one they use in Eindhoven as an alternative link to the airport.

If the pot of money exists and the choice is between DART underground and a simple LUAS link up then the DU is a no-brainer. It just offers so much more in terms of integration of existing rail while the LUAS link up just addresses a common misconception that the tram lines should meet because they are tram lines. Of course there's a value in integration of the luas lines but not as much as DU.

There is still a sense of making it up as we go along. Clearly the DART airport spur is a relatively cheap project but is there a role for it in the long run? If we had the money for all projects would we be building it? If no, then don't build it. If we build it then it's existence, in the absence of a firm plan, will have a huge influence on everything else that may come down the line.

Heroditas

I really think that DU is the one to focus on. It has massive implications for rail travel and commuters along the eastern seaboard and out into the commuter belt.
He also mentioned extending the link-up of the LUAS lines up to Broombridge. Seems like that is the alternative to DU.
Hopefully it doesn't become a "which one will appeal more to constituents" project and one that will benefit the greater population.

Niles

The Airport Dart line's usefulness will be compromised if there isn't funding attached to increase Belfast line capacity. The line is congested enough as it is without adding more Darts to it. If they were prepared to include funding for this as well as the Dart Underground then maybe it has a chance. Without Dart Underground its full potential won't be reached anyway - this would allow Hazlehatch-Airport Darts to operate. However, one might argue that the Airport is already adequately catered for by bus links. These weren't there when the Airport link was drawn up in 1991 so do we really need to continue with this obsession of having a rail-based link to the Airport?

Reading between the lines in Vardakar's statements to date it seems almost certain that Metro North is off the table. I can't help but wonder if the non-Airport areas served might just as well benefit from a future Luas link, which would be less costly anyway.

My money's on Dart Underground anyway.

Heroditas

Niles wrote: »

Reading between the lines in Vardakar's statements to date it seems almost certain that Metro North is off the table. I can't help but wonder if the non-Airport areas served might just as well benefit from a future Luas link, which would be less costly anyway.

He actually hinted at that with the suggestion of the LUAS lines being linked and then continuing on to Finglas with the possibility of perhaps extending on out to the airport.
I'd like to see that option followed, assuming they can get the land cheaply enough.
It would be very similar to what they have in Portland, Oregon with their MAX light rail.

Zebra3

Heroditas wrote: »

He actually hinted at that with the suggestion of the LUAS lines being linked and then continuing on to Finglas with the possibility of perhaps extending on out to the airport.

I can't imagine many people using that for airport-city centre (or vice verse) instead of the bus.

Niles

In the long term perhaps the northern Luas extension need not serve the Airport itself, I'm not convinced the Luas trams are the most suitable for such traffic (they're not ideally suited to carrying loads of large baggage, etc...), though they could still potentially serve the Finglas area. It's possible that by that stage the Airport will be adequately served by buses and the Dart without needing a Luas.

dynamick

BrianD wrote: »

Back to the projects...

Just unsure if one of the projects that is the "LUAS linkup" includes just a link up or an extension of the green line onwards through Grangegorman etc.

Luas Linkup, Luas Interconnector and Luas BXD are all names for the same project: a 13 stop line from Stephen's Green to South of Finglas via O'Connell Street, Broadstone, Grangegorman, Phibsboro, Cabra, Liffey Junction

Very large map image here:
http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Luas%20Line%20BX/Line%20BXD%20Map%200409.jpg

BrianD

dynamick wrote: »

Luas Linkup, Luas Interconnector and Luas BXD are all names for the same project: a 13 stop line from Stephen's Green to South of Finglas via O'Connell Street, Broadstone, Grangegorman, Phibsboro, Cabra, Liffey Junction

Very large map image here:
http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Luas%20Line%20BX/Line%20BXD%20Map%200409.jpg

Cheers. The plans seem to change every day so verification is always welcome.

there is one thing that is distinctly in favour of the DART spur - lack of disruption.

All of the "big 3" projects would involve significant disruption to the city centre for a prolonged period of time. No pain, no gain I would say but I'm not sure if the powers that be have the balls to go ahead "in these difficult times".

The FF-ers backed down in better times and I'm guessing that the FG-ers would rather deal with other fights rather than dealing with business interests in the city centre.

dynamick

Dublin chamber of commerce supports Luas BXD
http://www.dubchamber.ie/press_release.asp?article=1424

BXD and the DART airport spur are similarly priced projects but one will carry far more passengers than the other. Would you say that is the project that involves a train travelling along a flight path every 15 minutes to Clongriffin? Or is it the project that connects 2 luas lines and a heavy rail line and passes through the city centre where people work, study and live?

BrianD

dynamick wrote: »

Dublin chamber of commerce supports Luas BXD
http://www.dubchamber.ie/press_release.asp?article=1424

BXD and the DART airport spur are similarly priced projects but one will carry far more passengers than the other. Would you say that is the project that involves a train travelling along a flight path every 15 minutes to Clongriffin? Or is it the project that connects 2 luas lines and a heavy rail line and passes through the city centre where people work, study and live?

I'd go with the latter but I'm not a politician!

robd

BrianD wrote: »

Cheers. The plans seem to change every day so verification is always welcome.

there is one thing that is distinctly in favour of the DART spur - lack of disruption.

All of the "big 3" projects would involve significant disruption to the city centre for a prolonged period of time. No pain, no gain I would say but I'm not sure if the powers that be have the balls to go ahead "in these difficult times".

The FF-ers backed down in better times and I'm guessing that the FG-ers would rather deal with other fights rather than dealing with business interests in the city centre.

Not True.

You haven't a hope in hell of adding extra trains on the Line from Connelly out to Malahide without 4 (part 3) tracking it. That would cause severe disruption.

BrianD

robd wrote: »

Not True.

You haven't a hope in hell of adding extra trains on the Line from Connelly out to Malahide without 4 (part 3) tracking it. That would cause severe disruption.

I agree but the disruption would be confined to the environs of the railway and some temporary work around could probably be achieved to keep the line open. It only disrupts the travel patterns of those using the line.

The Big 3 projects require major construction along their routes which means serious disruption to day to day business in the city and traffic.

xper

Heroditas wrote: »

Was anyone listening to Newstalk this morning? Varadkar was on and seemed (in my mind anyway) to indicate that the Metro was as good as dead and the main focus is on linking up the LUAS lines and DART Underground and deciding which one is viable.
They also mentioned building a spur from the DART line out to the airport.
I know it's all been discussed quite a bit here but it was interesting to hear the minister himself talk quite frankly about various infrastructure projects.
He also mentioned the bus version of the LUAS.... e.g. the one they use in Eindhoven as an alternative link to the airport.

Interview available here for the next few days:
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/49/thursday/4/popup
Newstalk Breakfast, Thursday, Part 4, interview starts @ 22mins.

First few questions are relevant to this thread:
Q: Ireland's "next big transport project"?
A: Could be a while off, first priority is maintain what we have, second is improve what we have (integrated ticketing, real-time info, simple low cost measures), then and only then big projects. Revised national development plan in September.
Q: Is Metro North gone?
A: Its not gone yet but in order to start it in the time envisaged pre 2014 would require increasing the capital budget. Highly unlikely.
Q: So its dead ...
A: Possible incremental build (didn't sound convincing). Also, Metro and DU rely on private finance and may not be able to get willing lenders.
Q: You're keen on the DART spur to airport as lower cost option...
A: 300m excludes land cost so not sure about overall cost. Plus: Links rail network to airport and, possibly, Swords. Minus: Could cause major capacity problems, not a good idea if at expense of other services.
There are actually ten options on the table including extending Luas BDX through Finglas and BRT - "Luas on wheels".
Q: Favoured options?
A: None yet, want to see figures first. DU and Maynooth electrification makes most sense in terms of cost-benefit but is expensive (2.6bn + 200m) but not sure about affordability. Not certain that we will be able to do the best project. May need to decide what we can afford and choose from that.
Q: RPA fighting rear-guard action for Metro North?
A: They're the promoter of that project so no surprise. One of the weird things about Ministry of Transport is having NTA as regulatory body and then various bodies promoting various projects against each other. Its tedious!

... interview continues on other subjects outside the scope of this thread
--

Talked a fair amount of sense. Glad to see he is aware of the DART spur's capacity issues. I was afraid it had appeared back on the table as his pet project and would be immune to criticisim. He actually didn't sound very enthusiastic about it. Interesting that there are ten (count them, 10!) options being looked at.

That said, don't like the sound of "Not certain that we will be able to do the best project. May need to decide what we can afford and choose from that." There is a danger of implementing crap just so the minister can say he's done something, anything.
Is 'do nothing for now' one of the options being being subjected to cost-benefit analysis? I am also intrigued by the incremental build option. Is this one of building part of the line and opening it? I can't see how this would work without building nearly everthing and not cost lost anyway. Or would it be better to look at building the whole thing but over a much longer period so that public spend per year is lower and pushed further out?

BrianD

Varadkar is interviewed in The Irish Times Business Section today:

He says Metro North would require an upfront payment of about €750 million from the State and around another €4 billion from the private sector, repaid by the exchequer over 30 years. But public private partnerships (PPPs) are almost impossible for the State to secure with lenders at present given the parlous state of our public finances.

“If PPPs aren’t happening, that rules out Metro North and the Dart underground,” he says matter-of-factly. He will decide which projects can proceed as soon as he knows what funding is available to him. When will that be? “By mid-June I think.”

What money is available for rail in Dublin would be best spent in getting the Maynooth line into a DART line and sort out some of the capacity issues on the northern line.

I don't believe the Airport Spur is a priority it a necessity at all. The land should be reserved now in case of a future requirement.

Niles

BrianD wrote: »

Varadkar is interviewed in The Irish Times Business Section today:

He says Metro North would require an upfront payment of about €750 million from the State and around another €4 billion from the private sector, repaid by the exchequer over 30 years. But public private partnerships (PPPs) are almost impossible for the State to secure with lenders at present given the parlous state of our public finances.

“If PPPs aren’t happening, that rules out Metro North and the Dart underground,” he says matter-of-factly. He will decide which projects can proceed as soon as he knows what funding is available to him. When will that be? “By mid-June I think.”

What money is available for rail in Dublin would be best spent in getting the Maynooth line into a DART line and sort out some of the capacity issues on the northern line.

I don't believe the Airport Spur is a priority it a necessity at all. The land should be reserved now in case of a future requirement.

I don't believe the Airport line is needed that much either. It might have been two decades ago when it didn't have the bus service that it does now but things have moved on. Without Dart Underground its potential is lessened anyway. Sorting out capacity issues on the Belfast line would be money well spent in my opinion.

As for electrifying the Maynooth line, I'm not entirely convinced this is a priority; a decent service can be provided with diesel railcars. Though I suppose it would benefit estate agents along the route!

Funny, originally he was suggesting that only one of three projects (Dart Underground, Metro North and Luas BXD) would go ahead. If the first two don't (due to being PPPs) then that leaves the Luas link... which is the one that has gotten the least mention in recent weeks. I originally had ruled it out as a possibility but now I'm beginning to wonder. If it was tweaked a bit (well, extended) it has the potential to serve the areas covered in the Metro North plan, though it is open to question whether or not (a).the Airport itself needs a Luas and (b). the Luas is suitable for Airport traffic.

Aard

Niles wrote: »

As for electrifying the Maynooth line, I'm not entirely convinced this is a priority; a decent service can be provided with diesel railcars. Though I suppose it would benefit estate agents along the route!

I know this is said half in jest, but it's a good point. While by no means the most important reason to build infrastructure, urban renual is a great byproduct of it.

If it [the Luas] was tweaked a bit (well, extended) it has the potential to serve the areas covered in the Metro North plan, though it is open to question whether or not (a).the Airport itself needs a Luas and (b). the Luas is suitable for Airport traffic.

If my choice from the airport was between taking a tram and the Aircoach, I'd stick with the latter. The whole advantage of the metro is its grade-seperation and speed into the city centre.

Metro wins on speed.
Aircoach wins on comfort.
Luas wins on neither.

Niles

Aard wrote: »

If my choice from the airport was between taking a tram and the Aircoach, I'd stick with the latter. The whole advantage of the metro is its grade-seperation and speed into the city centre.

Metro wins on speed.
Aircoach wins on comfort.
Luas wins on neither.

Exactly. I'm not convinced that the Luas vehicles are suited for passengers with large amounts of heavy baggage, plus it would be doubling as a commuter line for the places in between, which rules out the possibility of having a special "Airport spec" tram.

Zebra3

Just wondering, but if the Luas does get extended to Broombridge to meet the Maynooth line, how quickly could an express bus get from Broombridge to the airport?

robd

Zebra3 wrote: »

Just wondering, but if the Luas does get extended to Broombridge to meet the Maynooth line, how quickly could an express bus get from Broombridge to the airport?

About 15 mins on relatively uncongested roads.

However the Air Dart (from Howth Junction to Airport) was a complete failure so it's commercial potential is questionable. Although no Darts on weekends due to platform upgrades was a big contributor it it's demise.

robd

Niles wrote: »

I don't believe the Airport line is needed that much either. It might have been two decades ago when it didn't have the bus service that it does now but things have moved on. Without Dart Underground its potential is lessened anyway. Sorting out capacity issues on the Belfast line would be money well spent in my opinion.

As for electrifying the Maynooth line, I'm not entirely convinced this is a priority; a decent service can be provided with diesel railcars. Though I suppose it would benefit estate agents along the route!

Funny, originally he was suggesting that only one of three projects (Dart Underground, Metro North and Luas BXD) would go ahead. If the first two don't (due to being PPPs) then that leaves the Luas link... which is the one that has gotten the least mention in recent weeks. I originally had ruled it out as a possibility but now I'm beginning to wonder. If it was tweaked a bit (well, extended) it has the potential to serve the areas covered in the Metro North plan, though it is open to question whether or not (a).the Airport itself needs a Luas and (b). the Luas is suitable for Airport traffic.

I'm not convinced on Maynnoth line either. The diesel railcars are still quite new and have about 30 years of life left. 10 years till mid-life upgrade. Would be very wasteful to replace with new Dart rolling stock at a time when money is so tight and we need to get the best bang for buck we can.

Luas is the best option IMO. Think the O'Connell street part needs to be relooked at. Would prefer to see double track on Malborough Street as much less disruptive. Network Direct could remove Dublin Buses dependency on piling buses up on lower end of this street.

2 extra Luas lines (Lucan and Broombridge) would give the Luas the traction it needs to become the priority mode of transport in the city. While I do think a Metro is better, the Luas is a very good compromise for a much lower cost and that's what it's all about at the moment. Some money needs to be put into security too though.

Zebra3

robd wrote: »

2 extra Luas lines (Lucan and Broombridge) would give the Luas the traction it needs to become the priority mode of transport in the city.

Lucan Luas is a waste.

dynamick

Maynooth electrification is a prerequisite for DART underground, so it may be done even if it has very low benefits.

Lucan Luas has not yet had a railway order application but it's possible that Varadkar will fast-track it as it's his constituency.

Aard

Lucan Luas isn't in Leo V's constituency, so I doubt he'd push for it. It's way too low down on anyone's list of priorities, even if they are cheap ones.