Metro North and Dart Underground costs revealed

lucernarian

Geogregor wrote: »

The need for underground metro shouldn't be decided by prestige arguments. Decision about building expensive underground infrastructure should be made based on projected ridership, cost-benefit analyses, technical (including geological) research. etc. I'm not that familiar with transport needs of Dublin, but they shouldn't build metro just because relatively poor Poland has one.

Well that's grand so, anything I've read on Metro North suggests a CBA ratio of 2:1.

DART Underground had 2.5:1 from the same source but I forget where I got it exactly. Maybe another poster here could confirm the source of these numbers?

AngryLips

Kreator1984 wrote: »

So many countries within EU have Metro(under or over - ground) , even poor countries like Poland has one line of Metro in Warsaw and now they are building the second line over there. I think that it would be a big shame to do not have Metro in Dublin. Dublin is a capitol city of the one of the EU countries - it deserves for it!

I love this misguided notion that a good city should be defined by its metro network. We haven't even made a proper go of making Luas work in an integrated way yet and already it has been deemed inappropriate for the city's needs, yet there's no evidence to back that up. Even Dart/suburban rail hasn't had it's full potential realised.

Kreator1984

Geogregor wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with transport needs of Dublin, but they shouldn't build metro just because relatively poor Poland has one.

Gregor , I am not saying that they shuld build metro because Poland has it, no, they should build because we hae the 21st century, because most of EU countries have it (even those outside EU , eg Russia) and because this is one of the fastest, most convenient, the best capacity and frequency transit system of people in the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems - Looking at this list should convince most people that metro is a world widespread system and it is really wanted by people all around the world.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znaki_metra - Signage of metro

Warsaw Metro

I dont know very well Dublins transport needs either cause I am Polish (European) as well but I know that metro is necessary - and I wont change my mind.

Kreator1984

Geogregor wrote: »

By comparison population of Warsaw is about 2.5-3mln in 38mln country. Way smaller proportion. We have larger urban zones in Poland (like Silesia) or not much smaller than Warsaw (Krakow or Gdansk regions).
I would say resentment towards Warsaw is higher in Poland than towards Dublin in Ireland.

I remember that years ago there was a plan of the overground metro(tram/train) system in Upper Silesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Silesia) but they changed their plans due to the mining damages. But that would be a great idea for over 4 million people living over there.

I agree with You , Grzegorz, the resentment in Poland is much higher than in Dublin , I guess it`s because we, Poles, are very fightful citizenship

Victor

I think one can get caught up in applying specific names, technologies and styles - what is needed is an appropriate rail system for local needs. Once adequate levels of separation and service are achieved - nobody overly cares whether it is elevated, at ground level, below ground level or underground. Electrify the Maynooth line, complete resignalling and level crosing work and DART would become a metro in all but name.

Geogregor

Kreator1984 wrote: »

I dont know very well Dublins transport needs either cause I am Polish (European) as well but I know that metro is necessary - and I wont change my mind.

Luckily it is neither you nor me who has to make that decision as we both simply don't have enough precise knowledge about Dublin needs.

These sort of decisions have to be based on proper research and analyses of local needs and conditions and not on simplistic notion that: "hey, we have 21st century, let's build some underground metro, let's splash some cash and we'll see how it goes!"

And yes, we Poles are quite argumentative, I definitely am

Victor wrote: »

I think one can get caught up in applying specific names, technologies and styles - what is needed is an appropriate rail system for local needs. Once adequate levels of separation and service are achieved - nobody overly cares whether it is elevated, at ground level, below ground level or underground. Electrify the Maynooth line, complete resignalling and level crosing work and DART would become a metro in all but name.

Very interesting and thoughtful post.

OssianSmyth

Geogregor wrote: »

These sort of decisions have to be based on proper research and analyses of local needs and conditions and not on simplistic notion that: "hey, we have 21st century, let's build some underground metro, let's splash some cash and we'll see how it goes!"

It would be unfair to describe the planning process for Metro North as "let's splash some cash".

The policy to build a metro was published 12 years ago. This is the non-technical summary:
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2664-0.pdf

At least three business cases were published for Metro North such as http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2664-0.pdf

Academic papers like this examined the feasibility of Metro North
http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/50124/1/601511492.pdf

Irish Steve

OssianSmyth wrote: »

It would be unfair to describe the planning process for Metro North as "let's splash some cash".

The policy to build a metro was published 12 years ago. This is the non-technical summary:
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2664-0.pdf

At least three business cases were published for Metro North such as http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2664-0.pdf

Academic papers like this examined the feasibility of Metro North
http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/50124/1/601511492.pdf

And thereby hangs some of the problems with doing anything with infrastructure in this country.

The M50 route was on paper in 1986 when I first came to Ireland, but didn't get built for years, and by the time it was, the original plan, size, junction layouts and basic structure, including the asinine toll plaza "that wouldn't delay traffic", (Yeah, well we all saw how that worked out) were out of date and inappropriate for the task they had to meet. When it was first put on paper, there would have been no issues or problems to build multi level cloverleaf free flow intersections, but by the time it was built, and they "discovered" that the Mad Cow and other junctions were a nightmare, they'd allowed all manner of construction too close to the line to be able to easily upgrade the junctions so we got the worst of both worlds, with some crazy tight curves and level changes, which are downright dangerous unless you drive a Porsche, it's impossible to accelerate from 30 to 100 Kph in the length of some of the entry slip allowances, and if they'd made Blanchardstown any more complicated, they'd not have been able to build it. I also have to wonder at the mental processes that thought putting a LUAS line through the middle of the busiest junction in the country was a sensible idea!

Most of those problems could easily have been forseen had there been any will to do so, but we are cursed with having politicians that can't and won't see beyond the next election, so just about everything that gets approved or done is on the basis of the person approving it getting the electoral benefit for doing so, short term, which is about the worst possible way to develop a country.

We desperately need some people with longer term vision for the country, rather than their own back pockets, brown envelopes and pensions, who are prepared to work on providing long term development plans that will be a benefit to the country over all.

Looking in the present political fish pond, that's a very tall order, I don't see much potential in the present incumbents!!!

GerardKeating

BluntGuy wrote: »

That would impede the Metro North being linked with the Luas green line though?

Unless it's connected to DART Underground ?

Aquarius34

Irish Steve wrote: »

And thereby hangs some of the problems with doing anything with infrastructure in this country.

The M50 route was on paper in 1986 when I first came to Ireland, but didn't get built for years, and by the time it was, the original plan, size, junction layouts and basic structure, including the asinine toll plaza "that wouldn't delay traffic", (Yeah, well we all saw how that worked out) were out of date and inappropriate for the task they had to meet. When it was first put on paper, there would have been no issues or problems to build multi level cloverleaf free flow intersections, but by the time it was built, and they "discovered" that the Mad Cow and other junctions were a nightmare, they'd allowed all manner of construction too close to the line to be able to easily upgrade the junctions so we got the worst of both worlds, with some crazy tight curves and level changes, which are downright dangerous unless you drive a Porsche, it's impossible to accelerate from 30 to 100 Kph in the length of some of the entry slip allowances, and if they'd made Blanchardstown any more complicated, they'd not have been able to build it. I also have to wonder at the mental processes that thought putting a LUAS line through the middle of the busiest junction in the country was a sensible idea!

Most of those problems could easily have been forseen had there been any will to do so, but we are cursed with having politicians that can't and won't see beyond the next election, so just about everything that gets approved or done is on the basis of the person approving it getting the electoral benefit for doing so, short term, which is about the worst possible way to develop a country.

We desperately need some people with longer term vision for the country, rather than their own back pockets, brown envelopes and pensions, who are prepared to work on providing long term development plans that will be a benefit to the country over all.

Looking in the present political fish pond, that's a very tall order, I don't see much potential in the present incumbents!!!

As much as I agree with you these posts make my brain hurt because I am telling you the people currently running this country are en effin joke. I remember when Mary O Rourke wetting herself over the Luas. I mean literally.. The whole ribbon cutting celebrations et all. We dug up the trams 30 years ago. It was the most glorified thing going on in the media for years about it. It's a fecking tram that was built over mostly on greenfield site from Tallaght to Inchicore while crossing a motorway signaled controlled roundabout interchange. They also forgot to link the two luas lines in the city to top that. I am going to stop now I just can't put up with this any longer.. The people who run this country need to go somewhere else. I don't know what they are but they are NOT Irish...This country could do at least 10 times better if it were run by people who actually cared about this nation.

cgcsb

Aquarius34 wrote: »

As much as I agree with you these posts make my brain hurt because I am telling you the people currently running this country are en effin joke. I remember when Mary O Rourke wetting herself over the Luas. I mean literally.. The whole ribbon cutting celebrations et all. We dug up the trams 30 years ago. It was the most glorified thing going on in the media for years about it. It's a fecking tram that was built over mostly on greenfield site from Tallaght to Inchicore while crossing a motorway signaled controlled roundabout interchange. They also forgot to link the two luas lines in the city to top that. I am going to stop now I just can't put up with this any longer.. The people who run this country need to go somewhere else. I don't know what they are but they are NOT Irish...This country could do at least 10 times better if it were run by people who actually cared about this nation.

Nobody forgot about linking the two luas lines. A certain city centre business association told a certain TD (then minister) in no uncertain terms, that if the luas went through college green (i.e. disrupting their business) that TD would not succeed in the following election.

Now that we have a new government, construction work on connecting the two luas lines is due to start next month, and finish in 2017.

lucernarian

cgcsb wrote: »

Nobody forgot about linking the two luas lines. A certain city centre business association told a certain TD (then minister) in no uncertain terms, that if the luas went through college green (i.e. disrupting their business) that TD would not succeed in the following election.

Now that we have a new government, construction work on connecting the two luas lines is due to start next month, and finish in 2017.

This is a little off-topic, but certainly in a world where Metro North was to be constructed (linking Stephen's Green with O'Connell St) I couldn't see why the tram should also be extended over that part of the route. When the full impact of Luas construction and operation is felt on Dublin Bus services, the merits of linking the two Luas lines may not seem so clear-cut. Perhaps the linking-up will be hailed as a success sans Metro North but I remain to be convinced.

FreudianSlippers

Couldn't Metro North now start at Parnell Square or Grangegotman theoretically with the Luas BXD serving both those stops? I'd imagine it would result in substantial savings and still deliver a relatively comparable service in terms of rail transport links to the airport / swords?

spacetweek

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Couldn't Metro North now start at Parnell Square or Grangegotman theoretically with the Luas BXD serving both those stops? I'd imagine it would result in substantial savings and still deliver a relatively comparable service in terms of rail transport links to the airport / swords?

No because that is not the city centre. This is the same thinking that got the Luas Green Line as far as Stephen's Green and sher you can walk the rest of the way.

The reasons for overlapping the Parnell-SGreen sections of Luas and Metro North are:
- Busiest axis of the city, heavy pedestrian and public transport usage, central node
- Serve different markets: Tram is slow but easy to access - ideal for short journeys, underground is rapid but takes longer to get to a train - best for long journeys
- Duplicated section is very short compared to overall lengths of both lines

lucernarian

spacetweek wrote: »

- Serve different markets: Tram is slow but easy to access - ideal for short journeys, underground is rapid but takes longer to get to a train - best for long journeys

This part I'm not so sure about. I don't see why users couldn't take the metro from Stephen's green to Parnell Square. The extra amount of time, in all likelihood adding up to a couple of minutes, to access the metro would more than make up for the speed of journeys on the tram over the same distance covered.

I feel that if the Metro North project does eventually go ahead, it lessens the need for the LUAS extension between the bottom of O'Connell St. and Stephen's Green.

Aquarius34

cgcsb wrote: »

Nobody forgot about linking the two luas lines. A certain city centre business association told a certain TD (then minister) in no uncertain terms, that if the luas went through college green (i.e. disrupting their business) that TD would not succeed in the following election.

Now that we have a new government, construction work on connecting the two luas lines is due to start next month, and finish in 2017.

Haha that's just gossip to me. "A new government"? Sorry what was that. My iears need syringing..There was never such thing as a new government since "governing" started. We don't have a public transport system. We can't seemato just build one. We sure can talk about it. Which keeps me coming back to the point, who and what exactly is running this country? It doesn't seem to make any sense. 4 decades of planning a metro. It can be overlooked as comedy but I am not laughing because ti's not funny to me.

cgcsb

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This is a little off-topic, but certainly in a world where Metro North was to be constructed (linking Stephen's Green with O'Connell St) I couldn't see why the tram should also be extended over that part of the route. When the full impact of Luas construction and operation is felt on Dublin Bus services, the merits of linking the two Luas lines may not seem so clear-cut. Perhaps the linking-up will be hailed as a success sans Metro North but I remain to be convinced.

because if metro were there but no luas, northbound passengers intending on accessing more central red line stops would have to change twice. also there'd be no service to cabra/phibsboro.

cgcsb

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Haha that's just gossip to me. "A new government"? Sorry what was that. My iears need syringing..There was never such thing as a new government since "governing" started. We don't have a public transport system. We can't seemato just build one. We sure can talk about it. Which keeps me coming back to the point, who and what exactly is running this country? It doesn't seem to make any sense. 4 decades of planning a metro. It can be overlooked as comedy but I am not laughing because ti's not funny to me.

I'm not defending the slowness of government on the issue, I'm merely explaining why the lines weren't linked up. You do love a good moan don't ya.

lucernarian

cgcsb wrote: »

because if metro were there but no luas, northbound passengers intending on accessing more central red line stops would have to change twice. also there'd be no service to cabra/phibsboro.

I'm not sure changing twice is a big deal. It's still a good improvement on what has existed before. I agree it's not ideal but is the practical impact of using Metro North instead of the tram from SG to O'Connell St a significant one?

More importantly, I didn't say anything about the project north of O'Connell St (i.e. LUAS D), I think that should go ahead as planned. It's the need for linking up the Red line with the existing green line that I question if Metro North will be built as planned.

cgcsb

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm not sure changing twice is a big deal. It's still a good improvement on what has existed before. I agree it's not ideal but is the practical impact of using Metro North instead of the tram from SG to O'Connell St a significant one?

More importantly, I didn't say anything about the project north of O'Connell St (i.e. LUAS D), I think that should go ahead as planned. It's the need for linking up the Red line with the existing green line that I question if Metro North will be built as planned.

Some slight duplication of routes is not always a bad thing, especially considering the location. That being said it probably would have been preferable to tunnalise the luas from Harcourt st through the city centre with a spur going off into the broadstone railway cutting for finglas and the mainline continuing to swords, probably would've saved some cash and alot of disruption and all, but that'd be forward planning.

D.L.R.

cgcsb wrote: »

Some slight duplication of routes is not always a bad thing, especially considering the location. That being said it probably would have been preferable to tunnalise the luas from Harcourt st through the city centre with a spur going off into the broadstone railway cutting for finglas and the mainline continuing to swords, probably would've saved some cash and alot of disruption and all, but that'd be forward planning.

I think with limited resources you want to develop as streamlined, unified and efficient a system as possible, and BX/Metro is certainly not that, rather it was the result of bitty planning, replanning and redrafting, an ever-changing plan for the future of the Green line which never happened, and the resulting hatchet job of the same project spawning two versions of the same line.

I think theres a lot of folks on here who talk up the BX/Metro duplication as a good thing, but really I think they're clutching at straws, the arguments don't hold water, its not necessary.

The city of Hanover in Germany would have been a great model for Dublin, as it utilises a tram system which is tunneled in the centre of the city. This was originally floated as an idea for Dublin but the FF govt went for the cheaper Luas on street option, a choice which we are now unfortunately stuck with, as central Dublin really needs grade separation more than umpteen street running lines. And sadly the FG/Lab govt have reinforced this cheap spend solution by approving the BXD link and deferring the underground.

Since BXD is now going ahead, perhaps its time to re-assess the whole Metro/DU route through the city centre, for the reason above - that the Green line and metro were once supposed to be a single line right through the city north-south.

Since this is no longer going to happen, a new north-south route is possible, and probably more desirable.

Cool Mo D

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think with limited resources you want to develop as streamlined, unified and efficient a system as possible, and BX/Metro is certainly not that, rather it was the result of bitty planning, replanning and redrafting, an ever-changing plan for the future of the Green line which never happened, and the resulting hatchet job of the same project spawning two versions of the same line.

I think theres a lot of folks on here who talk up the BX/Metro duplication as a good thing, but really I think they're clutching at straws, the arguments don't hold water, its not necessary.

The city of Hanover in Germany would have been a great model for Dublin, as it utilises a tram system which is tunneled in the centre of the city. This was originally floated as an idea for Dublin but the FF govt went for the cheaper Luas on street option, a choice which we are now unfortunately stuck with, as central Dublin really needs grade separation more than umpteen street running lines. And sadly the FG/Lab govt have reinforced this cheap spend solution by approving the BXD link and deferring the underground.

Since BXD is now going ahead, perhaps its time to re-assess the whole Metro/DU route through the city centre, for the reason above - that the Green line and metro were once supposed to be a single line right through the city north-south.

Since this is no longer going to happen, a new north-south route is possible, and probably more desirable.

Yes. Ideally the Luas would have been tunnelled through the city centre from the start, with a Sandyford to Broombridge line underground between Harcourt street and Broadstone, and a Red line diving under O'Connell street at the same time. Then Metro North would be a natural extension of an underground city spine.

But we didn't get that. Even though BXD is going ahead, it would be a terrible idea to re-assess Metro North, because it means at least 20 years before anything is built, whereas there is at least the possibility that Metro North might go ahead in 10 years, since it has planning permission and is basically ready to go. The metro was first announced in 2000 by Mary O'Rourke. 13 years later, planning has just about finished.

If you were going to pick a North-south underground route through the city centre, Metro-north is pretty much the only one possible that hits all the main locations, although you can argue about where stations can go. BXD is useful, but it's pretty much a stopgap for not building metro north.

D.L.R.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

If you were going to pick a North-south underground route through the city centre, Metro-north is pretty much the only one possible that hits all the main locations, although you can argue about where stations can go. BXD is useful, but it's pretty much a stopgap for not building metro north.

Not really, if you want to think creatively.

You could have a single Dart underground line which replaces Metro North. Route: Dart Kildare to Heuston, then underground to Christchurch, Stephens Green, but then under Tara/Connolly instead of Docklands, then to top of O'Connell St and on toward the airport. That would be cheaper than two lines and do the same job.

You could also connect the northern line in there somewhere with some creative engineering, but sadly I just don't think we have the talent in this country for an elegant solution, and we usually end up getting hatchet jobs as mentioned, and spending twice the amount of money that we need to. Ireland doesn't struggle economically for no reason, after all.

spacetweek

D.L.R. wrote: »

Not really, if you want to think creatively.

You could have a single Dart underground line which replaces Metro North. Route: Dart Kildare to Heuston, then underground to Christchurch, Stephens Green, but then under Tara/Connolly instead of Docklands, then to top of O'Connell St and on toward the airport. That would be cheaper than two lines and do the same job.

You could also connect the northern line in there somewhere with some creative engineering, but sadly I just don't think we have the talent in this country for an elegant solution, and we usually end up getting hatchet jobs as mentioned, and spending twice the amount of money that we need to. Ireland doesn't struggle economically for no reason, after all.

Insulting nonsense - every country imports talent anyway. (The Jubilee Line Extension in London in the 90s was designed by a guy from Hong Kong.) Pretty much any 'creative' idea about Dublin's transport needs has already been thought of - look at how much time we've had to think of them - decades.

The reason we aren't doing it your way is because that idea was already considered during planning and rejected, mainly due to constraints on Connolly. The DU/MN solution *is* the elegant one as it creates a 3-line network which solves all the capacity problems, avoids centralising too many journeys and interchanges on one station and will be easy to use for the passenger.

The Luas BXD is a separate system with a different user base and you cannot replace the Green-Red connection with an underground line. Transport users avoid switching modes during their journey. A rule of thumb is that the maximum number of changes on a journey is 2, but most travellers aim for 0. A system that requires taking a Luas to Stephen's Green followed by one more stop on a Metro is not a usable system. A guy upthread said we should still build the Luas out to Liffey Junction but not the city centre link, this would be even worse as you'd have an inexplicable 1-mile gap in the centre of a cross. We would still not have fixed the connectivity issues that the Luas suffers from. The unconnected network was only ever meant to be a temporary fix and here we still are mucking about.

I'm getting my ideas from actual usage of city transport systems abroad, this isn't just all academic on my part.

lucernarian

spacetweek wrote: »

Insulting nonsense - every country imports talent anyway. (The Jubilee Line Extension in London in the 90s was designed by a guy from Hong Kong.) Pretty much any 'creative' idea about Dublin's transport needs has already been thought of - look at how much time we've had to think of them - decades.

The reason we aren't doing it your way is because that idea was already considered during planning and rejected, mainly due to constraints on Connolly. The DU/MN solution *is* the elegant one as it creates a 3-line network which solves all the capacity problems, avoids centralising too many journeys and interchanges on one station and will be easy to use for the passenger.

The Luas BXD is a separate system with a different user base and you cannot replace the Green-Red connection with an underground line. Transport users avoid switching modes during their journey. A rule of thumb is that the maximum number of changes on a journey is 2, but most travellers aim for 0. A system that requires taking a Luas to Stephen's Green followed by one more stop on a Metro is not a usable system. A guy upthread said we should still build the Luas out to Liffey Junction but not the city centre link, this would be even worse as you'd have an inexplicable 1-mile gap in the centre of a cross. We would still not have fixed the connectivity issues that the Luas suffers from. The unconnected network was only ever meant to be a temporary fix and here we still are mucking about.

I'm getting my ideas from actual usage of city transport systems abroad, this isn't just all academic on my part.

We have to spend an extra €171 million and severely curtail other public transport in Dublin City centre, all for the sake of user attitudes and perceptions of usability? That to me seems madness. It would also be linked up, albeit with the existing Red line and not also with the current Green line. I'm not sure we should carry out such disruptive works to remedy a missing 1 km gap on a luas map. The Metro North would also be disruptive but at least there would be less impact on the city centre in the long term and also serves a substantial market.

I'm not necessarily against the idea but I'm certainly not convinced on that logic.

Victor

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

We have to spend an extra €171 million and severely curtail other public transport in Dublin City centre, all for the sake of user attitudes and perceptions of usability?

I think you are missing the point.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

I think you are missing the point.

In a closely-integrated system the fact that Luas and Metro North are different mass transportation systems shouldn't matter so much. If I just want to travel from Phibsboro to St. Stephen's Green quickly, would I care that I had to transfer from one tram to an underground metro? I doubt it. And the Luas connector can't be looked at in isolation. It's been discussed in other threads but Luas BXD does have big consequences for both private travel (cycling and vehicular transport) and public travel in the city centre. Impacts that have a bearing on the relative need for it vs Metro North.

D.L.R.

spacetweek wrote: »

Insulting nonsense - every country imports talent anyway. (The Jubilee Line Extension in London in the 90s was designed by a guy from Hong Kong.) Pretty much any 'creative' idea about Dublin's transport needs has already been thought of - look at how much time we've had to think of them - decades.

The reason we aren't doing it your way is because that idea was already considered during planning and rejected, mainly due to constraints on Connolly. The DU/MN solution *is* the elegant one as it creates a 3-line network which solves all the capacity problems, avoids centralising too many journeys and interchanges on one station and will be easy to use for the passenger.

The Luas BXD is a separate system with a different user base and you cannot replace the Green-Red connection with an underground line. Transport users avoid switching modes during their journey. A rule of thumb is that the maximum number of changes on a journey is 2, but most travellers aim for 0. A system that requires taking a Luas to Stephen's Green followed by one more stop on a Metro is not a usable system. A guy upthread said we should still build the Luas out to Liffey Junction but not the city centre link, this would be even worse as you'd have an inexplicable 1-mile gap in the centre of a cross. We would still not have fixed the connectivity issues that the Luas suffers from. The unconnected network was only ever meant to be a temporary fix and here we still are mucking about.

I'm getting my ideas from actual usage of city transport systems abroad, this isn't just all academic on my part.

Take offence if you like, that's not really my concern.

I don't doubt the state's ability to design and build the thing, but clearly there is something lacking in our planning procedures and I don't think I need to go into why, because its plain for everyone to see that, blunty, we really can't get our sh*t together in this country.

An underground system (however its designed!!) is vital for the state's economic engine, and we're busy faffing around with fringe projects and an endless stream of sticking plasters from one election cycle to the next.

The Irish state desperately needs to look at its priorities. Just look at our current situation if you need more proof.

markpb

D.L.R. wrote: »

I don't doubt the state's ability to design and build the thing, but clearly there is something lacking in our planning procedures and I don't think I need to go into why, because its plain for everyone to see that, blunty, we really can't get our sh*t together in this country.

I don't believe our inability to deliver large public transport projects has anything to do with our planning procedures - the problems are entirely political. If our politicians wanted to build a metro (like they wanted to build the motorways), the planning system wouldn't have stopped them. Instead every minister has to design the system from scratch and/or do the cost benefit analysis all over again. The fault lies as much with the electorate as it does with the politicians - if enough people demanded to know why a metro hasn't been built, it would be a higher priority for them.

spacetweek

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm not sure we should carry out such disruptive works to remedy a missing 1 km gap on a luas map.

That is exactly the thinking that has resulted in this gap being there so long.

D.L.R. wrote: »

because its plain for everyone to see that, bluntly, we really can't get our sh*t together in this country.you need more proof.

I agree completely. But do you know what makes it worse? Endlessly redesigning things, which you're advocating. The design of Metro/DART didn't take place in a silo, they consulted with the community and actually looked at the journeys people are trying to make.