Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study

Schadenfreudia

Grandeeod wrote: »

But in relation to anything on rails/public transport, all political parties have a phobia. They don't understand public transport

Agree totally. FF were good on roads, finally, in the 2000s - though they nearly missed the boom. It was a close call.

But all (FF/FG/Labour) are pathetic on PT. Remember Mary O'Rourke took over after the '97 election and the first thing she did was halt the Luas for for 2 years for yet another "report" - before merely going ahead with the original plan.

The problem with big public transport projects from the FF/FG school of political perspective is that they can't be spread over every parish and doled out slowly in synch with local and national elections.

Ren2k7

Grandeeod wrote: »

I was speaking in terms of rail based projects in response to you, but I would agree with you 100% in relation to the the inter urban motorways. Thank **** the were delivered eventually. They make Ireland a really smaller place. I absolutely accept that FF in Government were responsible for them. In fact its probably one of the only transport decisions they made that was sensible.

But in relation to anything on rails/public transport, all political parties have a phobia. I always put it down to the rural make up of our parliament that grew up with car dependency. They don't understand public transport as their predecessors created CIE at a time when rural railways were in demise and the car (and to a lessor extent the bus) was in the ascendancy.

It's not just TD's who have a phobia of railways in Ireland it's also economists and Dept of Finance officials who see Irish Rail as a massive drain on resources. Which of course it is. Ireland is still far too rural with a low population density to justify some of the routes in operation, most particularly the Western Rail Corridor which should never have proceeded. How many millions did that cost that could have went towards advancing MN or DU?

Rail has a role to play in Ireland but we need to do it in a targeted manner, not the current scattergun approach where all lines are provided with small levels of investment rather than picking a few lines and focusing on those with large scale investment. In fact the whole Irish Rail network could do with a complete overhaul, with the removal of old alignments and merger of separate lines, like the Cork and Limerick lines into one service (so instead of heading north-east at Charleville just have the line extended to Limerick Colbert). Much better rationalisation of the service as well as removing the god-awful Limerick Junction.

Schadenfreudia

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's not just TD's who have a phobia of railways in Ireland it's also economists and Dept of Finance officials who see Irish Rail as a massive drain on resources. Which of course it is. Ireland is still far too rural with a low population density to justify some of the routes in operation, most particularly the Western Rail Corridor which should never have proceeded. How many millions did that cost that could have went towards advancing MN or DU?

Rail has a role to play in Ireland but we need to do it in a targeted manner, not the current scattergun approach where all lines are provided with small levels of investment rather than picking a few lines and focusing on those with large scale investment. In fact the whole Irish Rail network could do with a complete overhaul, with the removal of old alignments and merger of separate lines, like the Cork and Limerick lines into one service (so instead of heading north-east at Charleville just have the line extended to Limerick Colbert). Much better rationalisation of the service as well as removing the god-awful Limerick Junction.

Agree; I was referring to commuter/urban PT - not daft stuff like the Ennis - Galway rail link.

Imagine if that money was spent instead on a few km of Luas line in Galway - it would be incalculably more positive from a cost/benefit perspective.

Ren2k7

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Agree; I was referring to commuter/urban PT - not daft stuff like the Ennis - Galway rail link.

Imagine if that money was spent instead on a few km of Luas line in Galway - it would be incalculably more positive from a cost/benefit perspective.

The Greens for one brief moment had the right idea with regional Luas's for Cork, Limerick and Galway.

Schadenfreudia

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Greens for one brief moment had the right idea with regional Luas's for Cork, Limerick and Galway.

Indeed. But FF/FG would likely announce Luas lines for 20 towns - each 500m long with a stop either end!

cgcsb

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I accept that and FF are just as disastrous for Ireland as FG have been. Though I do concede that we probably wouldn't have gotten the wide spanning inter-urban network had FG been in power during the "boom" given the "one for everybody in the audience" mentality FF employs.

Leo is on record as stating he believes the motorway network was built to too high a standard and that a few bypasses and dual carriageway probably would have sufficed. Such moronic thinking is straight from the Frank McDonald school of "thought" that argues small populated counties don't need motorways. But then the interurban network wasn't built for these small rural backwaters (even if they benefited), the motorways were to allow quick and speedy connectivity between Ireland's urban centres. Borris-In-Ossory and Ballinasloe gaining fast connections to Dublin was merely a bonus.

So credit where credit is due; FF may be c***s but at least they gave us some top class roads, even if in countries with similar sized population densities wouldn't have justified such a massive road building plan.

To be fair, Leo might have a point there. The M3 and M9 are generally desolate affairs. Then again we're also spending a billion, at the moment on a motorway between the villages of Gort and Tuam, giving those villages speedy access to Galway City. Meanwhile Dublin can't scrounge a few extra hundred mil for Metro North which would transport All of Galway City's residents in a day

Schadenfreudia

cgcsb wrote: »

we're also spending a billion, at the moment on a motorway between the villages of Gort and Tuam, giving those villages speedy access to Galway City.

That type of comment of the M17/18 extension combined with a suggestion that the money could have been spend in Dublin is, IMHO, part of the whole pointless parochial debate that has our PT infrastructure so crap.

This is not either/or. It is about the intelligence and priority we give to all transport infrastructure.

We can debate the M17/18, fine. To suggest that it's only benefit is "connecting two villages" is bull - and actually makes me angry :mad:

cgcsb

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

That type of comment of the M17/18 extension combined with a suggestion that the money could have been spend in Dublin is, IMHO, part of the whole pointless parochial debate that has our PT infrastructure so crap.

This is not either/or. It is about the intelligence and priority we give to all transport infrastructure.

It all comes from the same transport budget. spending a billion on a commuter motorway for Galway while ignoring Swords and Dublin Airport is ignorant drooling nonsense.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

We can debate the M17/18, fine. To suggest that it's only benefit is "connecting two villages" is bull - and actually makes me angry :mad:

You'll live. I didn't suggest it was the only benefit, obviously it's a commuter motorway for Galway, like the desolate M3 is for Dublin.

Schadenfreudia

cgcsb wrote: »

It all comes from the same transport budget. spending a billion on a commuter motorway for Galway while ignoring Swords and Dublin Airport is ignorant drooling nonsense.




You'll live. I didn't suggest it was the only benefit, obviously it's a commuter motorway for Galway, like the desolate M3 is for Dublin.

I think you suggested exactly that. A commuter road for Galway adds a lot of value; its function as part of the Western corridor even more.

And no - it doesn't just come out of some fixed fund. We have historically (bar a few years during the Boom) spent, and still are proportionally spending, far less on transport infrastructure than most of the developed (and much of the developing) world.

That is the issue you should be addressing instead of the endless parish pump stuff that has facilitated this underinvestment for generations.

SantryRed

With the refusal to allow high rise buildings, and the refusal to build in anyway decent and quick transport, it's insane how against Dublin becoming an actual city politicians are.

hardy_buck

SantryRed wrote: »

With the refusal to allow high rise buildings, and the refusal to build in anyway decent and quick transport, it's insane how against Dublin becoming an actual city politicians are.

Village style politics for village style cities...

Ren2k7

cgcsb wrote: »

To be fair, Leo might have a point there. The M3 and M9 are generally desolate affairs. Then again we're also spending a billion, at the moment on a motorway between the villages of Gort and Tuam, giving those villages speedy access to Galway City. Meanwhile Dublin can't scrounge a few extra hundred mil for Metro North which would transport All of Galway City's residents in a day

As anyone who has ever had to spend a hour trying to get through Kells, Navan or Dunshaughlin on a weekday afternoon will tell you the motorway was badly needed. The M9 similarly provides connectivity between Dublin and Waterford City (along with Kilkenny) which was the original point of the inter-urban networks, to link up Ireland's cities to each other. Just because the M3 and M9 currently aren't experiencing the levels of traffic they were initially slated to carry doesn't mean they were a mistake. Those roads and the national motorway network in general will pay for itself many times over in the coming decades, no questions.

Ren2k7

SantryRed wrote: »

With the refusal to allow high rise buildings, and the refusal to build in anyway decent and quick transport, it's insane how against Dublin becoming an actual city politicians are.

The problem with Dublin City Council is that many politicians elected to it see Dublin not as one city but rather a bunch of smaller localities bunched together. It's why you have utterly mental suggestions to allow districts like Rathmines, Dalkey, Glasnevin, Blanch, etc as part of one larger metropolitan authority but still with their own "borough council and mayor"; much like London.

Dublin is too small both geographically and population wise to be regarded as merely a collection of boroughs; it should be treated as one distinct and whole city with a unified council, leadership and executive to govern the city. The present arrangement has been a dismal failure and the longer Dublin is split into four councils the more it will be held back.

Grandeeod

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

But all (FF/FG/Labour) are pathetic on PT. Remember Mary O'Rourke took over after the '97 election and the first thing she did was halt the Luas for for 2 years for yet another "report" - before merely going ahead with the original plan.

I remember it well and in intricate detail. Bertie Ahearn in opposition was nearly rabid in the Dail against on street running of the luas down Harcourt Street. Once in power, Mary was given free rein to BS for a few years. Funnily enough, its a lot like this Fingal study. That's politics for you. Useless.

Schadenfreudia

Ren2k7 wrote: »

. Just because the M3 and M9 currently aren't experiencing the levels of traffic they were initially slated to carry doesn't mean they were a mistake.

If they are not busy from Day 1 we wasted money on grandiose white elephants.

When they get very busy it proves how pointless building roads is because "the traffic always increases to fill them" !

:rolleyes:

strassenwo!f

As I understand it, and it has been mentioned several times on this thread, the original plans for metro north, during the early years of this century, had projected passenger numbers which justified the proposal.

The metro north railway order was applied for, and received, at pretty much the bottom of the slump, when unemployment was at its peak and the number of people who would need to use such a service was pretty much at the lowest ebb it had been since the project was mooted.

Now, when things appear to be coming back up in Dublin, and unemployment is dropping, it is proposed to replace the proposed metro with a LUAS, and a considerably more circuitous LUAS route than the original metro north plan. As has been mentioned several times, this really needs justification.

I find it hard to see why Ireland can't do things gradually, like most normal European cities do. It doesn't seem to be on the agenda at all to do the most difficult bit (of building an underground route across the city centre), then extending this gradually along the desired route.

For example, and this has been mentioned many, many times on this board, building a short little section of metro between (say) Harold's Cross and Drumcondra, and opening that section. Two new suburbs connected directly to the city. Extend to DCU and Ballymun, and open. Then extend to the airport, and open, and increase the frequency. Then Swords, etc.

I understand that the finances are still tight. This should be the very reason not to waste money on a project which fairly immediately reaches what is believed to be the ultimate goal but which will apparently struggle to provide an adequate service.

Idbatterim

good post strassenwo!f! as an aside, Dublin airport has had its busiest month ever this July, 2.5 million passengers, it was announced today. 15% passenger growth by year end roughly. Even if it drops back to 10% for the next four years, you are looking at 36,500,000 by the end of 2019?

Why not do nothing? build a walkway and cycle path out to swords via the airport, it would be a "sustainable" form of transport and most importantly, it would be dirt cheap, compared to even Luas...

Schadenfreudia

Idbatterim wrote: »

build a walkway and cycle path out to swords via the airport, it would be a "sustainable" form of transport and most importantly, it would be dirt cheap, compared to even Luas...

Wha? :eek:

You think all those folk arriving from abroad with their baggage should be directed towards a cycle path?!

AngryLips

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Wha? :eek:

You think all those folk arriving from abroad with their baggage should be directed towards a cycle path?!

People work at the airport you know

Pete_Cavan

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Wha? :eek:

You think all those folk arriving from abroad with their baggage should be directed towards a cycle path?!

I think he is getting at the fact that the project seems to be designed around the budget, rather than capacity, frequency, journey times, suitability of vehicles, future expansion, etc. The step down from MN to this Luas extension is so drastic, and minimising cost is more important than functionality, why not cut the arse out of the budget even further and save a few hundred million more? Either way, the existing buses are likely to be more attractive to customers and offer a better service than anything other than some form of fully segregated Metro. At least a cycle way might actually go to the airport, unlike the Luas extension which simply goes near the airport.

cgcsb

Rather than the luas mumbo jumbo, I'd prefer to see metro broken into sections. Say we can afford a €700mil section now between Stephen's Green and the Bottom of the Ballymun Road, then as funds become available extend to the airport, Swords and eventually connect with the Belfast line.

Idbatterim

Rather than the luas mumbo jumbo, I'd prefer to see metro broken into sections. Say we can afford a €700mil section now between Stephen's Green and the Bottom of the Ballymun Road, then as funds become available extend to the airport, Swords and eventually connect with the Belfast line.

Its an option, but its the political will rather than financing thats the issue IMO . Revised metro north would be 10% of the annual welfare budget and a huge amount of that money would go back into the economy and back to the government, corporation tax, income taxes, taking people off the live register to work on it, spending going to a huge amount of suppliers etc, the circular flow of income etc...

I dont even buy the money argument, its nothing, they had tens of billions for the banks and all sorts of other sh*te where it seems money is no object. Several hundred million euro motorways linking "villages" as they have been described.

Out of all the projects on a cost benefit basis, MN and DU must blow anything else out of the water, as in there couldnt be a comparison...

honestly if people on this forum want to get together and protest outside Mr pascale donohue's office, highlighting it for the sham it is, I'd be all for it. good time with an election in the air. Out of the long string of jokes and **** proposals that have been foisted on Dublin, this is the worst yet IMO, by a mile!

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I think you suggested exactly that. A commuter road for Galway adds a lot of value; its function as part of the Western corridor even more.

And no - it doesn't just come out of some fixed fund. We have historically (bar a few years during the Boom) spent, and still are proportionally spending, far less on transport infrastructure than most of the developed (and much of the developing) world.

That is the issue you should be addressing instead of the endless parish pump stuff that has facilitated this underinvestment for generations.

Spending such large amounts of money on a motorway between towns is parish pump stuff.

And it's parish pump stuff trying to defend such spending over spending on Dart Underground or Metro North.

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

Spending such large amounts of money on a motorway between towns is parish pump stuff.

And it's parish pump stuff trying to defend such spending over spending on Dart Underground or Metro North.

You really missed the point, didn't you :rolleyes:

Nobody builds motorways to "connect towns" - unless they are rather large towns.

But keep the faction fighting going; those opposed to spending on infrastructure will be the only winners. :mad:

xper

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I find it hard to see why Ireland can't do things gradually, like most normal European cities do. It doesn't seem to be on the agenda at all to do the most difficult bit (of building an underground route across the city centre), then extending this gradually along the desired route.

cgcsb wrote: »

Rather than the luas mumbo jumbo, I'd prefer to see metro broken into sections. Say we can afford a €700mil section now between Stephen's Green and the Bottom of the Ballymun Road, then as funds become available extend to the airport, Swords and eventually connect with the Belfast line.

The problem with this approach for MN is that you need your first phase, whatever it is, connected to the depot which is going to be outside the M50 so the only viable Phase 1 option is to do the City to M50 section, i.e., the expensive tunnelling bit. So you spend a good chunk of your money and you have not yet connected two of your three biggest trip generators (city, airport, Swords). I just don't know if the numbers would add up to make the phased build worth your while.

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

You really missed the point, didn't you :rolleyes:

Nobody builds motorways to "connect towns" - unless they are rather large towns.

But keep the faction fighting going; those opposed to spending on infrastructure will be the only winners. :mad:

It's not "faction fighting" and it has very little to do with those who are opposed to spending on infrastructure.

It's about priorities.

1,000km+ of motorway and growing but no Dart Underground and no Metro North.

There's not even any commitment to Dart Underground. And Metro North looks like it will be watered down so much that -- even if/when it's segregated in the long-run -- it won't even go to airport and will only serve Jervis and St Stephen's Green.

strassenwo!f

xper wrote: »

The problem with this approach for MN is that you need your first phase, whatever it is, connected to the depot which is going to be outside the M50 so the only viable Phase 1 option is to do the City to M50 section, i.e., the expensive tunnelling bit. So you spend a good chunk of your money and you have not yet connected two of your three biggest trip generators (city, airport, Swords). I just don't know if the numbers would add up to make the phased build worth your while.

Why does the depot need to be outside the M50?

There are a number of green areas which spring readily to mind for a pretty straightforward cut-and-cover depot in the vicinity of the interim termini which were mentioned in the posts you quoted above.

For example, in Drumcondra, All Hallows; In DCU, some of the green spaces in DCU itself.

Basically something similar to that underground depot for the District and Circle lines (and possibly also the Hammersmith and City?) adjacent to Gloucester Road underground station in London.

(Similar, except of course this depot wouldn't be under some of the highest value real estate on the planet, just under some green areas which happen to be available in those areas of Dublin).

strassenwo!f

That would also involve shorter running times to St. Stephen's Green (or wherever the (initial) start point is on the south side of the city), for the metro's early morning starts towards the northside. At least until the metro is extended south and a Southside depot is built, somewhere. There should be energy savings in there.

murphaph

In Berlin they stable individual units throughout the network in sidings. Drivers make their way to these units, not necessarily to the depot miles away.

xper

What about... What about ... What about...
I thought the idea was to break the construction and commission of the existing MN "shovel-ready" planning-approved design into phases so that it could be started earlier rather than later within the state's financial constraints. If you start altering the existing design significantly then you add considerable expense, time delays and risk thus negating the whole purpose.