After BXD: The next big public transport project for Dublin?3

cgcsb

assuming that it's 8km from Dub airport to the City Centre, assuming the Metro trams will be able to do 75km/hr and can accelerate to that speed pretty quickly. Also assume an express tram gets a clear run(unlikely). Such a tram would reach Dublin City Centre in 6 minutes. Is that not slightly overkill?

BonnieSituation

cgcsb wrote: »

assuming that it's 8km from Dub airport to the City Centre, assuming the Metro trams will be able to do 75km/hr and can accelerate to that speed pretty quickly. Also assume an express tram gets a clear run(unlikely). Such a tram would reach Dublin City Centre in 6 minutes. Is that not slightly overkill?

Only if it doesn't stop anywhere else.

budhabob

monument wrote: »

No, the aim is not just to connect the airport -- Metro North is a high-capacity and high-frequency public transport route which is to serve a large route (and even larger give the green line link up which is planned)

The standard across Europe seems to be mixed modes -- ie a mix of intercity trains, intercity trains, commuter trains, expresses, metros and even trams. Airport express do not seem to stand out as main rail mode to airports -- it mostly seems like national networks which have an airport stop.

With airports around the 10km/h mark (which Dublin is well within) Metros see to be common enough -- Copenhagen, Dubai, Sofia, Lisbon, Porto, Madrid, Stuttgart. Barcelona airport is further away from the city centre but it's still connected by two metro lines because they have a decent view of having a transport network. Copenhagen is connected by both rail and metro but from what I know from people who live in the city, the metro is the main mode used by most people.

Dublin's around 8km distance from the city centre means an airport express would not be justified unless its for an unreal premium.

This is all very true. Unfortunately, Metro North as it was planned was not a metro! And as such is suitable for a commuter line, but not for an airport link.

AngryLips

If the northern line can’t be four-tracked then could a cut and cover option be an alternative to increase capacity?

budhabob

AngryLips wrote: »

If the northern line can’t be four-tracked then could a cut and cover option be an alternative to increase capacity?

From memory, I think this was one option looked at.
The real capacity constraint on any of the lines coming into Dublin are the bottlenecks of Heuston and Connolly (both mainly termini stations). That's why DU was so important, to bypass them both, thereby increasing capacity for all lines.

AngryLips

budhabob wrote: »

From memory, I think this was one option looked at.
The real capacity constraint on any of the lines coming into Dublin are the bottlenecks of Heuston and Connolly (both mainly termini stations). That's why DU was so important, to bypass them both, thereby increasing capacity for all lines.

Well there’s also the problem of intercity trains getting caught up in dart and suburban services, which the DU won’t solve.

Sam Russell

AngryLips wrote: »

Well there’s also the problem of intercity trains getting caught up in dart and suburban services, which the DU won’t solve.

Will not 50% or more of Darts avoid Connelly by going through the tunnel? Also, many Darts will be going to Maynooth.

donvito99

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will not 50% or more of Darts avoid Connelly by going through the tunnel? Also, many Darts will be going to Maynooth.

The Dart Underground masterplan is Hazelhatch - Malahide (or beyond) and Maynooth - Bray/greystones. Two lines intersecting at Pearse.

Equium

According to a TII official whose lecture I attended today, the Emerging Preferred Route for Metro North should be published next month.

With respect to the Luas network he stated that, from their point of view, the next major project is almost certain to be the extension of the Green Line to a Park and Ride facility at the M50/M2 interchange via Finglas and Charlestown. Line F to Lucan, and the southbound extension of the Red Line from before the Point Depot stop were made to sound more like back-burner projects.

jd

Equium wrote: »

According to a TII official whose lecture I attended today, the Emerging Preferred Route for Metro North should be published next month.

Yes, that is what I heard from two TII officials.

Hugh Jampton

jd wrote: »

Yes, that is what I heard from two TII officials.

Well with an indolent implementation date of 2026, they won't be too challenged.

Idbatterim

Equium wrote: »

According to a TII official whose lecture I attended today, the Emerging Preferred Route for Metro North should be published next month.

With respect to the Luas network he stated that, from their point of view, the next major project is almost certain to be the extension of the Green Line to a Park and Ride facility at the M50/M2 interchange via Finglas and Charlestown. Line F to Lucan, and the southbound extension of the Red Line from before the Point Depot stop were made to sound more like back-burner projects.

I would agree with going with that options or preferably connecting cherrywood to bray, but my assumption is, that project will be more expensive?

ncounties

Could we incorporate this into whatever we build next? A guy can dream... Youtube: Delft bicycle parking facility

Ireland trains

DART Underground as well as the DART expansion and DART to the airport are the most needed. But Dublin airport should really have a metro and DART service

Idbatterim

IF dart went to Airport and connected with metro north. They could feed each other large amounts of passengers ... they should build the spur in my opinion. It's fairly cheap isn't it?

donvito99

Why not just continue metro north to donabateish? Eliminates the need for another alignment to the airport. The disadvantage of having to change is mitigated by the fact that metro is at a very high frequency.

GerardKeating

donvito99 wrote: »

Why not just continue metro north to donabateish? Eliminates the need for another alignment to the airport. The disadvantage of having to change is mitigated by the fact that metro is at a very high frequency.

Why not make "Metro North" a four track DART to the airport and beyond to link with the northern line near Rush/Donabate, then divert Belfast, Dundalk, Drogheda via this line.

This leave the Malahide-Connolly section of the northern line exclusively for DART, so no need 3/4 track it.

loyatemu

GerardKeating wrote: »

Why not make "Metro North" a four track DART to the airport and beyond to link with the northern line near Rush/Donabate, then divert Belfast, Dundalk, Drogheda via this line.

This leave the Malahide-Connolly section of the northern line exclusively for DART, so no need 3/4 track it.

the govt. doesn't want to spend billions on a piece of infrastructure and then hand it over to CIE, this is one of the reasons DU has been continually kicked down the road.

Del.Monte

loyatemu wrote: »

the govt. doesn't want to spend billions on a piece of infrastructure and then hand it over to CIE, this is one of the reasons DU has been continually kicked down the road.

CIE is only the shambles that it is due to lack of clear, consistent instruction from governments down the decades.

bk

GerardKeating wrote: »

Why not make "Metro North" a four track DART to the airport and beyond to link with the northern line near Rush/Donabate, then divert Belfast, Dundalk, Drogheda via this line.

This leave the Malahide-Connolly section of the northern line exclusively for DART, so no need 3/4 track it.

Would cost billions more then using light rail Metro and for little benefit.

VonZan

Surely the obvious long term solution is to build an underground station at Stephens Green which would initially serve the MN line out to the airport but could be expanded upon to join up the Dart, Commuter Rail and potentially new sites to alleviate traffic flow into the city eg the m50

Stephen15

VonZan wrote: »

Surely the obvious long term solution is to build an underground station at Stephens Green which would initially serve the MN line out to the airport but could be expanded upon to join up the Dart, Commuter Rail and potentially new sites to alleviate traffic flow into the city eg the m50

What do you mean? Are you talking about DART Underground?

orangerhyme

I've an idea instead of the DART Underground. A 360 degree Metro under the canals.

Temporarily drain the Grand Canal and build an underground metro from Heuston to the South Docks using a much cheaper cut and cover engineering. Once completed the canal could be reinstated.
On the northside you could either do similar with the Royal Canal or use the existing railway line there which goes through the Phoenix Park tunnel.
Then tunnel/bridge under/over the liffey from Spencer dock to Grand canal dock.

You would have a 360 degree underground Metro connecting Heuston, Connolly, DART, LUAS and bus services.

The stations would be (going anti-clockwise) : Heuston, Rialto/St James ( connecting with Luas), Harolds Cross, Barge/Portobello (Luas green line connection), Baggott street bridge, Grand Canal Docks, Spencer Dock, Drumcondra/Croke Park, Phibsborough, Cabra/Navan rd - then back to Heuston. So 10 stations.

This could be completely separate from DART and Rail or it could be the same gauge and allow these services to use it.
If using the existing rail along the Royal Canal it wouldnt be difficult to integrate Rail and DART since its above ground.

It would be high frequency and speed due to being underground and not passing any junctions with roads.
Id have Dublin Bike stations at every Metro stop and a top class two way cycle lane on the surface which doesnt cross roads. Also the Metro stations are interconnecting with the main bus routes into the city.

If you look at the main employment and educational spots on its route, it would surely be profitable service : North and South docks, Mater hosp, St James hosp, Trinity, DIT, Griffith College, Trinity College, Camden st/harcourt st going out areas.
Also Croke Park and AVIVA, The point depot.

Then Id produce a simplified map of DART, Luas, rail, Metro and high frequency bus routes similar to this




I believe it would be much cheaper than DART underground since it requires very little tunneling. A top class two way cycle lane could be built on top too.
The Metro north could then just connect at Drumcondra or Phibsborough since the Luas green line is there, therefore making it much cheaper and quicker to build.

I think the major drawback ( other than the idea being a bit "out there") is maybe the Grand Canal is a protected/conserved etc and it simply cant be touched.
But I think it could be drained, dug under and then reinstated without much damage. The ecology would obviously suffer though.

Stephen15

orangerhyme wrote: »

I think the major drawback ( other than the idea being a bit "out there") is maybe the Grand Canal is a protected/conserved etc and it simply cant be touched.
But I think it could be drained, dug under and then reinstated without much damage. The ecology would obviously suffer though.

The big issue I would see is the potential for the Metro system getting flooded if there is going to be a canal above.

orangerhyme

Stephen15 wrote: »

The big issue I would see is the potential for the Metro system getting flooded if there is going to be a canal above.

I dont think its that hard to make it protected and well drained. Its common enough for Metros to go under rivers, lakes, the sea etc.

I think this could be done relatively quickly and cheaply, If the existing infrastructure on northern ring is used.

Tunneling is the most expensive part of building a metro.
The cost ratio of underground to surface rail is 6:1

MJohnston

I have nothing but intuition to back this up, but I suspect the costs of draining an entire canal then doing a cut and cover on the whole thing, would be substantially higher than simply doing some real tunnelling with a boring machine.

Colonel Claptrap

The benefit of tuneling underground is that you are not impeded by physical infrastructure. Your route can potentially go anywhere you want (within reason).

It seems counterintuitive to restrict yourself to a rigid route designed in the Victorian era to carry barges.

orangerhyme

MJohnston wrote: »

I have nothing but intuition to back this up, but I suspect the costs of draining an entire canal then doing a cut and cover on the whole thing, would be substantially higher than simply doing some real tunnelling with a boring machine.

It wouldnt be that difficult, just replace it with a big pipe from Rialto to Grand Canal Dock.
The pipe can run along the canal while the digging is being done.

Cut and cover is considered way cheaper than tunneling.

orangerhyme

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

The benefit of tuneling underground is that you are not impeded by physical infrastructure. Your route can potentially go anywhere you want (within reason).

It seems counterintuitive to restrict yourself to a rigid route designed in the Victorian era to carry barges.

The main benefit is it could be done quick and cheaply and be very beneficial.
Tunneling is very expensive.

I agree about sticking to the canals is rigid but it seems to fit Dublins needs and particularly the big developments in the docks.

MJohnston

orangerhyme wrote: »

It wouldnt be that difficult, just replace it with a big pipe from Rialto to Grand Canal Dock.
The pipe can run along the canal while the digging is being done.

Cut and cover is considered way cheaper than tunneling.

Is it though? It's certainly cheaper for short sections, but the initial costs of proper tunneling become much less proportionally over a longer distance. In other words, once you have a tunneling machine in the ground, extra km of tunnel have a much lower extra cost, whereas with cut and cover the cost will be linear, and, I think much higher over a longer distance.

This is before we think about stations, and the actual mechanism of draining a long stretch of canal.

I also don't believe the canals are wide enough in all cases for this to be an easy job.

There's also the disruption cost - cut and cover is going to affect huge parts of the city, and hours of work might be restricted. Tunneling is much more invisible and doesn't really disrupt.

Proper tunneling would likely be way faster too, even disregarding any restrictions on construction hours.

MJohnston

My other objection to that idea would be that a radial route at the canals is too close to the city, it should be at the M50 if anywhere imo

VonZan

Stephen15 wrote: »

What do you mean? Are you talking about DART Underground?

Essentially the current metro North but build it with the goal of connecting all rail lines in Dublin eventually. All major and minor rail solutions to the transport problem in Dublin will have to be underground in the city centre so why not build the station at Stephens Green with the idea of being able to upgrade it to meet the population demands of the next decade.

Stephen15

VonZan wrote: »

Essentially the current metro North but build it with the goal of connecting all rail lines in Dublin eventually. All major and minor rail solutions to the transport problem in Dublin will have to be underground in the city centre so why not build the station at Stephens Green with the idea of being able to upgrade it to meet the population demands of the next decade.

Do you mean run DART and commuter trains into the Metro tunnels? That would not be possible as you would have to build them to Irish Gauge meaning more expensive rolling stock as it would have to be custom built.

You're better off with a separate Metro system built at standard gauge as this would mean passengers could change to the system from other modes of transport and it could tie in with the green line which is standard gauge. Also it's a more efficient use of the system as you'd just have one fixed line rather loads of Darts and Commuter going here there and everywhere.

bk

VonZan wrote: »

Essentially the current metro North but build it with the goal of connecting all rail lines in Dublin eventually. All major and minor rail solutions to the transport problem in Dublin will have to be underground in the city centre so why not build the station at Stephens Green with the idea of being able to upgrade it to meet the population demands of the next decade.

In addition to what Stephen15 says, it would also be much more costly, at least double the price. Undergound stations would need to be much larger and longer to be able to take much longer trains. They would also need to be twin bore tunnels for safety. All adds greatly to the cost.

Heavy rail like this is well suited to the biggest cities like New York or London. But Metros like in Barcelona are more suited to a city the size of Dublin.