Luas Development

BrianD

But not the "Grafton St." as known by most people.

morlan

murphaph wrote:

Eh Lads, Grafton street carries thousands of cars, buses and trucks everyday!

Sorry murphaph, I thought you meant the pedestrianised part of Grafton St. I never knew that corner was called Grafton St. too, thought it was just a part of College green.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

I can't let you get away with that statement, Brian D! Stephen's Green is so much more than a public park, you know that, it's the central business and shopping district of Dublin. The airport serves 17m passengers annually and looks set to grow further. Between these two points are Ballymun, Glasnevin,...

Yeah, they're dieing to get Luas there.

murphaph

BrianD wrote:

But not the "Grafton St." as known by most people.

I know Brian, but it's still Grafton Street so I could hardly call it something else in the original post I was questioned about!

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

I can't let you get away with that statement, The airport serves 17m passengers annually and looks set to grow further.

Not all of those people will use metro, in fact International experience would suggest that at no airport will over 37% use all passengers modes of public transport and at no airport will over 23% of employees use public transport.

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2588-0.pdf

The two airports that have the most impressive figures are Frankfurt with 28% using rail and Schipol with 25% using rail. At Zaventum 13% use rail and at Orly a mere 8% use rail.

Both Schipol and Frankfurt have two distinct advantages over Dublin, firstly the rail connections offered are both integrated into the National rail system as opposed to purely commuter lines and secondly in the case of Frankfurt it is served by International rail traffic as well.

Any projection of usage in excess of 20% in Dublins case is wildly optimistic, and 20% of existing passenger numbers equates to 3.4m passenger journeys per year even with 25m passengers it still only equates to 5m passengers. To this can be added employee numbers of 12,500 or at 245 working days per year or 3.0625m days worked by all employees.

On the employee side Frankfurt at 23% and Schipol again lead the way at 23% and 21% respectively with Stansted and Gatwick proping up the table at 7% and 11% respectively. A 15% figure is typical as evidenced by Zaventum 11% and Heathrow at 19%, this would equate to 439,375 passengers p.a

On this basis the RPA should realise and admit that a 5bn euro metro to the airport or even a 3bn one cannot be justified. A luas line to Santry via Ballymun can be provided for 500m and the Airport Spur can be provided for 500m both would be more than able to handle less than 20% of the current Luas loadings growing to about 30% of the current Luas loadings. Despite the projected cost varying anywhere between 3.75 times and 6.25 times the cost of Luas that cost under RPA management twice its original estimate.

aliveandkicking

Metrobest wrote:

Aliveandkicking, the first phase of the metro from Stephen's Green-Swords is in the Cullen's Ten Year Plan.

How do you know that for certain when the 10 year plan hasn't been published yet?

The fastest way to travel between Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street will be by underground; undergrounds are always faster than on-street trams, more reliable, less prone to delays.

Yes I agree the metro would take little more than 90 seconds from the Green to Savoy. That wasn't my point though. My point was it would take a passenger longer to transfer from one mode (Luas) to the other (Metro) - walking to station, escalators, waiting on train etc than to simply walk to O'Connell Street. In this regard the Luas link up would be quicker and less hassle for passengers.

I don't accept that Stephen's Green - O'Connell Street could be done in 3 mins by tram

How long does it take for the Tram to get from Connolly to Jervis? 3-4 minutes give or take. Its a similar distance between Stephens Green and O'Connell Street with a similar amount of traffic signals so in theory will have a similar journey time. Even if you allow 10 minutes it will still be quicker than having to change to a metro.

Metrobest

Thomond Park, there are several reasons why a metro to the airport is needed; and a luas is not:
* Metro runs on segregated, metro-only track (journey time Stephen's Green-Airport is 17 minutes which will be a demand stimulant)
* Luas would invariably be delayed by the vagaries of street life, inluding pedestrians, traffic lights, cars, taxis, buses, cyclists, oul wans with shopping bags etc.
* Metro is more reliable, can achieve optimum frequencies (eg. every 2 mins)
* Each metro train carries a greater number of passengers than a tram
* Metro is less disruptive to city life as it does not take up street space

Interesting that you brought up Schipol, because after the Amsterdam metro is built, the next thing will be a metro line serving Schipol. Metro lines serving airports are financially viable becuse they stimulate 20% of all-day demand in two directions.

The RPA's consultants project that 20% of passengers would be airport bound, based on a projection of 21m passengers annually. That leaves 80% of passengers who'd be just regular commuters, so this metro line is hardly just about the airport, it's about giving decent public transrport to hundreds of thousands of Northsiders and stimulating high density development along its route.

The construction cost of the metro is, contrary to you figures, projected at 1.2bn, so that's about twice your figure for a luas via Ballymun. It would seem odd to bring luas to Ballymun while an entire northside city corridor lay devoid of quality public transport.

I wouldn't be against a green line-style luas serving the airport, fully segregated, underground in the city centre. But looking at the costs and the benefits, it does seem that the metro plan offers the best compromise.

Aliveandkicking, I see no reason why changing to a metro mode at Stephen's Green would significantly add to passengers' journey times: we're not talking about a complex Paris-style metro system here; we're talking about one line, point-to-point, running at extremely high frequencies. I would also be in favour of an Amsterdam/Brussels metro style barrier-free system to speed up entry/exits of platforms.

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

Thomond Park, there are several reasons why a metro to the airport is needed; and a luas is not:
* Metro runs on segregated, metro-only track (journey time Stephen's Green-Airport is 17 minutes which will be a demand stimulant)
* Luas would invariably be delayed by the vagaries of street life, inluding pedestrians, traffic lights, cars, taxis, buses, cyclists, oul wans with shopping bags etc.
* Metro is more reliable, can achieve optimum frequencies (eg. every 2 mins)
* Each metro train carries a greater number of passengers than a tram
* Metro is less disruptive to city life as it does not take up street space

Nothing you have mentioned here cannot be acheived by a Dart spur at a cost of 500m, a further 500m would 4 track the Northern line giving capacity to Central Fingal, the North Dublin Coast, South East Meath and South Louth that no other investment has the capacity to do.

Metrobest wrote:

Interesting that you brought up Schipol, because after the Amsterdam metro is built, the next thing will be a metro line serving Schipol. Metro lines serving airports are financially viable becuse they stimulate 20% of all-day demand in two directions.

Schipol has currently well in excess of 40m passengers and post the AF-KLM merger is set to grow at a disproportionate rate, Schipol is also an airport with a plan sadly something Dublin airport hasn't had since the days of Aitkin and Lemass. Amsterdam already has an integrated transport system as does Frankfurt that is why they significantly out-perform all other airports examined. It is entirely possible that Dublin would end up with Orly or Zaventum type ridership figures and what a white elephant that would be, that would be M3 investment style territory.

Metrobest wrote:

The RPA's consultants project that 20% of passengers would be airport bound, based on a projection of 21m passengers annually. That leaves 80% of passengers who'd be just regular commuters, so this metro line is hardly just about the airport, it's about giving decent public transrport to hundreds of thousands of Northsiders and stimulating high density development along its route.

With all due respect everything North of Phibsboro excluding Ballymun has got a landuse density averaging about 10-20 units per acre. This is nowhere near enough to support anything above a Luas line and even the Luas line was dumped by Ms O'Rourke in 1997 because the passenger loadings were not perceived to exist.

Metrobest wrote:

The construction cost of the metro is, contrary to you figures, projected at 1.2bn, so that's about twice your figure for a luas via Ballymun. It would seem odd to bring luas to Ballymun while an entire northside city corridor lay devoid of quality public transport.

Where did you get that figure?

3.6bn is the low end and 5bn plus is what a system capable of integration with Dart would cost, the lower figure equates to 90% of the mooted rail allocation and the higher figure would be 125% of same. A luas to Ballymun costing 500m would provide more than enough capacity for 12.5% of the National Rail Allocation

Metrobest wrote:

I wouldn't be against a green line-style luas serving the airport, fully segregated, underground in the city centre. But looking at the costs and the benefits, it does seem that the metro plan offers the best compromise.

Why are people resident outside the state so fixated on an airport metro despite the complete absence of statistical evidence to support its case on a cost to benefit basis?

loyatemu

Stephen's green is a major shopping and hotel area but hardly anyone lives near there & the "business district" is out in ballsbridge. having the metro line terminate at the green without also going through connolly or pearce would be mad.

IE's proposal looks a lot better on paper (capacity problems aside) - train from the airport direct to Pearce, Stephen's Green and Heuston.

philologos

Airport Metro lines have proved successful in many European cities and they would get more revenue for the government. In Frankfurt am Main the S-Bahn system works very well at Fraport and in London Heathrow the London Underground connection has also been very successful. The DART trains are quite old at this stage and it is questionable if they will be able to service the airport as well as a metro line.

loyatemu

Jakkass wrote:

The DART trains are quite old at this stage and it is questionable if they will be able to service the airport as well as a metro line.

half the DART stock is less than 5 years old, and the original carriages are currently being refurbished.

MarkoP11

Ideally you could have both interconnector and metro and then you would not need to go via Connolly (I am informed that the routing via Connolly is off the agenda has geotechnical issues, heritage issues and would hit a brick wall when challenged) Thats the ideal case but clearly its unlikely but if sense was seen it would provide a straighter metro alignment few stations quicker journeys, hey they might even go back to the old alignment via Finglas where there actually is demand

The issue here is to ensure the Luas link up does not duplicate either project as to do so may undermine the case for both

Luas via Macken Street bridge is following the interconnector, Luas via O'Connell bridge is following the ideal metro alignment

MarkoP11

Jakkass wrote:

Airport Metro lines have proved successful in many European cities and they would get more revenue for the government. In Frankfurt am Main the S-Bahn system works very well at Fraport and in London Heathrow the London Underground connection has also been very successful. The DART trains are quite old at this stage and it is questionable if they will be able to service the airport as well as a metro line.

The plans involve the purchase of something like 300+ new DART style units, half long distance, half inner suburban, 8 coach trains

The original fleet is set to last till 2025, the rest of the fleet is between 5 years and 1 year old

It simply capacity Luas can't match, nor can the metro with its poxy 2 maybe 3 car trains

The RPA of course ignore everything else other than there own so there is no master plan to ensure a proper thought out integrated system. What ever happened to Platform for Change

Metrobest

The length of the metro trains will not take away from the advantages that a segregated, (partly) underground, point to point line will provide.

The platforms of Paris metro line 13 can only accomodate 5 car sets. Same with some of the other lines. What it lacks in length it makes up for in frequency.

Metrobest

Thomond Pk wrote:

It is entirely possible that Dublin would end up with Orly or Zaventum type ridership figures and what a white elephant that would be, that would be M3 investment style territory.


With all due respect everything North of Phibsboro excluding Ballymun has got a landuse density averaging about 10-20 units per acre. This is nowhere near enough to support anything above a Luas line and even the Luas line was dumped by Ms O'Rourke in 1997 because the passenger loadings were not perceived to exist.

Where did you get that figure?

3.6bn is the low end [/B]

Why are people resident outside the state so fixated on an airport metro despite the complete absence of statistical evidence to support its case on a cost to benefit basis?

Ridership is likely to be high on the metro as it passes through established suburbs, universities, hospitals, an airport, and the north and south city centres.

O'Rourke changed her plans because the metro should have been under construction by now. She wanted the metro.

My figure of 1.2bn is based on construction cost, as is yours for a luas line. Yours for metro, based on a PPP, is misleading.

There was cost/benefit analysis done on the metro. It came out positive. Check your facts.

Thomond Pk

But the cost will still be excessive and it will still serve only a limited catchment, Paris at 5 car sets has 66% more capacity than the RPA metro is designed for. A metro with two dead-head termini can only run to a particular frequency as reversals and track changes dramatically reduce capacity.

Given that the RPA are unwilling to use broad gauge there is no solution to the dead-heading problem as the Airport routings cannot be split onto different lines. If an integrated system were built every second Airport train could serve a different end destination at both ends. I.E. A Swords to Bray service followed by an Airport to Hazelhatch service.

The airport spur offers better value for a number of reasons not least population density and passenger numbers. Under the rules of Environmental Impact Assessment only existing population numbers can be assessed for impacts

What should be done is that Luas to Ballymun should be built in tandem with the Airport Spur and that a proper evaluation should be undertaken of a route from Bray to the Airport Spur at Dublin Airport that would integrate fully with the rest of the Dublin Rail plan. This would involve a new Dart line from Woodbrook in Bray to Sandyford along the old Harcourt St alignment, conversion of Luas to Dart as far as Ranelagh and a proper integrated metro from Ranelagh to City Centre, Drumcoundra, Beaumont, Whitehall, Santry to the then existing station at Dublin Airport.

If the RPA metro is sanctioned in any of its mooted formats we will wait 5-10 years to find out that it is inadequate and have another 10-15 years before the capital arises to correct that situation.

Prevention is better than cure as Luas has taught us.

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

Ridership is likely to be high on the metro as it passes through established suburbs, universities, hospitals, an airport, and the north and south city centres.

O'Rourke changed her plans because the metro should have been under construction by now. She wanted the metro.

My figure of 1.2bn is based on construction cost, as is yours for a luas line. Yours for metro, based on a PPP, is misleading.

There was cost/benefit analysis done on the metro. It came out positive. Check your facts.

Established suburbs with population densities of 12-20 units per acre, Lyon has an average density of 91 units. Everything you mention can be adequately served by a Luas costing 8-17% that of metro.

The cost you refer to involves financing costs of 8% per annum, government bonds cost 2.85% to the exchequer per annum, do the math.

BrianD

Metrobest wrote:

O'Rourke changed her plans because the metro should have been under construction by now. She wanted the metro.

I believe you are incorrect. The O'Rourke decision came as a result of sustained political pressure from city centre traders who baulked at the prospect of disruption caused by construction. In many ways they were right given the fiasco that was the Luas construction under the RPA. They of course saw the benefits of the Luas and then the idea of running it underground came about and then this morphed into an underground of sorts. Now we have ended up with the most ridiculous metro proposal EVER! The ducks in stephens green will now be able to travel underground to meet the seagulls in Dublin airport and my tax payers money is going to be wasted.

murphaph

Jakkass wrote:

In Frankfurt am Main the S-Bahn system works very well at Fraport and in London Heathrow the London Underground connection has also been very successful. The DART trains are quite old at this stage and it is questionable if they will be able to service the airport as well as a metro line.

The S-Bahn is the german equivalent of DART, not metro. That's the U-Bahn and I'm not aware of any large german cities who serve their airport with a U-Bahn line instead of an S-Bahn line, but I'm open to corection (I haven't been to Berlin or Hamburg). The Heathrow Express (mainline, heavy rail with long, wide carriages) is the choice for the city bound airport traveller. Only people who can't afford the Heathrow Express take the tube. DART fleet is very young, the oldest units are all being sent off to the Czech epublic to have their guts ripped out and replaced-they'll be like new. Next time you're on that Heathrow tube, take a look at the sill as you step into the train. Don't be surprised if it says 'metro-cammel, 197x'.

BrianD

For all intensive purposes the DART is a metro line - albeit not a perfect one. There is no good reason why DART rolling stock would not be used on the new line to the airport and it is highly desirable that links into an existing rail line - be it the Belfast line or the Sligo line to reach a city centre terminus.

Whatever solution is considered it must be in the context of an overall rail transport package and not a stand alone solution. This is where the IR dublin rail plan continues to come out tops in all respects.

Irrespective of what happens on the rail front there is still justification for the further development of a tram network above ground.

jlang

murphaph wrote:

The Heathrow Express (mainline, heavy rail with long, wide carriages) is the choice for the city bound airport traveller. Only people who can't afford the Heathrow Express take the tube.

That's not quite fair. The Heathrow Express links into the train/tube network at Paddington, which is fine, but for many people the connections from the Tube are better. The price differential is quite a jump too - you're not talking the difference between a DART and a LUAS ticket - the Express costs about EUR20 single. It takes 15mins and runs every 15mins but the tube only takes 45mins so unless you're on expenses or already at or near Paddington you should consider the Tube.

That said, I support the DART spur to the airport, so long as it won't cost EUR20. Metro/LUAS for the Northside too but transport in areas like Blanch/Finglas need to be improved more than the airport.

Metrobest

Thomond Pk wrote:

But the cost will still be excessive and it will still serve only a limited catchment, Paris at 5 car sets has 66% more capacity than the RPA metro is designed for. A metro with two dead-head termini can only run to a particular frequency as reversals and track changes dramatically reduce capacity.

Given that the RPA are unwilling to use broad gauge there is no solution to the dead-heading problem as the Airport routings cannot be split onto different lines. If an integrated system were built every second Airport train could serve a different end destination at both ends. I.E. A Swords to Bray service followed by an Airport to Hazelhatch service.

The airport spur offers better value for a number of reasons not least population density and passenger numbers. Under the rules of Environmental Impact Assessment only existing population numbers can be assessed for impacts
.

Metro has five times the capacity of luas, possibly more.
Dublin's densities compare unfavourably with Paris. Two car metro, with potential for three, should serve Dublin well into the future. There's no point trying to install 6 or 8 car metro platforms into Dublin. The densities won't support the frequencies.

The Paris metro runs point-to-point and has dead-end termini. It works fine.

Where is the population density in the spur, exactly? Most of that is unused land.

murphaph

jlang wrote:

That's not quite fair. The Heathrow Express links into the train/tube network at Paddington, which is fine, but for many people the connections from the Tube are better. The price differential is quite a jump too - you're not talking the difference between a DART and a LUAS ticket - the Express costs about EUR20 single. It takes 15mins and runs every 15mins but the tube only takes 45mins so unless you're on expenses or already at or near Paddington you should consider the Tube.

Fair enough jlang-I accept your point. I was trying to point out that given the choice the Heathrow Express would be faves for most city bound passengers. The proposed DART spur would provide much better onward connections than the metro (Howth Junction for Belfast, Spencer Dock for Longford/Sligo?, Pearse for Maynooth, Bray and Rosslare, Stephen's Green for Sandyford, Heuston for All IC destinations out of that station). It would also provide large, spacious carriages for luggage. I'm not ramming this down your throat-I know you were making a valid point and are a supporter of the DART spur.

jlang wrote:

That said, I support the DART spur to the airport, so long as it won't cost EUR20. Metro/LUAS for the Northside too but transport in areas like Blanch/Finglas need to be improved more than the airport.

Well, the DRP can take care of the Maynooth line wrt capacity and connection enhancements. Northern Blanchardstown will remain bus dependent for the forseeable but I'd envisage buses running on the relatively wide (read bus lanes) north-south axes to provide connection to DART at Clonsilla, Porterstown (future), Coolmine, Castleknock and Blanchardstown (future) stations rather than trying in vain to beat the train into town on narrow streets with no quality bus lanes. The whole an-larism gets turned on it's head post DRP. Buses can make such a dent when they work with the train rather than against it (like today). Finglas IMO, should be served by the Luas route I outlined previously in this thread.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Metro has five times the capacity of luas, possibly more.
Dublin's densities compare unfavourably with Paris. Two car metro, with potential for three, should serve Dublin well into the future. There's no point trying to install 6 or 8 car metro platforms into Dublin. The densities won't support the frequencies.

You state Dublin has astonishingly low densities. You state that 6 car metro is overkill. You state that building a metro will spur high density development above ground. Oh sh!t-we've built a 2 car metro and the bastards built apartments on top of it and now we have to extend platforms and trains. Come on man-your completely guessing what impact a metro below ground will have. If you want to spur density growth then building a low capacity metro is insane. If you don't want to spur density growth then a metro is a complete waste of money and a tram solution is the answer. You seem determined to back the RPA's senseless decisions. If you were saying "build a 6 car metro to Irish Gauge from Stephen's Green to Swords, via Jervis Centre, DIT (Broadstone), Phibsboro (Glasnevin Junction), DCU, Ballymun and the airport", then I'd be broadly in agreement with you because the density growth along the line would be capable of being catered for. The sh!tty RPA half arsed metro that you support is nether here, not there and no city in it's right mind would build it today (note Glasgow had to extend a 2 car metro to 3 car in the 70's and it's too small again today at rush hour and on match days!)

Metrobest wrote:

Where is the population density in the spur, exactly? Most of that is unused land.

The spur is cheap though-it is cheap because it's mostly above ground across greenfields in the flight path. There is development taking place at Grange road and along the northern fringe (both high density) that will be able to take advantage of the spur.

Metrobest wrote:

There's no point trying to install 6 or 8 car metro platforms into Dublin. The densities won't support the frequencies.

Ah, but we built a 6 car DART and it had to be upgraded to 8 car, albeit at lower frequencies than a proposed metro, but the fact remains-in 1984 the DART itself was seen as a white elephant, now we find it's at breaking point and have had to expand capacity. The disruption to DART during the upgrade will seem like nothing when you try to upgrade an UNDERGROUND metro. Remember it's not just platforms that have to be lengthened-the whole power supply systm has to be upgraded too. The difference between the IE Engineer's mentality and that of the RPA beureaucrat's is that IE are now proposing 12 car platforms for the interconnector. They have learned the vauable lesson of future proofing!!

(By the way, a nice example of IE Engineer's future proofing can be seen at Clonsilla Station. Take a look at the footbridge. Note how it sits on a large concrete plinths and the handrails for the first flight of steps are slightly different to the top (original) part of the bridge. It's because the bridge was elevated onto those concrete plinths to allow clearance under the bridge for the future DART wires)

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

You state Dublin has astonishingly low densities. You state that 6 car metro is overkill. You state that building a metro will spur high density development above ground. Oh sh!t-we've built a 2 car metro and the bastards built apartments on top of it and now we have to extend platforms and trains. Come on man-your completely guessing what impact a metro below ground will have. If you want to spur density growth then building a low capacity metro is insane. If you don't want to spur density growth then a metro is a complete waste of money and a tram solution is the answer. You seem determined to back the RPA's senseless decisions.

The difference between the IE Engineer's mentality and that of the RPA beureaucrat's is that IE are now proposing 12 car platforms for the interconnector. They have learned the vauable lesson of future proofing!!
)

I agree with you, Philip, that the metro ideally should be built to accomodate four or five car trains. That's what the original €1.7bn metro proposal envisaged. But it was rejected on the basis of cost.

A three car metro running at extremely high frequency (say every 3 mins) would do the same job as a six car metro running every six minutes. The metros in paris run around every five minutes, even the lines with only four car trains, and these serve environments that have established high densities. The nature of planning in Dublin is such that it unlikely the critical mass would ever be reached for a six car metro every three minutes. What's important is that the metro is fast, frequent and metro-only.

Much of the DART's problems stem from shared track use, a problem that will exist even post Greater Dublin Rail Plan. With gaps of twenty minutes between DARTs in rush hour, it's little wonder that severe overcrowding is experienced. Notice how that is not an issue for the Luas - because it runs at regular, high frequencies. Now imagine an 80m luas running every three minutes and you're getting close to the kind of capacity that the Stephen's Green-Airport metro will be able to handle.

In my opinion, 12 car interconnector platforms are IE's misguided way of covering up the fundamental problem: lack of four tracks between Connolly and Bray, and Connolly and Maynooth. In other words, IE's preferred solution for the future is to make trains longer and longer, because it just won't have the track capacity to increase frequencies. In my opinion, high frequency short metros are a more sustainable solution for urban transit.

MarkoP11

40m tram
15 tph 310 4650
Metro
40 tph 468 18720

Metro would have 4 times the capacity of the Luas assuming operation at 90 second intervals but the argument has always been that only a tram style system would work owing to the low densities

The original plan was Luas line Abbey Street Ballymun Airport that was abandoned

Then came platform for change and the metro went west via Liffey Junction through Finglas where it split in 2 and turned for the Airport and Swords, logical route gives the maximum catchment area

Interestingly the DTO proposed two Liffey crossings for Luas

To quote PFC

The LUAS system is appropriate in corridors where passenger numbers are too high to be accommodated on bus but not high enough to justify the expense of DART or METRO.

A new north-south line will be constructed from Ballymun via Whitehall, the city centre, Harold's Cross, Terenure and Rathfarnham to Dundrum. This will be extended north of Ballymun to Sillogue. It will interchange with the METRO at Sillogue, in the north city centre, in the south city centre and at Dundrum. There will be a spur at Whitehall via Coolock to Kilbarrack where it will interchange with DART.

A new east-west line will be constructed from Lucan via Ballyfermot, Dolphin's Barn and the South City Centre to Docklands via the proposed Macken Street Bridge.

murphaph

I don't really want to joust with you again on this (I'm sure everyone is fed up with us arguing our immovable positions!). The DART does suffer from track sharing. This problem is solvable over time. The first phase is the Kildare Route Project. The DRP envisages complete segregation between DART and IC between Kildare Town and Heuston. There is the room to do the same between East Wall Junction (north of Connolly) and Drogheda (though this wouldn't be required in total with adequate signalling and passing loops). There is also room to do the same From Glasnevin Junction (It's 4 tracks from Connolly to there already) to Maynooth. In short-it's much much cheaper to add tracks above ground than to go underground. IE already own most of the land required for widening and much of the rest is in state hands (OPW) or is zoned agricultural so would not be expensive. The situation between Connolly and Pearse is fine as 2 tracks as only DART will ever use this stretch post DRP. Pearse to Bray will also stay as 2 tracks with passing loops and that's fine because IC frequency to Rosslare is very low and will remain so.

I'm exagerating what will be needed to achieve very respectable DART frequencies (c. 5-7 mins). In all likelihood there will not be the need for complete quad tracking as far as Maynooth or Drogheda simply because these stretches are nowhere near as congested with IC traffic as the approaches to Heuston. Passing loops and signalling upgrades will be fine for a very long time.

IE is moving away from loco hauled coaches on these lines, so the chances of a failed IC train blocking the line gets more and more remote as the DMUs they replace the loco hauled trains with will be more reliable.

Metrobest

PFC is based on some noble theories. The main one being that everybody should be within ten minute's walk of quality, integrated public transport. Unfortunately, that's not going to possible in many of Dublin's sprawled, low-density suburbs. With an infinte budget to spend on public transport, PFC would be a wonderful plan. The problem is, the money's not there - and the will's not there.

Ballyfermot is a good example. It is one giant housing estate. Anyone who can afford a car, owns one. Even medium density transport such as luas will find it difficult to serve this area.

There is a business case for the metro. The DTO wants it and commuters need it. The only question is, when will the government stop dithering on public transport spending? We've had enough PR to last a lifetime.

Thomond Pk

Metrobest,

With all due respect you are talking like you have read a lot of material to back up your arguments.

Ballyfermot is an obvious target for higher densities as there are five industrial estates totalling about 250 acres of obselete or semi-obselete industrial buildings that are infinately suitable for a large scale re-generation scheme based on a change of land use from industrial to 93% residential and 7% retail/civic/community facilities, there are also action area plans for medium to high density schemes in both Cherry Orchard and Park West. These plans are fully endorsed by the local representative groups and politicians and will happen, the potential problem is that the entire rail budget will be spent on your white elephant project and that West Dublin will be screwed yet again.

The recipients of your white elephant who live in nice mature garden city type locations will adopt a nimby attitude when planning applications are made to increase densities above 14 to the acre and everything will be mired whilst a group of happy PPP investors collect 8% per year on an investment that has about as much risk as AA- government backed paper or an equated risk level of 2.85% once the gaurantees are written. The Metro is a scam and you appear to be the only person who fails to see this.

RE: The DTO can you list the exact reference the DTO makes in the platform for change to the metro and also include the full list of projects that the DTO place a higher importance rating onto.

GerardKeating

murphaph wrote:

The Heathrow Express (mainline, heavy rail with long, wide carriages) is the choice for the city bound airport traveller. Only people who can't afford the Heathrow Express take the tube.

Not always true, depending of what part on London you are gonig to, HEX is not much faster than the tube.