PVC King wrote:Singapore and Dubai have a key advantage; a very ambitous flag carrier that is supported by sovereign wealth funds with very deep pockets; except Dubai is the national equivelent of Metro North and had to be bailed out. Good luck to DAA on getting Air India to dock 2 or 3 daily flights but how many Indians will want to visit Dublin City Centre?
Plenty, considering it's a great tourist attraction with lots of things to see and do. With a direct rail link to the city centre via Metro North, it'll be an easy thing for them to get there.
You can't compare London's underground development to Dublin; one is a City with 8m inside its ring motorway which has a core of 6 storey average building heights that covers probably 20 square miles.
Oh yes I can. We're talking about a city which is only starting to put in an underground network. London was in the same situation in the 19th century. That's why it makes sense to compare Dublin of today to London of the 1850s. Dublin today has about the same population as London then. If the underground was a proposition for a London of 1.5 million people, it makes sense for a Dublin of 1.5 million people.
Swords has been held up along with the Airport and Ballymun as a key provider of passengers to make the service viable; the population statistics supplied are clearly flawed.
Swords and Ballymun are large suburbs with Swords alone having a population in tens of thousands - far greater than your figure of 10,000. On the basis of this and the fact that there's an airport which can now carry 35 million passengers annually along its route, there's demand there for a Metro.
S & P are the experts in credit risk management; it is fair to say that sub-prime had more to do with a deterioration in lending standards and misinformation provided by banks to rating agencies as they could only rate what they were given. If you want to use the ESRI whose predictions are based on their advice being followed you may wish to see their views on Infrastructure spending.
In that report they're arguing against infrastructure spending as a stimulus to economic policy. They're not arguing against infrastructure spending per se. That would be ridiculous as it is the government's responsibility to spend a part of our tax money on providing us with road, rail, waterworks etc. to make our country livable. I remind you again, this country in the past has shown severe short-sightedness with regard to infrastructure to the cost of future generations. Our rail and tram networks were destroyed by governments who failed to think ahead. Thankfully, with the public works programme of the last few and forthcoming years, that short-sightedness is beginning to end. There seems to be a real eye to the future in our capital budget.
Drumcoundra station is than one mile from O'Connell Street via Lower Dorset St and Parnell Sq. The aircoach takes 15 mins from Quinns pub to the airport.
It's one mile from the top of O'Connell St, but who ever walks just to the top of O'Connell St. and just stays there? The real attractions are further down at the GPO, Spire, Eason's and Clerys. With a Metro line running beside Drumcondra, it'll be so handy to switch from the DART to the Metro and be at the bottom of O'Connell St. in only a few minutes. So much handier than trudging the streets and potentially getting lost.
On top of this, the Drumcondra stop is very near to Croke Park. Thousands of people will be able to use the Metro to get to Croker for matches, concerts and events at the conference centre. Another use of the Metro which makes it even more viable.
The point depot is a star attraction; can you not get some grasp of scale. If students are going to avoid graduate taxation as is common in the UK they wouold do well to get on their bikes and figure out that they have got to prove themselves and are not owed anything from the system they have yet to contribute to.
Get on their bikes. That reminds me of a rather callous speech made by Norman Tebbit at the height of the unemployment crisis in the very UK you mention. At the minute DCU is lost on the northside and isn't adequately served by public transport. A QBC is easy to run by UCD because the N11 is at a tangent to the grounds. DCU has no such luck. Trinity has its station at Pearse and numerous bus routes, Maynooth has its train station and bus routes, the new Grangegorman DIT will have Broadstone and bus routes. Why can't DCU have its station via the Metro North?
The fact is that DCU is a rapidly growing university - it only gained this status 20 years ago - and serves as a major market for the Metro North. In 2019, when MN is taking passengers, there could easily be 18,000 students there.
Finally on DCU, if you don't care about the students, then what about the people who are there to teach them and work in DCU administration? Haven't they contributed through their PAYE, PRSI and pension levies? Don't they deserve a reliable public transport to their place of work?
Lifts to service underground concourses are rare internationally because of the costs of installing and maintaining them; I fully support disabled access in places where passenger demand exists to justify a system that is fit for purpose.
Well all I'll say is that I was in Rome, Barcelona and London - all cities with an underground, and I saw lots of lifts at stations. In any case, if people are too delicate to take the Metro going to Mater, they can take it coming home when they've been treated.
Luas was a first project for the RPA; subsequent projects were within their comfort zone; do you want the RPA on a learning curve again?
Yes, because Dublin needs an underground railway system and, after the success of the Jack Lynch, Port and Limerick Tunnels, we can apply this experience to boring the Metro North and Interconnector tunnels.
You can't compare the interconnector to the Metro proposal; one delivers capacity on 5 existing lines the other intersects with other elements of the network; extending Luas to the Maynooth line gives the same interconnectivity at a fraction of the cost.
I wasn't comparing the interconnector to the Metro. They're obviously different. One sews up the DART network while the other gives a direct rail link from the city centre to the airport - something which should be a standard feature in any European capital city. The government has â‚¬39 billion to spend over the next 6 years. MN and DARTu can be funded out of this package.
The problem with a Luas connection is that it is subject to the vagaries of on-street traffic. Metro North has no such problems and can get you from Swords to the city and back fast and without delay.
Anything that doesn't work on a 20 year timeframe doesn't work; if someone offered a 100 year loan with an interest holiday for 80 years you would have an argument. As someone living in a city with extensive public transport I can see where it works and where it doesn't. Metro North does not have the population density to justify the cost.
Short-termist thinking yet again. The tram lines probably didn't yield a return in the 1950s yet had they been retained, we wouldn't have had to spend over a billion now rebuilding them over another 20 year period. The same goes for all the rail infrastructure dismantled. Metro North will deliver immediate returns in terms of easier access to the northside and future returns to our children and their children.
Deptment of Finance
All of these bodies are calling for Infrastructure spending to be pulled in or have found Metro North not to be viable. What part of route does not have the density to make it a viable project do you not get?
Population densities change and they will change again over the next 9 years as we wait for the first carriages of MN to arrive. What's more is that having a Metro stop nearby will encourage development and investment in the Northside. Now that MN and DART will serve Drumcondra you could see that area receive higher-density development over the next 30 years. The same goes for Northwood and Fosterstown. These places can thrive now that there is a Metro stop nearby.