Metro North

Re: Metro North

Postby PVC King » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:56 pm

tommyt wrote:PVCK ; You know you're in trouble when Kevin Myers starts agreeing with you:o:o:o

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-the-metro-is-an-insane-idea-and-a-disaster-for-dublin-2310177.html

Outside of the cost/benefit purgatory of this thread it's gone somewhat unnoticed that there is a PQQ out at the minute for CIE to redevelop their East Wall shunting area for mixed use to include a new bus interchange AND retains the rail link down the Alex Road to the Port. If this grows legs/credibility at a sufficient pace an express coach link exploiting the tunnel and Dart Uground/LUAS linkages must surely be the final nail in the coffin for MN.



Indeed, never known Frank and Kev to see eye to eye before, whats next John Waters and Eoghan Harris joining them for an IT love in!!!!

CIE should have done this as soon as the Port Tunnel was green lit; you can just see the NAMA number crunchers adding €5 per square foot on the rental values (finished product) for the massive holdings of office development land they have down there.

Adding you to my ignore list isn't the point; firstly I usually like your posts and might want to read them on topics and second, the posts you make here prompt a response which I would end up reading.

Again, my problem isn't with your Metro opinion and I amn't dreaming, the point I'm making is that repeating the same arguements again and again and with the full force of sarcasm and stern language creates a ranty atmosphere! The fact you used my post as an excuse to repeat your view of the Metro North and again end up at the end of the thread, well, all I can say is aaaahhhh.

Anyway, I tried.


Patrick Kavanagh was a very astute observer one of his better quotes is "In all the World money is important, in Ireland nothing else is important"

I have always respected your posts you have a good eye for the visual and no doubt contribute a lot to TCD in your field. I just want to see TCD grow along with all the other educational institutes to get the country out of the mess it is in by developing knowledge; get out of the mess and there is the next 1,000 years to plan infrastructure.
PVC King
 

Re: Metro North

Postby notjim » Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:56 pm

@pvcking Ok well, like I say, I always enjoyed your posts on other topics and don't disagree with you on this on, I just don't like the shoutiness of this thread: I will learn to ignore it.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Metro North

Postby rumpelstiltskin » Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:59 pm

notjim wrote:Again, my problem isn't with your Metro opinion and I amn't dreaming, the point I'm making is that repeating the same arguements again and again and with the full force of sarcasm and stern language creates a ranty atmosphere! The fact you used my post as an excuse to repeat your view of the Metro North and again end up at the end of the thread, well, all I can say is aaaahhhh.


It bothers me just as much as it bothers you when people correct grammar, when half the time they make mistakes themselves. However, your continuing use of the word "amn't", just because you got caught using bad grammar and then made some ridiculous justification for it because you couldn't admit you were wrong, is increasingly irritating. I wouldn't mind if your entire contribution to this site was in 'Irish dialect' to be sure to be sure, begorra and begosh. But this is the only example of so-called Irish dialect in your posts which adhere fastidiously, almost pedantically, to Standard English. So get over yourself.
rumpelstiltskin
Member
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby ac1976 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:13 pm

The Sunday Business Post also calling to "Shelve Metro North"

"...We need to get real and cancel this project...."

http://thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/shelve-metro-north-51309.html

It seems that the anti-MN sentiment is spreading
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:31 pm

ac1976 wrote:The Sunday Business Post also calling to "Shelve Metro North"

"...We need to get real and cancel this project...."

http://thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/shelve-metro-north-51309.html

It seems that the anti-MN sentiment is spreading


And falls victim to the same fallacy that Metro North is simply a rail link to the airport - it is not. It is a high-speed, high-capacity transport corridor which will significantly enhance public transport north of the Liffey. It will give Ballymun light rail which was denied it with the revisions to Luas, it will serve DCU with a train station - something which is a standard feature of other Irish universities and it will bring Swords within 30 minutes of the city centre - another thing which is impossible now because of gridlock and so on.

The article also fails to understand the limitations of buses to increase capacity. Metro trains serve far more people far more rapidly than buses ever can or will. Now that Dublin Airport has the capacity to double in size, the airlink buses won't be able to keep up with the additional demand from the airport. Metro North will fill that space and get people into the city centre quicker and cheaper than any bus can.

It is mind-boggling that a country can think nothing of pouring billions into failed banks and yet objects to the sensible expenditure of about €3 billion on a rail line which will provide benefits to us all.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby GrahamH » Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:32 pm

Cathal Dunne wrote: it will bring Swords within 30 minutes of the city centre - another thing which is impossible now because of gridlock and so on.


But why is this a good thing? Swords is far away from Dublin because, well, it is not Dublin. Do we really want to maintain, never mind vastly expand, Swords as a giant commuting suburb? How is this sustainable? Just because people use a rail line, or live in high density housing, doesn't mean it is sustainable to travel for an hour or more from door to door. Rather it facilitiates a detached, dependant community based around the model of a dormitory town.

Of course cities all over the world have evolved around this model, but actively planning for it involving a city as small and as immature as Dublin, with a vast amount of unused and underdeveloped land, is caving in too easily to an quick fix model of greenfield development.

I don't know - I'm certainly no expert in this. There is nothing worse than people jabbering on about which they know nothing. But everything is relative. The history of Dublin to date has been one of escaping its core. As Kevin Myers unwittingly pointed out, who lives in Dublin? Who even wants to live in Dublin? And for life? Our aim should be to get the quality of life right in the city centre, inner suburbs and vast brownfield sites - including Dublin bay - all principally integrated by light rail. Indeed, much of this vision could be delivered based on sound policy and the stratospheric cost of Metro alone.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Metro North

Postby weehamster » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:07 pm

Please forgive me :o but I'm getting really tired of late reading (Myers) and hearing people talk about "how much Metro North cost" and "isn't it disgraceful we're spending that much at a time like this" etc...as the main reason why it shouldn't be built.

This, as well as every major infrastructure project that will be constructed from now on, for the foreseeable future will be a Public Private Partnership (PPP). It should be noted that the actual cost of the Metro North is a commercial secret. So until next year when the winning consortium is announced and then it is no longer a commercial secret, and apart from a hand full of people in the RPA, Government and of course the bidding consortium's, nobody knows the cost. Nobody. This €5b figure that has been flying around has no bases in fact in any way. The figure really could be much less. So I'm sick of people using this as a basis of their argument.

Now for argument sake, lets say it's does cost €5b.:D
Because it's a PPP, we do not have to start paying it back until the project if finished construction and fully up and running. So lets say it takes 4-5 years to construct and construction starts in 2012. So it won't be until at least 2016-17 before we actually start paying back the first cent. And even then, we will be paying the money back over a period of 30 to 40 years.

2017 before we start paying for it and €5b over 30 to 40 years isn't really that much now is it. ;) Oh and the risk is with the private consortium and not with the state.
weehamster
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: Cathair Bhaile Átha Cliath

Re: Metro North

Postby ac1976 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:41 pm

grahamh wrote:Our Aim Should Be To Get The Quality Of Life Right In The City Centre, Inner Suburbs And Vast Brownfield Sites - Including Dublin Bay - All Principally Integrated By Light Rail. Indeed, Much Of This Vision Could Be Delivered Based On Sound Policy And The Stratospheric Cost Of Metro Alone.


+1
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Metro North

Postby PVC King » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:06 pm

+2

Call it unaffordable or unacceptable opportunity cost i.e. more comprehensive Luas network over time and you get the same result; wrong project.

It is mind-boggling that a country can think nothing of pouring billions into failed banks and yet objects to the sensible expenditure of about €3 billion on a rail line which will provide benefits to us all.


Ask yourself why those banks failed. Too many sunny assumptions and too many interest roll ups on construction loans. If as a nation people had thought like

But why is this a good thing? Swords is far away from Dublin because, well, it is not Dublin. Do we really want to maintain, never mind vastly expand, Swords as a giant commuting suburb? How is this sustainable? Just because people use a rail line, or live in high density housing, doesn't mean it is sustainable to travel for an hour or more from door to door. Rather it facilitiates a detached, dependant community based around the model of a dormitory town.


Then maybe all the banks would still have €10bn caps and the city a much better footprint.
PVC King
 

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:31 am

GrahamH wrote:But why is this a good thing? Swords is far away from Dublin because, well, it is not Dublin. Do we really want to maintain, never mind vastly expand, Swords as a giant commuting suburb? How is this sustainable? Just because people use a rail line, or live in high density housing, doesn't mean it is sustainable to travel for an hour or more from door to door. Rather it facilitiates a detached, dependant community based around the model of a dormitory town.


Future development at Swords will be sustainable because Metro North will tie it into a rapid, reliable public transport system. You will be able to use Metro to access the DART and Luas to go anywhere you want in the Dublin region from Swords. It will mean a much better public transport proposition for Swords.

Of course cities all over the world have evolved around this model, but actively planning for it involving a city as small and as immature as Dublin, with a vast amount of unused and underdeveloped land, is caving in too easily to an quick fix model of greenfield development.


Cities smaller and less densely populated than Dublin already have underground rail networks. I remind you that proposals like MN have been around since the 1970s when Dublin was even smaller and less-populated than today. If it was a good thing to have in the 70s, it is a necessity now.

I don't know - I'm certainly no expert in this. There is nothing worse than people jabbering on about which they know nothing. But everything is relative. The history of Dublin to date has been one of escaping its core. As Kevin Myers unwittingly pointed out, who lives in Dublin? Who even wants to live in Dublin? And for life? Our aim should be to get the quality of life right in the city centre, inner suburbs and vast brownfield sites - including Dublin bay - all principally integrated by light rail. Indeed, much of this vision could be delivered based on sound policy and the stratospheric cost of Metro alone.


All of this is being done. The Luas extension down the docks serves the new communities created there, the Luas BXD line will serve the city core and a whole swathe of inner city communities. Metro North itself will serve the inner suburbs of Drumcondra, Whitehall and Glasnevin. MN can subsequently be extended to service even more of the city as the demand arises.

Luas itself is of limited benefit anyway. It has a much lower capacity than Metro, necessitates a far greater disruption to existing infrastructure during construction and will have to face traffic on the roads. It is inferior to Metro.

The cost of Metro North is certainly not stratospheric. Thanks to the construction sector slump, tenders for this project should come in around 30% less than initially forecast. In addition to this, any cost over-runs will be met by the private consortium building the line, not us, therefore the tendered cost is the only cost the taxpayer will face for this vital piece of infrastructure.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby PVC King » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:10 am

Cathal Dunne wrote:The cost of Metro North is certainly not stratospheric. Thanks to the construction sector slump, tenders for this project should come in around 30% less than initially forecast..


Which forecast?

There is only one bidder left in the process
PVC King
 

Re: Metro North

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:37 am

GrahamH wrote:. As Kevin Myers unwittingly pointed out, who lives in Dublin? Who even wants to live in Dublin? And for life? Our aim should be to get the quality of life right in the city centre, inner suburbs and vast brownfield sites - including Dublin bay - all principally integrated by light rail. Indeed, much of this vision could be delivered based on sound policy and the stratospheric cost of Metro alone.


I live in the centre. I (unfortunately) paid a great deal of money to live in the city - something I'll be forever shackled to so it's a good thing that I like it. There is nowhere in Dublin that I cannot get to, either by bus or bicycle in very little time. There is a bus that stops up the road that will take me to the airport. There's a bus to take me to the train station. I never take taxis and I only drive if it's off to Wicklow for the day. Apart from the poor souls living in the obvious deprived areas (of any postcode) living between the canals is pretty good. Point is, Dublin doesn't need this thing. It needs, as Graham says, to heal itself and tackle the poor souls previously mentioned before phaffing away money on needless adventure

And I'm also tired of the argument of "well other cities have one, why shouldn't we?" It's just nonsense. Next time you're in London, for example, check a road map before the tube map. I once took a 50 minute, 3 change, sweltering, awful, tube journey to meet some friends to be told upon arrival that I was originally no more than a 20 minute amble in the sun away

I'm reminded of a Calvin and Hobbs skit where calvin wants to take the car for a 5 minute journey. When his father says "why do you think God gave you legs?" he replied "to work the gas pedal"
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby gunter » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:57 am

Cathal Dunne wrote:Future development at Swords will be sustainable because Metro North will tie it into a rapid, reliable public transport system. You will be able to use Metro to access the DART and Luas to go anywhere you want in the Dublin region from Swords. It will mean a much better public transport proposition for Swords.


All of that sounds fine . . . . . if we were dealing with a planned extension to a compact trviving city. The problem, as Graham has illuminated very well, is that this is not what we're dealing with in Dublin.

In Dublin, as Frank McDonald has also been pointing out for years, the fundamental problem is the lack of density in the core, that is why half the city feels lifeless and disjointed, that is why many city centre streets don't even have a single functioning shop on them and that is why so much of the urban realm is desperately low grade compared to comparable European equivalents.

Unfortunately, grafting on a single, isolated, state-of-the-art, publin transport intervention like MN address none of that and instead it brings with it the very real prospect that the route hinterland will be retro-planned as a high intensity development corridor, with the L.A.s and other agencies cashing in with infrastructure corridor premium rate planning levies, and all that this will do is tend to dilute, not reinforce, the city centre. Even if MN costs us nothing right now or for the foreseeable future, the price we'll pay will is in botched urban planning, again.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Metro North

Postby Devin » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:10 pm

gunter wrote:In Dublin ... the fundamental problem is the lack of density in the core,
What?? The problems with the city centre are use, not density. The densities in the city core are quite good. Any problems related to density in Dublin are due to the chronic suburban sprawl extending for 30, 40, 50 miles outside. A certain amount of infilling and appropriate intensification can be done in the core, but there are no fundamental problems with density.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Metro North

Postby ac1976 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:04 pm

Devin wrote:What?? The problems with the city centre are use, not density. The densities in the city core are quite good. Any problems related to density in Dublin are due to the chronic suburban sprawl extending for 30, 40, 50 miles outside. A certain amount of infilling and appropriate intensification can be done in the core, but there are no fundamental problems with density.


I think he meant the POPULATION density, which has been in decline in inner city Dublin for the last decade. A result of empty nest syndrome and the fact that the older housing stock in the inner city is not attractive to families.

Infilling wont fix that, retrofitting or the wrecking ball are the only solutions to that problem.
I think its time the development plans for the city included some ammount of demolition/re-construction, e.g. along the quays where the very poor quality apartment blocks built by Zoe in the 90's add no value to the City.
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:41 pm

gunter wrote:All of that sounds fine . . . . . if we were dealing with a planned extension to a compact trviving city. The problem, as Graham has illuminated very well, is that this is not what we're dealing with in Dublin.

In Dublin, as Frank McDonald has also been pointing out for years, the fundamental problem is the lack of density in the core, that is why half the city feels lifeless and disjointed, that is why many city centre streets don't even have a single functioning shop on them and that is why so much of the urban realm is desperately low grade compared to comparable European equivalents.


The great Frank McDonald. Do you know that he once supported this project by calling for an underground Luas link to the airport in 2000?

In any case, you're quite wrong in saying that density is a problem in Dublin. Dublin has a higher population density than other cities in which a metro already exists. In any case, if a density problem did exist, Metro North will help to solve this since there will be stops at Stephen's Green, O'Connell St, Parnell Square, Drumcondra and Griffith Avenue. All of these are well within the city and having a high-speed metro stop nearby will support development in these areas. Metro North will also link with the DART at two locations in the inner city allowing more switching between these forms of transport and supporting more transit in the city and supporting greater densities. As if that wasn't enough, Metro North links with bus routes all along its route and this will spread the benefit of the Metro throughout the whole northside.

[quote]Unfortunately, grafting on a single, isolated, state-of-the-art, publin transport intervention like MN address none of that and instead it brings with it the very real prospect that the route hinterland will be retro-planned as a high intensity development corridor, with the L.A.s and other agencies cashing in with infrastructure corridor premium rate planning levies, and all that this will do is tend to dilute, not reinforce, the city centre. Even if MN costs us nothing right now or for the foreseeable future, the price we'll pay will is in botched urban planning, again.[/QUOTE

And this is where you are wrong. It's not single and isolated. It is being built in conjunction with the Luas BXD, Dart Underground, Metro West and the introduction of integrated ticketting. Once all these things are in place Dublin will have a public transport system worthy of the 21st century and our role as a capital city of an EU member state.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:45 pm

wearnicehats wrote:
And I'm also tired of the argument of "well other cities have one, why shouldn't we?" It's just nonsense. Next time you're in London, for example, check a road map before the tube map. I once took a 50 minute, 3 change, sweltering, awful, tube journey to meet some friends to be told upon arrival that I was originally no more than a 20 minute amble in the sun away


No, it isn't. Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna and Zurich all have rail lines which link the city centre to the airport. This is because these cities have rightfully realised that having a direct, rapid and reliable link between the city centre and the primary means by which people access the city internationally is essential. The tube mightn't have been ideal for you in that one case but, in the vast majority of cases, a rail link from the city centre to the airport makes things easier and better.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby PVC King » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:36 pm

Devin wrote:What?? The problems with the city centre are use, not density. The densities in the city core are quite good. Any problems related to density in Dublin are due to the chronic suburban sprawl extending for 30, 40, 50 miles outside. A certain amount of infilling and appropriate intensification can be done in the core, but there are no fundamental problems with density.


You are both right; the overall density in Dublin's core area has historically been poor much of it to do with the Docklands and inner western areas such as Cork Street areas to the being completely under-use; for example Carroll Transport on JR Quay as a haulage yards or the substantial DCC facility on Marrowbone lane being used as a giant storage area for every type of municpal lighting and cleaning device ever invented. Equally there has been a huge hangover from the 1960-1990 period of mono-use developments particularly office schemes which have deprived the pre 1960 Core of a retained population.

If there was a defined 'Core' as opposed to various peoples opinions it would be helpful; but if one asks a much more pertinent question; which areas of the City within 2 miles of O'Connell Bridge have the greatest potential for medium to high density redevelopment in a manner that is sustainable and respectful of existing urban quality then clearly the Docklands and Hueston are the obvious way to extend the 'Core' and ensure that the Dublin of the 21st Century is a real city and not an agglomeration of dormitary towns.

If the interconnector were built and if the Luas lines joined up; Dublin would have a very strong public transport platform from which to build. When does the bus terminus for Dublin Airport get completed?
PVC King
 

Re: Metro North

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:15 pm

Cathal Dunne wrote:No, it isn't. Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna and Zurich all have rail lines which link the city centre to the airport. This is because these cities have rightfully realised that having a direct, rapid and reliable link between the city centre and the primary means by which people access the city internationally is essential. The tube mightn't have been ideal for you in that one case but, in the vast majority of cases, a rail link from the city centre to the airport makes things easier and better.


Position - standing on Leeson Street. Option - bus to airport €6. Taxi to airport €45. Look in wallet. Decision - Take bus. Arrive in same place 10 or 15 minutes later than the cab.

Position - country bankrupt. Option - build metro north or keep existing slightly awkward option into city centre. Look in coffers. Decision - ?

The airport is not the issue here. If it were we'd build a rail link through the tunnel and up the M50. No tourist gets the tube to heathrow - they get the heathrow or gatwick expresses that stop twice on the way in. Same in Paris - the train doesn't stop at every hole in the hedge. People don't decide not to come to Ireland because it's a bit of a pain to get into town from the airport. They decide not to come because it's overpriced, litter strewn and, ultimately, disappointing.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:03 pm

wearnicehats wrote:Position - standing on Leeson Street. Option - bus to airport €6. Taxi to airport €45. Look in wallet. Decision - Take bus. Arrive in same place 10 or 15 minutes later than the cab.


Exactly, it's a slow, inefficient and totally without the capacity to serve a capital of a European state which is supposed to be living in the 21st century. With a direct rail link you'll be able to get to the airport quicker, cheaper and more reliably with Metro North. Furthermore, Dublin Airport is due to grow to about 40 million passengers over the next 20 years. Buses simply cannot provide sufficient capacity to service an increase in demand like this. Dublin is already unique in Europe for forcing its citizens and tourists to use taxis, buses and private cars as the only means by which you can commute to the airport. A rail link has been needed for years.

Position - country bankrupt. Option - build metro north or keep existing slightly awkward option into city centre. Look in coffers. Decision - ?


The capital programme has already been revised to adapt to our more constrained times - bypasses of several towns have been postponed - but Metro North has rightfully been identified as too important to mess with, not least considering its been delayed by about 10 years. Secondly, we can't just muddle through with our inadequate infrastructure and hope to make do. Now that building costs are down, now is the time to provide infrastructure which will benefit Ireland for over a century to come. Thirdly, we don't pay a cent for Metro North until it starts taking passengers in 2017/19. It's being provided as a PPP.

The airport is not the issue here. If it were we'd build a rail link through the tunnel and up the M50.


A rail link through the port tunnel would defeat the purpose of the tunnel, ie, to take trucks off our streets and get them to and from the Port quickly. The building works alone would necessitate the closure of the tunnel and put us straight back to pre-Tunnel days with all the attendant risks to pedestrians and cyclists with all the trucks back in the city centre. After building the line capacity on the port tunnel would be vastly reduced and would lead to more trucks on our streets long term. It is also an unacceptably high safety hazard to have trains and trucks travelling so close to one another. It would be a disaster waiting to happen.

No tourist gets the tube to heathrow - they get the heathrow or gatwick expresses that stop twice on the way in.


Well that's news to me as the two times I've been to London I've gotten the Piccadilly line into the city and back to Heathrow. There were no difficulties and underlines the benefits of having a rapid, reliable and high-capacity rail link between city centre and airport.

Same in Paris - the train doesn't stop at every hole in the hedge.


Well the rail link from Charles De Gaulle Airport to the city centre has 6 stops in between which is comparable to Metro which has 8. The Mater, Children's Hospital, DCU and Drumcondra are hardly holes in the hedge - they're major trip-generators which will, along with their bus-feeders, create a wholly new and better way to get around Dublin on the northside.

People don't decide not to come to Ireland because it's a bit of a pain to get into town from the airport. They decide not to come because it's overpriced, litter strewn and, ultimately, disappointing.


It's one of those things which build up to create an infrastructure deficit of about 30 years. Once Metro North, West, the DART Interconnector and Luas BXD are all built, we will have a public transport network which can serve the Greater Dublin Area for the next 30 years.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby gunter » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:33 pm

A rail link to the airport would be a nice thing to have, I don't think anyone disputes that. It is slightly embarrasing that Dublin doesn't have one. The problem as I see it with MN is that it's a disproportionate, Tiger-era-trophy, response to that gap in the city brochure, and if it is proceeded with in these straightened times, two consequences are likely to follow:

1. The network of Luas lines that we should have planned, immediately after the building of the first two lines demonstrated the popularity and success of re-introducing trams, will slip further down the transportation agenda.

2. Development energies will gravitate to the outer reaches of the MN route hinterland fuelled by a planning mileau that will embrace the proximity to this major transportation corridor as the justification for a ribbon of high density development that should instead be directed to the under-performing areas within the city centre.

Dublin has a shocking density deficit, the city centre has more density holes in it than a Swiss cheese, anyone who thinks the density of the core area [we'll use the canal ring as a working definition] is near enough fine is seriously deluding themselves IMO. I understand that the Corpo undertook a land use survey of the city a few years ago and were shocked at the amount of un-used, or under-used, lands that it turned up. However in typical Corpo fashion, instead of the survey triggering a series of actions and prototype interventions that might have begun to stimulate the regeneration of these lands, the study seems to have gotten itself filed away on a shelf somewhere.

I accept the point that MN is not 'isolated' in the sense that it is intended to be integrated with Dart, Luas etc. and that there is a city centre section that could only be positive [if less positive in my view than an on-street Luas alternative], but as a - Metro line - it is a one-off that is unlikely to be developed into a comprehensive network in our lifetime, certainly if Luas is anything to go by, and that makes building it incomprehensible in my view.

We've gotten by with a piecemeal approach in Dublin for years, a bit of a bus lane here, a few trams and a bit of rail electrification there, and now we're on the verge of throwing a bit of Metro into the mix, what's next, a cable car and a mono-rail? Would it not be better to fix on one solution, stick with it and build a network?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Metro North

Postby Cathal Dunne » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:38 am

gunter wrote:A rail link to the airport would be a nice thing to have, I don't think anyone disputes that. It is slightly embarrasing that Dublin doesn't have one. The problem as I see it with MN is that it's a disproportionate, Tiger-era-trophy, response to that gap in the city brochure, and if it is proceeded with in these straightened times, two consequences are likely to follow:


I'm glad you recognise the advantages and benefits a rail link to the airport will bring. What I'll disagree with you is you saying it's disproportionate. If anything, Metro North is an under-powered scheme compared to initial plans. The original Dublin Rapid Transit Scheme had the airport rail link as a DART-standard heavy rail line under the city. Metro North is actually light rail with a capacity of only 2/3rds that of heavy rail.

1. The network of Luas lines that we should have planned, immediately after the building of the first two lines demonstrated the popularity and success of re-introducing trams, will slip further down the transportation agenda.


Not true. Luas BXD is also in the works and will be completed over the next 10 years. The only reason the link-up wasn't built was that businesses around College Green objected to having their trade disrupted like those on Harcourt St.. Now that those very same businesses along the Luas lines have seen an increase in trade, the same objectors are clamouring for BXD. That means it will be completed.

2. Development energies will gravitate to the outer reaches of the MN route hinterland fuelled by a planning mileau that will embrace the proximity to this major transportation corridor as the justification for a ribbon of high density development that should instead be directed to the under-performing areas within the city centre.


Again, not true. When you take MN and DARTu together, Dublin between the canals will have 8 new stations. Add that to the Luas BXD and you have significantly better public transport infrastructure at the very heart of our city. Moreover, most of the stations further out on MN exist to serve specific transport needs. Ballymun was left out of the revisions to the Luas network and so is deprived of light rail - Metro provides this. DCU is a rapidly-growing university without proper rail access - Metro provides this. Swords is suffering from poor connectivity to the city centre - Metro provides this. On top of that, once MN is built, an extension to the Northern line via Malahide/Donabate to link MN with it will make the situation even better.

Dublin has a shocking density deficit, the city centre has more density holes in it than a Swiss cheese, anyone who thinks the density of the core area [we'll use the canal ring as a working definition] is near enough fine is seriously deluding themselves IMO. I understand that the Corpo undertook a land use survey of the city a few years ago and were shocked at the amount of un-used, or under-used, lands that it turned up. However in typical Corpo fashion, instead of the survey triggering a series of actions and prototype interventions that might have begun to stimulate the regeneration of these lands, the study seems to have gotten itself filed away on a shelf somewhere.


Well the DARTu will have the effect of not only linking up Dublin's rail network, it will also have spin-off development benefits too. There are plans to re-develop areas around stations to a higher density and that will sort out the problems you point out. In any case, there are cities with lower densities and populations than Dublin which already have Metro.

I accept the point that MN is not 'isolated' in the sense that it is intended to be integrated with Dart, Luas etc. and that there is a city centre section that could only be positive [if less positive in my view than an on-street Luas alternative], but as a - Metro line - it is a one-off that is unlikely to be developed into a comprehensive network in our lifetime, certainly if Luas is anything to go by, and that makes building it incomprehensible in my view.


Not true. The Luas Green Line was built to Metro standard and, once MN is completed, can be upgraded to Metro standard. There are also proposals to bore tunnels out towards Terenure. MN will also link with Metro West at Dardistown. In addition to this, many cities like Amsterdam, Prague and Copenhagen have multiple modes of public transport - trams, heavy rail, buses and underground - and they are able to knit them together into one grand scheme. Once we have integrated ticketing by 2011 and an integrated transport network by 2020, the comprehensive network you seek will be a reality.

We've gotten by with a piecemeal approach in Dublin for years, a bit of a bus lane here, a few trams and a bit of rail electrification there, and now we're on the verge of throwing a bit of Metro into the mix, what's next, a cable car and a mono-rail? Would it not be better to fix on one solution, stick with it and build a network?


Well we did have that plan, it was called the Dublin Rapid Transit Scheme. It was going to build three heavy rail lines through Dublin and would have fixed all our problems at a stroke. To meet future demands we would only have had to build spurs onto it. Unfortunately that fell victim to the same short-sighted types who now oppose Metro North and only the coastal rail portion which we now know as DART was built. MN exists to right those historical wrongs as part of the overall Transport 21 plans for the city.
Cathal Dunne
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby PVC King » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:30 am

Cathal Dunne wrote:


Not true. The Luas Green Line was built to Metro standard and, once MN is completed, can be upgraded to Metro standard. There are also proposals to bore tunnels out towards Terenure. MN will also link with Metro West at Dardistown. In addition to this, many cities like Amsterdam, Prague and Copenhagen have multiple modes of public transport - trams, heavy rail, buses and underground - and they are able to knit them together into one grand scheme. Once we have integrated ticketing by 2011 and an integrated transport network by 2020, the comprehensive network you seek will be a reality.




Which is it the cut price metro you claim is possible but can't find a cost benefit analysis for or the wider extended network.

Ternerure extension - binned
Metro West - binned
Metro North - BX & CIE Bus Station
PVC King
 

Re: Metro North

Postby missarchi » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:43 am

If Ireland cannot afford to do metro north/daru properly while balling out the banks something is seriously wrong and not asking for "funds from existing land owners" would make you ask the question?

Does the architecture reflect our banking system? same ... different .....
who profits from bad architecture and bad interest?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0901/1224277975056.html

The market is chocolate who bought it all? The market has double standards and therefore double trouble...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0901/1224277975118.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0830/1224277855062.html
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Metro North

Postby ac1976 » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:39 am

missarchi wrote: If Ireland cannot afford to do metro north/daru properly while balling out the banks something is seriously wrong



Something IS seriously wrong; we are broke!

Myers in the Indo continues his attack on MN and throws in the Dart Underground today...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-we-dont-need-bp-to-go-prospecting-in-our-waters-to-face-ruin-metro-north-will-do-it-2319379.html
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Irish Planning Matters