Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus?

This is a last very desperate move by the RPA to get an Airport ‘metro’ line built.

Note how the figure is below €1.9billion to make it more appealing. This figure doesn’t even include the cost of the train, ticket machines and even escalators. That figure is just for the boring of the tunnel.

This is also a move to make people think that the RPA actually do something useful other than wasting taxpayers money and they can continue getting paid easy money. The RPA should be scrapped. They really haven’t got a clue.

Irish Rail should be handling anything to do with rail. IE originally designed the Luas (B4 the RPA got their hands on it and messed up the plans) and the DART and have many years experience with rail. There is nothing the RPA can do that IE can’t.

This would firstly reduce the cost of any project. IE actually have a excellent record of keeping costs of a project either very close to or below budget. IE have their very own in-house engineers, so when it come to designing issues like the route, they design the route to go where it is needed and makes sure that it is integrated with other lines.

All this ‘metro’ line is for is to get from O’Connell St to Dublin airport. And all for wonderful value of €1.9b + the rest + inflation. If we are desperate to like the airport to rail then IE have a plan to create a spur line from the existing DART line in Baldoyle to the airport. The cost, €400million. This line would also serve the 12500 new houses that are expected to appear in this area of north Dublin over the next few years, saving 12500 extra cars from driving down the Drumcondra and the Malahide roads which are jammed up at the moment.

There is simply far too many cars commuting. This seriously effects our quality of life. As for business, they are loosing over a billion Euro and year because of it. The airport ‘metro’ will do very little to improve this.

Please, stop talking about a ‘metro’ line or building new roads and talk about IE simple and cost effective plan uniquely called the GREATER DUBLIN INTERGRATED RAIL PLAN or GDRP. Click Here
The GDRP actually deals in reducing car numbers by giving people a real alternative to commuting.

The RPA are simply involved in a price war with CIE at this stage. It is not even about integrated public transport anymore. They just want the money to build any kind of metro, no matter how unintegrated or pointless it is.

Just give CIE the money to build the Interconnector/Dublin Rail Plan and enough of this codology.

@hutton wrote:

All change for Metro terminus – From the Sunday Independent

NICK WEBB

THE Railway Procurement Authority is now looking at starting the proposed Metro transport system from near O’Connell Street on Dublin’s north side rather than St Stephen’s Green as it seeks to reduce the cost of the proposed system.

RPA chairman Padraic White said the initial “hardcore cost” of the Metro would be up to €1.9bn.

It had been suggested that the construction would cost up to €4.8bn but White said that this figure referred to 20-year costs for the system.

ENDS

😮 !!!

So there you go – “Integrated transport/ planning”, my ar$e! I just love the Irish concept of non-connected/ non-compatible mass transit systems. What gauge will it be this time? I hear 3’6″ is making a comeback.

Looking forward to another fine white elephant :rolleyes:

Dublin Airport is 3.5 Kms away from the DART (already fully integrated with with Regional and National Rail, Luas and Bus service) and there is nothing in between but empty countryside.

@P11 Comms wrote:

Dublin Airport is 3.5 Kms away from the DART (already fully integrated with with Regional and National Rail, Luas and Bus service) and there is nothing in between but empty countryside.

This line is already at capacity – the last thing it needs is more trains on it. It doesnt matter that there is nothing between the airport and the line if there is not capacity on the busiest train line in the country to run it. Unless you want to remove some of the northern suburban, Malahide and Howth services

@Rory W wrote:

This line is already at capacity – the last thing it needs is more trains on it. It doesnt matter that there is nothing between the airport and the line if there is not capacity on the busiest train line in the country to run it. Unless you want to remove some of the northern suburban, Malahide and Howth services

You are correct, but IE’s DASH project should start to change that.

After the platforms are upgraded so they can handle the 8 carriage DART trains, the signal system will be upgraded between Connolly and Pearse. This will increase the capacity so the existing DART service can absorb the Airport service if required.

However it is IE’s Greater Dublin Rail Plan (click here) which will then take service to a ‘metro’ standard, taking most of the suburban diesel train services out and replacing with DART, the capacity will increases further.

@Rory W wrote:

This line is already at capacity – the last thing it needs is more trains on it. It doesnt matter that there is nothing between the airport and the line if there is not capacity on the busiest train line in the country to run it. Unless you want to remove some of the northern suburban, Malahide and Howth services

Sure, that’s how things are right now at this present time. But Post-DASH and with the arrival of Spencer Dock, the situation will change and extra capacity will be released on the Northern Line

If the Dublin Rail Plan is fully implemented, then you are talking 6 double decker trains per hour from the airport to Hueston under the city centre in each direction.

Couple this with the already integrated nature of the present IE rail network and the RPA’s ‘bit of an oul metro’ is just a farce and offers appalling value for money.

The plan has been updated on the P11 website: http://www.platform11.org/inter_faq.html

To me this sounds like a thoroughly thought out plan. Whereas a single-line Metro from Airport to…somewhere is just pie in the sky. What is Cullens agenda here? Why the rush to put this Metro in place.

If there is no Metro, then the only projects left for the RPA are integrated ticketing and the extension of the Luas lines.
With the integrated ticketing project almost finished, tortuously late but not as noticeably, they will have little or nothing to do. The plans for the IFSC, Cherrywood Extensions are well advanced and by no means justify the existence of a separate Agency at this point. If the Metro plan dies, the RPA’s raison d’etre (apart from connecting the two lines they built separately) disappears.

It may be a naive question – but if the P11 plan is feasible and so cost-effective and fundamentally logical – as it appears to be by all accounts – then why isn’t it being readily adopted? (this being asked by someone who would benefit directly from the planned diversion of much of the existing traffic from Connolly)

Interesting points re the RPA there…

They need to get sign off on a 3.4 billion euro plan (to be spent over a number of years). That’s always going to be hard to do. It’s not clear that the minister for transport or the taoiseach think it’s worth spending so much money on rail transport. Bertie publicly stated that the airport metro was too expensive even though it was to go through his own constituency. Improving life for people living along the Kildare and Maynooth lines must be somewhat further down his priorities.

I’d guess the government sees more votes in a short term spending of the same money on current expenditure in health and education. I doubt they will ever reject the plan but rather do nothing and keep saying that a decision is imminent.

If they haven’t approved the plan by the next election, you know what to do.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

It may be a naive question – but if the P11 plan is feasible and so cost-effective and fundamentally logical – as it appears to be by all accounts – then why isn’t it being readily adopted? (this being asked by someone who would benefit directly from the planned diversion of much of the existing traffic from Connolly)

Interesting points re the RPA there…

It’s simple, Irish Politics.

This plan is Irish Rails plan and has appeared in front of the Minister for Transport desk in 1992, 1998 and 2004.

It was considered in 1992 but was dropped for a cheaper light rail project, which we all now know as the Luas (which at the time had a plan for a LUAS line from Dundrum to Ballymun).
It reappeared in 1998 but very quickly disappeared probably due to the Luas again.
It reappeared again last year but the then Minister Seamus Brennan was bent of getting a airport ‘metro’ built even though others including Bertie was against it. Luckily for us Brennan is gone and so to is the ridiculous airport ‘metro’ scheme.

So really it is only now that the government recognised the value of the greater Dublin Rail Plan. And we all know how super fast this government is in getting things done. 😀

But I’m hopeful that the government will announce the go ahead of the Interconnector and the DART extensions either this year or next.

I’d be interested to hear impartially what the disadvantages of the IE plan is compared to the metro though.. there must be some? Even though overall it seems pretty clear that platform11 have by far the superior strategy. Would the IE plan mean a longer journey time form the city to the airport for example? …I realise this would still probably be a minor point compared to the integration the other plan would offer… Just trying to get the facts straight!

Since the two don’t compete for anything except funds and passengers from the airport to the city centre, there’s not much point listing comparisons. However, the proposed metro line serves an area of the North city not served by the Dublin Rail Plan, and it is likely that the journey from O’Connell Street to the airport would be marginally faster than the journey from Connolly on the Dart. The metro really looks bad when you compare journey times from anywhere other than a station on the line – imagine how long it would take to get to the airport from Park West on train, tram and metro compared to a single-change train journey.

@weehamster wrote:

IBut I’m hopeful that the government will announce the go ahead of the Interconnector and the DART extensions either this year or next.

I agree. Bertie stated in the Dail that Interconnector/Dublin Rail Plan was impressive. Everybody who comes across it and compares it to the Airport Metro is struck by how more practical and integrated the CIE plan is. I was on the Gerry Ryan show this morning and even he said as I was explaining why we need it with the limited imformation I fed his producer the night before agreed it was the solution to car congestion in Dublin as the majority of the traffic is coming from outside the M50.

Just about everybody with the exception of the RPA is on board at this stage. The best plans are nearly always the most simple and achieved incrementally over time in stages which deliver results at each stage and CIE/IE have been doing just that. The shift towards the announcement of the tunnel and the DART extentions is organic at this stage.

It’s a matter of “when” and not “if”.

The IE plan would provide a direct connection from Heuston to the airport and a single change from Connolly to the airport. It would benefit the whole of Ireland. The RPA plan just links the centre of Dublin to the airport.

The RPA can never back this plan because they would be effectively voting themselves out of existence (and a job)?

If the Metro plan dies, the RPA’s raison d’etre (apart from connecting the two lines they built separately) disappears.

No, there’s also the plan the chief Dublin city planner wants; extending Luas along the Thomas Street/Dame Street/Pearse Street axis to link with existing or upcoming lines at James’ Street and the Point Depot (described as ‘figure of 8’).

@Diaspora wrote:

I’m afraid that as aesthetically pleasing as Dick’s figure of 8 may be it will not address fundamental issues of Irish Rail transportation, it is all the population of Ireland that we should be trying to serve here

Diaspora, could think before you post and not just bang down the first thing that comes into your head? Where does it say that the ‘figure of 8’ purports to serve the country’s or greater Dublin area’s commuting needs? (nowhere) – It is a city centre plan, designed to make it easier to get around the centre, link major tourist attractions and promote urban regeration in places that need it, like James’ Street. It also improves the public realm of the city by removing unecessary through traffic.

was replying to comment about RPA

The RPA have damaged their credibility so much with their latest plan that it will take much more than the support of Dick Gleeson; to survive beyond completing the point and Cherrywood extensions. If DCC wants to see their rates base grow substantially they should be supporting measures to get large numbers of consumers and commuters into the CBD & Office core on the only relevant transport mode that doesn’t add to the existing gridlock. Luas is a QBC not equivelnt to nine lanes on either side of a proper metal barrier that doesn’t allow cars to cross onto the opposing carriageway.

Take it from me, if the figure of 8 is built it won’t be by the RPA, by then IE will be getting a much fairer slice of the cake and Luas will not only be run by the private sector but they will be designing it as well.

Double post

Double cost

The RPA could build a luas from Stephens Green to Ballymun for 500m
IE can build a link to Dublin Airport …………………………………….for 450m

The RPA want 1,900m to build an unconnected line that isn’t as long

For 2,250 or less than 20% more than the RPA proposal The Eastern Region could have all of the RPA benefits plus:

Every rail service no more than 1 change (excluding Ballina & Kerry) from Dublin Airport & IKEA
200% increase in the Leinster commuter capacity at peak times
A luas system completed as planned in 1997
New stations serving both the North & South Docklands, Christchurch and a heavily rail staion close to Grafton St for the first time.

Yes the name sucks but you cant put it to a vote . Im afraid it is not a option . According to Irish Rail it is required if the rail system in Dublin is to avoid grinding to a halt due to lack of capacity.

Here the presentation from Irish Rail

click here

Now in regard to no difference between Luas and a QBC, well us northsiders would gladly take the Luas as all the QBC in the northside dont work during peak times as the bus is stuck in the same traffic as the rest of the road users.

Thats a great presentation and did I hear one of your mob on Gerry Ryan during the week, very impressive, I think the RPA have a lot explaining to do if thats the best they can come up with.

@Thomond Park wrote:

did I hear one of your mob on Gerry Ryan during the week, very impressive, I think the RPA have a lot explaining to do if thats the best they can come up with.

Thanks. Gerry Ryan more or less gave us an open mic for seven minutes before the lunchtime news, and within 15 minutes of the interview ending, both the http://www.platform11.org and the http://www.extendthedart.com sites were bombarded and it lasted all day and into the night with the Interconnector FAQ pages getting some serious hits. The calls were still coming into the GR show the following morning.

I presume you’ll be lobbying for a space on Morning Ireland next?

Extolling the virtues of park and ride to all the gridlocked motorists

Airport Metro Timings Versus Interconnector/Dublin Plan
Platform11’s Detailed Examination:

http://www.platform11.org/metrospeed.html

Much has been made of the metro project as a key element to combat Dublin’s chronic transport problems. We contend that upon a detailed examination of the benefits it offers in terms of journey time and capacity, that the metro in its proposed form offers very little.

Thanks,
http://www.platform11.org
http://www.extendthedart.com

In todays Independent..

Transport Minister Martin Cullen is reportedly planning a €6bn 10-year transport package that will include the construction of a second terminal at Dublin Airport and an underground metro line linking the airport to the city centre.
Reports this morning said the package included €3.5bn for the metro line, which would run from the city centre to Swords, via the Rotunda Hospital, Dorset Street, Drumcondra and Whitehall.

It also reportedly includes the reopening of commuter rail services between Dublin and Meath at a cost of €156m, the expansion of services in Co Kildare at a cost of €400m and the building of an underground line between Heuston and Connolly Stations at a cost of €1bn.

Elsewhere, this morning’s reports said the plan envisaged the replacing of toll booths on the Westlink bridge with pay-as-you-go and billed charges.

Details of the plan are reportedly due to be announced next month if the cabinet approves the spending.

Thoughts?

€3.5 billion. Well there goes any chance of the DART being extended to Drogheda, Dunboyne, Maynooth and Kildare and there goes a chance of properly dealing with road traffic in Dublin with in the next 10 years.

Does the 3.5bn cover linking the Airport to Sandyford or the joke of leaving it terminate on O’Connell St?

The line looks like from Swords to St Stephens Green via the Airport. Cost €3.5b

Extending the DART from Malahide to Drogheda, Upgrade the Heuston to Kildare line to a DARTand linking these 2 line with a tunnell from Heuston to Spencer Dock, intergrating with all lines including the 2 Luas lines, extend the DART from Connolly to Maynooth and creating new spurs, from Clonee to North of Dunboyne and from Grange Road on the existing DART to the airport (only 3.5km away) Cost €3.4b

Which do you think would have a greater impact with getting commuters out from their cars and onto the train, therefore greatly reducing the traffic numbers.

Clearly the interconnecter was part of the P11 plan, but how much of their proposal is’nt implemented by what Cullen is proposing? (I think a new Spencer Dock station is to go ahead as well).

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Does the 3.5bn cover linking the Airport to Sandyford or the joke of leaving it terminate on O’Connell St?

It appears that we will know on Sunday at midnight with the announcement of the ten year capital funding programme being announced on platform 11

I’ve just been flicking through here and had a quick look at the P11 site-specfically the plan on it. Have a few questions if anyone can answer them for me….
:confused: The red and green DART lines running up past Stephen’s Green-are these above or below ground?And if below ground, would this not be extremely difficult to carry out, given the types of buildings, their age, and the designs they tend to built to i.e many basements etc-in that area?
:confused: Insted of linking the LUAS lines together at connolly, would it be easier to link them together at the St. James stop that’s there alredy?This is just from looking at the plan, I’m not exactly sure of the area between the 2 places.That would possibly mean less tunnelling for DARTS?Maybe easier?
🙁 Does any of this include expanding the stations currently in existence? I travel in on the Northern commuter line every day to Pearse station, and while extending the DART to MAlahide is an excellent idea, it appears to be messy juggling the timetables for the DART with the commuter train timetable.While the southside of the city has DARTS every 10 minutes or so, all day, you regularly arrive at Malahide and find yourself waiting maybe 30 mins. Also in the morning when the DARTS are every 15 mins, people at Malahide push on the commuter trains, and give out because there’s no space for them.Can they not just wait????The DART is there for them, at least they have the option!The rest of us HAVE to get the commuter train!!Also connolly station, although it currently has 7 platforms, there are only 2 tracks heading out of the south side of the station. So no matter how many trains are in that station only one at a time can ever enter or leave.So intelligent….
:confused: Grange Road?New station???
:confused: Isn’t there a rail line running up past Croke Park and up by a canal, around Phibsboro somewhere? Does that get included?
I’m glad to see that the plan seems to focus on connecting the area AROUND Dublin to the centre, as opposed to connecting the centre of Dublin to, well, the centre.Let’s face it, you can walk from one side of Dublin centre to the other, and there are hundreds of buses crossing the liffey, to the main shopping streets of Dublin. And now the LUAS aswell. It’s just if you try and get to, say, Park West from Lusk, or Clontarf to Red Cow that you run into trouble. Or maybe Adamstown to Blackrock.And considering that’s what most people are trying to do almost everyday, what choice do they have at the moment but to drive???Trains aren’t great, but buses are seriously a lot worse, if you live anywhere except the southside of Dublin really. You could be waiting forever to get a bus.

THE PROPOSED METRO IS FLAWED
While Platform11 supports the concept of a Metro system for Dublin, we believe that Iarnrod Eireann’s Dublin Rail Plan, which incorporates the Heuston-Spencer Dock “Interconnector” tunnel, and a DART connection to Dublin Airport to be the key infrastructural project for the Greater Dublin Region.

A Technical Briefing
The Proposed Dublin Metro is Flawed
Mark Gleeson, Technical Advisor to Platform11
March 20, 2005
http://www.platform11.org/metro_eng_eval.pdf

The red and green DART lines running up past Stephen’s Green-are these above or below ground?And if below ground, would this not be extremely difficult to carry out, given the types of buildings, their age, and the designs they tend to built to i.e many basements etc-in that area?

This is the so called ‘Interconnector’ and it runs underground from Spencer Dock to Heuston station. The tunnelling would be 20m underground and wouldnt effect the buildings over head.

Insted of linking the LUAS lines together at connolly, would it be easier to link them together at the St. James stop that’s there alredy?

A bit confused here. Are you referring to the Point depot Luas extension from Connolly? If so , this is already a defo and should start construction early next year.
If you refer to the linking of the 2 current Luas lines, they link at Abbey Street not at Connolly and is only 1km in length. As for joining at St James, the interconnector is heading down the same route and is pointless to have a Luas line going down the same route. Its also longer and would cost more.

That would possibly mean less tunnelling for DARTS?Maybe easier?

The interconnector cant really be shortened any more. The current route is a MUST if dublin is to have a intregrated rail system by linking all the lines including the Luass to each other.

I travel in on the Northern commuter line every day to Pearse station, and while extending the DART to MAlahide is an excellent idea, it appears to be messy juggling the timetables for the DART with the commuter train timetable.While the southside of the city has DARTS every 10 minutes or so, all day, you regularly arrive at Malahide and find yourself waiting maybe 30 mins. Also in the morning when the DARTS are every 15 mins, people at Malahide push on the commuter trains, and give out because there’s no space for them.Can they not just wait????The DART is there for them, at least they have the option!The rest of us HAVE to get the commuter train!!Also connolly station, although it currently has 7 platforms, there are only 2 tracks heading out of the south side of the station. So no matter how many trains are in that station only one at a time can ever enter or leave.So intelligent….

This is all dissapear after the Dublin Rail Plan. All the current Commuter service from Connolly to Drogheda will be removed as the DART would be extended to Drogheda and therefore getting rid of the WARPED timetable the DART currently suffers from.
Also congestion at Connolly would be reduced as the northern DART line will no longer stop at Connolly but will turn off to East Wall (new station) and to Spencer Dock (new station) and through the Interconnector and on to the Kildare DART line. Only the Dundalk and Belfast ‘Enterprise’ services will continue as usual but stop at Connolly. It wont continue on to Tara and Pearse St.
The Current South DART line will link to the Maynooth DART line at Connolly.

Grange Road?New station??

Yes. There is planned development there and this is also needed to link the Drogheda to Kildare DART line to the Dublin Airport spur. Any station in the Plan that is not on the DART/Irish Rail website is a new stop.

Isn’t there a rail line running up past Croke Park and up by a canal, around Phibsboro somewhere? Does that get included?

The Croke Park Line will be used for Commuters and Intercity services only heading to the new Spencer Dock and not to Connolly (less traffic stopping at Connolly).
The Maynooth DART will use the line at the Hill 16 side of Croke park which will use the current Drumcondra station. These 2 line will join at Glasneven Jtn .

I’m glad to see that the plan seems to focus on connecting the area AROUND Dublin to the centre, as opposed to connecting the centre of Dublin to, well, the centre.Let’s face it, you can walk from one side of Dublin centre to the other, and there are hundreds of buses crossing the liffey, to the main shopping streets of Dublin. And now the LUAS aswell. It’s just if you try and get to, say, Park West from Lusk, or Clontarf to Red Cow that you run into trouble. Or maybe Adamstown to Blackrock.And considering that’s what most people are trying to do almost everyday, what choice do they have at the moment but to drive???Trains aren’t great, but buses are seriously a lot worse, if you live anywhere except the southside of Dublin really. You could be waiting forever to get a bus

Again this will all change after the Dublin Rail Plan.

I advise you to take a closer look at the plan at P11 web site and all of your question would have been answered.

@P11 Comms wrote:

THE PROPOSED METRO IS FLAWED
While Platform11 supports the concept of a Metro system for Dublin, we believe that Iarnrod Eireann’s Dublin Rail Plan, which incorporates the Heuston-Spencer Dock “Interconnector” tunnel, and a DART connection to Dublin Airport to be the key infrastructural project for the Greater Dublin Region.

A Technical Briefing
The Proposed Dublin Metro is Flawed
Mark Gleeson, Technical Advisor to Platform11
March 20, 2005
http://www.platform11.org/metro_eng_eval.pdf

Well done Mark that is thoroughly researched and well written document, there are three things that stand out for me, firstly the Trade Board Act of 1846 which lays down the regulations for broad gauge only as being the standard for rail developments. Secondly the issue of two car stations that is a point that platform 11 has made very well over the past couple of years, the expression future proofing really does spring to mind in regard to a complete underground rebuild being required should Swords be plugged in, and a rail connection is a major issue with anyone from Swords that I talk to.

Thirdly the issue of non-compliance with part M of the building regulations in relation to people with disabilities, this is a disgrace and one can only think of the tremeandous sucess of the special olympics in 2003 and wonder what would happen if large numbers if the athletes were unable to use an RPA metro system?

Originally Posted by Irish Indo
Metro work to begin in April

Chaos feared as new city Luas link gets green light as well

Treacy Hogan

Environment Correspondent

DIGGING work on the controversial €1.5bn Metro line from Dublin city to the airport gets under way in April, it was revealed yesterday.

The fact that the initial exploratory work begins so soon will come as a surprise to commuters and businesses.

Already serious concerns have been raised over the impact of the digging and tunnelling works on traffic.

We will have to put up with digging for the Metro – to be completed by 2015 – and for a new link between the two unconnected Luas lines in the city centre.

Both rail systems will be totally separate but will run along exactly the same route as far as O’Connell Street, the Metro running underground, the Luas link running overground.

The Metro route from the city centre to Swords via Dublin Airport is being officially unveiled by the Government next week following a briefing to the Cabinet by Transport Minister Martin Cullen, yesterday.

The Metro is expected to go from St Stephen’s Green, Westmoreland Street, O’Connell Street, Dorset Street, Griffith Avenue, Glasnevin and Dublin City University (DCU), Ballymun, Dublin Airport, and on to Swords. Travel time to the airport is estimated at 17 minutes.

Separately, a €100m Luas line linking the two unconnected lines from Tallaght and Sandyford will also go from St Stephen’s Green, Westmoreland Street, and O’Connell Street.

Work on this project is due to get under way later this year and the link is due to be finished by 2009. This is the route which emerged as the most popular with the public during consultations on possible routes.

Following a Cabinet meeting Mr Cullen announced that the route for the Metro will be unveiled next week and the public invited to air their views.

Geophysical digging is due to start on the Metro project in April.

Mr Cullen said yesterday: “These developments represent significant staging posts on the delivery of one of Transport 21’s key projects, Metro North.

“We are now ready to start the physical groundwork on building the Metro service, running from St Stephen’s Green via the airport to Swords,” the minister added.

A Department of Transport spokesperson said yesterday that the geotechnical work would not cause any traffic disruptions.

Meanwhile, plans for a new Luas line to Dublin’s booming Citywest area are being unveiled tomorrow.

As recently revealed by the Irish Independent, the 3.2km tram service spur off the Tallaght line is expected to cost up to €100m.

Much of the cost is being met by two developers, Davy Hickey Properties and Harcourt Properties in a public-private partnership.

The line will run from Belgard to Citywest and will cater for the commercial district there as well as an expected housing boom and is due to open in 2009.

The cost of building new Luas lines is currently running at €30m per kilometre. A public inquiry into the extension of the Sandyford line to Cherrywood in south Dublin is being heard next Monday. This line is scheduled to open in 2010.

Luas is now carrying over 70,000 passengers a day. Mr Cullen will launch the public consultation on the proposed Citywest Luas link at South Dublin County Council’s offices in Tallaght tomorrow.

I guess we’ll have the answer next week

I read somewhere else that this digging work is very minor, basically extracting core samples along the intended route and the two straw men routes required for the planning process.

“Chaos feared as new city Luas link gets green light as well”

why is everyone’s first reaction to news of a major infrastructural problem to have a big moan about all the “disruption” and “chaos” it’s going to cause? 😡 Will people never learn? you can’t make an omelette withouth breaking eggs; you can’t have a first class transport and infrastructural system without digging up roads.

Remember all the fuss about the “disruption” Luas was causing on Harcourt Street? Who mentions it now? Now that we have a brilliant tram system linking Sandyford with the city centre? Nobody. But all the whingers and moaners and begrudgers are just resting their tonsils, ready for the next onslaught against the Luas interconnector, Metro or whatever it is that delays their pedestrian lights for more than 10 seconds. They’ll be back with the same whinges, nothing learned from the fact that their last campaign now looks stupid and small-minded 😡

I agree Sue. I think this is great news and about time too.

It is the Irish disease Sue. Is it any wonder nothing ever happens here while every other tin-pot country in the northern hemisphere manages to implement large scale infrastructural projects without so much as a moan or whimper.

Exactly Sue I 100% agree, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs – see this thread for similar rant!

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4701

Sue,

I totally disagree in relation to Harcourt Street as my complaint was not against what would be normal construction distrubance but a rather a long running comedy of errors such as

1> A JCB bucket knocking out all telecoms and power because a proper survey of the utitlities was not conducted.

2> The collapse of the road over a cellar because no one bothered to check the maps to see what was there and lets face it under street cellers are typical in Georgian streetscapes.

3> The pedestrian arrangements which left pedestrians walking 30 metres into oncoming traffic with no-one to supervise; although it appeared that the tea pot had about 10 regular senior directors.

The project management of Luas was a fiasco that came in years late and at a multiple of its original budget despite not even meeting its original route.

I hope that the RPA have learned their lessons and that I will be able to stay silent this time

totally agree with sue
thomand park – those points you made, i think these things happen everywhere not just ireland
although tea pot crack was funny! and prob true

build an airport link above ground until it hits say ballymun area then underground, with local stops into city centre

one ticket should get you on dart, luas and this airport link, with transfers onto dublin bus

heuston should be linked with connoly – under ground with commuter stops for greater dublin area north and west.

everywhere there is rail transportation should be built up HIGH density

and anyone who tries to stop us will be crushed , moo ha, ha – sorry joking

(true i am using nyc as a model but i’m sure we could build something similar lot smaller of course!)
ireland has to be the most frustrating country when it comes to this eternal squabbling about simple things like building a bloody rail line

Sue, it is not “everybody” as you say, but rather a specific anti-Urban/Public Transport agenda led by the Independent Newspapers Group with their pro-Farming/One-Off Housing/Western Crackpot Corridor and their close ties with the Motoring Industry. The Indo is essentially a urban-phobic and pro-motoring lobbyist posing as a newspaper.

Throughout the whole of the development of Luas unnamed “experts” were cited by one writer as suggesting that Dublin was unsuitable for rail development. It turns out that at least one of the “experts” cited is a notorious US anti-rail campaigner who is apparently funded by the concrete and motor industry.

The Sindo was claiming the Luas was a “train set that no one wanted” – 22 million passenger journeys per annum would suggest otherwise. This is a sensational number of passenger for a two unconnected Light Rail lines which are still in the early stages of their development. A massive success for public transport by any international standards. So what do Tracy Hogan the the Indo do…why they potray Luas as a failure and a menace to society of course!

I would call on all people who care about public transport investment in Ireland to boycott the Independent rags.

http://forum.platform11.org/showthread.php?p=2897#post2897

It looks like a good technical analysis

According to the Six One News today we will have the Dublin Metro up and running by 2012! Is it really going ahead or is it just all talk? Dublin certainly needs it.

Map of proposed metro route:

http://www.rpa.ie/?id=289

If the scheme was launched by the end of March it would take six months to get the inquiry going,

three months for a route to be chosen presuming there are no legal challenges

two years to design and acquire the route

Six months to tender

Six month lead in time pre construction

Construction could start in 2010

with a further 6 months required for tunnel safety tests

plus whatever rail safety period would be required say 6 to 12 months

I’d say a construction period of 3 to 4 years is required bringing us up to 2014 or 2015

I some how doubt that it could be built in six months

AMAZING!! looking at this http://www.rpa.ie/?id=289

huge project no doubt, but no southside plans seems strange, ah well

if they are utilising 24hour boring and the critical infastructure bill then they can get it completed by 2012. This kind of project is done in the rest of Europe with little fuss.

The critical infrastructure bill is not required here; as outlined above the project will be clear by years end well before any new (non-emergency) act passes the legislature.

The Port Tunnel is the only comparable example available to be assessed and this has taken 9 years from decision to almost completion.

I will not be complaining if a 2014 year end completion is met once the system is properly integrated and has adequate capacity.

Looking at those routes, my guess is that TCD will be making a submission:p

It seems a shame to drive a TBM into the city centre and leave it there rather than continue on to some southside location. Why would a metro line terminate in the city centre? If they can’t convert the tram line to metro because of the at grade crossings they intend to build in Sandyford, then could they not make another southside route for the metro such as Rathfarnham or Templeogue or down the N11 where a lot of apartment development is in progress? If they don’t have the cash they could just bore the tunnel and add the track and stations at a later date. Otherwise we are going to be leaving a TBM under stephen’s green.

Frank this is a very good point;

when the extension is eventually commenced in say 2018 this will be the point where the spoil from the bore machine must be removed. The thoughts of 100 plus trucks a day and a massive construction compound at this point do not appeal and would attract massive construction disturnbance compensation to adjoining business as well as rendering Luas inefective. It is my belief that the tunnel should be bored beyond the canal on the Terenure/Tallaght line as far as Cathal Brugha barracks to a point that would be both large enough to accomodate a large compound as well as not being subject to a HGV ban as well as already being in government ownership

@Frank Taylor wrote:

It seems a shame to drive a TBM into the city centre and leave it there

It’s a shame to us a tbm at all. Why not make maximum use of wide long street and simply cut and cover ? gardiner street and the north circular road eventually lead to the old broadstone line why not use this allignment?

Does anyone have any ideas as to where a potential southside Metro should serve. My personal preference would be for it to connect from St Stephen’s Green, via Cathal Brugha Barracks, under Harolds Cross Rd and then continuing either :
South to Terenure, Rathfarnham terminating in Ballyboden
or:
Southwest to Kimmage, Templeogue, Firhouse then swinging west and possibly completing a loop with the existing Luas at Tallaght.

What would then be ideal would be some form of East/West luas, Metro or even high quality bus route service from Blackrock to say Crumlin/Drimnagh via UCD Clonskeagh and Terenure which would link stops on the Dart, Luas and Metro lines thus providing a proper integrated public transport system for the southside…

I can dream can’t I! :rolleyes:

I’ve just found a Dail transport committee debate where the RPA boss is asked why they are stopping the metro in the city centre. The answer seems to be that they plan to try to turn on the machine again years later when they have approval for a new line going somewhere like Kimmage. I reckon they’ll have to call in a conservationist and a technological archaeologist to get it working again. @joint transport committee wrote:

Frank Allen: It is reasonable to state that the continuation of the tunnel-boring machine for another two kilometres is not a major increment, but it is more than this. Describing this as a metro line to Cherrywood would not be accurate and would not reflect the concept we have of the degree of segregation. The location of the gated stations would require a considerable amount of work south of Beechwood.

We would make a decision in consultation with the contractor on whether to leave the tunnel boring machine in the ground. Often the machines are left underground as this is a cheaper option than extracting them. We see this north-south metro line as part of a longer development including an orbital metro line that would connect at St. Stephen’s Green, as envisaged in A Platform for Change. At that stage, it would be appropriate to use the tunnel-boring machine for a line in the direction of Kimmage.

We have described the proposal put to Government and the rationale of doing it on that scale. We concluded the scale was manageable. I note the suggestion that it be extended but these are the proposals before Government.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: If one leaves a machine in the ground, and it makes sense to continue boring in five or ten years time, is it possible to turn the machine on again?

Mr. Allen: Yes.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=TRJ20051027.xml&Node=H2&Page=4

But as we all know where one turns it on one must extract the bored spoil and the idea of Stephens Green being the location for this is not appealing given that by selecting a different gauge for the rolling stock it would not be possible to back-haul the spoil via rail freight even if the metro is ever extended back to either the Northern or Maynooth lines

I’m gobsmacked !

Are there not geological issues with boring south of the canal?

From memory, the rock type changes to igneous formations (Wicklow granites etc) – as far as I can remember, that was one of the reasons behind the original Luas/Metro design in the mid/late 1990s – tunnelling under the southside would be much more expensive and slow.

Then again, the Eastlink tunnel that keeps cropping up would have this problem along some of its alignment also. Whatever the case, it looks very much like the RPA (and Govt) have no intention of ever extending the Metro on the southside.

Another engineering question. Just how practical is it to suggest that the Interconnector can be built /after/ the Metro is operation? It would mean that, for a start, they’d have to bore under the working Stephens Green station, lay track works and build a station, all while Metro was working away. Unless of course the plan is to horizontally separate the two stations, which would mean a bloody great hole in Stephens Green from the period 2009-2015. Thats something to look forward to.

I very much doubt that there are large differences between Stephens Green and the City end of Rathmines/Harlods Cross, given that the line will someday be extended anyway is it not best to give such an extension a viable launch pit as opposed to the Centre of the retail district?

Just checked, there are some granite formations south of the river, but they’re not very substantial until you get as far south as Blackrock. Most of the city sits on a heavy glacial till, which is not particularly difficult to bore through.

There have been fairly extensive studies done on the geology for this purpose;

http://www.irishscientist.ie/2000/contents.asp?contentxml=046as.xml&contentxsl=insight3.xsl

Of course it would make sense to create the possibility of extending the metro in the future, thats how these systems are ‘grown’. Brussels is still developing its metro system ‘at the ends’, many years after the initial two lines were bored out in the 1960s. To do otherwise just creates a stranded asset. This idea of ‘restarting’ the existing TBM years later is clearly a red herring.

Why are the RPA not considering this? Who knows, at a guess its probably the results of an attempt to keep costs down so as to get D/Finance to sign off on it.

As can be seen from Tara – the only way to have any influence on decisions is to get your comments in early.So make sure to write full and complete emails to the rpa.

Indeed, all the discussion on this site and in forums such as Platform 11 and Boards.ie won’t matter a jot unless you engage directly with the RPA by submitting comments during their Consultation Process.

@a boyle wrote:

It’s a shame to us a tbm at all. Why not make maximum use of wide long street and simply cut and cover ? gardiner street and the north circular road eventually lead to the old broadstone line why not use this allignment?

Cut-and-cover is better because you’re closer to the street level but
-there is more disruption during build
-and you have to follow street alignments
-and what happens when you reach the Liffey? How do you cross a river with cut-and-cover? Is there an engineer here who knows this? The circle line in London is partly cut-and-cover but I’m guessing it has to tunnel under the Thames.

The circle line doesn’t go under the Thames it is all on the City/West End side of the river but the point you make is very valid this line will need to go under the Liffey

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Cut-and-cover is better because you’re closer to the street level but
-there is more disruption during build
-and you have to follow street alignments
-and what happens when you reach the Liffey? How do you cross a river with cut-and-cover? Is there an engineer here who knows this? The circle line in London is partly cut-and-cover but I’m guessing it has to tunnel under the Thames.

Yes you would have to tunnel under the river. Yes it means you have to follow road alignments , and so there are only a few configurations that would work.

I think either method will result in mayhem either way , there is no getting around tearing up the roads to install stops, or huge numbers of air vents.

What is good about cut and cover is this :

It is a lot , a lot quicker . Instead of building a tunnel and all the complexities that go with that, it’s more like building an underground car park. You just dig with a whole load of caterpillars till you can set foundations. the supports only have to hold the road surface up. This makes it a lot simpler. It finally makes it relatively easy to consider three/four tracking. ( new york did this , the result is incredible ease of movement )

Further to my previous remark , if a concensus could be found we could all write to the rpa with a joint point of view. It’s much easier for the rpa to dismiss comments if they are all different!

@a boyle wrote:

Further to my previous remark , if a concensus could be found we could all write to the rpa with a joint point of view. It’s much easier for the rpa to dismiss comments if they are all different!

You are right. Do you want to put together a one page comment on why the metro tunnel should be continued through the centre to the southside? Once we reach agreement on the wording, get as many as people to put there names to it and I’ll print it out and post it in.

Or join platform 11 who possess a very strong multi-disciplinary technical team and are currently looking to build with new blood.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

You are right. Do you want to put together a one page comment on why the metro tunnel should be continued through the centre to the southside? Once we reach agreement on the wording, get as many as people to put there names to it and I’ll print it out and post it in.

I would love to try!

Let me set out my views. Please don’t give a snap reply , i have put so thought into this.

First off Dublin is 3 times bigger than Brussels or Amsterdam ( which have the same population ).

Frank McDonald has categorically pointed out that no route anywhere in the country has the number of people using it to justify a metro. ( This means adding up walkers,cyclists,drivers,bussers,Dart users and intercity/suburban rail)

The only way to generate enough people to pay for a metro is to get people coming from lots of directions together and then flush them through!

These are CSO figures: 200k live in fingal. 500k live in the city. Allowing for a 50/50 split between north and south (in reality more people live on the south side of the city – the north side contains the second biggest park in the world ! )So anyway that gives max 450k living on the northside. a minimum of 700k live south of the liffey in dublin county.A metro can take anywhere from 50k per hour to 100k per hour. Thus we would need 5 luas lines to meet with the metro ( each luas does around 10k / hour ).
I CAN TELL THIS IS GOING WELL SO FAR !!!

contrary to what i have just written might suggest , I do believe that a metro can be routed in such a way so that it can serve enough people.

The airport serves 20 million per year. ( that’s the same as the two luas lines — Oooh its not looking good for the metro! )

anyway enough with the joking!

Given that the metro can ONLY work in conjunction with everything else , i think it has to be considered WITH everything else.

Two points now arise.
Each addition to public transport should make sense by itself.
It hugely important to minize the numbers of changes required between modes of transport. Otherwise you don’t get the maximum amount of cross over between different routes.

I feel that the following have most chance of success:

Continue the green line round the back of trinity so their is a connection with the dart. (this route is only marginally slower than using college green because of the number of pedestrian crossings the tram would have to go at walking pace)

reopen broadstone and reroute all trains coming from the direction of sligo into that station.
Continue the green luas line to broadstone.

Instead of a north south metro build the interconnector between heuston and the new docklands station via pearse.

build a spur off the rail line to the airport.

This is a good plan because it does what almost all the different plans that have ever been suggested in one go!

1 A metro link to the city and a rail link to the entire rail network!
2 Moving the sligo line traffic to broadstone removes a lot of the time slot problems ( and immediately clears the way for the navan line to run at whatever frequency it likes. This is important : an iarnrod earrean report states the problems with the navan line being economically feasible is the the rail congestion in the city centre means it cannot run enough trains through. )

4. The two dart lines can be reorganised as irish rail wants to.( i’m not trying to spell the irish version again ! ) Firstly the southside dart route can along the royal canal on the northside to connect with the sligo line.In fact it could in future be turned around to terminate at broadstone or head on to navan.

the northern dart route can pass through the interconnector and head out towards kildare.

7. the green line has a terminus that makes sense. ( a decision would have to be looked at whether to end the luas at broadstone or at the liffey junction ( it does not make a huge difference ). The basic idea is right!

What really pulls this whole thing together is that it puts in place a huge amount of flexibility.The “metro” link can now connect with ALL (YES ALL) Trains/trams ( and most buses) with a single change. furthermore anyone can change between the dart ( both routes ) and the green and red lines again with one change.

To try to explain my idea i will take the time to make a map and attempt to put it up .

It’s interesting that none of the proposed routes go under Westmoreland Street, College Green and Grafton Street but instead go along D’Olier or Tara Street and then under TCD. I wonder is this due to a problem with tunnelling directly under O’Connell Bridge?

@Seamus O’G wrote:

It’s interesting that none of the proposed routes go under Westmoreland Street, College Green and Grafton Street but instead go along D’Olier or Tara Street and then under TCD. I wonder is this due to a problem with tunnelling directly under O’Connell Bridge?

No when you are tunnelling ,you are well below anything that get in the way !

So what would be the likely reason for it. As you pointed out in an earlier post, we’re dealing with wide streets (Westmoreland St, College Green, at least). Surely it has to be easier than tunnelling under the historic buildings of TCD.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

So what would be the likely reason for it. As you pointed out in an earlier post, we’re dealing with wide streets (Westmoreland St, College Green, at least). Surely it has to be easier than tunnelling under the historic buildings of TCD.

There are 2 way to build an underground tunnel:

1.dig up the route to fourty feet or so. then put in supporting beams to hold up what ever it is you are going to build above the route. So it’s a bit like a very long car park: lots of concrete pillar holding up what is above.

2. use a tbm. These things act like worms : they chew off at the front, slither forward , and spew it all out the back. These would normally start much much deeper in the ground, maybe 150/200 feet down. They go straight through rock, not clay. Because of this the tunnel doesn’t need foundations as such, the rock supports itself. This has advantages in two ways : one you don’t have to demolish whatever is at ground level. The second is that you can tunnel under whatever you like and it won’t matter.

I detect concerns about tunneling under trinity . I asure you these are unfounded. Vibrations do come up from the machine. but the most these could do is crack some tiles/grouting/ or some plaster. It is very important to realise that these effects are the same as what the ground does by itself. Clay is always on the move and all houses develop little cracks. These are NOT the same as structural damage.

If you take a look at what i have written above , you will notice that i consider this whole proposal to be ramblings off an alcoholic chimpanzee on heroin. A metro that requires two changes to get to it (it’s the blue line they want to build) is just daft.

@a boyle wrote:

I detect concerns about tunneling under trinity . I asure you these are unfounded. Vibrations do come up from the machine. but the most these could do is crack some tiles/grouting/ or some plaster. It is very important to realise that these effects are the same as what the ground does by itself. Clay is always on the move and all houses develop little cracks. These are NOT the same as structural damage.

Thanks a lot for clarifying the tunnelling methods. My concerns about Trinity were mainly that the nature of the buildings there might delay the tunnelling process, compared to some kind of tunnelling directly under Westmoreland Street, College Green, etc.

I suppose maybe they picked D’Olier Street because it would be closer to Tara Street, if the talk about an underground travelator or walkway connection with Tara Street is to be believed.

If you take a look at what i have written above , you will notice that i consider this whole proposal to be ramblings off an alcoholic chimpanzee on heroin. A metro that requires two changes to get to it (it’s the blue line they want to build) is just daft.

Good work above. I too thought that a DART connection to the airport would have made a lot of sense. The figures were about 440 million for the DART-Airport connection.

If you take a look at what i have written above , you will notice that i consider this whole proposal to be ramblings off an alcoholic chimpanzee on heroin. A metro that requires two changes to get to it (it’s the blue line they want to build) is just daft.

Can you clarify what you are saying is daft?

The problem with a boyle’s comment is that he’s talking about catering for existing population. If a metro is built then it is likely there will be high density developments built around it, thus making it feasible in the long term. It’s interesting to see the amount of posters bemoaning the lack of a southside link. I think that it’s being built this way because a) the airport route is the logical first line to be built, others can be done afterwards (and I agree with the Knocklyon/Firhouse suggestions b) the Luas line to Ballymun was dropped and the metro is the alternative that has to be used by the Govt to keep voters there happy

@jdivision wrote:

The problem with a boyle’s comment is that he’s talking about catering for existing population. If a metro is built then it is likely there will be high density developments built around it, thus making it feasible in the long term. …others can be done afterwards (and I agree with the Knocklyon/Firhouse suggestions

consider my idea further. Firstly the link passes over acres of undevelopped land at the edge of the city ->ripe for high density development. It passes over a longer stretch of undevelopped land than any of the presented rpa metro schemes

The east west link doesnt require any future links to be built in order for it to work economically. Thirdly it frees up space to immediately extend the dart towards dundboyne ( more development space ) And it immediately links up with all that has so far been built with only on change.

It is far better. ( it’s basically what platform 11 ,the rail group are calling for )

DO you agree ?

@jdivision wrote:

The problem with a boyle’s comment is that he’s talking about catering for existing population. If a metro is built then it is likely there will be high density developments built around it, thus making it feasible in the long term.

Interestingly enough, I used the exact same logic to argue in favour of the construction of a western rail corridor. I do hope Cute Panda is reading this. Why do I have a feeling that this form of logic will go a lot further in Dublin than it will in the west.

!

The Western Rail corridor was a very good idea with sound economic principles it utilised existing lines between

1> Cork – Limerick
2> Limerick – Ennis
3> Athenry Galway

The idea was to link Irelands second, third and fourth biggest cities by opening a 32 mile stretch of railway between Ennis and Athenry that would not require a lot of work as it was fully operational to freight until a small number of years ago.

Fast forward to the ‘Western Rail Corridor Idea’ that was originally to run from Letterkenny to Cork involving 90 miles of land acquisitions, design and build as well as a complete rebuild of a stretch from Colooney to Claremorris along a route with zero population density in rail terms.

The Western Rail corridor became a political crusade motivated by mistaken belief that rail brings real suatainable development to all areas regardless of existing population density which would provide its viability basis.

My fear is that this metro will also fall victim to parochial changes; the first of which has already occured with the move of station at the intersection of the Maynooth line at Cross Guns Bridge/Dalcassion Downs to Botanic Road. A metro stop intersecting here would give Intel and others a single change link from West Dublin/ West Kildare to the core professional services district around Stephens Green as well as the Airport.

Integration is the key and if a integratable station was built at this point the central area would be covered for all those trains that will be removed from the loopline to be moved to Spencer Dock due to the capacity logjam accross the loopline which is the major flaw in the entire system.

I’ve read this whole thread and can’t see any reference to the fact that the Airport Metro isn’t actually connected to the airport in 2 of the 3 proposed routes. Dropping passengers off at a nearby hotel doesn’t really count as integrated transport.

Surely they’ll have to opt for the tunnel under the airport and have station at the terminals rather than the GSH.

I’m not sure it would be an issue at all – there would either be travelators or a circular cost-free dedicated bus service. Both of these would be pretty standard in any major international airport.

The option of having a metro station immediately under an airport terminal is, however, the most desireable option from the point of view of a tired traveller with 3 suitcases. Why make it any more complicated by having to get a shuttle bus – you may as well just get on the city-centre shuttle bus that we have now as it is the movement from one mode of transport to another that is the difficult element of airport travel (suitcases, kids etc). Whether one sits on the bus for 2 minutes or 30 minutes is largely not a factor. We should get this right the first time round and put it under the terminal. Why make life difficult for ourselves in the long-term.

I agree. It should be under the terminal. It would make life so much easier and would make a lot more sense.

It makes a huge differenc eot your attitude to an airport; bus links are so annoying when you are just off a plane! is there any reason not to run it under the terminus?

The tunnel route is the route that the RPA told FCC to reserve. Check out the FCC website and look for the development plan maps. It’s clearly shown as the terminal route, not the GS Hotel one. I’d say it’s just been thrown in to make up the numbers.

@Sarsfield wrote:

I’ve read this whole thread and can’t see any reference to the fact that the Airport Metro isn’t actually connected to the airport in 2 of the 3 proposed routes. Dropping passengers off at a nearby hotel doesn’t really count as integrated transport.

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=30109&postcount=1

Which is self explanitory; unfortunately everything concerning infrastructural development has too be very closely watched by the public as a metro a kilometre from DART and the LUAS green line was on the cards only a short while ago.

A few points ! ?

how are the metro & interconnector going to integrate?, with the interconnector due to be completed a few years after the metro ( i hope ) its difficult to see how the metro terminus will not be disrupted … the rpa cannot be allowed to ignore the far more beneficial interconnector & should have to construct any new lines to the standard IE gauge (which is 1600mm i think).

also … by building a tunnel from stephen’s green, running up o’connell, are they not in the process actually providing the underground passage, that was originally intended to link the green & red luas lines ?

Selecting route A to link the two luas lines is madness, ramming it through college green is nonsensical, preventing as it will, traffic flow in all directions as it passes through, never mind the aesthetics of the situation. What chance now of re-claiming college green as a plaza or actual green in the future, never mind the mind pulling up o’connell st. again, just after the IAP is complete – whacko.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

Selecting route A to link the two luas lines is madness, ramming it through college green is nonsensical, preventing as it will, traffic flow in all directions as it passes through, never mind the aesthetics of the situation. What chance now of re-claiming college green as a plaza or actual green in the future, never mind the mind pulling up o’connell st. again, just after the IAP is complete – whacko.

From an aesthetic point of view I think Luas running by the front of Trinity will be fantastic.

Nor do I have any problem with traffic being diverted away from College Green. City Centre public transport shouldn’t be designed around traffic. Rather, it should be the other way around.

I think Luas will increase the opportunity to reclaim College Green for people rather than traffic.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

A few points ! ?

how are the metro & interconnector going to integrate?, with the interconnector due to be completed a few years after the metro ( i hope ) its difficult to see how the metro terminus will not be disrupted … the rpa cannot be allowed to ignore the far more beneficial interconnector & should have to construct any new lines to the standard IE gauge (which is 1600mm i think).

No I can’t agree. I follow this stuff quite closely and am a member of P11 also. I used to agree with using Irish Standard Gauge for metro to make it compatible with DART but looking at the propsed post T21 network and knowing that the RPA metro is in fact to be light rail, similar to the fantastic Metro do Porto and the metro units will be able to share trackage with Luas, it’s a better call to stay with European Gauge. Think of all the current and future Luas lines that are/will be at or near metro levels of segregation from traffic and imagine the metro units being able to access those stretches, providing many more 0 change journey possibilities. The much maligned Red Line actually has vast amounts of segregated running, virtually all the way from the Square to James’s is highly segregated and crosses few streets-it’s only the awful city centre stretch that suffers delays with the many junctions it encounters. The Green Line from Sandyford all the way to Charlemont is almost entirely segregated. The future Luas to Broadstone will run in the old MGWR alignment from Broombridge Station along by the railway down to Broadstone before emerging onto city streets (probably) to run down O’Connell street to connect with the extended Green Line. This Luas is likely to be extended in a completely segregated fashion to beyond the M50 via Finglas where it will cross the metroWest. The reason this is likely to happen is that the N2 dual carriageway provides an ideal environment to go elevated like the metroNorth along the swords Bypass. Don’t think of it as purely Luas and purely metro-there is a blurring of the lines on the horizon and it makes sense for a sprawling city like Dublin to have a two-pronged approach to it. It will be possible for example for metroWest trains to run from Ballymun to Citywest or the Square, rather than terminating at Belgard Road and forcing a change.

Look at sneltrams in Amsterdam or premetro’s in Cologne/Stuttgart for further examples, and these cities have higher population densites! A short train every 2 mins is far better than a long train every 10.

@murphaph wrote:

I used to agree with using Irish Standard Gauge for metro to make it compatible with DART but looking at the propsed post T21 network and knowing that the RPA metro is in fact to be light rail, similar to the fantastic Metro do Porto and the metro units will be able to share trackage with Luas, it’s a better call to stay with European Gauge..

Oh yes indeed, the RPA would appear to be developing a perfect metro for Dublin. Having seen the Porto Metro and Amsterdam SnellTRAM in action myself, Dublin is getting the best possible metro for now and into the future.

I totally disagree that this would constitute anything like a ‘perfect metro’ the perfect metro would be capable with integrating with the existing mainline system and proposed interconnector.

A spine system where all other lines such as Kildare line via interconnector, Maynooth line at Liffey Junction, Rosslare line via spur via Tara St and Northern line where a spur via Connolly could all be accomodated at a later date.

Instead we are to have a metro based on narrow gauge and low capacity based on street trams with the full cost and timescale of a proper job.

Watch this space

And with a separate ticketing system, no doubt.

@murphaph wrote:

I used to agree with using Irish Standard Gauge for metro to make it compatible with DART but looking at the propsed post T21 network and knowing that the RPA metro is in fact to be light rail, similar to the fantastic Metro do Porto and the metro units will be able to share trackage with Luas, it’s a better call to stay with European Gauge. Think of all the current and future Luas lines that are/will be at or near metro levels of segregation from traffic and imagine the metro units being able to access those stretches, providing many more 0 change journey possibilities. The much maligned Red Line actually has vast amounts of segregated running, virtually all the way from the Square to James’s is highly segregated and crosses few streets-it’s only the awful city centre stretch that suffers delays with the many junctions it encounters. The Green Line from Sandyford all the way to Charlemont is almost entirely segregated. The future Luas to Broadstone will run in the old MGWR alignment from Broombridge Station along by the railway down to Broadstone before emerging onto city streets (probably) to run down O’Connell street to connect with the extended Green Line. This Luas is likely to be extended in a completely segregated fashion to beyond the M50 via Finglas where it will cross the metroWest. The reason this is likely to happen is that the N2 dual carriageway provides an ideal environment to go elevated like the metroNorth along the swords Bypass. Don’t think of it as purely Luas and purely metro-there is a blurring of the lines on the horizon and it makes sense for a sprawling city like Dublin to have a two-pronged approach to it. It will be possible for example for metroWest trains to run from Ballymun to Citywest or the Square, rather than terminating at Belgard Road and forcing a change.

There are some very interesting points raised and useful possibilities highlighted in that post. What is still not clear to me though is why these projects could not be carried out using Irish gauge. What is the advantage to using European gauge for these projects? As I understood it, the Sandyford Luas tracks were built so that they could eventually be relaid using the Irish gauge.

Sarsfield, i think a traffic free college green would be the ideal & under those circumstances, i’d have no problem with luas taking that route, assuming they did away with overhead wires etc.

College green has potential to be one of the finest spaces in the city, however, the prospect of traffic being removed from the green is way, way off & would require major infrastructural work to provide alternative routes.

Don’t forget dublin bus is the primary user of the green, which isn’t ideal either, but for them it is a vital route, adding luas to the clogged mess just doesn’t make sense to me, either on a fucntional or aesthetic level.

Luas works best where it is allocated properly segregated space, line A proposes that it crosses several major junctions & shares space with traffic while displacing dublin bus.

O’Connell street is now at two lanes, it looks like the plan is for luas to run the full length of the street so i’m assuming it will have to share the second lane with traffic ?

you’d walk quicker.

This might be the most straight forward route on paper, but on a fucntional level its a nightmare. I really think we should be utilising secondary streets to facilitate luas, allowign it to move unhindered – marlborough street makes sense & that rubbish from the rpa that its not wide enough is lazy nonsense.

the prospect of o’connell street being ripped up again before people even get a chance to appreciate the benefits of the IAP is driving me crazy.

Murphaph, you seem to be better up than me on some of this so i won’t argue !

Although i thought that P11 were calling on the RPA to use the IE guage, certainly they do in their technical assessment, in which they also claim that the metro will not have sufficient capacity to meet demand with the platform length restricting the trains to 3 cars ? maybe this is referring to an older rpa spec, i’m not sure …

I live in Swords, got a thing in the door about this, with the 3 routes highlighted. Would regard the East route as the best..as my sister lives on Griffith avenue and my wife works in Drumcondra! Not sure about the stop at The Great Southern Hotel though. Filled out the card and sent it in anyway.

The original metro proposal was from Parnell Square to Dublin Airport;

you can thank http://www.platform11.org that it is now to be routed from Swords to at least Stephens Green

@The Denouncer wrote:

Filled out the card and sent it in anyway.

Where can I get me one of those cards? I have an opinion I’d like to share.

Originally posted by Sarsfield
Where can I get me one of those cards? I have an opinion I’d like to share.

I got it in the post! I suppose only people on the 3 proposed routes got a RPA booklet detailing with the Porto metro on the cover and with a map detailing the routes with a suggestion card to fill in and send back, freepost. Or as it just Swords that got this?

@Sarsfield wrote:

Where can I get me one of those cards? I have an opinion I’d like to share.

see http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp/funding

Route diagram and comments forms can be sent electronically.
JJ

Thats great!

RPA now welcomes submissions from interested parties in relation to all of the route alignments being considered. To help ensure that your views are considered, we would appreciate it if you would complete and submit our Contact Us form

Page not found
Sorry, the page you are looking for could not be found.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

Murphaph, you seem to be better up than me on some of this so i won’t argue !

Although i thought that P11 were calling on the RPA to use the IE guage, certainly they do in their technical assessment, in which they also claim that the metro will not have sufficient capacity to meet demand with the platform length restricting the trains to 3 cars ? maybe this is referring to an older rpa spec, i’m not sure …

I’m an ordinary P11 member and on our board it’s been accepted by the guy who wrote that assessment that the currently proposed metro is ok on the capacity front at a pretty whopping 33k per hour (DART currently moves c. 100k daily, though will also massively increase post T21). The RPA are now proposing 90m platforms. This is adequate for 5/6 car operations which is just fine for Dublin.

This isn’t to say the RPA are doing everything right, they aren’t. Their omission of an interchange station at Glasnevin (future Maynooth DART) and the inclusion of the route by the Great Southern at the airport are most worrying. There are still issues to fight for on this one.

have P11 changed their position on the track gauge too ? surely IE’s network post interconnector will be far more extensive than any metro/luas combination in the next 20 years ?

Also still curious about integration with the interconnector, the RPA fail to mention it in most correspondence. It seems quite strange that we’re looking at the prospect of boring two major city centre tunnels, both of which pass through the same city centre terminus, completely independently of each other ?

Interested to hear the views of TP & yourself murphaph (and anyone else for that matter) on how the metro & interconnector will integrate & the gauge issue …

not trying to set up an argument mind 😀

The current P11 thinking on metro is unchanged in relation to gauge in that adoption of Irish Rail gauge remains favoured. In relation to integration between Metro and Mainline suburban at the Maynooth Line P11 is on record as stating that the ball is in Irish Rail’s court to provide a station at Cross guns bridge in Phibsboro so as that the RPA can design the metro with this as a given as opposed to a hypothetical.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

have P11 changed their position on the track gauge too ? surely IE’s network post interconnector will be far more extensive than any metro/luas combination in the next 20 years ?

I’m trying to get clarification on that. The metro is now no longer a heavy rail proposal so the old position is a little out of kilter in my view.

In my opinion there will be far more metro trackage potential in 20 years than IE trackage. In theory you could have metro levels of service from Citywest-Swords, Square-Swords, Cherrywood-Ranelagh, Stephen’s Green-Swords, Liffey Junction-Broadstone. There are longer term plans to bore a tunnel from Stephen’s Green to Tallaght and I can imagine in 20 years boring a tunnel from Broadstone to Ranelagh and extending the Luas line in a segregated manner to the M50 (takng the alignment originally proposed for the airport metro) to tie into metroWest, creating a hell of a network by adding one tunnel (Broadstone-Ranelagh) to the Platform for Change outline. You could also consider the Tallaght line in as far as Fatima to be almost metro grade segregation wise and this could someday see a tunnel bored from Fatima to Broadstone for example to create another cross city metro grade route. Remember the Red Line is only slow and painful from James’s to Connolly, the much longer bits in the suburbs are like a metro.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

Also still curious about integration with the interconnector, the RPA fail to mention it in most correspondence. It seems quite strange that we’re looking at the prospect of boring two major city centre tunnels, both of which pass through the same city centre terminus, completely independently of each other ?

Well the metro units will be a lot smaller than the double decker DARTs IE propose to allow through the interconnector someday so the bore diameter will be very different and you’d never bore bigger than you have to (cost). The tunnels will cross at right angles anyway and th rolling stock will not be compatible so it’s not a big issue. There will be full integration between the two. The metro station will be constructed using the ‘box’ method whereby a large box is sunk from street level down. It’s very intrusive. The interconnector stations will all be mined from the inside out and should be far less intrusive during consrtuction. The interconnector wil naturally be under the metro. The RPA will have to allow for escalator/elevator shafts to the installed from the mezzanine level down to the interconnector or via the metro platforms (better). The real worry about metro/DART integration is at Cross Gunns Bridge. This is a vital connection which the RPA seem to be ignoring!

@murphaph wrote:

I’m trying to get clarification on that. The metro is now no longer a heavy rail proposal so the old position is a little out of kilter in my view.

I’m not sure that standard Irish gauge being prefered has changed from being the P11 position; my own feeling is that we have two gauges in this country one for rail and the other for on-street trams. Given the amount of money that was spent ‘future proofing’ the Green Luas line for future conversion to ‘metro’ it would be a travisty if the metro project was ‘retro specified’ to be compatible with ‘street trams’

The question I ask is if London had the choice on Gauge for the underground from scratch in 2006 would they choose a compatable gauge or not?

Are there examples of cities which have an underground system which operates on two different gauges?

TP: are you sure the green line was future proofed wrt changing its gauge, my impression was that the future proofing was limited to ensuring it had the wider swept clear path required by faster trains, but trains at the same gauge as the luas.

It is fully future proofed to the standard required by the Rail Safety Commission to accomodate two broad gauge trains; I don’t think that speed is an issue on a purely suburban line. Given that this line was a twin tracked broad gauge line at 27′ 6” historically.

The only part of the line that required real future proofing was the Dundrum Bridge which the RPA have started renting out to mobile phone operators spoiling an attractive piece of engineering.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

Are there examples of cities which have an underground system which operates on two different gauges?

London

Yes but when the London Underground was built how many independent rail operators existed?

20 or 30 or more, it was many years before a single operator existed; as asked above if they had the choice post integration of their companies would they have selected a different gauge?

It is very interesting that in the UK that services have been franchised but the track retained in the hands of a single operator.

London has a two gauge system for historical reasons (owing to first phase of development in the 19th century and then second phase in 20th century). Train carriages are different sizs too owing to different tunnel diameters

@Thomond Park wrote:

It is very interesting that in the UK that services have been franchised but the track retained in the hands of a single operator.

And this barely even functions given their rail safety record. Imagine it with different operators!

@PDLL wrote:

London

Thanks, PDLL I never knew that, and I lived there for 8 years:o Which ones are different?

To thebest of my memory the Metropolitan Line has a different gauge to others (I think there is one other line that has same gauge as M Line). Have exact details in a book at home so will check later.

I’d be surprised if it was the Metropolitan, as that shares track with the Circle and Hammersmith+City lines, and those two lines also share track with the District. My guesses would be the Waterloo+City or the East London line, which are both fairly separate to the rest of the system.

Ok, P11’s position on gauge was based on the notion of traditional heavy rail for the metro (NY, Munich, Berlin, London etc.) but now that the RPA have announced that the metro will actually be light rail like this, the gauge issue is no longer relevant and P11 hae no objection to te 1435mm european (Luas) gauge.

The reen Line was never supposed to be re-gauged but was laid with a wider loading gauge (swept path clearance) and with sleepers on ballast to allow 1435mm heavy rail metro trains to use it. This will not now happen. The metro will be light rail, low floor high capacity units (90m platforms=5/6 cars sets, more than adequate for Dublin for many years).

Dublin Metro North Open Days:

* Tuesday, March 28th 2006:
o Ballymun Civic Centre, Main Street, Ballymun, Dublin 11
* Thursday, March 30th 2006:
o Fingal County Hall, Main Street, Swords, County Dublin
* Monday, April 3rd 2006:
o Dublin City Council Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
* Wednesday, April 5th 2006:
o Regency Hotel, Swords Road, Dublin 9
* Friday, April 7th 2006:
o Finglas Civic Office, Mellowes Road, Finglas, Dublin 11
* Monday, April 10th 2006:
o Airport Great Southern Hotel, Dublin Airport

No mention of times. ref: rpa.ie

Radio today said 11am

The draft airport development plan was released last week.

For those of you with broadband you can look at it here :

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/Services/Planning/PlanningItemsOnDisplay/DublinAirportMasterplan/

To sumarise the 2 terminal is to be built as an addon to the first. Any future third / fourth terminal is to be placed to the west. This completly at odds with the north south alignment of the metro. Frankly the development plan is a joke with the metro so aligned, or vice versa.

Adding a further point to thomond park’s earlier post , previously when the second terminal was put to tender ten parties expressed an interest. Among them was ryanair who estimated the build at 125 million. Now the dublin airport wants to spend 1200 million . WHATS GOING ON ? ?? i feel like i am taking carzy pills.

With this is mind it is crucial that everyone put a submission into the rpa , whatever you feelings.

My point of view is basically that of the platform11.org. there is already a north south heavy rail line . dublin now needs an east west rail line. The interconnector allow for so much more than a connection between swords and the city.

Specifically it allows for all the lines into dublin to increase the number of trains per hour , because in one single swoop all the congestion around connolly is gone. it allows for a dart(metro) service to run from greystones to dunboyne, and a metro to run from balbriggan/howth through to clondalkin.Thats right 1 tunnel makes 2 metro lines possible !!!! The good people of swords deserve some relief too though, and a luas is justified , but spending the whole kitty (4/5billion) on a half metro route (the carriages are half capacity / and the route runs through half the city) is just wanton waste. Furthermore the port tunnel is not NOT going be used anything near capacity. A very successful direct bus connection operates in the not so backward Boston, and would complement the luas just perfectly. With a bus lane on the northern quay between busaras and the point. A direct point to point link <13 minutes !! Ha. Remember Seamus Brennan said they were trying to decide between a direct like and having lots of stops along the way well we can have both !!

Stop the madness and put in a submission.

Please Please put in a submission info@rpa.ie

Unfortunately, it’s not clear how the interconnector is going to be used to its capacity either. The current plans are for about 12 trains an hour in each direction. I’d be surprised if they manage this, given the presence of Arrow and Enterprise trains along the northern DART line, but those are apparently the plans.

The tunnel will, I believe, be signalled to allow for 16 trains per hour in each direction. So already, the plans are to use the tunnel to only 75% of its capacity.

However, the tunnel qua tunnel should be capable of carrying a lot more trains than 16 per hour. Everybody will have examples of cities where there are tunnels which carry a lot more than that. Munich, for example runs a steady 30 trains per hour in each direction all day in their main East-West tunnel. That is about 1,000 trains per day.

If Munich could be taken as an example of a city which uses its tunnel to its capacity, we then could be taken as an example of a city which plans to use the interconnector at well below 50% of its capacity. And if the promised 12 trains becomes a more realistic 10 trains, we’d actually be planning to use it at about 33% of its capacity.

In the absence of any indication of where more trains are going to come from, it remains questionable whether the interconnector should be built if it will be running so far short of its capacity.

There is a presumption in your calculations that everything is fixed; schemes such as Adamstown will add 5,000 units which if successfully replicated will provide the capacity.

The alternative is simple do nothing and forget about expanding capacity on all lines as:

Heuston is already close to exceeding its Health & Safety limits of 6,400 per hour at peak times.
Watch DART services continue at 60% of their 1984 frequency
Divert all Maynooth trains to Docklands which is miles from anywhere
Continue Northern and Arklow services at current levels
Divert all Navan line trains to Docklands and kill the service before it gets going.

@Bill McH wrote:

In the absence of any indication of where more trains are going to come from, it remains questionable whether the interconnector should be built if it will be running so far short of its capacity.

Yes good points. i am with you some of the way.

I would say 2 things in reply

1. i would repeat again that the interconnector provides for so much more than just one half metro bit of line stuck there.

2. your queries regarding the tunnel are most apt. I am pretty sure that these are issue arising from others parts of the network. I would suggest that the problems with the other parts of the network are slight and could be rectified in time and that long term the interconnector allows for as much growth as dublin wants and needs.

Specifically on the northern line only the city bound track veers left towards the docklands. The outbounds line is a level crossing. There is space to rectify this and fully segrate in the future.
The suggested northern line / airport rail link was never considered as a fully segregated overpass junction , any figures of capacity on that line are not as high as they could be, not by half.
Reorganising the dart to and from howth would free up more space.creating a shuttle service between howth and the howth junction removes more trains crossing tracks.

What i am trying to get at is that the layout allows for the system to be improved over time. There is only so much money in the kitty and we should try to get the most for our money. The interconnector doesn’t stop a metro being built when the numbers are there to justify it. With the highest number carried on the green line in one day at 90,000 and metro service being able to provide up to that number per hour , it will be some decades before any new tunnel in dublin is being used to it’s full potential.

But the interconnector improves ALL the lines, and joins up everything that has been built in the city , and eveyrthing that the dto would like us to build in the future.The metro should not be the next step.

Even the ministry for finance has scratched it’s head ; the current proposal won’t even begin to pay for itself till all the other luas lines (now dropped) are built. It is the horse before the cart.

Even if you are against the interconnector , 4/5 billion would build a lot of tram tracks , and dublin in a very low density city .

@Thomond Park wrote:

There is a presumption in your calculations that everything is fixed]

“Do nothing” is not the only alternative. An alternative is to figure out some way of using it to its fullest extent, and then to build it.

One solution would be to build some kind of holding station in the city centre – under Pearse Square perhaps – and add a couple of extra platforms at Pearse Station. This removes the restriction on trains from the West of the city caused by the shortage of slots on the northern DART line (arrow/Enterprise getting in the way, etc.) This removes the 12 train per hour limit – no reason at all that there couldn’t be 20-30 trains per hour between Pearse and Heuston (and beyond), if the signalling could be introduced to allow that.

My own view is that it is a pity that the project is not being used to facilitate a rapid rail link between populous locations like Tallaght and the city centre – that would be scuppered by the MetroWest project.

@a boyle wrote:

I am pretty sure that these are issue arising from others parts of the network. I would suggest that the problems with the other parts of the network are slight and could be rectified in time and that long term the interconnector allows for as much growth as dublin wants and needs.

As you correctly point out, the capacity of the interconnector is being dictated to an extent by the capacity of the northern DART line. (There will be no capacity problem on the Kildare line when it is 4-tracked). You’re also correct to say that this capacity problem can be rectified in time. In the case of the Northern Line, I’m told it would be expensive to do it but that it could be done some day. My query would be, why wait until that happens before using the interconnector to its full capacity?

The interconnector was conceived as a central spine under the densist parts of the city; there is nothing to prevent future spurs being built off it to places such as Tallaght or routing a spur from the Maynooth line through the Phoenix park tunnel and then underground to connect at Heuston with this tunnel.

Dublin is in a difficult position is that it can provide a certain population base to justify one or two short underground lines but lacks the population to justify an extensive network like one would expect in Paris or Berlin

Dublin metro system to run via Ballymun and Phibsboro
19/10/2006 – 12:09:59

Minister for Transport Martin Cullen has announced the route chosen for the proposed metro line linking Dublin Airport with the city centre.

Three alternatives had been put forward as part of a public consultation process.

The chosen one will see the metro system run from Swords through Dublin Airport, via Ballymun and Phibsboro and on to St Stephen’s Green.

Mr Cullen says the route will service 20,000 people every hour, with trains running every 90 seconds.

The total journey time will be 17 minutes.

The metro is expected to take around 40,000 cars off the streets of the city centre every day when it is operational in 2012.

A bit more detail…

Airport metro to take in Drumcondra, Ballymun
By David Labanyi Last updated: 19-10-06, 11:54

From 2012 passengers arriving in Dublin Airport will be able to take a Metro into the centre of Dublin with a 17 minute journey time, under a plan published today.

The Metro North, linking Stephen’s Green with Lissenhall, north of Swords, will have 15 stops and will be able to carry 20,000 passengers an hour. The Minister for Transport Martin Cullen said trains will run every four minutes at peak time and can increase to one every 90 seconds if required.

It is anticipated that the 17km line North Metro will carry up to 34 million passengers annually from St Stephen’s Green to Dublin Airport and Swords.

The decision on the routes follows a detailed public consultation process which started with the outlining of four possible options.

Following more than 2,000 submissions, the route chosen by the Railway Procurement Agency is an amalgam of two options.

The metro will travel under the Liffey to serve O’Connell St, the Mater Hospital, Dublin City University, Griffith Avenue, Ballymun, the airport and on through Swords to Lissenhall.

Half of the line will be underground while the other half will run on street level separated from traffic.

Mr Cullen said: “Metro will offer a new travel experience for business and leisure commuters in speed, ease and comfort. With the Luas, it will undoubtedly compound this excellent start in transforming the capital’s public transport system.”

The project is part of the Government’s €34 billion Transport 21 investment programme.

The Drumcondra stop will serve the 82,000-seater Croke Park while DCU’s 10,000 students will also have their own Metro station.

The RPA said that Dublin City Council requested a stop at Parnell Square East to serve the north inner city, and it is seeking further public consultation on this.

The route includes several key interchanges with rail and bus services including a key connection with the Maynooth suburban rail at Drumcondra.

The project will have more than 2,000 park and ride spaces and is projected to cut road journeys by 100 million kilometres per year.

Mr Cullen added: “Metro North is not just an airport link. It is an important commuter link for the communities and the institutions of north Dublin city and county.

“By developing Metro North and Metro West, by extending the Luas network, by providing greater capacity on the DART and suburban rail network and by increasing significantly bus capacity, the annual number of public transport passenger journeys in Dublin will almost double.

The next step in the Metro project will involve work on progressing the design of the route and stations and the preparation of a Railway Order application by the RPA.

Neither an approximate cost or details of the cost benefit analysis have yet been released, with the Minister for Transport saying to reveal such information would undermine the Government’s negotiating position when contracts are issued.

Mr Cullen said the project would be funded by a Public Private Partnership to ensure best value for money for the Exchequer.

As part of the project a terminus will be built under Stephen’s Green. Because the Luas Green line and the Metro will not be linked, passengers will use this terminus to change trains. This terminus will also accommodate passengers on the rail interconnector.

RPA chairman Padraic White said there was a 50-person project team including international experts with experience in major transport projects like the Channel Tunnel, the Hong Kong underground, Oporto Metro, Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 and Munich’s S-Bahn.

I hope the design of the underground section for the Metro is a little more inspired than the drab features of London’s Jubilee Line extension. I know the Jubilee Line extension is highly regarded in terms of it’s design, most notably the Canary Wharf Station, but the rest of it is mostly more of the same un-inspired, un-engaging grayness that typifies the rest of the London Underground’s sub-surface network

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MetroNorth.gif

Swords, Airport, Drumcondra, Griffith Ave, O’Connell St., Stephens Green – all suit me,

Welcome to the 21st Century. Now if they could build it as quickly and cheaply as the Spanish, 24 hour style.

@The Denouncer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MetroNorth.gif

Swords, Airport, Drumcondra, Griffith Ave, O’Connell St., Stephens Green – all suit me,

Welcome to the 21st Century. Now if they could build it as quickly and cheaply as the Spanish, 24 hour style.

thats all well and good, metro EVENTUALLY arriving but do you not think that a) Cullen wont publish the cost-benefit analysis which means he is hiding something and b) the fact that it wont be ready until 2012 , 6 years waiting is utterly utterly ridiculous

Yes Indeed. The big project of his reign was supposed to be the link-up of the two LUAS lines. Despite everybody going out of their way to make their contribution on that project in a seriers of open days about a year ago, there still hasn’t been a word.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

Yes Indeed. The big project of his reign was supposed to be the link-up of the two LUAS lines. Despite everybody going out of their way to make their contribution on that project in a seriers of open days about a year ago, there still hasn’t been a word.

judging by the number of times the RPA surveyors have been in dawson st I would bet my shirt that it will eventually head down this way

Does anybody know what kind of depths the tunnels will be bored?
I think I read somewhere that the depth at which one can bore depends on the nature of the soil.
In Paris, you only have to take an escalator down one floor at lots of stations to find yourself on the platform whereas in London or Washington DC, stations are usually pretty deep.

Is the above ground sections going to be at street level or on an elevated track?

why is the swords/airport metro line not continuing underground until it reaches grand canal luas station and then surfacing? personally i live near dundrum luas station and if i have to change tram or train etc at stephens green i wouldnt be bothered, id stick with the car etc. Surely the Luas and Metro can run on same track if they are the same gauge? Could you not then also create and a short underground spur from the tallaght line (say jervis st.) to the oconnell street metro line and have 3 line trams servicing the airport? say every second tram from red and green line serving the original end destination? I see ideas and suggestions on these boards here, that have far more foresight and logic than the nonsenese the planners etc come up with, its just ridiculous!

stira, eventually that LUAS line from bray to town will be a Metro so all that line from Bray to Swords via the airport will be seamless. ALso it’s not the planners to blame it’s retarded governance by the gombeens voted in by the people. each element is being built one at a time and will all link up.Sadly the most critical element, the interconnector, is the last thing to be done

There is no plan envisaged to connect the Luas green line with the metro. The plan is to stop tunnelling at Stephen’s green and bury the machine there. Unless alonso has some special information?

stephens green will be an interchange with Luas, Metro and the undeground Dart tunnel, pending the upgrading of the Luas to metro, when the line will go underground at ranelagh and head straight to the airport so there is a plan to connect the green line

Is this actually the case? is the metro going to continue underground to Ranelagh and then surface? What about the luas extension to cherrywood is that going to be metro ready?

The Luas to Bray via Cherrywood and Sandyford is to be upgraded to Metro. It’s not in T21 but it is part of the DTO strategy, which is still government policy. T21 is just a capital investment plan, not a transport strategy. LUAS and Metro can run at the same time on the same tracks. In fact this is how it is envisaged that services will be gradually ramped up

Anyway:

Luas Green Line will run from Ranelagh to Liffey Junction (remnants of line B post Metro upgrade + Line BX + Line BX cross city line extension). This could eventually be extended to Finglas, where the original plan for Metro north went in the DTO Strategy

Metro will run from Bray West (Fassaroe) all the way to Swords (Lissenhall P+R). It will run on the luas alignment (ie Harcourt line) as far as Ranelagh (I think!!!) where it will go underground through the city as far as the northside suburbs.

The Luas upgrade to Metro is a very long term plan. It is already necessary but as it is outside the 10 year investment programme it’ll more than likely be 2020 before it’s done.

id say the planners etc or dto, gov etc whoevers decison it is when the luas gets upgraded to metro, will change there minds on how critical it is when the new extension opens up and the luas cant cope anymore, the amount of apartments being built in sandford is unbelievable, along with the new phase 2 of dundrum shopping centere, along with all the aprtments being built around dundrum etc. And every other suburb it passes through. Do you think this is correct and that they will be forced to upgrade to metro much sooner than previously anticipated?

The DTO stated at the public inquiry into the Cherrywood extension, that the upgrade was needed sooner rather than later, as they had the data on proposed land uses along the line vs LUAS capacity. The reaction from the Dept of Transport Inspector was that it would not be needed for another 20 years!!! But it’s obvious to the dogs on the streets that a Metro is already needed. You mention Sandyford and Dundrum, but add in Cherrywood, Rathmichael, Old Connaught and Fassaroe and it’s insane to believe that a LUAS is sufficient.

I think it’s a joke that the alignment has been determined by landowners, land rezoned on the basis of accessibility to public transport, while the public transport being funded by these landowners is wholly lacking for the quantum of development proposed.

I can’t see the upgrade being kept on the long finger. Things will collapse around Cherrywood by 2015

Things will collapse around Cherrywood by 2015

Five years after Waterford has its High Quality Dual Carriageway to Dublin; welcome to Transport planning in Ireland as delivered by this goverment. Prediction 2015 no Metro and no interconnector period.

I worked in Dublin for two years.

My question about the metro in Dublin.

Why is Dublin to plan so large distances between stations in the middle of the city. Mater Hospital-O’Connell Bridge is long. O’Connell Bridge-Stephen’s Green is long too,

400-600 metres between stations is normal for metros. In Dublin the distances are very large.

There should be a stop at Coláiste Green really. Not sure why there isn’t.

Hi Morlan. That’s a funny picture.

Yes, I agree. If 400-600 metres is a normal distance between stations, College Green or the lower end of Grafton Street would be good. Then on O’Connell Street you could have a station really close to the trams.

Maybe also you could build a station on Parnell Square.

Clearly this is a more expensive system. However, it is a mistake to have too large distances between stations. Especially in the busy parts of the city.

Stephen’s Green to O’Connell Bridge is 800m. So the maximum walk to a station if you find yourself between these stops is 400m or 5 minutes. nobody minds a 5 minute walk (length of Grafton Street). Adding extra stops increases journey times overall and increases build costs.

O’Connell Bridge to Mater hospital is 1400m and needs an intermediate stop at Parnell Square. This is under negotiation at the moment. Parnell Street is a hub of multicultural activity and very densely built up with the potential for a lot more building on the East side. Also David Norris will be lobbying for a stop near his house.

I thought he cycled everywhere!!!

both measurements of 800m & 1400m assume a single exit for all three stops.

Two exits at each 50m from the end of each platform O’Connell Street would be a lot cheaper and keep journey times down: between Parnell St and de spike a short stroll and beyond parnell st land use intensity collapses

I wish I were a senator. It’s one of the few jobs you could do drunk.

senate 16 may, 2001

Mr Norris
..While I am at it I permit myself the aside that one of the things we should look at as early as possible is the location of the stations. Though it is a minutely parochial point, I hope there is one at the northern end of O’Connell Street, partly for the James Joyce Centre. Imagine how marvellous it would be to get off a plane at Dublin Airport and get right into the centre of the city, not just to the southside. The southside will probably be favoured in this as in all other matters. Somebody from America who has booked into the Gresham, a very fine hotel, wants to be able to get into an underground at the airport and come out almost opposite its door. I even have a name for the Minister, the James Joyce station. They do it in Paris on the metro where they have the Victor Hugo and others.

Mrs. O’Rourke: What about the Bertie Ahern station?

Mr. Ryan: The Senator should show a bit of erudition. He pronounced Hugo incorrectly.

Mr. Norris: The Minister should not worry, it is just Senator Ryan’s inferiority complex rising to the surface again. Next thing, he will be telling her about how Fianna Fáil has changed since his day.

Mr. Ryan: My inferiority complex is well known. Everybody knows about it. It was well advertised—

Mr. Norris: It is well known. It would be a wonderful idea to honour someone on the north side of Dublin and close to the Joyce centre. It is only an accident that it is also close to my house…

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Stephen’s Green to O’Connell Bridge is 800m. So the maximum walk to a station if you find yourself between these stops is 400m or 5 minutes. nobody minds a 5 minute walk (length of Grafton Street). Adding extra stops increases journey times overall and increases build costs..

to you or I a 5 minute walk but what about the eldery or mothers with kids – anyway its a real pain in the arse getting off at the green centre to go to somewhere like Temple bar – make the service practical, build the extra stop and hang the cost!

Metro North will have a stop at O’Connell Bridge, so this is where you would alight for Temple Bar. Temple Bar-Stephens Green is around 800m but we are talking about a 400m maximum walk.

Walking speeds are a critical factor for urban design. Pedestrian crossings are calibrated on walking speeds of 400m in 5 minutes – a speed that 70% of Americans can manage. In a study of Americans over 65, 85% of them could walk 400m in 7 minutes 20s
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rej/9710/re971001.htm

I’m sure we could both walk 400m in a lot less than 5 minutes, Rory!

Rory W – that’s what connecting services are for, feeder buses to supply the subway. Going to work every morning I have a 500m hike to the subway but there is a bus on my street to take me there if the weather is bad. Light rail tends to have somewhat closer stops, buses closer still, heavy rail further than metro.

Good metro planning should have a series of dense buildings near each stop with low density in between to allow neighbour differentiation. Looking along Toronto’s Yonge line it’s easier to pick out some of the midtown stops with highrises, others have yet to be developed but that day is coming.

Here if you are sufficiently infirm to be unable to walk to the nearest transit stop you can book a WheelTrans pickup which is subsidised and thus the fare is the same.

@Rory W wrote:

to you or I a 5 minute walk but what about the eldery or mothers with kids – anyway its a real pain in the arse getting off at the green centre to go to somewhere like Temple bar – make the service practical, build the extra stop and hang the cost!

Luas is probably the only public transport people with disabilities can use without hassle. Also the trams are always full of knackered tourists (who’ve been told you can see the whole city on foot) taking very short trips.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Stephen’s Green to O’Connell Bridge is 800m. So the maximum walk to a station if you find yourself between these stops is 400m or 5 minutes. nobody minds a 5 minute walk (length of Grafton Street). Adding extra stops increases journey times overall and increases build costs.

O’Connell Bridge to Mater hospital is 1400m and needs an intermediate stop at Parnell Square. This is under negotiation at the moment. Parnell Street is a hub of multicultural activity and very densely built up with the potential for a lot more building on the East side. Also David Norris will be lobbying for a stop near his house.

Hi Frank.

When the distance from one station to the other station is 400-600 metres, the longest walk is about 200-300 metres. I think there is a big difference with this.

It is more expensive. Although, are you sure it makes journey times longer? When people must not walk such distances from the station, then the journey is quicker?

@Frank Taylor wrote:

I wish I were a senator. It’s one of the few jobs you could do drunk.

senate 16 may, 2001

That is SOMETHING ELSE.

Lets not get distracted The Airport Metro will connect to nothing other than Luas or the Maynooth Line; there will be no connection to mainline rail serving Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Tralee, Westport, Ennis.

To transfer to Belfast, Rosslare or Sligo you will have to change at Drumcoundra.

We still don’t have a completion date.

Dublin obviously doesn’t matter

What interconnector?

The RPA has posted detailed draft plans of the Metro North route:

http://www.rpa.ie/?id=315

Very interesting if you like that sort of thing.

I see they have a section for the ‘Integrated Ticketing System’ and are referring to it as ITS – Pity they didn’t include ‘The’ into the acronym as it would sum up those responsible for implementation to a tee

OK – whose bright idea was it to propose building the airport stop over the far side of the airport i.e. next to the exit gates of the short term car park – could we not use a bit of joined up thinking and INTEGRATE it into the terminal buildings! Especially T2!!!!

Also – Swords Stop – I assume this part of the run is overland but why for god’s sake have the metro stop for the town in the middle of the Dual Carriageway opposite the Pavillions centre – could it not be in the town at all or are we going for the el cheapo job as usual?

Honest to god these people are mad

The Airport stop will form part of the Ground Transportation Centre with buses and coaches also terminating there. I initially thought the stop was gonna be between the 2 terminals. But remember these drawings show the stops. They don’t show the exits or how people will actually access it. In the case of the Airport a covered walkway is being provided around the GTC for overground pedestrians as well.

Yeh the swords thing is lunacy. Of course it should be underground with a stop on Main street. This is a cheap and extremely nasty alternative. On stilts in the middle of a National route. Accessibility me arse

The Swords bypass isn’t a national route, it’s the R132. It is still cheap and nasty though.

@Rory W wrote:

I see they have a section for the ‘Integrated Ticketing System’ and are referring to it as ITS – Pity they didn’t include ‘The’ into the acronym as it would sum up those responsible for implementation to a tee

Also, ITS is an acronym already in use in traffic management- Intelligent Transport Systems.

Roll on the confusion…

Mussel cards as part of the Muscle system would have been perfect terminology; Barclays are about to roll out a small transaction capability on the Oyster card system enabling payments up to £10 at approved retailers for literally everything from a pint of milk to a glass of wine once you prepay.

ITS as per the above meaning it certainly isn’t in Dublin; higher densities will only come when the transport system is perceived to be right by the car driving classes and building consumer confidence in the system comes from initiatives like this being rolled out at no less than best practice level.

@Rory W wrote:

Also – Swords Stop – I assume this part of the run is overland but why for god’s sake have the metro stop for the town in the middle of the Dual Carriageway opposite the Pavillions centre

Levies from the development of future phases of the Pavilion. The plans are huge, 14-storeys in places.

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

The Swords bypass isn’t a national route, it’s the R132. It is still cheap and nasty though.

True but it’s a very busy dual carriageway

Yeah i wasn’t 100% sure if it had been reclassified along it’s full length. But it’s probably busier now than it was when it opened as the N1.

A couple of high density developments in Swords would be most welcome it is a sprawing mess at present with major traffic problems. If metro arrives there will be less driving around!!

There’s no doubt that stopping in Stephen’s Green makes no sense at all, it is a decision we will rue later.

But why spend the money on upgrading the red luas when that kind of retrospective expenditure would at least get the line to Harold’s Cross, i.e. virgin territory for rail.

There’s only one way the line should go imo & thats to a terminus at Tallaght (in the long term) with stops at:

St. Stephen’s Green >> Portobello >> Rathmines >> Harold’s Cross >> Terenure >> Templeogue >> Firhouse >> Old Bawn >> Tallaght/Square.

Whatever happens, parking this thing at Stephen’s Green should not be an option.

I agree that Stephens Green should not be the terminus if only on the basis that the engineering difficulties it presents are not well considered.

Long term you would want to see two lines going south from Stephens Green one South East and the other South West at the very least one of these lines should go an additional station and the enabling works for the other commenced.

Long term could mean 5 years beyond completion of phase one or it could mean 20 years but at least the existing network at that time would erxperience far reduced delays.

Another Frank MacDonald rant against the metro. Honestly just build the frickin thing already: does Dublin aspire to be a world-class city or not?

The ‘astronomical’ cost of Dublin’s Metro North, as the Taoiseach himself once complained, should force a rethink, argues Frank McDonald , Environment Editor.

This is what Bertie Ahern told the Dáil on June 30th, 2004: “To put a metro into the city on the scale proposed . . . would take up an enormous section of the capital programme for the entire State for an inordinate number of years.”

As he said then, “the difficulty is the cost . . . has been astronomical and . . . is way out of line with what is considered reasonable for the taxpayer to bear . . . My feeling is it will be extremely difficult to undertake the entire project.”

The Taoiseach was referring to estimates by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) that the likely price-tag for the first phase, linking Dublin airport with the city centre, would be €4.88 billion – a figure that caused consternation in Leinster House.

Three years later, the RPA is motoring ahead with a scheme that will cost even more – at least €5 billion, as revealed by The Irish Times last August. And the cost of repaying this capital investment would equate to €22 for every trip taken on the line from Swords to St Stephen’s Green.

That’s the figure cited by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in a report on the metro project commissioned by Senator Paschal Donohoe (FG). It assumed that fares would cover the annual operating costs, leaving taxpayers to service a huge capital debt for 30 years.

So what has changed? How is a project branded by the Taoiseach as astronomically expensive in 2004 now proceeding in these more financially-straitened times? The short answer is that we don’t know, because of the blanket of secrecy surrounding Metro North’s funding.

All monetary figures in documents released to The Irish Times last July – nearly two years after they were first sought – were systematically blacked out. It was only by examining one letter closely that it was possible to discern a 2004 estimate of €4.58 billion.

Add the cost of construction inflation since then, as well as an extra station on the east side of Parnell Square plus the cost of putting the line underground in Ballymun, rather than running it along the main street, and it is clear that the estimate would now exceed €5 billion.

Even after allowing for such “value engineering” cost savings as underground stations with bare concrete walls, no escalators between street and concourse levels, and a minimal number of ticket machines – this exceeds the figure which Mr Ahern found “astronomical” in 2004.

It seems hard to credit that his change of tune could be related to the RPA’s 2005 decision to reroute the largely underground metro via Drumcondra, in the heart of his constituency; this made sense anyway because it would provide a connection with the Maynooth commuter line.

The Cabinet originally gave its approval for a much more extensive metro in January 2002. The first phase was to include a line from Dublin airport through the city centre to Bray (supplanting the Sandyford Luas then under construction), as well as a spur to serve Blanchardstown. Rather optimistically, 2007 was set as the completion date for this phase of the metro. On foot of Cabinet approval, the RPA prepared an outline business case in 2002 for what has become known as Metro North and a fuller business case for the 17km (10 miles) line in 2003. A spokesman said a more recent cost-benefit analysis of the scheme was submitted this year.

None of these documents has been published, although one can imagine that the latest one has been scrutinised in detail by the Department of Finance. In the meantime, the RPA has shortlisted a number of “qualified candidates” to build and operate the metro. “It is intended that the Railway Order application process will commence in early 2008. The pre-application consultation process with an An Bord Pleanála has commenced and the public consultation process is ongoing,” the RPA said in a statement on September 13th.

The RPA was much more forthcoming about figures in the past. It gave a full breakdown to the Oireachtas Committee on Transport in 2003 – €1.72 billion for construction, €903 million for risk provision, finance and insurance, €811 million for cost escalation and €458 million for VAT.

In addition – and this is the really interesting bit – the RPA’s then chairman, Padraic White, explained that the public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement would cost the State €676 million, plus a further €313 million in fees for the consultants who would put it together.

So it’s no wonder that major international companies such as Acciona, Alstom, Barclays Private Equity, Bombardier, Bouygues, HSBC Infrastructure Fund Management, Keolis, Macquarie Bank, Mitsui, Siemens and Veolia are all delighted to be put on the RPA’s shortlist.

Under Department of Finance rules, all public capital projects costing €30 million must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, which is also supposed to examine alternatives. In the case of Metro North, these would presumably include a Luas line or rail spur to Dublin airport.

Even with “value engineering”, such as the no-frills stations now proposed, the acknowledged cost-benefit ratio is weak at just 1:1.31 – nearly three times lower than the RPA’s equivalent calculation for a city centre link between the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines.

The business case for Metro North is also based on extraordinarily optimistic assumptions such as the projection that it would carry 34 million passengers per year – eight million more than the two Luas lines carried in 2006 – with trains running every four minutes.

As the report commissioned by Paschal Donohoe pointed out, the RPA’s assumption that 44 per cent of car users would transfer to metro in the catchment area it served also “seems particularly implausible” in the light of British figures showing much lower levels of “modal shift”.

The metro project would only make economic sense if it was extended southwards from St Stephen’s Green to Sandyford, Cherrywood and Bray. But this would involve digging another tunnel from the Green to Ranelagh, and nobody can (or will) say how much this would cost.

“How can anyone estimate the cost of a metro if a detailed design or even a geo-technical study is not completed?” one experienced transport engineer asked.

And if the cost of the project increases, the slim positive ratio would fall and could even become negative.

What’s certain is that Metro North would be by far the most expensive public project in the history of the State, costing at least six times as much as Luas or the Dublin Port Tunnel. Indeed, a much more extensive Luas network could be built for considerably less money.

The Green Party remains committed to metro, whatever the cost. And now that it’s in Government, its Ministers – John Gormley and Eamon Ryan – will presumably fight to get their way. But it will be up to Brian Cowen and his department to determine whether it goes ahead.

It would require a great deal of political courage to abandon such a “big-ticket” project. However, given the emerging budgetary position and the demise of the Celtic Tiger, it would be the prudent thing to do – and save the money for investment in projects that make sense.

London link: approval for new service

This week the British government finally gave its approval for a £16 billion (€23 billion) underground rail link across London from Paddington to Stratford, with intermediate stations at Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Whitechapel.

Crossrail, Europe’s biggest civil engineering project, will provide a Parisian-style rapid rail service carrying 200 million passengers a year. It will link all the tube lines running through central London, thereby making it much easier for public transport users to get around.

Dublin also has a “Crossrail” project – the proposed underground rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock. But it is way down the list of priorities in the Government’s Transport 21 programme and may not be built at all if the metro project eats up the money.The Iarnród Éireann project would perform the same role as London’s “Crossrail” by linking existing and planned commuter rail services as well as the Tallaght Luas line (at Heuston), the Sandyford Luas line (at St Stephen’s Green) and Dart (at Pearse Station).

As a result, it would serve many more public transport users than Metro North, or the proposed Metro West, a souped-up Luas line running from Tallaght to Ballymun via Clondalkin and Blanchardstown – an orbital route on which there isn’t even a bus service at present.

According to Iarnród Éireann, the interconnector combined with electrifying commuter rail services to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda would result in a four-fold increase in peak rail patronage by 2016, giving superior access to Dublin from nearly all population centres.

The capital cost of this programme was estimated in 2002 at €3.4 billion, of which the interconnector – let’s call it “Crossrail” – would account for €1.3 billion. Five years on, it would cost significantly more – but nothing like as much as Metro North.
© 2007 The Irish Times

You know there comes a point when you have to accept a decision has been made: it is the only way a country can be run.

I wish we had more fabric-of-dublin/building-stock-of-ireland/conservation-versus-change/new-buildings-discussed articles in the times and fewer of these repetitive rants.

I vote to have Frank McDonald replaced by Graham H.

@JoePublic wrote:

The Irish Times last August. And the cost of repaying this capital investment would equate to €22 for every trip taken on the line from Swords to St Stephen’s Green.

This number pisses me off. This is an investment over 30 years for a piece of infrastructure that will last for countless decades. The way it’s presented you’t think the Metro was to be closed down in 2040 😡

Personally I’m in agreement with Frank that the Irish Rail Interconnecter will give a better and faster return but the country (not just the city) needs both if it’s to function into the future.

Just build them.

I’d agree with him that the interconnector should be prioritised, over all other rail projects to my mind.

Ditch metro west.
Ditch the entirely useless luas B(ollo)X line.

Build Metro North after the interconnector & at least go half way to Tallaght via Rathmines / Terenure.

Why the hell should the metro north continue through Ranelagh to Bray ? just to add to the DART & LUAS is it? not quite enough choice for the spoilt southsiders then ?

Surely it makes sense to route the line through high density areas, served by nothing but the bus, namely Portobello >> Rathmines >> Harold’s Cross >> Terenure >> Templeogue >> Firhouse >> Old Bawn >> Tallaght/Square or something similar.

Its nonsense to say that the 5bn will be a burden for years to come on the tax payer, much of our infrastructure expenditure comes from the current side, with only small amounts being borrowed up until now – not that there is anything wrong with borrowing for major capital projects.

I await with interest the final EIS for metro north, particularly how construction within Stephen’s Green will be handled. I can’t see how it can be managed without large scale felling of several mature specimens on the west side & if thats the case, I will be chaining myself to the railings. Hands off Stephen’s Green RPA !!!

The point on undertaking a feasibility study assessing the alternatives is very well made; all it takes is one landowner being CPO’d to take a judicial review with this not done correctly and the process becomes mired for years.

The point on Crossrail is not well made and I’m surprised that FmD neglected to say that cross rail serves Heathrow direct from Canary Wharf and the City which is a nightmare trek at present not to mention the Adamstown-esque scale regeneration project around Stratford. In terms of comparability Crossrail is the interconnector and metro built into one and will plug into an airport forcast to carry 80m passengers a year on completion as well as introduce parisian metro journey times between compartmentalised core business districts that currently rely on a victorian transport network. The price will be a large rise in Council tax bills which I support because I live 5 mins walk from a proposed station; but if I didn’t?

Its all about priorities and you really need to distance yourself from management consultant speak and break these projects down into price per passenger carried!

[quote=Why the hell should the metro north continue through Ranelagh to Bray ? just to add to the DART & LUAS is it? not quite enough choice for the spoilt southsiders then ?

Has anyone else detected a note of northside discrimination in the negative rumblings about the metro? From the start, various commentators have been raising eyebrows and asking why we need a rail service to foreign-sounding places like Lissenhall.
The only reason this is going ahead is because it was sold as an airport link, thereby allowing tourists to get straight to Grafton street without having to see the sprawling slums of DNS. If anyone proposed spending that much money on something as frivolous as letting northsiders get in and out of town they wouldn’t have had a hope. And the only reason it’s going on out to Swords is because Fingal CC fought tooth and nail for it. More often than not, it’s still referred to as the airport metro in the media, the Times being the most reluctant to accept its ultimate destination.
Of course this is nothing new. The public transport experience on the southside has been a much happier one for a long time. The DART line there is nearly twice as long, running deep into another county while pretty much all of north county Dublin is left to cram into infrequent commuter trains. Luas is exclusively a southside commuter service. Out of 36 stops (correct me if I’m wrong) , a grand total of seven are on the northside, all of them in the city centre and useful only to tourists and lazy criminals going to court.

It’s very strange to read in the IT one day that Swords is to grow to 100,000 people in the next 20 years, and the next day that it doesn’t merit a rail line. I think Frank is wrong. This has to be built. And the interconnector. I fail to understand his logic whereby he trumpets the urban design benefits of Line BX with absolutely no reference to it’s uselessness in tackling congestion or the huge costs (financial and disruption) yet questions a line which will link up with 2 existing LUAS lines and the Maynooth line, and serve a town that’s bigger than Galway as well as the Airport.

@notjim wrote:

I vote to have Frank McDonald replaced by Graham H.

A bad idea. I’m sure even he would become poisoned by the various issues on which he would have to report. That can’t be allowed to happen.

@alonso wrote:

@AndrewP wrote:

you must also bear in mind that the population of the southside is way higher. The DART runs to the entire built up extent of North Dublin, and beyond to Malahide, the same as on the southside. I don’t know where these northside slums between the Airport and Town are. Whitehall and Drumcondra? Hardly. Of course Metro North should be built as should the Finglas Luas. However it’s the northsiders that vote FF in higher numbers and it’s the northsiders who provided us with Bertie Ahern and Charlie Haughey. Call it karma if you like.

I was joking about the slums – I live there!
The north/ south population gap is not big enough to warrant the emerging public transport disparity. That gap is now closing with the pace of development and I think extending the DART to Balbriggan is something that should be fast-tracked (excuse the pun).

Given the huge population increases it weould probably make sense to continue the Dart to Drogheda (also mooted) this will also serve the new town of Bettystown/Laytown and also the proposed redevelopment of Gormanstown.

However for this to occur – the track must be made a triple or quad line from Clontarf Road to allow for efficient use of Enterprise/Commuter Services – it may then be possible to open the Dublin-Drogheda-Navan rail line as a proper service.

It is essential also for the interconnector to be built

Another idea would be to extend the Metro out past lissenhall and on to Balbriggan so that passengers on this line (incl NI passengers) could avoid having to go as far as St Stephen’s green (on the interconnector…) in order to connect with the Airport

im all in favour of the metro north going to swords but with talk of cost sutting measures due to spiralling costs wouldnt it be better to terminate the metro at the airport so the thing gets built and properly, with it then later extended to swords? or at the very least get rid of the lissenhall stop and only have 2 stops in swords as opposed to 3

also is it really worthwhile bringing the metro above ground after ballymun only to go underground at the airport a mile later?

@archipimp wrote:

im all in favour of the metro north going to swords but with talk of cost sutting measures due to spiralling costs wouldnt it be better to terminate the metro at the airport so the thing gets built and properly, with it then later extended to swords?

A Swords lynch mob is now on it’s way to Bray, complete with pitchforks and burning torches. It may take them a while though as the nearest DART station is in Malahide. 😀

as pointed out on the p11 site this interesting ei document is now available, features pictures of the o’connell st metro station and other stuff too:

http://www.iei.ie/uploads/Files/SectorPapers/139/%7BDCF9B68E3F294A02A925475F33D14AD4%7D_LUAS%20AND%20METRO%20PLANS%20FOR%20DUBLIN.PDF

im confused…

have the interconnector people changed this much from june????

well they are getting paid what 300 million!!!! ( the engineers…)

sketch up for a project worth 5 billion get real….
whats missing….

architecture

and

framework plans….

what was the date of this presentation?

@notjim wrote:

as pointed out on the p11 site this interesting ei document is now available, features pictures of the o’connell st metro station and other stuff too:

http://www.iei.ie/uploads/Files/SectorPapers/139/%7BDCF9B68E3F294A02A925475F33D14AD4%7D_LUAS%20AND%20METRO%20PLANS%20FOR%20DUBLIN.PDF

So a first glimpse at what our bare bones concrete walled stations might look like – looks crap.

How much will they actually save by not buying all those paint brushes and tins of paint does anybody know?

Also interesting to see that St. Stephens Green looks untouched, trees and all, in their after photos: hopefully the truth!

Jesus those drawings look grim. This is total false economy. It will send a clear signal out to the junkies and winos to move in and within months the costliest piece of infrastructure in the country will be an underground toilet. Would you spend a million euro on a new house, then not paint the walls to save a few quid?

@AndrewP wrote:

Jesus those drawings look grim. This is total false economy. It will send a clear signal out to the junkies and winos to move in and within months the costliest piece of infrastructure in the country will be an underground toilet. Would you spend a million euro on a new house, then not paint the walls to save a few quid?

The Bilbao metro has the spec you are referring to and is quite acceptable visually IMO. No doubt though interiors will be blitzed with advertising.

I don’t mid the interiors at all; I do worry about the lack of long elevators.

What were you expecting from the Institute of Engineers – pretty pictures?

@Rory W wrote:

What were you expecting from the Institute of Engineers – pretty pictures?

If those are supposed to be representations of what the stations will look like, then that’s exactly what I would expect.

@AndrewP wrote:

It will send a clear signal out to the junkies and winos to move in and within months the costliest piece of infrastructure in the country will be an underground toilet. Would you spend a million euro on a new house, then not paint the walls to save a few quid?

Lets wait and see, far bigger cities with a lot more social problems than Dublin seem to be able to manage their undergrounds. Agree that stations should be well painted etc.

The ‘stripped back’ style of the stations is very reminiscent of the Copenhagen Metro which I saw last year. I thought the overall feel was minimal but sleek and modern also. Certainly did not feel cheap/tacky or in any way dangerous.

@DGF wrote:

The ‘stripped back’ style of the stations is very reminiscent of the Copenhagen Metro which I saw last year. I thought the overall feel was minimal but sleek and modern also. Certainly did not feel cheap/tacky or in any way dangerous.

From what I recall of the media coverage of the cost-cutting measures a while back in terms of station finish, it was said that the Dublin metro WON’T have high quality finishes like the Copenhagen metro – personally I haven’t been on it.

We’re not really talking about buckets of paint here, it’s the architectural quality of the stations in general. Personally I think it would be ok to scrimp on all but four stations – St. Stephen’s green, O’Connell, Parnell square and the airport.

I agree finishing some of the central stations and airport to a higher degree with the same finish to the rest to follow if / when more funding is available might be a good option.

Some stations in London such as Westminster are well finished but most of the others are hardly works of art and people don’t seem to mind too much.

@JoePublic wrote:

If those are supposed to be representations of what the stations will look like, then that’s exactly what I would expect.

I dont think those were accurate representations of the metro train – unless we are getting Romania c1950 coaches.

I don’t have particular faith in those renders

@CC105 wrote:

Lets wait and see, far bigger cities with a lot more social problems than Dublin seem to be able to manage their undergrounds.

I’m not sure the cities you’re talking about have the same tolerance of littering, graffiti, public drunkenness etc that Dublin has. Bare concrete might look OK if it’s left bare but we all know it won’t be. And as soon as it starts deteriorating, passengers will start feeling uncomfortable and staying away from it.
I’m not talking gold leaf on the walls here. What’s wrong with plain white tiling? On a practical level, if would be a lot easier to keep clean than concrete.

@AndrewP wrote:

Bare concrete might look OK if it’s left bare but we all know it won’t be. And as soon as it starts deteriorating, passengers will start feeling uncomfortable and staying away from it.

Total joke, very valid point… cost/benefit on station finishes cant warrant this crap can it?
I seem to remember a headline “splash out on under-liffey station” or whatever???
What is p11 position on this?

mouse
i
c
k
e
y

hold on for the ride!!!! I hope they come to there senses fast…

make a new framework plan with DCC for parnell to st stephens green limit traffic on the quays to 2 lanes and pedestrinise dublin… working with the public
Spend millions cleaning dublins buildings from pollution…
Does any one have a photo of the roof above connolly station where the trains park its black!!! and the air so clean…
Only then will dublin come close to calling itself a world class city…

@JoePublic wrote:

If those are supposed to be representations of what the stations will look like, then that’s exactly what I would expect.

Yes I imagine they are what the stations look like _to an engineer_, someone who sees the engineering layout which , I am sure, is all they have thought about to this point, I am with Rory W, the engineering points are probably worth discussing: isn’t it cool that the O’Connell bridge station stretches so far north, is it really a good idea not to have long elevators, the design is also worth discussing, but not, I would guess, based on these pictures.

And for what its worth, at least it doesn’t have shamrocks.

Although I agree that concrete is not the only option, I think plain white tiles may look a bit like you’ve entered an underground public toilet.

I was on the Copenhagen metro just last week and it is extremely bland and indescript.

Ideally, i would like to see a bit of expression but into the design of the individual stations but at least leaving them bare faced now paves the way for future fit-outs and perhaps even competions for artistry and individualism in the stations…correct me if im wrong but weren’t Paris’ art nouveau metro station entrances an after design?

I’d prefer the stations to be ordinary now with the possibility of being attractive later rather then rushing a cr*p fit-out. We do need to get the thing built urgently to ease some congestion and provide the link to the airport

@shed wrote:

I was on the Copenhagen metro just last week and it is extremely bland and indescript.

Ideally, i would like to see a bit of expression but into the design of the individual stations but at least leaving them bare faced now paves the way for future fit-outs and perhaps even competions for artistry and individualism in the stations…correct me if im wrong but weren’t Paris’ art nouveau metro station entrances an after design?

I’d prefer the stations to be ordinary now with the possibility of being attractive later rather then rushing a cr*p fit-out. We do need to get the thing built urgently to ease some congestion and provide the link to the airport

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

Surely one of the ultimate aims of building the metro is to persuade people to use public transport rather than the private car. With this aim in mind it makes sense to spend a few bob making the stations nice places to be rather than cheap or shabby looking.

I think that it seems likely that the stations will end up like the boardwalk – full of junkies and bums.

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

the rest of the world must be wrong then!!! and ireland right…

calatrava has done at least 3 metro stations… and he is an engineer so its ok then?

new york
valencia
lisborn

to name some…

gaudi must not be an engineer!!!

And yet we are happy to fork out millions for the james joyce bridge that does nothing for the city… It takes away just so a few hundred cars can cross a bridge…
The same goes for the proposed bridge in docklands sure there nice but they don’t add to the identity of the city
they take a piece of spain and put it in ireland… its a joke…

its like saying why get richard rogers to design madrid airport???? Ive been there a few times and I can say it made the experience better…

This station will be the face of ireland the first and last thing tourists remember / see more popular than the book of kells and the guinness factory put together and they spend 14 million euro on one tv commercial
and in the uk they spend 800 million pounds on one station…

are you saying you want the new airport to be concrete to???

so go figure…

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

@damcw wrote:

Surely one of the ultimate aims of building the metro is to persuade people to use public transport rather than the private car.

Exactly, damcw. I know a significant number of people who will willingly get the Luas but who’d never consider the bus, the given reason usually having something to do with the perceived higher standard. And these are people for whom the 46A would be a better option on a journey time basis but who still choose the Luas Green Line instead.

There’s no better antidote to anti-social behaviour than large crowds, so if spending a little bit more money achieves that, do it.

Having said that, I still maintain that bare concrete can look good in stations. And whatever material is chosen, maintnenace will be key. You could gild the whole thing in gold leaf, but if it’s not swept or cleaned it will go downhill rapidly.

EDIT: sham-rockmetro- might be worth doing a bit of research on the actual purpose of the two Calatrava bridges- a few hundred private cars indeed.

As with any surface – properly maintained Concrete can look great

Attached are some images from the jubilee line extn including Fosters Canary Wharf which has a bare concrete finish, Canning town stn with a bare concrete finish and even heathrow central which also has a bare finish. They all look fine to me.

IMO White (or any colour) tiles would look hideously dated at this stage.

Again: the renders, I dont believe they will look like that at all and are for representative purposes only and there is a lot of huffing and puffing going on about nothing here. Doesn’t anyone remember the Luas renderings and how bad they looked

And any time that I’ve been in London, Berlin, Paris or Barcelona I haven’t thought – ugh the underground stations are dirty or dated etc I’ll never come back to this city again. It’s all down to maintenance of the station, a security presence (which I’m sure they will have – top prevent ‘boardwalkism’) and the service of the trains themselves.

Don’t know if many of you have been on the Washington DC subway…..lots of bare concrete on certain lines, I wouldn’t call it ugly though!

There’s no chance we’ll get this Batcave look. (Stockholm metro)

http://attu-pics.blogspot.com/2006/06/metro-stations-in-stockholm.html

It doesn’t take a huge investment to make a station something more than a depressing concrete canister of frazzled humanity. Mass transit, left to its own devices, moves people from points A to B, but can feel numbing, frustrating, and soulless. I actually have an extreme distaste for metro/underground stations that are either brutalist bomb shelters or supposedly sleek and über-modern. Some of the most inspiring examples of stations I’ve seen are in the NYC subway, where bright mosaics, bronze sculptures, and stained glass add a unique feel to each individual station.

Most of the NYC installations were added to stations well after the fact, once the MTA realized how totally dreary and bleak their underground stations were looking. Arts for Transit was started in the mid-80’s and has since commissioned about 170 works of permanent public art from a variety of artists, known and unknown. Well worth checking out. And it’s worth noting that each new commissioned work typically eats up about 0.5 to 1 percent of a station’s rehabilitation budget, so it’s not exactly draining the bank.

The renders we’ve seen for O’Connell St and the like are just filling space (granted, in an insultingly bland way) right now, but I hope it doesn’t set a precedent. If we want mass transit to be useful, it has to also be appealing. Yes, by all means, have good security, have good infrastructure. But without the humanizing element of art and design in a train station, it not only makes for a more dismal commute, but it also dulls our senses and diminishes our capacity for curiosity. No thanks.

The key issue is that the stations are clean, secure and work sufficiently well to support high levels of use. The luas stops along the canal at (say) Suir Rd or Goldenbridge are hardly laden with art or imagination, but they work just fine, despite not being in the most salubrious of neighbourhoods.

Gilding the lily in terms of appearances after the fact will undoubtedly happen – bare concrete being as easy to work with a blank canvas as they come, but getting bogged down now with the aesthetics misses the fundamental point – the critical issue is that the service works and will generate the passenger numbers, farting around with appearances can wait until the thing is either operational, or with luck, before it goes live.

The fact that it might “dull our senses and diminish our capacity for curiosity” has to be a secondary consideration to the fact that the purpose of the system is to get thousands of people to and from work (where our senses can then be dulled in much more comfortable surroundings).

Simple suggestion. A year before the system goes life, open competion held for artists or design studios for concepts for each station (maybe even reflecting the character of the area in which they’re located), to a budget. Repeat every five years.

you have all been tadoized!!!
Irish stone would be better for some stations…:confused:
I have not had the best workmanship experience in concrete in ireland!!!!
There are some ok examples…

The big problem is the escalators…

You guys can argue all you want but I think 3 stations should not have there shape/location/entrances dictated by engineers and so called transport planners.

They should be dictated by landscape architects, architects and designers and the public…

The rest of the stations can have standard shapes.

I hope we don’t have to walk past a massive food court every morning what a tease…

The interconnector people could also be accused of copying a well known architect but we wont go there….

here is a little taste of some metros…

Im not saying they are all great but they give you some idea…

@constat wrote:

Don’t know if many of you have been on the Washington DC subway…..lots of bare concrete on certain lines, I wouldn’t call it ugly though!

I’ve used that subway a few times and its great! It would be lovely to have large spacious stations like there (http://community.iexplore.com/photos/journal_photos/metro-3.jpg), however it seems our stations will be more tube-like (platform in tunnel).

It can sound a bit silly asking for more spacious and attractive stations when we so desperately need the infrastructure to be put in place, but this line will last for 100 years and it would be nice to have no regrets about how we designed it. We’re not poor!

@shamrockmetro wrote:

and in the uk they spend 800 million pounds on one station…

Exactly. Also in NY the new transport hub at ground zero will be something special. Grand projects like these can improve the reputation of the whole system.

RPA intends to award a 3-year fixed term
contract to a company who will develop, manage, market and sell a range of
merchandise for Luas, Dublin’s Luas Light Rail System. This may include,
but is not limited to the following: children’s toys; model tram sets;
stuffed toys; games; clothing, t-shirts, baseball caps etc.; die cast
model trams; mugs; mouse maps.

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=NOV094524

speaking of mickey mouse!!!!!

hahaha

full text notice…

I thought I saw a pussy cat I did I did I did…

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

This has got to be one of the most depressing sentiments I have ever read. All the more depressing because it’s probably close to what an awful lot of people in this country think on the subject of public transport or even architecture and aesthetics generally.

Try this:

The purpose of public housing is to keep the rain off people’s heads while they eat and sleep. It does not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who gives a toss.

@AndrewP wrote:

This has got to be one of the most depressing sentiments I have ever read. All the more depressing because it’s probably close to what an awful lot of people in this country think on the subject of public transport or even architecture and aesthetics generally.

Try this:

The purpose of public housing is to keep the rain off people’s heads while they eat and sleep. It does not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who gives a toss.

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria? And a poor comparison to boot. With train frequencies of up to 4 minutes you won’t be spending a lifetime in the Metro station, unlike public housing.

Agree entirely Andrew. I think I’ve said this elsewhere, but mass transit has the potential to define a city, culturally, and architecturally, and can do as much, arguably more, to express a city or nation than any monument contrived specifically to achieve that aim. A train station can achieve iconic status – Grand Central NY, St. Pancras while many networks become synonymous with their host cities – Paris Metro, the Tube, NY Subway.

We were “reliably” informed by the Garden gnome masquerading as Minister for Transport in 2005 that Stephen’s Green would be our “Grand Central”. Instead it will be a bare uninspiring shell. If the key interchanges where the masses of commuters, and masses of tourists use every day does nothing to lift them just a little, then it fails. Mass transit is not merely a method for shuttling folks around the urban environment like cattle. Cute Panda, who gives a toss? The ones who desire a city above the mediocrity that most Dubs have been culturally programmed to accept.

@adhoc wrote:

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria? And a poor comparison to boot. With train frequencies of up to 4 minutes you won’t be spending a lifetime in the Metro station, unlike public housing.

but many thousands will pass through these buildings 4 times a day, and millions of different people will use them every year. Are you saying aesthetics are irrelevant to such structures?

@alonso wrote:

but many thousands will pass through these buildings 4 times a day, and millions of different people will use them every year. Are you saying aesthetics are irrelevant to such structures?

No. I’m saying that silly comparisons shouldn’t be made to advance an argument.

fair enough adhoc. But I’ve read worse comparisons on here 🙂

@adhoc wrote:

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria? And a poor comparison to boot. With train frequencies of up to 4 minutes you won’t be spending a lifetime in the Metro station, unlike public housing.

well I’ll put this to you 6 minutes to get to the platform 4 minutes waiting ( is it a metro or a luas im confused ? Thats 10 minutes twice a day

= 20 minutes a day

more than 3 days of your life a year

say 10 million people a year

30 million days a year

1100 human lives a year assuming life expectancy of 75 years

if you house is worth 500,000 and 2 people live in it

1100 divide by 2

550 x 500,000

275,000,000 million euro…

im not mad!! just taking the piss

but im guessing you have a 1990’s mobile phone with no screen because its only to make calls and it weighs like a brick…

http://www.mic-ro.com/metro/metrocity.html?city=187

the rpa may be 90 years behind london!!!!

But the real question here, why are Tasmanians so interested in Dublin transport? What’s the metro like in Hobart?

@shamrockmetro wrote:

well I’ll put this to you 6 minutes to get to the platform 4 minutes waiting ( is it a metro or a luas im confused ? Thats 10 minutes twice a day

= 20 minutes a day

more than 3 days of your life a year

say 10 million people a year

30 million days a year

1100 human lives a year assuming life expectancy of 75 years

if you house is worth 500,000 and 2 people live in it

1100 divide by 2

550 x 500,000

275,000,000 million euro…

im not mad!! just taking the piss

but im guessing you have a 1990’s mobile phone with no screen because its only to make calls and it weighs like a brick…

http://www.mic-ro.com/metro/metrocity.html?city=187

the rpa may be 90 years behind london!!!!

@adhoc wrote:

No. I’m saying that silly comparisons shouldn’t be made to advance an argument.

Why on earth is it a silly comparison? It was drawing a reasonable conclusion from an argument that suggested we shouldn’t give a toss about how our built environment looks as long as it “does the job”. Major transport infrastructure is part of our built environment, as is housing. People may not be spending their entire lives in metro stations, but as has been pointed out, there’s a cumulative amount of usage by millions of people. Over the course of many lifetimes.
Transport projects, like housing, are part of the urban fabric and I’m sorry, but how they look IS important.

I’m not sure what this means:

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria?

I get the Dart every day and it isn’t the built environment of the station that affects users but rather whether the train works or not.

Ask the person who is using the Dart or the Luas and they’ll be more concerned about the quality of service the same will apply to the Metro. If it was proposed to spend €1.125 billion on a metro station (same as St Pancras)I would question the sanity of those involved.

In terms of design I’d like to see something which is well laid out for making the metro experience quick, comfortable and safe. All this talk of ‘Grand Central’ is rubbish (never trust a minister – they don’t think before the mouth is engaged). Keep it simple and you can have beauty in function.

And ignore those fucking renders – jesus you’d think it was set in stone at this stage

@Rory W wrote:

I get the Dart every day and it isn’t the built environment of the station that affects users but rather whether the train works or not.

Ask the person who is using the Dart or the Luas and they’ll be more concerned about the quality of service the same will apply to the Metro. If it was proposed to spend €1.125 billion on a metro station (same as St Pancras)I would question the sanity of those involved.

In terms of design I’d like to see something which is well laid out for making the metro experience quick, comfortable and safe. All this talk of ‘Grand Central’ is rubbish (never trust a minister – they don’t think before the mouth is engaged). Keep it simple and you can have beauty in function.

And ignore those fucking renders – jesus you’d think it was set in stone at this stage

I use the DART every day. It is usually on time, but the queue to get out the door at Blackrock station is INSANE. Often means I am late.

I too get off at Blackrock – curse those victorians for not designing with the 21st century commuter in mind (the minor irratant of the queue is nothing compared to when the trains fail/some tit crashes into a level crossing)

But I assume (hope) that pedestrian flows will be taken into account when designing the metro stations

@Rory W wrote:

I too get off at Blackrock – curse those victorians for not designing with the 21st century commuter in mind (the minor irratant of the queue is nothing compared to when the trains fail/some tit crashes into a level crossing)

But I assume (hope) that pedestrian flows will be taken into account when designing the metro stations

Indeed. Any curse on the Victorians is fine by me. Pox on them and their restrictive dress/inability to future plan. 🙂

Them and their top-hats and mutton chop sideburns 🙂

Is it true in germany that if a train is more than say 10 minutes late that they refund your ticket and give you a notice for work???

Would you object to that???

I also find it annoying with bus tickets you don’t get change and you collect pieces of paper that get lost how much money do they make from this???

Surely that’s the idea? That they make money from it – thus the not too expensive fares.

Actually I don’t think Dublin Bus are allowed retain uncollected money as it’s technically not theirs

The money from unredeemed change tickets goes to charity.

Wow, I always just assumed they kept it. Nice that it goes to charity instead though!!:o

I went to the Metro North Mater Stop information meeting this evening; no big surprise; 400/398 NCR, the two red bricks on the Mater site will be demolished for an entrance, there will also be an entrance the other side of the current vehicular entrance, this will be connected to the larger hospital building which will line the NCR. Perhaps surprisingly this is it, it isn’t intended to have entrances on Eccles Street, the guy I spoke to said that this was much requested and so would be considered. There will be two houses demolished on Leo Street, by the Mater Private, for emergency exits and ventilation. Although the box looks huge, there isn’t going to be retail inside. They hope to build this towards the end of next year, after the Railway Order but before they TBM goes in. It all looks very impressive.

The Phibsborough Mountjoy LAP included a little piece espousing the benefits of an entrance to Eccles St. Its crazy not to included this. Seemingly the RPA were having none of it though. They were making excuses about the difficulty of resolving design issues with the future development of the Mater/ National Peadiatric hospital. I suppose it presence in the LAP gives some voice to the City Council’s approval of an entrance there anyway. Maybe it’ll make a difference.

They do seem to have an odd, anomalous, approach to entrances, from using other metro systems you would, for example, have expected smaller entrances on both sides of the ncr, along with eccles st and maybe leo st: instead they have six escalators more or less beside each other housed with two substantial entrance halls. Again, at the dcu stop, where they have plans posted, they have a small number of large entrances with substantial structures above ground, quite different from the elevator disappearing into the footpath you see elsewhere, in Paris, London, NYc and so forth. Perhaps this reflects current thinking, am I wrong, for example, in thinking the Toronto metro, which is relatively new, is similar in this regard?

As pointed out on the platform11 forum, the RPA have posted material from their Metro North open days,

http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=814

to

http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=829

It is encouraging to see that the O’Connell Street stop will only be 50-100m from the Abbey St Luas stop.

The montage however is useless as it fails to display the impacts of signage or else there won’t be any and tourists won’t be able to find the entrance. I have to say I find the whole thing most uninspiring (sorry) why can’t there be two exits one on each side of the street instead of dumping people into the median where they will have to fight there way through crowds blocked by trees and a statue.

Does nobody on the project have any grasp of moving large numbers of people around? I can see the engineer CVs I designed the Ballyragget bus stop; it had to cope with LARGE CROWDS FOR THE LEINSTER FINAL AND THE SEMI AND THE FINAL!!!!

The RPA didn’t exist up to, what,6 years ago….so probably no!

they have posted a tiny piece of the puzzle…
St Stephens green does not look too hot from those 3d’s

@PVC King wrote:

It is encouraging to see that the O’Connell Street stop will only be 50-100m from the Abbey St Luas stop.

The montage however is useless as it fails to display the impacts of signage or else there won’t be any and tourists won’t be able to find the entrance. I have to say I find the whole thing most uninspiring (sorry) why can’t there be two exits one on each side of the street instead of dumping people into the median where they will have to fight there way through crowds blocked by trees and a statue.

Does nobody on the project have any grasp of moving large numbers of people around? I can see the engineer CVs I designed the Ballyragget bus stop; it had to cope with LARGE CROWDS FOR THE LEINSTER FINAL AND THE SEMI AND THE FINAL!!!!

Actually the montage is of the west side only and there are entrances on both sides of the street. The montage shows a glass rooflight in the median ( you can see the statue of O’Brien in the background) Oddly though there is only one entrance in Westmoreland street on the west side! ( more info was on display at the open day~)
JJ

FYI the drawings for the O Connell St stop show an entrance on either side of the street and not in the central median.

The RPA was originally the Light Rail Project Office under CIE before before separated from CIE for the first Luas project and then later became the RPA with a new chairman and expanded role.

The drawings show a widening of the pavement on Westmoreland Street which is to be welcomed, hopefully they’ll continue this wider pavement up to include lower Grafton St which is a bit of a pedestrian choke point.

@PVC King wrote:

It is encouraging to see that the O’Connell Street stop will only be 50-100m from the Abbey St Luas stop.

50-100m? try 10-20m

See they have Metro North hoardings around Stephens Green today, has the big dig finally begun?