transport21

Let’s get back to reality.

RPA defends capacity of proposed metro trams
Specifications for Dublin’s Metro North to be released later this month are to concentrate on 90-metre trams as opposed to the higher capacity heavy rail carriages, the Railway Procurement Agency has confirmed. Tim O’Brien reports.

The confirmation comes amid mounting concern over capacity problems on the existing Luas lines as well as fears that Metro North could suffer similar peak-hour capacity problems within a decade of opening.

The Irish Times has learned the RPA was advised by some of the bidders for the Metro North contract that even if it opts for the narrower 2.4 metre tram system, it should build the tunnel wide enough to later convert to 2.8 metre carriages.

The RPA has also been told that comparable capital cities to Dublin, including Prague, Hamburg, Vienna, Berlin, Lisbon, Munich and Madrid all utilise the higher capacity, wider-bodied carriages in their undergrounds.

Munich, which was the subject of a Department of Transport visit in 2005, uses a “low capacity metro” at 2.8 metres wide, and is capable of carrying in excess of 30,000 people per hour in each direction , some 50 per cent more than the 20,000 capacity of the proposed Dublin underground. Dublin’s Dart which can be up to 170 metres long has capacity for 36,000 people per hour per direction. The capacity issue comes as RPA planners face criticism over passengers being left on the platform during the morning rush because trams are full. A Dublin City Business Association spokesman, Tom Coffey, said “to be credible the underground has to have a capacity of about 35,000 people per hour in each direction.

“We can’t have a metro which is going to reach capacity six years after it opens. There is no going back to widen a tunnel after it is built and this infrastructure should be designed to last 100 years, as it did in London and elsewhere,” he maintained.

The issue also comes as a two-day conference on infrastructure heard details of a Dublin Institute of Technology Futures Academy report which predicted population on the island would rise to seven million people by 2020, with about 1.5 million extra people moving into the Dublin Belfast corridor.

A number of commentators including the head of the National Roads Authority Fred Barry said the population increase – similar in size to the existing population of Dublin – would require another large-scale increase in public transport. Mr Barry said the increase would result in demand for much more rail transport as part of “a successor to Transport 21, a Transport 22, if you like”.

However, speaking at the conference the chief executive of the RPA, Frank Allen, said he was “absolutely confident” that the capacity of 20,000 people per hour in each direction was sufficient for Metro North.

He remarked that just “isolated parts” of the London and Paris metros were operating above that capacity and it would be very hard to find other examples in cities in Europe. He said he was “very, very confident” of the capacity of the 90-metre carriages operating at a two minute frequency during peak times.

Mr Allen said the population forecast in the Fingal County Development plan was more pertinent than the all-island forecast. Metro North was, he said, “fully integrated with population projections” and “Fingal is absolutely confident that the capacity is more than is required”.

The Irish Times

keep posting away

I don’t take anything you come up with seriously 😀

Dublin airport projected passengers 2025: 38 million. Thats about 100,000 a day

Not all will use MN but there will be as many many meeters and greeters on top of that

Swords. Pop predicted at 100,000 by 2020

currently about 12,000 people employed directly and indirectly related to Dublin airport.

34 million is about 90,000 a day

With other journeys from Maynooth line, Mater, DCU

MN will attract intense investment all along the route.

easily reach 34 million a year

@marmajam wrote:

Swords. Pop predicted at 100,000 by 2020

The insanity of either wanting or believing that Swords will have a population of 100,000 in eleven years time hasn’t occured to you, marmajam?

We would need bad planning to continue on a massive scale for that to happen.

I don’t know anyone who cares about Dublin who wouldn’t love to have a metro North, South, East and West and Luas lines in all directions, but if we’re going to start undermining the proper planning of the city to fit in with unbalanced infra-structure choices, we’re not just going to be broke forever, we’re going to be living in a city that’s all arteries and no heart.

@alonso wrote:

marmajam, please stop being a dick in your replies. If you disagree with PVC King at least do so with some semblance of maturity. Answering his question would be a good start. I support Metro North but i find it difficult to agree with you.

I couldn’t care less about your approval.

Your ridiculously naive. PVC is a bluffer and a liar. I won’t apologise for pointing that out.

@marmajam wrote:

I couldn’t care less about your approval.

Your ridiculously naive. PVC is a bluffer and a liar. I won’t apologise for pointing that out.

Well you’ve won me over now. Gobshite

I appreciate this conversation appears to have gone around in circles for some time.

Some doubt the figures of future patronage. Others doubt that they remain valid. Others question the cost in absolute terms, others in terms of the cost relative to what else it could buy.

I think there are a couple of points worth considering about the big picture, which often get lost in an effort to do amateur transport planning (that’s not a slight on anyone, it’s one of my favourite hobbies!).

Our track record: To say that Ireland has ever been guilty of over-supplying transport infrastructure would most likely have people drowning in their own laughter. We have typically under-provided – Luas, M50 etc cases in point. Preparing a system with high potential capacity, but on a low short-term spec appears sensible. The second point I would make regarding our track record is just how bad the oft-cited alternatives tend to be in Dublin – the QBC “network” is farcical, with the only success story being the (yawn – we’ve heard this a hundred times already) Stillorgan QBC.

Numbers: None of the discussions seem to take into account that the DTO contains a relatively comprehensive transport model for the Greater Dublin Area. This can better help to inform the likely levels of trip generation that might occur. From the discussion above and the experience with Luas, I would say that the estimates tend to be conservative and this seems to be generated by two primary components. The first is interchange – the level of transfers between Connolly and heuston seem to have vastly outpaced original expectations based on patronage of the God-awful bus link; the second off-peak journeys enabled by a reliable high frequency, dependable service.

A system: the key thing in planning anything big is that you need to plan as part of a system – ideally strategy first, if you can afford it followed by infrastructure. Dublin is on the cusp of developing a system that has taken decades of arguing to get a very weak political establishment to come on board and accept the importance of. It would be a shame were a critical mass of well-intentioned individuals/groups to being us back to square one (endless talking shop), when what is needed (yes, even now, the world has not ended) is delivery. Linking the airport into the city, linking into major growth areas (yes, even if it is for 10 years from now), connecting it to the revised X-shape DART network and the Luas lines takes us from provincial backwater to modern European city. You can build as many QBCs (some of which don’t even have busses running on them) and you will not get the level of modal shift to change how Dublin works.

Funding/Money: there is something quite attractive about using the DART underground and Metro North as part of a Keynsian-style public sector driven stimulus to assist the economy and the base of the trough that we find ourselves in. Both would be funded by PPP (I don’t like this procurement model – I think in the long-run it’s a more expensive way of procuring). however, in the current climate, when the state can’t borrow much it’s difficult to inject stimulus into the economy. This would be “off-the-sheets” because for the construction period it would be private sector money. It would bring jobs, economic stimulus, improve the competitiveness of the economy and of Dublin as a location in which to visit/do business.

I think we need to think big and brave, and I for one (as if that isn’t obvious) believe that this is just one example of where we can start to deliver to find ourselves out of our current quagmire. Negativity will not get us there (this is not to dismiss the many valid points made by many of the contributors of the specifics of the capacity/design).

… Yes, you can (don’t barf, but hopefully you get the idea!)

@markpb wrote:

I can easily. The other rail tracks (Dart, Suburban and Luas) that it connects with allow plenty of onward travel choices that cover a large part of the city.

Metro North relies heavily on the interconnector to justify its crazy terminus at Stephen’s Green, made worse by the fact that its construction is being prioritised over, and at the likely expense of the interconnector proceeding at all.

@markpb wrote:

You can’t expect them to build a single metro line that covers the entire city. It would be unacceptably expensive. This is a good start.

I don’t. I do however expect provision to be made for the inevitable extension. Its bad enough that they seek to destroy the integrity of Stephen’s Green, but by their lack of foresight clearly intend to go back and plough it up all over again in ten years time. Though, I suppose given the going over its about to receive, it won’t matter much at that point.

Fair point there are 2,600 spaces to be provided; assuming each car has 1.5 passengers that is about 3,900 passengers a day which comes to about 1.2m annual passengers. Another point worth considering is that 2,000 of the car spaces or 3,000 passengers are to park within 1 mile of an existing rail line at Donabate; why not just move the carpark close to mile?

Frank

The RPA predicted the numbers on Luas; I’ll take your word on that but two things I would like you to consider are firstly the population density of the Luas Route to Dundrum which is infinitely higher than the density to old Ballymun and secondly how many of the Red line passengers are using Luas to access Heuston Station and how many of them will continue to use it post interconnector?

My interpretation is that the passenger forecasts were done by the RPA; please correct me if I am wrong on this; as whatever way I look at the Metro North proposed catchment and following marmajam’s chuck it in anyway posts I’m pretty sure not a pensioner was missed.

I can’t get the population catchment as far as the Airport above about 54,000 and given the way the census records Swords as sprawling half way to Ballyboghill, and from looking at aeriel photos of so called inner Swords I can’t see a 1kms radius of the proposed alignment having a population above 20,000. But please do enlighten me if I have missed anything; it is however surprising that that no poplulation catchment was given; you would think that it would be the first variable stated.

Capacity is not straight forward; take the Jubilee line which is listed as having a capacity of 37,000 per hour; the two key sections of that route are Canary Wharf to Waterloo and the overlapping section of London Bridge to Baker Street; the route doesn’t really transport people in an origin to destination type of way for most users; it is more used for moving people from the rail terminus from the outer commuter segments of the network to their end destination.

Given that MN only connects the Maynooth line to Luas Red Line and the Interconnector and that demand at peak times for this connection looks to be less than 100 per peak hour surely a Luas connection from Ballymun in would suffice; with Swords and the Airport served from the Northern Line.

http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/Metro%20North%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence/MN%20RO%20Oral%20Hearing%20Evidence%2001042009/MN%20Oral%20Hearing%20Presentation%20Transport%20Model%20Dave%20King%20030409.pdf

@PVC King wrote:

The RPA predicted the numbers on Luas; I’ll take your word on that

They estimated about 20m passengers and approximate operational break-even the year before opening (2003).
http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=4379&lang=ENG&loc=1346

but two things I would like you to consider are firstly the population density of the Luas Route to Dundrum which is infinitely higher than the density to old Ballymun

The population density along the route is not relevant – an apartment building next to the line will generate no trips if it is nowhere near a station. What matters is the actual and potential residential/worker/student density in walking distance around the stations and the popularity of the station location as a trip destination (for shopping or entertainment or whatever).

how many of the Red line passengers are using Luas to access Heuston Station and how many of them will continue to use it post interconnector?

I’m not sure how this question is relevant to MN ridership. The red line follows a different route from the IC. They intersect at Heuston and Docklands.IC will certainly take passengers from the red line for journeys between heuston and docklands, however both lines will feed passengers to each other. I expect overall ridership on the red line to increase post IC.

My interpretation is that the passenger forecasts were done by the RPA; please correct me if I am wrong on this;

I think they did their own forecasts based on the DTO demand prediction model. They would have had to get their estimates independently audited by one of the transport consultancies like Faber Maunsell.

This is one heck of an interesting debate. All sides of the argument have very interesting arguments. I am personally supportive of MN. I may not have facts and details and you may discard my post for reasons such as that. However I think the average person, including myself and especially residents in Dublin have seen the successes of the LUAS and DART. They may not have the facts and details but they are very grateful for the service. These projects may have cost a lot but it is more than just about predicted passenger numbers. It’s about a reorientation of transport to a more sustainable means. MN and LUAS and DART are more than just a service, they are an incentive to get people not just in the catchment area but others to consider change. I hope I am making sense. Simply put, arguments about numbers etc are very relevant but it is not just about numbers but it’s afect on society now and in the future.