Dublin Airport Rail Connectivity

[hurricanemk1c]

Just putting a spur from Clongriffin to the airport (and I saw single line mentioned, a mad bottleneck of capacity) will not solve anything without fundamental changes between Clongriffin and the city centre. Otherwise you're just adding congestion, or diverting trains which then will upset large numbers of people. It would only work with additional track laid on the existing corridor, or tunnel it. A relatively low frequency DART service would not be sufficent.

And I've crossed the road many, many, many times between Connolly and Busaras, easily done if you wait for the traffic lights. And a good proportion of bus services that serve Busaras also serve the airport

[Ironroad]

I agree with the sentiment that  we are playing catchup after years of of neglecting to invest. But the choice of projects, the logic employed, the order in which they are executed, the extremely slow pace of it all, and the overcomplication and extravagance that is manifest is extremely frustrating to witness and does nothing to satisfy very immediate needs.

We live in the here and now. The logic of looking for low hanging fruit and the completion of relatively cheap projects (even if piecemeal and imperfect) on an ongoing basis would give us ongoing improvements in acceptable timeframes and do something to satisfy the needs of the travelling public on an ongoing basis as needs arise.  Instead we come up with grand plans for projects that might be completed in a 30 plus time span that not only miss the mark (eg the metro and proper connectivity with other services) but may not be relevant to actual needs and circumstances at that distant point in the future..  I accept the Metro is an exceptionally large scale and necessary project that may be close to being spade ready, but it will be a least another 10 - 12 years before it is operational and how many years have passed since it was first proposed.  In the meantime serving the airport is shelved, no alternative is considered and not a thought was given to those living the vicinity of the proposed major construction sites along the route of the metro who could not sell their property if they wanted to because this is hanging over them for all those years.

The concept of a spur off the northern line is a classical example of the inability to grasp the nettle. This was first proposed by CIE, fifty years ago (yes in the 1970's) and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read the following  statement in a response from the Dept of Transport, to "Louth" and posted here by him  on March 29.

The draft rail review currently lists the spur from Clongriffin to Dublin Airport as a long-term intervention that should be delivered between 2040 & 2050. Work on the Review is now at an advanced stage and a draft report was published for a Strategic Environmental Assessment public consultation last July. The public consultation phase of the SEA process concluded on 29 September and submissions are now under review by officials from both jurisdictions.

So there is still a possibility of a branch line from Clongriffin a full century after it was first proposed. But DoctorPan you seem to be saying it won't  happen because of development on the route?   It seems to me that this is a corridor that lies on the approach to a runway at Dublin Airport where there are low flying planes and on which there is currently very little development. If the principal is established that a line will be built,  there should be no reason not to secure the land. 

Another point that seems to be missed but is alluded in the Dept of Transport letter, is that  such a branch line is something that has All Ireland implications and would greatly benefit travellers from Northern Ireland that need to use Dublin Airport and to some extent the cost could be shared between both jurisdictions.

As for stopping the enterprise at Clongriffin. This train already makes six stops, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, Portadown, Lurgan, & Lisburn and accordingly seems more like a commuter than an express service between the two biggest cities on the island. I think eliminating stops that are already served by commuter trains and adding a stop that provides connectivity to the major airport on the island would be more logical.

Realistically what would the cost of the spur be?  land acquisition, station at the airport, modification at the existing Clongriffin station, 8 km of double track, maybe 200-300m. This is pocket change compared to the 10bn it is currently estimated the metro will cost. It is a very small project that could be done as an aside.

 

[StevieB]

There seems to be a belief amongst planners that people are ok with having to change trains multiple times. Am I in the minority who believe that puts people off train travel?

Stephen

[Louth]

Excellent discussion on this topic. DoctorPan has summed up the issue very well in his Point 7 and also by Ironroad above. A spur from Clongriffin is not a simple solution and to be fully effective needs to be done in conjunction with other infrastructural upgrades as outlined by DoctorPan.  But if carried out correctly it would benefit people travelling to the airport from most population centres on the island.

I'm looking forward to being reincarnated in 100 years time (good comment above Ironroad). Whether we would have an Irish Rail connection to the airport by that time or Star Trek teleporting is an open question.

Kevin

[Ironroad]

7 hours ago, hurricanemk1c said:

Just putting a spur from Clongriffin to the airport (and I saw single line mentioned, a mad bottleneck of capacity) will not solve anything without fundamental changes between Clongriffin and the city centre. Otherwise you're just adding congestion, or diverting trains which then will upset large numbers of people. It would only work with additional track laid on the existing corridor, or tunnel it. A relatively low frequency DART service would not be sufficent.

And I've crossed the road many, many, many times between Connolly and Busaras, easily done if you wait for the traffic lights. And a good proportion of bus services that serve Busaras also serve the airport

I don't know who suggested a single line, it would need to be a double tracked line. And yes ultimately adding at least a third running line from Clongriffin to Connolly is a necessity. But the problem is that making the provision of that additional running line into the city a prerequisite to the building of a branch line to the airport is a reason in itself for not adding the running lines.  So nothing gets done.  We are always in this circle of negativity of reasons not to do something.  My suggestion was that trains on the branch would initially simply shuttle back and forth between the airport and Clongriffin with interconnectivity  to all trains passing through Clongriffin. Not ideal but a whole lot more than we have right now which is no service at all.

As for connecting Connolly and Busaras. They have coexisted for sixty years and it is inexcusable that the provision of a simple overpass to allow travellers to  transfer from one terminal to the other (out of the weather without  the risks of crossing one of the busiest streets in the city trying to lug suitcases) has not been provided in all that time. Consider this simple journey, I want to get from Drumcondra to Busaras to catch a provincial bus. I can take a bus into O'Connell St and then lug my bags down Talbot St or Abbey St etc. to Busaras.  But wouldn't it be more pleasant and convenient to take a train into Connolly and cross directly into Busaras on a walkway. Making things convenient should be a priority.

[hurricanemk1c]

3 hours ago, Ironroad said:

As for stopping the enterprise at Clongriffin. This train already makes six stops, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, Portadown, Lurgan, & Lisburn and accordingly seems more like a commuter than an express service between the two biggest cities on the island. I think eliminating stops that are already served by commuter trains and adding a stop that provides connectivity to the major airport on the island would be more logical.

 

1 train out of currently 112 a week stop at 6 stops. 13 a week stop at 3 stops, the rest at 4 stops being relatively major population centres along the route and therefore logical for an Inter-City service.

You need a good foundation to build anything extra. Part of the DART+ extension to Drogheda includes better acceleration/braking than 29000 units and freeing up some capacity that way, likewise with a new Enterprise fleet having better traction capabilities than a 201+DD fleet, and also making Howth-Howth Jctn a shuttle service. My day to day job comes up against a variety of capacity constraints that adding a spur from Clongriffin to the airport will only add to, resulting in a sub standard service.

I want a link to the airport, being a regular user of Dublin Airport, but it has to be done logically. The only way without extra track between Clongriffin and the city centre that you are going to get a decent service to the airport is divert services from other locations. It's not a "circle of negativity", it's being logical about the problem. Otherwise we build a spur, can't adequately use it, and the only winner then is newspaper headliner writers saying another public transport screw up. You don't randomly build a house without checking the land and whether it can support the proposed structure, why should provision of a rail line be any different?

It amuses me that a shuttle is fine to the airport, ie changing trains with suitcases in Clongriffin, but not elsewhere. Either it's OK or not. Why would I get a train from Howth to Howth Jctn, change to a train to Clongriffin, and change again to get to the airport when there's a near direct bus? Same from various other parts of the Dublin area, such as my own on the Maynooth line (when BusConnects reaches us we'll have a direct link to the airport by bus, rather than two interchanges as proposed above. Even today it's just one).

[Ironroad]

1 hour ago, hurricanemk1c said:

 

I want a link to the airport, being a regular user of Dublin Airport, but it has to be done logically. The only way without extra track between Clongriffin and the city centre that you are going to get a decent service to the airport is divert services from other locations. It's not a "circle of negativity", it's being logical about the problem. Otherwise we build a spur, can't adequately use it, and the only winner then is newspaper headliner writers saying another public transport screw up. You don't randomly build a house without checking the land and whether it can support the proposed structure, why should provision of a rail line be any different?

That foundation analogy misses the point.  As it stands the branch won't be built because the additional running lines don't exist and we won't add the running lines because the branch doesn't exist. So we "make do" as we are (and have been). That is a circle of negativity, that has existed for a very long time. I don't pretend that a standalone branch that relies on the current level of services on the main line would be ideal. It would however be a pragmatic incremental step that could deliver a service in a reasonable timeframe and provide the impetus to improving the main line and the services on that line.

The news hounds will find something to bark about no matter what and heavens forbid they might have something constructive to say, isn't that part of the problem?

[Brack]

On 8/4/2024 at 5:53 PM, StevieB said:

There seems to be a belief amongst planners that people are ok with having to change trains multiple times. Am I in the minority who believe that puts people off train travel?

Stephen

Every change increases the chances that something runs late and you miss a connection.

Airports are fairly critical on timings and arriving before the thing takes off is kind of key!

So with changes, it's not (just) the inconvenience, it's the risk you don't make it. Would I trust being able to get a train down from belfast then back out in time for a flight? Not sure. Last week I went to Italy with the family. Depending on time of day, there are 2-4 trains per hour to Newcastle, then the metro to the airport. Given the ticket prices, the fact I had my wife plus kids, the frequent strikes at the time I was booking the holiday, I drove to the airport and paid to park up, as I knew I could get there in just over half an hour rather than crossing my fingers nothing went wrong and taking twice as long, plus having to allow extra time so there was a backup service.

On the other hand, if I were flying in to the airport from somewhere else, I'd be getting the metro into Newcastle - a reliable service where you know where you're going and where/when it stops is essential. Buses in unfamiliar places are awful - never sure of where you are, where your stop is, and what the actual route is. Trains you can be sure of all that

I wonder what proportion of those coming in/out of Dublin airport are coming to/from Dublin City itself vs those coming in from further afield?

The LUAS makes getting between Heuston and connolly much easier, but I still can't help but think that part of the trouble is there are too many termini in Dublin. If long distance heavy rail services had been centralised in one station (the logical choice being connolly, though that'd probably make capacity problems there) then much of the connection problem would be removed. The issue is trying to connect to both heuston and connolly services with one N-S line.

As for Metro North vs a spur to the airport, putting in the new line will get far more traffic as there is currently an obvious railway/transit gap in that section of the city (likewise something through kimmage/bushy park/templeogue) on the south side). If the airport were connected in another way, I imagine there'd be no appetite/funding for a new line serving dublin 9/11.

Though whether you'd want the denizens of ballymun gaining increased access to the outside world is perhaps a different question...

Edited April 9 by Brack

[Ironroad]

1 hour ago, Brack said:

Every change increases the chances that something runs late and you miss a connection.

Airports are fairly critical on timings and arriving before the thing takes off is kind of key!

So with changes, it's not (just) the inconvenience, it's the risk you don't make it. Would I trust being able to get a train down from belfast then back out in time for a flight? Not sure. Last week I went to Italy with the family. Depending on time of day, there are 2-4 trains per hour to Newcastle, then the metro to the airport. Given the ticket prices, the fact I had my wife plus kids, the frequent strikes at the time I was booking the holiday, I drove to the airport and paid to park up, as I knew I could get there in just over half an hour rather than crossing my fingers nothing went wrong and taking twice as long, plus having to allow extra time so there was a backup service.

On the other hand, if I were flying in to the airport from somewhere else, I'd be getting the metro into Newcastle - a reliable service where you know where you're going and where/when it stops is essential. I'm always 

I wonder what proportion of those coming in/out of Dublin airport are coming to/from Dublin City itself vs those coming in from further afield?

The LUAS makes getting between Heuston and connolly much easier, but I still can't help but think that part of the trouble is there are too many termini in Dublin. If long distance heavy rail services had been centralised in one station (the logical choice being connolly, though that'd probably make capacity problems there) then much of the connection problem would be removed. The issue is trying to connect to both heuston and connolly services with one N-S line.

As for Metro North vs a spur to the airport, putting in the new line will get far more traffic as there is currently an obvious railway/transit gap in that section of the city (likewise something through kimmage/bushy park/templeogue) on the south side). If the airport were connected in another way, I imagine there'd be no appetite/funding for a new line serving dublin 9/11.

Though whether you'd want the denizens of ballymun gaining increased access to the outside world is perhaps a different question...

You are absolutely correct as regards connections, travel can be stressful and you cannot start to relax until you are on the final leg to your destination something the planners don't seem to understand. 

As regards the origin/destination of those coming in and out of Dublin airport, I don't know and an answer would be interesting. But I'd guess it may be that the number of those with origins/destinations outside Dublin may be in the order of 60%.  DAP naturally attracts from everywhere on the island because on the level of air services it provides. Greater Dublin itself will account for quite a lot of traffic because of the size of the population there. But I suspect that the numbers actually interested in travelling into the city centre regardless as to origin/destination may be quite low particularly if they had options that allowed them to avoid that.

I don't think providing a heavy rail link to the airport diminishes the need or appetite for metro north, the primary purpose of which is to serve Swords and Ballymun etc,. According to the last census Swords is the 8th largest urban centre in the country with a population of 41,000 and that is not the entire catchment area. Projections are that it will grow to 100.000. Serving the airport is purely a bonus (good luck getting on the train there) and was clearly not the focus in planning the metro given it has no direct connectivity to a hub such as Connolly etc. 

And yes an equivalent line on the south side would be a good idea. It should already be part of the agenda and should fit in seamlessly but !!!!!

 

[eeiknh]

18 hours ago, Ironroad said:

You are absolutely correct as regards connections, travel can be stressful and you cannot start to relax until you are on the final leg to your destination something the planners don't seem to understand. 

As regards the origin/destination of those coming in and out of Dublin airport, I don't know and an answer would be interesting. But I'd guess it may be that the number of those with origins/destinations outside Dublin may be in the order of 60%.  DAP naturally attracts from everywhere on the island because on the level of air services it provides. Greater Dublin itself will account for quite a lot of traffic because of the size of the population there. But I suspect that the numbers actually interested in travelling into the city centre regardless as to origin/destination may be quite low particularly if they had options that allowed them to avoid that.

I don't think providing a heavy rail link to the airport diminishes the need or appetite for metro north, the primary purpose of which is to serve Swords and Ballymun etc,. According to the last census Swords is the 8th largest urban centre in the country with a population of 41,000 and that is not the entire catchment area. Projections are that it will grow to 100.000. Serving the airport is purely a bonus (good luck getting on the train there) and was clearly not the focus in planning the metro given it has no direct connectivity to a hub such as Connolly etc. 

And yes an equivalent line on the south side would be a good idea. It should already be part of the agenda and should fit in seamlessly but !!!!!

 

coupled to this: The profile of a traveler who is an airport passenger/customer as distinct from airport worker is very different in terms of luggage, point of origin etc. and the carriages required are a very different layout. I travel To Stockholm Arlanda regularly and they have both commuter train and dedicated "fast" airport train for airport passengers...the latter being optimized to get to central station and a very different carriage layout (and a price premium)

[jhb171achill]

On 8/4/2024 at 5:53 PM, StevieB said:

There seems to be a belief amongst planners that people are ok with having to change trains multiple times. Am I in the minority who believe that puts people off train travel?

Stephen

I'd say you're amongst the vast majority! Three family members of mine, lately the proud possessors of free travel passes, are finding the joys now of long distance BUS travel, where changes from one pedestrian train to another are unnecessary. One relative has recently moved to Co Wickla. By express bus from Dublin city centre it's 48 minutes. By train it's over an hour. Another relative has had the misfortune to have to go to Rosslare every month or so in the last year. She wouldn't touch the train with a bargepole. Wexford Bus all the way. I did this journey once recently myself. It was horrific. Had I not been an enthusiast, I would have genuinely made a point of never setting foot on a train again. An absolutely FILTHY 29, no wifi, and crawling at what seemd 30mph the whole way until it got to bray; thereafter a trundle at walking pace to Connolly, arriving a good hour after a parallel bus would have done.

And now they're talking about terminating this service half way, and putting people into even slower darts?

As others say, we're playing catch-up. Big time.

One must recognise good planning etc., and compensation for those inconvenienced, but nothing short of a massive root & branch upgrade, and hundreds of billions spent on it, will remedy the public transport in the east coast area. And if that means knocking down half of Ballsbridge and Killester to quadruple Drogheda - Bray, removing the Aviva Stadium to somewhere near Blessington, putting a tunnel under Merrion Gates, levelling Bray Head to double the track from Bray to Wicklow, and ignoring those in the city centre who say that tunnelling beneath them will keep their cat awake, so be it.

Edited April 10 by jhb171achill

[hurricanemk1c]

On 8/4/2024 at 10:50 PM, Ironroad said:

That foundation analogy misses the point.  As it stands the branch won't be built because the additional running lines don't exist and we won't add the running lines because the branch doesn't exist. So we "make do" as we are (and have been). That is a circle of negativity, that has existed for a very long time. I don't pretend that a standalone branch that relies on the current level of services on the main line would be ideal. It would however be a pragmatic incremental step that could deliver a service in a reasonable timeframe and provide the impetus to improving the main line and the services on that line.

The news hounds will find something to bark about no matter what and heavens forbid they might have something constructive to say, isn't that part of the problem?

No the foundation analogy is exactly the point - additional capacity requirements on the Northern line stands without having an airport connection. Add an airport connection, even a branch with a connection (and associated increased dwell times to accommodate transferring passengers) and you're back to square 0, let alone square 1. In an ideal world, do both at the same time - capacity and airport. But capacity should come first, as it benefits far more people.

There's not a willingness to fund this however within the political election cycle. It's a higher priority than an airport line (and if I'm honest double track Portarlington-Athlone would be equal priority). And there's no stomach for CPO, so Metro to the airport would be sufficient and likely deliver far higher capacity too than any heavy rail link

Edited April 10 by hurricanemk1c

[Ironroad]

2 hours ago, hurricanemk1c said:

No the foundation analogy is exactly the point - additional capacity requirements on the Northern line stands without having an airport connection. Add an airport connection, even a branch with a connection (and associated increased dwell times to accommodate transferring passengers) and you're back to square 0, let alone square 1. In an ideal world, do both at the same time - capacity and airport. But capacity should come first, as it benefits far more people.

There's not a willingness to fund this however within the political election cycle. It's a higher priority than an airport line (and if I'm honest double track Portarlington-Athlone would be equal priority). And there's no stomach for CPO, so Metro to the airport would be sufficient and likely deliver far higher capacity too than any heavy rail link

But when oh when will that capacity be provided and how can cause an awakening?  Have you ever watched a televised Dail Committee meeting/discussion with so called experts or with those being called to account on any issue?  Pathetic and uninformed nonsense is the order of the day.

[226 Abhann na Suire]

5 hours ago, eeiknh said:

I travel To Stockholm Arlanda regularly and they have both commuter train and dedicated "fast" airport train for airport passengers...the latter being optimized to get to central station and a very different carriage layout (and a price premium)

I personally see this as being the argument for the Clongriffin link ALONGSIDE the metro for the airport. Manchester, London, Stockholm, Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen all have both a metro/light rail link (which serves other populated locations on the way) to the city centre AS WELL AS a heavy rail link for fast tracking to the main rail stations.

I think this should be the case for Dublin. Metro was clearly designed as a metro which links the city centre and some currently unserved populated suburbs with a link to some non-central rail stations and by happenstance, the airport. But it won’t have the capacity in the peak hours with all the commuters coming from north Dublin to handle all the airport traffic and the associated baggage. We also need a separate dedicated fast route to the airport (even more important when you think we’re an island nation compared with all the mainland European cities that have it!)

Ideally DART trains (and slightly modified ones at that - more baggage space etc…) would leave the airport - be it an elevated or underground station - to travel on a double track corridor to Clongriffin where a stop would be made to interchange to DART and Intercity services south for Connolly and north for… well, the north. It would then join the fast lines south and travel non-stop to Spencer Dock where it would join the DART Underground tunnels under Dublin to Heuston and terminate at Hazelhatch. This provides the most connectivity (Clongriffin for Drogheda and Belfast, Spencer Dock for Maynooth and Sligo, Pearse for south Dublin and Rosslare, and then Heuston for everywhere else) but I really feel that the airport DART could not be done without Project FourNorth and DART+ Tunnel. 

That’s just my spake on it but I feel that the argument of ‘sure we’ll have the metro’ really doesn’t stand up properly as an argument against an airport DART as well. And while the airport DART is not a priority with the metro already being there, and projects like FourNorth, and line enhancements, reopenings, and new stations outside of Dublin, I do think we will  eventually need both metro and a heavy rail connection to properly cater for capacity. 

[Ironroad]

4 hours ago, 226 Abhann na Suire said:

I personally see this as being the argument for the Clongriffin link ALONGSIDE the metro for the airport. Manchester, London, Stockholm, Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen all have both a metro/light rail link (which serves other populated locations on the way) to the city centre AS WELL AS a heavy rail link for fast tracking to the main rail stations.

I think this should be the case for Dublin. Metro was clearly designed as a metro which links the city centre and some currently unserved populated suburbs with a link to some non-central rail stations and by happenstance, the airport. But it won’t have the capacity in the peak hours with all the commuters coming from north Dublin to handle all the airport traffic and the associated baggage. We also need a separate dedicated fast route to the airport (even more important when you think we’re an island nation compared with all the mainland European cities that have it!)

Ideally DART trains (and slightly modified ones at that - more baggage space etc…) would leave the airport - be it an elevated or underground station - to travel on a double track corridor to Clongriffin where a stop would be made to interchange to DART and Intercity services south for Connolly and north for… well, the north. It would then join the fast lines south and travel non-stop to Spencer Dock where it would join the DART Underground tunnels under Dublin to Heuston and terminate at Hazelhatch. This provides the most connectivity (Clongriffin for Drogheda and Belfast, Spencer Dock for Maynooth and Sligo, Pearse for south Dublin and Rosslare, and then Heuston for everywhere else) but I really feel that the airport DART could not be done without Project FourNorth and DART+ Tunnel. 

That’s just my spake on it but I feel that the argument of ‘sure we’ll have the metro’ really doesn’t stand up properly as an argument against an airport DART as well. And while the airport DART is not a priority with the metro already being there, and projects like FourNorth, and line enhancements, reopenings, and new stations outside of Dublin, I do think we will  eventually need both metro and a heavy rail connection to properly cater for capacity. 

The problem is that if you present a scheme on that scale to the politicians in Dail Eireann, they will run to the hills at the thought of the expenditure, the certainty it will not happen in the term of their tenure and the fact, for the majority of them, it may not be relevant to their constituents.  Taking credit is very important to our decision makers and that means they think only in the short to medium term, very few get credit for being visionaries. 

We need to learn from history. The railways were originally  built in incremental stages and I think the way forward is to present proposals as a series of projects each of which can be delivered at a cost that is digestible in a relatively short time and provides fairly immediate tangible benefits for a specific segment of the population or a particular locality (all politics is local).    All of course with the ultimate goal of an efficient  integrated network of services.

We have the problem that unlike many other parts of the world, our local authorities have little or no power or say when it comes to transportation. Empowering the local authorities in the greater Dublin area could be a game changer. 

I seem to remember someone advocating a Luas for Kerry, we need to get past that.

.

 

[DoctorPan]

Indeed that is the rationale behind how DART+ and Bus Connects programmes are being ran, DART+ is spilt up between West (covering Maynooth and M3 Parkway electrification), South West (Hazelhatch and PPT), Coastal North (Drogheda), Coastal South (Southern line upgrades), BEMU (installation of charging equipment at Drogheda to allow the first batch of the new fleet to start operating in advance of infrastructure), Depot (the new depot at Kilcock), Underground (which will commence once the rest of the DART+ programme is complete) and Fleet, (the 750 new EMU fleet). Bus Connects is spilt between the network changes and corrdior upgrades, of which the corridors are spilit into 11 independenant corridors. What means is that items that would be conterversial (i.e Merrion Gates) won't derail the entire project upgrades and each project helps the others along. The EMUs are coming so the depot needs to be done and the depot needs the corridor electrified so West needs to be done. The last thing politicians want is the uncomfortable sight of brand new trains sitting up unable to be used. 

 

The current drive is giving the network upgrades that should have happened over the last 40 years, expansion of electrification, expansion of the commuter services in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick, new signalling role outs, northern line quad tracking, closure of level crossings, Ennis line capacity upgrades. These are all upgrades that need to be done before we look at expanding the network as it stands currently, it can't handle what is expected of it now, let alone provide any expansions. 

 

I would err against empowering local authorities against transportation. The likes of Maxoil Flynn, Lacey, Galway and Cork City councils are clear examples of talking both sides of their mouths but will come down against any changes to the car status quo. The NTA has been the game changer from an industry POV. It's not prefect but now independent body to the likes of Dublin Bus, Irish Rail and the Councils has been driving change in public transport and slowly dragging Ireland into the 21st century. 

[Brack]

17 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

One must recognise good planning etc., and compensation for those inconvenienced, but nothing short of a massive root & branch upgrade, and hundreds of billions spent on it, will remedy the public transport in the east coast area

And not just on the East Coast of Ireland.

Last week we travelled Milan- florence on the high speed trains, reaching 300km/h. Prices are very reasonable if booked in advance.

The last 78km from bologna to Florence is a bit boring as 73km is in tunnels, but it does the trip in 2 hours, vs 3.5/4 in a car (whilst contending with Italian drivers).

The investment must've been huge for all those tunnels, but the results are very interesting - rail's market share of rome-milan traffic has gone from 36% in 2008 to 80% in 2018. Air transport's market share of rome-milan has dropped from 50% to 14%. Load factor averages 78%.

If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions and environmental impact from travel, this is how to do it. Make rail faster, cheaper, and less hassle than the alternatives. Yes it will involve investment, it might not make a profit so may need to involve the state, but it is a public good to reduce the pollution and congestion, and ease the movement of goods and people. An electric train powered mostly by renewables with regenerative braking is far more efficient and sensible than planes or hundreds of cars. Each train on the route has 500 seats, vs 189 on a Boeing 737-800.

Of course we could've had that in the uk, but we started 40 years too late, then built a quarter of the line, didn't put it into the cities at both ends, then cancel most of it so we can fill in a few potholes in London. The huge capacity issues on the bottom of the wcml still remain. The message that sends about investment and hope in the future is pitiful.

Short termist thinking, only concerned with what directly benefits themselves or their constituents and stuff everyone else is rife in political circles of all colours. If it can't be finished before the next election, then what's in it for them?

Infrastructure investment is needed and has huge benefits, the longer it's delayed or the project faffed about with, the more it costs. Every appeal, every review, every postponement or prevarication to appease some angry voter group upset at the thought that some tax funds might pay for something that might benefit someone else just makes the costs rise.

On this side of the Irish sea we knew well in advance we'd need to replace our nuclear power stations 30 years ago, but are just starting now, on half the number required. Guess what, they cost a lot more now.

I'd be pretty sure that the metro would certainly have plenty of passengers on it. This isn't some white elephant in the middle of nowhere, nor does it strike me as solely for the airport traffic's benefit. Build it. Whether or not a heavy rail spur to the airport is viable seems a separate thing.

There were similar complaints about LUAS when first mooted, but once built people just use it and are happy. Indeed the first proposals for that included a line to ballymun (I lived in glasnevin and Beaumont in 2001-3).

[Ironroad]

 

5 hours ago, Brack said:

And not just on the East Coast of Ireland.

Last week we travelled Milan- florence on the high speed trains, reaching 300km/h. Prices are very reasonable if booked in advance.

The last 78km from bologna to Florence is a bit boring as 73km is in tunnels, but it does the trip in 2 hours, vs 3.5/4 in a car (whilst contending with Italian drivers).

The investment must've been huge for all those tunnels, but the results are very interesting - rail's market share of rome-milan traffic has gone from 36% in 2008 to 80% in 2018. Air transport's market share of rome-milan has dropped from 50% to 14%. Load factor averages 78%.

If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions and environmental impact from travel, this is how to do it. Make rail faster, cheaper, and less hassle than the alternatives. Yes it will involve investment, it might not make a profit so may need to involve the state, but it is a public good to reduce the pollution and congestion, and ease the movement of goods and people. An electric train powered mostly by renewables with regenerative braking is far more efficient and sensible than planes or hundreds of cars. Each train on the route has 500 seats, vs 189 on a Boeing 737-800.

Of course we could've had that in the uk, but we started 40 years too late, then built a quarter of the line, didn't put it into the cities at both ends, then cancel most of it so we can fill in a few potholes in London. The huge capacity issues on the bottom of the wcml still remain. The message that sends about investment and hope in the future is pitiful.

Short termist thinking, only concerned with what directly benefits themselves or their constituents and stuff everyone else is rife in political circles of all colours. If it can't be finished before the next election, then what's in it for them?

Infrastructure investment is needed and has huge benefits, the longer it's delayed or the project faffed about with, the more it costs. Every appeal, every review, every postponement or prevarication to appease some angry voter group upset at the thought that some tax funds might pay for something that might benefit someone else just makes the costs rise.

On this side of the Irish sea we knew well in advance we'd need to replace our nuclear power stations 30 years ago, but are just starting now, on half the number required. Guess what, they cost a lot more now.

I'd be pretty sure that the metro would certainly have plenty of passengers on it. This isn't some white elephant in the middle of nowhere, nor does it strike me as solely for the airport traffic's benefit. Build it. Whether or not a heavy rail spur to the airport is viable seems a separate thing.

There were similar complaints about LUAS when first mooted, but once built people just use it and are happy. Indeed the first proposals for that included a line to ballymun (I lived in glasnevin and Beaumont in 2001-3).

Since you mention them I have to take my hat off to the Italians, their road and rail infrastructure is incredible and created despite  some very difficult terrain, historical cities and sites*. And achieved despite being the county with the most unstable government in Europe since WW2.  We have something to learn from them. 

* This reminds me that the ability to build underground without the need for disruption and destruction on the surface is at odds with the approach being taken in the case of metro north. But that is a whole other rant.

 

[Ironroad]

7 hours ago, DoctorPan said:

I would err against empowering local authorities against transportation. The likes of Maxoil Flynn, Lacey, Galway and Cork City councils are clear examples of talking both sides of their mouths but will come down against any changes to the car status quo. The NTA has been the game changer from an industry POV. It's not prefect but now independent body to the likes of Dublin Bus, Irish Rail and the Councils has been driving change in public transport and slowly dragging Ireland into the 21st century. 

There will always be people like that who can also shirk responsibility because the local authority model in Ireland is flawed not least because of how they are funded.

Here's food for thought, If you will please read this lengthy Wikipedia article on the subject of the metro system in Atlanta.  What is remarkable is that that this system was built without any state assistance by local authorities in a society where the private car is king. Note also the input of the constituents of those local authorities. The result is a pretty good metro rail system that could be better if the constituents of an adjoining county had not opted out in a referendum.  Note the speed at which they had something operational. Note the flat fare concept. Note the free daily parking at stations and note that while not mentioned it is a lot cheaper to park longer term at the stations than it is at the airport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority

Edited April 11 by Ironroad

[hurricanemk1c]

On 10/4/2024 at 6:53 PM, Ironroad said:

But when oh when will that capacity be provided and how can cause an awakening?  Have you ever watched a televised Dail Committee meeting/discussion with so called experts or with those being called to account on any issue?  Pathetic and uninformed nonsense is the order of the day.

Instead I just have to deal with it on a daily basis, and trying to explain to people who have no concept of how a railway works why certain things are done, while at the same time trying to prove the need for funding for various far smaller projects that would be far more beneficial and prove rail value