[article] RPA defends capacity of proposed metro trams

[Mark Gleeson]

End of the day the simplest solution here is to allow the 4 tendering consortia to simply put their best proposal on the table

So consortia 1 might charge y but offer wider carriages with more capacity, other consortia might stay narrow and charge z, x and v respectively

What if y was the lowest cost overall? What if they will charge 10% more but promise a 6 month quicker job?

This isn't lowest cost tendering this the most economically beneficial or something similar. Sadly the passenger impact isn't considered, obviously its easy make money when the trains are stuffed to the roof, having a significant % of spare capacity doesn't go down well with bean counters, but goes down well with us since you will always fill it

And no the answer isn't 42

Can we take the tech spec stuff to the technical forum folks

[Colm Moore]

The best was to do alternatives in tendering is to get everyone to tender for both options, with one being a preferred option.

[dowlingm]

Said it before, saying it again. Leave Green Line as is except expanded to 50m trams, keep the TBM heading south from SSG into Terenure/Templeogue and down to Tallaght. No worries about compatibility, no shutdown of the Green Line to connect it to Metro North, no waste of money on Line BX.

Dig out the tunnel and rough in the stations and then add stations progressively south as funds permit.

Yes, it will cost squillions but it adds a quantum increase in capacity in an area of the city choked by buses, and gives an alternative to Green Line in terms of catchment management in the inner City. It is a reverse of the usual method of Irish transit planning - accept a minority level of transit usage and build capacity behind what little demand there is.

[Tadhg17]

Ya agree the tendering groups should put their best proposal forward for the metro and then choose the best option.

They should continue tunnelling onwards towards rathmines/rathgar or terenure, should'nt just stop in st stephens green.

[al2637]

Meant to post this yesterday but am up to my eyes in work...

From the Irish Times (article was actually about Luas... but anyway)

In relation to the capacity of the proposed Metro North, Mr Allen said this was about 20,000 passengers in each direction an hour, which he said was an "exceptionally high level of passengers". Very few cities in Europe - outside of London and Paris - had a metro line requiring a greater capacity than that, he said.

Mr Allen said he did not believe the density of population or the density of public transport would ever deliver greater passenger numbers to Metro north than its built-in capacity.

While he acknowledged the tunnel could not be expanded when built, he reminded the members of the committee that Metro west was also being developed and passengers could divert to that, along with all the new Luas lines.

To expand capacity in an underground you did not dig up the tunnel but added more lines, he said.

I have to say, I do broadly agree with this argument. Dublin is a low density city, we will benefit more from a network of low->medium capacity lines than one or 2 high capacity ones.

[Mark]

Im still of the opinion that they are leaving themselves open to capacity issues by using the narrow 2.4 width. Far too narrow.

A lot can happen in 5 years. The same was said about the Luas capacity - that it was more than enough. Its the governments plan to bring in congestion charging like London. Have they taken that into account?

[Colm Moore]

Have the specifications been made public?

"While he acknowledged the tunnel could not be expanded when built, he reminded the members of the committee that Metro west was also being developed and passengers could divert to that, along with all the new Luas lines." - not much use for DCU-Trinity.

[dowlingm]

Originally Posted by al2637

I have to say, I do broadly agree with this argument. Dublin is a low density city, we will benefit more from a network of low->medium capacity lines than one or 2 high capacity ones.

Which is why Luas Green should be left as is and another radial line (i.e. Metro North-South) used to drain some of the excess demand. That said - look at the density that has been proposed even for Dublin 4 and what is likely to appear if the docks are moved to Balbriggan.

There's always the option to run parallel surface routes beside the Metro North to help with demand, especially since it is likely to take a lengthy commissioning period before maximum peak capacity can be safely operated. Many people may dislike going underground whether through phobias, security issues or mobility issues such as out of service escalators/elevators. Others might like to continue to use transit but retain cellphone service.

Both the Yonge and Sheppard subway lines in Toronto have a parallel bus which also serves people who live in the midpoints between stations. That's the kind of coordination integrated transit authorities can bring.

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by dowlingm

Others might like to continue to use transit but retain cellphone service.

Some systems have done deals with phone operators.

But do you really want to hear "I'm on THE METRO!!"