Business wants underground Dublin Metro

James Shields · 10-07-2006, 08:39

Quote:

Business wants underground Dublin Metro

More than 90pc of Dublin businesses favour an underground station
at Dublin Airport

According to a survey from Dublin Chamber, most Dublin businesses
say that failing to provide underground access to the main
terminal scupper the entire Metro project

The Rail Procurement Agency is currently finalising plans for the
routing of Metro North and the favoured option has a Station some
700m away from the Airport Terminal at the Great Southern Hotel

Chamber CEO Gina Quin said the Dublin Metro will alleviate
congestion around the city and raise Ireland's profile as a
tourist destination, 'but only if metro stations are located at
key interchanges'

This external information has been sourced from Business World,
a service of Media World Ltd.

As do we all (except possibly the Great Southern hotel).

Mark · 10-07-2006, 09:47

There was an article in Fridays Irish Times about how city centre businesses want the O'Connell Street metro stop moved to the Department of Education buildings on Marlborough street. Reasons were a bit flimsy and RPA have looked at it and said that the site could only accommodate a north south station with the demolition of a number of buildings. Further expense etc.

The Airport stop is the only option, the RPA are just working out the financials of it. FCC, DAA, DoT etc all know its about finding that extra €200 - €250 million to fund the tunnelling and construction of an underground station. It has to come from somewhere unless the budget changes but I dont think thats gonna happen. Could be in the form of premium fares, levies, increased airport charges etc. Given enough public pressure the extra could come from T21 but that remains to be seen.

PaulM · 10-07-2006, 10:04

Have the DAA offered to put anything up?

I would worry that if the RPA are pressured to put the station under the airport costs will be taken from somewhere else. Airport is still a better option that the GSH though.

James Shields · 10-07-2006, 10:57

Quote:

There was an article in Fridays Irish Times about how city centre businesses want the O'Connell Street metro stop moved to the Department of Education buildings on Marlborough street.

Sounds like shades of wanting the Point Luas connection moved to the quays. Marlborough St next to Abbey St might not be so bad - plenty of ugly buildings that could be demolished without too much fuss, and new commercial/residential property could be built over it to pay for it. The O'Connell St stop will cause far less disruption to business than the BX line link-up.

Quote:

I would worry that if the RPA are pressured to put the station under the airport costs will be taken from somewhere else. Airport is still a better option that the GSH though.

When it's built as a PPP, what factors determine the cost limitations? How much is the government expected to pay up front? Will the government be paying off the capital cost over the coming years, or are is it expected to make a profit that will do this?

Cost aside, the underground connection is really the only viable one. I've walked from the Great Southern to the terminal, and it's no fun playing cat and mouse with the cars speeding around the airport roads, though with a covered elevated walkway with (shudder) travellators it would be a bit more tolerable.

Mark · 10-07-2006, 11:40

Demolition, lands acquisition, expense expense expense. Remember the RPA wont be buying O'Connell Street. The whole theory behind building underneath public property is to avoid land acquisition.

The deal is over 25 years. Not entirely sure about the payments, has to be decided upon. The government is just avoiding the initial capital outlay but will pay a lot more for it over the 25 years. A pity really, the RPA reckoned they, given the funds, could do it and wanted to. Would have worked out cheaper than PPP. The one advantage, if you could call it that, the Interconnector has over the metro is that its not PPP.

Essentially, the RPA collect the fare box and pay the operator and the DBFM parties separately.

James Shields · 10-07-2006, 14:02

Here's a thought... isn't the current Abbey Theatre due to be demolished and rebuilt? How about inserting the station box under it during the redevelopment? As far as I know it is state owned, so there should be no land acquisition costs, and it would be very cool having a Metro station as part of our national theatre.

I still think O'Connell St between Daniel O'Connell and Abbey Street makes the most sense, but it is an option to consider.

On the PPP issue. Can anyone explain the difference in accounting terms between a PPP and a government backed loan? Both mean the money is not coming out of current coffers, but a government backed load would seem to be a cheaper way to finance. Apart from more expensive finance, what do private partners bring to the table? I like the idea of involving the private sector in public projects, as they have a vested interest in keeping the project on time and within budget, but in some previous examples (I'm thinking West Link) the private partner doesn't seem to have taken on much risk (if any), but they seem to be allowed to cream off profit almost without limit.

markpb · 10-07-2006, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

There was an article in Fridays Irish Times about how city centre businesses want the O'Connell Street metro stop moved to the Department of Education buildings on Marlborough street. Reasons were a bit flimsy

Their reasons were very strange. One was the usual health and safety line - a stop on OCS would be too busy (huh!?) and might be dangerous during busy times. The other falls within their mandate - drawing shops and people onto Marlborough street and maybe bringing some life back into the place.

To be honest, any metro stop on/near OCS that isn't pretty much directly underneath or alongside the Red Luas line wouldn't be great in my opinion.

billyme · 10-07-2006, 15:22

Maybe DAA is more interested in parking revenue than trains. Huge amounts of the airport lands are taken up with surface car parks.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...00794,0.026307

(going OT for a second)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostcarpark

On the PPP issue. Can anyone explain the difference in accounting terms between a PPP and a government backed loan? Both mean the money is not coming out of current coffers, but a government backed load would seem to be a cheaper way to finance.

PPP finance does not appear on the balance sheet as government borrowing.

Quote:

Apart from more expensive finance, what do private partners bring to the table?

They are good at keeping costs down seeing as its their money being spent. If the contract includes maintenance after the build, they have an interest in building a high quality product. If the contract is repaid through ticket revenue, they have an interest in designing and building a popular service.

Quote:

but in some previous examples (I'm thinking West Link) the private partner doesn't seem to have taken on much risk (if any), but they seem to be allowed to cream off profit almost without limit.

This is a special case. Consultants to NTR prior to contract were Messrs Liam Lawlor & George Redmond.

Mark Hennessy · 10-07-2006, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by markpb

Their reasons were very strange. One was the usual health and safety line - a stop on OCS would be too busy (huh!?) and might be dangerous during busy times. The other falls within their mandate - drawing shops and people onto Marlborough street and maybe bringing some life back into the place.

They also said they wanted O'Connell street kept clear for shoppers cars

If I had my way all traffic bar commercial traffic, buses, bikes and taxis would be banned from using O'Connell st.

James Shields · 10-07-2006, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by markh

They also said they wanted O'Connell street kept clear for shoppers cars

If I had my way all traffic bar commercial traffic, buses, bikes and taxis would be banned from using O'Connell st.

I was afraid of that. I think in the next couple of years there should be absolutely no reason for the vast majority of private cars to access O'Connell Street at all. Arnott's car park will be gone (in its current form at least) and we will have a new mall stretching from the GPO to Liffey St. This would seem the perfect time to ban cars altogether, which would make the street a much more pleasent environment.

My preferred layout would be to put both Luas tracks down one side of the street (outside the GPO) and make the other side a 2-way busway (outside Clearys). There may be practical reasons why this wouldn't work, but it looks good in my head.

Maskhadov · 11-07-2006, 19:30

the metro should run underground and stop where the airport actually is and not 1 km futher down the road with passengers expected to carry their luggage.

Passengers will only complain more after the next terminal is opened and more still after the 3rd terminal.

James Shields · 11-07-2006, 20:40

I think consideration needs to be given to the loactions of future terminals when selecting the route through the airport. If a slight alteration will give greater future flexibility, that should be chosen.

Derek Wheeler · 11-07-2006, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostcarpark

I think consideration needs to be given to the loactions of future terminals when selecting the route through the airport. If a slight alteration will give greater future flexibility, that should be chosen.

Funny you should say that. While on the train yesterday, I took a call from the Metro newspaper in relation to this issue and the point I made was that the route selection should incorporate the planned new terminal and that perhaps the RPA and DAA should work together on this. Obviously an underground station that serves these areas would be best.Didn't see todays Metro, so I don't know if they printed, the commonsense that I tried to convey.

Anyone see what Metro ran with?

James Shields · 11-07-2006, 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

Anyone see what Metro ran with?

Hmmm, I had a look through it in the office, and didn't notice anything about Metro. There was a piece in Herald AM about the Cork launch, but I don't think P11 got a mention. If any copies of the Tuesday Metro have survived overnight, I'll have another look in the morning.

Brian Condron · 12-07-2006, 16:00

If the Metro stop was located under the existing Terminal, would that mean that the line would have had to be closed last week during the security alerts? Maybe it should be located a certain distance away, for security reasons.

Mark Gleeson · 12-07-2006, 16:04

London Underground are well known for keeping trains moving and simply skipping the station in question when there are security incidents

Brian Condron · 12-07-2006, 16:12

But isn't the London Underground considered a legacy system and therefore was built not taking any security concerns into account. When a brand new system is being designed at Dublin airport from scratch, wouldn't security be taken into account as part of the design?

My personal preference would be to locate the stop in the coach park behind the short term car park. I've seen that mentioned as a possibility in some RPA information, how feasible is it? I agree that the GSH is too far away. Anyone who has flown into Terminal 2 at Manchester and then gone to the train station knows how annoying it can be to carry luggage that far, even with the travellators.

MrX · 12-07-2006, 16:20

It should be in/joined to the main terminal - end of story. Any other location is utter nonsense.

There's no major issue with closing the service during a security alert.

James Shields · 12-07-2006, 16:43

The location of Terminal 2 is fairly well known, and is pretty much ajacent to Terminal 1. It would seem logical to put the station directly between the two terminals with an underground walkway connecting them (or, if a ground level walkway can be achieved without having to navigate road crossings, that would be acceptable too).

Terminal 3 is expected to be pretty much on the opposite side of the airport. If it would be possible route the line so that it passes close to the likely location of T3, this would be worth doing, because it's something we only get one chance at. There would be an argument for putting in a station box at the same time, but they tried this on the Picadilly line for Heathrow T5, and they ended up building T5 somewhere else so it didn't get used.

TomB · 12-07-2006, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

Anyone see what Metro ran with?

I did, can't remember exactly what the quote was from you (you were quoted though), something along the lines of "having the metro station under the terminal building would be much better than making passengers go on a travelator"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-07-2006, 09:47	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern line Posts: 1,311	There was an article in Fridays Irish Times about how city centre businesses want the O'Connell Street metro stop moved to the Department of Education buildings on Marlborough street. Reasons were a bit flimsy and RPA have looked at it and said that the site could only accommodate a north south station with the demolition of a number of buildings. Further expense etc. The Airport stop is the only option, the RPA are just working out the financials of it. FCC, DAA, DoT etc all know its about finding that extra €200 - €250 million to fund the tunnelling and construction of an underground station. It has to come from somewhere unless the budget changes but I dont think thats gonna happen. Could be in the form of premium fares, levies, increased airport charges etc. Given enough public pressure the extra could come from T21 but that remains to be seen.

10-07-2006, 10:04	#3
PaulM Really Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 826	Have the DAA offered to put anything up? I would worry that if the RPA are pressured to put the station under the airport costs will be taken from somewhere else. Airport is still a better option that the GSH though.

10-07-2006, 11:40	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern line Posts: 1,311	Demolition, lands acquisition, expense expense expense. Remember the RPA wont be buying O'Connell Street. The whole theory behind building underneath public property is to avoid land acquisition. The deal is over 25 years. Not entirely sure about the payments, has to be decided upon. The government is just avoiding the initial capital outlay but will pay a lot more for it over the 25 years. A pity really, the RPA reckoned they, given the funds, could do it and wanted to. Would have worked out cheaper than PPP. The one advantage, if you could call it that, the Interconnector has over the metro is that its not PPP. Essentially, the RPA collect the fare box and pay the operator and the DBFM parties separately.

10-07-2006, 14:02	#6
James Shields Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Drogheda, Ireland Posts: 1,275	Here's a thought... isn't the current Abbey Theatre due to be demolished and rebuilt? How about inserting the station box under it during the redevelopment? As far as I know it is state owned, so there should be no land acquisition costs, and it would be very cool having a Metro station as part of our national theatre. I still think O'Connell St between Daniel O'Connell and Abbey Street makes the most sense, but it is an option to consider. On the PPP issue. Can anyone explain the difference in accounting terms between a PPP and a government backed loan? Both mean the money is not coming out of current coffers, but a government backed load would seem to be a cheaper way to finance. Apart from more expensive finance, what do private partners bring to the table? I like the idea of involving the private sector in public projects, as they have a vested interest in keeping the project on time and within budget, but in some previous examples (I'm thinking West Link) the private partner doesn't seem to have taken on much risk (if any), but they seem to be allowed to cream off profit almost without limit.

11-07-2006, 19:30	#11
Maskhadov Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 74	the metro should run underground and stop where the airport actually is and not 1 km futher down the road with passengers expected to carry their luggage. Passengers will only complain more after the next terminal is opened and more still after the 3rd terminal.

11-07-2006, 20:40	#12
James Shields Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Drogheda, Ireland Posts: 1,275	I think consideration needs to be given to the loactions of future terminals when selecting the route through the airport. If a slight alteration will give greater future flexibility, that should be chosen.

12-07-2006, 16:00	#15
Brian Condron Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 268	If the Metro stop was located under the existing Terminal, would that mean that the line would have had to be closed last week during the security alerts? Maybe it should be located a certain distance away, for security reasons.

12-07-2006, 16:04	#16
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	London Underground are well known for keeping trains moving and simply skipping the station in question when there are security incidents

12-07-2006, 16:12	#17
Brian Condron Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 268	But isn't the London Underground considered a legacy system and therefore was built not taking any security concerns into account. When a brand new system is being designed at Dublin airport from scratch, wouldn't security be taken into account as part of the design? My personal preference would be to locate the stop in the coach park behind the short term car park. I've seen that mentioned as a possibility in some RPA information, how feasible is it? I agree that the GSH is too far away. Anyone who has flown into Terminal 2 at Manchester and then gone to the train station knows how annoying it can be to carry luggage that far, even with the travellators.

12-07-2006, 16:20	#18
MrX Really Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 585	It should be in/joined to the main terminal - end of story. Any other location is utter nonsense. There's no major issue with closing the service during a security alert.

12-07-2006, 16:43	#19
James Shields Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Drogheda, Ireland Posts: 1,275	The location of Terminal 2 is fairly well known, and is pretty much ajacent to Terminal 1. It would seem logical to put the station directly between the two terminals with an underground walkway connecting them (or, if a ground level walkway can be achieved without having to navigate road crossings, that would be acceptable too). Terminal 3 is expected to be pretty much on the opposite side of the airport. If it would be possible route the line so that it passes close to the likely location of T3, this would be worth doing, because it's something we only get one chance at. There would be an argument for putting in a station box at the same time, but they tried this on the Picadilly line for Heathrow T5, and they ended up building T5 somewhere else so it didn't get used.