[ofjames]

Derek Wheeler: You must be new around here, because, simply picking out one post like that and adding "contradiction" in caps suggests you are.

Yes i am very new around here. This is 'suggested' in much clearer terms by the caption reading 'new to the board' under my username.

DW: cross radial rail solutions in Dublin must serve the major foot fall areas and integrate with existing rail and planned rail. Metro West and the details we have so far, fail to address this in the best possible manner.

1) From what I can see, if the route option 1 is chosen with relevant sub-options, each of the major footfall areas would be served by metro west... Seeing as the route could start within a stones throw of the square, run through clondalkin village, past the fonthill industrial estate, past both the cinema and M&S entrances to liffey valley and run directly between the West End and Red Entrance car parks at blanch. To my eyes, this route would provide very adequate connectivity between the major footfall areas.

2) Further, it is clear that both of the route options have stops to facilitate interchange with Maynooth/Navan DART, Hazelhatch DART, Lucan Luas and Red Line/Citywest Luas. Again, this seems good to me, could you describe for me what the optimal integration would be? and how the current (potential) arrangements are inadequate?

DW: Firstly, it is not a metro. It's a slightly higher spec Luas. Secondly, if done in a proper manner, it would be built entirely underground and run through both The Square, Liffey Valley and Blanch town centre. In fact, if it actually was a proper metro it could run in an "S" like fashion serving Ballymount, Ballyfermot, Liffey Valley and Blanch, (thats just a teaser) before it connects with Metro North. Bottom line. Its a cheapo project that integrates with damn all and is driven purely and simply by developers interests. (which is part of the RPA's remit)

1) There's no dispute on your first point, even the RPA states in the FAQ section on its website that metro west is "designed as a Luas line that can be upgraded to Metro when required." However, I dont see why that should be seen in a derogatory sense. Clearly, when/if it begins to operate (given that it will will run at road level and in the beginning, have a similar operating capacity and tram length) it will effectively be another luas line.

However, the RPA have stated that the line will be built with a potential capacity which is double that of the luas, and that as demand increases, service will become more frequent and the longer metro north trams will be brought to use on the line. That seems reasonable to me.

I see a parallel in this debate between the Red Line Luas and the Green Line Luas. The Green Line was built with an (almost) entirely road-segregated track and has had longer trams and more frequent service. Alternatively Red line has to share road space with traffic and has shorter trams. Now, in line with demand, the longer trams are being brought in on the Red Line so to increase its capacity. Why cant the same approach work for Metro West? Or does it follow that the Red line luas was only a 'half-baked' project aswell?

2) The cost of a 28km+ tunnel would make the project completely unviable. The RPA say that surface lines are 5 times cheaper than underground, 3 times cheaper than elevated. As there are serious questions regarding the cost-benefit of the project as a it stands, talk of underground or elevated is completely unrealistic.

Furthermore, if you take metro north as a reference point, the benefit of an underground metro west in terms of decreased journey time doesnt compensate for the increased cost to the taxpayer in my opinion.

Stephens Green to Swords (17km route) will supposedly take 26mins on Metro North, an average speed of just above 39 kmph.

Tallaght to Dublin Airport (28km+) will supposedly take 60mins on Metro West (plus a short spurt on Metro North), an average speed of 28kmph.

At the Metro North average speed, this same journey would take 43mins. Given the cost savings, I think a maximum of an extra 17 mins on your journey is not excessive. Surface line is far better value-for-money in my opinion.

3) Provided we lay a substantial burden of the cost of infrastructural projects at their door, developers involvement is welcome as far as im concerned!