Talk:Dublin Metro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] References
I forgot to mention that not all of the references in this article work properly. I don't know how to fix that, so if someone who does reads this note, please help. (Only footnotes 1-3 appear in the references section.) Bardavia (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to fix references as well as rewriting large parts of the article and updating information. Please let me know what you think. Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit and Tone
I did some more cleanup of language, grammar, punctuation, etc., today. At what point can the copyedit flag be removed from the article? (I'm new at this and don't know how or by whom this is done.) My view is that the article need no longer be listed as in need of copyedit.
- No hard and fast rules, but if improved considerably then you may remove copyedit flag. If someone thinks what you have done is improper they will likely raise their voice. See WP:CONSENSUS. Djegan (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Integration section of this article still has a partisan tone -- although not nearly so bad as the items described below that others have already removed. Again, because I'm new at this, I'm not sure how to get this section to the right level.
--Bardavia (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map
If someone could get a map of the metro routes, that would improve the quality of the article. Jvlm.123 15:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was just about to say the same thing. -- Beland 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- One of the problems with giving maps is that the metro is proposed and not implemented. The danger with this article is that it could be premature, the Luas proposed and implemented had some differences. Djegan 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a map which I made myself, based on the ones on the RPA website. Has anyone got any comments/feedback before I look to make a similar one for Metro West? Much appreciated, thanks Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- One of the problems with giving maps is that the metro is proposed and not implemented. The danger with this article is that it could be premature, the Luas proposed and implemented had some differences. Djegan 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prime Ministerial Vanity?: tagged as unreferenced
As easy as it is to make allegations such as these some reference should be supplied lest it fall fowl of Wikipedia is not original research and/or thus gain common currency. Djegan 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tagged: future product
I have tagged the article with the future product template as the project is still in early stages. The proposed Luas five years before implementation was distinctly different to the project that opened and it is only right that such articles be duly identified here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Djegan 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prime Ministerial Vanity
Having now added references , why is this being removed ?
- Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper opinion page. I think the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section is very biased and is only being added to satisfy your own need to take a cheap shot at the government. That's not what the article should be about. It's about the propsed metro system. Maybe you should add some more to the "Need for a Metro" section instead. (Also, just for the record, I never removed the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section because I don't feel it's my position to do so - that would be for the moderators...)
-
- This doesn't have anywhere near vaguely appropriate references - it's a thinly-veiled inappropriate partisan rant. It has a few pieces of supposed evidence for your case, but you've failed to supply any references to demonstrate that people other than you are making all those points. A news story covering this, or finding someone making all these points in the Official Report, would do, and even then it would limit us to making the points that they are doing. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Develepment
In recent weeks there has been new news of a planed station for O'Connell Street being under O'Connell Bridge. This news coincided with further developments in the route planing, why has this news not been added to the page. 11th of September 2006 0307 am.
This station does now seem to be part of the plan. Given the unusual nature of such a station, perhaps it might be useful to add in links to pages relating to other sub-river metro stations, if such exist.
[edit] Nonsense sentence
I have just removed the following sentence: One source of current debate is the feasibility of providing an interchange station between the Metro and the DART where their respective lines cross in the vicinity of Glasnevin or Drumcondra.
The reason it is nonsense is that the DART does not go anywhere near either Glasnevin nor Drumcondra. So the metro cannot cross the dart in those areas. Frelke 06:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
They are extending the DART and having a new line, which will use the Interconnector.
The Dart "will" serve Drumcondra station with the use of the interconnector, the sentence you ommitted actual does make sense, as the dart will in the future be two interconnecting lines. Balbriggan to hazel hatch, Bray/greystones to Maynooth.
[edit] Maps in this entry
The maps provided don't seem to be very accurate. I suggest that anyone interested drawing up a new map should follow this link to the Railway Procurement Agency website for a more precise template:
http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/October%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.pdf
(above was written by someone else)
The map on the page has a typo -- "O'Connell St" for "O'Connell Bridge". Can the OP fix? Wwhyte 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Views and stupid ones at that
I have deleted the following
‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’
This is opinion and in any case there is no ‘precedent’ for carrying bicycles on public transport across the rest of Europe. Some urban railways such as the Barcelona tramway allow the transportation of bicycles but the vast majority do not.
It's not an opinion. There are several precedents around Europe for carrying bicycles on public transport. Although I did not write this original sentence, I think this should go back in.
I have also deleted
‘The distances between some of the city centre stations is also likely to become an issue. Inclusion of a station at Parnell Square would go some way to dealing with the problem of the long gap between the Mater station and O'Connell Bridge. However, the distance between O'Connell Bridge and St. Stephen's Green (around 800 metres) is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros. It seems likely that the issue of station location will become a central one.’
The view that the distance between stations is likely to become an issue is just that a view. Again this is not a place for political opinions about what might happen. If it becomes a notable controversy by all means let's record it, but until then it has no place here. Also the statement that 800 mtrs ‘is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’ is entirely false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.109.27.38 (talk • contribs).
I agree with you that this is only a view, and I probably should have phrased this differently. However, to suggest that the statement about the interstation distances is "entirely false" is complete nonsense. I could give numerous examples of where this is the case - in fact it is probably considerably more difficult to give examples where this is not the case. Have a look, for example, at Paris. The average interstation distance for all the lines on the entire 16-line network (serving around 9.9 million people) is 564 metres. This includes all stations, not just the central ones. The comparison with Dublin (1.2 million people to be served by 2 metro lines) is, I think, a fair one. I shall rewrite the paragraph when I have time and re-insert it.
[edit] Views and stupid ones at that
On the bicycle issue my problem is that the use of the definite article in the phrase ‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’ Implies that bicycles are accepted on all or almost all public transport across Europe. This is of course untrue and is especially misleading when applied to underground metros where accommodation of bikes is the exception rather than the norm. For example no bicycle, except the folding ones, are allowed on the Paris Metro or indeed to the best of my knowledge on any French tramway or metro. This being France of course it does not mean you will never see one just that it is not allowed. Madrid allows Bikes on Weekends and national holidays but at no other times, Berlin U-Bahn allows bikes with the payment of a supplement and only on specially marked trains, Barcelona outside peak hours, Athens only on one of the lines and then outside peak and through rear doors of train, London not on the deep ‘tube’ lines and on the others only outside peak hours.
In short there is no single precedent as implied; also it is my understanding that it is far from settled that bikes will not be allowed on at all, it will be a matter for the operator, the RPA and the Railway Safety Commission to discuss at the appropriate time ie during the bids.
On the subject of the 800m gap between stations you site the example of Paris averaging 564 meters (the area covered by the metro is by the way nowhere near the 9.9 million people you claim as most of the greater Paris area is covered not by the metro but by the RER.) However Paris is odd, for one thing it is an unusually dense city compared to others and for another at the time the majority of Paris was built in the early years of the last century the designers unusually were happy to come down on the close stations side of the journey time number of stations trade off. Interestingly the latest line, line 14 boasts a much more usual average of, off the top of my head, approx 1,100m.
But I’m not here to give a lecture about the finer points of station location selection and patronage maximisation, just to observe that Paris is about the only system you can make this claim for. To give but a few examples, and I could go on and on and on, all figures are approx but close enough for our purposes, Tokyo 1,162m, Seoul 1,078m, Madrid 1,042m London 1,500m, Porto 895m, Lyons 1,153m, Moscow 1,742m, Mexico City 1,742m, Munich (U-Bahn) 1,400m, Singapore 1,709m, New York 2,389m, Berlin (U-Bahn) 912m.
Admittedly these are averages across a whole system and not restricted only to the city centre, but they are averages, there are many hundreds of station pairs on metros in city centres around the world that are 800m or longer just as there are many hundreds shorter, it’s just not unusual. Perhaps for a tramway it would be more so, but defiantly not for a metro. 82.152.221.248 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you go off and do your calculations again. You have clearly divided the number of kilometres of track on each of the above metro systems and divided this figure by the number of stations served. However, as many of the stations on the above systems are interchange stations, your method of calculation gives a seriously false figure for the average interstation distance. It would help if you could come up with the average interstation distance along the various lines in the above cities.
For example, you give a figure of 1,500 metres as the average interstation distance for London. However, the average interstation distance along each of the thirteen lines ranges from 0.833 kilometres along the circle line to 1.961 kilometres along the metropolitan line. Taken together, the average interstation distance along all the lines is 1.194 km, some 300 metres shorter than the figure you state.
As the figures which I have given for both Paris and London give an indication of how far a potential passenger is from accessing the network, such a discrepancy is simply not close enough for our purposes, as you suggest above. I would appreciate if you would edit the title of this section, and the preceding one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.192.131 (talk) 18:02, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Views and stupid ones at that
I’m afraid that it is your calculations that are wrong as I’ll explain in a bit, but first of all In what appears to me an increasingly desperate attempt to prove your point, you again quote selectively (as you did with the Paris example). The circle line you site is of course the line in London with the closest average distance between stations, with as you say an average separation of 0.83km. I will first observe that all these stations are in the city centre and their average separation is greater than the 800 meters that you described as ‘considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’
Now to your calculations - I was at first a little puzzled by your comments. You are of course correct to imply that it would be foolish to try to calculate the average gap between stations by simply taking the total length of a network and dividing by the number of stations on that network, so indeed the estimate was based on a line by line approximation as you suggest. Further more as has already been observed above we have the same number for the circle line (did I mention that this was more than 800 meters?) but the other figure you state was for the Met line for which you claim the average gap between stations is 1.96 KM. But it’s not, it’s 2.02 (nor is it the longest btw as you also claim that’s the Waterloo and City at approx 2.5) so where was the discrepancy? Then it struck me I divided 66.7, the length of the Met line by 34, the number of stations and hey presto I to get 1.9617 or 1.961 as you put it. We agree! Just one problem, this calculation does not give the average distance between stops. If of course you have a line with no ends such as the circle then it works fine as the number of gaps between stations is the same as the number of stops, but for line with a station at each end (just a simple one with no branches for now, I’ll consider that in a moment) the number of gaps is given by number of stations – 1 and it is this number you need to divide into the track length as shown in the diagram below.
This works fine for most purposes and indeed is fine for showing that stations with gaps greater than 800m are not uncommon, which if you remember was the point at contention. But since you asked the question the full figures for the London network, line by line are as follows (counting the line by gaps between stations as the London network is complex and has loops and branches etc.)
Bakerloo 0.97, Central 1.51, Circle 0.83, District 1.08, East London 1.06, Ham & City 0.98, Jubilee 1.39, Met 2.02, Northern 1.16, Picc 1.37, Vic 1.4 Waterloo & City 2.5.
It would appear then that the average for the network would be the sum of these divided by the number of lines or 1.36 Km. (did i mention that was a lot longer than 800m) Unfortunately this again underestimates the distance between stations however.
Consider the situation below, of which there are a lot in London. The track length for such a section would be quoted at three but with only two ‘gaps’ giving an average gap of 1.5 yet it can clearly be seen that this is nonsense and the real gap between stations is 2. I do not propose to work out the precise distances this adds in London as I would need to look up the distance track diverges at each set of points to do so, but the average station gap across the system is roughly 1.5K give or take a bit.
But even ignoring all this and if your calculations were not fundamentally flawed, which they are, even by your numbers 800m is not ‘considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’ which was the point at contention.
I have no axe to grind as I have not been involved in the alignment selection in Dublin and I have no idea if the station locations are sensible or not. But I do think that your obvious hostility to the location of some of the stations has led you to make statements unsupported by the facts. (In any case the distance between stations on other systems is largely irrelevant when designing a system for a whole bunch of reasons I won’t go into here) So no I won’t change the title and although I won’t bother to change the new words you have inserted into the article as I suspect that you would only change them back I still think that they are seriously misleading. Perhaps you could reference the ‘concern’ over the station locations and bicycles so that we know it's not just you as I been unable to find any such concerns being expressed elsewhere.Rail101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail101 (talk • contribs) 01:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hysterical
Shouldn't it be mentioned that the British had plans to build one in the 1920s, and that Dublin would have one years ago if it wasn't for the fact that the country has been badly run ever since?!?! 157.190.228.18 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
