Does Dublin really need a metro network?

Concept art for the mid-2000s version of the Dublin Metro. Image: National Transport Authority, Ireland.

Dubliners have always looked to other European capitals with envy. For decades, the city’s commuters have made do with with limited bus routes, a badly connected airport and traffic congestion that all seemed hardly befitting for an up-and-coming global city.  

Today, the city has changed. A sparkling new cross-city tram has proved popular, while the government says a systematic reform of bus routes will address long-standing complaints – even if it’s been controversial so far.

Ireland has changed, too, and is now more likely to be found preening itself and strutting on the international stage. Facebook, Google and Twitter have all come to roost in Dublin; and the capital has positioned itself as the technology hub of Europe after Brexit.

Yet beneath this confidence lies an abiding insecurity. It was visible in the hand-wringing over the Apple tax decision in the European Court of Justice and was clear too from the national soul-searching when the conference once known as the Dublin Web Summit decamped to Lisbon, blaming Dublin’s sub-par infrastructure.

The proposed system. Image: National Transport Authority, Ireland.

But most of all, it’s obvious in the city’s love–hate affair with its proposed metro system. Plans were first afoot in the early 2000s for a metro to connect the airport to the city centre – until the 2008 financial crisis got in the way and put a halt to the scheme.

Yet the metro dream is still alive, raising the question: why does the government want another decade of construction and a €3.5bn bill?

The driving motivation, of course, is to connect Dublin Airport – which welcomes 80 perc cent of Ireland’s incoming flights – to the city. There are other considerations too, such as plans to encourage the growth of Fingal, the municipality to Dublin’s north, as a repository of the city’s growing population. Estimates suggest that by 2040 nearly 1.4m people will live in the wider Dublin area.

Dublin isn’t alone when it comes to an obsession with metros: for decades, they’ve been the go-to infrastructure project for aspirational cities. The EU has funded a number of metro developments in Europe and beyond as part of the promotion of sustainable urban development, while in China metros are being built with reckless abandon in cities that arguably don’t need them. In Brisbane a new metro project is just beginning in earnest after years of wrangling.


Even two decades ago, research from the Centre for Transport Studies in University College London was questioning the rationale behind the metro becoming the de facto upgrade of choice for enthusiastic city planners. One article cited a city council leader in an unnamed British city who saw the metro system in Lille and “decided that his city had to have one”.

Yet despite this growing scepticism, city planners are still making the case for metro systems using decades’ old rationales, whether by arguing that metros boost development in peripheral areas, or that they’re better for the environment.

This same logic, often taken at face value, is fuelling the debate in Dublin today. But the city’s population density seems scarcely large enough to economically sustain a metro system, while little time has been spent considering how an upgraded bus network could solve some of the problems at a fraction of the cost. If construction begins as proposed in 2021, it would also immediately follow two significant and disruptive projects – the just completed extension of the tram network and the mooted pedestrianisation of Dublin’s College Green area.

This isn’t to deny that parts of North Dublin, namely the rapidly growing Fingal area, would benefit from a metro, or that the airport requires transport links that don’t grind to a halt in heavy traffic.

But €3.5 billion and several years of disruption seems a high price to pay for a lack of imagination in urban planning. For a country that has learnt the hard way to be wary of infrastructural chimeras, the government still seems to have a one-track mind when it comes to a Dublin metro.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.