Dublin stands at a pivotal position in its transportation evolution. Despite being one of Europe's wealthiest capitals, it remains the only major Western European capital without a metro system. The Metro Dublin project, inspired by Madrid's successful metro expansion under Manuel Melis Maynar, offers a transformative solution.

Just to be clear, when I say Metro Dublin I’m not talking about the governent’s single MetroLink line; Metro Dublin is a privately funded proposal which will see the implementation of 95 kilometres of new metro lines in Dublin contrasting the 18.8 kilometre Metrolink line. These are common objections and criticisms of the project:

 Metro Dublin Map

Common Public Objections:

"It's not possible" / "It'll never happen"

Skepticism is natural, especially given past delays and failures with infrastructure projects in Dublin. However, Madrid's experience under Melis Maynar demonstrates that rapid metro development is achievable. From the late 1990’s to the early 2000’s, Madrid added 120 kilometres of metro lines and extensions in just five years by employing standardized designs and efficient construction methods. This in turn helped Madrid grow from the 17th to the 3th-largest urban economy in the EU by GDP by the mid-2000s, behind only Paris and London. Furthermore, The key difference between fantasy and reality is execution.

A prime example today is the Texas Central Railway; a privately led high-speed rail project aiming to connect Dallas and Houston. Like Metro Dublin, it has faced skepticism, legal hurdles, and political resistance. Yet, it continues to push forward, backed by determined leadership, international expertise, and a clear vision of what modern transport can offer. Metro Dublin is no different. It’s a bold, privately driven plan grounded in global best practices and proven methods.

Texas Central Railway Map

Just as Texas Central is proving that high-speed rail in the U.S. isn’t a fantasy, Metro Dublin can show that Ireland, too, is ready for serious, world-class transit, if we have the courage to believe in it and the leadership to build it.These principles are adaptable to Dublin's context if applied correctly, which Metro Dublin plans to accomplish using the Melis Method, which I’ll talk about more in a moment.

"If the government isn't building it, it'll fail"

Government support is undeniably important, particularly in terms of regulatory backing, land access, and long-term integration. However, history shows that the true success of major infrastructure projects hinges far more on leadership, expertise, and execution than on the specific institution behind it. The assumption that only government-led projects can succeed ignores the consistent underperformance of state-run projects in Ireland that have been delayed, over-budget, or scaled down due to political shifts or administrative bottlenecks. Most notably the National Children’s Hospital, DART Underground, Metrolink have all been delayed/pushed back due to government decisions.

However, Madrid's rapid metro expansion under the leadership of Manuel Melis Maynar provides a powerful counterexample. Despite being a public-sector initiative, it succeeded because it was insulated from political micromanagement and empowered through world-class project management. Melis Maynar restructured the contracting system to align incentives: contractors were held accountable for quality, speed, and budget adherence, with clearly defined responsibilities and penalties for underperformance. Safety was embedded in design from the start, rather than tacked on at the end, and costly delays were minimized through standardized station layouts, modular tunnel construction, and clear, apolitical oversight.

This model demonstrates that effective leadership, not just government control, is the decisive factor. The Metro Dublin Project, built under similar principles, with public support and transparent governance but driven by professional, results-oriented leadership, will achieve what traditional state-run efforts have not: timely, efficient, and world-class infrastructure; 95km of metro lines in 7 years compared to 15+ years for just 18.8km yet costing more than the former. Far from a liability, a new delivery model could be precisely what makes Metro Dublin succeed where previous efforts have failed.

MetroLink Map

"Current transport plans are sufficient"

At first glance, it may seem that Dublin’s existing transport strategies: enhanced bus corridors, expanded Luas lines, MetroLink, and the upcoming BusConnects scheme, are adequate. But the lived reality for thousands of commuters tells a very different story. Dublin consistently ranks among the most congested cities in Europe, with drivers losing over 213 hours annually to traffic delays. This isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a severe drag on productivity, quality of life, and environmental sustainability.

While buses play a vital role in a flexible, multimodal network, they are inherently limited by road space and traffic conditions. Even dedicated bus lanes can only go so far when competing with growing car volumes and urban sprawl, not to mention driver and mechanic shortages limiting the amount of buses routes can run. Light rail services like the Luas have improved urban mobility marginally, but they operate at street level, intersecting with traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists, making them slow, capacity constrained. For these reasons the lines really should have been metro lines in the first place, and metro should be our focus instead of more trams. Speaking of which, MetroLink is a good step in this area, but is taking far too long and isn’t ambitious enough to meet the travel demands of the fast growing city of Dublin. Just one line isn’t enough.

What Dublin lacks is a true mass-transit backbone: a high-capacity, grade-separated 95 kilometre metro system that can move tens of thousands of people per hour quickly and reliably, regardless of weather or road conditions. Metro Dublin is designed to carry tens of thousands passengers per hour in each direction, something no bus or tram system or even MetroLink can come close to achieving in Ireland. It's not just about volume; it’s about speed, reliability, and long-term scalability.

Relying solely on bus, road and light rail-based solutions in a rapidly growing city is like throwing  more vehicles at the problem instead of actually solving it and meeting demand. To meet climate goals, ease congestion, and keep Dublin competitive with other European capitals, we need infrastructure that is not just incremental, but transformational. Metro Dublin doesn’t replace the exiting govnernment transport plans; it completes them, and this all makes for an efficient, integrated transport network that seamlessly connects communities in Dublin and beyond.

Additionally, Some say areas like Finglas or the Adamstown–Maynooth corridor don’t need metro service because “we already have a railway” or “a Luas is coming.” But these existing or planned services are already under pressure and limited in frequency and capacity. Metro Dublin will deliver far greater reliability, higher frequencies, and faster journeys, particularly along rail corridors like Maynooth to Blanchardstown, unlocking new possibilities for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), housing, and commercial investment. For Finglas, a full metro line, not just a tram extension, would attract denser development, boost local business, and dramatically improve access to jobs and education. Furthermore, a full metro will help Finglas residents get to and from the city centre faster and more reliably than a Luas, which has more stops, less capacity and slower speeds. These aren’t redundant investments, they’re strategic upgrades that will future-proof Dublin’s growth and generate long-term revenue through increased land value, development contributions, and commercial opportunities.

Western Line Comparison

South Western Line Comparison

Learning from Madrid's Success

As the engineer and project director behind the Madrid Metro expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s, Melis oversaw one of the most efficient, cost-effective urban rail projects in modern European history. Under his leadership, Madrid added 120 kilometers of new metro lines between the late 1990’s and the early 2000’s, doubling the size of the network in this time period. Crucially, this was achieved on time and under budget, all while maintaining rigorous safety standards and public accountability. So how did he do it?

Melis employed a systems-engineering mindset grounded in simplicity, speed, and scale. One of his key innovations was the standardization of station and tunnel designs. Rather than designing every station as a unique architectural statement, which is a common cause of delays and budget overruns, he used simple station designs with minimal moving parts. Stations were built using prefabricated elements, with uniform layouts that simplified planning, engineering, and construction. This not only slashed design time but also allowed multiple contractors to work in parallel without inconsistencies or unexpected obstacles.

He also streamlined construction by using cut-and-cover tunneling where feasible, a method that was less expensive and quicker than deep-bore tunneling in many locations. He eliminated unnecessary complexity from technical specifications, focusing on functional efficiency over cosmetic flourishes. Where he did use tunnel-bore machines though, he used dug single-bore tunnels which are cheaper, faster and safer to construct than twin-tunnels.

Critically, Melis restructured how contracts were awarded and managed. He implemented strict accountability measures, ensuring that every contractor was held responsible for quality, safety, deadlines, and cost containment. He minimized political interference by insulating the project with a clear chain of command, empowering engineers and project managers, not bureaucrats, to make operational decisions. Public communication was also proactive and transparent, helping to maintain public trust and minimize opposition during construction phases.

Experts such as Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, a global authority on megaprojects, have praised Melis’s methodology for avoiding the “iron law” of infrastructure projects: that they’re almost always over time and over budget. Melis’s work in Madrid is widely cited in academic and policy circles as a rare but replicable example of how to deliver large-scale public infrastructure both quickly and cost-effectively.

Dublin has much to gain by adopting Melis’s no-nonsense, performance-driven approach. Instead of waiting for perfection, we can build a metro that is fast, functional, affordable, and expandable, just like Madrid did. The tools, the knowledge, and the precedent all exist. What’s needed now is the will to lead

Common Authority Objections:

NTA Challenges

In 2014, the National Transport Authority (NTA) dismissed the Metro Dublin proposal as "completely unreal and fantastical," citing concerns over its ambitious timeline and funding strategies. However, with advancements in project management and successful international precedents, it's worth reevaluating these objections.

Addressing NTA's Concerns

Timeline Feasibility: The NTA argued that the proposed 12-month planning period was insufficient for necessary surveys, procurements, and public consultations. Yet, Madrid's metro expansion under Manuel Melis Maynar achieved 120 kilometres of new lines in five years by employing standardized designs and efficient construction methods. Metro Dublin plans to adapt such methodologies, which will streamline Dublin's planning processes. Additionally, while consultations and other aspects of planning are important, they aren’t always necessary (eg multiple conslutations for Metrolink whenever more information is submitted) as they just waste time. With the Melis method, Metro Dublin will be able to complete the important planning regulations whilst maintaining speed and safety, just like the Madrid metro.

Funding Strategies: The NTA questioned the reliance on levies, rates, and tolls for funding. However, integrating diverse funding sources, as seen in other European infrastructure projects, can reduce dependency on direct government expenditure and distribute financial responsibility more equitably. Metro Dublin will generate revenue in a variety of ways, mainly though branding, naming rights, and TOD (Transit Oriented Development). TOD will generate revenue for Metro Dublin by capturing the increase in land and property values around new and existing transport hubs, especially along the Adamstown rail corridor. As access to high-capacity transit makes areas more attractive for development, the city can collect funds through development levies, increased property taxes, and public-private partnerships. Adamstown, already a Strategic Development Zone, is ideal for higher-density housing, retail, and offices, creating a larger tax base and attracting private investment. Additionally, TOD hubs can generate ongoing revenue through retail rents, advertising, and commercial activity within stations. This approach helps fund the metro while building vibrant, connected communities.

Learning from Madrid's Success

Madrid's metro expansion serves as a testament to what's achievable with visionary leadership and meticulous planning. By adopting similar strategies, Dublin can overcome logistical and financial hurdles, transforming its public transport landscape.

While the NTA's reservations were grounded in caution, evolving technologies and successful international examples suggest that the Metro Dublin project is both feasible and beneficial. Reassessing the proposal with contemporary insights could pave the way for a more connected and efficient Dublin.

The objections to Metro Dublin, from public skepticism to institutional doubt, are understandable as they’re rooted in years of delays, bureaucratic hurdles, and dashed expectations. But they’re not insurmountable. We've heard it all before: “It’s not possible,” “It’ll never happen,” “If the government isn’t building it, it’ll fail.” Even the National Transport Authority once dismissed alternatives to the official MetroLink as “fantasy.” But history shows that transformative progress often begins exactly where imagination dares to challenge convention.

Madrid faced similar doubts until Manuel Melis proved them wrong. By standardizing design, enforcing strict timelines, and using proven, pragmatic engineering principles, Madrid added over 120 km of metro in just 5 years from concept to operation. What seemed impossible became a global benchmark for cost-effective infrastructure development. As Professor Bent Flyvbjerg (the most cited scholar in the world on megaprojects) once said, The whole world could learn from this evidently superb manner of procurement and implementation. There is nothing inherently unique about Madrid’s soil, its governance, or its people; just the courage to think differently, and the leadership to deliver.

Dublin deserves the same ambition. Congestion is strangling our city on a daily basis. Our current transport system, while improving incrementally, is not enough to meet the growing demands of a dynamic European capital. A well-planned, efficiently built metro like Metro Dublin is not just a matter of convenience, it’s a matter of sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride.

Metro Dublin is not a fantasy. It’s a vision rooted in proven methods and global best practices that’s existed for around thirty years now. With the right leadership, political will, and public engagement, it can happen, and it will. The only fantasy is believing we can afford to wait any longer.